Many people have been asking me what this is about. As an external observer of the US political scene, it occurs to me that what this country (and many others) needs is a “time out” from partisan politics and a brief inter-regnum of rational economics. Obviously, there’s not much of a precedent for this, but we are looking at the need to make at least four systemic changes in the next 4-6 years, hopefully before it’s too late:
1. A root-and-branch reform of the educational system to focus on learning, skills and competencies for the 21st Century. The main challenge here is not necessarily curricula, but funding. A National Education Policy needs to be funded at the national level, so that consistent, uniform funding is available. The current practice of the Federal Government providing a fraction of resources, with the States providing the rest, is unfair and incoherent in a global economy. The practice of funding education through real estate taxes is irrational.
2. A comprehensive reform of the national healthcare and social security systems. These two issues are closely linked thanks to demographic changes and changes in the workforce, yet they are being treated as separate issues. Reforming either requires balanced analysis, choice and a commitment for the next generation, without the blatant opt-outs or industry favours apparent in current policy.
3. The adoption of an ethical foreign policy, which implies a shift of resources from military spending to diplomacy, and a willingness to address root causes of religious extremism and terrorism. A sub-set of this area is the eventual reduction of combat operations from Iraq, although I believe a long-term basing presence will be necessary (and desirable).
4. The urgent reform of the national (and global) financial system, improving transparency and monitoring, while reducing unnecessary systemic risks. The role played by securitisation and derivatives markets, credit rating companies, and financial insurors and re-insurors are poorly understood and not fully costed in our equity-driven culture. We need simple, common-sense reforms to improve visibility and incorporate the true cost of many vehicles onto corporate balance sheets. (This involves working with and against extremely well-financed special interests, but no one said it would be easy, and in the long term the system as a whole will benefit)
I don’t include some other major issues, such as the war on terror or the rule of law in the US: I’m sure that if we follow the rules, these issues will resolve themselves. We have a wealth of experience in our own institutions and allies which provide the means to succeed: what we need is consistent, common-sense policy and a commitment over time. Even the issues of immigration or global warming are secondary. Immigration has lasted a long time, and will continue no matter what reform is enacted. Environmental and energy-saving technologies that alleviate global warming have a low cost horizon and can be solved by relatively small financial amounts i.e. % 15-20 billion per year. These should be supported as a matter or rational self-interest rather than as a political issue.
To implement either of these four(five) core national priorities requires an approach to politics which is unfortunately absent in Washington today:
• Rational analysis and means-tested solutions;
• A bipartisan approach;
• Sufficient funding and a long-term, consistent approach;
• Removing lobbyists and special interests from the equation;
Most of all, we must assure that the people passing laws, the people managing the new system, and the people at the front line of implementation – teachers, doctors, medical assistants, insurers, diplomats – have the means, training and will to implement reforms. We can’t separate policy-making from policy management and policy execution in either area. This means an expansion in the federal government payroll, an increase in wages, productivity- and results-linked pay (added incentives), and the resources necessary to get the job done. If we were spending $ 350 billion a year at the Federal level for education in addition to current state funding, the results would be visible.
This approach calls for representatives who are outside the normal polticial career path: law degree; some form of politics-related office; elected official in Congress or State House. Although I respect many of our politicians, they don’t have the skills set necessary for many of the challenges we face. When have you last heard of a brilliant analyst in Congress? What is worse, they are not only beholden to special interests and their party structures (which remain heavily patronage-driven), but they have steeped in the acidic swamp of partisan vitriol and betrayal since Newt Gingrich took over Congress in the 1990s.
Let’s face it: most of our political representatives today are better versed in fund-raising, campaign management, media relations/PR and managing patronage networks than they are at governing for the long-term benefit of the country. Blame them or blame the system or blame The Disney Channel: the facts are visible every serious daily newspaper you read, every day, and they are particularly visible during elections.
So, I was casting about for a “Dream Team” of policy-makers with some form of credibility, a coherent vision and a track record of success outside politics. Obviously, my pick involved lots of compromises, but here was my rationale:
Michael Bloomberg set up Bloomberg media, revolutionizing the way financial information is analysed and distributed. He’s now worth over $ 12 billion, and his fortune is growing every day. He has the track record of solid achievement in a new business field (which I can tell you from experience needs solid, consistent work), and he has an acceptable track record as Mayor of NYC. I’m not saying he’s perfect, nor that he even has an acceptable vision. But if I could hire a manager to implement long-term, bipartisan reform, this would be the man. (As always, I’m very willing to consider alternatives).
Arnold Schwarzenneger is something of a counterpoint to Bloomberg. More popular, with higher name recognition, he would be invaluable to getting the team elected. His record in California is really mixed, but he seems more pragmatic to other Republicans. He brings name recognition and electoral votes in a big state.
Paul Krugman is an academic at Princeton, my alma mater. I distrust academics in policy-making positions. Unfortunately, I can’t think of another economist trusted by enough people to be effective in office. I’d vote for Rubin, but he’s getting old, and I think we need a Treasury Secretary who doesn’t come from Wall Street. Krugman understands the nuts-and-bolts of economic policy in practice, and on paper at least is concerned for “the common man.”
John McCain has the military record and breadth of experience to deal with some of the urgent issues the Pentagon faces today: a bloated procurement system, inadequate resources for counter-insurgency conflicts, the need to support vets, the National Guard, etc. I agree that he’s a bit of a loose cannon, but I think that he should round off his distinguished record contributing to the lasting reform of the Armed Services rather than being President (given his lack of economics knowledge and his need to play to the Republican party base) or languishing in the Senate for another term.
Bill Richardson: An extremely solid candidate, but perhaps not as inspirational as possible. Still, he has an excellent background, policy management experience, is low-key, speaks Spanish and has good contacts in Europe and Latin America.
Homeland Security: Richard Clark comes out well after 9/11. On the other hand, David Petraeus has the front-line experience and has actually led counter-insurgency under extremely difficult conditions. Of the two, I lean towards Petraeus, although a person of Clark’s experience should not be left out in the cold. (CIA Director?)
Bill Gates has a stellar track record, even if people today discount the relevance of Microsoft. I don’t buy that so easily: Microsoft may have problems, but it’s the workhorse of desktop computing, and was a brilliant innovation in its day. Gates is a knowledge worker, and in the 21st Century we’re looking at educatorns as knowledge workers. There is so much that can be done with e-learning, which opens up learning beyond the physical confines of the school. He has also dabbled in educational reform (charter schools) through his Foundation. On the other hand, it’s a pity we can’t give teachers stock options!
Al Gore needs to put his ideas to the test and become Secretary of Energy. Given the role of energy (including transportation) in greenhouse gas production, he will have the mandate and the bully pulpit to push through energy savings, renewables and fuel efficiency standards (among other things). He can get much more done here than as head of the EPA, which is toothless. A future administration should upgrade the EPA to a Department, but in terms of the three main issues in energy, I still think Al Gore is better suited to this position.
Colin Powell deserves a chance to salvage his reputation and contribute his skills to a major issue facing the country. On the other hand, I increasing think this should be an agency, not a Department. Anyway, he brings credibility and real understanding to the job, and the position needs a heavy hitter to get the budget allocations needed, particularly after the ramp-up in problem after Iraq.
John Edwards was a brilliant trial lawyer, and the Dept. of Labour needs to work through the courts. I prefer him in the courtroom than in the Presidency. He’s better suited to a Department than to Oval Office. In time, he may become better balanced and get the experience needed, but I think he’s 12-16 years away from that point.
Barack Obama: same comments apply as per John Edwards. We need an Attorney General to re-inspire Americans (and the world) in the rule of law. We need someone to deal with really difficult moral cases. And we need to de-politicise the justice system. Can Barack do it? I don’t know. But I think he’d be an excellent candidate for President after 8-12 years of national experience. It demands much more than his experience in the state legislature and the Senate, and would make him much better for it.
Are these selections ideal? Hardly. And the problem is, I can’t think of other candidates capable of the changes needed. But I know they’re out there.
One major problem I see is the lack of really inspirational Republican candidates. (Bloomberg is hardly a Republican; Schwarzenegger is…well…Schwarzenegger). The Republican Party gave us Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ike, among others: inspirational candidates (maybe for the wrong reasons). There doesn’t seem to be anyone of the same caliber coming up through the system these days. Mike Huckabee? Mitt Romney? Admirable though their achievements may be, they are neither balanced enough nor have the background necessary to understand the real issues of this generation. They are campaigners, not leaders.
So, this is an explanation of the “Dream Team.” Chances of being implemented? Virtually nil. Intellectual satisfaction derived from the thought process? Very high.
The big question not addressed by this piece is how to separate special interest lobbying from the policy-making and delivery process. I’m only a corporate rocket scientist, not a magician. On this subject, I’m totally out of ideas, but I know there are some good ones out there.
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Friday, 22 February 2008
The Problem of Kosovo
Yesterday evening, 21 February, a mob attacked the US Embassy in Belgrade, burning part of the Chancery. The US reaction was predictable. Sean McCormack, State Department spokesman stated that:
"…they [the Serbian government] bear a responsibility to ensure that there is not, on the part of their ministers and their officials, an incitement of violence. We have seen a lot of disturbing reports about statements by Serbian Government officials, even including a minister, about incitement to violence. That has to cease."
According to CNN, Richard Holbrooke stated that "The fact that (independence has) not happened as peacefully as people had hoped is the direct result of the incitement to violence by extremist elements in Belgrade, implicitly and privately supported by the Russians." Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, expressed outrage at the "mob attack,” and plans to introduce a UN resolution condemning the attack.
This whole episode puts the shear absurdity, not to say illegality, of US foreign policy into perspective. The US has just led the process of encouraging Kosovo to independence, leading to the loss of some 17% of Serbian territory which plays a critical role in Serbian culture and history. And now the US is introducing a resolution condemning an attack on its Embassy, in which no US personnel were killed, and no permanent damage incurred?
How much more hypocritical will our foreign policy become? I’m not disputing the sovereign nature of the US Embassy and the inviolability of diplomatic representation. But to condemn the Serbs-who have just lost a huge chunk of territory and culture-and preach about international law at this point is ludicrous, not just in light of what is happening in Kosovo, but in light of the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, and extraordinary rendition.
Let’s look quickly at the legal situation in Kosovo. On 10 June 1999, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1244, which calls for the cessation of violence, the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces, the disarmament of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the establishment of a civilian and security force (UNMIK) designed to stabilise the territory. The United States is a signatory of this Resolution.
In its preamble, Resolution 1244 states:
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,
In Annex I, it states that:
A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of the KLA;
This interim political framework has been accomplished: Kosovo has had a functioning self-government for a number of years now. There is no reference in Resolution 1244 for the independence of Kosovo. This is rightly seen as a unilateral movement, and the diplomatic recognition of Kosovo by the United States can be seen as the territorial violation, absent the political recognition of an independent Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia, which is the legal successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Let’s look at the Helsinki Final Act, of which the United States is also a signatory. Articles II and III are particularly interesting:
III. Inviolability of frontiers
The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.
Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.
IV. Territorial Integrity of States
The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.
The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.
Judging from both documents, the US is in clear violation of both the Helsinki Act and UN Resolution 1244.
There is no legal basis for diplomatically recognising an independent Kosovo, which according to law has the status of an autonomous province in the Republic of Serbia. By proceeding along this path, i.e. diplomatic recognition without the prior recognition and agreement of Serbia, the United States has lost its status as an impartial partner, and is contravening the very basis of international law it is now claiming for its own benefit.
So why is this a problem? Because it establishes a precedent, no matter how much Condoleeza Rice or Marti Ahtisaari claim otherwise. Marti Ahtisaari’s Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s Future Status states, among others:
15. Kosovo is a unique case that demands a unique solution. It does not create a precedent for other unresolved conflicts. In unanimously adopting resolution 1244 (1999), the Security Council responded to Milosevic’s actions in Kosovo by denying Serbia a role in its governance, placing Kosovo under temporary United Nations administration and envisaging a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future. The combination of these factors makes Kosovo’s circumstances extraordinary.
This is absurd. Any number of other “frozen conflict” administrations will now step up, seeking “independence”: The Republica Srpska part of Bosnia-Herzegovina; the region of Trans-Dniester; Ossetia and Abkhazia; the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (that part of Cyprus under military occupation by Turkey since 1974).
What the United States – and the United Nations – have done is open Pandora’s box, stating that any region which has an ethnic majority and has suffered civil violence has the right to declare independence. The United States may not really care about the examples above (where it has not vital interests), but it Kurdistan separates from Iraq, or the Kurdish regions of Turkey press for independence, it would no doubt be firmly against independence.
As a result of this issue, but also as a result of other UN initiatives, such as the Annan Plan for the resolution of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, it is entirely unclear to me why the UN is so intent on violating the very principles enshrined in its Charter as well as Resolution 1244. UN efforts at conflict resolution are unfortunately becoming not worth the paper they are printed on.
The recognition of an independent Kosovo is a blunder of epic proportions. It raises the spectre of further brinkmanship over ethnic secession: there are any number of dormant or active ethnic conflicts in the Balkans. Over 30% of the population of FYR Macedonia is ethnic Albanian, and the spectre of a “Greater Albania” has just gained much more weight following the Kosovo secession. Turkey has intrigued about a “Turkish minority” in Greece for years, though the Treaty of Lausanne has clearly established that this is a Muslim minority. Kosovo’s independence establishes that armed conflict followed by UN intervention is a viable means of attaining ethnic secession.
As I have already stated, I am not against independence of Kosovo in principle. However, there are better, fairer ways of handling this, which do not contravene international law.
One such way would have been to transfer Kosovo’s trusteeship from the United Nations to the European Union, and promising supervised independence only once the Republic of Serbia entered the EU. This would have been a longer-term process which would have involved the equivalent adoption of European law, the Acquis communautaire, in the two regions. Under this scenario, both sides would have had to comply with the Acquis, following the standard EU accession process.
Another alternative would have been to continue the UN Trusteeship for a longer period of time – perhaps for 15 or 20 years – until a newer generation of leaders would have been able to resolve the situation. Contrary to the Ahtisaari Report, there is no pressing requirement for independence on the part of the international community, only on the part of certain elements in Kosovo.
We would be wise to avoid the oversimplification apparent in US foreign policy. Idealism is good, but to claim “independence and democracy” as a panacea for all raises vast political problems, and can never be applied uniformly. If this were official US policy, then we would have to recognise Hamas (not condemn it); condemn Hosni Mubarak (not supply him with weapons) and withdraw support from Pervez Musharraf.
The diplomatic recognition of Kosovo sets a dangerous precedent. It violates general international law as well as specific treaties entered into by the United States, and so obviously fans the flames of ethnic secession and political meddling in the Balkans and farther afield.
"…they [the Serbian government] bear a responsibility to ensure that there is not, on the part of their ministers and their officials, an incitement of violence. We have seen a lot of disturbing reports about statements by Serbian Government officials, even including a minister, about incitement to violence. That has to cease."
According to CNN, Richard Holbrooke stated that "The fact that (independence has) not happened as peacefully as people had hoped is the direct result of the incitement to violence by extremist elements in Belgrade, implicitly and privately supported by the Russians." Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, expressed outrage at the "mob attack,” and plans to introduce a UN resolution condemning the attack.
This whole episode puts the shear absurdity, not to say illegality, of US foreign policy into perspective. The US has just led the process of encouraging Kosovo to independence, leading to the loss of some 17% of Serbian territory which plays a critical role in Serbian culture and history. And now the US is introducing a resolution condemning an attack on its Embassy, in which no US personnel were killed, and no permanent damage incurred?
How much more hypocritical will our foreign policy become? I’m not disputing the sovereign nature of the US Embassy and the inviolability of diplomatic representation. But to condemn the Serbs-who have just lost a huge chunk of territory and culture-and preach about international law at this point is ludicrous, not just in light of what is happening in Kosovo, but in light of the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, and extraordinary rendition.
Let’s look quickly at the legal situation in Kosovo. On 10 June 1999, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1244, which calls for the cessation of violence, the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces, the disarmament of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the establishment of a civilian and security force (UNMIK) designed to stabilise the territory. The United States is a signatory of this Resolution.
In its preamble, Resolution 1244 states:
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,
In Annex I, it states that:
A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of the KLA;
This interim political framework has been accomplished: Kosovo has had a functioning self-government for a number of years now. There is no reference in Resolution 1244 for the independence of Kosovo. This is rightly seen as a unilateral movement, and the diplomatic recognition of Kosovo by the United States can be seen as the territorial violation, absent the political recognition of an independent Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia, which is the legal successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Let’s look at the Helsinki Final Act, of which the United States is also a signatory. Articles II and III are particularly interesting:
III. Inviolability of frontiers
The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.
Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.
IV. Territorial Integrity of States
The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.
The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.
Judging from both documents, the US is in clear violation of both the Helsinki Act and UN Resolution 1244.
There is no legal basis for diplomatically recognising an independent Kosovo, which according to law has the status of an autonomous province in the Republic of Serbia. By proceeding along this path, i.e. diplomatic recognition without the prior recognition and agreement of Serbia, the United States has lost its status as an impartial partner, and is contravening the very basis of international law it is now claiming for its own benefit.
So why is this a problem? Because it establishes a precedent, no matter how much Condoleeza Rice or Marti Ahtisaari claim otherwise. Marti Ahtisaari’s Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s Future Status states, among others:
15. Kosovo is a unique case that demands a unique solution. It does not create a precedent for other unresolved conflicts. In unanimously adopting resolution 1244 (1999), the Security Council responded to Milosevic’s actions in Kosovo by denying Serbia a role in its governance, placing Kosovo under temporary United Nations administration and envisaging a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future. The combination of these factors makes Kosovo’s circumstances extraordinary.
This is absurd. Any number of other “frozen conflict” administrations will now step up, seeking “independence”: The Republica Srpska part of Bosnia-Herzegovina; the region of Trans-Dniester; Ossetia and Abkhazia; the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (that part of Cyprus under military occupation by Turkey since 1974).
What the United States – and the United Nations – have done is open Pandora’s box, stating that any region which has an ethnic majority and has suffered civil violence has the right to declare independence. The United States may not really care about the examples above (where it has not vital interests), but it Kurdistan separates from Iraq, or the Kurdish regions of Turkey press for independence, it would no doubt be firmly against independence.
As a result of this issue, but also as a result of other UN initiatives, such as the Annan Plan for the resolution of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, it is entirely unclear to me why the UN is so intent on violating the very principles enshrined in its Charter as well as Resolution 1244. UN efforts at conflict resolution are unfortunately becoming not worth the paper they are printed on.
The recognition of an independent Kosovo is a blunder of epic proportions. It raises the spectre of further brinkmanship over ethnic secession: there are any number of dormant or active ethnic conflicts in the Balkans. Over 30% of the population of FYR Macedonia is ethnic Albanian, and the spectre of a “Greater Albania” has just gained much more weight following the Kosovo secession. Turkey has intrigued about a “Turkish minority” in Greece for years, though the Treaty of Lausanne has clearly established that this is a Muslim minority. Kosovo’s independence establishes that armed conflict followed by UN intervention is a viable means of attaining ethnic secession.
As I have already stated, I am not against independence of Kosovo in principle. However, there are better, fairer ways of handling this, which do not contravene international law.
One such way would have been to transfer Kosovo’s trusteeship from the United Nations to the European Union, and promising supervised independence only once the Republic of Serbia entered the EU. This would have been a longer-term process which would have involved the equivalent adoption of European law, the Acquis communautaire, in the two regions. Under this scenario, both sides would have had to comply with the Acquis, following the standard EU accession process.
Another alternative would have been to continue the UN Trusteeship for a longer period of time – perhaps for 15 or 20 years – until a newer generation of leaders would have been able to resolve the situation. Contrary to the Ahtisaari Report, there is no pressing requirement for independence on the part of the international community, only on the part of certain elements in Kosovo.
We would be wise to avoid the oversimplification apparent in US foreign policy. Idealism is good, but to claim “independence and democracy” as a panacea for all raises vast political problems, and can never be applied uniformly. If this were official US policy, then we would have to recognise Hamas (not condemn it); condemn Hosni Mubarak (not supply him with weapons) and withdraw support from Pervez Musharraf.
The diplomatic recognition of Kosovo sets a dangerous precedent. It violates general international law as well as specific treaties entered into by the United States, and so obviously fans the flames of ethnic secession and political meddling in the Balkans and farther afield.
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Revisiting the next Presidential Dream Team
Here's my updated "Dream Team" for the next Administration: the "Competence Cabinet." This would be a bipartisan, centrist cabinet drawn from people with a proven record of competence and results. A key qualification is that the majority of officers should have a proven track record of success outside politics, and be able to work across party lines.
President
Michael Bloomberg
Vice-President
Arnold Schwartzenegger
Dept. of the Treasury
Paul Krugman
Dept. of Defense
John McCain
Dept. of State
Bill Richardson
Dept. of Homeland Security
David Petraeus or Richard Clarke
Dept. of Education
Bill Gates
Dept. of Energy
Al Gore
Dept. of Veterans' Affairs
Colin Powell
Dept. of Labor
John Edwards
Attorney General
Barack Obama
I'm still working on the remaining Departments: any suggestions?
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Commerce
Dept. of Health & Human Services
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Dept. of Interior
Dept. of Justice
Dept. of Transport
President
Michael Bloomberg
Vice-President
Arnold Schwartzenegger
Dept. of the Treasury
Paul Krugman
Dept. of Defense
John McCain
Dept. of State
Bill Richardson
Dept. of Homeland Security
David Petraeus or Richard Clarke
Dept. of Education
Bill Gates
Dept. of Energy
Al Gore
Dept. of Veterans' Affairs
Colin Powell
Dept. of Labor
John Edwards
Attorney General
Barack Obama
I'm still working on the remaining Departments: any suggestions?
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Commerce
Dept. of Health & Human Services
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Dept. of Interior
Dept. of Justice
Dept. of Transport
On Democratic Values
Last night at the HELADA (Hellenic-American Democratic Association) meeting, I suggested that the only way Democrats will be relevant to Greek-Americans and US expats living in Greece is to have a clear mission and role in the community. I believe that politics should be relevant: we can’t go scurrying around every four years asking for votes, but be absent in the intervening years. We have to know what we believe in and express it clearly.
Yet this seems to be a difficult task, since our beliefs are often based on an intuitive understanding of right and wrong, of fair and unfair, which aren’t reduced to pithy soundbites.
So, I’m putting forth a list of sound-bites for Democrats who need an accurate and memorable description of what they believe in. As always, your comments are welcome.
As a Democrat, I believe in:
A fair living wage for all workers
Specifically, an annual raise in the minimum wage in line with inflation and productivity.
A national healthcare system
Specifically, a system which preserves choice, but which makes the opt-in to a national public system economically advantageous. The capping of medical malpractice suits to reasonable levels, and the right of the government of negotiate rationally (in the economic sense) with private healthcare and pharmaceutical providers.
A well-funded, competitive and cohesive national education policy
Specifically, a system financed on an objective budgeting process set at the national level, not on local real estate values. A well-funded system that is recognized as a key source of national cohesion and competitiveness, which allows dedicated students to advance through primary, secondary and tertiary public education based on merit. A system which pays teachers a living wage, invests in educational infrastructure and methods, based on clear national standards. The clear separation of church and state in public education.
Protecting the environment
Specifically, a growth policy that balances long-term environmental protection and restoration with short-term economic needs. The limitation of carbon emissions and other pollutants, the protection of endangered forests, oceans, lakes and species, and the shift towards an economy based on renewable sources of energy.
An ethical foreign policy
Specifically, one which respects international law and the rights of different countries, cultures and religions. One which does not violate the Geneva Convention and the core values of the United Nations system. One which does not seek of impose our short-term preferences with misguided military action, but seeks sustainable, long-term solutions to the pressing problems of poverty, religious extremism, failed states, climate change and the other root causes of terrorism and instability. The demilitarization of foreign policy.
A fair and regulated economy
Specifically, an economy based on a clear strategy of development, avoiding the excesses of short-term solutions which favour “insiders” or large capital interests. Incentives to promote savings, lower- and middle-income families. The mitigation of systemic problems, such as unregulated hedge funds, insider trading, an excessive reliance on real estate development or stock market “booms” for personal finance, and the unsustainable reliance on too few insurers and re-insurors, ratings agencies and other key actors in the financial system. A balanced national budget with active debt reduction. A reliance on fair trade that respects key priorities in environmental, labour and poverty alleviation.
A fair and predictable tax system
Specifically, one which guarantees the greater good of the majority of citizens, particularly those in lower and middle classes. A system which closes tax loop-holes for the affluent, and particularly companies who register in offshore tax havens such as Bermuda or Cayman Islands, but benefit from public subsidies and spending in from the US government (state and national). At the same time, the tax system must be fair to companies, and promote growth and employment, and be competitive compared to international competitors.
A viable pension system
Specifically, maintaining the right for personal choice in a portion of retirement savings, while strengthening the role of Social Security as an insurer of last resort, but also as a primary insurer for those who choose. An expansion of incentives for retirement savings, extending these to public (national and state) plans (such as CALPERS). An expansion of taxes to strengthen Social Security.
Educated, economically-aware citizens
Specifically, a population with the capacity to make intelligence, rational decisions on key issues such as retirement savings, healthcare choice, real estate investments and consumption. The expansion of adult learning as well as secondary and tertiary education, bringing courses such as “home economics” back into the curricula, and preparing our citizens for the economic challenges of the future. Everyone must be able to draft a personal budget, calculate mortgage payments, prepare their retirement plans and otherwise understand basic household finance.
A fair criminal justice system
Specifically, the design of a legal system that ensures fast and fair resolution of criminal cases, based on national standards. The capping of malpractise, class action and other legal practices which drive up costs and benefit affluent insiders. The availability of qualified legal representation for all income levels. The reform of the prison system, including the possible decriminalization of some narcotics offenses. The provision of a national narcotics programme which addresses the root causes of addiction, provides treatment on a large scale, and calibrates penalties to violent crimes rather than simple possession.
If I were to pick three short-term priorities above all else (similar to the enduring Republican platform on taxes, a strong military and individual freedom), these would be the first three on the list:
• A fair living wage for all workers
• A national healthcare system
• A well-funded, competitive and cohesive national education policy
For me, these are the key priorities in the next administration. Anyone who can make detailed promises and measurable progress towards the key, bipartisan priorities has my vote.
Yet this seems to be a difficult task, since our beliefs are often based on an intuitive understanding of right and wrong, of fair and unfair, which aren’t reduced to pithy soundbites.
So, I’m putting forth a list of sound-bites for Democrats who need an accurate and memorable description of what they believe in. As always, your comments are welcome.
As a Democrat, I believe in:
A fair living wage for all workers
Specifically, an annual raise in the minimum wage in line with inflation and productivity.
A national healthcare system
Specifically, a system which preserves choice, but which makes the opt-in to a national public system economically advantageous. The capping of medical malpractice suits to reasonable levels, and the right of the government of negotiate rationally (in the economic sense) with private healthcare and pharmaceutical providers.
A well-funded, competitive and cohesive national education policy
Specifically, a system financed on an objective budgeting process set at the national level, not on local real estate values. A well-funded system that is recognized as a key source of national cohesion and competitiveness, which allows dedicated students to advance through primary, secondary and tertiary public education based on merit. A system which pays teachers a living wage, invests in educational infrastructure and methods, based on clear national standards. The clear separation of church and state in public education.
Protecting the environment
Specifically, a growth policy that balances long-term environmental protection and restoration with short-term economic needs. The limitation of carbon emissions and other pollutants, the protection of endangered forests, oceans, lakes and species, and the shift towards an economy based on renewable sources of energy.
An ethical foreign policy
Specifically, one which respects international law and the rights of different countries, cultures and religions. One which does not violate the Geneva Convention and the core values of the United Nations system. One which does not seek of impose our short-term preferences with misguided military action, but seeks sustainable, long-term solutions to the pressing problems of poverty, religious extremism, failed states, climate change and the other root causes of terrorism and instability. The demilitarization of foreign policy.
A fair and regulated economy
Specifically, an economy based on a clear strategy of development, avoiding the excesses of short-term solutions which favour “insiders” or large capital interests. Incentives to promote savings, lower- and middle-income families. The mitigation of systemic problems, such as unregulated hedge funds, insider trading, an excessive reliance on real estate development or stock market “booms” for personal finance, and the unsustainable reliance on too few insurers and re-insurors, ratings agencies and other key actors in the financial system. A balanced national budget with active debt reduction. A reliance on fair trade that respects key priorities in environmental, labour and poverty alleviation.
A fair and predictable tax system
Specifically, one which guarantees the greater good of the majority of citizens, particularly those in lower and middle classes. A system which closes tax loop-holes for the affluent, and particularly companies who register in offshore tax havens such as Bermuda or Cayman Islands, but benefit from public subsidies and spending in from the US government (state and national). At the same time, the tax system must be fair to companies, and promote growth and employment, and be competitive compared to international competitors.
A viable pension system
Specifically, maintaining the right for personal choice in a portion of retirement savings, while strengthening the role of Social Security as an insurer of last resort, but also as a primary insurer for those who choose. An expansion of incentives for retirement savings, extending these to public (national and state) plans (such as CALPERS). An expansion of taxes to strengthen Social Security.
Educated, economically-aware citizens
Specifically, a population with the capacity to make intelligence, rational decisions on key issues such as retirement savings, healthcare choice, real estate investments and consumption. The expansion of adult learning as well as secondary and tertiary education, bringing courses such as “home economics” back into the curricula, and preparing our citizens for the economic challenges of the future. Everyone must be able to draft a personal budget, calculate mortgage payments, prepare their retirement plans and otherwise understand basic household finance.
A fair criminal justice system
Specifically, the design of a legal system that ensures fast and fair resolution of criminal cases, based on national standards. The capping of malpractise, class action and other legal practices which drive up costs and benefit affluent insiders. The availability of qualified legal representation for all income levels. The reform of the prison system, including the possible decriminalization of some narcotics offenses. The provision of a national narcotics programme which addresses the root causes of addiction, provides treatment on a large scale, and calibrates penalties to violent crimes rather than simple possession.
If I were to pick three short-term priorities above all else (similar to the enduring Republican platform on taxes, a strong military and individual freedom), these would be the first three on the list:
• A fair living wage for all workers
• A national healthcare system
• A well-funded, competitive and cohesive national education policy
For me, these are the key priorities in the next administration. Anyone who can make detailed promises and measurable progress towards the key, bipartisan priorities has my vote.
Wednesday, 20 February 2008
Language, Rhetoric and Good Intentions
I’ve had a large dose of political fatigue these past few days. Last week I was in Cyprus for the Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and had the opportunity to watch the three main presidential candidates slug it out in a Valentine’s Day Debate. On Sunday, Kosovo declared independence. Over the weekend and all through this week, I’ve been watching Hillary and Barack escalate their attacks on each other in the media.
Rhetoric, of course, is considered a positive attribute in a politician, which is why we remember past heroes of the genre such as Pericles or Alcibiades. And it’s certainly better to have a President capable of communicating in good English, rather than one who cannot: we must only remember the Current Inhabitant of the White House to appreciate this.
The fact, therefore, that a candidate is a good orator should not be considered a negative attribute. Blaming Barrack Obama for speaking well is as disingenuous as blaming Bill Gates for dropping out of Harvard to start Microsoft.
Yet rhetoric is a fragile thing. The same words that are so effective in a heated campaign rally are damning on the written page. This is where, I think, our modern political system and language fail us. Thousands of people attend a campaign rally, yet millions more read the candidate’s words the day after.
Let’s take a look at some examples: The Washington Post reported today (Obama, McCain Roll to Wins in Wisconsin) on some campaign speeches of the two candidates in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary. Here’s what Hillary said:
"Both Senator Obama and I would make history…But only one of us is ready on day one to be commander-in-chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans.”
On the face of it, this statement is absurd. Given past mistakes and political biography, there’s nothing in the record of either candidate to indicate this would be true:
• Neither has served in the armed forces, fought in combat, or ordered troops into battle;
• Neither has been an entrepreneur or corporate manager: they are both professional lawyers and politicians, and many of their statements betray a glaring misunderstanding of economics;
• Defeating the Republicans is not what I imagine most Americans would want. I believe we want solutions to day-to-day and longer-term problems, and in this respect cooperation with Republicans-and all Americans-will be essential.
Now let’s take Obama’s statement, quoted in the same article:
"The problem that we face in America is not a lack of good ideas…It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die."
For those who have studied logic, this statement is similar to the Epimenides paradox: “All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan.” If Washington is indeed a place where good ideas go to die, why in the world are you hell-bent on going there? Indeed, how many good ideas have you killed since you joined the Senate in January 2005?
The problem of rhetoric and language in the political sphere must be put in context. Language is used to fire up supporters, to deliver an easily-digestible narrative of “us versus them”, the “good versus the bad.” The real world, of course, doesn’t work that way. On January 21st, 2009, the day after the Inauguration, whoever is President will have to work with the opposing party to pass legislation. He or she will have to work with states governed by members of the opposite party, and may have to order troops into combat who identify with the opposite party.
The Democratic candidates are hammering John McCain with his statement on keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. John McCain is hammering Obama for his "eloquent but empty call for change" and the "confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate.” Hillary and Barrack are attacking each other daily.
Yet at the end of the day, these people are all Americans, and are all expressing their constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly. Neither party will have an enduring majority, so the tactic of alienating a significant portion of the population is rationally harmful to one’s own self-interest, let alone to an enlightened, collective interest.
The impact of campaign rhetoric is lasting. Repeated over and over again, it leads of a form of psychological conditioning with a grave impact on candidates, supporters and opponents. The fact that we have now separated official campaign media with unofficial supporters (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) merely adds to the corrosive acidity of modern political life.
Despite my hopes for this election, and for the American polity as a whole, I can’t help remembering that old canard: It’s only the people who can’t succeed in business, science or arts that run for political office. Given today’s electoral system and wider political climate, I certainly would never consider doing so. No ethical person would, given what it costs in money, honour and spirit.
Rhetoric, of course, is considered a positive attribute in a politician, which is why we remember past heroes of the genre such as Pericles or Alcibiades. And it’s certainly better to have a President capable of communicating in good English, rather than one who cannot: we must only remember the Current Inhabitant of the White House to appreciate this.
The fact, therefore, that a candidate is a good orator should not be considered a negative attribute. Blaming Barrack Obama for speaking well is as disingenuous as blaming Bill Gates for dropping out of Harvard to start Microsoft.
Yet rhetoric is a fragile thing. The same words that are so effective in a heated campaign rally are damning on the written page. This is where, I think, our modern political system and language fail us. Thousands of people attend a campaign rally, yet millions more read the candidate’s words the day after.
Let’s take a look at some examples: The Washington Post reported today (Obama, McCain Roll to Wins in Wisconsin) on some campaign speeches of the two candidates in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary. Here’s what Hillary said:
"Both Senator Obama and I would make history…But only one of us is ready on day one to be commander-in-chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans.”
On the face of it, this statement is absurd. Given past mistakes and political biography, there’s nothing in the record of either candidate to indicate this would be true:
• Neither has served in the armed forces, fought in combat, or ordered troops into battle;
• Neither has been an entrepreneur or corporate manager: they are both professional lawyers and politicians, and many of their statements betray a glaring misunderstanding of economics;
• Defeating the Republicans is not what I imagine most Americans would want. I believe we want solutions to day-to-day and longer-term problems, and in this respect cooperation with Republicans-and all Americans-will be essential.
Now let’s take Obama’s statement, quoted in the same article:
"The problem that we face in America is not a lack of good ideas…It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die."
For those who have studied logic, this statement is similar to the Epimenides paradox: “All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan.” If Washington is indeed a place where good ideas go to die, why in the world are you hell-bent on going there? Indeed, how many good ideas have you killed since you joined the Senate in January 2005?
The problem of rhetoric and language in the political sphere must be put in context. Language is used to fire up supporters, to deliver an easily-digestible narrative of “us versus them”, the “good versus the bad.” The real world, of course, doesn’t work that way. On January 21st, 2009, the day after the Inauguration, whoever is President will have to work with the opposing party to pass legislation. He or she will have to work with states governed by members of the opposite party, and may have to order troops into combat who identify with the opposite party.
The Democratic candidates are hammering John McCain with his statement on keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. John McCain is hammering Obama for his "eloquent but empty call for change" and the "confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate.” Hillary and Barrack are attacking each other daily.
Yet at the end of the day, these people are all Americans, and are all expressing their constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly. Neither party will have an enduring majority, so the tactic of alienating a significant portion of the population is rationally harmful to one’s own self-interest, let alone to an enlightened, collective interest.
The impact of campaign rhetoric is lasting. Repeated over and over again, it leads of a form of psychological conditioning with a grave impact on candidates, supporters and opponents. The fact that we have now separated official campaign media with unofficial supporters (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) merely adds to the corrosive acidity of modern political life.
Despite my hopes for this election, and for the American polity as a whole, I can’t help remembering that old canard: It’s only the people who can’t succeed in business, science or arts that run for political office. Given today’s electoral system and wider political climate, I certainly would never consider doing so. No ethical person would, given what it costs in money, honour and spirit.
Saturday, 16 February 2008
Is Barack Obama the new Al Gore?
CNN reported yesterday that the Clinton campaign is trying to get the Michigan and Florida primary votes included in the national results. Both states were stripped of their delegates after changing the dates of their primaries to earlier in the year. According to several media reports (see list of sources below), Hillary Clinton stood by that decision, but now is reversing her agreement due to her current position in the Democratic polls.
Before commenting on this, I confirm that I have found no official statement on either the Clinton campaign website or the DNC website this morning (Saturday, 16 February), and thus cannot confirm whether this is an official campaign demand or not.
If the reports of this demand are true, there can be no clearer reminder that political principles are often sacrificed to self-interest in extremis. To put it in the election vernacular, it would be another sign of flip-flopping and hypocrisy, and a reminder of why Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President of the United States.
It is inconceivable to me, an American living overseas, how the country that inspired the world by putting a man on the moon has accepted an election system which is so obviously inefficient, time-consuming, expensive and misleading. One would have thought that after the 2000 Florida recount and the 2004 cases of voter disbarment, the Democratic Party would have provided leadership and initiative to design a fair, transparent and representative system, at least for their own party.
Instead, we are left with superdelegates, demands for a partial recount in two states, campaigning in violation of party agreement and shifting expectations. This situation is either the result of supreme incompetence and cynicism, or of more sinister implications.
In a previous entry, I asked “Is Barack Obama the new Al Gore?” If the current trends last, Obama wins the popular vote and state count, but loses the delegates because of the reinstatement of Florida and Michigan, then he really will be the new Al Gore, a victim of the same practise that led to the judicial election of our current President.
In this case, Hillary will be the new George W Bush.
Sources
I’m providing sources for these reports below. In each case, I’m using on-the-record state or national media as far as possible (no blogs or politically-affiliated sources). In each case, only the first few paragraphs are provided: you can follow this up using the links and references. All content quoted here is copyright of the respective authors and sources mentioned.
1. CNN=Politics Daily
February 15, 2008
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/15/cnnpolitics-daily-18/
And bigger battles continue to loom ahead as top Democrats face off over the role of Michigan and Florida. Both states were stripped of their delegates after moving up their primaries in violation of DNC rules. Now, the campaign of Hillary Clinton – who came up the winner in both states – is calling for them to be seated at the party’s summer convention after all.
2. Obama camp cries foul over Clinton stance in Florida
Miami Herald, 14 February 2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/418611.html
After eight losses in a row and no victories in sight this month, Hillary Clinton's campaign renewed calls Wednesday for the votes in Florida and Michigan to count toward delegates that would help her catch Barack Obama.
Obama's camp said her demand was a blatant attempt to ignore the ground rules set when the national party stripped both states of their delegates for breaking early-primary rules. Last summer, all of the major candidates agreed to boycott the two renegade states.
''Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules,'' Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters in a telephone call. ``Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that in the country or a lot of appetite for that at the DNC.''
In fact, when the national party inflicted its punishment on Florida in August, Clinton's campaign did not protest. And on Sept. 1, Clinton went along with the boycott urged by four smaller states authorized by the DNC to hold the earliest contests.
3. Clinton: Give States Their Delegates
Associated Press, 25 January 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gR3WqJGTzfbQ71E5a1z5Jnp24O_gD8UD3L501
Hillary Rodham Clinton is angling for Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer, even though they have been stripped by the national party.
The presidential candidate said Friday — just four days before Florida's primary — that she wants the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated. The national party eliminated all the delegates from those states — more than 350 in all — because they broke party rules against holding their primaries before Feb. 5. All the major Democratic candidates also made pledges not to campaign in those states before their primaries.
"I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton said in a statement issued by her campaign. "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan," she said.
Clinton, a New York senator, called on the other candidates to join her. Requests for comment were left Friday afternoon with the campaigns of her Democratic rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
4. Hillary: FL and MI should be heard
MSNBC / NBC / NBC/NJ: 9 February 2008
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/09/651383.aspx
Clinton seemed to dismiss the idea that Florida and Michigan -- two states whose primaries she won but weren't contested and didn't award delegates -- should hold caucuses so that their delegates could be seated at the Denver convention.
In a 12-minute media avail here Saturday, the senator also said superdelegates had historically been independent for a reason, added Wisconsin to the mix of states she was feeling good about, and sought to paint Obama as "increasingly" the establishment candidate.
"I think that the people of Michigan and Florida spoke in a very convincing way, that they want their voices and their votes to be heard. The turnout in both places was record-breaking and I think that that should be respected," she told reporters. However, Clinton was the only major Democratic candidate on the ballot in Michigan, as a significant number of people there voted "Uncommitted." And it's worth noting that Clinton never spoke this way about Florida and Michigan until right before the South Carolina primary, a contest she lost decisively.
Clinton was asked whether superdelegates -- the party bigwigs and elected officials who aren't bound by the results in their states -- should in fact vote according to the choice voters in their state made, as Barack Obama suggested earlier this week. "Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment. That is the way the system works. But, of course, if Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry," she said. Both senators are from Massachusetts, a state Clinton won on Super Tuesday.
Before commenting on this, I confirm that I have found no official statement on either the Clinton campaign website or the DNC website this morning (Saturday, 16 February), and thus cannot confirm whether this is an official campaign demand or not.
If the reports of this demand are true, there can be no clearer reminder that political principles are often sacrificed to self-interest in extremis. To put it in the election vernacular, it would be another sign of flip-flopping and hypocrisy, and a reminder of why Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President of the United States.
It is inconceivable to me, an American living overseas, how the country that inspired the world by putting a man on the moon has accepted an election system which is so obviously inefficient, time-consuming, expensive and misleading. One would have thought that after the 2000 Florida recount and the 2004 cases of voter disbarment, the Democratic Party would have provided leadership and initiative to design a fair, transparent and representative system, at least for their own party.
Instead, we are left with superdelegates, demands for a partial recount in two states, campaigning in violation of party agreement and shifting expectations. This situation is either the result of supreme incompetence and cynicism, or of more sinister implications.
In a previous entry, I asked “Is Barack Obama the new Al Gore?” If the current trends last, Obama wins the popular vote and state count, but loses the delegates because of the reinstatement of Florida and Michigan, then he really will be the new Al Gore, a victim of the same practise that led to the judicial election of our current President.
In this case, Hillary will be the new George W Bush.
Sources
I’m providing sources for these reports below. In each case, I’m using on-the-record state or national media as far as possible (no blogs or politically-affiliated sources). In each case, only the first few paragraphs are provided: you can follow this up using the links and references. All content quoted here is copyright of the respective authors and sources mentioned.
1. CNN=Politics Daily
February 15, 2008
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/15/cnnpolitics-daily-18/
And bigger battles continue to loom ahead as top Democrats face off over the role of Michigan and Florida. Both states were stripped of their delegates after moving up their primaries in violation of DNC rules. Now, the campaign of Hillary Clinton – who came up the winner in both states – is calling for them to be seated at the party’s summer convention after all.
2. Obama camp cries foul over Clinton stance in Florida
Miami Herald, 14 February 2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/418611.html
After eight losses in a row and no victories in sight this month, Hillary Clinton's campaign renewed calls Wednesday for the votes in Florida and Michigan to count toward delegates that would help her catch Barack Obama.
Obama's camp said her demand was a blatant attempt to ignore the ground rules set when the national party stripped both states of their delegates for breaking early-primary rules. Last summer, all of the major candidates agreed to boycott the two renegade states.
''Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules,'' Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters in a telephone call. ``Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that in the country or a lot of appetite for that at the DNC.''
In fact, when the national party inflicted its punishment on Florida in August, Clinton's campaign did not protest. And on Sept. 1, Clinton went along with the boycott urged by four smaller states authorized by the DNC to hold the earliest contests.
3. Clinton: Give States Their Delegates
Associated Press, 25 January 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gR3WqJGTzfbQ71E5a1z5Jnp24O_gD8UD3L501
Hillary Rodham Clinton is angling for Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer, even though they have been stripped by the national party.
The presidential candidate said Friday — just four days before Florida's primary — that she wants the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated. The national party eliminated all the delegates from those states — more than 350 in all — because they broke party rules against holding their primaries before Feb. 5. All the major Democratic candidates also made pledges not to campaign in those states before their primaries.
"I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton said in a statement issued by her campaign. "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan," she said.
Clinton, a New York senator, called on the other candidates to join her. Requests for comment were left Friday afternoon with the campaigns of her Democratic rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
4. Hillary: FL and MI should be heard
MSNBC / NBC / NBC/NJ: 9 February 2008
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/09/651383.aspx
Clinton seemed to dismiss the idea that Florida and Michigan -- two states whose primaries she won but weren't contested and didn't award delegates -- should hold caucuses so that their delegates could be seated at the Denver convention.
In a 12-minute media avail here Saturday, the senator also said superdelegates had historically been independent for a reason, added Wisconsin to the mix of states she was feeling good about, and sought to paint Obama as "increasingly" the establishment candidate.
"I think that the people of Michigan and Florida spoke in a very convincing way, that they want their voices and their votes to be heard. The turnout in both places was record-breaking and I think that that should be respected," she told reporters. However, Clinton was the only major Democratic candidate on the ballot in Michigan, as a significant number of people there voted "Uncommitted." And it's worth noting that Clinton never spoke this way about Florida and Michigan until right before the South Carolina primary, a contest she lost decisively.
Clinton was asked whether superdelegates -- the party bigwigs and elected officials who aren't bound by the results in their states -- should in fact vote according to the choice voters in their state made, as Barack Obama suggested earlier this week. "Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment. That is the way the system works. But, of course, if Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry," she said. Both senators are from Massachusetts, a state Clinton won on Super Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)