With an active political weekend unfolding, I thought I'd recalibrate the political discussion away from silly season Part 2. So let's purge a little so we can concentrate on the results of the DNC's Rules and By Laws Committee today and take in the Puerto Rican primary tomorrow.
First, Father Flegmatic...er Pfleger. This is the exact kind of thing that can cost Barack Obama an election. I don't care if the good Father is white himself, what he said in the pulpit of Obama's Trinity Church last Sunday was inexcusable as anything but a losing routine in Amateur Night at The Apollo. And he knew it. As he walked away from the pulpit area, he referenced video streaming, knowing that this rant would be on Youtube in no time. That it took a whole week, was amazing. But the bottom line is that these Obama supporters need to SHUT UP.
Phleger has now given legitmate cause for all those Obama haters, starting with Hillary, to ask again, "why did Obama stay in that church if that's the accepted rhetoric from the pulpit?" And it's a valid question. We've now seen two examples of preaching from Trinity and it's basically the same tired white entitlement crap. And whether there's some justification to the premises is immaterial. Barack Obama is the symbol of 'It's time to move on, people'. But this jive from Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright keeps the black community stuck in that old school victimization. What's worse, is that it's now impossible to believe Obama when he says he never heard this kind of thing before in his church. He obviously has. So the next question is, 'Did he stand and wave his arms when he heard this type of preaching? Because if he did, he's not the guy we want healing any racial divide. '
Obama has to quit that church. Now.
Whether he likes it or not, John McCain is really starting to remind people of George Bush. This is the second time that he's made an obvious mistake on basic facts concerning the Iraq War, but won't admit to the mistake. Instead, he keeps trying to explain it away as other people's desire to 'nitpick'. Come on, Senator. If you're going to hammer Obama on the Iraq War, get your facts straight on troop levels. And don't confuse Sunni with Shia. And don't ever blame it on other people's hyper scrutiny of your verbiage. You named it the Straight Talk Express. If it ain't straight, your brand is in trouble. So my suggestion is, forget the Iraq visit clock, get your facts straight, quit worrying about your opponent so much and just make your case to the American people. It's a perfectly valid case. Don't keep screwing it up with gaffes and crooked spin. That was never your style. Until now.
And finally, Hillary. I've said an awful lot about her dubious claims to the nomination so I won't go on about it. I continue to be fascinated that she can say with a straight face that she's won the popular vote. And she has, until you check out her math: it throws out the caucus states (in fact, if individual votes could have been counted in those contests, it wouldn't be close--Obama would be way ahead); it keeps the Florida vote as it was voted in January; and, get this, it gives Obama no votes in Michigan. So, I guess the 13,000 people who jammed into an arena in Grand Rapids a few weeks ago, wouldn't have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot. Please. Spare us from the politics of desperation.
Ok. If we've gotten all this silliness out of our system, let's see what happens in the RBC.
Will the silliness continue in today's meeting. Or will there be a common sense solution? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Trifecta
Three stories hit the news yesterday. Only two dominated them. The third? Maybe the most significant. Let's take a look, starting with that one.
Supreme Make-Up
In what amounts to the first rulings for 'the little guy' by the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court, a 7-2 and a 6-3 decision found for the plaintiffs in two cases that featured instances of retaliation against workers who raised discrimination issues in the workplace. Read about them in detail here. Because the reasoning in these decisions is such a departure for the methodology used by the Court in similar cases last year, these rulings strike me as the judicial equivalent of a make-up call. You know that concept: when a ref makes a truly horrid call, he tries to make up for it with a questionable call the other way that helps the recipient of the horrid call. In this case, that horrid call would be Ledbetter v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a pay discrimination case. If you're not familiar with it, read the story and be prepared to feel your gorge rise. The ruling disallowed any claim of pay discrimination unless it's filed within 180 days after pay has been set. This means forget about retroactive relief. And forget that it usually takes more than 180 days to uncover the discrimination. And forget that pay disparity usually is the result of unequal raises or bonuses over time. Of course, the Bush Administration aided the defendent, Goodyear, which no doubt swayed the 'strict constructionists' on the Court. It is a brutal precedent, especially for women, who are always recieving less pay than men for the same work.
On the other hand, one of these two retaliation cases, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, had both Alito and Roberts abandoning their reluctance to recognize 'stare decisis' (judicial precedent). In this case, they voted to uphold prior rulings on the intent of congressional law preventing workplace retaliation in the Civil Rights Act of 1866! So does this signal a kinder gentler court when it comes to the Average Joe? Don't count on it.
McClellan Spews
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've heard that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has released a new political kiss and tell called "What Happened". I haven't read it and won't read it because A) it's probably not great writing given how inarticulate Scott was when he was Press Secretary; and B) it brings to light things that have been sitting in the sun for years: The Administration used WMD to sell the war in Iraq (Whoa, had no idea); Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby really did expose Valerie Plame (What! shocking...); Karl Rove knew about it, too (But Karl said he didn't!); and they all forced poor Scott to lie to the American people (I mean, what's our country coming to?). The one funny excerpt I saw was Scott's incredulity over hearing President Bush admit that he couldn't remember whether or not he did cocaine. Scott found this very curious. Clearly, he didn't drink enough Jeggermeister when he was young and fancy free.
RBC! RBC! RBC!
You know the hottest ticket in Washington, don't you? No, it's not the Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana concert, it's...the Democratic National Committee's Rules and By-laws Committee aka The RBC meeting this Saturday. Cyrus took a full 12 minutes to sell out the Verizon Center. The RBC sold out a ballroom in the Marriott in 60 seconds! Alright, seating capacities for the two venues are a litttle different (18,000 for Verizon, 500 for the Marriott) but still. This is crazy. Be honest. Did you even know there was an RBC before this Democratic Primary?
The agenda, of course, is to find a compromise to seat the scofflaw delegations of Michigan and Florida. It sounds as if the deal will be to seat the full delegations from both states and give each delegate half a vote. Obama's folks indicate they are willing to cede some delegates to Clinton, but they will draw the line at Clinton's insistence that they be seated exactly as they voted.
When you listen to the Clinton camp argue this point, the lack of respect for reality makes one wonder what this woman would be like as President. Could she self delude herself into an untenable position that might be harmful to the nation--as many have accused George Bush of doing with Iraq? She seems to believe that no one is noticing that she has been methodically changing the definition of victory depending on what she can achieve. She seems to believe that no one is noticing that the 'principle' of counting all the votes from Michigan and Florida, only became a matter of principle when it was clear that she needed those votes to make her electability case to super delegates. And you can bet, that if she were in Obama's place, she would smugly insist that everyone should just play by the rules that they all agreed to in the beginning.
In any event, it will be fascinating to see how Barack Obama's campaign handles the final test of this primary. Do they have the savvy to prosecute a negotiation that delivers him victory, while preserving his reputation as a 'uniter'? It's his last lesson from the Clinton 'How To Win In Politics At Any Cost Handbook'. Of course, the ultimate irony of all of this, is that the Democratic Primary set up, with proportional delegate apportioning was intended to prevent the kind of back room wheeling and dealing that we'll see at the RBC meeting. But at least the back room will be televised. And watching will be an engaged electorate-- the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. All in all, that's progress.
What deal will the RBC strike to seat Michigan and Florida? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Supreme Make-Up
In what amounts to the first rulings for 'the little guy' by the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court, a 7-2 and a 6-3 decision found for the plaintiffs in two cases that featured instances of retaliation against workers who raised discrimination issues in the workplace. Read about them in detail here. Because the reasoning in these decisions is such a departure for the methodology used by the Court in similar cases last year, these rulings strike me as the judicial equivalent of a make-up call. You know that concept: when a ref makes a truly horrid call, he tries to make up for it with a questionable call the other way that helps the recipient of the horrid call. In this case, that horrid call would be Ledbetter v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a pay discrimination case. If you're not familiar with it, read the story and be prepared to feel your gorge rise. The ruling disallowed any claim of pay discrimination unless it's filed within 180 days after pay has been set. This means forget about retroactive relief. And forget that it usually takes more than 180 days to uncover the discrimination. And forget that pay disparity usually is the result of unequal raises or bonuses over time. Of course, the Bush Administration aided the defendent, Goodyear, which no doubt swayed the 'strict constructionists' on the Court. It is a brutal precedent, especially for women, who are always recieving less pay than men for the same work.
On the other hand, one of these two retaliation cases, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, had both Alito and Roberts abandoning their reluctance to recognize 'stare decisis' (judicial precedent). In this case, they voted to uphold prior rulings on the intent of congressional law preventing workplace retaliation in the Civil Rights Act of 1866! So does this signal a kinder gentler court when it comes to the Average Joe? Don't count on it.
McClellan Spews
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've heard that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has released a new political kiss and tell called "What Happened". I haven't read it and won't read it because A) it's probably not great writing given how inarticulate Scott was when he was Press Secretary; and B) it brings to light things that have been sitting in the sun for years: The Administration used WMD to sell the war in Iraq (Whoa, had no idea); Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby really did expose Valerie Plame (What! shocking...); Karl Rove knew about it, too (But Karl said he didn't!); and they all forced poor Scott to lie to the American people (I mean, what's our country coming to?). The one funny excerpt I saw was Scott's incredulity over hearing President Bush admit that he couldn't remember whether or not he did cocaine. Scott found this very curious. Clearly, he didn't drink enough Jeggermeister when he was young and fancy free.
RBC! RBC! RBC!
You know the hottest ticket in Washington, don't you? No, it's not the Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana concert, it's...the Democratic National Committee's Rules and By-laws Committee aka The RBC meeting this Saturday. Cyrus took a full 12 minutes to sell out the Verizon Center. The RBC sold out a ballroom in the Marriott in 60 seconds! Alright, seating capacities for the two venues are a litttle different (18,000 for Verizon, 500 for the Marriott) but still. This is crazy. Be honest. Did you even know there was an RBC before this Democratic Primary?
The agenda, of course, is to find a compromise to seat the scofflaw delegations of Michigan and Florida. It sounds as if the deal will be to seat the full delegations from both states and give each delegate half a vote. Obama's folks indicate they are willing to cede some delegates to Clinton, but they will draw the line at Clinton's insistence that they be seated exactly as they voted.
When you listen to the Clinton camp argue this point, the lack of respect for reality makes one wonder what this woman would be like as President. Could she self delude herself into an untenable position that might be harmful to the nation--as many have accused George Bush of doing with Iraq? She seems to believe that no one is noticing that she has been methodically changing the definition of victory depending on what she can achieve. She seems to believe that no one is noticing that the 'principle' of counting all the votes from Michigan and Florida, only became a matter of principle when it was clear that she needed those votes to make her electability case to super delegates. And you can bet, that if she were in Obama's place, she would smugly insist that everyone should just play by the rules that they all agreed to in the beginning.
In any event, it will be fascinating to see how Barack Obama's campaign handles the final test of this primary. Do they have the savvy to prosecute a negotiation that delivers him victory, while preserving his reputation as a 'uniter'? It's his last lesson from the Clinton 'How To Win In Politics At Any Cost Handbook'. Of course, the ultimate irony of all of this, is that the Democratic Primary set up, with proportional delegate apportioning was intended to prevent the kind of back room wheeling and dealing that we'll see at the RBC meeting. But at least the back room will be televised. And watching will be an engaged electorate-- the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. All in all, that's progress.
What deal will the RBC strike to seat Michigan and Florida? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Hmmm...Part 2
Curiouser and curiouser.
So, let me get this straight: John McCain will echo comments made by George Bush that insinuate criticism of Barack Obama (see, 'appeasement'); and will borrow similar construction from Bush's speeches (see, the Cuban Independence Day remarks); but when it's time to physically stand next to George Bush, Mac wants to do it in private, without any press. So no one sees. As if we don't know that he's still doing it.
And this from a guy who rides around in a bus with reporters. A guy who insists that he is a different type of Republican. That his administration will be transparent and won't have back room meetings (see Dick Cheney and Oil CEOs). Hmmm.
So, let me get this straight: Robert Kennedy's son forgives Clinton's tasteless assasination comments, ("It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. . . . I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense." ), but now her candidacy is doomed and her VP hopes are shot, as well? That's what some News 4 in New York flack said. Hmmm.
And finally, Obama has trouble with Hispanics, right? Then why do we see huge adoring crowds in Puerto Rico? Hmmm.
I don't know, folks. I'm watching this stuff like you are.
Can Mac have it both ways on the Bush situation? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
So, let me get this straight: John McCain will echo comments made by George Bush that insinuate criticism of Barack Obama (see, 'appeasement'); and will borrow similar construction from Bush's speeches (see, the Cuban Independence Day remarks); but when it's time to physically stand next to George Bush, Mac wants to do it in private, without any press. So no one sees. As if we don't know that he's still doing it.
And this from a guy who rides around in a bus with reporters. A guy who insists that he is a different type of Republican. That his administration will be transparent and won't have back room meetings (see Dick Cheney and Oil CEOs). Hmmm.
So, let me get this straight: Robert Kennedy's son forgives Clinton's tasteless assasination comments, ("It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. . . . I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense." ), but now her candidacy is doomed and her VP hopes are shot, as well? That's what some News 4 in New York flack said. Hmmm.
And finally, Obama has trouble with Hispanics, right? Then why do we see huge adoring crowds in Puerto Rico? Hmmm.
I don't know, folks. I'm watching this stuff like you are.
Can Mac have it both ways on the Bush situation? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Think For Yourself
It's getting wacky out there on the trail. And the media is getting a little loopy as well. I get my political information from a wide variety of sources. But sometimes, you just need to think for yourself.
Let's take Hillary Clinton's RFK assasination comment. It exploded on to the scene yesterday and has drawn widely varying coverage. Most of it has hued closely to the simple story of a politician making an unfortunate statement, then explaining it. Most articles have described this as 'apologizing'. Which is not really accurate. She never really said she was sorry, but she did put it into context. Close enough, I suppose.
And then there was MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. He tore into Clinton with a 9 minute 'Special Comment' on his 'Countdown' show. The rant featured tears, yelling, and lots of words. But the most impressive part was the fact that he might be the only person outside of Tim Russert who can get a bloc of 9 minutes on national TV without a commercial break. Stunning. As I watched Olbermann's train wreck, a funny thing happened: I could feel myself being influenced by his extreme point of view. Just the way I'm sure Ditto Heads fall under Rush Limbaugh's spell.
I didn't like the feeling.
So I said to myself, "Ok, let's step away from the hype. What do I really think about this?" Well, I think Hillary is guilty of criminally bad taste when she brings up an assassination to underscore a point about the political calender. And because she's referenced this RFK assasination on other occasions, I think she's suffering from PRRD --Post-Rationalization Reality Disorder. This syndrome is commonly found among politicians. It happens when you concoct an air tight rationalization, repeat it ad nauseum, and forget what the words may sound like to those who live in the real world. Having said that, I do not think she's hinting that something terrible could befall Barack Obama so she should hang in, just in case.
You may have a different opinion. Good. Let's just think for ourselves on this one, because it's too easy for the media to run out of control with this.
Here's another one for you. I love Politco.com. But they've just got me all schizoid with this piece on Tuesday, and this one on Wednesday. I mean, I know Politco wants to give all viewpoints a shot but it's making my head spin.
We've seen the articles and talking heads offering up doom and gloom to Obama. But then I see a picture of him standing in front of 75,000 people and common sense makes me think, 'How bad can he be doing?!' I've heard he can't get the Jewish vote, but when he stands in front of a Jewish group and says , "My name Barack comes from the same semitic root as Baruch, which means 'blessed one'," I see an old Jewish couple look at each other and nod their heads approvingly.
The point is, we have to make sure we take in the info and sift through it responsibly. The words and the pictures are out there, let's make them work for us, not on us.
Finally, to a dear reader who asked me about the latest on Karl Rove, I say this: if he can be subpoened and grilled on the Siegelman travesty, we might see a house of cards fall that rivals the Nixon operation. As a gift for your readership, I present you with the letter from Rove's lawyer to John Conyers. Note the words Executive Privelege. Why is it that every Republican administration from Nixon to Reagan to Bush II keeps leaning on that? I thought these were the small government guys.
Stay tuned. It's going to get wackier before it's all said and done.
Let's take Hillary Clinton's RFK assasination comment. It exploded on to the scene yesterday and has drawn widely varying coverage. Most of it has hued closely to the simple story of a politician making an unfortunate statement, then explaining it. Most articles have described this as 'apologizing'. Which is not really accurate. She never really said she was sorry, but she did put it into context. Close enough, I suppose.
And then there was MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. He tore into Clinton with a 9 minute 'Special Comment' on his 'Countdown' show. The rant featured tears, yelling, and lots of words. But the most impressive part was the fact that he might be the only person outside of Tim Russert who can get a bloc of 9 minutes on national TV without a commercial break. Stunning. As I watched Olbermann's train wreck, a funny thing happened: I could feel myself being influenced by his extreme point of view. Just the way I'm sure Ditto Heads fall under Rush Limbaugh's spell.
I didn't like the feeling.
So I said to myself, "Ok, let's step away from the hype. What do I really think about this?" Well, I think Hillary is guilty of criminally bad taste when she brings up an assassination to underscore a point about the political calender. And because she's referenced this RFK assasination on other occasions, I think she's suffering from PRRD --Post-Rationalization Reality Disorder. This syndrome is commonly found among politicians. It happens when you concoct an air tight rationalization, repeat it ad nauseum, and forget what the words may sound like to those who live in the real world. Having said that, I do not think she's hinting that something terrible could befall Barack Obama so she should hang in, just in case.
You may have a different opinion. Good. Let's just think for ourselves on this one, because it's too easy for the media to run out of control with this.
Here's another one for you. I love Politco.com. But they've just got me all schizoid with this piece on Tuesday, and this one on Wednesday. I mean, I know Politco wants to give all viewpoints a shot but it's making my head spin.
We've seen the articles and talking heads offering up doom and gloom to Obama. But then I see a picture of him standing in front of 75,000 people and common sense makes me think, 'How bad can he be doing?!' I've heard he can't get the Jewish vote, but when he stands in front of a Jewish group and says , "My name Barack comes from the same semitic root as Baruch, which means 'blessed one'," I see an old Jewish couple look at each other and nod their heads approvingly.
The point is, we have to make sure we take in the info and sift through it responsibly. The words and the pictures are out there, let's make them work for us, not on us.
Finally, to a dear reader who asked me about the latest on Karl Rove, I say this: if he can be subpoened and grilled on the Siegelman travesty, we might see a house of cards fall that rivals the Nixon operation. As a gift for your readership, I present you with the letter from Rove's lawyer to John Conyers. Note the words Executive Privelege. Why is it that every Republican administration from Nixon to Reagan to Bush II keeps leaning on that? I thought these were the small government guys.
Stay tuned. It's going to get wackier before it's all said and done.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Is There An Echo In Here?
I'm confused. The worst thing John McCain can do politically is echo George Bush. So why is he doing it? Check this out:
"The day will come when Cubans freely receive information from many sources. The day will come when popular blogs are no longer blocked, and broadcasts from the United States are no longer jammed. The day will come when Cuban leaders live up to the international human rights documents they have signed -- instead of making a mockery of them. The day will come..."
Ok, you get the point. That was excerpted from Wednesday's comments by George Bush recognizing Cuban Independence Day. Now, here's McCain, also on Wednesday:
"One day, America will again have warm relations with a Cuban government that represents the sovereign will of its people, one that respects their fundamental human and political rights. One day, Cuba will be an important ally in advancing democracy throughout our hemisphere. Make no mistake: Cuba is destined to be free. "
This comes on the heels of McCain hopping on the Bush 'appeasement' bandwagon. So what gives?
Here are two scenarios: 1. Mac still hasn't gotten the memo that this is a change election and riding George Bush's 28% approval coattails is suicide. Or 2. Mac simply believes that Bush is right in these instances and he doesn't care about the politics. Proving that he is a man of conviction, damn the torpedos.
It's fascinating, either way.
Forgot to send out good wishes to Teddy Kennedy. Take it from my friend, Boston journalist Meg Vaillancourt, who said Teddy Kennedy did more for the poor and disenfranchised of this country than almost any other legislator--despite personal wealth that could've blinded him to those constituents.
Hillary is pushing hard for Florida and Michigan, to be seated 'exactly as they voted'. I am just amazed at the shamelessness. When your opponent's name is not on a ballot, and you publically sign off on denying the two states legitimacy because of their defiance of party rules, and you know your campaign manager threatened to do the same thing to Michigan in 2004 when he was head of the DNC, yet you can still pretend that you're on a civil rights crusade, and think no one will suspect you're doing it for your own advantage? That's shameless.
And she wonders why the media comes down on her. Mercy.
Someone tell me what either of these candidates is really thinking. I'd like to know. Click on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.
"The day will come when Cubans freely receive information from many sources. The day will come when popular blogs are no longer blocked, and broadcasts from the United States are no longer jammed. The day will come when Cuban leaders live up to the international human rights documents they have signed -- instead of making a mockery of them. The day will come..."
Ok, you get the point. That was excerpted from Wednesday's comments by George Bush recognizing Cuban Independence Day. Now, here's McCain, also on Wednesday:
"One day, America will again have warm relations with a Cuban government that represents the sovereign will of its people, one that respects their fundamental human and political rights. One day, Cuba will be an important ally in advancing democracy throughout our hemisphere. Make no mistake: Cuba is destined to be free. "
This comes on the heels of McCain hopping on the Bush 'appeasement' bandwagon. So what gives?
Here are two scenarios: 1. Mac still hasn't gotten the memo that this is a change election and riding George Bush's 28% approval coattails is suicide. Or 2. Mac simply believes that Bush is right in these instances and he doesn't care about the politics. Proving that he is a man of conviction, damn the torpedos.
It's fascinating, either way.
Forgot to send out good wishes to Teddy Kennedy. Take it from my friend, Boston journalist Meg Vaillancourt, who said Teddy Kennedy did more for the poor and disenfranchised of this country than almost any other legislator--despite personal wealth that could've blinded him to those constituents.
Hillary is pushing hard for Florida and Michigan, to be seated 'exactly as they voted'. I am just amazed at the shamelessness. When your opponent's name is not on a ballot, and you publically sign off on denying the two states legitimacy because of their defiance of party rules, and you know your campaign manager threatened to do the same thing to Michigan in 2004 when he was head of the DNC, yet you can still pretend that you're on a civil rights crusade, and think no one will suspect you're doing it for your own advantage? That's shameless.
And she wonders why the media comes down on her. Mercy.
Someone tell me what either of these candidates is really thinking. I'd like to know. Click on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Just Askin'...
Well, Hillary Clinton succeeded last night. Even though she suffered a 16 point loss to Barack Obama in the Oregon primary, her 35 point blowout win in Kentucky has prompted a few questions--some obvious, some not. At this point, raising questions is the primary purpose of her campaign.
So let's ask them.
First, does Clinton really have a shot? Answer: Not if you look at the math. In the context of the current rules, which supposes 2025 as the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination, Obama needs 70 more delegates (super, or otherwise) to reach this goal. Clinton needs 250. This means that she would have to get 85% of all remaining super delegates. This is not likely. Check out the numbers for yourself on this page. Clinton's argument is that if she can rack up a big victory in Puerto Rico and get Michigan and Florida seated, she would have the popular vote, plus victories in key swing states, so that super delegates would have to take her electability argument seriously. It's a very long shot.
Second, is this really good for the Democratic Party? Answer: At this point, I say, 'no'. Clinton is reinforcing two damaging perceptions that will be hard to erase: Obama can't win the white, blue collar vote and her supporters won't vote for Obama in a general. This is unhelpful because it doesn't tell the true story. Sure, there are people who are voting against a black man. They've admitted it to exit pollsters. But, in a primary, Democrats have the luxury of a choice between two candidates with similar ideologies. Voters can get picky about personal preference. In a general, when a Democrat is pitted against someone who has opposite positions, voters are forced to look past things like race and gender and hair style and personal style. So all this talk about the 33% of Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama in the fall is not accurate, but it fuels a perception that will add another chore to his campaign.
Third, is this really a 50 state campaign Obama is running? Answer: Doesn't look like it to me. Now, maybe this is why Obama still has plenty of money in the bank. He's chosen his battles wisely. But right now, his campaign looks an awful lot like Hillary's before Super Tuesday. Concede certain states, concentrate on sure prizes and you'll be in great shape. Well, it didn't work for her and frankly, it's not working for Obama. If he'd campaigned hard in West Virginia and Kentucky, he'd have lost like he did in Ohio oand Pennsylvania. But a 10 point loss is not the same as a 41 or 35 point loss. These huge losses, while not detrimental to his nomination math, have served to keep the pesky electability questions on the table for Clinton.
Fourth, should Clinton be the VP, if she loses the nomination? Answer: I don't think so. It erases Obama's claim of a change and there are too many good options out there, Jim Webb, Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Tim Kaine etc. But I'm open to hearing the arguments that support the other side.
Here's a big question that we'll revisit down the road. If Clinton loses, will this mark a 'Sister Souljah' moment in the Democratic Party? (Remember when Bill Clinton famously denounced comments by the rapper Sister Souljah at a rally with Jesse Jackson, indicating a break with the Jackson wing of the Democratic Party? That moment was credited with Clinton's claiming of the center). Does saying 'no' to the Clinton machine serve notice to the nation that Democrats are truly interested in a new kind of post-Clintonian politics? Answer: remains to be seen.
Finally, on the Republican side, did anyone see that Ron Paul got 15% of the vote in Oregon? And 7% of the vote in Kentucky? And he wasn't even campaigning? I'll always give John McCain a good chance in the general, but that is not good news for him. There is still simmering antipathy for Mac within the GOP electorate. Expect to see more when the light shines more brightly on him.
Question: what's the endgame for Hillary? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
So let's ask them.
First, does Clinton really have a shot? Answer: Not if you look at the math. In the context of the current rules, which supposes 2025 as the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination, Obama needs 70 more delegates (super, or otherwise) to reach this goal. Clinton needs 250. This means that she would have to get 85% of all remaining super delegates. This is not likely. Check out the numbers for yourself on this page. Clinton's argument is that if she can rack up a big victory in Puerto Rico and get Michigan and Florida seated, she would have the popular vote, plus victories in key swing states, so that super delegates would have to take her electability argument seriously. It's a very long shot.
Second, is this really good for the Democratic Party? Answer: At this point, I say, 'no'. Clinton is reinforcing two damaging perceptions that will be hard to erase: Obama can't win the white, blue collar vote and her supporters won't vote for Obama in a general. This is unhelpful because it doesn't tell the true story. Sure, there are people who are voting against a black man. They've admitted it to exit pollsters. But, in a primary, Democrats have the luxury of a choice between two candidates with similar ideologies. Voters can get picky about personal preference. In a general, when a Democrat is pitted against someone who has opposite positions, voters are forced to look past things like race and gender and hair style and personal style. So all this talk about the 33% of Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama in the fall is not accurate, but it fuels a perception that will add another chore to his campaign.
Third, is this really a 50 state campaign Obama is running? Answer: Doesn't look like it to me. Now, maybe this is why Obama still has plenty of money in the bank. He's chosen his battles wisely. But right now, his campaign looks an awful lot like Hillary's before Super Tuesday. Concede certain states, concentrate on sure prizes and you'll be in great shape. Well, it didn't work for her and frankly, it's not working for Obama. If he'd campaigned hard in West Virginia and Kentucky, he'd have lost like he did in Ohio oand Pennsylvania. But a 10 point loss is not the same as a 41 or 35 point loss. These huge losses, while not detrimental to his nomination math, have served to keep the pesky electability questions on the table for Clinton.
Fourth, should Clinton be the VP, if she loses the nomination? Answer: I don't think so. It erases Obama's claim of a change and there are too many good options out there, Jim Webb, Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Tim Kaine etc. But I'm open to hearing the arguments that support the other side.
Here's a big question that we'll revisit down the road. If Clinton loses, will this mark a 'Sister Souljah' moment in the Democratic Party? (Remember when Bill Clinton famously denounced comments by the rapper Sister Souljah at a rally with Jesse Jackson, indicating a break with the Jackson wing of the Democratic Party? That moment was credited with Clinton's claiming of the center). Does saying 'no' to the Clinton machine serve notice to the nation that Democrats are truly interested in a new kind of post-Clintonian politics? Answer: remains to be seen.
Finally, on the Republican side, did anyone see that Ron Paul got 15% of the vote in Oregon? And 7% of the vote in Kentucky? And he wasn't even campaigning? I'll always give John McCain a good chance in the general, but that is not good news for him. There is still simmering antipathy for Mac within the GOP electorate. Expect to see more when the light shines more brightly on him.
Question: what's the endgame for Hillary? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Monday, May 19, 2008
GOP... RIP?
On the eve of the Oregon and Kentucky Democratic primaries let's talk about...the Republicans. Maybe you saw Peggy Noonan's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. If not, you should read it. Talk about some 'straight talk'. She lays it on the line about the train wreck the GOP has become.
But this is not a kick 'em when they're down blog. First of all, I do not believe the GOP is in any danger of going away. Republicans are moving through the same kind of course correction Democrats had to implement in the early nineties. And if this political season has proven anything, it's that things can change in a hurry. But the GOP is in trouble right now. When an extreme faction of a party guides policy, and that policy fails on many fronts, voters become alienated. It's the free market concept of politics.
As Noonan points out, the Bush Presidency has been a disaster. We all have our opinions as to how that happened. Just for the heck of it, I'll agree with many Republicans who believe that the party abandoned true conservative principles. But I take it one step further: they abandoned those principles to the 'values voters'. And 'values voters', some of whom are my dear friends, had an agenda that didn't mix well with competent governance.
The grand experiment of this country centers around the idea that individual freedoms can co-exist with the common welfare. It requires obeying the law, paying some taxes, and participating in basic duties of citizenship (like jury duty and voting), but the reward is the freedom to live one's life as one chooses, as long as it doesn't harm any one else. Unanimity of thought, or of religious expression, or of lifestyle is not the object.
But that conservative concept changed radically in the GOP, starting in 1994. And it culminated with George Bush as the choice of the 'values voter'. The bottom line for the values voter was that government should dictate morality; should emphasize religion in the public square; should govern what a person does with their body or whom they should sleep with. This was a social agenda that subsumed the need for competence in running a government, in exchange for a government that simply shared its values.
This was like the Democrats' notion of Big Government put on its head. Instead of the Democrats' style of government, which sought to take care of people's fiscal lives with entitlement programs or welfare, the values voters' big government would take of people's spiritual lives by legislating personal morality (see Terry Schiavo).
And it all went wrong. The governing part of the equation stood outside in the rain. Excessive spending, abuse of executive privelege, lobbyists running amok and extreme partisanship sent this country to a place where 82% of its citizens now feel it shouldn't be.
Unfortunately, John McCain is a poster boy for all that's wrong with the GOP. And it's not really his fault. In 2000, he was, indeed a maverick, free to speak out at the hypocrisy of both parties. But the GOP attack machine (spearheaded by the values voters) handed his head to him before the South Carolina primary. They made sure he learned his lesson. In 2004, he made the Faustian bargain to appease, I mean, embrace George Bush. In return, he would get the Bush machine behind him in '08. And voila, all of his truly independent positions on immigration, campaign finance reform, tax cuts for the rich, even his principled opposition to ban torture, evaporated in the mist of political expediency.
So now, in a change election, McCain has to tap dance between agreeing with Bush (on his 'appease' comments, for example) and distancing himself from Bush's 28% approval rating. He's an anti-lobbyist crusader who has surrounded his campaign with lobbyists--that he now has to fire. And instead of substantive attacks, he's resorted to playing the 'association game' with Barack Obama. As if the electorate can't see that Obama's association with ex-Weather Underground participant Bill Ayers is not the same as having five major campaign advisors involved in unsavory lobbying activities.
And honestly, I blame McCain less than the hard core right wing of the GOP for his confused message. They took his refreshing political approach and strait jacketed him into something approximating a values orthodoxy. It's a shame, because I think he's a good man with a great sense of humor and a lot of plain old political common sense. We'll see how this plays out. But I'm not feeling confident for the Grand Old Party.
And before we go, can we just take a moment, regardless of party affiliation or whom you support in the Democratic primary, to acknowledge what Obama did on Sunday. Take a look at this . I mean, come on. When was the last time you saw any politician attract a crowd that big? And the kid painting his bare torso with the words 'Hope' above an Obama logo? I'm sorry folks, Barack Obama is a rock star. He's not perfect, but he's got a lot of people believing in the possibilities of politics again. In this day and age that's a monumental feat.
Just ask some Republicans.
How can John McCain right the GOP ship, if in fact, any one person can? Talk about this ora anything else, by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
But this is not a kick 'em when they're down blog. First of all, I do not believe the GOP is in any danger of going away. Republicans are moving through the same kind of course correction Democrats had to implement in the early nineties. And if this political season has proven anything, it's that things can change in a hurry. But the GOP is in trouble right now. When an extreme faction of a party guides policy, and that policy fails on many fronts, voters become alienated. It's the free market concept of politics.
As Noonan points out, the Bush Presidency has been a disaster. We all have our opinions as to how that happened. Just for the heck of it, I'll agree with many Republicans who believe that the party abandoned true conservative principles. But I take it one step further: they abandoned those principles to the 'values voters'. And 'values voters', some of whom are my dear friends, had an agenda that didn't mix well with competent governance.
The grand experiment of this country centers around the idea that individual freedoms can co-exist with the common welfare. It requires obeying the law, paying some taxes, and participating in basic duties of citizenship (like jury duty and voting), but the reward is the freedom to live one's life as one chooses, as long as it doesn't harm any one else. Unanimity of thought, or of religious expression, or of lifestyle is not the object.
But that conservative concept changed radically in the GOP, starting in 1994. And it culminated with George Bush as the choice of the 'values voter'. The bottom line for the values voter was that government should dictate morality; should emphasize religion in the public square; should govern what a person does with their body or whom they should sleep with. This was a social agenda that subsumed the need for competence in running a government, in exchange for a government that simply shared its values.
This was like the Democrats' notion of Big Government put on its head. Instead of the Democrats' style of government, which sought to take care of people's fiscal lives with entitlement programs or welfare, the values voters' big government would take of people's spiritual lives by legislating personal morality (see Terry Schiavo).
And it all went wrong. The governing part of the equation stood outside in the rain. Excessive spending, abuse of executive privelege, lobbyists running amok and extreme partisanship sent this country to a place where 82% of its citizens now feel it shouldn't be.
Unfortunately, John McCain is a poster boy for all that's wrong with the GOP. And it's not really his fault. In 2000, he was, indeed a maverick, free to speak out at the hypocrisy of both parties. But the GOP attack machine (spearheaded by the values voters) handed his head to him before the South Carolina primary. They made sure he learned his lesson. In 2004, he made the Faustian bargain to appease, I mean, embrace George Bush. In return, he would get the Bush machine behind him in '08. And voila, all of his truly independent positions on immigration, campaign finance reform, tax cuts for the rich, even his principled opposition to ban torture, evaporated in the mist of political expediency.
So now, in a change election, McCain has to tap dance between agreeing with Bush (on his 'appease' comments, for example) and distancing himself from Bush's 28% approval rating. He's an anti-lobbyist crusader who has surrounded his campaign with lobbyists--that he now has to fire. And instead of substantive attacks, he's resorted to playing the 'association game' with Barack Obama. As if the electorate can't see that Obama's association with ex-Weather Underground participant Bill Ayers is not the same as having five major campaign advisors involved in unsavory lobbying activities.
And honestly, I blame McCain less than the hard core right wing of the GOP for his confused message. They took his refreshing political approach and strait jacketed him into something approximating a values orthodoxy. It's a shame, because I think he's a good man with a great sense of humor and a lot of plain old political common sense. We'll see how this plays out. But I'm not feeling confident for the Grand Old Party.
And before we go, can we just take a moment, regardless of party affiliation or whom you support in the Democratic primary, to acknowledge what Obama did on Sunday. Take a look at this . I mean, come on. When was the last time you saw any politician attract a crowd that big? And the kid painting his bare torso with the words 'Hope' above an Obama logo? I'm sorry folks, Barack Obama is a rock star. He's not perfect, but he's got a lot of people believing in the possibilities of politics again. In this day and age that's a monumental feat.
Just ask some Republicans.
How can John McCain right the GOP ship, if in fact, any one person can? Talk about this ora anything else, by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Dems' Fightin' Words!
Did George Bush do for the Democrats what the Democrats couldn't do for themselves? That is: unite them? Man! The President's comments in Israel yesterday prompted a blistering and unified reaction from the two Democratic Presidential candiates and a few others.
This is the statement that got everyone going:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Then Obama responded with a statement, assuming that the President's words were a shot at him:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Hillary Clinton jumped to Obama's rescue, as well:
"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush. There is a very clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy and that difference will be evident once we take back the White House."
And John McCain, who is trying to distance himself from George Bush, weighed in with this: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Of course, he probably lost his bearings in not remembering that Robert Gates just this week said we have to find some leverage from which to approach negotiations with Iran.
But back to the fun.
Then Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor responded to the McCain comment:
"It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon. Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done."
And then Hillary jumped in again, linking Bush's comment to McCain's speech on his vision for his first term:
"I think today we’ve had two examples of why this country is going to be voting for a Democratic president. And I hope that people really look seriously both at President Bush’s comment and at Sen. McCain’s speech and realize that the only way we’re going to restore our leadership and our moral authority and deal with the very real challenges we face in the world is by electing a democratic president and I believe that I am a stronger candidate against Sen. McCain and will be a president who could accomplish that," she said.
And finally, Joe Biden had the best line of the day when, referring to Bush's comment, he simply said, "That's bullshit".
People, this is politics!
So, here are some interesting ideas to ponder. First, it's clear that Obama is not following in John Kerry's footsteps. Any shots across the bow (real or imagined) are not going to pass without a stern and swift response. Second, with all the talk of a Hillary VP offer from Obama, her swift response has to go into his calculus. If you're looking for an attack dog, she's right up there with Dick Cheney in terms of effectiveness. Third, if you're a Democrat, you have to feel good that the leaders of your party are finally showing some spine. And fourth, if you're a Republican, you have to marvel at the fact that your linguistically challenged President has once again come up with a simple word that tells an entire story: appeasement. This will be the new catch phrase that the GOP will use to characterize the Dems foreign policy. Unfair? Of course. Effective, probably. Brilliant? Absolutely.
And speaking of that, you still have to know the context of the word 'appeasement' in relation to the Nazis if you're going to argue about it. For example, last night on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews', right wing radio bloviator Kevin James (not the comedian) was trying to excoriate left wingers for their policy of 'appeasement' when Matthews asked James if he knew what Neville Chamberlain actually did to earn his infamous place in history as the main appeaser. James tried to shout his way past the question but Matthews pressed him into finally admitting that he didn't know that Chamberlain had met with Hitler and relayed the message to everyone that Hitler wouldn't invade Europe. Classic.
Finally, on a day when George Bush united the Dems, a huge court ruling in California may revive a wedge issue for Republicans. The California State Supreme Sourt ruled 4-3 that gay marriages are constitutional. If you're gay, this is a big day. If you're Tony Perkins or James Dobson, you'll be rolling up your shirt sleeves to get the state legislature to pass a constitutional ban on it. That, of course, is already in the works. Interesting to note that seven of the eight judges on that bench were appointed by Republican governors.
Obama and McCain have cloaked themselves in the"states should decide" cop out. If I were running for President I'd just say, "I'm running for President of the United States not Match.com. I've got more important things to worry about than who's zoomin' who." Stay tuned on this one. It'll heat up.
So the question is: Did George Bush's comments amount to a deft political manuever or a mistake that will backfire on the GOP as it helps unify Dems? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', by passing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
This is the statement that got everyone going:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Then Obama responded with a statement, assuming that the President's words were a shot at him:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Hillary Clinton jumped to Obama's rescue, as well:
"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush. There is a very clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy and that difference will be evident once we take back the White House."
And John McCain, who is trying to distance himself from George Bush, weighed in with this: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Of course, he probably lost his bearings in not remembering that Robert Gates just this week said we have to find some leverage from which to approach negotiations with Iran.
But back to the fun.
Then Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor responded to the McCain comment:
"It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon. Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done."
And then Hillary jumped in again, linking Bush's comment to McCain's speech on his vision for his first term:
"I think today we’ve had two examples of why this country is going to be voting for a Democratic president. And I hope that people really look seriously both at President Bush’s comment and at Sen. McCain’s speech and realize that the only way we’re going to restore our leadership and our moral authority and deal with the very real challenges we face in the world is by electing a democratic president and I believe that I am a stronger candidate against Sen. McCain and will be a president who could accomplish that," she said.
And finally, Joe Biden had the best line of the day when, referring to Bush's comment, he simply said, "That's bullshit".
People, this is politics!
So, here are some interesting ideas to ponder. First, it's clear that Obama is not following in John Kerry's footsteps. Any shots across the bow (real or imagined) are not going to pass without a stern and swift response. Second, with all the talk of a Hillary VP offer from Obama, her swift response has to go into his calculus. If you're looking for an attack dog, she's right up there with Dick Cheney in terms of effectiveness. Third, if you're a Democrat, you have to feel good that the leaders of your party are finally showing some spine. And fourth, if you're a Republican, you have to marvel at the fact that your linguistically challenged President has once again come up with a simple word that tells an entire story: appeasement. This will be the new catch phrase that the GOP will use to characterize the Dems foreign policy. Unfair? Of course. Effective, probably. Brilliant? Absolutely.
And speaking of that, you still have to know the context of the word 'appeasement' in relation to the Nazis if you're going to argue about it. For example, last night on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews', right wing radio bloviator Kevin James (not the comedian) was trying to excoriate left wingers for their policy of 'appeasement' when Matthews asked James if he knew what Neville Chamberlain actually did to earn his infamous place in history as the main appeaser. James tried to shout his way past the question but Matthews pressed him into finally admitting that he didn't know that Chamberlain had met with Hitler and relayed the message to everyone that Hitler wouldn't invade Europe. Classic.
Finally, on a day when George Bush united the Dems, a huge court ruling in California may revive a wedge issue for Republicans. The California State Supreme Sourt ruled 4-3 that gay marriages are constitutional. If you're gay, this is a big day. If you're Tony Perkins or James Dobson, you'll be rolling up your shirt sleeves to get the state legislature to pass a constitutional ban on it. That, of course, is already in the works. Interesting to note that seven of the eight judges on that bench were appointed by Republican governors.
Obama and McCain have cloaked themselves in the"states should decide" cop out. If I were running for President I'd just say, "I'm running for President of the United States not Match.com. I've got more important things to worry about than who's zoomin' who." Stay tuned on this one. It'll heat up.
So the question is: Did George Bush's comments amount to a deft political manuever or a mistake that will backfire on the GOP as it helps unify Dems? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', by passing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mama Told Me There'd Be Days Like This...
...Days that seem like heaven for a political junkie. Hoo, Lordy. Let's see what we've got.
First off, Mississippi's First Congressional District held a special election to replace Roger Whittaker, who took Trent Lott's senate seat after he retired. In spite of a massive Republican effort, which included appearances by Dick Cheney and Mike Huckabee, cost well over a million dollars and utilized smear ads starring Barack Obama and Rev. Wright, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis by 8 points.
Now, if you're a Democrat, this is great news. But you need to temper your excitement. Because there are some things you should know about Mississippi Democrats like Childers. They are twice as conservative as say, CT Republican Congressman Chris Shays. They're pro-life, pro-guns, anti-government, and you bet they're not pro-affirmative action. So... while it's true that the standard Republican attack machine couldn't make hay out of Rev. Wright's ties to Barack Obama in this race, it's probably because Travis Childers wasn't tying himself to Barack Obama. As a harbinger of how Rev. Wright and Obama will play on other down ticket races, I wouldn't consider this race a reliable bell weather.
If you're a Republican however, you should be worried. I don't care if the candidate was lousy, as most folks agree Davis was. This is the third special election in a row Republicans have lost. And to lose in this district? Bush won here with 62% in 2004. A Republican should roll out of bed and win here. But what should really worry you is that your national leadership is totally freaking out. There's some serious soul searching going on. And real concern about losing beaucoup seats in the fall.
Now look, I know endorsements aren't that big a deal, but what's NARAL thinking? The national pro choice group decided to endorse Barack Obama. I mean, I wish I could come up with an original take on this but I can't. It's a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton, who has worked on NARAL's behalf for decades. They say that they wanted to support the presumptive nominee and start unifying the party, but this doesn't help. A lot of pro-choice Hillary supporters (that would be almost every Hillary supporter) will be upset.
And last but not least, here's an endorsement that does matter: John Edwards' very public, very choreographed endorsement of Barack Obama. In a packed arena in Grand Rapids Wednesday night, just in time for all the nightly newscasts, Edwards appeared with Obama and endorsed him with a vigorous speech that recapped his favorite theme: making the two Americas one. For political spectacle it was non pareil. And for those of you who think Obama is too naive to be cold-blooded in his political calculations, I say you're naive. This bit of theater completely and intentionally made Hillary's huge West Virginia win seem like a distant memory. Every poltical pundit used the same words: 'impeccable timing'.
What was priceless was the joy and amazement that John Edwards tried to supress upon his entrance to the stage. It was just like a rock concert, which we've come to expect from the Obama campaign. But lest we forget, most campaigns aren't like this. I'm sure John Edwards has attended some big rallies. He was the VP nominee so he was on stage in front of a packed arena at the 2004 convention. But this was the night after a primary in Grand Rapids, Michigan! And it looked and sounded like a Bruce Springsteen concert. You could tell Edwards was thinking, "Hey, I could get used to this". Other small observations: Edwards was reluctant to give a full bear hug to Obama. And when Obama instinctivly went for another hug after Edwards' speech, he smartly made it seem as if he wanted to whisper in Edwards' ear. Obama's a quick study.
From a political standpoint, will Edwards provide help in wooing those famous working-class white voters in upcoming primaries? Probably not much. But if Obama can get Edwards' 18 delegates, that would give him the majority of delegates (based on 2025). Edwards' endorsement also beats the inevitability drum. And as everyone said, 'they make such a nice looking couple'. As a result, the whispers about an Obama/Edwards ticket have now become a dull roar. I don't see it. Obama needs to move to the center, not to the left, where John Edwards can live unapologetically--now that he's not running for President. Make him Attorney General and grab a front row seat for fireworks at DOJ.
Well, time to call it a night after a great political day. If you're a political junkie, that is.
What impact will the Edwards' endorsment actually have on Obama's campaign. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
First off, Mississippi's First Congressional District held a special election to replace Roger Whittaker, who took Trent Lott's senate seat after he retired. In spite of a massive Republican effort, which included appearances by Dick Cheney and Mike Huckabee, cost well over a million dollars and utilized smear ads starring Barack Obama and Rev. Wright, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis by 8 points.
Now, if you're a Democrat, this is great news. But you need to temper your excitement. Because there are some things you should know about Mississippi Democrats like Childers. They are twice as conservative as say, CT Republican Congressman Chris Shays. They're pro-life, pro-guns, anti-government, and you bet they're not pro-affirmative action. So... while it's true that the standard Republican attack machine couldn't make hay out of Rev. Wright's ties to Barack Obama in this race, it's probably because Travis Childers wasn't tying himself to Barack Obama. As a harbinger of how Rev. Wright and Obama will play on other down ticket races, I wouldn't consider this race a reliable bell weather.
If you're a Republican however, you should be worried. I don't care if the candidate was lousy, as most folks agree Davis was. This is the third special election in a row Republicans have lost. And to lose in this district? Bush won here with 62% in 2004. A Republican should roll out of bed and win here. But what should really worry you is that your national leadership is totally freaking out. There's some serious soul searching going on. And real concern about losing beaucoup seats in the fall.
Now look, I know endorsements aren't that big a deal, but what's NARAL thinking? The national pro choice group decided to endorse Barack Obama. I mean, I wish I could come up with an original take on this but I can't. It's a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton, who has worked on NARAL's behalf for decades. They say that they wanted to support the presumptive nominee and start unifying the party, but this doesn't help. A lot of pro-choice Hillary supporters (that would be almost every Hillary supporter) will be upset.
And last but not least, here's an endorsement that does matter: John Edwards' very public, very choreographed endorsement of Barack Obama. In a packed arena in Grand Rapids Wednesday night, just in time for all the nightly newscasts, Edwards appeared with Obama and endorsed him with a vigorous speech that recapped his favorite theme: making the two Americas one. For political spectacle it was non pareil. And for those of you who think Obama is too naive to be cold-blooded in his political calculations, I say you're naive. This bit of theater completely and intentionally made Hillary's huge West Virginia win seem like a distant memory. Every poltical pundit used the same words: 'impeccable timing'.
What was priceless was the joy and amazement that John Edwards tried to supress upon his entrance to the stage. It was just like a rock concert, which we've come to expect from the Obama campaign. But lest we forget, most campaigns aren't like this. I'm sure John Edwards has attended some big rallies. He was the VP nominee so he was on stage in front of a packed arena at the 2004 convention. But this was the night after a primary in Grand Rapids, Michigan! And it looked and sounded like a Bruce Springsteen concert. You could tell Edwards was thinking, "Hey, I could get used to this". Other small observations: Edwards was reluctant to give a full bear hug to Obama. And when Obama instinctivly went for another hug after Edwards' speech, he smartly made it seem as if he wanted to whisper in Edwards' ear. Obama's a quick study.
From a political standpoint, will Edwards provide help in wooing those famous working-class white voters in upcoming primaries? Probably not much. But if Obama can get Edwards' 18 delegates, that would give him the majority of delegates (based on 2025). Edwards' endorsement also beats the inevitability drum. And as everyone said, 'they make such a nice looking couple'. As a result, the whispers about an Obama/Edwards ticket have now become a dull roar. I don't see it. Obama needs to move to the center, not to the left, where John Edwards can live unapologetically--now that he's not running for President. Make him Attorney General and grab a front row seat for fireworks at DOJ.
Well, time to call it a night after a great political day. If you're a political junkie, that is.
What impact will the Edwards' endorsment actually have on Obama's campaign. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Expect the Expected
Hillary Clinton did the expected and won the West Virginia primary in a landslide. She gave a good speech. She was gracious, determined, focused, and even a bit poetic. She insisted she would stay in the race. That, too, was expected.
However, unlike her supporters' rapturous declaration of a significant victory, the facts tell another story. The delegate math is irrefutable--even if one buys the outrageous new move-the-goalpost-strategy of declaring 2,209 as the number of required delegates to secure the nomination. (This supposes that...sigh...Michigan and Florida will count). And another Clinton super delegate, former Colorado governor Roy Romer, used the math to throw his support to Barack Obama. This gives Obama an ever widening superdelegate lead, as well. Pesky facts.
Nevertheless, Clinton has a right to make her case that she could win the general against McCain. She no doubt could. But many people think that Obama could, as well.
Which leads us to one big question: can the outcomes in these primaries be reliable harbingers of general election results? Does an Obama loss to Clinton in PA mean that he has no shot against McCain there? Hillary says yes. Others say, 'It's hard to tell'. Hillary's demographics seem consistent. But Obama has proven that when he gets in front of voters he can change opinions. And with the Rev. Wright issue stabilized and not fresh in the minds of a racially wary group of white voters, couldn't he make inroads with those working class white voters. We won't know until, possibly, the fall.
But there's this to consider: if any one can change the electoral map of battleground states, it is Obama. While Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida have been the old school swing states, Obama (with the help of Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy) has created a new map of swing states: Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Montana, North Carolina and maybe even Georgia.
So don't hold your breath while you drink the latest Clinton Kool-Aid. Not that much has changed after tonight's victory. But after a 35 point blowout, you can't blame her for offering you the drink.
Do these primary demographics spell trouble for Obama in a general? Talk about this or anything else you'd like by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google search engine and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
However, unlike her supporters' rapturous declaration of a significant victory, the facts tell another story. The delegate math is irrefutable--even if one buys the outrageous new move-the-goalpost-strategy of declaring 2,209 as the number of required delegates to secure the nomination. (This supposes that...sigh...Michigan and Florida will count). And another Clinton super delegate, former Colorado governor Roy Romer, used the math to throw his support to Barack Obama. This gives Obama an ever widening superdelegate lead, as well. Pesky facts.
Nevertheless, Clinton has a right to make her case that she could win the general against McCain. She no doubt could. But many people think that Obama could, as well.
Which leads us to one big question: can the outcomes in these primaries be reliable harbingers of general election results? Does an Obama loss to Clinton in PA mean that he has no shot against McCain there? Hillary says yes. Others say, 'It's hard to tell'. Hillary's demographics seem consistent. But Obama has proven that when he gets in front of voters he can change opinions. And with the Rev. Wright issue stabilized and not fresh in the minds of a racially wary group of white voters, couldn't he make inroads with those working class white voters. We won't know until, possibly, the fall.
But there's this to consider: if any one can change the electoral map of battleground states, it is Obama. While Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida have been the old school swing states, Obama (with the help of Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy) has created a new map of swing states: Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Montana, North Carolina and maybe even Georgia.
So don't hold your breath while you drink the latest Clinton Kool-Aid. Not that much has changed after tonight's victory. But after a 35 point blowout, you can't blame her for offering you the drink.
Do these primary demographics spell trouble for Obama in a general? Talk about this or anything else you'd like by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google search engine and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Wait. What About Mac?
I don't blame you if you're sick of the Obama, Hillary drumbeat. It has been riveting political theater but let's thank John McCain for a few noteworthy items that can give us a brief breather before the West Virginia primary in two days.
First of all, Mac tried out a fall campaign attack by trying to tie Obama with Hamas. In a sign that Obama is learning to throw some elbows (thanks, Hillary), he blasted Mac by saying that the experienced one was "losing his bearings". To which Mac's peeps cried "Ageism, ageism"! I'm not sure any of it resonated, which should worry McCainiacs. If this is what passes for definition campaigning (trying to define your opponent before he can define himself, or you, for that matter), it's pretty amateurish.
But what should really scare McCainiacs is the recent kerfluffle and resignation of two key campaign aides, Doug Davenport and Doug Goodyear, who worked for DCI. DCI is a typical Washington lobbying firm that works for the highest bidder, no matter the politics or ideology. Ok, that's what lobbyists do. It's a free country; no one begrudges their right to make a buck. Except maybe when you work for a not-so-free-country, like Mynamar. Yeah, the old Burma, whose Junta-led government is still not letting the international community help its people in the wake of the devasting cyclone, hired DCI in 2002 to help it with its image!
So this is the maverick who rails against doing business with lobbyists? This is the guy who gets holier than thou about terrorist groups saying nice things about another candidate? And more importantly, this is the guy who lets his campaign hire people with these ties without vetting them first? Everyone has been saying that when the spotlight shifts to Mac in the general, there will be enough missteps and mispeaks to give his campaign trouble. If this is a preview, look out.
Ok, that was enough of a breather from Hil and Barry.
I have to say I'm just a little confused. All I've been hearing is that Obama has locked up the nomination. I know that he's been acting very Presidential nominee-like. And I know that Hillary's desperation to prove that her voting coalition was superior to Obama's led to her politically sloppy statement: "...Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again..." . (Jeez, talk about beating a drum until it beats you back.)
But, let's be honest, in West Virginia's primary on Tuesday, Hillary is about to have her biggest victory since Arkansas. We're talking at least 30 points. (That's a lot of hard-working white Americans). And then the following week, she'll win Kentucky by 20 points and probably lose Oregon by 5 points to 10 points. But no one is saying Obama can't close the deal now. They're saying that the deal is closed. So when did that happen? With a big victory in NC and a little loss in Indiana? It was that easy? So why were all the Obama folks wringing their hands?
Is it because maybe Hillary had a shot? If so, why doesn't she have a shot now? As I say, I'm confused. Now, I know the math favors Obama. If the rules are followed, Obama has this delegate deal wrapped up. But since when did the Clinton's ever follow the rules? They made up the rules. Are we really entering an era where the Dems can say "no" to the Clintons? If so,then that's change right there.
Finally, the reason the math favors Obama is because of a low key lawyer who was in charge of Obama's delegate strategy. Read this profile to learn more about Jeffery Berman. If you're a political junkie, you'll love it.
The question today is: will McCain run a high-road campaign, or is it going to be bare-knuckled politics in the general? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.
First of all, Mac tried out a fall campaign attack by trying to tie Obama with Hamas. In a sign that Obama is learning to throw some elbows (thanks, Hillary), he blasted Mac by saying that the experienced one was "losing his bearings". To which Mac's peeps cried "Ageism, ageism"! I'm not sure any of it resonated, which should worry McCainiacs. If this is what passes for definition campaigning (trying to define your opponent before he can define himself, or you, for that matter), it's pretty amateurish.
But what should really scare McCainiacs is the recent kerfluffle and resignation of two key campaign aides, Doug Davenport and Doug Goodyear, who worked for DCI. DCI is a typical Washington lobbying firm that works for the highest bidder, no matter the politics or ideology. Ok, that's what lobbyists do. It's a free country; no one begrudges their right to make a buck. Except maybe when you work for a not-so-free-country, like Mynamar. Yeah, the old Burma, whose Junta-led government is still not letting the international community help its people in the wake of the devasting cyclone, hired DCI in 2002 to help it with its image!
So this is the maverick who rails against doing business with lobbyists? This is the guy who gets holier than thou about terrorist groups saying nice things about another candidate? And more importantly, this is the guy who lets his campaign hire people with these ties without vetting them first? Everyone has been saying that when the spotlight shifts to Mac in the general, there will be enough missteps and mispeaks to give his campaign trouble. If this is a preview, look out.
Ok, that was enough of a breather from Hil and Barry.
I have to say I'm just a little confused. All I've been hearing is that Obama has locked up the nomination. I know that he's been acting very Presidential nominee-like. And I know that Hillary's desperation to prove that her voting coalition was superior to Obama's led to her politically sloppy statement: "...Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again..." . (Jeez, talk about beating a drum until it beats you back.)
But, let's be honest, in West Virginia's primary on Tuesday, Hillary is about to have her biggest victory since Arkansas. We're talking at least 30 points. (That's a lot of hard-working white Americans). And then the following week, she'll win Kentucky by 20 points and probably lose Oregon by 5 points to 10 points. But no one is saying Obama can't close the deal now. They're saying that the deal is closed. So when did that happen? With a big victory in NC and a little loss in Indiana? It was that easy? So why were all the Obama folks wringing their hands?
Is it because maybe Hillary had a shot? If so, why doesn't she have a shot now? As I say, I'm confused. Now, I know the math favors Obama. If the rules are followed, Obama has this delegate deal wrapped up. But since when did the Clinton's ever follow the rules? They made up the rules. Are we really entering an era where the Dems can say "no" to the Clintons? If so,then that's change right there.
Finally, the reason the math favors Obama is because of a low key lawyer who was in charge of Obama's delegate strategy. Read this profile to learn more about Jeffery Berman. If you're a political junkie, you'll love it.
The question today is: will McCain run a high-road campaign, or is it going to be bare-knuckled politics in the general? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Metrics
That's the hip word these days. Metrics. As in, "how do we measure victory?" Or, more accurately, "how does Hillary measure victory". The word 'metrics' could only come alive in a discussion involving the Clintons--the same folks who shined a bright light on the taken-for-granted 'is'.
I don't want to pile on after the tough night Hillary had. I'm embarrased that our vulture culture finds it neccessary to dump on people when they're down. Even thick-skinned public figures. And after eking out a win in Indiana, losing heavily in North Carolina and revealing that she loaned herself more than $6 miillllion dollars, Hillary is definitely down.
But...it is stunning to hear guys like Howard Wolfson try to spin her to victory using creative metrics. Such as the 'poor white guys who decide close elections will only vote for Hillary' metric. Or the 'big state' metric. Or the 'African-Americans are keeping Obama ahead' metric.
So I decided to look at a real metric: margin of victory throughout the primary campaign. What I discovered blew me away.
The campaign has been going on so long that we forget how Obama put himself in a commanding position. It's no accident his delegate lead is now insurmountable. In primaries or caucuses where there was a blowout victory, which I define as 12 points or more (an 8 to 10 point victory is decisive, but not a blowout), Hillary won six, including Florida (I'm sorry, I just can't count Michigan). Her largest margin was in Arkansas by 49 points. The only other 20+ point victory she had, though, was in Florida, in which Obama did not campaign.
Now, check this out: Obama won 20+ point victories in Vermont, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina and Wyoming. He won 30+ point victories in Minnesota, North Dakota, Georgia, Washington and Illinois. He won a 51 point victory in Washington, DC. Alabama, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin were blowouts under 20 points.
All of these blowouts gave the lion's share of delegates to Obama. But they also told you something important: a lot of people voted for Barack Obama. So when Clinton hacks try to tell you Obama is weak in a general, be wary. African-American voters alone didn't create 17 blowout victories. A good campaign, a great message and a steady, likable candidate simply attracted a lot of voters.
And unlike 'metrics', you just can't spin that away.
What are the metrics that Hillary will call upon to make a real argument that she should stay in the race? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
I don't want to pile on after the tough night Hillary had. I'm embarrased that our vulture culture finds it neccessary to dump on people when they're down. Even thick-skinned public figures. And after eking out a win in Indiana, losing heavily in North Carolina and revealing that she loaned herself more than $6 miillllion dollars, Hillary is definitely down.
But...it is stunning to hear guys like Howard Wolfson try to spin her to victory using creative metrics. Such as the 'poor white guys who decide close elections will only vote for Hillary' metric. Or the 'big state' metric. Or the 'African-Americans are keeping Obama ahead' metric.
So I decided to look at a real metric: margin of victory throughout the primary campaign. What I discovered blew me away.
The campaign has been going on so long that we forget how Obama put himself in a commanding position. It's no accident his delegate lead is now insurmountable. In primaries or caucuses where there was a blowout victory, which I define as 12 points or more (an 8 to 10 point victory is decisive, but not a blowout), Hillary won six, including Florida (I'm sorry, I just can't count Michigan). Her largest margin was in Arkansas by 49 points. The only other 20+ point victory she had, though, was in Florida, in which Obama did not campaign.
Now, check this out: Obama won 20+ point victories in Vermont, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina and Wyoming. He won 30+ point victories in Minnesota, North Dakota, Georgia, Washington and Illinois. He won a 51 point victory in Washington, DC. Alabama, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin were blowouts under 20 points.
All of these blowouts gave the lion's share of delegates to Obama. But they also told you something important: a lot of people voted for Barack Obama. So when Clinton hacks try to tell you Obama is weak in a general, be wary. African-American voters alone didn't create 17 blowout victories. A good campaign, a great message and a steady, likable candidate simply attracted a lot of voters.
And unlike 'metrics', you just can't spin that away.
What are the metrics that Hillary will call upon to make a real argument that she should stay in the race? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Split? Decision
As the returns keep coming in from Indiana and North Carolina, the evening that Hillary Clinton hoped to have is not going to materialize. In fact, the opposite has transpired: a blowout win for Barack Obama in the Tarheel state and a close battle in the Hoosier state.
This means the following: there can be no claim of momentum by the Clinton camp. Her deficit in the popular vote will deepen, her deficit in the pledged delegate count will not improve, and it will be harder for Hillary to raise money.
So does this split decision mean it's time for Hillary to split? This might surprise you, but I say not so fast. There is a serious issue that exists right now in the Democratic primary campaign. It's an issue of history. As the first serious female Presidential candidate, a woman who carries the hopes of at least three generations of female voters on her back, it does not serve those women, the Democrats or even Barack Obama to have her concede an entire campaign after winning one of two contests.
The reality is that she cannot overtake Obama in either the popular vote or the pledged delegate count. The news tonight is that the Clinton camp's strategy has been to hold on until May 31st when the DNC Rules Committee meets. Word is that they will try to convince the committee to validate the Florida and Michigan results and seat those delegations. Word also is, that with Obama's big victory in North Carolina, his campaign feels they may be in a commanding enough position to cut a deal because by then it won't matter.
[A sidebar on the Michigan vote: imagine if you played on a high school basketball team and the league in which you played, perhaps because of bad weather, cancelled a game. So your team stayed at home. But the other team showed up to play. And they played by themselves, against no one, scoring basket after basket and then proclaimed themselves the winner of the game in a blowout. And then later in the season, when that team was behind in the standings, they went to the league and said the game should count. When it was pointed out to that team that your team didn't play because the game was officially cancelled, the other team said, "well, they chose not to play. We chose to play. The game should count". Would anyone take that argument seriously? Obviously not, but that's what the Clinton camp is doing right now.]
In any event, Obama's fortunes are intimately linked to Hillary's future in this race. If she is perceived as being forced out by the party, her supporters will have a tough time voting for him. If she goes full bore until June, the question has to be asked, "To what purpose? To weaken Obama in the general?" So the dance will begin. The goal must be to find a way for Hillary to come down from this campaign with full dignity and as a fairly vanquished contestant. Why would she do that? Well, in addition to the inexorable math, there's the issue of a different history. The one that contains the Clinton legacy. Do the Clintons want to be known as the team that denied America it's first African-American president? Do they want to have contributed to the Balkanization of the Democratic Party? Especially when Hillary would have a chance to run again in four years? I think they've proven that when it comes to enlightened self interest, the Clintons make the right moves.
The other question has to be, how did this night happen? Hillary was energized after Pennsylvania. Bill was barnstorming all over North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama had the worst three weeks of his campaign. Well, some are saying that the gas tax holiday issue was a gift to him. It refocused the debate on an issue and he took a principled stand that was not politically expedient. He was able to renew the criticism of Hillary as a "say anything to get elected" type politician. I watched both Hillary on "This Week with George Stephanapolous" and Obama on "Meet the Press" and I told my girlfriend afterwards that the gas tax holiday issue was a loser for Hillary. You could tell Hillary knew that the economics were flawed. And you could sense that Obama had regained his "reform politics as usual" voice.
In her 'victory' speech, Clinton gave every indication that she's going to continue the race. On the surface, this may seem like a bad thing for Obama and the Democrats. But if it buys her time to find the right way to get out of this race, it's actually a good thing. Because there's this issue of history.
Will she get out of the race? Or take it until June? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
This means the following: there can be no claim of momentum by the Clinton camp. Her deficit in the popular vote will deepen, her deficit in the pledged delegate count will not improve, and it will be harder for Hillary to raise money.
So does this split decision mean it's time for Hillary to split? This might surprise you, but I say not so fast. There is a serious issue that exists right now in the Democratic primary campaign. It's an issue of history. As the first serious female Presidential candidate, a woman who carries the hopes of at least three generations of female voters on her back, it does not serve those women, the Democrats or even Barack Obama to have her concede an entire campaign after winning one of two contests.
The reality is that she cannot overtake Obama in either the popular vote or the pledged delegate count. The news tonight is that the Clinton camp's strategy has been to hold on until May 31st when the DNC Rules Committee meets. Word is that they will try to convince the committee to validate the Florida and Michigan results and seat those delegations. Word also is, that with Obama's big victory in North Carolina, his campaign feels they may be in a commanding enough position to cut a deal because by then it won't matter.
[A sidebar on the Michigan vote: imagine if you played on a high school basketball team and the league in which you played, perhaps because of bad weather, cancelled a game. So your team stayed at home. But the other team showed up to play. And they played by themselves, against no one, scoring basket after basket and then proclaimed themselves the winner of the game in a blowout. And then later in the season, when that team was behind in the standings, they went to the league and said the game should count. When it was pointed out to that team that your team didn't play because the game was officially cancelled, the other team said, "well, they chose not to play. We chose to play. The game should count". Would anyone take that argument seriously? Obviously not, but that's what the Clinton camp is doing right now.]
In any event, Obama's fortunes are intimately linked to Hillary's future in this race. If she is perceived as being forced out by the party, her supporters will have a tough time voting for him. If she goes full bore until June, the question has to be asked, "To what purpose? To weaken Obama in the general?" So the dance will begin. The goal must be to find a way for Hillary to come down from this campaign with full dignity and as a fairly vanquished contestant. Why would she do that? Well, in addition to the inexorable math, there's the issue of a different history. The one that contains the Clinton legacy. Do the Clintons want to be known as the team that denied America it's first African-American president? Do they want to have contributed to the Balkanization of the Democratic Party? Especially when Hillary would have a chance to run again in four years? I think they've proven that when it comes to enlightened self interest, the Clintons make the right moves.
The other question has to be, how did this night happen? Hillary was energized after Pennsylvania. Bill was barnstorming all over North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama had the worst three weeks of his campaign. Well, some are saying that the gas tax holiday issue was a gift to him. It refocused the debate on an issue and he took a principled stand that was not politically expedient. He was able to renew the criticism of Hillary as a "say anything to get elected" type politician. I watched both Hillary on "This Week with George Stephanapolous" and Obama on "Meet the Press" and I told my girlfriend afterwards that the gas tax holiday issue was a loser for Hillary. You could tell Hillary knew that the economics were flawed. And you could sense that Obama had regained his "reform politics as usual" voice.
In her 'victory' speech, Clinton gave every indication that she's going to continue the race. On the surface, this may seem like a bad thing for Obama and the Democrats. But if it buys her time to find the right way to get out of this race, it's actually a good thing. Because there's this issue of history.
Will she get out of the race? Or take it until June? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
