Ready or Not?

Waubonsie Valley grad Nathan Dixon (Youth & Government, AP Government, Voice Columnist), a columnist for the Indiana (University) Daily Student says the idealism of political thought he had in the halls of WVHS, has been replaced by college pragmatism (or something like that).

In his column from yesterday, Dixon makes his case for why Barack Obama is not, and Hillary Clinton is ready to be president:
_____________


Obama isn’t ready
Nathan Dixon IDS Date: 1/30/2008

This certainly isn’t how I expected to feel about the Democratic presidential primary.

I remember the good old days, back in high school, when I would carry around my autographed copy of “The Audacity of Hope,” when I volunteered with Barack Obama’s campaign over the summer. After Obama finally announced he was going to run for president, I really felt like everything was going to be OK after all.

Unfortunately, dreams don’t last forever. Instead of campaigning for him in Iowa like I planned, I suddenly found myself “busy” with other things to do over winter break. I didn’t learn of the man’s victory in Iowa by being on the front line. Instead, I just got a call from my mom while I was driving home from Chicago. My shift toward Hillary probably started when I began to realize how shallow some of her critics (including the press) were, especially those who bash her in sexist ways. I am also not very impressed when I hear Obama supporters complain about Hillary’s policies; the two candidates’ policies are essentially the same on almost every major issue.

The actual differences between the two candidates, for now, hurt Obama. When it comes to being president, Mr. Obama is not a man with a particularly impressive resume.

The gap is particularly large when it comes to foreign policy. The man has some of the right ideas, especially when it comes to engaging our enemies more, but sometimes the devil is in the details. His comment about taking unilateral action in Pakistan was probably just made to make him sound tougher. Because he is unwilling to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to breach the sovereignty of a nuclear-armed and unstable Muslim country, it seems to have become his policy.

Hillary is clearly a woman of uncanny intelligence and drive. She has experience in government that dates back decades, plus she already has an extensive political apparatus in place. While Barack has tried to downplay Hillary’s experience as first lady, Mr. Obama is probably well-aware of how important a role Hillary played in her husband’s presidency.

Hillary Clinton certainly has her faults. She hasn’t campaigned in a way I would describe as particularly dignified. I have often gotten the feeling that she thought the primaries were supposed to serve merely as her coronation and even her greatest admirers should be able to admit that the last time she was in the White House, she made her fair share of mistakes.

There are times (too few lately) when I find Hillary just as likeable as Obama. It makes me wonder why she goes to such great lengths to be disingenuous. After some of her campaign’s recent attacks, Obama would be tough to resist if he came with better work experience. But, alas, Obama just isn’t ready.

Good thing I like the idea of electing the first woman president just as much as I like the idea of electing the first black one.
__________

Blog here, or at the column's IDS page to tell Nathan what you think.

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=48539&comview=1

Early Voting: In or Out?

Supporters of former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, rally before a Democratic presidential debate at Cashman Center, January 15, 2008 in Las Vegas. On January 15, supporters of Edwards could have cast a ballot for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary. But on Wednesday, Edwards dropped out of the race.

According the the Associated Press, 7.2 million Illinoisans could vote in Tuesday's Illinois primary. Thousands already have cast their ballots.

CBS News reported on the new twist Early Voting has brought to this presidential election:

WASHINGTON (AP) ― For many people, the question this year isn't just which presidential candidate to vote for, it's when.

States have done backflips to make it easier for people to vote in advance of election day. Presidential candidates are turning cartwheels to lock in early votes. But in a campaign as volatile as this one, people have to decide whether it makes sense to vote too far ahead. The race is so unsettled that today's champ can be tomorrow's chump.

California, for example, is one of more than 20 states voting on Feb. 5. But people have been able to vote by mail since early January. That monthlong voting season is tantamount to a lifetime in this campaign.

Other Feb. 5 states where voting is under way include Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah. Early voting in Florida, which holds its primary next Tuesday, began Jan. 14. As many as one-quarter of all ballots in the state typically are cast early.

In all, at least 32 states allow some form of no-excuse early voting, according to electionline.org.

Any vote that a candidate can secure early is precious, particularly when so many states are voting at once and campaigns are stretched thin. Many people like the convenience of voting early. But what about when the contest in both parties is so scrambled?

"The fluidity and uncertainty in the race would normally lead people to hold their ballots," said Paul Gronke, who directs the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Ore. "What is cutting in the other direction is that the campaigns are out there mobilizing people to vote early."

http://cbs2chicago.com/campaign08/early.voting.2008.2.636026.html

That fluidity gushed this week, when Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards dropped out of the race. They both have already recieived votes in Illinois, whose early voting ends today. Did the early voting for supporters of those two candidates effectively disenfranchise them?

The Democratic non-counted Florida primary also had a significant early voting effect. Hillary Clinton won the constest, where voting started as early as December. But Barack Obama won the majority of Democratic ballots cast up to the week before Tuesday's election day. A DuPage County election official told me that she projected in the next few years, "by far the majority of voters will come early. It's just more convienent that way."

The arguments for/against early voting are capsulized by ReformElections.org:

What are the advantages of early voting?

The primary argument in favor of early voting is that it increases turnout by making it easier to vote. Research by Curtis Gans shows that in the 24 states with no excuse absentee voting, turnout increased in 2004 in the aggregate by 6.7 percent, whereas it increased 6.2 percent for the other states. In the 11 states that had early voting in both 2002 and 2004, turnout increased by an aggregate average of 7.2 percentage points as opposed to 6.2 in states without early voting.

In addition to the statistical evidence, early voting is advocated by voting rights groups whose primary concern is making voting as convenient as possible for voters, because it gives them significantly more time to complete their ballots or go to the polls. Some election administrators also prefer early voting because it allows them more time to process ballots, relieves some of the strain on voting systems that occurs on Election Day, cuts down long lines, and reduces the number of poll workers needed.

What are some of the drawbacks of early voting?

The primary drawback of early voting is that mail-in ballots, which make up the large part of early voting, are much more susceptible to fraud than voting in which the voter must show up to the polls. Instances of fraud in which a ballot is stolen from a mailbox and filled out on behalf of a voter, or in which a voter is pressured to vote a certain way, are much more difficult to prosecute away from the polling place.

In addition, the evidence that shows that early voting increases turnout is countered by evidence from earlier elections—1996 and 1988—that shows larger decreases in turnout in states with early voting than in states without it. This research suggests that the voters who make use of early voting are already politicized enough that they would turn out even if early voting were not an option.

Depending on how early voters are allowed to cast their ballots, they could be casting their votes based on different information than the people who are voting on Election Day. Important events sometimes occur days before the election that can significantly influence how people vote.

Candidates could even conceivably manipulate events at different times in order to influence groups voting at different times. Some objections pertain specifically to mail-in ballots as well. In the 2004 election, thousands of ballots were lost in the mail in South Florida alone, a phenomenon which received less press but occurred throughout the country; there are also many reports of voters not receiving their ballots in time for the election, and of the board of elections failing to meet ballot requests.

SOTU Analysis: Same Duck or Lame Duck?

CitizenU.org published this State of the Union Scorecard yesterday, before President Bush's 7th and last SOTU address. See if you saw anything the 2 Regular Guys thought you should look for and add your own pundit-type prose on last night's speech.

The President’s State of the Union speech, SOTU, is (Monday). Usually this speech means a ratings bonanza for cable channels. Most Americans, even more so this year, will choose to watch something other than Bush. We suggest that this annual political drama is compelling theatre and should be watched. This scorecard might make your viewing even more interesting.

The Constitution formally demands this annual message: “[The President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” (Article 2, Section 3). Washington delivered the first, it lasted less than five minutes. Jefferson thought the public address too monarchial and began the custom of submitting the speech in writing only. Wilson returned to giving the speech in front of a joint session of Congress, as it was last night.

Coolidge, in 1923, was the first President to have his SOTU broadcast on radio. Truman, 1947, was the first SOTU to be on TV. LBJ’s, 1965, was the first given during primetime.

The purpose of the speech is to allow the President to report on the status of the country. Generally, the President also provides a laundry list of legislative priorities. The evening begins with the U.S. House Sergeant at Arms calling out to a crowded chamber, “Madam Speaker, the President of the United States.” The President will enter to applause and shake hands along the way toward the front. Expect tonight’s speech to last at least forty-five minutes.

Things to notice: Sitting behind the President will be Vice President Cheney and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. This will be the first Congress where a woman sits behind the President during his SOTU. Check out what she is wearing. Also, count the number of times Cheney chooses to stand in applause while Pelosi sits uncomfortably.

Look to the front of the chamber and you will see a selection of military leaders, the President’s Cabinet and members of the Supreme Court. Are there any conspicuous absences? One Cabinet member is sequestered in a secure location (it was Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne). See if you can determine who that official is tonight.

Check out if Bush has invited any “Lenny Skutniks.” Reagan was the first President to recognize in his SOTU specific notorious individuals. Usually they are seated in the balcony next to the First Lady. Will tonight’s “Lenny Skutniks” be a military person or an everyday citizen? This will be President Bush’s last SOTU. Will the adversarial Congress honor this Lame Duck President with respectful applause? Listen for grumblings and an errant boo. How will the President respond? Will his good old boy charm work in the middle of perceived failures in foreign policy and serious economic uncertainty? Count the number of times the President giggles and chuckles. Look for a joke about Obama and Hillary.

Wait around after the speech because the opposition party gets an opportunity to give a rebuttal. This has been customary since 1966. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius will give tonight’s Democratic response. Governor Sebelius is considered a rising star in the party. She has shown the unique ability to draw support from not only Democrats but Republicans. Can she channel this bipartisanship tonight in hopes of expanding the vote for Democrats in November?

Above all, these are visual spectacles. Watch carefully. What is seen is often more important than what is said.

What did you notice? What is the State of your Union?

Two pictures not worth 691 words

In Sunday's New York Times Op-Ed piece, entitled, "A President Like My Father," Caroline Kennedy endorses Barak Obama for president. The first question is, "Is the 600+ words in Caroline Kennedy's edorsement worth more than the above images of a Clinton-Kennedy connection?

(Pictured above)

6 June 1963 - the White House Rose Garden - President John F Kennedy, who had only a few months left to live, shakes hands with a delegate from a youth group called ‘the Boys Nation’.

The delegate is 16 year old William Jefferson Clinton, who himself became President 30 years later.

And to complete that particular circle here is President Clinton greeting Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and her children in the self-same Rose Garden shortly before she died in 1994.

_____________

A President Like My Father

By CAROLINE KENNEDY

"OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

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.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans. "

_______________

Do endorsement's matter? It's interesting to try to track who is backing who. The Swing State Project is linked here, it is an effort trying to keep up with the Presidential Match Game, but it has yet to include the Obama, Kennedy connection.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=233

Chaos in Commons

The House of Commons without the chaos of MPs

Ken Weddng's Teaching Comparative Government and Politics blog has two interesting posts all you prospective mock MP's should take note of prior to our classroom chaos on Wednesday:

During Prime Minister's Question Time, why are people always standing up and sitting down?

The short answer is that they want to be recognized by the Speaker so they can ask a question.The long answer is a bit more complex. And I remember it because it was one of those things the BBC commentators felt they needed to explain on the first day that Prime Minister's Question Time was televised, and I was part of the excited audience in November of 1989. And I was taping that first session for my classes.

Here's what I remember.

Questions for the Prime Minister are submitted to the Speaker in advance. The Speaker's staff puts the questions in a random order and numbers them. The first question is always about the PM's schedule. After that, the next question comes from the opposition side of the house. However, if randomly-numbered question 2 was asked by a governing party MP, the Speaker must recognize someone on the opposition side.

So people are standing up to be recognized.That question followed by a question from the government side and then one from the opposition side, etc. Normally, the Speaker just calls out the number of the question. Anytime the randomly-numbered question does not come from the appropriate side of the house, the Speaker must recognize an MP by name.

Since MPs don't know which question is next, anyone who want to ask a question starts standing up as the PM is completing an answer. They're hoping that maybe they'll be recognized to ask the next question.

By the way, you don't have to wait for C-SPAN2 to broadcast sessions of Commons. Parliament has TV online and a 28 day archive of past broadcasts.

What is a three line whip?

As usual, there's a short answer and a long one.

The short answer is that a "three-line whip" is an order from a British Parliamentary party leader to MPs that they must show up and vote properly on a certain measure. No exceptions. (Former Chief Labour Whip and now Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, pictured at right)

The name comes from the fact that the name of the measure is underlined three times on the document given or sent to the MPs. (The messages are probably faxed and e-mailed these days.)

The

British Parliament web site summarizes the long answer this way:

"Whips are MPs or Lords appointed by each party in Parliament to help organise their party's contribution to parliamentary business. One of their responsibilities is making sure the maximum number of their party members vote, and vote the way their party wants...

"Every week, whips send out a circular (called 'The Whip') to their MPs or Lords detailing upcoming parliamentary business. Special attention is paid to divisions (where members vote on debates), which are ranked in order of importance by the number of times they are underlined. Important divisions are underlined three times - a 'three-line whip' - and normally apply to major events like the second readings of significant Bills.

"Three-line whips:

"Defying a three-line whip is very serious, and has occasionally resulted in the whip being withdrawn from an MP or Lord. This means that the Member is effectively expelled from their party (but keeps their seat) and must sit as an independent until the whip is restored...

"If an MP has had the "whip withdrawn," it's likely that the local constituency party committee will withdraw its endorsement at the next election, and independents rarely get elected. A dissenting MP will also be very unlikely to get one of the many public jobs offered by the government or to ever have a place in the cabinet.

The most recent resistance to a three-line whip was in 2003, when 121 Labour MPs voted against Blair's proposed cooperation with the invasion of Iraq.

I can also add that a two-line whip demands attendance and a proper vote from an MP, but excuses for absences can be granted by party leaders (called whips) and penalties are unlikely for unexcused absences or votes against the party policy. A one-line whip allows a member to claim conscience or public opinion in a local constituency as legitimate reasons for voting against the party.

More Comparative "Term Time"

1) The use of the word 'whip' within Parliament has its roots in the 18th century hunting terminology 'whipper-in'. It refers to a huntsman's assistant who drives straying hounds back to the main pack using a whip." -From the Parliament web site cited above

2) The U.S. Senate web site offers this definition of Congressional whips: "whips - Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader."

Bill still using Bully Pulpit, or just being a Bully?

Bill Clinton campaigned for John Kerry in 2004, but now Kerry took aim at the 42nd President Friday, saying the former president "not have a license to abuse the truth."

John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."

Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. …I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.

"I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that," Kerry added. "When somebody's coming on strong and they are growing, people get a little frantic, and I think people have seen this sort of franticness in the air, if you will."

Newsweek reports on what Obama says seems like a 2-against-1 primary fight. Currently, while Hillary Clinton is not campaigning in South Carolina, the former president is. Meanwhile, while other prominant Democratic leaders are telling Bill Clinton to cool it, many would still call the last Democratic president the Chief of Party.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

Bill Clinton's hardball politics seemed to have worked, as since he's been on the campaign trail, Hillary has not lost a contest. Still, it not very statesman-like is it?

And does the Clinton-Obama war of words risk tearing the Democratic Pary apart?

Gore’s Gay Marriage Gambit

Irish musician Bono, left, sits with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore while addressing a conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and (my guy) Irish rock singer Bono warned the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that efforts to tackle climate change and global poverty were lagging, and not improving conditions as much as is needed.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, G-8 Nations were urged to speed up global warming, hunger efforts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/business/main3747503.shtml

But much coming out of the talking heads of the MSM on this side of the pond came over what Citizen Gore said about Gay Marriage this week.

Gore, who as vice president supported the Defense of Marriage Act, has put up a video on his Current TV Web site in which he stands up for gay marriage:

“Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women — to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage…”

Gore’s statement, notes Ben Smith at Politico, “pushes the Democratic establishment that much closer to a position he now shares with Eliot Spitzer and some other leading Dems, and is prompting a bit of grumbling in gay political circles that this batch of candidates aren’t quite there.” He continues:

Gore’s words come after the leading presidential candidates have tiptoed up to, but not crossed, the line of support for same-sex marriage. All three support equal substantive rights for gay and lesbians couples, and they’ve sought to woo gay voters in other ways: Elizabeth Edwards has voiced her support for same-sex marriage, for instance, and Barack Obama recently scolded the black church for homophobia, in a speech to an African-American congregation.

Will Gore’s comments up the ante for the candidates if they want to be seen as sincere? And taking both issues into account, is there any doubt that Al Gore, private citizen, has done more to move the global political debate than Al Gore, elected official, ever did.