If Senator Clinton is on the ticket with Obama, the ticket might win New York by 55% to 45% instead of 52% to 48%. So what? In either case Obama gets all of NY's electoral college votes. The same is true for California, etc. What a vice presidential candidate might be able to do is change Nevada from 49% Obama to 51% Obama, or Florida from 48% Obama to 50.1% Obama, etc. Senator Clinton can't do that. Her support came from strong Democratic voting states by and large.

I don't think Kansas will go for Obama if Gov. Sibelius is VP candidate, so that isn't of value either. My problem is that I have no idea who could make the needed difference and bring in a couple more states for Obama - possibly Arizona's governor? That is the question Obama needs his staff to work hard on.

Posted at May 11, 2008 10:02 PM in response to Obama - Clinton ticket. Why it isn't nuts.

Yes, the current primary system is run by the states, and that led to Michigan and Florida losing their say in the process. It also led to the Iowa caucus almost being scheduled for last year. Iowa corn farmers gain inordinate power through this process, and as a result we have a huge ethanol industry, an inefficient use of dwindling petroleum reserves.

It is time for the Democrats to fish or cut bait: either they want the people to decide who their candidate is, in which case a rational primary election process must be devised so that occurs. Or, they want a convention of state delegations to decide who the candidate will be, in which case the states can select their delegates however and whenever they wish. I see the current system as being a collection of the worst aspects of both methods.

Posted at May 11, 2008 12:18 PM in response to Democratic Party Primaries - a better way

A little bit of torture is no better than a lot of torture. Torture is wrong, it is un-American (or it used to be and should be), and most important, it is illegal both by American law and international law. I don't see how that can be hard to understand.

The fictional "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist. Even if it did exist, as one could argue that it did, when the Saudis were here learning to fly jumbo jets, the inability to torture was not the problem. And, there is no chance that it ever would be the problem.

Just as the leaders in Nazi Germany were degenerate and evil people, those leaders here who approved torture were the same.

Posted at May 10, 2008 10:59 AM in response to GOP Senator Floats Compromise Torture Measure

My problem with "super tuesdays" is that it rushes the process too much, encouraging voters to want to jump on the winning bandwagon instead of making a reasoned choice. But, I would prefer about 4 super tuesdays, with a good mix, by region and state size, to the schedule we had this year.

I agree that winner take all is not the way to count delegates, and the actual process of awarding delegates should be transparent and consistent among the states. Super delegates are fine with me, as long as they are less numerous than they are now. I don't like the idea of the "supers" overriding the popular vote. And, I also see no logic in letting territories which can't vote in the general election have a say in the primaries.

Posted at May 10, 2008 10:49 AM in response to Democratic Party Primaries - a better way

I like the idea of "turning the candidates head into mush". I don't like a candidate changing their campaign to fit whatever state he is in at the time. That is the pandering I want to eliminate. Good voters don't just attend a rally and decide to support a candidate based on what he said at the rally. A good voter is aware of what is being said all over the country by the candidates.

The sole advantage to voters in having a spread out primary, versus a one day national primary, is that it allow for an evolving contest, where one candidate begins to stand out by honing his approach, proving himself to be a vote getter and a fund raiser. So, I want it spread out evenly across a reasonable time frame.

Posted at May 10, 2008 10:43 AM in response to Democratic Party Primaries - a better way

I'm not sure the barnstorming of a state is the proper way to do this, so I want the candidates to be limited in how much time they can spend in each state. If a candidate is so unknown that this would be a major handicap I doubt that he should be the candidate. Similarly, a candidate who can't arouse support in the way of thousands of donors, isn't ready for this either.

Since the first election would be in March, that gives all of the candidates time to roam the nation, attending rallies, fundraisers, etc. to familiarize the voters with them.

Spreading out the elections in equal small groups, once a week allows a candidate to build some momentum too, and allows a dunce like the former NYC mayor to stick his foot in his mouth enough times to lose out in all of the later elections. That's my argument against having a large number of elections on one day.

Posted at May 10, 2008 12:56 AM in response to Democratic Party Primaries - a better way

You had my blood pressure creeping up for awhile there! I agree that the true center of politics in this country is to the left of where the news media has convinced us it is. But, if we are convinced that it is where the media say it is, isn't it actually there?

In today's world, obvious benefits to all of our citizens are seen as far left ideas, and obvious benefits only to the wealthy, to the detriment of the average citizen, are seen as being in the center. That leads to a lot of frustration among progressives (liberals) and makes holding a conversation on some subjects very difficult.

I absolutely agree that the real far left ideas are those relating to fully socialistic government, where production is state controlled, and where economic rewards are doled out entirely by the state. I don't know anyone who favors those ideas.

I do know I have zero interest in reading about what are far right ideas, so I just might not want to join in the party

Posted at May 9, 2008 7:13 PM in response to On Information-Based Empathy

The choice facing voters in November will be Obama or McCain. No Democrat or progressive or liberal voter would think twice about it - Obama gets their votes. "Moderates" would have to suffer a brain spasm to not vote for Obama. So, I don't see what it is that adding another Senator from the eastern half of the country brings to the ticket.

If done correctly, the Democratic campaign strategists (as big a joke as that is) will sit down and figure out where they can get enough electoral college votes to win in November. Then, if they come up short, they pick a VP candidate who can expand that vote total. In other words, give the ticket a much better chance in a couple of states.

Posted at May 9, 2008 1:54 PM in response to Rahm: Obama Is "Presumptive Nominee." Rahm Flack: That's Not News!

Other than the provable fact that this administration is filled with really evil people, I can't figure any reason for the love affair with torture. I don't see where Bush's buddies make more money as a result of torture. I don't see where ever more backwards supreme court justices get to the court because of torture. I don't see how torture stops gay marriage or abortions. I certainly don't see how torture ensures that during the rapture they all get to fly naked through the sky.

And, of course, torture accomplishes zilch as far as ensuring safety and security of American people is concerned. So, what is the attraction, beyond pure evil?

Posted at May 8, 2008 9:19 PM in response to GOP Senator Floats Compromise Torture Measure

I'm guessing that Obama's vice president is not mentioned above.

The reason most VP's are picked, by Democrats anyway, Repubs pick them as impeachment insurance, is to make the ticket appealing to a few more states. Adding Clinton doesn't do that. And, adding any senator from a closely divided Senate is suicidal. So, I suspect we will have an ex-governor as VP in January next year.

Posted at May 8, 2008 7:30 PM in response to NOT good Obama Veep choices