Meet The National Security Team

The formal introduction of the incoming Obama administration’s national security team at a Chicago hotel on Monday provided a definitive exposure not merely of the fraudulent character of the “change you can believe in” mantra of the Democratic presidential campaign, but more importantly of the failure of American democracy itself.

There on the platform with the president-elect was Senator Hillary Clinton, his nominee for secretary of state, and Robert Gates, whom Obama has asked to remain at the post of secretary of defense to which George W. Bush appointed him. Rounding out the nominees for the key national security positions was retired Marine Gen. James Jones, tapped to serve as national security adviser.

The significance of these choices is unmistakable. They represent an open and contemptuous repudiation of the will of the voters expressed just last month. While millions turned out at the polls in November with the aim of putting an end to eight years of war and repression under the Bush administration, Monday’s announcement signaled there will be no such change.

I have heard from other sources that this is just a ploy to keep the media and the Repubs off balance while he tries an end run to the Left.  I think that analysis is just wrong.  He, Obama, once the nomination was his, he ran to the center and that is where he is today, if not a bit right of center.  Sorry guys change is not in the cards.

Will Obama Violate The Constitution?

This post will give all the mental midgets something to bitch about for years to come.  As soon as the Repubs realize this they will be on every talk show in a partisan way.  So much for the much coveted bi-partisanship.  I offer this political fodder for those scratching their heads.

According to the Constitution Section 6:

[2] No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

So since the pay of the Secretary of State was increased last year and Sen. Clinton was a member of Congress at the time, then she should be unavailable to be offered or to accept the position of Secretary of State.

Question?  Was not Obama a professor of Constitutional law?  Should he know better?

Thoughts?

Pro-Clinton Protesters

Democratic Party leaders have spent weeks preparing a national convention this week that will burst with symbols of unshakable unity behind Senator Barack Obama.

But outside the convention arena in Denver, some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters plan to air their grievances against Obama, the party’s leadership, and the national media, whose coverage of the primary battle they considered sexist. Hundreds of disaffected Democrats from around the country plan to converge in the Mile High City to hold news conferences, protests, and vigils, threatening the party’s ability to present a united front against Republican John McCain.

Many Democrats say the success of the convention, and of Obama’s fall campaign, depends heavily on how well the party handles the complaints of Clinton’s loyalists, some of whom are still smarting from the long and bitter fight, are disappointed that she is not Obama’s running mate, and are insulted by reports that she was not vetted as a possible pick or consulted about his choice.

While many Clinton delegates say they will back Obama and do not intend to embarrass him, grass-roots activists planning protests outside the convention hope to disrupt the sense of unity party leaders are cultivating.

Puma PAC is among a multitude of pro-Clinton groups that formed online to protest a variety of issues, including perceived media bias and flaws in the primary process. In Denver, Murphy’s group plans to show the premiere of an unfinished movie, “The Audacity of Democracy,” and is cosponsoring a protest and candlelight salute to Clinton tomorrow. Another group, PUMA 08, will coordinate communication between its members and the press, and provide a home base for bloggers who support Clinton.

Clinton Returns To The Spotlight

After weeks of maneuvering aimed at producing a display of unity when Democrats gather in Denver later this month, Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign announced yesterday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be formally nominated and her name included in a roll-call vote at the Democratic National Convention.

The move represented the latest, and potentially most important, symbolic gesture by Obama to Clinton supporters, and could blunt the threat of an upheaval on the convention floor. Some Clinton backers have threatened to stage a walkout or leave Denver altogether after she speaks on Aug. 26 to protest what they view as a flawed and sexist party nominating process.

In a joint statement, the two camps said the decision to enter Clinton’s name into nomination was mutual, and they countered the idea that she had forced her way back into the spotlight.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” Obama said in the statement. It , which went on to say that he “encouraged” the roll-call vote as a way to recognize “the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.”

How, exactly, the roll call will work remains an open question, advisers on both sides said. After having her name entered into nomination, Clinton could then ask her delegates to support Obama, bypassing the long process of reading names aloud. But several advisers said they think there will be some kind of roll call, which could begin as early as Tuesday night of the convention. As a superdelegate, Clinton is expected to vote for Obama.

OK, I said in the past that the convention could get ugly and now they are presenting the dissenters with a perfect opportunity to cause as much disruption as they are willing to try.

Hillary Supporters At The Convention

CQPolitics reported this situation developing.

To say that some Hillary Clinton supporters are still angry at Barack Obama and the Democratic party would be putting it mildly.

Ever since the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing in early June where Obama essentially secured the nomination, incensed Clinton supporters have mobilized online with the goal of getting the former First Lady nominated at the Democratic party convention in Denver.

The Internet is awash with pro-Clinton groups such as PUMA – Party Unity My Ass (or, alternatively, People United Means Action) – and Just Say No Deal, that say the nomination was stolen from Hillary Clinton. On blogs, forums, social networking sites and YouTube, pro-Clinton activists vent their frustration at the Democratic party.

While unlikely, there is a path to a Clinton nomination. First, 300 delegates need to sign a petition to put Clinton on the ballot. Bower says they still need another 100-150 signatures.

Then, Clinton herself would have to sign the petition. While unwavering in her support for Obama since the primary ended, she did hint at a recent fundraiser that she wouldn’t rule out submitting her name for nomination: “I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified,” Clinton said to a small group of cheering supporters.

PUMAs think she could get enough delegates during floor votes to actually overtake Obama and win the nomination.

Catharsis? WTF?

Without using the term, Hillary Rodham Clinton has acknowledged that some supporters of her failed presidential campaign are sore losers. In a video clip posted — where else? — on YouTube, Clinton told fundraisers that “we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected.” It was the latest indication that so-called Hill-raisers are demanding a consolation prize from the victorious Barack Obama camp — when they aren’t rerunning the primaries. (This week, Clinton’s former communications director suggested that if erstwhile contender John Edwards’ infidelity had been revealed before the Iowa caucuses, in which he finished ahead of her, Clinton would be the nominee.)

It’s not enough for many Clinton supporters that their candidate will be a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this month. They want more. So far, Clinton hasn’t endorsed the most audacious idea being floated: that her name be placed in nomination at the convention, followed by a symbolic roll-call vote that would give new meaning to the term “hollow exercise.” But she seems to be holding out for some sort of therapy for her still-aggrieved followers because, in her words, “I know from just what I’m hearing that there’s incredible pent-up desire, and I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.’ “

All I can say is………tee hee.

Did Edwards Help Obama Steal Nomination?

Simple answer is NO!

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates — not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state — changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates — not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state — changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Obama won 37.6 per cent of the vote. Edwards won 29.7 per cent and Clinton won 29.5 per cent, according to results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party.  I do not think it would have made much difference if Edwards was not in the race.

Wolfson’s comments are not helping difuse the tension raising between the Clinton and Obama camps with the approach of the convention.

Wolfson’s suggestion comes at a delicate time in negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps, as the Obama campaign decides whether the convention later this month should feature a roll call vote allowing Clinton’s delegates to voice their enthusiasm for their candidate. Many Clinton supporters are already resentful of Obama, whom they see as having only won the nomination with the support of a sexist media and Democratic establishment. Wolfson’s argument that these same players helped keep Edwards in the race, thus hurting Clinton — a highly debatable contention — will likely only fan the flames of Democratic division.

And So It Begins Again

Just six weeks after reluctantly surrendering to Barack Obama in the brutal 2008 Democratic primary race, Sen. Hillary Clinton has begun raising money for what she says is her 2012 New York Senate reelection campaign.

Clinton still faces about $20 million in debts from her unsuccessful presidential effort this year. As part of a so-called “unity drive,” Obama has appealed to his supporters in recent weeks to give to Clinton to cover the costs that she incurred while raking him over the coals in a bare-knuckled bid to return to the White House. Some Obama backers have balked.

Ain’t politics great?  You can owe everyone in town a buck or two and still try to raise money for an election 4 years away.  This should start the salivating of Clintonistas.

Obama And Welfare Reform

Obama’s transformation from opponent to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, Obama has altered his stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s, sweeping gun ban.

The shift in Obama’s rhetoric on welfare reform has proceeded in stages. When Clinton was poised to sign welfare reform while running for re-election in 1996, Obama called it “disturbing.” A decade later, as an underdog running for president against Clinton’s wife, he spent 2007 avoiding the subject. By the time Obama emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, he began leaving the impression that he was for it all along.

When implementation of welfare reform came before the Illinois state senate in 1997, Obama cited a lack of job training, insufficient oversight, and provisions blocking legal immigrants from receiving benefits as his reasons for opposing a federal welfare overhaul imposing work requirements and time limits.

While campaigning for president in 2007, Obama refused on two occasions to say if he would have signed the same welfare-reform bill approved by the husband of his top rival.

By glossing over his early opposition to welfare reform, Obama is stepping closer to the political mainstream. But by undergoing this transformation only once it became politically convenient, Obama’s critics will charge that he puts calculation ahead of conviction.