America the beautiful

Dreams do come true.Photo by Kuz'n Kirk
Today, November 4, 2008, we celebrate All-America Day -- a day that heralds a seismic shift, from the past to the future, in the country's landscape.

Today we celebrate hope, opportunity, and the vision of a more perfect union. We mark not the end of one man's journey to the presidency, but the beginning of a new journey for every man, woman and child who ever dreamed the American dream.

Tomorrow begins the next chapter in the fulfillment of America's promise. That is the challenge that we must meet and that we will meet. United, our best days are ahead.

Now more than ever, this is one country, America the beautiful.

Democrats cannot unring the bell

"In the big picture of what really matters in the country, this is a very small blip. This is a fight among politicians." - Howard Dean, Oct. 10, 2007, Miami Herald

That statement by the DNC chairman symbolized the political wisdom of Democratic Party insiders and the liberal blogosphere back in the good old days of 2007, when Democrats were giddy at their prospects of wresting the White House from Republican hands. Florida lawmakers had jumped the gun by scheduling an early primary election, making the Florida voter an easy whipping boy for party bosses who showed no restraint with the big sticks and crack of whips. Little forethought was given to the unforeseen consequences of the party's draconian punishment. (Ignorance is rampant in Dems' firing circle)

Warnings of a possible party schism and calls for conciliation were roundly attacked - even by some Florida insiders. Not to worry, they insisted, our votes will too count; Florida delegates will be seated without a fight in Denver; we must support the failed party system as it exists today and fix it at some undetermined time in the future; this "very small blip" will soon be forgotten. Simple suggestions for a compromise, like cutting Florida's delegate count in half and encouraging candidates to campaign here, a la the Republican Party, were ruled out of order. The prevailing attitude was that Flori-duh can't be allowed to screw up another election for the rest of the country. Trust us, we know what we're doing.

So the political experts of the DNC got what they wanted. No leadership surfaced and none was sought to resolve the conflict. January 29 came and went.

Some party insiders who supported Florida's punishment, and that of Michigan, which had suffered a fate similar to Florida's, changed their minds on disenfranchising voters after primaries were held and their candidate "won." Following the February 5 primaries and the collapse of "the inevitable," party bigwigs at long last began to recognize the size of the blips they had created and exacerbated by their undue dependence on superdelegates and an overzealous enforcement of rules. Suddenly, rescue balloons were launched into the rarified atmosphere of the party elite, each caught in a crosswind of competing factions.

What's done is done, the bell is rung, and Democrats have fewer options now than a month ago. The direction they take will likely determine not only the party nominee but the party's fate in November.

Here are four of the paths open to Democrats in upcoming weeks:

(1) If, among pledged delegates, Obama takes a strong lead that Clinton cannot overtake, the majority of superdelegates will flow to him. At that point, something will be done to unite the party and return Florida and Michigan to a state of grace. This is my preference.

(2) If Clinton takes a strong lead among pledged delegates without the help of Florida and Michigan, the superdelegates will move in her direction, and delegates from both states will be seated. So far, however, her comeback efforts are falling short.

(3) If Clinton takes a lead that depends on superdelegates and regular delegates she claims from Florida and Michigan, Obama could be pressured to accept the VP position. Because that scenario would split the party irreparably, Democrats should restrain themselves from heading down that road. Obama, after playing by the rules and gaining the most pledged delegates, could not then be expected to play second fiddle for the sake of party unity. Under those deadlocked conditions, the party would be better served by uniting - as a last resort - around a man who won the popular vote for president eight years ago, Al Gore. Obama could more easily be persuaded to serve with Gore than with Clinton - and Hillary could accomplish more as Leader of the Senate or a Supreme Court justice than she could as VP for either Obama or Gore.

(4) And, if all the best efforts fail to return Florida and Michigan to the fold, we may as well have some fun - perhaps the last fun we'll have before Commander in Chief McCain's first term ends in 2013. My suggestion is that the party convention clear the slate by rejecting every designated delegate and superdelegate from Florida and Michigan, then select and seat an entirely new set of delegates - all unpledged to either candidate, and all selected by sortition:

Sortition, also known as allotment, is a fair method of selection by some form of lottery such as drawing coloured pebbles from a bag. It is used particularly to allot decision makers. In Ancient Athenian Democracy sortition was the primary method for appointing officials, a system that was thought to be one of the principal characteristics of democracy. It is today commonly used to select jurors in Anglo-Saxon based legal systems. - Wikipedia

Considering the Democratic Party's current state of mismanagement, could delegates chosen at random do worse?

Obama looks to America's future

My vote in the Florida presidential preference primary will go to Sen. Barack Obama. In every presidential election from George McGovern in 1972 to John Kerry in 2004, I have voted for Democrats over Republicans - but no vote of mine has ever reflected as much conviction and optimism as the one I am casting for Sen. Obama Tuesday, January 29. (I voted by absentee ballot several days ago.)

Nearly a year ago, February 19, 2007, I ranked the major contenders’ chances of becoming the 2008 Democratic Party’s nominee for president:
1- Gore, 2- Obama, 3- Clinton, 4- Edwards, 5- Richardson, 6-Dodd.

Except for the absence of Al Gore in the race, my perceptions and expectations have changed little in the past year. Admittedly, politics is not Gore's strong suit, as I recognized at the time. (Take Lieberman. Please.) But if we could get inside the 2000 standard-bearer's head and heart, we might find that he shunned the 2008 race because of his intimate knowledge of the Clintons’ political survival skills. It has become obvious in recent weeks of the campaign that Bill and Hillary would have done to Gore what they have done to Obama. Perhaps in remaining clear of the fray, Gore put the country and his party ahead of personal ambition and the bloodletting that would have split Democrats and handed the White House to a Bush clone, regardless of who won the Democratic nomination.

The "ready on day one" candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has demonstrated a level of cynicism that should preclude her from ever seeing day one of a Hillary presidency. Her husband defined the "Clinton doctrine" last week: Run every race as if it's your last because if you don't, it could be your last. Translation: Win today at any cost, then worry tomorrow about staunching the wounds.

I have supported and defended Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992, despite my disagreements with them on many policy issues. After viewing the first couple of presidential debates, I was leaning strongly toward Hillary because of her demonstrated knowledge of the issues, although I still questioned her judgment on the most critical issue of our time – the Iraq War. In the past three weeks, however, she has lost whatever support I had for her, and I see no chance of her ever regaining it.

When the Iowa caucuses made Hillary's nomination less than inevitable, the Clintons pulled out the old reliable playbook of fear, division and intimidation. South Carolina rejected that strategy, but the stage has been set for future primaries where voters have not witnessed the tactics close up, and where name recognition and the economy of the 1990’s give her a distinct advantage, deserved or not. The Clintons will dismiss their own underhanded tactics as hardball politics, yesterday’s news, media eruptions or manipulation by the Obama campaign. They will attempt to bring the competition down to their level. As Hillary quipped following a heated exchange at the last debate, “We’re just warming up.” Coming from a woman who spent the past 33 years sparring with Bill Clinton, that’s a warning to take seriously. But ready to be president on day one? No.

Sen. John Edwards has added an edge to his stump speech and honed his message, yet he has not become a serious contender. If he wants to see a Democrat in the White House, and I believe that he does, he should at some point make a deal with Obama to deny the nomination to Clinton. He could accomplish more as Attorney General, or another office of his choice, than he could as a gadfly without a portfolio. If by chance Edwards himself becomes the party nominee, I would support him again, as I did in 2004. This year, however, I am supporting another candidate.

Sen. Barack Obama is my choice for president because he possesses the skills and abilities to unite the country in ways that no other candidate can. He is by no means a perfect man - and he makes no claim that he will know everything on day one - but he demonstrates an expansive grasp of the issues, the good sense to bring people together for a common purpose, and the judgment to make wise decisions on matters of monumental significance, like going to war. As no other leader has done since the 1960’s, Barack Obama engenders hope for a brighter future. I trust him when he speaks, and I believe in his potential to achieve great things for this country. That’s all I can ask.

Presidents' Day presidential predictions: Democrats

Yesterday I rated the Republican field of presidential wannabes. Today I'll look at Democrats.

Democrats Ranked by Nomination Probability

1. Al Gore
2. Barack Obama
3. Hillary Clinton
4. John Edwards
5. Bill Richardson
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Wesley Clark
8. Joe Biden
Others: Tom Vilsack, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, et al

Hillary Clinton is peeved by questions about her 2002 Iraq vote: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Clinton told an audience in Dover, N. H. (NYT, Feb. 18, 2007)

That answer includes a reminder she might want to avoid giving us. To write off a group of voters at this point in the campaign seems unthoughtful or overconfident at best. I woulda, coulda, been a Hillary supporter, but ... suddenly she's tougher on me than she was on Bush/Cheney when it would have counted. Her current rhetoric opposing Bush's belligerence toward Iran flows easily. Yet the senator apparently thinks it's just as important to show firmness toward her own party's members who were right in 2002. Frightened to death (again) of the name-calling gang that she - not we - enabled, she's making a bad mistake worse.

I hate to see a person with so much ability lock herself in a triangulation corner, but that was her choice when she not only signed Bush's blank check but gave him the keys to the vault. I don't expect an apology (but I can't speak for the families who paid the ultimate price). If Clinton remains unable to admit her mistake - even after seeing the consequences that many had predicted would ensue from her fateful decision - what does that say about her judgment then, or now? Has she learned nothing?

Barack Obama makes a good speech. The question is, where does he go from there? Although he was correct in voicing opposition to the Iraq invasion, that's one issue of many and in itself not enough to win an election. We have a year to see how he looks in his new "national figure" getup. So far, he's looking good, but can he overtake Hillary?

John Edwards has endured one national race already, but needs to break out in the early primaries if he is to compete nationally. Like Clinton, Edwards trusted Bush's Iraq policy but has at least acknowledged the error. For a man running a populist campaign for the second time in four years, he continues to show discomfort with gay and lesbian issues. That may not hurt him with the majority of voters, but his hesitation to embrace those among us still awaiting full citizenship raises questions about the depth of his understanding of the very principle upon which his candidacy is based: an even shake for all Americans. Perhaps he will get there yet.

Wesley Clark seems late to the game, again. Perhaps he will make it onto someone's ticket as VP. Christopher Dodd is earnest and organized and knows real movie stars. Joe Biden is articulate and clean and ... did I mention articulate? Vilsack and Gravel are tossups for ambassador to a third world country. Kucinich is right on lots of issues, but there's little reason to believe he can improve much on his previous run.

Let's assume for discussion that Clinton, Obama and Edwards divvy up most of the early support. Does the selection process then become a media-driven beauty contest, with the issues secondary, or will voters give the other candidates a closer look?

If they do, Bill Richardson has an impressive resume to consider: U. S. congressman, U. N. ambassador, Energy secretary and New Mexico governor. He is a skilled negotiator and has an Hispanic heritage. Like the others, Richardson has weaknesses, but voters may like his low-key demeanor. After eight years of craziness, people should be ready for a president who appears stable, rational and reasonable.

With so many qualified candidates, how does non-candidate Al Gore make the list? It is entirely possible that no one in the race will have built a commanding lead by fall - and we will be tired of everybody's campaign. That might open an enticing door for Al to walk through - especially if polls at the time give him an edge over other Democrats when each is matched against potential Republican nominees.

Following the 2000 election, I never wanted to see Gore run for office again. But, even with his sometimes irritating style, his god-awful choice of Leiberman as a running mate, and his lack of emphasis on the Clinton-Gore record, Gore did after all win the popular vote. His realistic view of the world is needed now more than ever. I can think of no one better qualified - and I can think of no ticket on the Republican side that beats a Gore-Obama, a Gore-Richardson, or a Gore-"anybody" team in 2008.

To say, as some do, that everyone in the presidential race has as much or more experience than George Bush had in 2000 may be true, but it misses the point. Bush's level of prior experience, his ideological mindset and his psychological makeup are hardly appropriate measures for his successor. "Better" leaves the bar too low. We must elect the best - and that means nominating the best each party has to offer.