Democratic Candidates Show Political Strategy at Wednesday’s Debate

04/17/2008
By Andrew Fiorentino
(U-WIRE) NEW YORK – In a debate that moderator Charlie Gibson called “round 15 in a scheduled 10-rounder,” Barack Obama kept his guard up and Hillary Clinton pulled few punches.
The two remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination debated at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia Wednesday night as a prelude to the suddenly relevant Pennsylvania primary on April 22. The debate was intended to enable Pennsylvania voters to pick an opponent for John McCain in November, but it may only have proven that for all the talk of change, this election has not moved away from politics as usual.
After the latest fruitless attempt at getting the candidates to agree that whichever of the two lost would accept the role of running mate, moderators Gibson and George Stephanopoulos launched into questioning that would overpowered this debate. The moderators pressed Obama on his comments about bitter small-town Americans; lack of an American flag pin on his lapel; racial comments made by his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright; and his association with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, a revolutionary group that was responsible for politically motivated bombings in the 1960s and ’70s.
As Obama tried to turn the debate to issues such as the Iraq war, health care and the economy, Gibson and Stephanopoulos applied pressure to controversial issues that have recently dominated the Democratic nomination process. Although Clinton’s comments about dodging sniper fire when she visited Bosnia were briefly discussed, the former first lady brushed it off with a joke and an apology, while Obama’s attempts to explain himself and disown the words of Wright and Ayers resulted only in more aggressive questioning.
“Wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our politics,” Obama said. “And part of the problem is that when those issues are exploited, we never get to solve the issues that people really have to get some relief on, whether it’s health care or education or jobs.”
Clinton, calm and in control, repeatedly turned the spotlight back on her rival, implying that McCain’s campaign would have an easier time attacking Obama due to his controversies, but Obama retaliated. He criticized what he called a “game” in which the ideas of anyone he knows are attributed to him, and responded to Clinton’s concern about associating with Ayers and the Weather Underground by noting that President Bill Clinton pardoned two members of that organization during his time in office.
Once the moderators changed the topic from controversies to the more pertinent issues of the day, the candidates made it apparent why there has been so much focus on scandal and intrigue in the recent weeks of the campaign: the similarity of their platforms. Both candidates made note of their support for universal health care, although they were given no opportunity to elaborate on it, and both reiterated that they would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days of being sworn in. They criticized President Bush over his handling of the war and painted McCain as someone who would only continue Bush’s Middle East policies – particularly taking cues on what to do in Iraq from General David Petraeus rather than deciding on his own.
“The bottom line for me is: We don’t know what will happen as we withdraw,” Clinton said. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq. The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future. Our military will continue to be stretched thin. And our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to reassert our leadership and our moral authority in the world.”
Both candidates criticized Bush over what they viewed as a failed policy on dealing with Iran, and pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or attacking Israel.
“I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States,” Clinton said.
“My belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons,” Obama said. “And that would include any threats directed at Israel, or any of our allies.”
The candidates disagreed on how help stabilize Social Security. Obama was open to the idea of raising the cap on the payroll tax if he determined that the additional revenue would help. Clinton disagreed. She said Obama was willing to raise taxes on the middle-class, which both candidates promised not to do, and referenced the bipartisan commission created by Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill in 1983 as a way of finding a solution to Social Security then and now.
“I will say, number one: Don’t cut benefits on current beneficiaries,” Clinton said. “They’re already having a hard enough time. And number two: Do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families. There are lots of ways we can fix Social Security that don’t impose those burdens, and I will do that.”
Obama, who has been hounded by allegations that he has no real answers, seemed to have caught Clinton doing just that.
“That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax,” Obama said. “And so Senator Clinton – she can’t have it both ways. You can’t come at me for proposing a solution that will save Social Security without burdening middle-income Americans and then suggest that somehow she’s got a magic solution.”
This debate was one of the rare occasions when the candidates discussed gun control, an issue close to the hearts of many Philadelphians due to the frequency of gun violence in their city.Clinton noted that there is one murder every day, on average in the city. Both candidates gave their support for the right to bear arms, as granted by the Constitution, but expressed support for solving the problem of gun violence at the local rather than federal level.
“There’s the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that’s passed on from generation to generation,” Obama said. “You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what’s happening here in Philadelphia and what’s happening in Chicago.”
Clinton and Obama also touched economic issues and made assertions of market manipulation and price gouging by gasoline companies and energy traders, and promised to investigate it and support a windfall profits tax.
Both candidates advocated affirmative action for people who are less privileged, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, and Obama touched on creating more aid for college to replace high-interest student loans, but despite the 19 colleges and universities in Philadelphia, the moderators did not ask any questions about higher education.
The candidates are next scheduled to debate April 27 in Raleigh, N.C., although Obama has not yet committed to the date.

Oklahoma Super-Delegate Plays Waiting Game until Convention

04/10/2008

By Callie Kavourgias

Oklahoma Daily (U. Oklahoma)

 

(U-WIRE) NORMAN — Although some super-delegates have already endorsed a candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Jay Parmley, one of Oklahoma’s 10 super-delegates, said he feels no pressure to decide until the convention.

“I won’t decide until after all of the primaries and caucuses are over in the states and territories,” he said. “I think it is important to weigh not only how Oklahoma voted, but how the rest of the county has voted.”

Parmley said super-delegates became so important in this election because the contest between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is so close.

He said, however, he does not think a super-delegate’s impact is any more important than any other delegate at the convention.

“Because super-delegates can vote for whomever they choose and can wait until the convention to make their choice known, it seems that super-delegates will have a greater impact, but I don’t believe we are any more important than the pledged delegates who are determined by a state’s primary or caucus results,” Parmley said.

Todd Goodman, Oklahoma’s Democratic Party field director, said many people believe it is best to maintain neutrality before the convention. However, Parmley said he has no problem with super-delegates who already have endorsed a candidate.

“Clearly, they have every right to decide at any point in this process,” he said. “I do think, however, that super-delegates should be absolutely sure who they are supporting prior to announcing their decision. I think moving back and forth between the candidates is not helpful or fair to the process.”

Goodman, who met Parmley through the party, said he appreciates Parmley’s neutrality, especially because Hillary and Bill Clinton and Obama have all made personal calls to super-delegates asking for their support.

“I know if Bill Clinton called me on my cell phone, it would be tough to say no to him,” he said.

Parmley grew up on his family farm in Wyandotte, a small rural town in the northeast corner of Oklahoma. His high school graduating class had only 49 students.

“I can remember vividly meeting my congressman as a second-grade student at Wyandotte Elementary and thinking that he must have the most wonderful job in the world,” he said. “Congressman [Michael] Synar was a Democrat, and even as a youngster I thought what he said made sense.”

In high school and college, Parmley worked for local Democratic candidates. He attended OU for his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in public administration. After graduating he worked in the early ’90s as then-OU President Richard L. Van Horn’s assistant. From 2001 to 2005 he served as chairman and executive director of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.

Although currently in South Carolina working for the Democratic Party, Parmley continues to keep a permanent residence in Oklahoma. He pays Oklahoma state taxes and is registered to vote here.

“Oklahoma is home,” he said. “However, since 2005, I have worked for the Democratic National Committee, working with southern state Democratic Parties. I also do campaign training all across the country. Even though my work keeps me away from Oklahoma, I am still at home as often as possible.”

Appointed by chairperson Howard Dean as a member of the Democratic National Committee, Parmley was automatically awarded the role of super-delegate, Goodman said.

He said super-delegates were created to give people with long-term interest in the party, like Parmley, a chance to make a difference in the party.

“I count it a great honor to be a DNC member and look forward to casting a vote for our nominee for president and the next president of the United States,” Parmley said.

Until Aug. 28, when the Democratic National Convention ends, America likely will have to wait to find out who the Democratic presidential candidate will be.

Goodman said the Republican primary is much simpler for three reasons: They do not have superdelegates, their primaries are winner-take-all, and they do not have as many caucuses.

He said although super-delegates seem to complicate matters, they have a purpose.

“We’re really concentrating on everyone having a voice in the Democratic Party,” Goodman said.

Parmley reflects Goodman’s position on the party.

“I have always believed that government was good and that it was the appropriate vehicle to affect change in our lives, whether the issue be education, economic security, or health care,” he said. “It just made sense to me that the Democratic Party cared about people and how to make our lives better as a collective citizenry.”

Potshots, Whiskey Shots in Race for Democratic Nod

04/16/2008

By MATT FELTY
Oklahoma Daily (U. Oklahoma)

(U-WIRE) NORMAN — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Hank Williams Sr. finally have something in common – they both enjoy whiskey! Over the weekend, the Democratic presidential hopeful kicked back a shot of Crown Royal at an Indiana sports bar.

Initially, Clinton just ordered a beer. The bartender happily obliged. Later he offered the former first lady a shot of whiskey. She agreed, toasted and downed it like a seasoned drinking veteran.

Reporters were in plain view when she took the shot.

College students shouldn’t be surprised by the move. Whiskey is substituted for water by many students at OU. When you go to a bar on the weekend in Norman, shots are not rare. In fact, shots are promoted, purchased and raised high in the air by countless patrons.

But consuming the firewater is out of line in Sen. Barack Obama’s “How to Run a Presidential Campaign for Dummies” book. The Illinois senator chided Clinton in the media on Monday for taking the shot.

Is this the same senator who wrote about his days doing lines of “blow” as a young man?

The last time I checked, the Drug Enforcement Agency wasn’t arresting people for drinking Crown Royal. Snorting lines of cocaine is a different story. Law enforcement says that one will put you in prison for at least five years.

Obama’s decision to make this an issue is not surprising. However, Clinton was clearly out of line by drinking a Canadian whiskey. Any presidential hopeful trying to score points with bar-flies, college students and the entire state of Kentucky knows Maker’s Mark is the superior spirit.

I understand Clinton believes wholeheartedly in the Crown Royal tag line: “It’s about quality, not quantity.” Clearly her entire strategy is based on the motto. She is the quality candidate, though Obama’s got her mathematically defeated.

Surely Clinton understands Obama would have left her alone had she ordered a good domestic whiskey. If she’s outsourcing her whiskey, what’s stopping her from outsourcing American jobs? Concerns like this are very relevant in this neck and neck race.

Doesn’t she know there are no super delegates in Canada?

Maybe Clinton should have been more calculated in her shot selection. Tequila may have widened her lead in the Hispanic community. Jameson could have played real well in the blue-class Irish neighborhoods she tries to reach. But, no ­- She had to choose a Canadian whiskey.

Obama should continue to exploit this important misstep by Clinton. In continuing with his theme, Obama should preach “change” in all substance decisions. No longer is America going to sit back and watch its political leaders drink Canadian whiskey! It’s time for a change!

Anyone care for a line?

Clinton has responded to this liquor criticism by attacking her rival where it hurts the most: bowling blunders and ham selection. Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman, blasted Obama for “bowling gutter balls … and buying a ham at the Philly market (one that cost $99.99 a pound).”

Powerful attacks like these will be hard for the Illinois senator to overcome in bowling-crazy Pennsylvania. Also, it’s rumored that the Chinese are superb bowlers. Bowling ability is a priority for foreign heads of state received by Chinese leadership. How can America overcome a president who can’t hit strikes? Imagine the diplomatic despair that would erupt.

And almost $100 per pound for ham!
Pennsylvanians, and perhaps the rest of the country, now know Obama is a big spender. Even on ham. This won’t bode well for his bid to capture fiscal conservatives who have drifted to the independent camp. Something tells me this could be hard to overlook in November, especially if the GOP’s presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., starts buying his ham at Wal-Mart for 69 cents per pound.

Had Obama spent $100 on an aged bottle of single-barrel scotch, he may have been OK with fiscal conservatives.

Political battles over whiskey, bowling and ham are refreshing this election cycle. The more these issues are fleshed out, the more many people will be able to make informed decisions in the fall.

Why talk about national security, the slumping economy, poverty, energy independence and education when there are other, more pressing matters?

I know, as a voter, I am so thankful to have a leader like Obama to show me the horrible truth about Clinton’s boozing ways. Likewise, kudos to the Clinton camp for exposing the gaps in Obama’s bowling ability and consumer intelligence.

These were issues I hoped would be discussed before the convention, and I’m sure McCain did, too.

Cheers!