Hopefully after Ohio and Texas on March 4th, the Obama and Clinton campaigns will sit down and figure this out, because if we wait until the August convention, we will be behind the eight ball.  That would leave two months to campaign for president.    I will do a delegate math post later, but in the end Obama has a slight advantage, because he should have about 100-200 delegate lead looking at the pledged delegates only when the primaries are over.  It will still require him to get about 300 super delgates to seal the nomination.  But the whole Michigan Florida thing makes this even more suspect.

At the end of the day, the two candidates, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and few others like Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Chris Dodd need to work out a suggestion to who should be the candidate.  My fear is Obama is the bigger person in all of the this, and steps aside even though he will have more pledged delegates (regardless of Michigan and Florida).   Of course, they could always be the out of leftfield outcome that they agree to a different candidate…like I don’t know…maybe, Al Gore?!?!  Wouldn’t that be interesting!  I just hope for my sake, they get this overwith in March.

Reading the short article I see that she was already tried once for the crime and found guilty of illegal relations and received 99 lashes.  So she was convicted once, whipped 99 times, but that wasn’t good enough for the savages (yes I called them savages because I can’t think of another more fitting term).   Sister got 99 as well.

After I read the article, I thought thank God that I don’t live in a country that 1) considers adultery a criminal violation, 2) can sentence people to be whipped or stoned and 3) prohibits being tried for the same crime twice.  Then I thought, where is the outrage and news coverage (the article was from a UK paper).  Remember the furor around Michael Fay, the kid in Singapore in 1994 that was sentenced to 4 months in jail and six strokes of the cane for spraying graffiti on cars.  He ended up getting 4 strokes, but the coverage was massive.  Here, these women have been whipped nearly 100 times and now will be put to death by people throwing rocks at them until they stop breathing.

Then I realize that as a country, where do we have a leg to stand on.  Nevermind our stance on torture (we use it but say we don’t) and the bogus legal status of “enemy combatants” that allow our government to hold people indefinitely without charges, denying the right to a writ of habeas corpus.  I am talking about the Death Penalty.  We, as a country still allow our own savage behavior with state sanctioned killing.  It is sick and quite frankly disappointing that we continue to allow our country to be held to the standard of the lowest common denominator.  Thoughts like, “well most of the country is supportive of the death penalty and the Bible does say an “Eye for an Eye’.”

It is all bullshit.  If we want to claim the mantle of the moral compass of the world, or the defender of human rights and dignity, we need to challenge ourselves to be better than the savage thoughts of the American Pysche.  I know too many descent people that are pro-death penalty.  The idea of revenge is powerful, but we can’t continue to call murder a crime then use it as a tool for punishment.

I always say to someone who is pro-death penalty, “do you think we ever put an innocent person to death?”  Given the consistent news of exonerated death row inmates, the answer is always yes.  Then I follow with the hypothetical, “what if the person you loved the most was that innocent person, would you still find the death penatly acceptable?”  Funny, but I never get an answer to the question.

That calls for a little Johnny Drama Victory Call:

First, as I outlined in my post a couple of days ago, the war in Iraq is a key issue.  If Hillary is our candidate, she is ineffective in trying to differentiate her position from the Republican candidate.  She voted for the war.  She can not criticize anyone on the issue.  Instead we will be treated to her painful 20 minute attempt to rationalize her vote, say why whe would do it differently if she knew then what she knew know, etc.  The Iraq War needs to be a key point in this election, and Hillary eliminates that possibility.

Second, polling shows just how divisive a figure she is.  Her negative rating is 51% and whopping 47% say the would cast a vote against her (saying that a primary driver of 1 of every 2 voters for the republican candidate would be to vote against Hilary).  Obama’s negatives are lower 45%, and even more importantly, his vote against percentage is only 36% or 11% lower than Hillary.  He is not the polarizing figure she is.

Third, he is a movement candidate, bring new voters to the process that haven’t been seen before.  Voters that will likely disappear if he is not at the top of the ticket.  Look at Iowa.  Almost 25% of the voters participating in the caucus were under 30.  1 in 4 voters!  Barack Obama took nearly 60% of that vote.  Young voter participation is doubling, in large part, to Obama’s appeal to that demographic.   In New Hampshire, nearly 20% of the voters were under 30 and again Obama took the majority of them.  Nevada: 13% of the vote. 60% for Obama. South Carolina: 15% of the vote.  65% for Obama.  These numbers are astounding and figure to tilt even more towards Obama as likely nominee John McCain is so far removed from the age group (he is over 70 years old), that increasing the participation of this demographic is GREAT news for the democrats.   Obama is the only candidate that brings these voters out.

Fourth, he’s a map changer.  Again look at South Carolina, a state that is normally not considered a target for the Democratic nominee.  Barack Obama garnered more votes (295,000) than the top 2 GOP candidates combined  (276,000).   Total Democratic turnout (530,000) was well above GOP turnout (430,000), putting this state in play for the election.  Turnout was equally impressive in Iowa and New Hampshire, both swing states for the election.  Race is not an issue as Obama won the whitest state in the union, Iowa (97% white).

Other states like Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, all normal locks for the GOP, come into play, and only into play if Obama is the nominee.  At the same time, democratic stalwarts like New York, California, Illinois, Massachussettes and New Jersey still stay firmly in the Dem’s column.  And while McCain is trying to appeal to social conservatives in the south, a key voting bloc that he struggles to attract.  Obama can go on the offensive in other key battleground states like Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Again, all this doesn’t happen with Hillary as the candidate.

So there you have it, 4 solid reasons why Barack is more electable than Hillary come November.

I am doing in this in an open format (not only on my blog but also on the Daily Kos) so, in case anyone else wants to help my cause, they can jump in as well. In order to effectively employ others in my cause it is helpful to explain to them who you are.

My father is the youngest of five children and was born in Greece many moons ago. He came to this country in the early 1950′s, leaving behind a war-torn Europe, for his version of the American Dream. He brought with him everything he had, which wasn’t much. He ultimately settled in Chicago, and after learning the language and saving his money, embarked on his life as an entrepeneur. After owning several different businesses through his life, he is now retired and living in Southern California.

My mother is a first generation American, born to Greek immigrants on the South Side of Chicago. She is the fourth of five children and was involved in a family business until she met my dad and married him in 1970. Together they worked together, and somehow had the time to have and raise me. When it was time to sell their business and move their home to warmer climes, they took their Chicago identification with them, being consistent Democratic voters in a very republican area of California.

My mother is pretty sure she is voting for Hillary Clinton and my dad has said he will vote for whomever she chooses. So the importance of this letter is now twofold, because I want to convince the both of them to vote for Barack Obama. Readers, please leave your thoughts in the comments and I welcome both pro-Hillary and Pro-Barack comments, just keep it clean, because after all, my parents will be reading this.

Mom and Dad, this is election is different than most. The fact that we are choosing a president from a slate of candidates that doesn’t not include a sitting president or a former/sitting Vice President doesn’t happen very often. Then the fact that Democratic nominee will be either a woman or an African American is truly historical.

We are faced with a moment in our history seen before: an unpopular war, a failing economy, a government not interested in protecting our civil liberties, and a country divided by ideologies. I assert that to pick a candidate we must go beyond the policies they support.

Sure the are some significant differences in where they stand: mandates for universal healthcare, the freezing of interest rates for five years, and talking to enemy foreign government quickly come to mind.

Look I understand that Hillary Clinton is an excellent candidate. She is fabulous with policy. She is bright and well spoken. She is tested and experienced. She is a committed civil servant who is a credit to our party and our country. In any other election, she would be a sound choice for President of the United States, and if she does win this nomination, I will fight and vote for her in the general election. Hillary Clinton is a good leader.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is an exceptional leader. And it’s leadership that is key to this election. Barack Obama is everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Barack Obama is the type of leader that makes the impossible seem possible. Critics will call it all form and no substance. I call it inspiration.

Since Ted Kennedy’s endorsement, there have been comparisons of Barack Obama to Jack Kennedy. Again, critics are quick to point out that Obama is no Jack Kennedy, and its true. At this point in his career, Barack hasn’t accomplished enough to be considered his peer. But the comparison is appropriate for the two simple reasons.

First, both men are visionaries; setting up large ideas for the country to chase. It is one of the biggest criticisms of Obama from Hillary supporters that he is an orator with no plan to actually deliver the ideas he sets forth and promises. But back when Jack Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the moon, he had no idea of how to deliver it. He knew nothing about rockerty or space travel. He could only ask that the collective consciousness of American put their mind to the challenge. These leads me to the second point.

Both men are requiring the citizens of the country step forward and take ownership of our progress. One of the most well know quotes of the presidency sets the stage for what I believe Barack Obama embodies to today:

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”- John F. Kennedy

“Don’t tell me we can’t change. Yes we can change. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can seize our future.” – Barack Obama

“We” need make change together.  Not expect change from Washington, but rather bring change to country. Those words from after the South Carolina primary still ring in my ears.

Now, I admit I am a sucker for a great speech. But I am reminded of my own time in college. In the leadership roles I held during that time, the organizations I was a part of always had the most progress when all of the members took ownership of the cause. It was through the empowerment of others that we met the challenges of the day. That is the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton. I would walk through a wall for Barack Obama, while I have no such feelings for Hillary Clinton.

So Mom and Dad, the choice is one of leadership style. The methodical, predictable, top-down approach of Hillary Clinton or the inspirational, transformational, empowerment approach of Barack Obama.

I hope this helps bring you the clarity need to make your final decision. Take a risk and aim high, the country can use a new path, a new leadership, a new vision for the future. We can do it. YES WE CAN!

However, I really, truly believe, that, given his performance tonight, Barack Obama is the best candidate for President.  There are two reasons for that.  First, the easy one: Iraq.  Barack made a very compelling point on the issue of Iraq.  He is the best candidate to contrast the position versus the Republican candidate, most likely John McCain.  Look at what Obama says after Wolf Blitzer asks him about Iraq.
“It was not just a problem of execution.  I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is: Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start?

And we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home.

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have an easer time making if they can’t turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this.  And that’s part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.”

[Emphasis mine]

Bingo.  A large majority of American’s believe that war was a mistake and want out.  Barack Obama can stand there at the podium and say “I was against this war from the beginning, even when it wasn’t politically safe to say so”.  Hillary can not.  Furthermore, everytime she is asked about that vote, she has to go into this long winded explanation of why she wasn’t wrong to vote for it even though now she would be against it.  Like this.

BLITZER: I’m going to let Senator Clinton respond. Senator Clinton, you always say, if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn’t have voted like that. But why can’t you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time — and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in — that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.

And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we’ve used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

But you know, it’s clear that if I had been president, we would have never diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York, in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was being welcomed to the forgotten frontlines in the war against terror, that just, you know, just struck me so forcefully.

We have so many problems that we are going to have to untangle. And it will take everyone — it will take a tremendous amount of effort.

But the one thing I’m convinced of is that, if we go into our campaign against the Republicans with the idea that we are as strong as they are and we are better than they are on national security, that we can put together an effective strategy to go after the terrorists — because that is real, that is something that we cannot ignore at our peril — then we will be able to join the issues of the future.

And I think that’s what Americans are focused on. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers, you know, trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required.

We had to fight to get body armor. You know, George Bush sent people to war without body armor.

Well Hillary, was it a mistake or not?  If Hillary is our nominee, the war becomes a NON-issue for this election.  That is not good for the public discourse or the election.  On this issue alone, it is enough to make me choose Obama.  However, let me go to a different point.  One that was more subtle the mortgage crisis answer.  Here is what Hillary is proposing.

“I think it’s imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.”

On the surface, it is a very intriguing and probably popular policy suggestion.  But Obama digs a little deeper into the issue on his response.

“On the mortgage crisis, again, we both believe that this is a critical problem. It’s a huge problem in California and all across the country. And we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.  I have put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would help to bridge the lender and the borrower so that people can stay in their homes.

I have not signed on to the notion of an interest rates freeze, and the reason is not because we need to protect the banks. The problem is, is that if we have such a freeze, mortgage interest rates will go up across the board and you will have a lot of people who are currently trying to get mortgages who will actually have more of a difficult time.  So, some of the people that we want to protect could end up being hurt by such a plan.”

I hadn’t thought about it that way, but he is right.  By freezing current ARMs for the next five years, banks will increase the cost of new loans to cover the lost interest on the frozen ARMs.  That hurts new buyers.  Come to think of it, since the great majority of mortgages are movable.  If you sell your house and by a new one, you end up paying more on the new mortgage than you would have had the ARM rates not been frozen.  As Barack says, this ends up hurting some of the people you are trying to protect.

That’s all for now.  YES WE CAN!

I have two quick observations on this.  If Obama is going to be a strong general election candidate, he must be able to weather the negative ads that will attack him, unfairly, on everything from his voting record, questionable fundraisers, non-conventional stances like the talking to all foreign leaders friend or foe, etc.  So far he has hit back pretty well, but it is only going to intensify as Hillary gets more desparate to score points.

Second, the more I watch Hillary’s campaign tactics, the more I realize that choosing Barack Obama as my preferred candidate is right on the money.  Think about it.  Hillary wants to be President but has been unable to run a smooth campaign strategy despite raising over $130 million last year.  Her campaign has been unable to pivot and change course.  She had no plan B (after Iowa and Super Tuesday).  She really has resorted to saying anything to get elected and is willing to contradict herself without shame (agreed to the rules about FL and MI, but now wants to rules to change because she benefits).    Really, she is lucky that I love my country so much, because if she wins the nomination I will vote for her regardless of her lack of moral compass, because we don’t need another republican president.

Tomorrow, I plan on writing a post of the top 10 things I want Obama to say in the next debate.  Let me know if you have any suggestions.

10 incredible results.  Which leads me to the idea that 10 is an important number, so why not utilize it for my debate wish for tomorrow night.  Hillary and Barack will go toe-to-toe…mano e. mano (or womano) in Ohio for a CNN debate.  Clearly with all the momentum, Barack has to stay above the frey.  Keep calm and look presidential.  Hillary, with her campaign in the balance, will do everything possible to engage Barack, attack him, make him look vulnerable and week, and hope for a major gaffe.  But to those who know me, playing it safe isn’t my style.  So heare are the 10 things I hope to hear from Barack Obama in tomorrow’s debate.

1. “Hillary, how can you claim to be ‘ready on Day 1′ for the presidency when you haven’t even been able to run a presidential campaign with over $100 million dollars at its disposal, let alone a country. “
2. “Hillary, just what allows you to lay claim to the mantle of Commander of Chief moreso than me? Have you ever served in the Military?”
3. “Hillary, what percentage of your speeches have you written yourself?”
4. “Hillary, you claim to be the ‘candidate of solutions’, what solutions have you successfully enacted during your time in the Senate?”
5. “Hillary, how can you be the President of the UNITED STATES, when you only think big states like New York, California, Texas and Ohio are important?”
6. “Hillary, how can you be relied on to follow the rule of law, when you show no regard for the rules of the nominating process?”
7. “Hillary, you have criticized me for not firming up my stance on public funding of the general election race, however, you have not mentioned what you would do if you won the nomination.  Will you pledge to accept public funding and forgo fundraising on your own?”
8. “Hillary, have you come to the conclusion that your vote to authorize military force in Iraq was a mistake yet, or do you need more time to come around?”
9. “Hillary, you have said that you will fight this all the way to convention and suggested that superdelegates should feel free to overturn the result of the popular voting/pledged delegate count.  Do you feel it necessary to do or say anything to win this nomination, or if the nation continues to choose me over you in the upcoming contests, will you step aside for the good of the party and the country?”
10. “Hillary, you have said you want to see the voters of Florida and Michigan have a voice at the convention, why won’t you agree to a contest were both of our names are on the ballot and both of us get a chance to campaign within the state?  or do you feel the need to insist on a result that did not even have my name on the ballot in Michigan to stack the deck in your favor instead of having a level playing field?”

I know that Barack won’t be asking the questions of Hillary, but I think you see my point nonetheless.  I realize that none of this will ever happen, but I really would love to see it happen.

If were are to be the beacon of freedom in this world; if we are to spread democracy to other countries; if we are to occupy a “moral high ground” from which we preach to the world on why they need to join us in our civilized thinking – then we must stand for something beyond low-brow machismo.  If we truly believe in our constitution, then we must extend the sixth amendment to the world. Due process is at the heart of the rule of law.  If you are going to apply the law to anyone, they must have the right to due process.  Conservatives that hide behind “enemy combatants” designations and preach about the rule of law are nothing more than hypocrites.

The Declaration of Independence state the belief that all men are created equal.  If we want to lead the world; if we want to be taken seriously as a superpower; if we want the world to progress toward freedom and democracy – We need to start treating people equally, regardless if they are the most vile, disgusting, violent killer in the world.  They must be afforded due process.   Only then can we say that Justice, not Vengeance, is served.  We all must put aside our primal reactions to treat these men as animals.  Civilized responses give us credibility with the rest of the world, and give us a more solid footing to claim the leadership position we seek to have.

I guess the best way to say it to the religious right is remember the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would want them to do to you.  This is clearly a case where the majority of America has got it wrong.

I wasn’t terribly upset when he won the first election.  I was even a little impressed at some of the early successes of the administration (No Child Left Behind, Tax Cuts), but that was long ago and all those good feelings are but a distant memory.  Since 2001, we have changed from a nation united to a nation divided.  For a President that once claimed “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” this development is a direct consequence of his leadership.  So, for your consideration, here are the things that concern me about this administration:

• The expansion of executive authority, including the use of signing statements as a way to ignore balances of legislative branch.

• The lack of respect of the judicial branch, branding the courts as “activist” for insisting the equal protection clause be enforced in all legislation and failing to recognize the branch as an equal to the executive branch.

• The use of Constitution and the amendment process as a political tool to rally the base.

• The uncompromising use of the “majority of the majority” policy for moving legislation through Congress.

• The threat of the Nuclear Option to arbitrarily change the rules of the Senate and remove a protection for the minority.

• The constant use of fear to influence people’s votes.  I would not be surprised to hear a change in our terror alert status in the coming months, even though the last change in status was almost two years ago (during election time).

• The intolerance of the majority party as seen by their never ending focus and priority for their social agenda.

The current government is not a government for the people, by the people. It is the party of the winners, the 52% of the country that voted for the President in 2004.  Somewhere, President James Madison is rolling over in his grave, because the current leadership has forgotten what he penned in Federalist Paper No. 10.

He saw that pure democracy threatens individuals rights.  That if unchecked, majority rule becomes the tyranny of the majority.  It is time to change the leadership of this country to restore the republic envisioned by Madison and the rest of our Founding Fathers.

So, to any moderates (Republicans included) and especially independents, whether its state or federal, house or senate, it is time to Vote for the Democrats and restore some balance in our country again.