Several months ago, McCain was virtually on life support, so what happened? David Nye chalks it up to Ponce de Leon’s Fountain of Youth.
1.9 million people turned out for Republicans vs 1.7 million turnout for Democrats. This is the first primary/caucus this cycle where Democrats did not turn out more voters than Republicans.
* Lower Democratic turnout could be due to delegates not counting towards the convention. However, Florida has been a fairly solid Republican state and generally conservative.
A democrat has only won 2 of the last 8 general elections in the delegate rich state, Carter ‘76 and Clinton ‘96.
Female voters continue to be a factor both for Clinton and generally as a voting block. 59% of Democratic voters were women, compared to 44% Republicans. This has been the general trend in all primaries. The general election could see the highest number of female voters ever (should Clinton be the nominee). The question then is how many more men will go out and vote against her?
Also, Clinton is pleading with the Party to have the Florida delegates counted at the convention.
I’ll never forget when I heard the Danish Ambassador to Washington say McCain was his kind of politician. I’m not quite sure what he meant.
But one thing seems certain with Giuliani dropping out of the race, there is no longer room for social liberals/moderates in the Grand Ol’ Party.
Finally, John Edwards finished with a decent 14%, all things considered. This is one of the many reasons I hope he stays in the race.
One of my “hobbies” as it where, is studying and reflecting upon political imagery. This image here reminded me of a photo I saw last June on Michael Shaw’s blog, Bag News Notes.
Shaw has a new piece at American Photo, “Campaign Visuals in the Age of Facebook.” In it, he interviews photographer Stephen Ferry to discuss this photo which resembles a “Facebook mashup.” Ferry says his photo captures what he calls the, “Facebook zeitgeist.” He explains the action of the photo thus, ” this is a photograph of a transmission: from subject into camera and from camera onto the Web.”
I’m intrigued by the act of transmission and how transmission is reconceptualized within a digital culture. In the Ferry photo, the subjects are both Obama and a “fan taking a photo” ready for immediate upload onto Facebook or some other online social media. In this image above, there are also two subjects, but they are not Hillary and the person shooting the video. The “real” Hillary is blurred, the campaign sign is even upside down. However, the digital image of Hillary is clear and focused which is connected to the video camera being held by an anonymous hand. The two subjects are thus machine and digital image, even the human hand is secondary. From this perspective, the image portrays a postmodernization of political campaigning. It’s the political reflection of TIME’s 2006 person of the year as the new citizen journalist. The digital transmission onto the Web is naturally assumed.
However, this image for me captures more than just the “Facebook zeitgeist.” It also reflects the shift away from the hierarchical broadcast model of information transmission to the decentralized network model of inter-subjective community driven “transmission.” Perhaps this could be called the era of post-broadcast politics. The centrality of the camera’s view finder, which invites everyone into the role of transmitter reinforces this shifting narrative. What do you think?
UPDATE: Matt Stoller has an article in the Nation, “Dems Get New Tools, New Talent,” where he analyzes the impact of internet technologies on Democratic campaign organizing.
We are in the middle of a massive wave of campaign innovation, led by organizers who will eventually spread outward to every nook and cranny of progressive politics. The larger significance of this architectural revolution in progressive politics isn’t clear, but it is the first sustained challenge to the dominance of television and direct mail in the political system since those media displaced urban party machines in the 1960s.
Here are 14 questions among 100 currently used in a US citizenship test. To pass, one needs to answer 7 or 8 of 10 questions correctly. See how many of these you know. You can check your answer by clicking for the next page:
Senator Dodd has threatened again to filibuster the telecom bill which would grant immunity to telecommunications companies which aided the Bush Administration to conduct illegal electronic wiretaps. A presidential order, signed in 2002, was a clear violation of the FISA law. FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, came into law as a result of the Watergate Scandals under President Nixon. FISA is meant to prevent the government from conducting domestic intelligence against American citizens and confirms the constitutional requirement that the government attain a warrant. The Fourth Amendment states;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In December of last year, Dodd threatened to filibuster the legislation and Reid temporarily backed down.
Dodd objected to the motion to proceed to the bill early this morning and remained on the floor for almost ten hours, taking a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution with his statements throughout the day. At approximately 7:30 P.M. Majority Leader Reid announced the FISA reform bill would be pulled from the Senate calendar and reconsidered in January.
The press release goes on to state;
“Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy,” said Dodd. “The President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I thank all my colleagues who joined me in fighting and winning a stay in the rush to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have violated the privacy rights of millions of Americans.
Senator Edward Kennedy speaking last year against telecom immunity on the Senate floor. Kennedy was one of only a handful of Senators to support Dodd last year.
Dodd was then still a presidential candidate and received a significant amount of press coverage, aided by citizen journalists. The other democratic candidates took a stand in support of Dodd, which no doubt added momentum to the cause.
It is January and Reid has returned to the FISA amendment legislation as promised. Dodd is no longer a candidate and their is less reporting coming from the MSM. A simple Google search will bear this out. The activist blogosphere however is on fire. So far, only two candidates have come out with statements supporting Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama.
In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush’s illegal spying program.
“It’s time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power — including joining Senator Dodd’s efforts to filibuster this legislation — to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.”
Obama
“I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people – not the president of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program [… T]hat is why I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd and a grassroots movement of Americans who are standing up for our civil liberties and the rule of law.”
Hillary has thus far been silent. A filibuster is a long and difficult process and Dodd would need his fellow Senators to support him by asking long winded questions, allowing him time to rest. It’s unclear what Edwards can or will do to actually help Dodd and it doesn’t seem Obama will leave campaigning in South Carolina to actually lead or “unite”.
A filibuster, or “talking out a bill”, is a form of obstruction in a legislation or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place.
Senator Dodd’s office yesterday released the following;
“Few things are more detrimental to this country than the erosion of and attack on the civil liberties we enjoy. This isn’t a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; this is an American issue. If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law. More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. For all those who have stood with me throughout this fight, I pledge, once more, to stand up for you.”
I sure miss Dodd’s presence in the Democratic race. His presence helped draw attention to the core constitutional issues he was fighting for, much like Edwards’ presence has brought attention to issues of economic justice. Dodd is also one of only a handful of senators working on legislation to restore the writ of Habeas Corpus, the cornerstone of Anglo-American civil liberties.
It’s just accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration has over the last seven years gutted the constitution. But everything he achieved was passed into law with the complicit support of Democratic members. In 2006, the Democrats took back both houses and things were expected to change. Yet Dodd is not only fighting Bush but his own party’s leadership, Harry Reid.
Harry Reid — who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush’s demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster — went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned “retreat,” and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.
To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster.
The Democratic led Senate has accomplished absolutely nothing towards rolling back the unconstitutional legislation passed by the previous Congress, let alone push forward its own agenda. How exactly will a Democratic presidency change the formula in DC? All three leading candidates, (with the exception of Senator Dodd when he was in the race) have not actually led on anything. Obama and Clinton after all are still supposedly serving in the Senate. The blogosphere will be ablaze as will liberal and progressive organizations like the ACLU and Moveon.org. I admire Senator Dodd for his courage. But how could it ever get to the point that a minority faction coup within the Democratic led Senate must fight its own party leadership to uphold basic fundamental constitutional rights? Perhaps an outpouring of grassroots activism will lead to action from the candidates or other members of the House and Senate. Perhaps the blogosphere can influence media coverage which at the moment is focused on the cat fights between Obama and the Clintons. There is something terribly rotten in Washington and its not just George Bush. There must be more important “business” to attend to in Switzerland.
The Honorable John R. Edwards 410 Market Street Suite 400 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Dear Senator Edwards:
It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father’s legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.
There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father’s legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.
I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are – a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.
You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.
I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.
From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
