Is Hillary Clinton Getting a Bad Rap?

I find myself wondering if our Secretary of State is getting a fair shake at doing her job? It seems to me that Mrs. Clinton hasn’t spent much time (in the public eye), doing her job.  I know that she had an elbow injury that kept her out of the lime light for some period of time.  Now, Bill Clinton saves the day by successfully negotiaiting the release of the two american journalists; Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

Now don’t get me wrong, this is not a slam against Hillary Clinton, simply a question.  I can recall former Secretaries of State (Christopher, Albright, Powell, and Rice) all being very involved in foreign policy and right there by the Presidents side when he is or was overseas.  Not sitting at home watching Fox News(ya, I know, don’t need to say it).

Now a video comes out that shows Mrs. Clinton losing her cool over a simple question that she thought was about her husband.

From a humanitarian stand point, I certainly hope this is not the beginning of the end for Hillary…

It’s Clinton For Secretary of State

The headline pretty much sums it up.  Here is a snippet from the NY Times:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation. Mr. Obama’s office told reporters Thursday that the nomination is “on track” but Clinton associates only confirmed Friday afternoon that she has decided.

“She’s ready,” said the confidant. Mrs. Clinton was reassured after talking again with Mr. Obama because their first meeting in Chicago last week “was so general,” the confidant said. The purpose of the follow-up talk, he added, was not to extract particular concessions but “just getting comfortable” with the idea of working together.

Hillary Clinton to Accept Secretary of State Job

Breaking from Guardian.co.uk:

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

Obama’s advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton’s foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

Clinton would be well placed to become the country’s dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.

Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.

As part of the coalition-building, Obama today also reached out to his defeated Republican rival, John McCain, to discuss how they could work together to roll back some of the most controversial policies of the Bush years. Putting aside the bitter words thrown about with abandon by both sides during the election campaign, McCain flew to meet Obama at his headquarters in the Kluczynski Federal Building, in downtown Chicago.

Obama, speaking before the meeting, said: “We’re going to have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country.” He said he also wanted to thank McCain for his service to the country.

Asked by a reporter whether he would work with Obama, McCain, who has long favoured a bipartisan approach to politics, replied: “Obviously”.

Sources on both sides said Obama did not offer McCain a cabinet job, but focused on how the senator for Arizona could help to guide through Congress legislation that they both strongly favour.

Given Obama’s status as president-in-waiting, the two met in a formal setting, a room decked out with a US flag, and were accompanied by senior advisers. Obama appeared the more relaxed of the two, sitting with legs crossed, smiling broadly and waving to reporters, while McCain sat stiffly, with a seemingly fixed grin.

Although the two clashed during the election campaign over tax policy and withdrawal from Iraq, they have more in common than they have differences. They both favour the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, an increase in US troops to Afghanistan, immigration reform, stem cell research and measures to tackle climate change, and oppose torture and the widespread use of wire-tapping.

Although Democrats made gains in the Senate in the November 4 elections, they fell short of the 60 seats that would have allowed them to override Republican blocking tactics and will need Republican allies to get Obama’s plans through. This was highlighted today when the Democratic leadership in Congress announced that a broad economic stimulus package Obama sought was not likely to be passed because of Republican opposition.

Obama confirmed at the weekend that he would offer jobs to some Republicans. One of the names that crops up most often is Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator who is a specialist in foreign affairs and a critic of the Iraq war.

Guardian

Democratic Primary: Texas “Caucus fraud”…what really happened?

There have been allegations by Hillary Clinton supporters of Caucus fraud on the part of the Obama campaign in various states. While this may have been the case in many of the states they cite, it can not be true in one of them… Texas.

The reason it cannot be true it Texas is that Texas does not have a Caucus.

Oh, I know that is what the media has told you and what everyone would like you to believe, but Texas does not have a caucus, you don’t get to “vote twice” for the nominee, and most importantly… no one “wins” part two of the Texas Two-Step the night of the primary.

Contrary to what the media, the pundits and the Obama campaign would have liked you to believe, Texas is no different than any other state in the delegate selection process. Texas has a primary and then a series of conventions that select the delegates to the national convention, just like every other state. There are small differences in how this selection is conducted though. But one of the differences is most certainly NOT a caucus.

First, lets talk about two mythical states and how they conduct their elections… each one has 100 delegates that they send to the national convention, but one has a primary and one has a caucus. These generalizations are true for every single state. Including Texas.

Mythical Caucus state…

1. A voter walks into the polling place
2. They discuss policy and candidates with other and either try to convince others that their candidate of choice is best or are convinced by the other people that theirs is best.
3. There is a call for a vote, and every person that supports a certain candidate goes to a corresponding part of the room and groups up.
4. The groups are counted. If there are not enough people in a candidates supporting group according to pre-determined numbers, it is disbanded and those people must join another group.
5. The final numbers of people voting for their Presidential candidate preferences are counted and each precinct’s delegates are apportioned to each candidate.
6. Based upon these numbers, the number of pledged delegates from the entire state are also awarded to each candidate. This number will not change. For simplicity’s sake lets say candidate A gets 45 delegates and candidate B gets 35 delegates. (yes, i realize that is only 80 candidates. I will explain.)
7. The precinct delegates are hand picked by each candidate.
8. The hand picked precinct delegates will attend a series of conventions over the course of the next few weeks in which their numbers are narrowed thru convention votes and they eventually decide who the actual people are that will be the delegates for each candidate to the national convention.
9. At the state convention, the state convention delegates also apportion the last 20 delegates, these are called the “Add-On” delegates. Unlike the “pledged delegates, these “add-on” delegates are not reflective of the caucus vote, but only of the vote that apportions them at the state convention.

So essentially, the caucus vote determines 80% of the states delegates to the national convention and the precinct, district and state conventions choose the remaining 20% of delegates to the national convention.

Mythical primary state…

1. Voter walks into the polling place
2. Voter steps into a voting booth and votes for their Presidential candidate preference
3. Voter leaves
4. Votes are counted and the precincts delegates are apportioned according to the vote.
5. Based upon these numbers, the number of pledged delegates from the entire state are also awarded to each candidate. This number will not change. For simplicity’s sake lets say candidate A gets 45 delegates and candidate B gets 35 delegates. (yes, i realize that is only 80 candidates. I will explain.)
6. The precinct delegates are hand picked by each candidate.
7. The hand picked precinct delegates will attend a series of conventions over the course of the next few weeks in which their numbers are narrowed thru convention votes and they eventually decide who the actual people are that will be the delegates for each candidate to the national convention.
8. At the state convention, the state convention delegates also apportion the last 20 delegates, these are called the “Add-On” delegates. Unlike the “pledged delegates, these “add-on” delegates are not reflective of the caucus vote, but only of the vote that apportions them at the state convention.

So essentially, the primary vote determines 80% of the states delegates to the national convention (Pledged Delegates) and the precinct, district and state conventions choose the remaining 20% of delegates to the national convention (Add-On Delegates.)

Ok, so let’s talk about Texas. Texas is a primary state and follows exactly all the same steps… except the candidates do not hand pick the precinct delegates that will attend the series of conventions that will decide both who the national delegates are and the apportionment of the add on delegates. Instead, they allow voters to decide.

This is how Texas works…

1. A voter walks into the polling place
2. Steps into a voting booth and casts a ballot
3. Leaves.
4. These votes are counted and the number of pledged delegates each candidate will get from that state to the national convention is awarded. This number cannot change. In Texas, the Pledged Delegates make up 65% of the total amount of delegates that Texas takes to the national convention.

Here is where the two-step comes in…

5. The voter is able to return that night for the first convention… the precinct convention.

Every state has a precinct convention. In most states, the attendees are hand picked representatives of each campaign, proportional to the primary/caucus vote, and the precinct convention is usually a few weeks after the primary/caucus vote. This delay allows each campaign time to select and vett their delegates so that they know that these people will stay loyal throughout the process, will be able to attend all the conventions and will cast their ballots for the add-on delegates in their favor.

In Texas, the attendees to the precinct convention are not hand picked representatives, the attendees consist of anyone willing to attend that voted in the primary. At this convention, the attendee walks in, puts their name on the “sign in sheet” contained within the precinct packet held by the precinct chair and waits for the vote to be called.

(Let me take a break and make sure that this part is explained well because people seem to be very confused about this… the “sign in sheets” that people claim are the proof of any fraud… these are not VOTES. These are SIGN IN SHEETS. That is all. These are not votes. Think of them as mini affadavits that say ‘I voted in the primary and I am here to vote for a delegate in the convention.’ 50,000 people could sign in on the infamous “sign in sheets” for Candidate A, and only 10 for Candidate B… but if all 50,000 of Candidate A’s people leave before the vote is called… then the 10 people for candidate B decide all the delegates that will move to the district convention. Once again… The sign in sheets are not votes… they are sign in sheets… votes are votes. This distinction is important… very important because people are looking at the wrong things.)

Then, just like in every other state, the attendees vote for delegates to move on to the district convention, they do not vote for a candidate.

Let me repeat… at the precinct convention in every single state, the attendees vote for delegates to move on to the district convention. They are not voting for candidates. They are voting for DELEGATES. The delegates to the district convention are not apportioned to each candidate by the vote in the primary/caucus, only the precinct convention.

In other states, hand picked representatives choose who goes moves from the precinct convention to the district convention.

In Texas, anyone that voted in the primary and shows up for the precinct convention decides who goes to the district convention, where they vote for delegates that move to the state convention, who then vote for who the pledged delegates for each candidate will be and then votes to apportion the add-on delegates… just like every other state. But because there is no vetting time needed, and to save money, the precinct conventions are held the same night as the primary and in the same places as the primary.

Ok, so, for simplicity’s sake, lets say that Texas gets 100 delegates. The primary determines 65 pledged delegates to the national convention. Lets say Candidate A gets 40 Pledged Delegates and Candidate B gets 25. No matter what happens at the convention or thru the convention process, this allotment is 100% guaranteed. These numbers will not change.

If Candidate A only has 40 people that are able to go to the state convention because all of their other delegates to the state convention got sick and were bedridden, then Candidate A will still get 40 Pledged Delegates to the national convention as apportioned by the Primary vote… no matter what or how many of Candidate B’s delegates are at the state convention.

This is true in Texas and is true in every single state in the country.

What can change is the number of “Add-On” Delegates and this is true for every single state in the country. Texas is not special in any way in this regard.

This is why nobody talks about Add-On Delegates. The apportionment is contingent on the vote at the state convention.

So what happens if one candidate has a bunch of their delegates no-show at the state convention… they could be sick, could be poor and cant afford the gas, their child could be getting married, they could have won the lottery, they could have lost their job and have to look for a new one, they could have passed away, etc etc etc… and the other candidate has every single on of their people show up?

Well, the Pledged Delegates apportioned by the primary/caucus stays the same, but the one with far fewer delegates will not get all the add-on delegates they were hoping for because their delegates will be out voted on the apportionment.

Predictability of the apportionment of the add-on delegates is virtually impossible. This is why in no other state in the nation does anyone ever talk about the add-on delegates the night of the primary/caucus. As a matter of fact, in every state the add-on apportionment is a virtual footnote… barely mentioned.

So why did they talk about them in Texas?

* If the apportionment of the add-on delegates is completely unpredictable from the apportionment of delegates at the precinct or even district convention, why was the media saying that Obama “won” the convention… when there is nothing to “win” that night since the add-on delegates aren’t even awarded until several weeks later at the state convention?

* Why, for the first time ever, was there a phone number with an access code in the precinct packets for the chairs to call in their preliminary numbers to the state party? The final numbers were to be turned in over the next few days with the precinct chair’s signature verifying their accuracy as has happened in previous elections.

* If the apportionment of the add-on delegates is completely unpredictable from the apportionment of delegates at the precinct or even district convention and the numbers the state party had were preliminary and unverified, why were the numbers being released to the media?

* If people were grabbing the precinct packets to supposedly game the system or commit fraud, but they couldn’t really have been grabbing for the sign in sheets, because they were just sign in sheets after all, and without the signature of the precinct chair on the vote tally, the vote was invalid… why were they grabbing the precinct packets?

* What effect did the “tie” in Texas have on public perception as well as the super-delegate vote.

The perception was that Texas was the tie breaker and the candidate who won would receive the support of the super delegates and be the nominee.

Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary by 101,029 votes. Hillary won Texas.

This was marred/muddied by the false reports that Obama had somehow won the second part of the “Texas Two-Step,” but there was nothing for Obama to win that night because it was not a caucus and no delegates were awarded.

The second half of the Texas Two-Step is the first of 3 conventions that is not and can not be a win for either candidate until some 6 weeks later when the state convention happens and the people that make it to the convention vote.

Essentially, the media awarded a win in Texas to Obama before the vote even happened with the help of the unvetted numbers released to them by the state party despite massive reports of vote tampering.

These are the questions that need to be answered and, unfortunately, these are not the questions being asked. By anyone.

For further clarification:

*“Pledged” Delegates are really the “district delegates” and the “Add-on’s” are really a combination of “Add-on, PLEO and At-Large” delegates.

*The exact breakdown (as opposed to the 100 used for simplicity) for Texas is: 126 district delegates are determined by the primary, 67 delegates (3 addon, 42 PLEO, and 25 At Large) are voted on at the convention. Then Texas has 35 Superdelegates, making a total of 228 delegates to the national convention.

Biden Cancels Weekend Campaigning

CNN is reporting that Vice-Presidential hopeful, Joe Biden has cancelled his campaigning for Saturday and Sunday due to a family illness. I certainly hope that everyone in his family are all well.

However, is this a campaign stunt to get Biden out and Hillary in?

(CNN) — Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden is cancelling his campaign events for Saturday and Sunday as his mother-in-law battles a serious illness.

The Senator from Delaware’s campaign spokesman, David Wade, put out a statement saying “the campaign has cancelled Sen. Biden’s schedule today and tomorrow because of a serious illness in Jill Biden’s family. Hospice has advised the Bidens to remain close by, and we appreciate everyone’s respect for the family’s privacy.”

Wade is referring to Biden’s wife’s mother, Bonnie Jacobs, who is in a hospice in Pennsylvania.

Biden was scheduled to speak in Washington D.C. and then attend a fund-raiser in the nation’s capitol Saturday night. Sunday he was expected to campaign in Virginia.

We wrote a post about the Democrats replacing Biden with Clinton.  You can read it here.