The Last Days are Ugly May 30, 2008Posted by Conrad Hubbard in : The Chip , add a comment
The last of the Democratic primaries occur on June 3rd. If things run the way they have been, then that fact won’t actually bring an end to the Democratic primary race. Hopefully, Obama will continue his current path, and seize an even greater majority of the delegates apportioned by popular primary votes. Even if he does, though, it seems that Hillary is unlikely to give up any time soon — apparently if your name begins with an “H” this election, then you aren’t allowed to gracefully retire. (Huckabee anyone?)
Sunday, June 1st is the Puerto Rico primary, even though the territory is not allowed to vote in the general election. I suppose that is truly an interesting compromise. They are allowed to affect the Presidential primaries but not the final general election choice. Then, Montana and South Dakota hold the very last 2008 Democratic primaries on June 3rd.
Ultimately, though, it looks like Obama will continue to lead in delegate count, but may not hold the required majority to take the nomination. If the parties (Republican and Democratic) didn’t have these superdelegate (or equivalent) positions, this would not be the case. Superdelegates occupy a somewhat “undemocratic” position. They are given the power, by the parties, to override regular delegates, regardless of popular vote. Theoretically this was done to prevent deadlocked conventions. Ironically, this year it seems predestined to create a Democratic Party deadlock. Even as the leading candidate, with the largest number of Democratic delegates, Obama will likely stand or fall on the word of antidemocratic approval.
Meanwhile, the final days of the campaign are pretty ugly. The conservative media has decided to give new and national focus to old stories about old issues without even the vague pretense of new information. The right-yanked media has followed suit.
Hopefully, all of this will pass without ruining our future. Hopefully, Obama will prevail as candidate and President, and prove to be the agent of hope and positive change that he purports to be.
Jesse Ventura and libertarians May 21, 2008Posted by Conrad Hubbard in : The Chip , add a comment
I used the small “L” because Ventura made a point of doing so himself in his interview on CNN tonight. I thought a number of things he had to say were interesting, and I didn’t have any brilliant ideas what to write tonight.
According to Ventura, libertarians are pro-choice. I was happy to hear him say so, but some of my “Libertarian” friends would probably be surprised and disagreeable about it. As far as I can tell, most of the Libertarians that I personally know are conservatives (typically voting for Republicans instead of their own party).
Ventura also said that he had spent less money campaigning for governor than he made during his term, and that this was an ideal that came from his father. He expressed a belief that you should not spend more money to get a job than a job pays. This particularly related to the revelation that he might run against Coleman and Franken in Minnesota this year.
That revelation also came with another declaration. Ventura said he would not announce his decision until July because that is the earliest he can formally file to run. He stated his view that people should not campaign for an office before they are able to file to run for that office.
Oh, and I didn’t know Ventura was an ex-Navy SEAL. To be fair, Larry King was the one who made a point of saying so.
Voting for the Enemy May 14, 2008Posted by Conrad Hubbard in : The Chip , add a comment
“If my candidate doesn’t win the nomination, then I am going to vote for [insert person I wouldn’t really vote for].” This seems to be the call of the 2008 Presidential Election. From Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck claiming they would vote for Hillary Clinton instead of McCain, to Obama and Clinton supporters saying they will not vote Democratic if their candidate doesn’t win, it seems to be a time of overstated brinkmanship.
Seriously. Limbaugh and Beck voting for Hillary? I might be convinced to pay money to see that. Democrats voting for 4 years of Republican McSame just because Clinton didn’t win the nomination? Really? Give me a break.
Maybe I will be surprised, and all of these people will really do what they say. I strongly doubt it, though. It is as if the electorate and its commentators have become a roving body of translucent politicians, saying whatever they think will manipulate the current situation without any plan to actually follow through. I am a bit saddened to see such political shenanigans spread to the voters.
Maybe Rush and Glen really will vote for Hillary (they can do a write-in even if Obama wins the Democratic nomination), and thousands of voters really will vote for the other party’s candidate rather than vote for the party of their favorite candidate. We’ll see.