Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Once you take stock of the targeted disenfranchisement, DoJ sanctioned, the Republican nominee can claw to an upset victory again, as happened in 2000 and 2004.

So this time around, a pool of voters in the primary ought to turn to the 1 Democrat who can pull 54% or 56% of the vote, including independents, transcend the hypocrisy, boost the "downticket" races for Senate and governor — and come through over the top.

That 1 Democrat will not be Clinton and will not be Edwards, I don't think.

Hillary Clinton arouses such very high  committed "core opposition"  

– about half of the electorate – that it's hard for her to carve a slice of the independent vote. Surely she can win among Democrats, but inroads by her to the other side are capped.   You can see that entrenched opposition for Edwards and Obama are far below the halfway mark. Source: Rasmussen Reports 12/22/07 rasmussenreports.com

Between Barack Obama and John Edwards, not everyone will have an easy time choosing - including labor unions in key primary states.

AP reports that unions in the heavy union-density state of Nevada and national unions are delaying an endorsement of the top candidates:

Each union has its own reasons underpinning the indecision, but they also share the opinion that each of the top Democrats in the race has a strong record on labor issues and that a wrong choice -- one that isn't supported by the members or doesn't yield a victory -- is worse than a late one, or none at all.

"People are sort of equally excited about each of the top three candidates, and at the end of the day we want to keep all our of members excited about taking back the White House," said SEIU Nevada executive director Jane McAlevey. "Dividing the membership in January doesn't help anything."

Teachers union president Lynn Warne said her executive board was similarly concerned about "disenfranchising members" who didn't agree with the union choice. The union has instead focused on encouraging a strong caucus turnout, she said.

For me the choice is pretty easy. I don't see a huge distinction between the positions of either Obama or Edwards or Clinton. Expect any one of their planks for the economy, healthcare, foreign policy or the US budget to be subtly tweaked by advisers between Election Day November 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009. It happens every time as advisers sign on with the Prez-elect and the incoming team has to square the promise with the possible. And for me, I lost faith in Clinton and Edwards the day in October 2002 they voted to give the White House the authorization to go to war in Iraq. It was a callous political decision by each to prove their supposed "strength" on defense matters in Congress. Most liberals could see through the lies and manipulation in October 2002. I expected more. I still do.

Look ahead also to the YouTube video posts in our future. I expect the 4-minute "I feel pretty" tape of John Edwards with the comb to come to the fore.  To me, it's just bad judgment to have a camera watching you getting your hair combed endlessly. Makes someone seem packaged. It's enough to make those lunchbox Reagan Democrats jump to a Huckabee or McCain.  And does a 28,000 square foot home with squash courts undermine his '2 Americas' message?

I'm hunting for a committed liberal Democrat who can pull votes in the North, East, West, and South and I have high hopes for Obama. I was leaning to him already when Obama took a stand that sealed the deal for me. In the Senate, he bucked majority leader Harry Reid on a key battle of "package" nominations of Republicans and Democrats to the FEC. One of the nominees, Hans von Spakovsky, was key in launching voter roll purges of the kind that removed 1000s of properly registered voters  from the rolls in 2000 across counties in Florida, and in other states since.

So Senator Obama, Feingold, and Sherrod Brown placed a procedural "block" on the FEC nomination of von Spakovsky. A key player in the DoJ before Bush named him to the FEC, the nominee brought a heavy hand in the illegal redistricting in Texas (invalidated by the US Supreme Court) and in promoting Voter ID laws across the states. I wrote about the Senators' block of Bush's cynical appointment awhile ago, see link.

The Boston Globe wrote a sweeping endorsement that Obama shows the leadership needed "to reset the country's reputation in the world.... His bill, cosponsored with Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), to add conventional weapons to the nation's threat reduction initiative, became law this year." Also, "America needs a president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has this understanding at his core."

The Globe cited Obama's stance on the Iraq incursion:

"I don't oppose all wars," he said in the fall of 2002. "I'm opposed to rash wars."

So that's my argument for who. I'm a partisan now. You may not agree with my view or my own choice. My main reason is I see this man as a vote draw like no one else in the field. The Zogby telephone poll report of Dec. 20 showed him with the largest consistent lead against the Republican opponents.

That leads me to the how of balloting. I'm concerned to see:

1. HDTV (Hold Down the Vote) becoming a more important Election Day maneuver by the GOP than even GOTV (get out the vote) is for both of the parties,
2. Election officials and DoJ enforcement of the HAVA law (Help A-lawyer Void Another ... ballot). It's named officially the Help America Vote Act. Also
3. the control of the new voter rolls database programming effort by companies with overwhelmingly Republican financial commitments.

The threat of snowballing voter ID laws across the states (in defiance of the documented truth that there are basically no cases found of persons walking into polling places to cast a vote in someone else's name) will divert people to voting "provisionally." Congresswoman Julia Carson learned it the hard way when her US-issued Capitol Hill ID was deemed insufficient in Indiana because it showed no expiration date. Only her stature as a lawmaker caused the inspector to waive the rule and let vote by regular ballot.

Another black person may not have been so fortunate. Polling place challenges and voter roll  purges and "cleansing" have shunted off more urban voters to provisional ballots, an election maneuver that demands a standard of identification that disqualifies a large fraction of ballots (versus being permitted to enter a polling booth – where 100% of ballots cast there are admitted to the count).

These tactics alter the math. A 51% voter intent for the Democratic candidate cannot overcome the vote shaving that is being institutionalized by HAVA, the Department of Justice enforcement of HAVA, and voter ID laws.

The win in November 2008 must be decisive, not an even divide.

When you, the voters in Democratic primaries, look ahead to nominate the candidate of your choice, take steps with the local election authorities and state party to cast any ballot on paper, not on touchscreen-type machines.

Keep in mind that in Sarasota, FLA in 2006, 18000 votes for Congress were lost/not recorded on the electronic ES&S voting machines, possibly defeating Christine Jennings' bid for election. More votes were recorded for Hospital Board Southern District that day than in the Jennings-Buchanan race for US Congress.

Push ahead of time for a full paper ballot, or the nomination may be out of your hands.

I will be writing more on the issue of honest balloting in primary season. Thank you for reading.