Howard Dean - Barack Obama's Secret Weapon

As everyone knows by now, Hillary won in PA. Thus, I am sure that all Hillary supporters are wondering if she has the momentum to win the nomination. In essence, it's up to Howard Dean.

It's a darn shame that I have to beat a dead horse, but this horse (though dead) deserves a good beating! All Hillary supporters need to do is read the transcript of this past Sunday's Meet The Press and they'll agree. Here's the meat of the interview:

"Michigan and Florida. There is a report--reports that the Democratic National Committee is having a meeting on May 31st...

DR. DEAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...which may in fact say to Michigan and Florida, "Well, you broke the rules, you moved your primary dates up without permission, but we're going to give you half delegates, half your elected count, half your superdelegate count come, come convention time." Is that true?

DR. DEAN: Well, I don't know about the--what the Rules Committee's going to do. I have no idea what they're going to do. But here's the deal. First, you got to respect the voters. The voters of Michigan and Florida were not the people that screwed this all up, it was politicians. Secondly, you have to respect the candidates. They went in on a set of rules that everybody voted for, including Michigan and Florida, before they changed their mind, but--and so you can't really change the rules and alter the course of the race. And thirdly, you got to respect the 48 states that did respect the rules.

Here's why the rules are important. For the--this year, for the first time, we balanced the early primaries with ethnic and geographic diversity. We included a state from the South and a state from the West, because we think we can win there now. And we included states with significant numbers of minority groups who the Democrats can't win without, and those folks ought to be allowed to say early on who they think should be the president. Now along comes two states which steps on the process. You've got to deal with that in a fair way. So I don't know what the solution's going to be. The Rules Committee's going to start to work on that now as they prepare for the meeting at the end of May. But nobody will be satisfied with the outcome because nobody's going to get everything they want. What we strive is to be fair to the voters, fair to both campaigns, and fair to the other 48 states.

MR. RUSSERT: Former Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan, who's a Clinton supporter, said the Democratic National Committee has handled the situation badly. "They have put their rules ahead of common sense, of electing a Democratic president, of voters in two major states. ... They're treating the rules like they're the U.S. Constitution or the Ten Commandments. They've lost their way."

DR. DEAN: Well, they were one of the two states out of the 50 that violated the rules. I'd kind of expect that from them.

MR. RUSSERT: But Michigan and Florida are swing states.

DR. DEAN: They're both very important states. That doesn't mean they're any more important than anybody else.

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there were some meetings of delegates in Michigan, various conventions where Hillary Clinton is now lining up delegates, and, according to Congressman Blanchard, "We want to pick people who'll be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots." So Governor Blanchard of Michigan, former governor, is planning for, in effect, a multiple ballot convention.

DR. DEAN: Sure. I mean, I--look, everybody has a right to plan anything they want. My plan, as the chair of the DNC, is to try to get this resolved before we get to the convention. Because if you go into the convention divided, it's pretty likely you'll come out of the convention divided.

MR. RUSSERT: Without Michigan and Florida counting, as of now, people are saying, "Howard Dean should have handled this differently. He should have interceded and fixed this problem and not allowed us to come to a point where these two states feel dissed and it could hurt us in November."

DR. DEAN: Well, I mean, that--it wasn't my decision to make these changes. Florida and Michigan both voted for a set of rules, then they tried to push ahead of everybody else, and that makes it more difficult for everybody. We want to resolve this. This is not the voters' fault in Florida and Michigan. But the fact of the matter is that you have to--you cannot change the rules towards the end of the game just to advantage or disadvantage of a particular candidate. You can't do that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you decided not to seat the delegations, not count the primaries.

DR. DEAN: That's correct. Because they stepped on the minority groups and the small states in the South and the West that needed that time to have their primaries and have their early input.

Look, it's, it's--this is like having a, a line full of people waiting for something. If two of them jump the line and go to the front, it's not going to be long before you're going to have a riot. Don't forget, at the time these sanctions were passed by the Rules Committee, New Hampshire and Iowa were threatening to move into 2007. You've got to keep order, and that's part of my job is to keep order. It's understandable that the folks you call out because they think they're more important than everybody else are going to be upset about that. We did keep order, we do have an orderly process. I'll defend the process.

MR. RUSSERT: Will Michigan and Florida be seated?

DR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: In some way, shape or form.

DR. DEAN: In some way. I'm determined to make that happen. I can't--again, I can't, I can't speak for what the rules committee will do. They're 30 very independent-minded people. I can't speak for what the credentials committee at the convention will do. I believe Michigan and Florida should be seated in some way because it was their--their voters did not cause this problem. This was caused by a political problem, not the voters' problem.

MR. RUSSERT: Seated and their delegates will vote for the presidential nominee?

DR. DEAN: I, that's what I hope will happen.

MR. RUSSERT: The Democratic National Committee has been taking some television advertising out about John McCain, one out on the economy. You are now also going forward with an ad on Iraq. Let's watch that ad and come back and talk about it."

I can't help but be both amused and enraged by this comment by Dean:

"My plan, as the chair of the DNC, is to try to get this resolved before we get to the convention."

Yeah, roughly 2 months before the convention! This matter should have been resolved by February 29 in my humble opinion. Sadly, my opinion isn't worth the disc space it inhabits as far as the Democratic National Committee is concerned.

In reply, Tim Russert said, "[People are saying Howard Dean] should have interceded and fixed this problem and not allowed us to come to a point where these two states feel dissed and it could hurt us in November." I couldn't agree more.

Dean then has the audacity to say, "Well, I mean, that--it wasn't my decision to make these changes. Florida and Michigan both voted for a set of rules, then they tried to push ahead of everybody else, and that makes it more difficult for everybody. . . . But the fact of the matter is that you have to--you cannot change the rules towards the end of the game just to advantage or disadvantage of a particular candidate. You can't do that." The only person and/or entity that has waited until "the end of the game" is Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee!

Is this the work of an extremely ineffective leader for the Democratic National Committee or the work of Barack Obama's secret weapon? Unfortunately, I have no cold hard facts or material evidence to definitively say that Howard Dean is Barack Obama's secret weapon. Nevertheless, we must consider the circumstantial evidence:

1) FL and MI held their primaries early.

2) Howard Dean decided to not count those primaries.

3) Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee seem to have done everything than can to stall the solution to this issue.

Now, let's attempt to "read between the lines". First, we have 2 key states holding their primaries early. Did Howard Dean and/or other representatives of the Democratic National Committee secretly coerce the governors of FL and MI to hold their primaries early? Second, Dean strips FL and MI of their delegates as an initial reaction. This action gave Barack a significant advantage because Hillary won the primaries in both states. Third, the DNC has done nothing but stall any sort of solution to this dilemma. This decision, or lack thereof, has given Barack even more of an edge to win the Democratic nomination. Thus, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Howard Dean quite possibly endorses Barack Obama. Unfortunately, it is also possible that a majority of other members of the DNC also support Barack Obama.

The real shame of it all is that the Democratic primaries are beginning to resemble the WWE. It's all a bunch of acting --at least on the part of Barack Obama, Howard Dean and the DNC-- and the "fight" is fixed. Is that to say that no-one gets hurt? No. There could be many casualties. Hillary Clinton might very well be one. The U.S. as a whole could be an even more important second casualty. This situation could also very well hurt Democrats for quite a long time. I'm no Democrat. However, I haven't been impressed by a Republican since Ronald Reagan.

Related post: Barack Obama's Secret Weapon Seeks Cash

Guns, Religion, Antipathy, and Swift Boats

In recent news, we have heard remarks from Barack Obama about guns, religion, and antipathy. We have also heard Hillary's and McCain's responses to these remarks as well as Barack's own elaboration upon said remarks. Before I go into detail about who said what and my opinion of the situation, I'd like to offer my stance on these issues.

Now that Charlton Heston is dead, I can finally admit that I am against everyone and their brother owning guns. No ordinary citizen should be able to purchase semi-automatic or automatic weapons. These weapons should only be available to the military and law enforcement. Furthermore, I feel that no-one with a criminal record that includes convictions for violence should be able to own a gun. In addition, anyone with psychological issues should be thoroughly tested by more than one psychologist before being allowed to purchase a gun. If these psychologists have any doubt at all as to whether or not someone with psychological issues is capable of violence, that person should be forbidden to own a gun.

By blood, I am Jewish. Some of you might stop reading due to that fact. However, I can tell you that you are going to miss out on a revelation if you do. I respect people of all religions. Even Islam. That said, there are extremists in all religions. This includes, but is not limited to, Jews, Methodists, Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists. Extremism is one of the many factors I had considered when I chose not to participate in any organized religion. Do I believe in God? In short, I hope God exists. However, the long answer to that question would occupy several posts in this blog.

I certainly cannot speak for others when it comes to antipathy. Nevertheless, I can say that I am not antipathetic. At least not when it comes to the haves versus the have nots. Unlike many people, especially U.S. citizens, I am not strongly motivated by money. I am motivated more by intangibles. Compassion, enthusiasm, generosity, compliments, passion, etc. will keep me happier than all the money in the world. I can certainly empathize with the unemployed people out there. In the past 4 years, I've been unemployed about 40% of the time. On the "have" end, I appreciate what people such as Bill Gates are giving back to society. That said, for every "Bill Gates" there are 3 or 4 wealthy people who are detriments to society. Alas, that is a topic for another post.

Barack on 'Bitter Pennsylvanians' . . . "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. " Let's break this quote down. First, I would like to address the alleged 25 year absence of jobs. I strongly disagree with this. Sure, the steel industry might have dwindled, but both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton helped create thousands of jobs. The Reagan years brought about a lot of military jobs. While Bill Clinton did scale back the military, he both balanced the budget and gave private industry a big boost. Remember the internet boom? Sure, the original boom expanded so quickly that it could not sustain itself by about the year 2000. Nevertheless, the internet has continued to grow exponentially since the 2000 "correction". Look at Google, eBay, FaceBook, and Yahoo just to name a few. My point is that the jobs were there. The people just needed to be "reskilled" for the jobs that were available. Second, I feel that any bitterness is self induced by people who don't adapt. As for people clinging to guns, religion, and/or antipathy, these are the extremists. Extreme gun activists will complain about gun issues regardless of the economy. Obsessively religious people will cling harder to religion during hard times. People with an aversion toward people of other races, religions, or income brackets will be especially antipathetic during a recession. These are specific types of people. You can't make a generalization and say that everyone in Anytown, PA has one or more of these attributes. It's simply not true. Third, there is a good reason for anti-immigrant sentiment, especially as pertains to illegal immigrants, regardless of the economy. Illegal immigrants will tend to hurt our economy because they are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens. Trade is a complex animal and best left for another post.

More to come . . .

Does Barack consider his candidacy more important than his heritage?

Why is it that Barack, the only African American among the 3 candidates who are still campaigning, did not attend the Martin Luther King Jr. 40th anniversary memorial in Memphis? Is he putting his candidacy in front of his heritage? Hillary Clinton attended the memorial and gave an emotional speech. John McCain also attended the memorial. For whatever reason, they decided to interview him while one of King's relatives was speaking. McCain wasn't received as warmly due to his voting against the MLK holiday back in 1983.

Various people have cautioned other politicians not to read too much into Barack's absence from the memorial. I don't think I'm reading to much by saying that he considers his campaign more important than his heritage. Barack was a mere 6 years old when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Thus, his personal memories would have been very minute. However, I am sure that his family spoke to him about it when he became old enough to understand. Yet, Barack did not express his family's sadness and/or anger over King's assassination when he spoke of King in Indiana.

What is it going to take for people to realize that Barack Obama is a fraud? He turns his back on his heritage. He and his family attended a church where many of the sermons were racist (against "white" people), anti-gay, anti-semitic, and sometimes even anti-American. He associates with criminals. Is that not enough to discredit this man? Would we have to rip (a hypothetical) liquid latex mask off of Barack's face to show he's actually Caucasian in order for people to see him for what he is? He might not have been corrupted by Washington DC, but he came onto the scene corrupt. Barack was corrupt in Illinois and he is corrupt now.

Barack gives The View more lip service regarding Reverend Wright

Last week, Barack made an appearance on The View saying "Had the reverend [Jeremiah Wright] not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church." In my view, this is Barack diplomatically stating that he might very well have stayed at the church regardless of whether or not Reverend Wright retired or admitted that his negative sermons were inappropriate.

Barack also continues to defend Reverend Wright's negative, anti-Semitic, anti-American sermons by saying, "[Reverend Wright is] a brilliant man who was still caught in a time warp back in the ’60s, early ’70s and the ’50s, where he grew up, and had a sense of where America was and didn’t have a good enough sense of how it had changed." I acknowledge that African Americans should never have been slaves and that some felt as if society might have held them down. However, I grew up in the 70's. I lived in a neighborhood that was at least 50% African American. Although my parents had some prejudice feelings, I looked at them the same way I looked at anyone else. I had African American friends at school and regularly played among them in my neighborhood. That said, I certainly don't condone ignorance or prejudice regardless of race. Thus, I find Reverend Wright's remarks offensive and Barack's defending of these remarks as quite disturbing.

Is there a problem with racism in America? Sure. I think that Reverend Wright is proof of that. There are many Caucasians guilty of this as well. Nevertheless, I do not think that Barack Obama should be handed the nomination on a silver platter just to prove that Americans are no longer racist. Furthermore, I don't think that handing Barack the nomination on a silver platter proves anything except, perhaps, that Americans aren't ready for a female president.

Howard Dean makes empty promise for Florida

Related posts:

MI and FL - Is there a valid reason to "punish" them?

Michigan Re-Vote: Deal or No Deal?

The Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, says "It is my commitment, working with the Florida delegation and the campaigns, to find a fair solution so that Florida will be seated -- and we are confident enough that we have reserved hotel rooms for the delegates from Florida in Denver." Later, he continues by saying he was optimistic about Michigan but added further discussions were needed. I think it's time to say, "That's enough lip service, Howard, we want results!" In my opinion, the issues regarding the early primaries for FL and MI and the status of their delegates should have been resolved by March 31, 2008. These issues should be given top priority. Instead, Dean seems to be acting like the opposing team by letting the clock run down.

Barack wants Al Gore and Bill Clinton in his cabinet

If I were a sensationalist, I'd use "In a desperate move to secure his candidacy, Barack promises Al Gore and Bill Clinton cabinet positions" as a headline. A republican might use "Obama secures another 4 years for the Clinton/Gore administration". Since I am neither a sensationalist nor a republican, I'll say "Barack delivers another smack in the face to Hillary".

I won't deny that I thought Bill Clinton was a great president. I also won't deny that I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Nevertheless, you cannot tell me that Barack didn't announce this, in part, to ruffle Hillary's feathers. At this moment, I honestly cannot tell you whether this was a brilliant move on Obama's part or if this is the torpedo that will sink Barack's ship.