« March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008 | Home | March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008 »

Week of March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008

A Caucus Race: But who is to give the prizes?


[Reposted to get this onto Election Central, not just Cafe. Sorry for the duplicate, changed the "controversial" original title.]

Too good to leave as just a reader comment. Two revelations for me today - one being that New Hampshire didn't just move its contest up, it leapfrogged from the 3rd to the 2nd contest (after Iowa, skipping ahead of Nevada) in violation of an earlier 2004 DNC agreement. And as a bonus, proof that the problem with underrepresentation in caucuses was well understood last summer, not just a new thing post-Iowa. Michigan Primary Moves Read on. [And by the way, click 'Recommend' if you like this, or it'll disappear into the blogosphere in about 17 minutes] Michigan actually didn't move its contest until after Florida, then South Carolina, then New Hampshire had moved theirs. Primary Hopscotch As an op-ed piece by Sen. Levin states today, Michigan broke the rules after New Hampshire broke the agreement where it would be the 3rd contest. Instead, New Hampshire hopped to 2nd again and wasn't punished. Levin Op-ed on Michigan Here's some interesting background on the caucus vs. primary debate back in Michigan, for those who ask "why didn't Hillary complain about caucuses before?" She did. This is from August 2, 2007: Michigan Primary Moves =================================================== Before you zone out, consider this: The state Senate estimates that a primary, for both parties, would draw more than 2 million voters to the polls. It estimates that a caucus, on the other hand, might draw just 100,000 Democrats and, incredibly, just 4,000 to 6,000 Republicans. That’s obviously just a fraction of the state’s eligible voters, of whom 4.8 million voted in the 2004 presidential race. Now ask yourself, why on earth would a state consider doing something like holding a caucus, which would severely limit the number of people who might vote? We’re shocked - shocked! - to discover politics at the heart of this debate. Here’s how it breaks down: On the Democratic side, those behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running ahead in the polls in Michigan, want a primary. They think a wide-open process would encourage first-time voters, including the women and minorities who support Mrs. Clinton, to come out and vote for her. Plus, Mrs. Clinton will have plenty of money to run as many ads on television as she wants. Those backing former Senator John Edwards prefer a caucus. Why? Mr. Edwards’s campaign manager is David Bonior, the former Michigan Congressmen, who has strong ties to organized labor. The unions can be highly influential in a caucus, which depends largely on ground organization. They would have much more control over a caucus, which is too complicated and time-consuming for the average person to attend. As for the Republicans, they’re along for the ride. They say they’d prefer a primary, but they have a contingency plan: a presidential preference convention. This is a really arcane, multi-stage process that relies on delegates, essentially shutting out the average voter. The whole dynamic has produced some hilarious moments. Look at this, from Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who supports Mr. Edwards. He’s written a letter to the governor opposing a primary. He says a primary would be “fiscally irresponsible” because it would cost the cash-strapped state $10 to $12 million. He then makes a modest proposal: He’ll support a primary only if the presidential candidates pay for it themselves. Either that or the state parties pay for it, but not the taxpayers. The biggest force behind the Michigan move is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who has been irritated for years that a big state like his has been taking a back seat to smaller states. Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, in addition to millions of dollars from the campaigns and the media, who keep their restaurants and hotels full, their rental cars on the road and their television stations flush with cash from ads.

Obama Fact Check, since he brought it up


Obama's "powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans" in South Carolina was 52% of whites under 30, a quarter of whites 30-50, and 15% of whites 60+. The "bubbling up" of racism the week before the election is glossed over, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. is left unnamed.

There's the straw man - that his race is "solely" based on wild-eyed liberals purchasing equality on the cheap. Did someone say that?

There's the contradiction of his statements last week that he hadn't heard these controversial words, and now he spins them down to "snippets" as if there's a dearth of Rev. Wright's controversial statements. He quotes from "Dreams of my Father" and fails to find the quote where he acknowledges Wright's sermons were controversial even 20 years ago. He equates these sermons with the clapping and dancing that might be "jarring to the untrained ear", as if most people don't appreciate the beauty of gospel singing and rousing black churches without expecting that hate speech is an integral part of *all* sermons in *all* black churches. Why throw black churches and black preachers under the bus?

He skips to the improbable: "Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms". This about a man who slips in "there are some white people who don't have time to lynch black people" in a Spiegel interview last year and seems rather unrestrained at the podium. Perhaps Obama's ear for hate speech needs a bit more training?

What I don't see is the lineage of how Obama got from the house of the grandmother who raised him in the relative comfort and multiethnic community in Hawaii to the comfort of Rev. Wright's arms on the much more segregated and poorer South Side; and how he can compare whatever racist mumblings of his white grandmother to the prepared sermons of a preacher before his flock.

He excuses Rev. Wright's anger because of when he grew up, but Wright was quite a bit younger than Martin Luther King, who had many more fights to wage against worse conditions, and who managed to keep his message of love and hope even while standing up to racism. Malcolm X split from the intolerance of his church and made his way into a more accepting if not humbled view of humanity.

Obama shifts black and white anger to justified because of Washington and corporate corruption. But it's not just because of that, and that corruption is not going away anytime soon anyway. But we'll always have an imbalance in schools that needs improving, neighborhoods doing worse, neighborhoods doing better, tension in immigration policies, and crime in areas that are poorer - whether Chinese, Italian, Irish, Hispanic, or Black.

What I would like to see for once is the attitude that no matter what Washington does, no matter what corporations do, no matter how poor things may be, that people will take responsibility for their own actions, for their neighborhoods, for their schools, for their county, for their state - that they will build it up piece by piece, not blaming anyone else, not excusing lapses in moral and ethical behavior, not allowing easy excuses to distract, but just get it together. Because if there's no crime and no hate speech, it's hard for people to be fearful. If there's effort and teaching and learning and love, you can withstand a lot of poverty, and eventually the walls come down. But as long as there are crack addicts in the alley breaking into abandoned buildings, as long as there are slumlords coming to toss people out of their homes, as long as the neighborhoods are dirty and the air is full of complaints and negativeness, there will be hatred. If each neighborhood set out to make itself beautiful, a paradise on earth, there's little Washington or WalMart can do to stop it.

And call me cynical, but I really have no idea what the "I'm here for Ashley" was trying to say.

[If you like this, please click "Recommend" or it will disappear]










Your Cheatin' Heart: Michigan and Caucuses


Too good to leave as just a reader comment. Two revelations for me today - one being that New Hampshire didn't just move its contest up, it leapfrogged from the 3rd to the 2nd contest (after Iowa, skipping ahead of Nevada) in violation of an earlier 2004 DNC agreement.

And as a bonus, proof that the problem with underrepresentation in caucuses was well understood last summer, not just a new thing post-Iowa.
<a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/behind-the-michigan-primary-moves/">Michigan Primary Moves</a>

Read on. [And by the way, click 'Recommend' if you like this, or it'll disappear into the blogosphere in about 17 minutes]

Michigan actually didn't move its contest until after Florida, then South Carolina, then New Hampshire had moved theirs.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801511.html">Primary Hopscotch</a>

As an op-ed piece by Sen. Levin states today, Michigan broke the rules after New Hampshire broke the agreement where it would be the 3rd contest. Instead, New Hampshire hopped to 2nd again and wasn't punished.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html">Levin Op-ed on Michigan</a>

Here's some interesting background on the caucus vs. primary debate back in Michigan, for those who ask "why didn't Hillary complain about caucuses before?" She did. This is from August 2, 2007:

<a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/behind-the-michigan-primary-moves/">Michigan Primary Moves</a>
===================================================
Before you zone out, consider this:

The state Senate estimates that a primary, for both parties, would draw more than 2 million voters to the polls.

It estimates that a caucus, on the other hand, might draw just 100,000 Democrats and, incredibly, just 4,000 to 6,000 Republicans.

That’s obviously just a fraction of the state’s eligible voters, of whom 4.8 million voted in the 2004 presidential race.

Now ask yourself, why on earth would a state consider doing something like holding a caucus, which would severely limit the number of people who might vote?

We’re shocked - shocked! - to discover politics at the heart of this debate.

Here’s how it breaks down:

On the Democratic side, those behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running ahead in the polls in Michigan, want a primary. They think a wide-open process would encourage first-time voters, including the women and minorities who support Mrs. Clinton, to come out and vote for her. Plus, Mrs. Clinton will have plenty of money to run as many ads on television as she wants.

Those backing former Senator John Edwards prefer a caucus. Why? Mr. Edwards’s campaign manager is David Bonior, the former Michigan Congressmen, who has strong ties to organized labor. The unions can be highly influential in a caucus, which depends largely on ground organization. They would have much more control over a caucus, which is too complicated and time-consuming for the average person to attend.

As for the Republicans, they’re along for the ride. They say they’d prefer a primary, but they have a contingency plan: a presidential preference convention. This is a really arcane, multi-stage process that relies on delegates, essentially shutting out the average voter.

The whole dynamic has produced some hilarious moments. Look at this, from Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who supports Mr. Edwards. He’s written a letter to the governor opposing a primary. He says a primary would be “fiscally irresponsible” because it would cost the cash-strapped state $10 to $12 million. He then makes a modest proposal: He’ll support a primary only if the presidential candidates pay for it themselves. Either that or the state parties pay for it, but not the taxpayers.

The biggest force behind the Michigan move is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who has been irritated for years that a big state like his has been taking a back seat to smaller states. Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, in addition to millions of dollars from the campaigns and the media, who keep their restaurants and hotels full, their rental cars on the road and their television stations flush with cash from ads.


Florida - Jews, Hispanics and Old Folks


Obama's followers have been promoting the myth that people like him more as they get to know him, and like Hillary less (ignoring California and Massachusetts, and more recently Texas and Ohio). That if Obama's ferocious ground machine had gotten to campaign in Florida, it would have all been different.

Well, maybe then, certainly not now. Let's revisit the numbers.

Florida population: Blacks - 15.8%, Latinos 20.2%, White 61.3%. Seniors 65+: 16.8%.

Latino vote? Obama got 32% in California, 35% in Texas. Votes of 65+ - Obama got 29% in Ohio, 34% in Texas.
White vote - Obama got 44% in Texas, 38% in Ohio.
Nationwide, these numbers aren't moving much Obama's way.

How will Obama do among Jews after this week's TUCC highlight? Let's just say January was probably his peak performance. Actually it's not going to help him much with Hispanics or seniors or whites either.

How about Floridians' happiness about having their votes dumped? This issue doesn't favor Obama at all, neither now, and most worrisomely, neither in November.

Obama would be quite wise to take the split as it occurred in January, before people take a closer look.

Driving the snakes out of Ireland


Sometimes the men are intent on keeping old grudges going and the women have to step in to quiet things down. Hopefully Savage Politics won't mind the complete copy - a Web link didn't seem to have the same power.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=214
Hillary’s Irish Legacy: Just Tea?

March 17th, 2008 Lin Farley Posted in Political Analysis | 56 Comments »

*Happy St. Patrick’s Day!*

by: Lin Farley

Who makes peace? Is it the officials who forge an agreement and then sign the documents? Or is it the people who inspire others to change their minds.

In Northern Ireland you needed both. And that is why it is “silly” to question Hillary’s role in the peace process there.

No, her name does not appear on the Good Friday accord that formally ended hostilities, but Hillary Clinton not only helped to win the peace there, she is still working to maintain it. The people of Northern Ireland understand this, and they did long before anyone on this side of the Atlantic questioned Hillary’s role in the peace process.

In August 1999 the British Secretary for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, told Ireland’s Talk Magazine:

Hillary is one of the essential reasons we’ve had 18 months of relative peace. Without her we would have no economic boom.

If only the American newspapers that have published questions about Hillary’s contribution had bothered to talk to the Irish, how different their stories might have been. Hillary supported in every way possible the thousands of Catholic and Protestant wives and mothers who were incalculable in winning the peace. These were women, it turned out, who were much like she is: strong at the broken places. Bobby Sands, a Republican freedom fighter by his own description, who died in 1981 of a hunger strike in Long Kesh prison, wrote:

There are praises of flowers who epitomize the unconquerable spirit of Irish womanhood. Let no man dare to scorn these women and let your weeds of indifference and sleeping roses blush in everlasting shame.

Hillary traveled to Northern Ireland seven times between 1995 and 2004, and she was the only First Lady in American history to visit that blood-soaked country even once.

Much of her work there was behind the scenes, but nothing was more critical than her advocacy and support of the women of Ireland. Senator George Mitchell, the chief negotiator at the North Ireland peace talks has said of Hillary,

“She was very much involved in encouraging the emergence of women in the political process in Northern Ireland, which was a significant factor in ultimately getting an agreement.”

In 1997 at the University of Ulster, County Antrim, Hillary delivered the first memorial lecture in memory of the recently deceased Belfast community worker, Mrs. Joyce McCartan, who had lost 18 relatives during the Troubles. The two women had first met in 1995 on Hillary’s first visit to Northern Ireland over a cup of tea at a women-run, drop-in center on the Ormeau Road. Speaking to an audience of about 1,000 the First Lady passionately declared that Joyce McCartan and “all the brave women who had marched, cried, shouted and demanded peace for over 20 years deserved to be heard.”

According to Irish journalist Susan Breen, it was at this point in her speech, to her audience’s delight, that she produced the stainless steel teapot that the Belfast woman had given her on that first visit. Clinton said she used it every day in her second-floor private kitchen in the White House, and had brought it back as a symbol of hope:

“I don’t know whether a Catholic or a Protestant made this teapot. I don’t know whether a Catholic or a Protestant sold this teapot. I only know that this teapot serves me very well, and it stands for all those conversations around those thousands of kitchen tables where mothers and fathers look at one another with despair, because they cannot imagine the future will be any better for their children.”

But this teapot also is on the kitchen table where mothers and fathers can look at one another and say: `We have to do better. We cannot permit this to go on. We have to take a stand for our children.’

Speaking directly to Northern Ireland’s politicians, Hillary declared:

“When the people want peace, it is the obligation of political leaders to find the common ground where it can thrive. That requires compromise and reconciliation. That involves postponing or even giving up one’s cherished ideals in the belief that others will do the same to end the conflict.”

Hillary also declared that the U.S. would continue to play its part in support of the peace process.

A year later Hillary was back in Northern Ireland lending her voice to the struggle for peace in a keynote speech to the `Women in Democracy’ Vital Voices conference at an overflowing Waterfront Hall in Belfast. In the course of that speech she received two standing ovations from an audience that included: the wife of the First Minister, Daphne Trimble; the RUC Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan; the Sinn Fein leaders, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Pat Doherty; Ulster Unionist representatives Jim Wilson and Peter Weir; the US ambassador to Ireland, Jean Kennedy Smith; and the Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission, Bob Cooper.

In her address Hillary declared that women’s voices could not be ignored:

“If you listen you can hear the voices of women who withstood jeers and threats to make themselves heard in the political world once reserved primarily for men…None of this would have been possible were it not for the courage and strength of generations of women. You will only move forward, and as you do please know that America will stand with you.”

Clinton praised the British Secretary for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam, for her “vision and dedication.” She also said that women’s voices must continue to be heard in a Northern Ireland for which people have lived for, died for and, yes, finally voted for.

Referencing her planned visit to Omagh, County Tyrone, later in the day, she said:

“When my husband and I visit Omagh, we will pay tribute to those 29 people who were murdered by the enemies of peace.They were mostly women and children, Catholic and Protestant, unionist and nationalist, young and old. They were people simply living their lives, working in a drapery story, hanging out with friends, buying school uniforms for their children.”

The terrorists targeted the people of Northern Ireland, and in response it was the people, all the people, who bravely stood side by side to say hatred and violence will no longer have a place here. We have chosen ballots not bombs, democracy not division. We have resolved to live in peace. We will never go back. We will only go forward.

Clinton said she was aware that the last few months had shown that the road to peace was not easy, but she had no doubt that the bombs and terrorists would not prevail. She also expressed delight when she was praised by a Derry student, Ms Fiona Hughes, who introduced her as a “role model to me and to young women around the world.”

The Vital Voices conference, itself the product of an initiative begun a year earlier by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Hillary herself, had brought together over 400 Catholic and Protestant women to foster their rise to prominence and leadership and to ensure that their success helped support peace. Hillary also met privately with community workers and with women politicians in Northern Ireland to encourage them to take on a larger role. One of these community workers, Inez McCormack, a labor and fair employment advocate, said of the conference:

“Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions [Catholic and Protestant] to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose, she used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted but it wasn’t then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade.”

At the end of her Vital Voices speech, Monica McWilliams, clapped wildly and proclaimed,

“Oh, do we need this woman here now!”

McWilliams, is the peace activist who is now a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but who a year earlier in 1996 helped to found the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, NWIC. This was a hastily put together assembly of women’s groups so that women might have a voice at the bargaining table in the peace process after she and May Blood were told that only leaders of the top 10 political parties-all men-would be included in the peace talks. With only six weeks to organize, McWilliams and Blood gathered 10,000 signatures to create a new political party, the NIWC, and got themselves on the ballot. They were voted into the top 10 and earned a place at the table.

The NIWC’s efforts paid off. The women drafted key clauses of the Good Friday Agreement regarding the importance of mixed housing, the particular difficulties of young people, and the need for resources to address these problems. The NWIC also lobbied for the early release and reintegration of political prisoners in order to combat social exclusion and pushed for a comprehensive review of the police service so that all members of society would accept it. Clearly, the women’s prior work with individuals and families affected by “the Troubles” enabled them to formulate such salient contributions to the agreement. In the subsequent public referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, Mo Mowlam, then British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, attributed the overwhelming success of the YES Campaign to the NIWC’s persistent canvassing and lobbying.

May Blood, who is now a Baroness and member of the British House of Lords, but who worked for many years as a community leader in the Shankill area in West Belfast, said of Hillary’s role in the peace process:

“The First Lady sent the message that the work and influence that grassroots women were undertaking within their communities was just as important as anything else that was taking place. I witnessed her building new confidence in women at the grassroots level and their stature grew within Northern Ireland as a consequence. All of a sudden they were being taken more seriously. The message we were also told by Hillary Clinton was that this work needed a political focus.”

Blood, a local Belfast woman with no college education who spent 38 years working in a linen mill, knows a lot about taking women’s work seriously. From a single integrated school teaching 28 students [Catholic and Protestant] in Northern Ireland twenty-five years ago, May Blood achieved through grass roots activism 58 integrated schools teaching over 20,000 students in 2005.

Geraldine McAteer who is now Chief Executive of the West Belfast Partnership Board is another woman who remembers the importance of the Vital Voices Conference:

“As First Lady, Hillary Clinton was extremely supportive of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and in particular, of the women who live here. In her visits during the peace process negotiations she met with women from a range of backgrounds and she recognized there was a real need to strengthen and support the voices of women in the post conflict context and get the needs of women and communities to the forefront of the new political agenda. She recognized that this would be best done through building the skills of women here. Through her Vital Voices Conference in September 1998, I and others were able to develop our skills for the betterment of our communities.”

In 1999 Hillary became the first woman in history of the award to receive the “Freedom of Galway” city. In this honor she joined former American Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. She also visited the National University of Ireland, Galway, to deliver a lecture on “Our Obligations to Each Other: the Continuing Quest for Peace” and to receive an honorary degree. In her acceptance speech of the Galway award Hillary said that since she first visited Northern Ireland in 1995 she had seen how far people had moved from history to hope in the agreements reached, in the conviction of political leaders and in the economic growth of the six counties. She said,

“The silencing of the guns, the release of the prisoners and the election of a true representative assembly, were all fulfilling the promises of the Good Friday agreement.”

But she added that the country needed the ordinary citizens of the North and South to keep up the everyday work of peace in their homes, schools and workplaces and communities.

The past century has taught us that hope is the only answer unless we are to give in to evil and indifference. Economic and social progress are possible, but only when people of different backgrounds and religions let go of the past and their differences and decide that the future offers greater promise than indifference or antipathy.

Returning to Northern Ireland in 2000, Hillary declared her everlasting commitment to the peace process and the rebuilding of Northern Ireland.

Women know there is no going back.

Speaking at a conference at the Grand Opera house in Belfast, Clinton said:

“I know that building peace anywhere is never easy and there are always people who are the self appointed doom sayers. They would rather throw up their hands than roll up their sleeves. But sleeves have been rolled up because woman after woman, daughter after daughter, mother after mother, grandmother after grandmother has made it clear there was no going back.The memories are too fresh of a time when women would worry if their husbands, sons, fathers, would return home alive after going out to work or to socialize.”

The scars are so fresh… it takes no effort to pick up an automatic weapon compared to picking the pieces of one’s life and building a better future.

Clinton compared those who wanted to return to the days of the Troubles, when people “knew the rules” to the followers of Moses who wanted to return to Egypt rather than travel through the desert to the Promised Land.

“There is always a back to Egypt committee or, in this case, a back to Troubles committee but none of us can afford to let that happen. History won’t let us. The looks on our children’s faces should not let us. This is one of those special moments when we have the chance to defy generations of hatred, a kind of moment that comes to all of us but is not recognized by many. It has been recognized here.”

A day earlier Hillary had outlined her proposal to convene a gathering of women parliamentarians from Northern Ireland, Britain and the Republic of Ireland:

“This convening of parliamentarians is a follow up to the Vital Voices conference which we held in Belfast two years ago, and is part of our ongoing efforts to make sure that women play a critical role in the peace process in Northern Ireland and in building a peaceful and prosperous island.”

In her speech on Wednesday, Clinton added details about an information technology conference to be convened next year to ensure women do not end up on the wrong side of the “digital divide”. So she announced it is also intended that politics and media experts from the US will travel to Belfast to hold seminars for community activists in the province. CLICK HERE

All of the preceding is why the Irish understand Hillary’s role in the Irish peace process and are incensed by the incorrect notion that Hillary Clinton did not help win the peace. John Hume, the Catholic architect of the Good Friday agreement and recipient of the Nobel Prize has said he is surprised that anyone would question the importance of her work,

“I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in bring peace to Northern Ireland.”

But I think that in order to fully appreciate Hillary’s role in the peace process, one must fully appreciate the scope of the Troubles which began in 1967 and marched unabated through four decades. In that time the warfare became institutionalized at a level of violence that was both intolerable but apparently irreducible. It pitted Protestant gunmen and the Royal Ulster Constabulary–who had pretty much declared open season on all Catholics no matter age or sex–against the Catholic Provisional Irish Republican Army who condoned violence against Protestants by virtue of being “at war.” The British Army brought in to restore order after 1972 was both attacker and also attacked, sometimes by both sides. Before the Troubles ended 3,600 men women and children had died as a result of bombs, executions and paramilitary parades and 40,000 had been wounded. Young people it was found later had been at the highest risk of being killed, with almost 26 percent of all victims aged 21 or less and the 19-20 age group had the highest death rate for any age group in Northern Ireland.

But in talking about the Troubles it is important to remember they were essentially a battle over civil rights for Catholics in Protestant dominated Ulster, and a war between the Protestant majority who wanted to unite with Great Britain and the Catholic minority who wanted to unite with the Irish Free State. Eventually in 1972, in response to the escalating strife, Great Britain dismissed the government and took over direct control of the province. This return to British rule was brutal. Bloody Sunday is when a Catholic march for civil rights including an end to internment of political prisoners was attacked by a British Parachute Regiment killing 14 unarmed civilians in January of 1972 in Derry. Many believe it was possibly the IRA’s biggest recruitment drive ever on one single day. The Battle of Bogside was a three-day riot between unarmed Catholic residents of the Bogside section of Derry and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Hunger strikes by IRA internment detainees or suspects detained without trial began in the early 1980’s and before it ended ten prisoners starved to death, among them Bobby Sands in 1981. Bloody Friday is when 20 Provisional IRA bombs took 9 lives. The deaths of 29 unarmed civilians in Omagh have already been cited. But the hard fact is someone or many some ones died or were injured every day for close to 40 years. Northern Ireland was a war zone where children as young as three threw bottles and understood they were at war. The country was held up everywhere as the world’s most intractable conflict equal to that of Israel and Palestine.

In this hopeless situation Hillary Clinton traveled there repeatedly to hold out hope and the promise of a brighter future. She reached out to the women who were the victims, but certainly not the architects of the Troubles and everywhere she traveled she brought inspiration, assistance and attention.

Joanna McVey, former CEO of the Fermanagh-published Impartial Reporter newspaper and chair of the Fermanagh Trust said,

“She turned empathy into action, her iconic address to the first Vital Voices conference in Belfast in 1998 was truly inspirational and her ongoing support for women’s roles in peace building and the transformation of economic and political life in the North was manifested through other initiatives and her own personal involvement.”

John Hume has declared many times:

“She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.”

But it was Hillary more than any other established political figure who understood that it was the women who would make the difference. And she knew this by listening to them. Scores of women had virtually no lives left at all. The Troubles had swallowed them whole. And so she saw this as the critical place from which peace might not only spring, but also go on to endure.

This is from an American student’s essay on women’s role in forging the peace:

Catholic women got the first wake up call by the troubles with the introduction of internment. Their husbands were often taken away for over a year. For the first time, these women were alone, needing to support themselves and their families. They had to find their independence. Realizing the depths of their isolation, many young mothers reached out to each other to try to cope with their new circumstances. These conversations often started on the cramped mini bus trips to visit their husbands in prison. Together they moved past self-preservation to community organization. Women would patrol the streets at night to identify which young men were picked up by the British Army and where they were taken. This would be the only information parents would have about their sons.

The women soon wanted to be proactive and started evening programs to get the teens off the streets and away from the temptation to throw stones and to heckle police and soldiers. The women provided support for themselves and their communities to face the daily traumas of fear and violence. They became community leaders.

SOURCE

And these are the women Hillary reached out to, supported, and endorsed. Clinton’s visits to Ireland and her work for Irish peace is the subject of a book being published later this year by Stella O’Leary, the Washington DC President of the Irish American Democrats. O’Leary has said,

“Starting with the Christmas visit to Belfast in 1995, Hillary Clinton recognized that the participation of women was critical to bringing about an end to the conflict, and she set about inspiring women to become politically involved.”

The following is an email submitted by Rekha Varma on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:13. It raises an absolutely critical point. In this important primary season as America chooses the Democratic party’s standard bearer, if we falsify and deny Hillary’s role in Northern Ireland, we may end up denying ourselves her leadership in working with Iraq:

Please can the someone from the US Press share this information with Americans, because they are completely unaware of the international role that Hillary played as 1st lady, and the US Press is making no sincere effort to do any research, ridiculing her role in N.Ireland as just sipping tea with women & watching her husband negotiate with leaders. Hillary played an overlooked independent role in working with the community to achieve de facto peace, via creating opportunities for and encouraging Catholic & Protestant women & the young to unite over universal social issues that concerned them such as the safety of their families, the role of women in politics (causes that Hillary herself was passionate about) etc, Many feel that Hillary’s experience in N.Ireland would be useful in suggesting how the Iraqi government can work with the various divisions within the community to unite over shared concerns of their children’s future after the war ends. I’ve provided a list of primary sources below as evidence of her contribution to the N.Ireland peace process found via a simple google search.

All sources mentioned in this article, unless otherwise listed, are from newspaper and magazine stories found on HILLARY WORLD WIDE, a meticulous and careful compilation of Hillary articles in the Irish press by a committed Irish woman.

©2008 Lin Farley, of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

Following the Rules: The Role of Superdelegates


One of the roles of superdelegates is to make sure a candidate or the party doesn't commit suicide. McGovern after the Eagleton fiasco might have been one good use. If Obama thinks he has any delegates fully committed, he's wrong. Same for Hillary. Until the count at the convention, they have all the chance in the world to self-destruct, and no amount of persuasion will save a sinking ship - "rights of the voters" or whatever. The delegates will shift to the other side during a catastrophe, just like shifting cargo in a seastorm.

And right now between shifting of delegates after the primaries, the abomination of miniscule participation called caucuses, the screw-ups on Michigan and Florida, there is really no big clear honorable position or real alignment between number of delegates and amount of votes or popular support. Both candidates have gotten a helluva lot of voters out. Support is roughly equal. No one looks to have the required committed delegates come the convention. The "electable" quotient for November is still a question undecided with much of the "analysis" being simple partisan cheerleading at this point.

Whomever you support, your candidate has a few months to make it clear they're the right one for the job - both to win in November and start running the country in January. It's not just Pennsylvania. It's the whole campaign. It will likely be decided by the remaining voters and the pool of delegates and super-delegates, but not just be elections.

And if you think this is unfair, I quote Butch Cassidy: "First we need to discuss the rules". "Rules, Butch, there ain't never been any rules before?!!" Kick to the groin, heavy groan. "You're right, there ain't no rules."

More specifically, the rules for Superdelegates? There ain't no rules. If you don't like it, well, better get persuading. Complaining at convention time won't help much.
« March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008 | Home | March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008 »

Desidero

user-pic

Following: 1
Followers: 29

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address