The Political Voices of Women

Here is a guest post from Pam at Pam’s Coffee Conversation.

It’s been months since I’ve spoken about our dear friends at Blackwater Worldwide (formerly Blackwater USA). So it’s high time to rectify that oversight.

Last week author Jeremy Schahill wrote an article, “Obama’s Mercenary Position” for TheNation.com, which reported “A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not ‘rule out’ using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq.”

It further states: ” The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama’s campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors.”

Mr. Schahill states that at the time that his article was initially published he had not received an update from Senator Clinton‘s office. However, he has now added the following update to the article:

Update from Jeremy Scahill: A day after this story went live on TheNation.com, Senator Hillary Clinton, whose staff refused for a week to answer my questions about her position on private security forces, released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.” Read her full statement here.

Amazingly I don’t recall hearing one mention of this story during any of the primary coverage that I watched. Of course, I don’t watch Fox News and due to the repetitiveness of much of the other coverage I’ve started to tune out. But I’m sure that my ears would have perked up if I had heard a mention of “Blackwater”. And I’m sure that my ears wouldn’t have been the only ones.

Hmm!

It probably wouldn’t have mattered to voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont or Rhode Island. And, the State Department will probably be able to control Blackwater.

What do you think?

Related posts:

Immunity for Blackwater

If The Iraqis Hate Them & The Troops Don’t Like Them, Why Are They There?

Why Would Blackwater Need Silencers to Protect Diplomats?

Use of Contractors by the US State Department Has Soared

This is from Amy at Georgia Women Vote.

Should progressive bloggers refuse to speak ill of other Democrats? Yesterday, I spoke about blogging at the Georgia Federation of Democratic Women’s Spring Meeting. (It was, by the way a very well put together, well planned event thanks to people like Tina Simms, Kathy Bird and others. Great work, ladies.) Catherine Smith from Blog for Democracy was also there and chimed in with some helpful information. Toward the end of my remarks, Gail Buckner who served in the Georgia House and then was the Democratic nominee for Secretary of State stood and, in summary, expressed her concern about some things that were written about her on blogs during the last cycle, observed that she does not see conservative bloggers bashing Republicans (must not have been reading Peach Pundit lately) and opined-I am paraphrasing-that perhaps we should not speak ill of our own, and if we do, we should be sure that what we say is true.

Well, I certainly agree with the last part of her statement-that we shouldn’t write something unless we believe it’s true, but what about the rest?

READ FULL POST AT Georgia Women Vote

Smear and Negative Campaigning – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)

Today’s Care2 Election Blog Roundup, will focus on a report by the Pew Research Center, on campaigns being seen as negative.

The public remains highly engaged in the presidential campaign, and strong majorities say the campaign is important, easy to follow, interesting and informative.

The Politics of Nasty

One of the basic premises of politics is the need to discredit one’s foe in order to further your own agenda. This has been true since George Washington announced that he would relinquish his presidency. This simple act not only established the precedent that would enable our republican form of government to thrive, but also created the politics of nasty. Once it became clear that two or more opposing points of view would have the opportunity to attain this high office, the nastiness began. Oh, it sounded much more civilized two hundred years ago, but it could get nasty enough all the same.

Relatively few Americans (28%) say the campaign has been too negative thus far. Two-thirds (66%) say it has not been too negative. By comparison, nearly half of the public found the campaign to be too negative at a comparable point in the 2004 election. In March 2004, 47% of Americans said the presidential campaign had been too negative, while 47% said it had not been too negative. By the fall of 2004, a solid majority of voters (57%) said the campaign was too negative.

Read more »

Here is a great guest post from Pam at Pam’s Coffee Conversation.

Now that the American electorate has stirred from their long slumber, they have awakened to a few unsettling truths about the US political process. One of these truths is the use of the “Super Delegates”.

What are Super Delegates? Wikipedia defines them as:

” Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not legally bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are current elected officeholders and current party officials as well as former elected officeholders and former party officials. They are sometimes referred to as “unpledged delegates,” but some unpledged delegates are not superdelegates. In addition, some elected officeholder delegates and party official delegates are pledged.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to grant some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

The Republican Party has 123 similarly automatically appointed delegates, members of the Republican National Committee. Including these appointees, the Republican Party has 463 unpledged delegates out of a total of 2,380 delegates.^[1]

In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held.”

To view a list of the Democratic Party’s Super Delegates go to the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog. As you’ll see the Super Delegates are comprised of the political establishment. So that raises the question, Can a party that is promoting “change” use Super Delegates to elect their party’s nominee?

Yesterday, in a post for Alternet, Chris Bowers wrote an excellent post explaining how the Super Delegates may come into play in the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

He writes:

” Unless either Obama or Clinton drops out before the convention, there is simply no way that the nominee can be determined without the super delegates. In the broadest definition of the term, “a brokered convention” is a convention that is determined by super delegates instead of nominating contests. Through a deadly combination of a primary calendar race to the bottom and an anachronistic method of delegate selection, we Democrats seem to have already arrived at that point. Short of one candidate dropping out, there is simply no easy way that this situation can be resolved. Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won’t be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.

And why should either candidate drop out? Clinton has a large lead in super delegates, and can make a real argument over the Michigan and Florida delegations. Obama, by contrast, will probably lead in pledged delegates at the end of February, and will be able to raise significantly more money than Clinton. And so, we are at an impasse.

My instincts tell me this is a complete disaster, since it will shine light on complicated bylaws and the questionable democratic nature of the delegate selection process instead of on voters. As fascinating as it might be for political junkies, it is not the kind of image Democrats need. We need to figure a way out of this situation in a hurry.”

Now of course, one way to settle this problem is a backroom deal among the party’s power brokers that creates a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. But will this really satisfy all of the voters who are seeking “Change”. Will the electorate be satisfied with new faces but the same old power structure?

I propose the following suggestion to the anyone who is really interested in “change” and making sure that their party reflects the will of the voters. Registered Democrats and Independent voters need to contact the Democratic National Committee and tell them that if the Super Delegate votes are counted at the convention and the delegates from Florida and Michigan are not seated then We, the voters, will either boycott the November general election or conduct a massive write in campaign for a third candidate.

Hopefully, if the DNC is convinced that Democrats will stay away from the polls in droves and the White House will be given to the GOP they MAY, and I emphasize MAY, come to their senses.

Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000

Email the DNC

Megan from BlogHer has a great post tonight…Super Online Videos For Super Tuesday.

Super Tuesday has finally arrived. It’s the day 22 states have presidential primaries and the votes cast will go a long way toward determining the eventual nominee of each party.

In honor of Super Tuesday I’ve put together a list online video clips you just might want to take a peek at. Either to help you make your decision or to help you justify to your friends and family why you’ve decided the way you have.

Some are serious, some are wacky and some are just mindless entertainment. And in the spirit of how the media and the politicians love to lump all voters into pre-programmed voting blocks I’ve decided to do the same.

See full post and a bunch of great videos.

Barack Obama Wins In South Carolina — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)

In a not so big surprise, Barack Obama wins the South Carolina primary. What was a surprise though, was the large margin that he won by.

With 99 percent of the electoral precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 55 percent of the vote, Mrs. Clinton had 27 percent, and Mr. Edwards had 18 percent. — The New York Times

I hope the results of this primary has shown the Clinton campaign, that using Bill Clinton to serve as Hillary’s attack dog, is not the way to go. Ultimately, the only candidates that will benefit from this type of behavior, are the Republicans. And, even though John Edwards didn’t do so great in South Carolina today…He was the only voice of maturity and reason this entire week.

With that said…Barack Obama delivered another “slam-dunk” victory speech tonight. This is a man that can really inspire and empower a crowd. If you missed this speech, it is definitely worth watching…

This is from an interesting post on the democrats  ‘super-delegates’ at Right Pundits.

All those delegates being elected by the two parties in all the primaries choose the next candidate for their respective parties, right? Yup – if you are a Republican, but not if you are a Democrat.

In the Democratic party, some delegates are more equal than others. The voters are chosing delegates, but have no say (directly) in the super delegates.

Super Delegates are elected Dem party officials. The “Super Delegate” system was set up to prevent candidates from winning that the party establishment don’t want to represent the party. The Super Delegates are not bound to vote for any particular candidate and to top it all off, Bill Clinton is a Super Delegate!

READ THIS FULL POST at Right Pundits

Also See:

MSNBC – What role for Democratic ‘super-delegates’?

Crooks and Liars — It’s All About the Super-Delegates

This is from a post by Amy Morton at GEORGIA WOMEN VOTE!

My sister who lives in the upstate of SC called this morning and said that the turn out, especially among African-American voters appeared to be very heavy. She’s predicted a double-digit win for Obama and historic turnout levels. By the time she went to vote this afternoon, there were only three people at that polling place. So, now she’s re-thinking. I guess we’ll all just have to wait for the results. I suspect folks came out to vote early in the day so they could have their afternoons free for other things. It’s interesting-and this makes you want to throw the demographic stereotyping out the window. She has two grown daughters., both college graduates. The single one (parent) voted for Edwards, and the married one (teacher) voted for Clinton. That niece’s husband had not voted and, though a democrat, “liked McCain.” My sister voted for Edwards, but her husband voted for Obama because, “he didn’t want Clinton to win.” That’s a pretty interesting split in one democratic family.

Also See:

Mary Katharine Ham – South Carolina ‘Shattering’ Turn-out Totals?

Does Bill Clinton Need A Time Out? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)

Bill Clinton is not on the ballot for the presidential campaign, but he is getting a lot of attention this week in South Carolina. I would say that his behavior over the last few days has been not only disappointing, but seriously un-presidential like, especially on Wednesday…

DILLON, S.C. – Bill Clinton said Wednesday he expects blacks to vote for Barack Obama and women to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the dynamic may cause his wife to lose the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary Saturday.

The comments by the former president — who also lashed out at Obama and the news media — mark one of the starkest commentaries yet on the possible role of race, although it has been a subtext of the Obama-Clinton rivalry for months.

Even though this type of behavior and controversy makes better political fodder for pundits and ratings, it’s this kind of thing that really turns people off to the process. I’ve expressed my displeasure with this type of campaigning before, and my feelings have not changed. Campaigns do a disservice to the voting public by not focusing on the issues. Voters deserve to hear the issues important to our country…not just bickering and rhetoric.

Don’t get me wrong…I like Bill Clinton, in fact I’m somewhat concerned about him. I realize he is very passionate about supporting his wife for president, but I would suggest that he may be overworked. Even for a healthy person (and lets not forget that it was just 3 years ago that Bill Clinton had heart bypass surgery), the pace of his schedule must be physically and emotionally exhausting. Please, give this man a time-out or something. Even if I’m wrong, and Bill isn’t totally exhausted, he still needs to take a break. It seems to me, that his recent behavior will ultimately hurt Hillary and the democratic party – by giving any Republican nominee an open door for this same type of attack.

Here is some of what the bloggers are saying…

Read more »