Heads up Ohio!
My friend Matthew posted this on MySpace and I feel compelled to share his thoughts with you. I too am an Obama supporter and encourage you to vote during the Ohio primary.
I'd also like to add some interesting information about the delegate system I recently became aware of, which is quite frankly, very disturbing and makes our supposed democracy that much more laughable. Many of you may already be aware of this but it was news to me. Apparently, in 1972 when McGovern won the Democratic party nomination (largely due to grassroots efforts) and then was trounced by Nixon, the Democrats put the "super delegate" system in place to give elected officials/former elected officials a larger voice in the nomination process. Super delegates actually count for 40% of the number of delegates needed for the nomination. So, in effect that makes it possible for someone like Obama to win from the perspective of the popular vote but if he doesn't have enough support from the super delegates, Hilary could win the nomination. And guess what!? Bill Clinton is a super delegate! Jimmy Carter is as well, and has come out in support of Obama but word is that many of the super delegates are Clintonites, making it all the more important for Obama's primary wins to send a more decisive message.
The super delegate system is seen as a bit of a safety net so the party doesn't end up with a candidate who is too ideologically opposed to the party line or objectives. Doesn't sound very "of the people, by the people" does it?
Matthew's message:
Since I’ve been old enough to follow, politics have always been about casting a vote against an unattractive candidate. I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry because I opposed George W. Bush. This year the primaries have been exceptionally visible. Super Tuesday has passed for those of us in California. However, for my many friends in Ohio, you are still waiting for your chance to vote. I'll put myself out there and risk your ire and disdain for spamming your Myspace bulletin board. However, please, before the primaries, take a moment to consider the following thoughts (which you can read later on my Myspace blog if you don't have time to read it now):
Like many of you, I’m deeply concerned about the state of our economy. In my home state of Ohio, I’ve witnessed (albeit from a distance) companies leave, career opportunities disappear, and people (especially from the Dayton area) leave the state to find new jobs (if you live in Ohio, just think about how many of your friends have left the state to begin careers somewhere else - believe it or not - this is less common in other parts of the country).
I believe Barack Obama is the best hope for strengthening the American economy. Even though I’m not an economist, many prominent economists also support Obama. Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently endorsed Obama. Volcker's actions in the early 1980s have been credited as “the primary reason the country didn't fall into a period of rapidly escalating inflation in the early 1980s.” Volcker explained his endorsement by stating that “[a]fter 30 years in government, serving under five presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance.” (click here to read more: article
I’m also concerned with America’s standing in the world. After 8 years of the Bush presidency, most of the world feels either indifferent about the problems that face America. Some are out right antagonistic towards us. I’m not so naïve as to believe that any President can make the world learn to love America. Nonetheless, as he has inspired me, I believe that Barack Obama has the ability to remind others at home and abroad of why we are a great country. To bring back real meaning and consensus to the saying: I'm proud t obe an American. In the words of Caroline Kennedy (the daughter of JFK): “I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.”
Many of my friends can vouch for the fact that I’ve often had very nice things to say about John McCain. If I had to decide between Gore and McCain in 2000 - I can’t say I’m sure who I would have voted for. I’ve always believed he was an ethical man, and a politician who was willing (like Barack Obama) to transcend political affiliation to do what he believe is the right thing. Nonetheless, John McCain’s position on issues such as Iraq and Iran, quite frankly, scare me. He has stated that he believes we will and should keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely (supposedly stating that we’ll be there for 100 years), that we should also start a war with Iran, and that he envisions even more wars under his presidency. Finally, what does he have to say about all of the lost jobs in America - essentially - that they are gone for good. Maybe you agree with him, but I don’t believe that a pessimistic outlook will help restore America’s economy. Moreover, I believe that with hope and the right leadership we will find and create new jobs.
Like many of you, I would be delighted to see a woman president. I believe it would be a strong signal to women of the world. Indeed, it would have the potential to send a strong signal to the men in this country who doubt that a woman has the capacity to lead. However, I refuse to vote for a candidate merely because of their gender. Hillary Clinton also authorized George W. Bush to begin the war in Iraq. Why? Most likely because she wanted to be able to say that she had the credentials to be a strong military leader when running for president this year. Personally, I can’t support a candidate who would vote for an unpopular war merely to increase their political fortunes.
Furthermore, in my opinion, Clinton’s attack machine and unethical practices stand in stark contrast to Obama’s campaign. The Clinton attack machine has engaged in the ugliest forms of politics: mud-slinging, deceitful “push polling” in Southern L.A., scare-mongering (claiming that terrorist would attack the U.S. if we elect Obama), and divisive campaigning based on gender and race.
The Clinton campaign originally refused to engage in debates on Fox News because of Fox Newsalleged conservative bias. However, the Clinton campaign is running out of money. Many of her supporters have been large companies and lobbyists who have reached the maximum they are able to contribute to her primary campaign. The Obama campaign, which has relied heavily on individual supporters making often small, private donations, is still well-funded and has room under the rules to pull in even more donations. So what does Clinton do? She changes her position and agrees to the debates in order to score free television time - free advertising. Again, we see Hillary Clinton reversing her position to support her political ambitions.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards agreed to refrain from campaigning in Michigan to be in accordance with the Democratic Party rules. However, after both Edwards and Obama had their names removed from the ballot in Michigan, only Hillary was left. As the only candidate on the ballot for the democratic party, of course, she won. Now that the race may become a race for the msot delegates, she claims she wants to seat the Michigan delegates. For me this is just more dirty politics, and stands as just another reason why I can’t support this candidate: she'll seemingly do anything to win the nomination. I look forward to voting for and supporting a female candidate for president - just not this one.
Finally, I won’t get into which candidate is most likely to beat John McCain in the general election. Honestly, if it came down to Clinton and McCain, I’m not 100% sure how I would vote (I’d definitely vote for Clinton against Hucakbee though). However, there are countless reasons why Obama is the better candidate to beat John McCain (i.e. Clinton fatigue from the years of Clinton scandals, Clinton doesn’t appeal to independents,, Republicans hate her and will have no problem uniting against her, Barack Obama has won the support of many long-time Republicans [referred to as Obamacans], Obama has proven strong in the South, etc.). If you want to read more about this issue, you can go here for some excellent reading on this subject: article
Please, register to vote; register wth the Democratic party if that is necessary in Ohio (I honestly don't know); and please vote for Barack Obama during the Ohio primaries. Can we change the direction this country is heading? Can we unite the divisions in this country? Can we invigorate the economy? Yes We Can!
Your Friend,
Matthew
I'd also like to add some interesting information about the delegate system I recently became aware of, which is quite frankly, very disturbing and makes our supposed democracy that much more laughable. Many of you may already be aware of this but it was news to me. Apparently, in 1972 when McGovern won the Democratic party nomination (largely due to grassroots efforts) and then was trounced by Nixon, the Democrats put the "super delegate" system in place to give elected officials/former elected officials a larger voice in the nomination process. Super delegates actually count for 40% of the number of delegates needed for the nomination. So, in effect that makes it possible for someone like Obama to win from the perspective of the popular vote but if he doesn't have enough support from the super delegates, Hilary could win the nomination. And guess what!? Bill Clinton is a super delegate! Jimmy Carter is as well, and has come out in support of Obama but word is that many of the super delegates are Clintonites, making it all the more important for Obama's primary wins to send a more decisive message.
The super delegate system is seen as a bit of a safety net so the party doesn't end up with a candidate who is too ideologically opposed to the party line or objectives. Doesn't sound very "of the people, by the people" does it?
Matthew's message:
Since I’ve been old enough to follow, politics have always been about casting a vote against an unattractive candidate. I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry because I opposed George W. Bush. This year the primaries have been exceptionally visible. Super Tuesday has passed for those of us in California. However, for my many friends in Ohio, you are still waiting for your chance to vote. I'll put myself out there and risk your ire and disdain for spamming your Myspace bulletin board. However, please, before the primaries, take a moment to consider the following thoughts (which you can read later on my Myspace blog if you don't have time to read it now):
Like many of you, I’m deeply concerned about the state of our economy. In my home state of Ohio, I’ve witnessed (albeit from a distance) companies leave, career opportunities disappear, and people (especially from the Dayton area) leave the state to find new jobs (if you live in Ohio, just think about how many of your friends have left the state to begin careers somewhere else - believe it or not - this is less common in other parts of the country).
I believe Barack Obama is the best hope for strengthening the American economy. Even though I’m not an economist, many prominent economists also support Obama. Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently endorsed Obama. Volcker's actions in the early 1980s have been credited as “the primary reason the country didn't fall into a period of rapidly escalating inflation in the early 1980s.” Volcker explained his endorsement by stating that “[a]fter 30 years in government, serving under five presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance.” (click here to read more: article
I’m also concerned with America’s standing in the world. After 8 years of the Bush presidency, most of the world feels either indifferent about the problems that face America. Some are out right antagonistic towards us. I’m not so naïve as to believe that any President can make the world learn to love America. Nonetheless, as he has inspired me, I believe that Barack Obama has the ability to remind others at home and abroad of why we are a great country. To bring back real meaning and consensus to the saying: I'm proud t obe an American. In the words of Caroline Kennedy (the daughter of JFK): “I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.”
Many of my friends can vouch for the fact that I’ve often had very nice things to say about John McCain. If I had to decide between Gore and McCain in 2000 - I can’t say I’m sure who I would have voted for. I’ve always believed he was an ethical man, and a politician who was willing (like Barack Obama) to transcend political affiliation to do what he believe is the right thing. Nonetheless, John McCain’s position on issues such as Iraq and Iran, quite frankly, scare me. He has stated that he believes we will and should keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely (supposedly stating that we’ll be there for 100 years), that we should also start a war with Iran, and that he envisions even more wars under his presidency. Finally, what does he have to say about all of the lost jobs in America - essentially - that they are gone for good. Maybe you agree with him, but I don’t believe that a pessimistic outlook will help restore America’s economy. Moreover, I believe that with hope and the right leadership we will find and create new jobs.
Like many of you, I would be delighted to see a woman president. I believe it would be a strong signal to women of the world. Indeed, it would have the potential to send a strong signal to the men in this country who doubt that a woman has the capacity to lead. However, I refuse to vote for a candidate merely because of their gender. Hillary Clinton also authorized George W. Bush to begin the war in Iraq. Why? Most likely because she wanted to be able to say that she had the credentials to be a strong military leader when running for president this year. Personally, I can’t support a candidate who would vote for an unpopular war merely to increase their political fortunes.
Furthermore, in my opinion, Clinton’s attack machine and unethical practices stand in stark contrast to Obama’s campaign. The Clinton attack machine has engaged in the ugliest forms of politics: mud-slinging, deceitful “push polling” in Southern L.A., scare-mongering (claiming that terrorist would attack the U.S. if we elect Obama), and divisive campaigning based on gender and race.
The Clinton campaign originally refused to engage in debates on Fox News because of Fox Newsalleged conservative bias. However, the Clinton campaign is running out of money. Many of her supporters have been large companies and lobbyists who have reached the maximum they are able to contribute to her primary campaign. The Obama campaign, which has relied heavily on individual supporters making often small, private donations, is still well-funded and has room under the rules to pull in even more donations. So what does Clinton do? She changes her position and agrees to the debates in order to score free television time - free advertising. Again, we see Hillary Clinton reversing her position to support her political ambitions.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards agreed to refrain from campaigning in Michigan to be in accordance with the Democratic Party rules. However, after both Edwards and Obama had their names removed from the ballot in Michigan, only Hillary was left. As the only candidate on the ballot for the democratic party, of course, she won. Now that the race may become a race for the msot delegates, she claims she wants to seat the Michigan delegates. For me this is just more dirty politics, and stands as just another reason why I can’t support this candidate: she'll seemingly do anything to win the nomination. I look forward to voting for and supporting a female candidate for president - just not this one.
Finally, I won’t get into which candidate is most likely to beat John McCain in the general election. Honestly, if it came down to Clinton and McCain, I’m not 100% sure how I would vote (I’d definitely vote for Clinton against Hucakbee though). However, there are countless reasons why Obama is the better candidate to beat John McCain (i.e. Clinton fatigue from the years of Clinton scandals, Clinton doesn’t appeal to independents,, Republicans hate her and will have no problem uniting against her, Barack Obama has won the support of many long-time Republicans [referred to as Obamacans], Obama has proven strong in the South, etc.). If you want to read more about this issue, you can go here for some excellent reading on this subject: article
Please, register to vote; register wth the Democratic party if that is necessary in Ohio (I honestly don't know); and please vote for Barack Obama during the Ohio primaries. Can we change the direction this country is heading? Can we unite the divisions in this country? Can we invigorate the economy? Yes We Can!
Your Friend,
Matthew