WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
OK, folks, here's your chance: Over at The Field (a great blog I just ran across recently), DNC member Debra Kozikowski (MA), has put up an invitation:
“Here’s your challenge. Think about me wearing my super duper hat reading your posts. Convince me why I should deliver my superdelegate vote to Senator Obama or for the minority here who support Senator Clinton — you too can rise to the ocassion with civility and grace.”Good luck!
del.icio.us
21 comments:
A month ago one site announced a contest for creating the best pro-Obama homemade video. Theme was “Obama in 30 seconds”. Unfortunately I didn’t meet the requirements to participate… But I had that crazy idea about what would I say if I had the chance…
When I was a little kid one of my favorite books was “Greek myths and legends”. I knew all the stories even before I knew how to read them by myself. And out of those hundreds of stories there were just a few I was not able to understand. And of course those few stories I remember best… One such story was about Pandora’s box. All evils of mankind were stored within. But due to human curiosity the box was opened and the evils were released. The world of humans became much worse. Before the box was closed only Hope was left within…
Most stories have happy end. That story did not. And I always felt it has an open end and one day I will discover how it continues. I didn’t understand why Hope should remain in the box when it is the one thing people need mostly. But now I think I know - Hope can not simply go out of the box. One needs special skills to open the box and deliver Hope to the people.
When I look at America today I feel like someone has recently opened an upgraded version of Pandora’s box and released the content. There is a global war and thousands of American soldiers die far away of home. Most of them die in vain. And in USA we have the illness and poverty stalking up and down the country. Millions of people can’t find a job and/or pay for health care! Add to that greed, vanity, lies and slander!! Add the hatred!!! That is a nation divided! In times like that the thing we need the most is Hope. And there is only one man who can open the box and successfully deliver Hope to the nation – Barack Obama! I believe Hillary Clinton can be a good president, but I know that Barack Obama can be a great president! I know that he can heal and unify the nation. He has already started bringing Hope back to the mankind. I really mean mankind – outside the USA millions share his Hope for a better world. And that is unique!
amot
You have written well, and you speak from your heart. You cite most of the concerns that we face, and most of the aspirations that I believe we have as a nation.
But . . . how do you convince anyone that the answer is Obama just by saying, "I know he can heal and unify the nation." How do you know? By the elegant way in which his campaign has divided us into the camps we now have? Yes, half of us do believe that the blame lies at his feet.
Unfortunately, you left out the, dare I say it, substance that backs up your hope. This man who has been set up as an icon of hope is in fact a VERY imperfect man, and he has not been straightforward, transparent, or even fair in many of his dealings thus far.
I am at a loss to understand his success. I also believe that his supporters are willfully ignorant of his true nature, and his actual record, because they cannot let go of this dream, this hope. I almost understand that ignorance in the youth vote, because theirs is based on a lack of experience. It's easy to understand it in the black vote, no need to ask why. (I am white, but wanted to jump at the opportunity to vote for our first black President, something we thought we'd be doing long before now.)
But I cannot understand it in the "intellectual" vote (not exactly my choice of description), because an intellectual would base his or her vote on real issues and facts, having done the work to know what those are. I think it's some kind of misplaced (in this particular man) idealism.
So this is not my "convince a SD to vote Hillary" post, although that may be coming. I just do not see how your beautifully written statement could be convincing without any substance.
Maybe it will convince, along the lines of Obama's oratory serving to convince so many. Now that is truly unique!
Two points:
1. Both candidates are so similar in there platforms and will probably use the same people in their teams, that I can't say they will differ as expertise. What we have left is the person itself and his/her internal powers. Here they differ a lot!
2. I have experience in similar situation. I have lived it and I can recognize the charisma and the potential when I see them. I don't say Obama is an angel, he has his weak points, but as a leader he can do what no other politician can - unite and heal the nation. I know it the same way I know the sun will rise tomorrow, and just like that I can't prove it. Future always has the feature of uncertainty...
To convince a delegate of any type to swing in any direction is like asking an American Soldier who has lost his dominant arm and opposite leg to return to iraq for a 4th time. The power to choose in any direction should come from your deepest compassion that your choice is the right one. Your Delegate responsibility is not one to be swayed or bought; it is your innermost passion and responsibility of independent conscience to act according to your own observations and assertions. If you really need to be convinced (especially to ask for persuasion) perhaps you don't deserve the responsibility or title of a super delegate.
Amot said... About the popular vote - sure it is important, but the contest is for delegates. Plus I think the way Clintonites count the vote (no caucuses, MI included only for her, only big states important, etc.) is offending both to the population of the states they don't count and to the intelligence of all Americans. Here is not the place to discuss that!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m somewhat confused at your process in determining that the “Clintonites count the vote” in any way. In fact, I cannot understand why Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine do not publish vote results, and I think somebody (DNC, local gov’t) should do something about that. But it is CNN, AP, and yes, it’s true, demconwatch, that do not include them in any tally (how can they, by guessing?), so maybe it’s the “Obamanistas” who are to blame. Please, a little logic and maturity.
Also, it’s somewhat inconsistent that you think that not counting those votes is “offending” but have no qualms about FL & MI. May I assume you have informed yourself as to how those states got screwed?
Oh yeah, last thing, this is a little more important than a “contest” – and although some people believe that it’s the delegates that count, some of us think it’s the votes – and only the votes.
Charlie Anthe said...
It was very well publicized that the primary was nothing more than a "beauty contest" for the Democratic party and the caucuses were what mattered, and this was demonstrated by the absolutely incredible high turnout (easily 4x 2004 numbers, which were themselves 2x 2000 numbers).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m thrilled that you have some information as to the numbers of those who voted. (Please, tell us where you got it!!) All the rest of us have is what is referred to as “primary sources” (a coincidence, but charming), and those all point to a much higher turnout for the primary than for the caucuses. For instance:
The Seattle Times shows a turnout of 244,458 for the caucus (only 2 x 2004 turnout), but states that 5 times that number voted in the primary.
The NY Times reported: “The party says a record 250,000 people turned out for the caucuses,”
The primary vote was 669,856; if in fact the primary was perceived as meaningless, we can only wonder how high it might have gone. In my old math, that is almost a three-fold increase in turnout over the caucus.
gloria1129 said...
"I’m thrilled that you have some information as to the numbers of those who voted. (Please, tell us where you got it!!)"
Green papers has a complete numbers of all popular votes, including Primaries, Caucuses and others.
Just click on the state that you are interested in, and you will see all the information about that state including the popular vote.
HTH
Actually, even the folks at Green Papers know that they do not have a "complete list of all popular votes". There are no official counts for at leastIowa, Nevada, Wahington or Maine, so GP reports the state or precinct delegates. It is a terrific resource and a recommended bookmark.
RCP provides estimates of those states here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
This site fills in a couple gaps in the overall turnout:
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm
yousri and ayala ~~
Thanks for the input, but as you say, we cannot get real vote counts for those 4 states. In fact, I've been to these sites already, but much is missing. And I don't think a "guesstimate" based on allotted delegates is quite the level of accuracy that is needed.
I've tried to get info from local election sites, and the best I can find is from local news sources. But those are "unofficial" at best.
It seems somehow nefarious to refuse to divulge this information. I guess there is some reasoning behind it, but I think it's pretty faulty reasoning. If we don't have transparency in elections, we are not doing it right.
Im sort of anal, so need to correct myself.
In the WA primary the total vote was actually 691,381. I was tracking HRC and BO, and forgot to add the votes for the others in that race.
If you believe these party Super Delegates should consider the voice of rank-and-file Democrats, go tell them so… by using www.LobbyDelegates.com.
LobbyDelegates.com is the first and only 1-stop portal for grassroots lobbying of Super Delegates in your state.
The website is strictly impartial and is not affiliated with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation.
Senator Clinton is a truly inspiring figure and has all the makings of a great visionary leader. She inspires me because in spite of a career in public service she has been attacked for years—first by the right, whose lies live on on the Internet, and then by the left who glommed onto them—and yet she keeps standing, fighting on, believing in her ideals for the country. She is the woman president this country deserves.
In this race, it’s hard to tell what’s true and what’s not. Many people accept that Obama is inspirational, genuine, and an agent of change and that Senator Clinton is a liar and that her ambitions are more debased than his (she’s hungry for power, he’s in pursuit of lofty ideals). I’d like to tell you another story, one that requires more careful reading and research than the mainstream media will allow.
You will hear/read that she has done nothing other than a few ceremonial resolutions. You will hear that she is a warmonger because she voted for H.J. Res 114, the “vote to go to war.” You will hear that when she landed in Tusla in 1996 the Bosnian war was over, emphasizing the outrageousness of her story. You will hear arguments that another Clinton in the White House, ie. a political dynasty, is not good for America. All of this sounds true and reasonable.
On further examination, however, they don’t hold water. The first item is patently false. On the second item, Hillary Clinton was a New York State senator at the time of the vote, and her city had just been devastated by a horrific act of terrorism—how should she have responded? Furthermore, if you read the language of H.J. Res. 114, it calls for diplomacy first and contained a requirement for the president to report to the Congress. Hillary Clinton has had a long career spanning three decades, what apart from votes on Iraq indicate she’s a warmonger? Frankly, it’s an absurd charge.
On the third item, the hostilities in Bosnia did not cease on the day the Dayton Accords were signed. There were killing (including sniper fire) and rapes for years after. It was indeed a war zone. And on the last item, I will just say that had he not been assassinated, Bobby Kennedy would have been one of our great presidents—unless of course the argument existed then that political dynasties are bad for the country.
There are truths, and there are truths.
Let’s talk more about Tusla. Everyone is filled with righteous indignation at Sen. Clinton's description of her landing in Tusla, Bosnia. But no one blinked an eye when Obama wove the tale about how his parents fell in love at the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, and conceived him (even though at the time of the march, he was FOUR years old and his father had already left the family.)
How is Clinton's Tusla story any worse than Obama's Selma story? Both candidates were trying to create a fable about their past to enhance his/her mystique. In Senator Clinton's case, however, as eyewitnesses recount (e.g. Bosnian president, White House staffers who accompanied her), there was sniper fire in the hills around the landing site, and serious precautions had to be taken. Yet the furor over her fable was immense, and over his fable nothing more than a mouse’s squeak.
Sen. Obama’s recent speech on race had people swooning, even causing Gov. Richardson to endorse him. However, it was Hillary Clinton’s 1995 speech at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing that changed the lives of millions of women and children in developing nations. She refused to soften her remarks in spite of pressure from the Chinese government. That is the character of a great leader.
I am an average American and that means a lot of people think like I do. We believe the government has gotten so corrupt and greedy that a change is needed. We have continued to spiral downward in our "income vs. expense" exsistence and we can't go much farther down. We are demanding a change and Barack Obama is the only one talking about changing our government. He has sponsored legislation for transparency in government and he doesn't take money from PAC's or lobbyists. He will take this "people's movement" all the way to the Whitehouse.
obamasupporter--
You might not have all the facts about "he doesn't take money from PAC's or lobbyists."
I don't think I can convince you, but you should try to know the truth. For the facts- just the facts, ma'am- I do suggest that you check out factcheck.org.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
We don't need someone in the white house that will do or say anything to get their way. We should not give Hillary or Bill ever again that Power!
I think Obama is the candidate we need. It is obvious that he has a different view of the world and how our society can function. Clinton has too much of the idealism found in the majority of government officials. The most evident example of this is the vote for war in Iraq. Obama's view of the world wouldn't allow him to pursue a path to war while Clinton fell right in line with the majority of the other government officials. If you envision a world that seeks peace through open dialogue, a decrease in the economic gap between the rich and the poor, social reform and a united nation that is productive in its pursuit to a better life for all its members, then Obama is who u MUST vote for.
Hi Debra,
I realize as a superdelagate it is tough making this decision. I hope that you and all superdelagates will look at the votes of the people, who have favored Obama in 30 of 45 states to date. In all honesty, I WAS for Hilary, but changed my vote. I feel that we have been lied to and manipulated for years by our Presidents in the past, being 39, I don't recall a President that I fully trusted or believed in. My vote turned for Hilary when she began to show me the same tactics of "old". She seems willing to say and do anything - even at the cost of hurting the nominiee or the demacratic party as a whole. Or futher dividing America. She's thrown punches that were uncalled for that you wouldn't think you would see between two democrates. While Obama (who I have now chosen to support) was the opposite. He is bringing people of all cultures and races and age groups TOGETHER. He seems to be telling us the TRUTH; he seems to be respectful of Hilary and McCain. He seems to be trying to run a great campaign. One of the best campaigns I've ever seen as a matter of fact. He's raising the most money from small donations. He's withstood every attack - in style. And he is getting HUGE numbers of democrates of all ages and races to not only register democrate - but to also BECOME a part of the change that they want to see. I don't believe there has been such a massive turn out and interest in politics - EVER. Not in this way. And yes, I believe Hilary gets some of that credit - but I truly do believe most of the EXCITEMENT and HOPE is coming from the Obama campaign. It's NEW! Fresh! Exciting! And it truly seems to be "change we can believe in". Today, because of Obama, I have hope. I have hope in America. Go back and read or listen to some of the speeches; debates and such to date - and you'll see exactly what I've mentioned here. We believe Obama has EARNED - and hopefully will continue to earn in the next 9 states - to be the nomminee. And we can only hope and pray that the superdelegates will NOT take this away from all of us who are voting in our first primary ever. We ask that the superdelegates cast their vote for Senator Barack Obama.
To the Hilary Supporters: The reason why I switched my vote FROM Hilary - was not based on what other people said; it was SOLELY based on what I seen and heard from HILARY herself. Anyone who is being HONEST will say that she has lied and fought really low and dirty at times. This is 'made up' - it's just true. I like Hilary but I do believe that a vote for Hilary is a vote for more of "old washington politics" as usual. Not based on media - but based on Hilary's own words and actions. Hopefully, we all can stand together as democrates - no matter who the nominee is. I just feel that Obama represents more of a change. A GOOD change.
Obama in 08’ – it behooves me why would Hillary Clinton would want to go back to a place where here family was hurt so bad, by her husbands actions in having a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, Imagine Hillary sitting in that very same Oval offices and having to relive that same thought of having her husband do that on that blue dress, who would want to bring there child back to that, poor Chelsea.
hey, pastate1, aren't you somerled?
We need someone who will lead us through the 21st century..not keep us in the 20th century. Americans have become a bunch of fearful, scardie-cats afraid of change. We need to spend one of the last quarters that we might have left after 8-years of Bush and go to the local hog farm and buy a bag of guts and get into the 21st century like our forefathers would have. michelle
Post a Comment