“Radical” Isn’t As Scary as Hannity Is
Andy Ostroy is all het up over the right wing framing of Barack Obama as a “radical”.
Radical, defined: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
The fact that the right is trying to frame Barack Obama as a ‘radical’ is not a bad thing. Anyone other than the very few who are profiting from the war, the dying economy, the rape of the US Constitution, lying politicians, and a government owned by Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin and a few others should support a radical change, not reject it.
By his very appearance, Obama represents radical change. The pathetic attempt of the pundits on Faux News to frame that as a bad thing shows their desperate gasps and grasps for relevance.
As their ratings drop and viewers flock to less idiotic choices for news, their rhetoric becomes shrill and off-key, because somewhere deep down they know the truth: Barack Obama represents change — radical change — that will turn this country back from the dark place their boys Bush and Cheney have led us.
While Faux News may try to frame Obama as a ‘radical’ and paint him as a country-wrecking throwback to the rebellious sixties, the reality is that the only way to put this country back on track is through radical change. Here are some of the changes Obama will bring:
- Respect for the United States Constitution
- Responsible fiscal management
- Ending the war in Iraq
- Responsible diplomacy
- Restoring accountability in government
What REALLY scares the Hannitys of the world is the possibility that the crimes that have been wrought upon each and every citizen of this country will be exposed, and those who extolled their virtues will be irrelevant.
Of course, to me, Hannity is already irrelevant. So is Faux news. One radical change I’m looking forward to is seeing the FCC hold them responsible for their irresponsibility.
Sphere: Related ContentWhat does ‘participate’ mean?
As I mentioned last night, the meeting of the RBC today is meaningless. Harold Ickes, in high dudgeon, dramatically reserved Senator Clinton’s right to ‘take the Michigan compromise to the credentials committee.”
Clinton supporters, in addition to being incredibly rude and unruly, are unhappy that Obama was given ANY delegates in Michigan, just as I suspected. Everything turns on the Four State Pledge signed by all candidates where they agreed to this paragraph:
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.
Everything turns on the word “participate”. A couple of facts:
- Michigan automatically adds names to their ballot for their primary on the day that candidates declare their candidacy. Michigan also has a rule allowing candidates to remove their names from the ballot.
- Florida does not have a similar provision allowing candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Once names are there, they’re there.
Participate has an active and passive definition. The active definition is “be involved in; enter a race; enter an agreement; enter negotiation;” The passive definition is to ‘become a participant’ by default (e.g., having one’s name added to a ballot)
If one does not actively pursue adding their name to the ballot, then the term ‘to participate’ has to be interpreted as leaving it there.
Therefore, the only way to stay consistent with the pledge was to withdraw their name from the ballot. Further, voters for Edwards, Obama and Biden were urged by the Michigan Democratic party to vote ‘uncommitted’ to express their preference for unlisted candidates. They did so, with the assumption that either no votes would count, or their ‘uncommitted votes’ would be allocated to some candidate in some fashion later on.
For anyone to argue that Obama wasn’t entitled to any delegates is simply dishonest. For any DEMOCRAT to argue for voter’s rights while simultaneously moving to disenfranchise 238,000 Michigan voters proves the cynical basis for the original argument.
Obama needs 68 delegates to reach the now-firm delegate number of 2118. He will likely win 43-45 after the final primaries. He only needs 28-30 superdelegates to reach the nomination. If an additional 40 superdelegates make a public commitment, the threat of the credentials committee appeal will be irrelevant.
It would be good for Hillary Clinton to be gracious on Tuesday night. It would certainly go far toward healing the very large breach and softening me toward her and her rude, obnoxious supporters who were so incredibly harsh in Washington DC today.
It would be good, but don’t hold your breath.
For more info about the credentials committee, see my post on Delegate Voodoo.
Sphere: Related ContentCongratulations to DNCC Credentialed Bloggers!
As much as I would have loved for this blog to be on the list, I am impressed with the list of bloggers that were given press credentials by the DNCC. Many of my “must-reads” are on there, including BlogHer, Jack and Jill Politics, Crooks and Liars, MOMocrats, AMERICAblog.com, Digby’s Hullabaloo, Firedoglake, MyDD, Obsidian Wings, Pam’s House Blend, RuralVotes and more.
I’m going to create an aggregated feed of their blogs to add to a page here so you can get up-to-date info when the convention starts.
Congratulations to all! It’s going to be an event we’ll not soon forget. History will be made.
Sphere: Related ContentMichelle Malkin v. Rachael Ray
The real terrorist is Michelle. I’m heading out to Krispy Kreme now. I’m going to wear the kaffiyeh I received as a gift from my relative who served in Afghanistan. Because I can. And because Michelle Malkin is a real danger to women everywhere.
Sphere: Related ContentThe Truth About Barack Obama
I wonder if we should put this on our iPhones and iPods so we can whip it out and show it to the next person who asks if Obama is a Muslim, refuses to pledge allegiance to the flag, has flag pin issues, associations with Rezko, etc.
Probably so.
Sphere: Related ContentAw. Lanny’s Mad
There’s great dialogue on Lanny Davis’ latest post about the four things that Obama supporters have done to aggravate Clinton supporters.
I especially liked one commenter’s list of things Hillary couldn’t resist:
1) Voting for the Iraq war resolution
2) Pretending she didn’t understand that the Kerry ‘joke’ was the same thing the RFK comment turned into. “that I know of’”
3) Voting for Kyle-Lieberman
4) Distorting the concepts of popular versus pledged votes, primary versus general election support, her change of mind on the RULES regarding Michigan and Florida,
bragging about ducking sniper fire when Chelsea was with her.
5)Letting Geraldine Ferraro claim that the only reason Obama was successful is his race. (I’ve been watching Presidential candidates since ’60.)
6)Piling on the George and Charlie mud fest.
7) Telling those of us who have state caucuses that the process is not legitimate. (You went through 2 national campaigns and did not work to change this if you thought it was wrong? You don’t live here.)
8)Blaming Obama for inflaming the RFK response in the media. (Ok it was Terry but obviously you “approved the message”) I was following the whole thing over the net. This is really a specious accusation. Be glad to fill you in on the details.
9 )Trying to show how tough you will be; at 3 am, if your foreign policy is so bad Iran attacks Israel and we have to OBLITERATE them.
and another commenter’s list of 16 things the Clintons did to piss off the Obama folks:
1. Hillary saying that Obama is not a muslim ‘as far as I know’.
2. The campaign releasing a photo of Obama in mideastern garb.
3. Hillary’s endorsement of McCain over Obama several times.
4. Bill Clinton’s statement marginalizing Obama as the ‘black’ candidate.
5. Hillary playing the sexism card over and over again. ie. The boys are ganging up on me.
6. Hillary saying that FL and MI primaries don’t count until she needs the votes.
7. Hillary making her primary wins somehow more important than the states that Obama won.
8. Hillary trying to blame the failure of revotes in FL and MI on Obama.
9. Hillary’s comment about hard working, WHITE americans.
10. Hillary blaming the media for sexist bias after months of bad press for Obama.
11. Hillary getting her digs in at the so-called Fox News debate.
12. Hillary supporters saying that Obama supporters are kool-aid drinkers.
13. Campaign saying that Obama supporters are latte drinking, pirius driving elites
14. Hillary denying there has been racism in primary.
15. Hillary bringing up assassination when some fear for Obama.
16. Hillary’s campaign calling people ‘Judas”.
Strains of “the farmer and the cowman” are rolling through my mind. (think..”Oklahoma“)
Dr. Phil, are you on standby?
Sphere: Related Content
