Thursday, June 5, 2008

A message from the children

Dear Barack Obama (or as Sam would say, "Bawok Uh-Bumma"):

A little message of congratulations...

~The Children Responsible for Putting Mom on the Edge :)

Monday, June 2, 2008

Our Long National Nightmare...Is It Over Yet?

Dear Harold Ickes:

You have had a lengthy and impressive career in Democratic politics. I respect that, really I do. But I can’t help but feel like you’ve thrown away some giant chunk of your dignity, not to mention your credibility with your most recent ranting and posturing on Senator Clinton’s behalf. It has finally reached a level where I’m not sure if you are actually dancing around questions and playing with the wording of your answers or if you’ve completely lost your mind and truly believe what you’re saying.

In August 2007, as a member of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, you voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates for the 2008 primaries. Fast forward to May 2008, you argued vehemently that those delegates should be reinstated completely with no penalty at all. Are we to believe this has nothing to do with the fact that your Mrs. Clinton “won” those primaries?

Let’s begin with your assessment of the Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31. You claim that the committee “hijacked” delegates from Senator Clinton and gave them to Senator Obama. In reality the committee gave them both delegates they didn’t have prior to that meeting. Those delegates were not supposed to count at all, according to your vote back in August. You insisted to Tim Russert on Sunday morning that “It violates a fundamental precept of our delegate selection rule, which is fair reflection.” Fair reflection. That’s interesting. Exactly how do you divine the “fair reflection” of the decision of the people in Michigan? You certainly can’t base it solely on results of a primary that YOU (and Senator Clinton, frankly) told the people of Michigan would not count.

This leads us, of course, to disenfranchising voters. Can you argue that some of the voters who showed up to the Michigan primary feel they’ve been disenfranchised? Absolutely. But one could equally argue that all those voters who stayed home that day, mainly because you and the committee had told them that it actually wasn’t a recognized primary and would not count, that no delegates would be seated from Michigan, could also feel disenfranchised. Is one group to be more favored than the other? That seems less than democratic to me.

As for the popular vote lead that the Clinton campaign is claiming to have, how did you determine which states to include and which to ignore to come to those numbers? And more importantly, how can you count Senator Clinton’s votes in Michigan and give none to Senator Obama? The committee has seated the delegates, but still is not truly recognizing the primary itself. Therefore it stands to reason that the popular vote count there would be negated as well. And if you believe you can claim those votes for Senator Clinton’s campaign BECAUSE the committee has now seated the delegates, then you must give Senator Obama a share of the popular vote as well, since the committee recognized a segment of the vote as his. You can’t really have it both ways.

I leave you, Mr. Ickes, with your own words to Tim Russert back in December, “"Timothy, delegates nominate. Not states, not popular vote, delegates."

Dear Terry McAuliffe:

Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington are states, too. You can't discount them just to come up with a number you like.

I have heard you (as well as Harold Ickes) repeatedly insist over the last two days that you “expect Senator Clinton will be the nominee.” I just have to ask, really? Do you really believe that? Is it getting hard to say with a straight face? You must have done the math, right?

I recently read an article which stated the following…

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, who had recently said he thought the race would be over this week, conceded yesterday that the finish line may not actually be the finish line. Asked whether the race would be over when Obama passed 2,118, McAuliffe said, “No, it’s not it.”
McAuliffe added, “We’re calling the uncommitted ones, primarily. But we’ve heard things. You know, you pick up stuff. So we’re following up on leads that we get. Just remember: No superdelegate is bound until they vote at the convention.”

Does that not make you feel the slightest bit slimy? Do you not feel like you’re dragging this on to the detriment of the party itself? If it is indeed your job to help guide Senator Clinton through this campaign, why aren’t you doing your job? The longer this drags on (and on, and on, and on) the more harm is done to the party, to Senator Obama’s chances of winning in November, and to Senator Clinton’s career and legacy.

Dear “Dream Ticket” supporters:

Are you crazy? How can Senator Obama ask Senator Clinton to be his VP? Adding her to the ticket would completely go against his platform of change. He touts the need for a real change in Washington politics. The Clintons represent that very system that Senator Obama claims to want revamped. It’s a laughable concept to me. That’s not even to mention the independent voters that Senator Obama has won over (myself included) who may very well shift the other way if Senator Clinton is added to the ticket.

And let’s face facts, a lot of those voters that Senator Clinton likes to claim she’s won over (you know, those hard working white voters)…well, they aren’t going to vote for a black man whether Senator Clinton is on the ticket with him or not.

Dear Hillary Clinton:

I’m at a loss for words, so I’ll just quote a truly great American, Mr. Ferris Bueller. “You’re still here? It’s over. Go home. Go!”

~Mom on the Edge