Lynette Long

OBAMA'S CABINET

Notice all the possibilities discussed are MEN!

WHAT OBAMA CAN DO FOR WOMEN

The Government in Exile:
What Obama Can Do for Women

The old adage goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words," and for the 2008 presidential election the phrase could not ring truer. Images spanning the globe have frozen in time the immense joy and pride that many have felt at seeing Barack Obama become our nation's first African-American President-elect -- and regardless of one's political affinity, no one can deny the tremendous historicity of this election.

 

Indeed, from neighborhoods across America to the global community, people are energized by the possibilities which a new administration might offer. On the heels of an election that was often touted for its historic significance for women -- a constituency that voted 56% in his favor on November 4th -- the Obama administration would be wise to build on that momentum by addressing the struggling status for women in the U.S.

 

Despite the rise of women as political contenders and voters in the 2008 election season, the U.S. is woefully behind other nations in terms of parity in representation. Over the last decade, the United States has fallen from 47th in the world in women's political representation to 71st -- behind such stalwarts of democracy as Iraq (33rd), Sudan (65th) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (57th). Only weeks ago, Rwanda made global history when it became the first nation electing women to outnumber men in parliament.

 

Yet for all the advances that women are making on the global front, women's political participation here in the U.S. is lagging far behind the times.

 

Even in this election, where more women ran for congress than ever before in a presidential year, the net gain for women candidates was a mere four seats -- one in the Senate and three in the House. We raised the percentage of women in Congress from a meager 16% to an equally paltry 17%, assuring that the U.S. would continue to lag woefully behind other countries in the numbers of women in national political leadership.

 

Historically, women have been the "government in exile" -- leading at the foot of the table as a marginalized constituency. Yet to address the myriad of issues which confront women -- from poverty and domestic violence to healthcare and work-life balance -- women must be represented in the upper echelons of government where such issues are tackled and policy is enacted. Instead of addressing these issues in an inefficient and piecemeal fashion, a Presidential Commission on Women and Democracy would present the new administration with a vehicle to enact permanent and systemic change: by finding ways to have a more women at the tables of power at all levels, and fostering a truly representative democracy.

 

A diverse and critical mass of women in leadership -- not to replace men, but to lead alongside them -- would allow both genders to contribute new ways of dealing with the most difficult challenges our country has faced in this century.

 

The Presidential Commission on Women and Democracy would utilize leading academic and experiential methodologies to reverse our nation's dismal lag in gender parity. Members of the commission would be carefully appointed from a variety of sectors to bring a full range of nonpartisan domestic and international approaches, setting achievable goals by way of practical methods. Possible strategies might include: priority voting and other democracy reforms which result in wins by outsider candidates; guaranteed campaign loan funds; civil society curriculum in schools; increased training for women candidates; increased support from central party leadership for women candidates; and popular culture initiatives.

 

With the unprecedented popular momentum towards bipartisanship, civic engagement, and deep-seated political change, now is the time to move women from the "government in exile" to the "government in power." The prospect of an Obama administration which is open and appreciative of this effort is high; now is the time to capitalize on the opportunity. In a campaign whose rallying cry was "change", shifting the status of women in this country by bringing them fully to the tables of power would be a great place to start.

Originally published at The Huffington Post.

NEW AGENDA OPPOSES SUMMERS APPOINTMENT

Women's Group Not Hot on Summers

By Garance Franke-Ruta of the Washington Post

A group founded by supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) weighed in today against the potential
appointment by President-elect Barack Obama of former Clinton administration
Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to the same position in an Obama
administration.

"Larry Summers has a clear and unequivocal record of sexism and misogyny,"
said the group's co-founder Amy Siskind in a statement. "Summers' work
history demonstrates a clear inability to work well with others, especially
women."

Another founding member of the group, The New Agenda, which has taken
Palin stands in the past and advocated against media sexism during the primary, is Dr. Nancy Hopkins of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hopkins famously clashed with Summers at a January 2005 MIT forum on women in the sciences after Summers, who was then president of Harvard
University, said that the paucity of women in the hard sciences might be a
reflection of their "intrinsic aptitude."

Summers has repeatedly apologized for causing offense at that meeting,
starting days after making his remarks, when he wrote in an open letter to the
University community, "I deeply regret the impact of my comments and
apologize for not having weighed them more carefully."

Nonetheless, Summers' comments ultimately led to such a widespread controversy that --
coupled with other faculty concerns -- he was subjected to "lack of
confidence" and censure votes by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences
and ultimately stepped down from his post in 2006.

Summers, an economist, is currently a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He did not immediately respond to an e-mail and phone call request for comment.

The New Agenda is also seeking to tie Summers to the current financial
crisis, arguing that during his tenure at Treasury he failed to heed the
warnings of former chairwoman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Brooksley E. Born, who sought to warn Summers, Robert Rubin and
Alan Greenspan in 1998 of the risks of unregulated derivatives.

The Post, in an October piece looking at the origins of the financial
crisis, highlighted Summers's push-back against Born's attempts,
reporting,"A decade ago, long before the financial calamity now sweeping the world,
the federal government's economic brain trust heard a clarion warning and
declared in unison: You're wrong."

"Why would Summers have listened to her? She's a woman," wrote Siskind on her blog in mid-October.

The New Agenda expressed disappointment with the National Organization
of Women when NOW endorsed Barack Obama in September and includes a number
of prominent supporters of Sen. John McCain, decreasing the likelihood the
Obama-administration-in-waiting would heed its warnings.

However, NOW president Kim Gandy yesterday also expressed concern about a
possible Summers appointment in an Obama administration, suggesting there
may be a deeper current of anxiety over the economist within women's groups.

"It's very important that whoever is in key positions understands the
importance of women to this economy -- and that the impact of wage
inequality for women has bearing on the overall economic inequality in our
society," Gandy told the Huffington Post. "I don't see [this] on the agendas of most
of the candidates being suggested. While Larry Summers has talked about
income inequality, he doesn't seem to get it that a lot of that is related
to the wage gap between men and women."

POLL: OBAMA STRUGGLING TO WIN OVER CLINTON VOTERS

By ALAN FRAM and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's support from backers of Hillary Rodham
Clinton is stuck smack where it was in June, a poll showed Tuesday, a
stunning lack of progress that is weakening him with members of the
Democratic Party in the close presidential race.

An Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll shows that among adults who backed his
rival during their bitter primary campaign, 58 percent now support Obama.
That is the same percentage who said so in June, when Clinton ended her bid
and urged her backers to line up behind the Democratic senator from
Illinois.

The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton's supporters
- 69 percent view him favorably now, up 9 percentage points from June - this
has yet to translate into more of their support.

Support from Clinton's backers

In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential
nominee John McCain have also improved during this period. Those supporting
McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of
undecided staying constant, the survey showed.

Clinton backers' reluctance to support Obama helps explain why he is having
a tougher time solidifying partisan supporters than McCain. Overall, 74
percent of Democrats say they will vote for Obama, compared to 87 percent of
Republicans behind the Arizona senator. About nine in 10 Clinton supporters
are Democrats.

The problem that supporters of Clinton, the New York senator, have with
Obama seems to flow from their measure of him as a candidate, not from
issues. From establishing a timeline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to
abortion to canceling tax cuts on the rich, their views of the importance of
issues are virtually identical to Democrats in general.

Yet they find Obama less likable, honest, experienced and inspiring than
Democrats overall do, and have a better view of McCain. And while majorities
of Clinton supporters say Obama shares their values and understands ordinary
Americans, they're less likely to say so than Democrats overall.

"It's just a gut feeling, my gut tells me he's not it," Leslye Burgess, 53,
a federal Treasury Department manager and Democrat from Fairfax, Va., said
of Obama. The Clinton supporter added, "I'll have to fight with myself
between now and November" about how she'll vote.

The GOP's selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate has had no net
impact on Clinton loyalists - a group Republicans were hoping to lure by
picking the Alaska governor. Twenty-one percent in the poll said Palin on
the ticket makes them likelier to back McCain, 21 percent said it makes them
less likely, and 58 percent said it had no impact.

Joe Biden's pick to be Democratic vice presidential candidate makes them a
bit likelier to vote for Obama, but seven in 10 said it won't be a factor.

Other September polls have shown Obama making progress in recent weeks with
one-time Clinton backers and doing better with them than in the AP-Yahoo!
News survey. One by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama with 78
percent of their support and McCain with 18 percent; another by ABC News and
the Washington Post showed Obama ahead 72 percent to 23 percent.

Those figures measured Clinton supporters who are registered voters - who in
the AP-Yahoo! News poll leaned toward Obama over McCain 61 percent to 26
percent. The discrepancies in the polls might come from how they were
conducted.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton supporters are turning to Obama "in
huge numbers" and noted that the AP-Yahoo! News data differed from other
polls. He said strong feelings by Clinton supporters were understandable
considering the length and intensity of the Democratic primaries and said of
Clinton, "She's done everything we've asked her to do."

The AP-Yahoo! News poll has surveyed the same nationally representative
group of about 2,000 adults seven times since November, in an effort to
understand how individuals are reacting to the presidential race. Nine in 10
Clinton supporters who said in June they were backing Obama were still with
him in September, while three quarters of those with McCain stayed with him.

As during her primary battle against Obama, Clinton supporters are likelier
to be female, white, and less educated than those who did not back her.

They trust Obama more than McCain on important issues, though not by as much
as Democrats overall do. They prefer Obama over McCain on the economy by 30
percentage points, compared to Obama's 50-point edge among all Democrats.
They like Obama on Iraq by 17 points, while all Democrats give Obama a
40-point margin.

The starkest contrast comes from comparing Clinton backers still refusing to
support Obama with other Democrats.

Just three in 10 Clinton supporters still not backing Obama view him
favorably, compared to eight in 10 of all Democrats. While most Democrats
and former Clinton supporters strongly prefer Obama over McCain to handle
key issues, those Clinton voters still opposing Obama opt for McCain: On the
economy by 32 points, and on Iraq by 47 points.

One in four Clinton backers say they've not yet locked into a candidate -
and far more of those supporting Obama than McCain say they support their
candidate strongly. Many who have already decided to back Obama say the
transition wasn't difficult.

Kathy McVeigh, 60, a nurse from Norwalk, Ohio, has moved from Clinton to
Obama and said she would tell wavering Clinton voters "to get on the
bandwagon because we need change, we better do something in a hurry because
we're going down the tubes."

The AP-Yahoo! News poll of 1,740 adults was conducted Sept. 5-15 and has an
overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. It
included interviews with 502 people who in AP-Yahoo! News polls in January
and April identified themselves as supporting Clinton in one or both of
those months, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4.4
points.

The survey was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which
initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and
followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no
Internet access were given it for free.

In contrast, the Pew and ABC-Post polls relied on people saying in September
whether they supported Clinton earlier this year. Those polls were conducted
by telephone; some studies have shown people can be less reluctant to
disclose embarrassing behavior - like not supporting their party's
presidential nominee - in an online survey than to a live telephone
interviewer.

On the other hand, people in the AP-Yahoo! News poll who backed Clinton in
earlier waves of the survey might not want to appear inconsistent by
suddenly backing a candidate - Obama - they opposed earlier.

PRINCIPLE OVER POLICY

by Lynette Long

People wonder how I could vote Republican when I am a lifelong Democrat and I don’t agree with the Republicans on many key issues.   This election I’m voting on Principle over Policy and Patriotism over Promises. Politicians pander to the electorate to win votes.  Obama is no different.  I don’t care what he says he is going to do for America, as my grandmother used to say, “Talk is Cheap.”  What I care more about is “Who is Barack Obama?” and “What has the Democratic Party become?”  So in a clear effort to explain my position, here are 14 reasons I will not vote for Obama, my party’s nominee.

The Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee has never been a woman. How can I support a party that is primarily composed on women but run by men?

Obama sat for 20 years inside Trinity United Church of Christ which exposes Black Liberation Theology and listened to Rev. Wright his mentor trash America and white Americans.  How can I support a candidate that goes to a church that preaches hatred in any form?

Obama casts himself as a candidate of change but he is an old Chicago-style politician.  He won his first State Senate race by eliminating all other candidates on technicalities and his U.S. Senate race by opening the sealed divorce file of his opponent and forcing his opponent to withdraw.  How can I vote for a candidate who is not who is says he is?

The Democratic Party was silent to the rampant sexism that occurred during the primary process.   How can I support a party that did not acknowledge the rampant sexism in the campaign and consequently ignored me as a woman?

Obama did not stand up for Senator Clinton when Rev. Wright and Father Pflaeger trashed her from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ.  When Ludacris called Hillary an irrelevant bitch, Obama was mute.  How can I support a nominee, without the courage to stand up against blatant racism and sexism?

Nancy Pelosi, in conjunction with other Democratic leaders, paid off superdelegates to get them to vote for Obama.  How can I support a party that pre-selected its nominee?

Obama only lost one out of fourteen caucuses.  Obama lost twenty-one out of thirty-eight primaries.  This discrepancy is due to voter fraud, voter intimidation, busing, and voter suppression in the caucuses.  How can I support an illegal nominee, a nominee who will use any means necessary to win?

Democratic insiders knew about the caucus fraud and voter fraud during the primary process.  How can I support a party that turned a blind eye to the blatant irregularities during the primary process?

Obama is inexperienced.  He has served less than one term in the United States Senate of which he has spent most the time campaigning. How can I support a candidate that does not have the experience to lead this country?

Obama has numerous questionable associations.   There is an old expression, “By his friends, shall ye know him.”  How can I vote for someone I don’t trust?

Obama ignored the will of 18 million voters did not choose Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate.   How can I support a nominee who brushed aside the will of 18 million voters?

The Democratic Party which is composed of 60% women has not put a woman on the Democratic Ticket for 24 years.   How can I support a party that takes the votes of the women of the party for granted? 

Barack Obama had a sham of a roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver and strong armed delegates to cast their votes for him.  Clinton Delegates, were shouted down, threatened with their jobs, and replaced.  How can I support a nominee who does not support democracy?

How can I vote for a candidate I don’t trust, whose character is questionable, who I believe obtained the nomination illegally, who ignored the blatant sexism leveled a Senator Clinton and Governor Palin, and is too inexperienced to do the job?   I can’t.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN 2008?  NEVER!  RETURN TO THE PARTY IN 2012?  NOT SURE!

LYNETTE IN THE WASHINGTON POST

The Washington Post did a profile of me in today's Metro section:

A Real McCain Supporter? Or Just a Clintonite on the Rebound?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Lynette Long's friends can barely sputter their objections. "How could you?" they say. "What about the environment? What about gay rights? What about Roe v. Wade?"

Long's son calls, flabbergasted. And her patients in affluent, liberal Bethesda? They can hardly fathom it.

Lynette Long -- psychologist, feminist, Democrat, Dupont Circle dweller, Whole Foods shopper, George Bush hater, Hillary Clinton supporter (to the max) -- is not just voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin, she even took the stage at their rally in Fairfax to trumpet her decision to the world.

Long got the call from the McCain campaign at 10 the night before the rally this month. With a twinkle in her eye, the struggle for women in her heart and a bit of mischief in her mind, she agreed to be a warm-up speaker for the Republican ticket.

She had never been to a candidate's rally before. She had voted for the Democrat for president in every election except for the elder George Bush's first time, against Michael Dukakis in 1988. Sure, she had demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but she basically wasn't the political type. That is, until Hillary Clinton came along.

All of a sudden, Long saw hope. As she told her son: "How would you feel if every day all the people you saw in authority were men, all the statues in Washington are all men, the money in your pocket, all pictures of men -- and then finally, a woman comes along and she could be president? How would you feel? I would vote for her."

Long didn't just vote for Clinton in the D.C. primary. She blogged for her, campaigned for her, even wrote op-ed columns about her. But as Clinton's campaign faltered, Long felt wronged. She blogged about purported irregularities in caucus voting, accused Barack Obama and his supporters of taking women for granted, put all her hope in the Democrats picking a woman for vice president.

After Clinton's campaign ended, Long was among a group of local supporters who called McCain headquarters, asking, "What can you do for us?" To Long's shock, they were invited to a meeting -- with McCain himself.

"We told him we wanted gender parity, on the Supreme Court and in the Cabinet, and he listened," she says. "His eyes opened." At meeting's end, a senior staffer asked Long if she would endorse their man publicly.

"No way," Long said. "I'm a Hillary supporter."

Then, lo and behold, Sarah Palin happened.

By coincidence, Long was on an Alaskan cruise that week. "Everybody there loved" Palin, Long says. "I could see people glowing with pride."

The next time the McCain campaign called, Long was ready. She had 10 hours to write a speech, sleep and get herself to Fairfax City.

"What do you want me to say?" she asked the organizer. "Do you want to see my speech?"

Whatever you want to say, she was told. And no, we don't need to see it.

"I was shocked," Long says. "I wouldn't let someone go up and speak without seeing the speech. But they did, and that told me something about the man."

Long agrees that Palin is not exactly, um, worldly, and that she lacks a certain base of knowledge. ("But I know character and instincts, and she is real.") And yes, Long vehemently disagrees with the Republicans' social conservatism.

But other factors trump those issues, she says, naming Obama's inexperience, Clinton's treatment by her party and the media, and the Democrats' failure to choose a female running mate.

The issue that has most of Long's friends recoiling in abject horror from her decision is abortion. Long calls herself unwaveringly "pro-choice." But, she says, "as long as we let that determine our votes, we are hostages to the Democrats. If someone really tried to turn around choice, there'd be a revolution in this country. And I'm not going to let a future possibility nullify my vote. Women have sacrificed our power as the largest voting bloc in the nation because of one issue, abortion."

Now hold on: Long disagrees with McCain on many issues and concedes Palin's limitations. Then, when her e-mail lights up with unfounded rumors that Obama might dump Joe Biden and switch to Hillary Clinton, she nearly explodes with excitement. Is she really pro-McCain, or is she just being provocative?

Long is the kind of person who is drawn to a fire, she grants that. She says she wore her Palin button to the Whole Foods on 14th Street NW just to see if she'd get a rise out of the assembled crunchies. No one would even look her in the eye, she reports.

She seems downright gleeful as she describes her fellow liberals' faces draining of blood when she sings Palin's praises. But when I suggest that the McCain camp is using her even as she uses it to teach fellow Democrats a lesson about taking women for granted, she says: "No, that's too crass. You have to break down a house to rebuild it, but Palin is likable, popular and has integrity. She's a person who will listen. Is she smart enough to do the job? Hey, Reagan was no brain surgeon, but people would follow him. It's about leadership. Sarah has made mistakes, but out of naivete, not out of corruption."

Every couple of minutes, Long -- looking like the unPalin in black T-shirt, cargo pants and canvas sneakers -- reflexively checks her e-mail, revealing a new list of fire-spewing rants accusing her of betrayal, sexism and worse. She loves it.

I posit that her newfound activism is really more about sticking it to Democratic men than about any real belief that McCain might promote the interests of women or that Palin would be a good president should she ascend to that role. Long protests that she really would be happy with a President Palin, a woman who understands the majority of Americans as no man could.

And then she says this: "I just don't understand how the Democrats couldn't see that women wanted a woman. I'm not getting back in bed with someone who's just abused me. Yeah, it's payback time."

IT'S 3 AM...

And who do you want to answer that phone when a call comes in?

Obviously, Obama's text messaging everyone at exactly 3 AM was a reference to the famous Texas Ad and a blatant dig at Senator Clinton.  If Obama wanted to create buzz, he would have sent the message at 10 PM Eastern Time which is 7 PM Pacific Time.  Instead he choose to deliver a below the belt punch to Senator Clinton.  Way to go Obama!  Do you want Clinton supporters to vote for you? 

RESUME PADDING

From the Jerusalem Post:

Aug 17, 2008

One of the knocks on Barack Obama is that his résumé is, so to speak,  paper-thin. But that is not entirely accurate. Obama, in fact, has  held some major job titles which are noteworthy all by themselves:  United States Senator, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law  School, Harvard Law Review President-each of these titles puts him in rarefied company. Tack on a few Illinois State Senate terms, and his  resume actually appears solid. Yet, in spite of these prestigious  positions, Obama has increasingly resorted to making claims of accomplishment that are so patently inflated that even his cheerleaders at CNN and the New York Times are taking notice. Why?

It seems that Obama recognizes that while his résumé titles are impressive, his actual accomplishments are weak. It's as if he were jockeying to be the next company CEO with little to show for his prior high-profile management positions. So, he does what anyone else does who has spent years coasting on charisma without doing any heavy work: he pads his résumé–stretching the truth here, stealing credit there, and creating the illusion of achievement during his lackadaisical, undistinguished tenure in previous jobs.

A few examples? Take Obama's first general election ad. We are told that Obama "passed laws" that "extended healthcare for wounded troops who'd been neglected," with a citation at the bottom to only one Senate bill: The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the Senate by a 91-3 vote. Six Senators did not vote-including Obama. Nor is there   evidence that he contributed to its passage in any material way. So, his claim to have "passed laws" amounts to citing a bill that was largely unopposed, that he didn't vote for, and whose passage he didn't impact. Even his hometown Chicago Tribune caught this false claim. It's classic résumé-padding–falsely taking credit for the work of others.

Or take one of Obama's standard lines: his claim of "twenty years of public service." As pundit Michael Medved has pointed out, the numbers don't add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate (two of which he's spent running for President), plus seven years in the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we generously throw in his three years as a "community organizer" (whatever that means, let's count it as public service), that still adds up to just thirteen.

Obama's other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School, writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the ego to consider any of those stints "public service." Which of them is Obama including?

Obama made yet another inflated boast last month during his visit to Israel. At his press conference in Hamas rocket-bombarded Sderot, Obama talked up "his" efforts to protect Israel from Iran:

"Just this past week, we passed out of the US Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." (Emphasis added.)

Nice try. But as even CNN noted, Obama is not even on that committee. That is one peculiar "mistake" to simply have made by accident. Again, his claiming credit for the work of others just looks like clumsy, transparent résumé embellishment.

MAJOR DONOR TO PARTY TREASURER: OBAMA IS A BAD INVESTMENT

The following is a letter sent to DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias (pictured at right) telling him why, from a rational investor's point of view, Obama has not earned the author's vote. The letter was sent by one of the DNC's biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns, in response to comments by Tobias that she could not see the forest through the trees.

Dear Andy,

So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"?   Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.

As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.  The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar.  You have seen the movie before.  When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team.  One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player.  Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight.  I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.

After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned.  I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters.  The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said.  If they were bailing out, so was I.  If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.

ARE SUPERDELEGATES FOR SALE?

by Lynette Long

In a few weeks the historic 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Primary between an African American Man and a White Woman will end. The two candidates competed in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam. At the end of these contests, neither candidate had earned enough pledged delegates to garner the necessary 2118 needed to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Hillary Clinton earned 1640 pledged delegates while Barack Obama earned 1763 pledged delegates. A paltry 123 pledged separated the two candidates at the end of the primary season. Since there was no clear winner, the superdelegates would determine the Democratic nominee.

Approximately 800 superdelegates will make up around 20% of the 4000 delegates at the convention. These superdelegates are Democratic Party leaders, Democratic governors, and Democratic members of congress. They have the right to endorse either candidate without reason and can change their endorsement from one candidate to another at any time. The superdelegates are very powerful and highly sought after by candidates. One superdelegate is equal to one pledged delegate or 11,361 voters in California or 7,220 voters in New York. Many factors influence which candidate a superdelegate endorses but they usually vote the way their constituents vote. Some superdelegates have intense personal relationships with particular candidates that may influence their endorsement. Members of congress may also be influenced by money given or promised by party leaders, the DNC or the candidates themselves.

Politicians collect money for their campaigns but most American’s don’t realize that politicians collect a separate a pot of money called a Leadership Political Action Committee or PAC. These PACs are used to hire additional staff and pay for additional perks such as limos and first class flights. But one of the major reasons for these PAC’s is to donate to the campaigns of other candidates. Nancy Pelosi’s PAC is called PAC to the Future, Barack Obama’s PAC is called Hope Fund, and Hillary Clinton’s PAC is called Hillpac. Money was distributed by these PAC’s to the superdelegates to influence their voting. The Federal Elections Commission requires scrupulous reporting of how PAC money is obtained and how it is spent. This data can be retrieved at www.opensecrets.org.

In 2007, Obama distributed 299,000 from his PAC to superdelegates. He especially targeted the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On July 25, 2007, the Hope Fund made $1000 donations to each of the following groups: Hillsborough County Democrats, Hudson, NH; Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate, Portsmouth, NH; Merrimack County Democrats, Chichester, NH; New Hampshire for John Lynch, Manchester, NH; Sgambati 4 NH Senate, Tilton, NH; Stafford County Democratic Committee, Durham, NH and Sullivan County Democrats, Claremont, NH. Obama also gave $5000 contributions to New Hampshire Democratic Party, Concord, New Hampshire, on July 26,2007; New Hampshire for John Lynch on July 25, 2007, and New Hampshire Democratic State Committee, Concord, New Hampshire on November 3, 2006. Obama did not announce his candidacy until May 2, 2007.

Obama also gave New Hampshire Democratic State Senator Jacalyn Cilley $1000 on July 25, 2007. She endorsed Obama on July 31, 2007, just six days after his contribution to her campaign. On July 26, 2007, first term New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire endorsed Obama. The New Hampshire Primary was not until January 8, 2008 and Hillary won New Hampshire.

By March 28, 2008, Hope Fund donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Hillpac. ($236,100). A study by the Center for Responsive Politics showed that presidential candidates who gave more money to a superdelegate received their endorsement 82% of the time. This is especially disturbing when the superdelegates endorse a candidate that is decidedly contrary to the will of the voters in their state and their districts.

After reviewing state and congressional voting records as well as PAC donations, members of congress were identified that fulfilled the following four criteria: 1. These members endorsed Barack Obama. 2. The constituents of their state preferred Hillary Clinton. 3. The constituents of their district preferred Hillary Clinton. 4. They got more PAC money from Hope Fund than from HillPac. These senators are Jeff Bingaman, Frank Lautenberg, and Jay Rockefeller. The members of the house are Jason Altmire, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Joe Donelly, Gabrielle Giffords, Baron Hill, Ron Klein, Patrick Murphy, Gerald Mc Nerney, Carol She-Porter, Zack Space, Niki Tsongas, and Charlie Wilson.

Charlie Wilson is the perfect example. He ran in Ohio’s District 6 in 2006. His seat was the seat of the former governor and is located in Southern Ohio. Wilson was a last minute candidate for his seat and because of this was a write-in candidate. The governor and the party worked hard to get Wilson elected.  President Clinton made an audio recording endorsing Wilson that went out to 50,000 homes.  The governor of Ohio is a big Clinton supporter, the voters of Ohio voted 54-44% percent in favor of Clinton, and District 6, Wilson’s District, voted for Clinton 70% - 27%. Yet Wilson endorsed Obama. It looks like there is no loyalty in politics to either your constituents or your friends. Wilson got $7,000 of PAC money from Barack Obama, but no money from Hillary Clinton. Was this a factor in his choice?