Why We Can Trust Obama on Negotiations with Enemies

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” — John F Kennedy

Today is likely to mark Obama’s move to finally secure the democratic nomination for President of the United States. This long journey has been marked by gaffes, preacher associations, heated debates, conflicting polls, and passion filled charges. Now it will be marked with the end, a final speech to kickoff the general election. For those that have been following this from the beginning though, the Obama nomination has not always appeared to be so likely.

In June of 2007, after one of the first debates, Hillary threw the first punch, hoping to expunge any Obama “hope” early in the game, by demonstrating that his inexperience on foreign policy was his greatest weakness. Unfortunately for her, she helped him create one of the key differentiators between them, and gave him a foreign policy stump speech.

Now, over the weekend, in reflecting on a conversation Obama had with Clinton, he recalled:

“… she and I have been on this same journey together, and … once the dust settled, I was looking forward to meeting with her at a time and place of her choosing.”

No preconditions.

Hillary can bring her requests for a spot on the ticket, or her plea for aid in repaying her $40 million in debt. Despite suggestions an innuendo that she might be waiting for the worst to happen to Obama, he’s willing to sit down and talk. It can be over tea or whiskey, at the shooting range or bowling alley, in West Virginia, or Kentucky. It’s her choice. And she can lay out the conditions. He will listen. And then they will negotiate.

If Obama can negotiate the mending necessary to bring Clinton and her supporters on board, I have full faith he’ll be able to start a dialogue that secures our borders, starts the path to peace in the middle east by involving Iran and Syria, and convinces Dr. Strangeglove of North Korea that he really doesn’t want those nuke toys western countries harbor so selfishly.

Congratulations Clinton! You’re officially the candidate for…

the racists that still exist in this country.

What disturbs me is that there is obvious racist sentiments leading to Clinton’s victory in West Virginia. There were reports in exit polling that two-thirds of the voters in West Virginia would not vote for Obama because he is black. This should disturb Clinton more than anyone. Why should she celebrate in their votes? And it should disturb her supporters. It taints anyone that supports her.

Clinton has no chance of winning the nomination. It’s over. It’s long been over, but the Democratic party has been patient with her. And yet she continues on, based on the hope that super delegates will cozy to her broad base appeal argument.

My argument against the broad based appeal and the idea that Obama can’t win white, working class American’s is basic. I don’t want to be in a party that has racists. Period. I thought that was the other party (in fact the last two presidential elections West Virginia did in fact go to Repubicans). So if the Democratic party wants to make the argument that in order to win the election, it must appeal to this group, then sorry - I’m not party to that.

In fact if Hillary truly is not a racist then I’d expect her to come out and reject, repudiate and denounce the votes of the two-thirds of West Virginia. But of course we wont’ hear anything like that, instead we’ll have to endure another three weeks of torture as this nomination process slowly bleeds campaign money that could be going to the fight against McCain.

Wow…it makes you proud to be an American for the first time… right Michelle?

Smoking in the Name of Kids

I’m not gonna dive into this issue much but this is where I part ways with Liberals of the Left. I’m not against taxes. I’m just against unfair taxes. Slapping another “Tax for Children’s Health Care” is just such a tax. It seems whenever we Lefties want to get tax money, the easiest way is go after the smokers. Who really likes cigarettes anyway? I know I don’t (although IrishSpacemonk may be seen with a cigarette but that’s because he’s an entertainer.)

Here’s where I get confused. Hear me out. A cigarette tax is a regressive tax, in that it taxes harder the poor in society. The poor in society are often the very people that need health care assistance for their kids. Cigarettes are addictive and getting off the addiction isn’t easy, nor free. We want to have a society free of smokers. But a society free of smokers will not fix the problem that uninsured kids that still need health care. And where does the money come from then? I was reminded of this a month or so back when Hillary Clinton was asked about a ban on cigarettes. There’s no way a lefty could be for such a ban when you think of all the tax revenue that would disappear. That’s the bind.

So here’s my three points against with slapping smokers with another cigarette tax to pay for kid’s health care.

1. The tax is regressive, taxing the poor more heavily than the rich
2. The tax takes advantage of an addiction that we are trying to fight, and when the fight is successful, tax revenue declines, despite the remaining need for health care of kids
3. Increased prices for cigarettes will not make the use of cigarettes go down - look at illegal drugs for a perfect example

In Oregon, this tax attempt is called, the “Healthy Kids Initiative” (Measure 50). I’m not for big tobacco. In fact why not cap the price of cigarettes and tax the tobacco companies instead? Make it come from their bottom line. What I’m against is an $0.85 per pack tax on the poor, to pay the health case expenses of the poor….what do you think? Give me an argument to the contrary and I might change my mind.

American Politics At Home And Why Nothing Ever Gets Done

This drawing is a bit late for the Friday Drawing for a Reader (see the Blogger Bomb #2 for an explanation), but it’s here all the same.

I’ve overheard the above conversation many times, probably because we don’t typically get married based on political preferences, or one’s political disposition changes over time. Either way, reader Bill’s point about Oregon’s one Democrat and one Republican Senator canceling each other out is a direct reflection of this couch talk on the home front.

Perhaps we should get Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden together in a little counseling chat. Of course, my preference would be to change the color of Gordon to blue, but you can’t always get what you want.

Complex Legislation Mean Some in Congress Never Read

This week’s, Drawing for a Reader, is for Bill, from out West, who drew my attention to this recent story about Dianne Feinstein.

I wish I didn’t have to pick on Democrats so much, considering that this IS a slightly left-leaning political cartoon blog, but the current Democrats have been such easy targets recently with their authorization of warrant-less wiretapping, inability to make progress on the Iraq War, and their failure to pursue impeachment proceedings of Bush & Associates.

The Congress isn’t entirely at fault. Because nothing has been done to curb the influence of Corporations (who often write the bills), legislation that must be voted on are huge, complex works that would probably make Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” read like a cartoon…no offense to Tolstoy, cartoons are fun.

Clinton’s Boys, Dodd and Biden, Gang Up on Barack Obama

With Hillary Clinton breaking out in the polls, the Democratic candidates who realize they have no chance to stand out, have started taking sides, jockeying for a favourable position in the next White House. It appears from the AFL-CIO debate which White House Biden and Dodds are hoping to join.

Democrats Lack Backbone on Controversial Wiretap Bill

After all the protest and hand-wringing by Democrats in both the House and Senate, evidently the prospect of being viewed as weak on terrorism proved too great. 56 Democrats, (40 in the House, and 16 in the Senate), voted for the measure that allows the continued warrant-less wiretap policy.

Rest assured. It’s no longer a secret policy. We’ve all been warned.