Danger for the Democrats? After the split results from Iowa and New Hampshire, it now looks entirely possible that ‘Tsunami Tuesday’ Feb 5, when 22 states hold their primaries, might not decide the democratic nominee for president. The race would move to Maryland and Virginia which hold primaries the next week. Assuming the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remains up in the air, the role of the party’s super delegates, consisting of its elected officials and party leaders will start to loom over the selection process.

It is not surprising that race has emerged as a sticky issue in the democratic primaries. Barack Obama is the first African American with a legitimate chance to win his party’s nomination. What is surprising is that Hillary’s campaign was responsible for bringing the issue into the public debate with her clumsy comments about Martin Luther King and potential first husband Bill’s reference to Obama’s positions being a “fairy tale”.

Hillary and Bill have to be extremely careful in criticizing Obama. Even Hillary’s campaign message that her experience should trump Obama’s message of hope carries with it the subtext that Obama needs to wait his turn. This condescension is guaranteed to raise the ugly image of a black man not being ready for the White House.

New Hampshire demonstrated the power of identity politics when Obama patronized Hillary as being “nice enough”. Both this episode and Hillary’s emotional moment motivated women to come to the polls in unprecedented numbers for Hillary and enabled her to claim an upset in a state that she had been leading by more than 20 points a few short months ago.

Democrats have relied on black votes to win races around the country and bring them the presidency. With Obama having a real chance, blacks will be able to vote for one of their own notwithstanding Bill Clinton’s prior support in the black community. So, criticizing Obama carries grave hazards for Clinton and the party.

If Clinton wins but she is perceived to cross a racial line in her criticism of Obama, black voters may feel burned. And if the super voters end up choosing her as the party’s nominee, blacks might believe that their best hope got the shaft by the party’s leaders.

Even the Clinton’s record with the black community might not be enough to overcome the resentment that might engender. It probably won’t mean that blacks will vote for the republican candidate, but they could stay home in critical swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.

With a small turnout of black voters in those states, even in a year when the political winds are strongly behind the democrats, could result in democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory next November.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, Obama, politics, Race

  4:47 PM •  3 Comments • Links to this post

Baltimore City Council Pay Raise-Time for Electoral Reform? Headline from Tuesday’s Sun: “Silence from City Council translates into pay raises”. “Without discussion, a vote, or mention on its official agenda”, by not voting to deny itself a pay raise, the Baltimore City Council voted itself, and the next Mayor, a pay raise.

You can’t make this stuff up.

So next fall’s each newly elected member of the city council will get a $9,000 pay raise that will take salaries from $48,000 to $57,000. The City Council President will see her salary go up $18,000 to a whopping $98,000 a year, and the next Mayor will see her or his salary go up $23,000 to $148,000.

Ok, maybe the Mayor should get a raise – it’s a tough job. But, for the Council and Council President, it is hard to justify such a large increase. Isn’t this supposed to be a part-time position? In a city where murders are once again on the rise and students continue to badly under perform, instead of spending $189,000 on a pay raise, the city could have used the money to hire four more cops, or send 15 kids to private schools.

Unhappy Baltimore voters, if there are any (the Sun reported that only one came to a hearing to protest the raises), could decide to vote out of office those who allowed the pay raise to go through. The reality will be that most of the city council members will be re-elected. So you can depend on more of the same from a council that is unlikely to change much after this fall’s election.

In a previous column, I wrote that it would be good for the city to have someone with a business background and record of achievement in another field enter the race to bring a fresh perspective to solving the city’s problems.

Our electoral system makes it too tough though. So maybe it is time for some reform. Baltimore is a one party town. The democratic primary determines the winner and the general election is a formality. Turnout in Baltimore City elections is abysmally low – less than a third of eligible voters decide for the rest of us. This virtually guarantees that incumbents get re-elected, and reinforces the feeling that nothing really changes. Maybe the problem isn’t voter apathy but that voters feel disenfranchised.

There are ways to reform our electoral process so that voters can feel more engaged. One is to make the “primary” election non-partisan, include independents, and have the general election be a run-off between the two highest vote getters. Another is to have an open general election with instant runoff voting. A third would have voters vote for a party; seats in the council would be apportioned proportional to the vote that each party receives. This system is used widely in other countries and allows for more voices to be included in the political process.

Whatever the outcome, let’s start with a debate on how we can reinvigorate participation and attract new people and fresh ideas.

Labels: Baltimore City, pay, politics

  8:59 AM •  0 Comments • Links to this post

Taking Responsibility at Walter Reed I am not sure why it took a series of articles in the Washington Post to expose the shameful treatment of outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital. After all, the hospital lies only a few short miles from the White House, Pentagon and Capitol Hill.

But lets be glad the Post did since apparently no one else was going to. So this got me to thinking about the concept of “taking responsibility”.

As a nation, we supposedly had learned from the Vietnam war when soldiers returned home and were ignored, or worse, excoriated. Remember the movie Born On The 4th of July ?

This time was going to be different.

The new mantra has been “support our troops”. We heard this even as they went off to a war that was started on faulty and fabricated intelligence.

The politicians made sure we knew that they “supported our troops” even as they sent them off to war without the body armor and armored up humvees that would have saved countless lives and injuries.

We may feel like we “support our troops” but don’t ask the soldiers at Walter Reed and other Army hospitals.

The soldiers hear us saying that we support our troops, but what they see and experience is neglect.

The current outrage over Walter Reed from official Washington is justified, but it has to ring a little hollow for the soldiers and their families who have had a lonely fight with the bureaucracy for the past three years.

It is fair for them to ask, “where has everybody been” ?

Now we are treated to the spectacle of Generals “taking responsibility” and politicians, from the President to Congress, vowing to get to the bottom of this and fix it.

Let’s hope that they finally do.

But all this has made me wonder about “taking responsibility”. Taking responsibility should mean doing your job as you are expected to do it. There used to be consequences for not doing your job. Now apparently all you have to do is “take responsibility”.

It’s as if saying those magical words somehow absolves those responsible from being accountable for their actions. When you have to explain that you acted irresponsibly, isn’t it too late to “take responsibility”?

.

Labels: politics, Responsibility, Walter Reed

  3:11 PM •  0 Comments • Links to this post