The Truth Is Obama Won Texas

Clinton has been bragging for several days now about winning in Texas, but that is really only a partial truth. She only won a part of the delegate selection process in Texas.

Texas will send a total of 228 delegates to the national convention. Of those, 35 are superdelegates. That means 193 delegates were up for selection on March 4th. The primary part of the selection process was used to pick 126 delegates. The other 67 delegates were to be picked in caucuses after the polls closed.

Clinton did barely eke out a win in the primary part of the process. That meant the 126 delegates were divided up at 65 for Clinton and 61 for Obama -- a four point margin for Clinton.

But when the caucuses were held that night, it looks like Obama won that part of the process. It looks like the caucuses will give Obama a 7-9 delegate edge. When the two parts of the process are put together, Obama will have a 3-5 delegate edge. And the person who got the most delegates is the real winner -- Barack Obama.

Some of Clinton's people are crying that the system is unfair. That's ridiculous! This is not a new system. Texas has been apportioning its delegates this way for years now. Anyone could have looked at Texas and known this before the primary season even started. So it was an even playing field for both candidates.

I think Clinton expected to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday, so her people really didn't pay much attention to Texas. By the time it was obvious that Texas would be important, they were trying to play catch-up and really didn't understand the importance of the second part of the process -- the caucuses.

The two candidates had an equal chance to work both parts of the system here in Texas. The fact is that Obama did a better job of it. That's why he wound up with the most delegates, and that's why he's the real winner in Texas.

Some Clinton people are making noises like they will go to court. If they do, it's just sour grapes. The system was fair. She just lost.

Racist Indicted In Tarrant County

Last December 19th in Arlington, Grace Edith Head (pictured above) attacked another woman and hit her on the head with a 2-by-4. The other woman was African-American and the attack was racially motivated. Head was arrested and released on $25,000 bond. Two days later the other lady's home was vandalized with racial slurs painted on it.

On Wednesday, a Tarrant County Grand Jury finally acted in the case. They issued an indictment against Head, charging her with Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon (with a "hate crime" provision). The charge is a first-degree felony, which is punishable by up to life in prison. She was also charged with Criminal Mischief.

I think the charge is appropriate. She could easily have killed her victim with her violent actions. Head has the right to not like anyone else for any reason (however stupid), but she does not have the right to violently attack them or destroy their property.

We have tried to change in this country and do away with racism, but too much of it still exists. It's bad enough that we have to put up with the far too-slowly changing of institutional racism. But one thing we do not have to put up with is racial violence. We must act quickly to squash it every time it raises it's ugly head.

Hopefully, we will have a society free of racism someday. But first, we must make it clear that violent racist actions will not be tolerated.

"Traitor Joe" Loses His Vote

The excellent blog, McBlogger, brings us some great news. It looks like the turncoat senator, Joe Lieberman, has lost his superdelegate status. Thank goodness -- that was an honor he certainly didn't deserve.

According to Courant.com, the political blog of the Hartford Courant, the Democratic Party has taken away Lieberman's superdelegate vote in this year's nominating process. They did it because he has publicly come out in support of John McCain for president.

Now the party needs to finish the job, and strip Lieberman of all his committee seats in the Senate and kick him out of the Democratic caucus. He hasn't been a Democrat for a long time now. The party needs to recognize that fact and gives his committee seats to a loyal Democrat -- one who actually votes like a Democrat.

This needs to be done because:

1. Lieberman supports a Republican for president.

2. Lieberman has voted against the Democrats and for Bush on every bill relating to the Iraq War.

3. Lieberman votes with the Republicans a majority of the time on all bills.

4. Lieberman ran against the official Democratic candidate in the last election.

5. Lieberman is a creep. This one is just my opinion, but I think there are probably many, many Democrats who agree with me.

Now, some of you may say that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and he's a part of the Democratic caucus. That's true, but Sanders votes with the Democrats 99% of the time -- Lieberman doesn't even come close to that. Let the Republicans put him on a committee if they want to.

Feeling Ill Again

Sorry about not posting today, but I don't feel well at all. I've caught some bug (for the second time this winter). I'll be back to posting in a day or two, when I can think again.

Clinton Alive - But Makes Up Little Ground

Well, March 4th turned out to be quite an exciting night for Clinton. If nothing else, she scored a psychological victory. She scored victories in Ohio and Rhode Island, while Obama won Vermont. As I write this, CNN has just declared Clinton a winner in Texas.

However, Texas was about as close as it could be. The two candidates virtually split the vote evenly there. Obama carried the urban areas by large margins, and Clinton did the same in the more rural counties.

But the name of the game in the nominating process is delegates, and Clinton finished the night no better off in delegates than when she entered it. Obama still maintains a lead in both pledged and total delegates, and it is a large enough lead that it will be extremely difficult for Clinton to overcome.

I think the party was hoping this race would not come down to the superdelegates, but it's looking more and more like that's what will happen. That could be a disaster for the party.

If the superdelegates are seen as trumping the popular vote, it could make a lot of voters very angry (especially new voters). The party needs for these voters to return to the polls in November, but they may not do that if they think the "party hacks" have nullified their vote.

Texas is a good example of this. Tonight, in one of the reddest states in the nation, the Democrats had twice as many people vote in their primary as the Republicans did. If these voters come back to the polls in November, Texas could actually go Democratic (and elect a Democratic senator). If they believe their vote doesn't count and stay home, the Republicans will win again.

March 4th couldn't have turned out worse for the Democratic Party. Now Clinton and Obama will go on sniping at each other, while McCain begins his campaign for November. And the superdelegates are in the middle -- what a mess!

Indicted Sheriff Loses In Potter County

This was the one Potter County race in the Republican primary that I was interested in. The current sheriff of Potter County has been indicted on a felony charge of taking bribes from the vendor who runs the jail commissary. He was accused of receiving cash, trips, meals, computers and other gifts.

Even though there seems to be plenty of evidence against him, Sheriff Shumate (pictured above) has proclaimed his innocence. With the trial scheduled for June of this year, he again tossed his name in the ring to be re-elected as sheriff. Since there have been no public polls in this race, it was anyone's guess what the voters of Potter County would do.

With 96% of the vote in as I write this, it looks like the good people of Potter County think it is time for a new sheriff to take over.Here's how the vote currently stacks up:

Brian Thomas......3,037 (37%)

Clay Duke..........2,022 (24%)

Ken Farren.........1,324 (16%)

Mike Shumate........986 (12%)

Frank Frausto........935 (11%)

It looks like about 88% of the Potter County voters have decided they need a new sheriff. As a Democrat, I did not vote in this race. However, I wish to thank the Potter County Republicans who did vote. Regardless of whether they choose Thomas or Duke in the run-off, Potter County will be better off.

My Precinct Caucus

Precinct #122 - Potter County Democrats

I went to my precinct caucus (convention) last night -- Potter County precinct #122. I was pleasantly surprised to see a turnout of 27 people for this precinct. That may not seem like a lot of people to some of you, but you must understand that this is a tiny precinct that votes heavily Republican. To have 27 people is a good turnout for precinct #122.

I usually attend the precinct caucus, and I have attended caucuses in the past where the turnout didn't equal the number of delegates the precinct could send to the next level. Evidently, the campaigns have gotten through to many about the importance of the caucuses in choosing delegates. About two-thirds of the people who came to the caucus, were attending their very first caucus.

There were no really experienced people at the caucus, so I volunteered to be the temporary caucus chairman and my daughter volunteered to be the secretary. When I called the caucus to order, we were unanimously elected permanent chair and secretary.

After everyone signed in and made their choice for president, it broke down this way -- Clinton 15, Obama 11, Uncommitted 1. The uncommitted person was given a chance to join one of the other groups, and chose to join the Clinton group.

I was proud that Obama had this good a turnout in this precinct. I was hoping we'd be able to squeeze a delegate out for him.

After doing a little math, it was decided that Clinton would receive 4 delegates and Obama would receive 2 delegates. The delegates were then chosen by each group. My daughter was chosen as a Clinton delegate, and I was chosen as an alternate for Obama.

No resolutions were submitted, and the caucus was adjourned. The whole thing took about 45 minutes.

Why I Think Clinton Will Lose

Today is the big primary day here in Texas. It has been said by many, including her husband Bill, that today is the day that could end Clinton's chance of getting the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. She must win Texas and Ohio by big margins to even up the delegate race.

I think she could still eke out a win Ohio, though probably not with the large margin she needs. But here in Texas, I believe she will lose to Obama both in the popular vote and the apportioning of delegates. Although I believe she will go on to Pennsylvania, the campaign will effectively be over and the movement of the superdelegates to Obama will accelerate.

This is still a bit surprising to me. A year ago, Clinton had a huge lead over all the candidates. At that time, Clinton was expected to easily win the nomination. What happened? How did she lose an election most people thought she had "in the bag"?

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I think there are four major reasons for Clinton losing the Democratic nomination.

1. The move to the center. Over a year ago, I think she began to believe people who thought she had the nomination virtually wrapped up. She began to think about how to win the general election and started to move toward the center of the political spectrum. That was how her husband had won, and she thought she could replay his winning strategy.

But 2008 is different that 1992. Back then, most of America liked the idea of a centrist candidate, and it would have been impossible for a leftist to win. But that was before the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Bush and his cohorts in the Republican Party combined to give conservatism a black eye, and the country began to move back toward the left.

Evidently, Clinton did not see this shift, but the progressives in the Democratic Party certainly did. They became very critical of Clinton's move to the center, and many of them begged Clinton to rediscover her progressive roots. But the die had been cast -- she became the corporate Democratic candidate, accepting their money and coming out in favor of NAFTA and the outsourcing of jobs.

Many progressives became angry and disappointed with Clinton. They began to search for alternatives, and 2008 offered them several acceptable alternatives -- Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Gravel. As the candidates began to withdraw, none of their support went to Clinton. In the end, the huge majority of it wound up with Obama.

2. She didn't understand what the campaign was about. She and her campaign staff decided to base her campaign on "experience". But the country wasn't looking for experience. If they had been, there were candidates with far more experience than Clinton -- Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Gravel. But after Bush, the country was looking for something else. The country wanted change -- a radical change.

Obama understood this from the start. By the time Clinton and the others figured it out, Obama had already positioned himself as the candidate of change. Everyone else was left to play catch-up.

3. The charisma of Obama. Who could have predicted that Obama would become this "perfect storm" of a candidate. We had an inkling of this watching him speak at the Democratic convention a few years earlier. Few could have imagined how his campaign would catch fire, but catch fire it did. It started in Iowa and seemed to grow with each of the primaries and caucuses.

As the other candidates dropped out of the race, their supporters just seemed to naturally move into the Obama campaign. Soon, he was even getting supporters out of demographics that most thought were the exclusive property of Clinton.

4. Misogyny. Some of the feminist blogs supporting Clinton seem to believe this is the number one reason for the failure of her candidacy. I tend to think the other three reasons were more important. There are too many women elected to high public office to believe this is the number one reason for her failure. But it would be foolish to dismiss this completely. There are a lot of men out there who simply won't vote for a female candidate.

We can argue over which of these reasons was most important. However, the fact is that these four reasons have combined to defeat the Clinton candidacy.

Killing Continues In Iraq As Iranian Leader Visits

I have to wonder just what alternate universe George Bush and John McCain are living in. Both of them continue to claim that we are now winning the war in Iraq. They must have a very loose definition of "winning".

In the first two months of 2008, 69 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. In those same two months, 1228 Iraqi soldiers and civilians have been killed. If the violence does not increase (and we have no assurance it won't), then over 400 Americans and 7300 Iraqis will lose their lives there this year.

How can we view these death tolls as "winning the war", especially since so little is being accomplished on the political front in Iraq. On top of not solving any of their political problems, the Iraqi government received a state visit yesterday from Iran"s leader, Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad said the two countries had "agreed to cement their brotherly relations". How's that for a slap in the face to America? While American troops are still dying there, they are busy making nice with Iran -- an American enemy. The picture above is of Iran's Ahmadinejad and Iraq's Talabani celebrating the visit.

It is clear that we are not creating a democracy in Iraq. We are witnessing the creation of an Iranian-style Muslim theocracy. This is what Bush and McCain want to continue sacrificing American troops for. That should be unacceptable to all Americans -- even Republicans.

Neither Bush's pride, Iraqi oil or a Muslim theocracy are worth the death of a single American soldier. We must bring all of our troops home and end this nonsense now.

Not All Economies Are Hurting Like Ours

The United States economy grew less than 3% last year, and is facing a recession this year (at least two quarters of negative growth). Many Americans think this is a world-wide economic slowdown, but that is just not true.

India's economy is booming. The Indian economy grew at a rate of 9.6% in 2006/07, and is currently growing at a rate of 8.7%. In fact, India's economy is growing so fast that the government is trying to slow it down a bit to prevent it being accompanied by inflation. In the last year, they have raised interest rates and reduced the supply of rupees.

What is the Indian government doing with the increased revenue this enormous growth is generating? They are cancelling the debt of small farmers with less than two hectares of land (200 acres). They are also increasing health funding by 15% and education funding by 20%. What a novel idea! They are actually using that money to help their citizens.

Contrast this with what Bush did when he inherited a robust economy and huge budget surpluses. Instead of acting to help the average citizen, Bush cut taxes for the rich and the corporations. Then he underfunded Medicare, and tried to destroy Social Security. He radically increased government spending, but none of it went to help the working and middle classes.

Now the U.S. has huge deficits, growing inflation, and an economy sliding into recession. The Bush presidency hasn't just been a foriegn policy failure. It has also been an economic failure.

Why Does Texas Vote Republican ?

Conventional wisdom says that in an election, "it's the economy, stupid!". In other words, people vote their pocketbooks. That may be true in other states, but it sure isn't true in Texas. Texans traditionally vote against their own economic interests.

Texas is a state with a few rich people and a whole lot of poor, working-class and lower middle-class folks. The fact is that 71% of Texas families earn less than $50,000 a year. Texas also had fewer families earning over $200,000 when compared to the rest of the country. Those statistics would make any other place vote solidly Democratic, but Texas is different.

Texans generally supported Bush's tax cuts, even though those cuts gave the richest 1% about $79,713 while the huge majority of Texans got only a few hundred. Texas continued to vote Republican, as Republican economic policies caused the lowest population quintile to lose $300 in yearly income between 2001 and 2005. The middle quintile had an income rise of only 2.7% in the same period. However, income for the richest 1% rose 38% during that period.

It is obvious to anyone with eyes, that the Republicans have helped only the richest Americans, while hurting people in all other income catagories. But Texans have continued to vote Republican anyway.

That is because the Republicans have been very successful in using the prejudices and fears of many Texans. They have locked up the racist and homophobe vote (which is fairly large in Texas). Then they convinced others that Democrats would take their guns, burn their flags and outlaw their religion -- it isn't true, but many people are gullible. The result was a Republican majority.

But the Republicans may have overplayed their economic plan to help the rich. Now the prices on nearly everything is rising, hordes of people are losing their homes, wages are stagnant, jobs are being shipped out of the country and we are facing an extended recession (if not a depression).

Now that the Republicans have made a shambles of the economy, maybe even the gullible will be able to see the truth. Hopefully, the long dark reign of Republicanism is finally going to end here in Texas.

Clinton Insults Texas Democrats

As a Texas Democrat, I was shocked and insulted at the statement (accusation?) Hillary Clinton made to a large crowd of my fellow Texas Democrats in Fort Worth yesterday. She told the crowd that Texans have a chance to make-up for giving America George W. Bush. WHAT???

Does Clinton really believe that? Does she think Texas Dems forced George Bush on the rest of America? Now, it is true that Texas Dems had to put up with Bush for years before he went national.

But we also have to put up with tornados, hurricanes, floods, mosquitos, influenza, bad bosses, low pay, high prices, poor schools, bad haircuts and McDonald's hamburgers. Is she going to blame us for these things next?

I seem to remember a national party nominating the fool. I remember a whole bunch of other states voting for the fool. I even remember a Supreme Court declaring the fool was president even though he didn't get the most votes. I also remember this country re-electing the fool.

I wish to proclaim innocence for myself and other Texas Democrats. We tried to warn other Americans and did everything we could to keep him from being elected, but no one would listen. Texas Democrats have nothing to apologize for or make up for.

That was a very insulting accusation, and Clinton owes us an apology.

Early Voting Smashes Record In Texas

Since the primary and caucus season started in Iowa, there have been huge turnouts in every state. And the huge majority of those voters were turning out for the Democrats. I wondered at the time if this would happen in Texas also.

Texas is one of the reddest states in the country. It is so red that there's not a single Democrat holding statewide office, and both houses of the legislature have significant Republican majorities. But I shouldn't have worried.

Early voting is now over in Texas, and the numbers are in for the 15 most populated counties in the state. The number of voters didn't just set a new record, it absolutely smashed the old record. In 2000, these counties had a turnout of 315,000 voters, and in 2004, slightly less than 300,000 voted. Around a million people voted in these 15 counties in 2008 (959,666 as of Thursday).

Once again, the huge majority of those voters chose to participate in the Democratic primary. A whopping 717,469 voters chose the Democrats. Even more encouraging is the fact that this was not an off-year for Republican's voting. The Republican turnout was high (242,197), but still less than half of the Democratic turnout.

Of course, there are 239 other counties is Texas, and that could alter the percentages a bit. But probably not by much -- the huge majority of people (and voters) live in the the biggest 15 counties.

It'll be interesting to see if the same voting pattern holds true on election day next Tuesday. I suspect it will. Now we just have to wait and see if the Democrats can get these people back to the polls in November. If they can, it would mean a huge change in Texas, including a new Democratic senator (Rick Noriega).

This has been a very interesting campaign so far. I can hardly wait for November.

An Oldy But Goody

Cab Calloway - Minnie the Moocher