Obama '08 -- Donate Now, Vote Feb. 5

I'm proud to support Barack Obama. I hope you'll consider supporting him too. His views are well-explained here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.

Holiday Forecast

The blog holiday forecast -- fewer posts and a moratorium on political punditry this holiday season, possibly increased silliness.

Toys Not Made in China, Making Finding Them Easier

The Cool Mom Picks Safer Toy Guide is a toddler mom's toy fantasy land. It boasts the best finds of the season for moms who are fed up with toy recalls. Sellers offer gifts in almost every price range, from the $6 set of four colorful German-made balls at Oompa Toys to the $249 rocking dory hand-crafted by artisanal Maine wood-workers at Nova Naturals Toys and Crafts.

While major retailers are slower to respond to demand for toys not made in China, some toys made in the USA and in Germany can be found on the web sites of FAO Schwarz, Target and Toys R Us. These retailers don't make it easy though. Searching the sites is time consuming and often fruitless. Many, if not most, of the toys offered are made in China and, particularly in the case of Target and Toys R Us, often little or no manufacturing information is offered. (We found even if we called customer service to ask where a particular product was made, a Kiddi-O Tricycle by Kettler, neither Target nor Toys R Us could tell us. They suggested calling a local store, not exactly an efficient use of time.)

Even "The FAO Schwarz Toy Buying Guide," includes a statement from CEO Ed Schmults saying, "All toys sold in the US must meet certain US government safety standards concerning safety (choking hazards, toxic substances, etc.). However, the recent recalls suggest that it is possible for harmful substances to make it into toys." Perhaps an understatement?

Schmults also says, "There are many quality-oriented factories in China that don’t cut corners, but if you are uncomfortable with China production, then seek out alternative toys made with quality design and quality raw materials." While Scmults acknowledges that some people may be uncomfortable with China production, to continue defending Chinese manufacturers seems almost counterproductive. At this point, parents are more concerned with finding alternatives to toys made in China than trying to find a quality-oriented factory in China that can be trusted with the health of their children.

Schmults does go on to offer some helpful advice about selecting quality toys in general saying, "Look at how the product was designed : Does every part have a purpose? Toys with excessive moving parts can be prone to breakage and factories may use cheaper materials to reduce the cost of manufacturing a complex item." Notably, FAO Schwarz does stay ahead of Target, Wal-Mart and Toys-R-Us by offering the capability to search for toys by country of origin. Then again, based on price and reputation, it seems FAO Schwarz should be offering more non-China products than they are.

All-in-all, mainstream American retailers are still missing the mark in responding to the recent toy recalls, leading former customers to smart solutions like The Cool Mom Picks Safer Toy Guide and new relationships with the toy sellers found there.

No Deal, Focusing on Corporate Greed

Bargain hunters are not to blame for the recent onslaught of dangerous toys in the American marketplace, despite suggestions otherwise. Parents didn't strike a deal to injure their children in return for ten dollar toys.

The decision to buy a cheaper product does not equal an implicit agreement to purchase harmful goods. The failure of US toy companies to ensure product safety reflects directly on corporate executives who more diligently protected their own stock options than children's safety.

Those who control profit margins, namely corporate executives, are responsible for setting prices and being good corporate citizens. This can be fairly interpreted as a responsibility to not injure consumers, regardless of the price of the product.

With millions of mainstream toys recalled, it's nearly impossible to believe that executives care as much about product safety as corporate profits. "That's not my job," doesn't seem to cover it when consumers of the products are children and executive salaries dwarf average American incomes.

Arguing US parents are getting what they deserve because they are somehow responsible for jobs going overseas, by buying cheaper toys, is sadly opportunistic. By the same logic, Americans agree to eat food unfit for consumption because much of it is imported. We agree for our identities to be stolen because major banks have outsourced call-centers, and we agree to ingest tainted prescription drugs because ingredients are often manufactured outside the country. We have bargained for this because corporate executives were forced by our greed to find a way to keep profit margins high, protecting their own compensation packages by keeping production costs low.

The issue is not so much consumer greed as it is corporate greed, as has been true in most product safety debacles, from cigarettes to snake oil. It's important that the distinction between the issues not be lost because, in order to solve the problem, the problem must first be accurately identified. Pointing to consumer greed lets toy companies and executives off far too easily.

Clinton's Unanswered Question

Can Clinton's refusal to answer a hard-hitting debate question be blamed on the inequity of the question, or her own approach to playing politics? View the Hardball discussion and actual video footage of Clinton's evasive answers on New York Governor Spitzer's plan to provide drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

Winning Hearts and Minds Online

Chris Dodd's online campaign talks specifics, and it teaches voters how to talk specifics too.

When lead-tainted toys flooded the U.S. market, Dodd called for suspending all imports of toys from China and asked people to call on the President to protect children from unsafe Chinese imports.

Children don't vote or make campaign contributions, but moms, dads, and grandparents do. Dodd caught my attention with this move and holds it with timely, action-oriented emails.

Dodd's recent "Four Down, Six to Go" email names the members of the Judiciary Committee who have expressed opposition to any FISA bill that provides telecommunications companies retroactive immunity. Moreover, it asks readers to contact the remaining Judiciary Committee members and ask them to do the same. Names, telephone numbers, and a sample conversation are provided through the clickable link to the web site.

Even if Dodd doesn't become President, he has become a politician I respect.

An Afternoon with John Dean

When John Dean steps to the podium for "An Afternoon with John Dean" hosted by the Escondido Democratic Club, he doesn't look like a California Democrat. His blazing orange tie and glowing complexion say Beverly Hills investment banker, not left coast liberal. Dean says he is an Independent, not Democrat or Republican. His books make clear, regardless of party affiliation, he is not among the Republican faithful.

Dean's most recent book Broken Government, How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches criticizes changes made to government's basic structure, changes that take power out of the hands of the people, instituting a reformed government controlled by the elite.

At the outset of his book, Dean gives readers this quote from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 1:

It has frequently been remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Americans' seeming acquiescence to the Republican power grab troubles Dean. He was incredulous at Democrats' failure to specifically address it during the 2004 presidential election. He even spoke with presidential campaign staff, asking why they didn't talk about it. The response was that people aren't interested in process issues.

"Process, while it may not be a very sexy word or thought, it is the name of the game in Washington," Dean tells the Escondido group. "If Democrats don't start raising process issues, we are in trouble."

The change Republicans have made is sweeping. "Cheney has swallowed the presidency, and he is accountable to nobody," he says.

In Chapter Two of Broken Government, "Second Branch, Broken and in Need of Repair," Dean elaborates on his concerns about Cheney, writing:

Dick Cheney's infatuation with Nixonian government has involved activities far more insidious than merely promoting unsound, inaccurate, and specious constitutional war powers arguments. He has also reinvigorated the efforts of conservative Republicans that began in the Reagan years to ignore, nullify, or simply violate the efforts by post-Watergate Congresses to check and balance the executive branch, and then to expand presidential powers far beyond those of even the imperial presidency.

Dean's concerns don't end with Republican efforts to make the presidency the predominant instrument of federal government. He emphasizes the erosion of our system of checks and balances through continued efforts to appoint fundamentalist judges.

"They have taken the non-political branch and made it political," Dean says. "The most activist courts we have had have been conservative courts."

In Chapter Three, "Third Branch: Toward the Breaking Point," he writes:

Republicans are not satisfied with a conservative [italics included] federal judiciary; they want a fundamentalist one, and they are frighteningly close to achieving that goal. The question raised in this chapter, as in the earlier chapters, is what should or should not be done, what will and will not work, and does anyone really care that Republicans are insisting on operating each of the three branches outside the precepts of the Constitution?

Dean doesn't abandon readers at an apocalyptic proposition of continued Republican rule. Instead, in Chapter Four, "Repairing Government: Restoring the Proper Processes," he proposes a solution. While it is not an instant fix, the solution is fairly simple, and fairly well summarized by the chapter's introductory quote:

"Democracy is like sex -- it works best when you participate." -- Anonymous (sign in store on East Nineteenth Street, Manhattan)

Dean's faith in people continues to be tested, but he hasn't lost hope. At the end of his presentation, when an audience member asks what can be done, Dean responds, "If you give people the information, then they can understand and can respond correctly."

*John Dean's book, Broken Government, How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, is available in book and CD format at Barnes and Noble online.

**For a peek at the motivation behind current efforts to reallocate California's electoral college votes for the 2008 presidential campaign, see Dean's references to Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting scheme and its impact on the balance of political power in the state. pp. 34 & 48

***To learn more about the Escondido Democratic Club click here.

Weekend Political Feature: In Their Words, Iraq War Blogs

A roundup of commentary from soldiers and their spouses and Iraqi citizens:


Dragonfly, the blog of a personal friend whose husband is currently serving in Iraq. This post is particularly insightful. I admire the grace and strength with which she approaches life while her husband is at war.

She Who Waits from the loving wife of a marine serving another tour of duty in Iraq.

Intel Dump from Phillip Carter who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division as an adviser to the Iraqi police in 2005 and 2006.

Great Baghdad, the blog of Al-Rasheed, a 33-year-old man living and working in Baghdad. In "The Federal State of Iraq" he supplies an analysis of what some politicians and pundits positively spin as federalism in Iraq.

My War
"Endlessly surprising…delightfully profane… an unfiltered, often ferocious expression of his boots-on-the-ground point-of-view of the Iraq war."
- Arianna Huffington

An American Soldier, in Still Alive, January 15, 2007, Rob offers a first-hand account of Al Qaeda's strong presence in Iraq.

Baghdad Burning a young Iraqi woman tells of her plight and that of her country.

365 and a Wakeup from soldier who returned home in 2006. Excellent photos from a soldier's viewpoint. Albums accessible from the right column. Links to United States Central Command and Military.com sites.


(Blogs of current soldiers and military spouses are subject to regulation under military code and therefore may be subjected to heightened scrutiny.)

Oprah and Obama: What Will Be the Impact?

Late yesterday, Oprah Winfrey hosted a political fundraiser at her home in Santa Barbara home, raising some three million dollars for Barack Obama. Obama is the first political candidate to receive such public support from Ms. Winfrey despite her long history in the public eye.

Could Oprah's support of Obama significantly impact the Democratic Presidential Primary? It could, but the degree to which it will depends upon the degree to which Oprah is willing to tie her image to Obama's politics and the Democratic party.

Undoubtedly, Oprah has demonstrated the ability to influence American pop culture and buying patterns. With her book club and "Oprah's Favorite Things", she has demonstrated influence arguably unrivaled by any single television personality. For all the influence she wields though, she has to an obvious extent avoided publicly endorsing any political candidate, until Obama.

People are taking notice of her interest in Obama and that will serve him well. While hosting a three million dollar fundraiser at her Santa Barbara home brings big money and an intimate personal touch, both trademarks of Ms. Winfrey's business sense, it is likely not enough to sway a major voting block.

Could Oprah have the sort of impact required to change the outcome of a presidential primary? Yes, but it would come from involvement more akin to the type we saw with Michael J. Fox's very public endorsement of candidates supporting stem cell research in 2006. Oprah certainly has the skill, the funds, and the wherewithal to be significant influence in the Democratic Presidential Primary and the 2008 Presidential Election, but whether she will remains to be seen.

* A cross-post from Political Popsicle/Political Pollyanna.

The Disney Princess Machine, Has It Gone Haywire?

Princesses are in. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel. Odds are if you have daughters, you see plenty of ads for these princesses and others. The list goes on: Pocahontas, Mulan, Snow White, Jasmine, Belle, and debuting soon, Disney's first black princess, Maddy. Old movies are new again, and new movies are being made featuring old movie princesses -- Cinderella III; Disney Princess Enchanted Tales; The Little Mermaid Platinum Edition; Princess Party Volume Two: The Ultimate Pajama Jam!; Disney Princess Stories Volume Two: Tales of Friendship; and more.

It is troubling to see this amount of marketing effort applied to animated characters directed toward youngsters, but it doesn't end there. When attention is turned to real life Disney teen stars, we see a Disney pop princess machine that seems to have gone awry. From Hillary Duff, to the Cheetah Girls, to Hanah Montana, to Ashley Tisdale, to Vanessa Hudgens. It is not enough to have these teenage girls to be TV stars or movie stars, they are promoted as pop stars too. Their television shows and ads for their movies are followed by videos featuring their next hit single. It is nonstop marketing.

Too often, the image of the girl seems to take a back seat to the desire to create a saleable pop sensation. One of the Vanessa Hudgens videos, in particular, seems so inappropriate that I change the channel or turn off the television if it comes on. Of course Disney should back Ms. Hudgens following her recent error in judgment.

The bigger question is: Is Disney pushing girls too far too fast, or growing their careers to quickly, to turn them into the next pop princess sensation? Of course parents and child performers make their own decisions, but as an expert in the industry and key decision maker, what role does Disney play?

Calling for a Cease Fire

My grandmother used to tell me, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." While I do think a certain amount of critical discourse is necessary to sort out life, love and politics, I think the rule my grandmother taught me is just perfect when it comes to judging other mothers' decisions about raising their children.

Others though, many others, seem to feel an incessant need to dole out unsolicited constructive criticism to mothers. (See "Mommy Wars Suck" at Pundit Mom.) Maybe they feel they have all the answers for raising perfect children, or at least know more than the moms they criticize. Maybe they think their advice is the only thing that provides a glimmer of hope for all of us against the otherwise certain destiny of being doomed to live in a world full of degenerate, tantrum-throwing, blankie-clutching, un-potty-trained adults still sucking their binkies. I don't know.

Frankly, I've got my hands full just trying to make decisions about how to raise my own children. I don't have time to make decisions about how to raise someone else's. So, while I won't venture to offer parenting advice, I would like to call for a cease fire. Let's put an end to the Mommy Wars.

Bad Toys, Bad Toys, What Ya Gonna Do?

Sign the petition. At least that's what I did, plus dumping what seemed like dozens of toys in the trash.

Click here to to go to Senator Chris Dodd's petition page. You can learn more there, and sign the petition if you wish.

Debating the Democratic Debate

Watching today's Democratic Debate, you might have thought Barack Obama was the front-runner and other candidates were desperate to bring him down. You might have thought that until you noticed Hillary Clinton's responses were largely unimpassioned and low-risk. Then you might have thought the nomination was hers to lose and the other candidates, in large part, would rather attempt to make themselves look better by stepping on Obama instead of sparring with the front-runner.

Biden, Richardson, and even Edwards (Say it isn't so!), nitpicked Obama's answers, while avoiding direct confrontation with Clinton. While Obama is perfectly capable of holding his ground in any toe-to-toe debate, the tactic of several individuals working together to belittle another can be amazingly effective, especially in public settings.

Edwards, Biden and Richardson came across as more interested in bringing down Obama than in answering questions. It is, after all, easier to point out somebody's inadequacies than propose your own solutions.

If you are competing for the nomination, why not point out the inadequacies of the front-runner? Is the nomination process really so far afield from populist democracy that before even the first vote is cast, Washington insiders know full-well who the nominee will be? It certainly seems so.

Clinton was never engaged in a full-court press. She simply held the ball, waiting for the clock to run out, while the other players scrambled to keep Obama at the other end of the court.

Dodd performed admirably, and Kucinich and Gravel used the debate as a platform to blast politics as usual, but overall, the lasting impact from today's debate is the way in which candidates who could be front-runners bowed to Clinton.

Political Bling

Feel free to download these buttons, post them to your blogs and share them in email. The catch? When the time comes, vote.

Just click on the icon to be taken to the album where you can choose from over 100 different designs.

Photobucket Album

*Brought to you courtesy of my ever-growing obsession with PhotoShop.

Thanksgiving Thursday -- Checks and Balances Ending the Reign of The You Can't Tell Me What to Do Administration

The Bush Administration has revelled in hearkening back to the inception of the Constitution for the basis of many of its arguments, cloaking themselves in the seemingly noble robes of strict constructionists, but not when it comes to the limits of authority granted to the Executive Branch. One of the most important issues facing the creators of the Constitution, the power of each branch is balanced carefully against the others, so that all can be kept in check. Their hope was to prevent any one branch from usurping democracy by exerting dictatorial control even in the face of widespread opposition.

It is this finely crafted system of checks and balances that empowers voters to make change. The Legislative Branch is the most audible voice of the people, the branch most easily held responsible by the people and therefore the branch most responsive to the people. In November, the people demanded change. This time, Congress heard them. Change is finally coming.

Voters were and still are exasperated with the Bush Administration's continued proclamations that things are going well in Iraq and that the best solution is to stay the course. They are tired of a President who continues to back loyal party players in scandal after scandal (Plamegate; Scooter Libby's perjury conviction; Tom DeLay's ethics debacle; "Brownie" who was doing a "great job" during and after Katrina; and now Gonzogate).

The Constitution was created by men with a deep apprehension of exactly the situation we face, men who not only envisioned the problem, but also presented the solution. All that remains is for Congress to avail themselves of the powers they possess to begin to set our nation back on course, and it seems that is what they have begun to do. We no longer have a "Do Nothing Congress". They are fine-tuning a warfunding bill with a March 31, 2008 goal for withdrawing troops; they are holding hearings on firings of U.S. attorneys, firings that were at best unethical and at worst may constitute obstruction of justice; and they have held hearings on the FBI's misuse of National Security Letters. They have been in power three months. This is only the beginning.

Congress is no longer a rubber stamp. This Congress is finally checking the power of the Bush Administration a.k.a. "The You Can't Tell Me What to Do Administration" thanks to checks and balances.

And They Call Him Senator

I have been repeatedly embarrassed by remarks made by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) from my home state of Oklahoma. This is the man who continues to claim man-made global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Frankly, I thought he could no longer disappoint me. Then he came up with this:

from
Washingtonpost.com
But Did Ginger Rogers Wear Flip-Flops?

By Dana Milbank
Saturday, March 3, 2007; Page A02

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) got the crowd cheering early in the day. "I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun," he announced. "And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."

*Thanks to Daily Kos for picking this up. Visit Daily Kos directly to view the ensuing discussion in comments.

Political Pop

Half a week was spent discussing the inconsequential details of a minor dispute between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Sadly some major news broadcasters do as much news creating as they do news reporting, repeating the same story ten times or more in one day. It's like journalistic brainwashing.

Should what one Barack Obama supporter said about Hillary Clinton really be headline news? Does it impact the issues? Does it impact who either candidate is or their positions on issues? No. Period.

In this situation, however, the supporter was a wealthy Hollywood power player. CNN, in particular, jumped at the opportunity to add some glitz and drama to the challengingly dry political arena by focusing on something other than the issues. It's like watching reporting perfectly attuned to the interests of 12-year-old gossiping girls.

If I recall correctly, another one of their top stories recently was that Donatella Versace said Hillary Clinton should wear skirts instead of pants. People, leave it alone. If there's no political news to report that you feel the American public would be interested in, then don't report any, but for Heaven's sake, don't just make some up. Donatella Versace said Hillary Clinton shouldn't wear pants? That's not news. Let me help you with the distinction. If Prime Minister Blair said President Bush shouldn't wear pants, that would be news.

What will be next in political news? This week's journalistic feeding frenzy will occur in Hollywood, centered around the Oscars. So we might expect some political news to come from there as well.

The audience viewing the Oscars is larger, I'm guessing, and vastly more tuned-in than the audience for political campaigns. It's only logical to believe messages delivered there have potential to have more impact than those delivered via traditional modes of political communication. So, don't be surprised if your favorite actor delivers his or her own political message along with an acceptance speech, as has happened in the past, because the fact is we remain insatiable consumers of political pop.

Framing the Issues -- Iraq -- What Will Work in '08

The Republican Party's success over the past several years, until the November election, was due in large part to their framing of the issues. Their concern about facts and positions was secondary because they picked the issues to be discussed. It was a marvelous strategy and worked with amazing success. It had only one flaw. It was interrupted by reality.

It seemed Republicans had the magic formula for winning votes. They simply found the common denominator among key groups, issues strong enough, emotionally charged enough, to make people abandon loyalty to their other long-standing beliefs to secure their future with regard to that one precious issue. They were the masters of the single-issue campaign, and fear was their key motivator.

Fear is one of the basest emotions, at the root of survival instincts. When it is appealed to, it is one of the most effective motivators. Republicans became masters at framing campaign issues in fear.

Vote for Republicans. We're for Homeland Security.

"Homeland Security" -- a brilliant marketing term. If they could have bottled it and sold it, it would have made them billions of dollars.

Who could have watched the events of 9/11 and not felt fear for ourselves and for our nation? We all experienced trauma, in a way many had never before and in a way we may never again. The Republican strategy seized on that weakness, like a master manipulator, and used it rather than healing it. Regardless of whether you view this as opportunism at its worst or the only way to save our nation, the fact is it worked. At least it worked for a time.

Initially, when someone raised an objection to the Bush Administration's approach to The War on Terror, domestic surveillance or the Iraq War, Republicans simply waived the Homeland Security flag, said anyone who opposed them was unpatriotic and rather dismissively said, "Go away."

The Bush Administration and its followers badmouthed, spied upon, arrested and even blacklisted people who dared to express opposing views. It was all quite McCarthy-esque.

But little beams of light did break through. Reality persisted. It's kind of annoying that way. The Administration attempted to maintain a choke hold on much of the media. They used innovative techniques such as "embedding" journalist with troops, making them one of the team fighting the war and therefore emotionally embedded as well. They used old standards such as intimidation and revealing government secrets to control people's public speech. Nonetheless, little bits of accurate information made it through the media and into the stream of public consciousness. Reality is just so annoying that way.

Eventually, it became clear to the vast majority of people, undeniable even for President Bush, that the war in Iraq is going badly. Unfortunately, that CNN footage of IED's repeatedly blowing American military vehicles to pieces, with American men and women inside, does nothing to bolster our image of Homeland Security.

Expert after expert has come forward declaring the Iraq War has disintegrated into Civil War. Our efforts may have destabilized the region to a great degree, fostering the strengthening of dangerous factions that are likely to remain long after American troops leave the arena, and creating a much greater threat to Homeland Security than the alleged WMD which were never found.

Americans are worn out by fear. They want a way forward that will work. They are tired of threats of failure used to control.

Before the war, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon and stressed, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Now President Bush warns, "If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons."

Americans want, need, are yearning for, a positive way forward. The key is hope, not dire predictions and threats.

Enter Obama. This is where Obama's message has been wildly successful and will continue to be so. The presentation of his message is always positive.

Barack Obama may or may not be the winner in '08, but whoever the winner is will learn from his message. The winner will have a plan, although it need not be complicated, voters are rarely interested in details, and an identifiable goal, revealing the way to an obviously attainable successful conclusion.

Fear will always be a motivator, but the leader who shows voters the path to success, the way to triumph over fear, will win in '08.

P is for President: A Political Primer

The media attention focused on the upcoming 2008 presidential primary and the already common use of polls to predict who might win could give people the impression that the winner of the popular vote would be the winner of the presidential primary. Unfortunately, it is not that easy.

For example, following state primaries and caucuses, Delegates at the Democratic National Convention will select the party's presidential candidate through a complicated process, in which some Delegates are obligated to vote for a candidate based upon primary election results and other Delegates may vote for whichever candidate they favor, regardless of the popular vote.

Surprisingly to many voters, the candidate who receives the most votes in your state may not receive all of your state's Delegates' votes. Some are allocated based upon the percentage of votes candidates receive in primaries or caucuses.

In some states, however, the presidential primary is only a "beauty contest" or "loophole primary," a non-binding primary intended to gauge public support for candidates. Participants at party caucuses may ignore the primary vote and elect Delegates pledged to support a different candidate.

Additionally, at the Democratic National Convention, the popular vote may be ignored by up to about 20 percent of the Delegates known as "Superdelegates," a group comprised of the elected Democratic National Committee Members, elected Democratic Governors, U.S. Senators and House members, and "Distinguished Party Leaders." Superdelegates constitute a significant slice of the Delegate pie and may "vote their conscience," selecting any of the candidates still officially in the race.

Add to the mix that states do not have an equal number of voting Delegates, but instead are awarded Delegates, by the Democratic and Republican parties, based not only on population, but also on how well the state has performed in electing that party's candidates to office, and it is easy to see why a candidate who is incredibly appealing to the general public may have no chance of winning the nomination.

The whole process is something of a quagmire on both sides. Unfortunately, the only way to have an impact is to jump in and swim.

Helpful links:

The presidential primary process explained by Answers.com.

Explanation of the math behind Delegate allocation for Election 2008 from The Green Papers.

A synopsis of the Republican Delegate allocation process from Republican Source.

CNN article discussing the 2004 Delegate selection process.

Democratic proposal pending to coax state organizations to have their primaries later in the season by awarding extra Delegates to states who have their elections later from The New York Times Politics Blog.

Political No No of the Week Award

This week I just can't let President Bush's speech on Iraq go without pointing out the the obvious -- "What took you so long?" His statements "Honorable people have different views," and "It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny," must have garnered a collective "Duuuhhhhh" from viewers across the nation.

What was it, though, that finally led to this long overdue conciliatory speech? You know, the one this week, where he switched tactics from -- Let's club the Democrats over the head and drag them off to our caves to roast over an open fire -- to -- Gee, we're all just people with different views. Was there some serendipity with Karl Rove's departure from the helm? Was it the giant crushing blow the American public landed squarely on the jaw of the Republican Party in November? Or did he finally realize that the situation in Iraq is too dire to keep playing political games?

I would really like to know the turning point where the Bush Administration switched from -- If you disagree with us you are clearly unpatriotic, don't support our men and women in uniform, and are a pinko liberal -- to "Honorable people have different views."

This week the Political No No of the Week Award goes to President Bush for failing to acknowledge all along that honorable people have different views. Acknowledging that very important fact is absolutely essential to finding a solution to the growing problem in Iraq.