Practical_Democrat

Whose Unity?

Practical Democrat — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:42:18 EDT

Until now, the call for unity has had one meaning: Clinton supporters must change and start supporting Obama. The term "unity" is equated with "supporting Obama". What is always omitted from every news report, blog post, and pundit commentary is that unity can just as easily be achieved by Obama fans giving their support to Hillary. On the issue of party unity, I have always said that Obama supporters are welcome to support Hillary.

In fact, Obama supporters have just as much power to embrace unity and put the Democratic party back together again. They were always free to exercise their power to end the division within the party by backing Hillary.

Every argument that Obama supporters have for getting a Democratic president makes sense. What no one will tell you is that every single argument for all Democrats getting behind Obama is equally valid for all Democrats getting behind Clinton. And when you consider the vote cancellation which will occur when Democrats disgusted with the party leadership vote for McCain, it would make more sense politically to change to Hillary and keep those votes in the Democratic column.

Unity - or lack of it - is just as much the responsibility of the Obama supporters as it is the Clinton supporters.

But why should the majority give in to the minority within the party? In other words, why should Obama supporters have to change for a few Clinton hold-outs? The facts show that this is not the case.

The results of the primaries showed that Democrats supported both candidates equally. A statistically equal number of Democrats voted for Clinton and for Obama. There is just as much support for Hillary as for Obama, and just as much reason for Obama supporters to change and get behind Clinton.

Unity is being prevented by the Obama Democrats just as much as it is being prevented by Clinton Democrats.

So when people try to blame Clinton supporters for disunity or for Democrats losing an election, remind them that the Obama supporters bear an equal share of the responsibility.

Click here to visit The Practical Democrat for insightful political analysis.

A moral question, not a political question

Practical Democrat — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:40:26 EDT

This is not a political question; it is a moral question. In 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King marched in Selma, Alabama determined to secure voting rights for those who were wrongly denied them. Don't we owe the same to those who are wrongly being denied in Michigan and in Florida?

It was an egregious error to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida voters. Any issues with the Democratic leadership of those states should have been sorted out AFTER the Democrats had won the White House. Arrogance was foolishly placed ahead of unity.

The primary voters in Michigan and Florida went to the polls in good faith to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. They really had no choice; either you voted in the primary as it was scheduled, or you didn't vote.

Democratic voters in those states did not "break the rules". The state party leaders chose to defy the national committee, an act of arrogance that was out of the hands of the individual Democratic voters. And any rule by made by the DNC that ends with "...or else we will disenfranchise your entire state" is a rule that should not, and morally cannot, be enforced by a legitimate party in a democracy. It was foolhardy for the DNC to ever make such a rule because the actual enforcement of it is morally inconceivable. Disenfranchisement of voters is always wrong. The state and national leaders have a duty to re-enfranchise the voters of these states, or they should all be looking for a new job.

Disenfranchisement goes far beyond politics; it tears at the very fabric of our decency and of our democratic ideals upon which our great Nation was founded. It is impossible to justify not counting even one person's vote, let alone all the votes from 2 states! Americans throughout our history fought and died for ALL the stars on our Flag.

Whether in the primary or general election, whether Democrat or Republican, disenfranchisement is ugly and unacceptable. The disenfranchisement of even a single voter should gnaw at the conscience of each and every Democrat. All Democrats, no matter which candidate they support, must demand that their fellow Democrats' votes be counted.

48 States Is Just Not Good Enough

Practical Democrat — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:19:04 EDT

48 States Is Just Not Good Enough

What happens if MI and FL delegates are seated?

Practical Democrat — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:07:30 EDT

What happens if MI and FL delegates are seated at the end of May?

I bet the DNC rules committee will give the appearance of seating the delegates so they can quell the uprising among Dems, but will do it in such a way that it does not benefit Hillary.

But the problem doesn't just "go away" as the DNC would like.

MI and FL were clearly going for Clinton, so Dean and his cronies chose to nullify those states. They calculated that this would stall the Clinton campaign, and they were right.

But seating the delegates now, long after the damage has been done, does not make it all better.

Why?
It doesn't give Hillary her momentum back - how many states would she have won if she was able to create an early lead?

It doesn't give back months of media attention to Hillary.

And it doesn't give back all of the lost campaign contributions.

It's pretty clear by now that Howard Dean and the DNC had selected Obama over Clinton early on.

The primaries were just a way for all of us to feel like we were involved and add legitimacy to their decision. The mistake they made was that they underestimated how strongly we would hold to our principles of right and wrong. Dean and his cronies lacked these principles, and assumed that we lacked them too.

They were wrong.

Just a little humor for everyone

Practical Democrat — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:58:56 EDT

"Hold on a minute sweetie" - B. Obama

Obama is out of sync

Practical Democrat — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:55:15 EDT

Clinton is now being attacked by radical Left as well as the Right. I have said this many times; the middle is the most difficult to defend. And the middle class has been on the defensive for far too long.

The same thing that happened to the Republicans is happening to the Democratic party. It is being pulled to the extremes. But Americans are now sick of the extreme political agendas - they have had eight years of it, and have had enough. But we Democrats are producing more of the same. We are taking a lesson from the Republicans eight years too late.

Now the pendulum has swung back toward the moderate center, but Democrats are running for the far left end of the political spectrum. Democratic support for Obama is out of sync with the political reality of today.

What happens if MI and FL delegates are seated?

Practical Democrat — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:33:24 EDT

What happens if MI and FL delegates are seated at the end of May?

I bet the DNC rules committee will give the appearance of seating the delegates so they can quell the uprising among Dems, but will do it in such a way that it does not benefit Hillary.

But the problem doesn't just "go away" as the DNC would like.

MI and FL were clearly going for Clinton, so Dean and his cronies chose to nullify those states. They calculated that this would stall the Clinton campaign, and they were right.

But seating the delegates now, long after the damage has been done, does not make it all better.

Why?
It doesn't give Hillary her momentum back - how many states would she have won if she was able to create an early lead?

It doesn't give back months of media attention to Hillary.

And it doesn't give back all of the lost campaign contributions.

It's pretty clear by now that Howard Dean and the DNC had selected Obama over Clinton early on.

The primaries were just a way for all of us to feel like we were involved and add legitimacy to their decision. The mistake they made was that they underestimated how strongly we would hold to our principles of right and wrong. Dean and his cronies lacked these principles, and assumed that we lacked them too.

They were wrong.

The Pendulum Has Swung Back

Practical Democrat — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:42:48 EDT

We need unity.

Practical Democrat — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:29:16 EDT

We need unity. And we can get it.

It's clear that a lot of Clinton supporters won't back Obama, but Obama supporters will back Clinton if she's the nominee.

Logically, we all should unite behind Hillary so that we can achieve that unity.

Bush, Obama Share Attitude Toward women

Practical Democrat — Mon, 19 May 2008 09:56:41 EDT

"Hold on a minute sweetie" - B. Obama

They were wrong.

Practical Democrat — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:39:19 EDT

It's pretty clear by now that Howard Dean and the DNC had selected Obama over Clinton early on.

The primaries were just a way for all of us to feel like we were involved and add legitimacy to their decision.

MI and FL were clearly going for Clinton, so Dean and his cronies chose to nullify those states. They calculated that this would stall the Clinton campaign, and they were right.

The mistake they made was that they underestimated how strongly we would hold to our principles of right and wrong. Dean and his cronies lacked these principles, and assumed that we lacked them too.

They were wrong.

Bush's Statement Was No Accident

Practical Democrat — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:01:22 EDT

Bush's Statement Was No Accident

Do you really think Bush made those statements about Obama by accident? By attacking Obama, the Republicans are choosing the candidate they want to face in November. They know who they can beat.

Why do you think they used Bush as the attacker? And McCain came out against those attacks? It's just the Good cop, Bad cop routine...

This is politics 101, people.

That's why we need someone with experience in November. We really need Clinton as our nominee.

Bush's Statement Was No Accident

Practical Democrat — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:58:13 EDT

The Party Has Changed

Practical Democrat — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:33:10 EDT

The Party Has Changed

I have been reading how if someone doesn't vote for Obama if he's nominated that they are a turncoat, or some other nasty name. Others have taken a "good riddance" attitude. I believe these are mistakes.

The reason people are Democrats to begin with is that they have strong principles. Many Democrats are frustrated by a possible Obama nomination because they believe it's the wrong path for the Democratic party. The reason someone would leave the Democratic party is simple: Their principles and the party's principles are no longer the same. They have decided the party no longer reflects their principles.

Calling those who don't vote for Obama names is a bad idea. Telling them that if they don't vote for Obama, then they are effectively voting for McCain is also a quick way to push them out of the Democratic party. In reality, most of those who support Clinton believe that a vote for Obama in the primary puts McCain one vote closer to the White House.

Remember, Clinton supporters haven't 'lost' or changed their principles, they feel that the party has changed.

That's why they don't feel like they left the Democratic party. They feel like the Democratic party left them.

7 Myths About the Nomination

Practical Democrat — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:01:11 EDT

7 Myths About the Nomination

Myth 1 : Obama is ahead in primary delegates so far, so he's the better candidate for the General Election.

Fact : In reality, the opposite is true. Obama won the primaries in Red States that the Republicans are likely to win anyway. In other words, the states that Obama won in the primary will not go for him in the General Election, which is the one that really counts. This sets the stage for a landslide loss for Democrats in November.

Myth 2 : Clinton's campaign is poorly managed, therefore Clinton shouldn't win.

Fact : In Pennsylvania, over 22% more people voted for Clinton than Obama, despite Obama spending more than twice as much as Clinton. This demonstrates not only Clinton's better management, but her greater popularity in states that Democrats must win.

Myth 3 : Mathematically, Clinton can't win, so she should drop out.

Fact : Obama supporters are being dishonest with this claim. By the same logic: Mathematically, Obama can't win enough delegates either, so he should drop out.

Despite what the media and Obama supporters would like you to believe, Clinton is actually ahead in the popular vote.

Myth 4 : Michigan and Florida voters broke the rules, so their votes shouldn't be counted.

Fact : This is not a political question; it is a moral question. In 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King marched in Selma, Alabama determined to secure voting rights for those who were wrongly denied them. We owe the same to those who are wrongly being denied in Michigan and in Florida.

The error was made by Party insiders - the Democratic National Committee and the state Democratic leaders through a complex process, which involved Republican troublemaking. The 2.3 million (yes, Million) voters did nothing wrong and cast their votes in good faith when the primary was held. Democrats might need these 2.3 million voters in November, if any of them are still Democrats.

Myth 5 : Superdelegates shouldn't decide the nominee

Fact : The purpose of the Superdelegates is to help select the best nominee. They are chosen for their independent judgment based on their commitment and experience, making their input into the process extremely valuable. (For those who like "The Rules", Superdelegates vote independently of the popular vote.)

The only time the superdelegates make any difference is when the primaries are close. It is when the primary is close that irregularities (like the Michigan and Florida problem) and other factors (like conservative media bias) can negatively determine the outcome. That's when we need the superdelegates to exercise their good judgment and help select the best, most electable candidate.

Myth 6 : We need a candidate by June.

Fact : We need a candidate who can win in the General Election. Although Obama supporters favor selective enforcement of Party rules, the DNC set the date for the Democratic convention for August.

Myth 7 : Democrats will ultimately rally behind whomever is chosen as the nominee.

Fact : No one likes to lose. The Republicans are practically giving away the White House. But if the Democratic Party can't manage to nominate an electable candidate, there will be widespread disillusionment with the party. Democrats will be exploring other options like voting Independent, third party, through write-in voting campaigns, or for an increasingly Centrist McCain.

Bonus Myth :Whomever wins the Democratic nomination can win in the general election.

Fact :Only Clinton has the base and the experience to win in the general election. Obama might be a nice guy, but he can't win against McCain. Clinton supporters know it, Republicans know it, and I think that on some level, even Obama supporters know it.

Democratic support for Obama is out of sync

Practical Democrat — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:56:27 EDT

How dare she?

Practical Democrat — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:49:05 EDT

How dare she? How dare Clinton keep winning states! Doesn't she listen to the pundits when they scream "it's over?"

Doesn't she realize that the DNC has annointed Obama and that this is his party now?

She keeps listening to the will of the people. How far can that take her?

Underfunded, with the media biased against her, how dare she keep winning states?

I think we found the answer to our question.

Clinton practices what Obama preaches

Practical Democrat — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:20:08 EDT

Clinton practices what Obama preaches

Clinton practices what Obama preaches. Clinton has the AUDACITY to stay in the race - despite what all of the pundits are spewing about how she can't win. She instills HOPE in her supporters, and continues onward to the dismay of Republicans and Obama Democrats.

She perseveres because she wants to CHANGE America and, yes, even the Democratic party, for the better.

Clinton is now being attacked by radical Left as well as the Right. I have said this many times; the middle is the most difficult to defend. And the middle class has been on the defensive for far too long.

A Difficult Choice

Practical Democrat — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:45:27 EDT

Obama supporters who are truly against the war have a choice. You are going to have to choose between war and Obama.

If you are truly against the war, you want to make sure we get a Democrat in the White house. Obama can’t win without Clinton Democrats. We must build a coalition.

So if you are serious about ending the war, you are welcome to join the Clinton campaign and get a Democrat elected to the White House.

If you’re not serious then stay with Obama, lose the election, and prolong the war.

The choice is yours.

The party has changed

Practical Democrat — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:33:26 EDT

I have been reading how if someone doesn't vote for Obama if he's nominated that they are a turncoat, or some other nasty name. Others have taken a "good riddance" attitude. I believe these are mistakes.

The reason people are Democrats to begin with is that they have strong principles. Many Democrats are frustrated by a possible Obama nomination because they believe it's the wrong path for the Democratic party. The reason someone would leave the Democratic party is simple: Their principles and the party's principles are no longer the same. They have decided the party no longer reflects their principles.

Calling those who don't vote for Obama names is a bad idea. Telling them that if they don't vote for Obama, then they are effectively voting for McCain is also a quick way to push them out of the Democratic party. In reality, most of those who support Clinton believe that a vote for Obama in the primary puts McCain one vote closer to the White House.

Remember, Clinton supporters haven't 'lost' or changed their principles, they feel that the party has changed.

That's why they don't feel like they left the Democratic party. They feel like the Democratic party left them.