Wednesday, January 9, 2008


I’ve heard some women say that they won’t vote for anyone, or will vote Republican, if Barak Obama wins the Democratic nomination. And I’ve heard some African-Americans say they’ll do the same thing if Hilary Clinton wins the nomination.

And I’ve heard John Edwards supporters say the same thing if either Barak or Hilary gets the nomination.

On Air America this morning, there were even some calls from some supporters of Edwards and/or Obama, trying to make the case that the primary election in New Hampshire was “stolen” through the use of election machine manipulation.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit a belief in the manipulation of electronic voting machine data, and believe only machines that also leave a paper trail that corresponds to each individual voters vote can be trusted.



There isn’t that much difference between the policy statements of the top three Democratic contenders, and certainly nowhere near as much difference as there is between any one of them and their possible Republican opponents in the general election.

So if anyone truly believes in what Edwards or Obama or Clinton stand for, then they will truly support whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

Here’s an idea for the best way to make use of the three Democratic leading contenders:

If Obama or Hilary wins the nomination, they should ask Jim Webb to be the vice presidential nominee. (He’s the Virginia Senator who gave that great response to junior’s 2005 State of the union address and unfortunately the Democrats have not made good use of, he’s a decorated veteran whose son is on active duty in Iraq.)

Then, if Obama wins the presidency, Hilary should become the majority whip in the Senate and John Edwards named Attorney General. If Hilary wins the nomination and presidency, she should also name Edwards Attorney General and Obama Secretary of State.

If Edwards wins the nomination and presidency, he should name Hilary Attorney General and Obama Secretary of State, and his running mate should be Bill Richardson.

If any of the Republicans win the presidency, all electronic and mechanical election returns should be contested, and the recent “voter I. D.” laws in some states (created and encouraged by the Bush administration to cope with “voter fraud” of which there were almost no cases proven in the past few decades—that’s why some of the Bush appointed Republican Federal prosecutors lost their jobs under Gonzales, because they refused to prosecute “vote fraud” cases wherever Democratic candidates happen to have a majority) should be exposed as the same kind of devices as “the poll tax” and other more old-fashioned systems of preventing poor and less educated African-Americans and whites from voting, and overturned.


Jim said...

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your characterization of voter i.d. as approaching the poll tax laws of yesteryear. We have to show ID to open financial accts.,receive a passport, buy a car, cash a check, and, I believe, to receive govt. benefits including welfare and social security. The least we should do, is prove that we are a legal citizen and a resident in the district in which we are voting. The Democrat party seems to believe there is a right to vote as often and as illegally as necessary in order to win. Felons and illegal aliens should be welcomed at the polls according to many in the Democrat party.

The good news is that the Supreme Court is addressing this issue. I believe the state law that provided for ID will be upheld. We shall see.

Phillipa said...

Voting issues have never been more important. Regardless of the candidates, we need to do everything in our power to restore our faith in the voting process. There is a bi-partisan organization dedicated to voting transparency and integrity at a state level-- As the past two presidential elections have shown, it is not enough to support individual candidates or parties if the voting system is broken.

AlamedaTom said...

Brilliant post, Young Jedi.

The Jim Webb idea is great.

One other thing that should be put in the mix regarding your over-arching theme of the need for a Dem prez: the frackin' Supreme Court!!!!! We absolutely cannot allow another Alito/Roberts/Scalisi/Thomas clone.

As to Jim's criticism above, I was listening to Thom Hartman this morning who pointed out that his mother would not be able to vote under this new law in Indiana that is going before the Supremes. His mom has not driven a car for 35 years and has no substitute ID because she has not needed it. I agree with you: such laws are a crypto-poll tax. And it's going to get worse with the Republicans having to face this tsunami of new, idealistic, motivated voters. If the Repubs can't figure out a way to keep these people from voting in the general election, they [the Repubs] are going to go get bashed beyond recognition.

~ Willy

harryn said...

totally agree ! - if the only platform is 'change' its good enough for me - i pray that the dems don't embarrass themselves again with silly in-fighting or impertinent 'experience' stories - the scenarios you listed seem to indicate 'smart' leadership - do think kennedy [ed] or [bill] clinton's experience will find their way into the mending process ?

Jim said...

Indiana is providing a no cost ID card. All the voter has to do is apply. People have to take the time to register in order to vote. Why shouldn't they have to take the time to get a no cost ID card?

Lally said...

Tom, thanks so much for the "young jedi" label, "young" anything I can dig. And Phillipa for the link. And Jim for the contrariness that makes for a better discussion.
As for your comment on the Indiana I.D., I haven't really researched this so don't have enough facts to argue it well, but just on the initial information I got from the news, it seems a birth certificate is required in order to get the I.D.
I know for myself, that even getting a copy of a birth certificate if you have been here for a few generations (my wife and children) there can still be enough glitches in actually getting a copy that it can take months, if not longer. Now complicate that by being an immigrant, say from Mexico or further South, or from a country at war, saw Sudan or the Congo or Somalia, etc. or Timor or Iraq for that matter, and the records have been lost or destroyed (in order for me to get my Irish citizenship I needed my grandfather's birth certificate, for example, but those records were lost a long time ago in a fire), now we're talking perhaps no possibility or years of paperwork and diligent pursuit of various bureocracies(sp!) et-endless-cetera.
Let's see now, who might get most of the immigrant vote? Is there an I. D. law like that in Florida? Where Cuban immigrants generally vote Republican? And if there is, do Cuban immigrants get some kind of pass on providing birth certificates etc.? I bet they damn well do or will. Everyone who is the least objective knows from the actual factual records that tampering with votes (decades ago by Democrats including, alledgedly, JFK and LBJ, but most recently by Republicans and the Republican owned coporations that provide many of the electronic voting machines) and the tallying of them (Florida, Ohio, anyone?) and the turning away of non-white, non-"middle class" etc. voters (Florida anyone? Ohio anyone?) has been a major problem in the last several national elections, while "voter fraud" of the kind these laws purport to prevent, have not. Period.
And as for Paul, I hope some of the elders among the Dems can heal the wounds, but I doubt Ted Kennedy has the clout anymore or that Bill will have the stature and respect, now that he's become so partisan on behalf of his wife and against Obama, unfortunately.