Face Off

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is the pros and cons of an Obama/Clinton ticket. Dreamy or nightmarish?



Tommy Christopher writes:

Should Barack Obama pick Hillary Clinton to be his vice president? Never has such an obvious answer been so hotly debated. The answer really only depends on one factor: How much does Barack Obama want to win by in November? Read more

Mark Impomeni writes:

The greatest danger that the Clintons pose for Obama comes not from their detractors, but from the Clintons themselves. And, ironically, it is here that Sen. Clinton's large following argues against her selection as Obama's running mate.... Read More

It's the question on every political pundit's mind: Should Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate on the Democratic ticket? Most of the arguments in favor hinge on Sen. Clinton's performance in swing states in this year's primary, her support among women voters, a key demographic for Democrats, and her nearly 18 million total votes received in the primary contests. But the answer to the Clinton question may come from Sen. Obama's general view of the Clintons, rather than from any reading of this year's primary results. Fundamentally, Sen. Obama must first decide which view of the Clintons he ascribes to before making his decision.

The Clintons are viewed by many as a force for good in American politics. Nostalgia for the less complicated times of the 1990s is running high. When the Clintons were in the White House, so the popular history goes, there were no wars, no mortgage troubles, and no rocky economy. If Sen. Obama agrees with this view of the Clintons, than he should choose Sen. Clinton as his running mate. But if he adheres to a different view, one held by an equally large number of Americans, he should back away from that ledge slowly. The Clintons are also viewed as a selfish and ruthlessly ambitious couple willing to do almost anything to secure their own power. Mrs. Clinton's large following from the primaries may serve to kindle all the worst instincts in her, with potentially disastrous consequences for the Obama campaign.

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is whether the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates should be seated.



Greg McNeilly writes:

Republicans and Democrats, in both Florida and Michigan, tried to play a game of political chicken with their respective party bosses.They both lost. The GOP's rules are a little less punitive in onlycutting the size of the state's delegations, whereas the Democrats flat out bar the states from seating their delegations. It's expected tha the DNC will relax its punishment and seat some delegates, from both states.

This is not a complicated issues... Read more

Mark Impomeni writes:

The two front-runners for the nomination didn't completely follow the plan. While neither campaigned or attended fund raisers, Sen. Hillary Clinton remained on the ballot in both states and Sen. Barack Obama was on the ballot in Florida. This means that the Democratic Party must find a way to deal with a situation where not only the states but also the top two candidates broke the rules. In another year, this may not have been such a problem... Read More

"Count all the votes!" "Selected, not elected!" "Illegitimate president!" These were the calls echoing from liberals and Democrats in the wake of the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Yet this Saturday, at a meeting of the Democratic National Convention Rules and Bylaws Committee, the Democratic Party is set to commit the very sin it decried eight years ago and limit the delegations from the important swing states of Michigan and Florida, scene of the crime in 2000, to half or perhaps none of their allotted delegate total. Millions of Democratic voters in the two states would see their votes go uncounted or counted unequally.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean stripped Michigan and Florida of their convention representation last year for holding presidential primaries before the party-sanctioned date of February 5th. Most of the candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination agreed not to appear on the ballot in either state and to refrain from campaigning or raising money in them. But the two front-runners for the nomination didn't completely follow the plan. While neither campaigned or attended fund raisers, Sen. Hillary Clinton remained on the ballot in both states and Sen. Barack Obama was on the ballot in Florida. This means that the Democratic Party must find a way to deal with a situation where not only the states but also the top two candidates broke the rules. In another year, this may not have been such a problem. The nomination would have been decided with much greater certainty by this point in the calendar and the decision of the Rules and Bylaws Committee would hardly have been noticed. But the nomination contest between Obama and Clinton is so close that every single delegate vote counts. As a result, the decision on Saturday could do more to select the nominee that the actual voting in the primaries.

Given this unhappy scenario in which the party finds itself, although partly a result of unprecedented interest and enthusiasm within the party for two potential nominees; the only solution that Democrats can implement is to acknowledge that rules were broken all around, cast the rules aside, and seat all the delegates from Michigan and Florida in the name of democratic principles. Doing so would not sully the process or reward the states for defying the national party. Rather, it would be beneficial to party unity and would likely lead to the same result as penalizing the states, the nomination of Sen. Barack Obama for president.

Face Off returns! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is Hillary: Should she drop out?

Check out today's posts:


Denise Williams writes:

[A] reason to stay is the situation with the rules-breaking Florida and Michigan. Clinton's advocacy (albeit selfish) for these two "disenfranchised" states keeps the heat on to find an equitable solution to seating their delegates in August. Without her continued pressure on Obama and the DNC, voters in these two states may be put off enough to stay home in November or go to McCain.

Continue reading Hillary Should Stay In...

------------------------------


David Knowles writes:

Last night in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton came away with an impressive 41-point win over Barack Obama. She shaved his popular vote lead by roughly 140,000 votes, and used her surrogates to continue hammer away on the point that Obama can't win with poor, undereducated white voters. The spin from Camp Clinton is that all of this matters in her race race for the nomination with Obama. But the math -- Oh, the dreaded math! -- speaks otherwise.

Continue reading Hillary Should Drop Out...

Last night in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton came away with an impressive 41-point win over Barack Obama. She shaved his popular vote lead by roughly 140,000 votes, and used her surrogates to continue hammer away on the point that Obama can't seem to win over poor, undereducated white voters. The spin from Camp Clinton is that all of this matters in her race race for the nomination with Obama. But the math--Oh, the dreaded math!--speaks otherwise.

From her resounding Mountain Momma thumping of Obama, Clinton netted a total of 9 delegates. That "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" means that as of last night Clinton has suffered a net loss of 19 delegates since Indiana and North Carolina. This morning came word that three more superdelegates were formally endorsing Obama. Clearly, this treadmill is moving faster than its runner--Hillary Clinton--can keep up.

By CNN's count, Clinton now trails by 168 delegates. Newsflash, with four remaining contests, and superdelegates flocking to her opponent, there's simply no way that she is going to make up that difference.

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views. Last week's edition took on who's to blame for the ever-climbing cost of gas.

Today the topic is Obama's Rev. Wright issue. Is he past it?

Check out today's posts:


Tommy Christopher writes:

This Democratic Presidential campaign has featured an unprecedented level of magma-hot coverage, most of it focused on tangential issues like gaffes, fluff, smears, pandering photo ops, and manufactured "scandals." Based on media coverage, the Reverend Wright affair is the granddaddy of them all.

Based on several factors, most decisively and recently Tuesday's Democratic Primary results, more and more voters are rejecting these less-than-relevant issues in favor of substance. Smart is back.

Continue reading Obama Over the Wright Hump

------------------------------


Mark Impomeni writes:

Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

Continue reading Obama's Answers Create More Wright Questions

Sen. Barack Obama finally tried to distance himself from his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, last week after Wright made an appearance at the National Press Club. During the question and answer session following that appearance, Wright repeated and amplified many of the incendiary comments, first brought to light in March, that he has made in various sermons from the pulpit of his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He said, among other things, that he believed the government is, "capable of doing anything," when asked if he really believed that the AIDS virus was created in a conspiracy to harm blacks, that Louis Farrakhan, "is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century," and that the September 11th attacks were the direct result of American foreign policy. "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you," he said.

A little more than 24 hours later, Sen. Obama held a press conference to react to the Wright appearance. Obama said that he was, "saddened," and, "outraged," by Wright's comments and said, "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago." This was a dramatically different reaction to the same Wright comments than Sen. Obama provided in his now famous speech on race, delivered in Philadelphia in the wake of Wright's sermons being reported in the press. But Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

Today we're launching a new feature on the blog. Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is those rising gas prices. Who's responsible? Should the government step in?

Check out today's posts:


Greg McNeilly writes:

What can we do about gas prices?

It's the topic more popular than weather, baseball or Oprah. Ideas range from capping gas taxes, to price control (capping oil company profits) or a long-range set of options to achieve "energy independence."

Everyone's got an opinion - many of them very selfish.

Some people want to pay less at the pump and have developed an infantiled yearning to have government grant this latest desire.

Continue reading You Control the Gas Prices

------------------------------


Mark Impomeni writes:

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both say that they can lower gas prices if they are elected president. But unless they plan on putting an additional couple of million barrels of oil onto the world market from their own personal stock, their efforts probably will not lead to much of a reduction at the pumps and could make things worse.

Continue reading Increasing Supply Brings Prices Down

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both say that they can lower gas prices if they are elected president. But unless they plan on putting an additional couple of million barrels of oil onto the world market from their own personal stock, their efforts probably will not lead to much of a reduction at the pumps and could make things worse. Despite the liberal mythology that gas prices are set in a shadowy conspiracy by oil companies in some oil-filled back room, the fact is that oil is a commodity traded on the world market. American oil companies can no more set the price of a barrel of oil than they can impact heavily on the world's supply.

So what can a president of the Federal government in general do to help ease gas prices? The answer in the short term is not much. The Federal government does not produce a drop of oil on its own, so nothing it may do can have an immediate impact on production. But the government can institute policies that negatively impact supply, leading to higher gas prices. Increasing taxes on oil companies and restricting exploration and drilling are two of those policies. There are only two guaranteed ways to reduce the long-term price of a commodity, lower demand or increase supply. Conservatives believe that the government should for the most part resist the temptation to try and regulate lower prices and allow the oil companies to do what they do best, produce oil for the market.