Bill as Senator?

One of the dumbest speculations, among the endless CDS speculations, is the current gossip about Bill's being appointed to fill out Hillary's term. Apparently, this would solve some political problems for the Governor of New York and keep Bill "out of trouble".

The precedent? Adams. Would he do it? They say "why not"?.

First, it's unlikely that two Presidents could be more different than Adams & Clinton. Second, I suspect that the Congress in Adams' time was a more interesting place to work than the Congress today.

Think about it (something none of the talking heads talking about this have done): Bill Clinton as a junior Senator, stuck on unimportant subcommittees where he will be given two minutes to ask a question?

And can one imagine Clinton in a Senate in which Reid is the Majority Leader? Bill, one of the best arm-twisters around?

It is ridiculous and illustrates nothing so much as the utter vacuousness that characterizes the media, even the "big" media, today.

It's Always Hillary's Fault

Surfing into Anderson 360 tonight, I discover that the reason Obama hasn't nominated a Treasury Secretary is that Hillary hasn't made up her mind. Apparently, The Chosen One, the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR can't do two things at the same time.

And, of course, Obama's super secret, efficient, disciplined, loyal staff are angry because Hillary's people are responsible for all the leaks. I guess they're responsible for the leaks about the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary and Commerce Secretary, too?

Now, let me see. Obama, President-Elect, CIC, Leader of the Free World, can't "handle" the Clintons. Because, you see, he can't ask her formally to take the position unless he knows she will say yes (um, so what exactly happened with Pritzker? Did he just sort of hint around, like, um, maybe, do you think, maybe, .... and when Pritzker shook her head "no", that was it?) But, he can still, of course, ask Bill to lay bare his entire financial history - just in case, of course, he decides to offer her the job.

I'm not sure who comes out the worst here. These idiotic talking heads or Obama. Couldn't he, like, you know, just issue a statement that he hasn't offered anybody any position in his cabinet and will issue a press statement when he does? No? Too easy?

Quite frankly, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder why Hillary would even want to be in this amateur's cabinet. It's a dead end job, as far as I can tell. She wouldn't be able to run for the Senate again, unless, of course, she moved to another state. Governor? Maybe.

Best Reason not to support Obama: His Supporters

Bill and Hillary give some of the best speeches of their lives in support of Obama, but is that enough? No. His supporters in the media (print and video) and the so-called liberal blogosphere continue to snipe. They weren't sincere enough, they didn't praise him enough, they're not working hard enough for him.

In Iowa, Obama showed himself to be an ungracious winner. In New Hampshire, he showed himself to be a poor loser. Like leader, like follower.

The Obamanuts are a bunch of puerile, whining, disgusting, racist misogynists who have been running a negative campaign all year and just can't stop. There's nothing new or hopeful about these people. They are the Democrat version of Karl Rove's minions.

And I don't think I want this country to be run by them.

Why the Super Delegates Have Little Choice But Obama

Kristen Breitweiser (posted on Taylor Marsh:You Broke It You Own It ) asks how the Super Delegates will justify nominating Obama and losing the GE.


Here's why I think they must (in their minds) nominate Obama and how they will justify a Nov. loss.

Nominate Obama
1. Massive media support. The TV networks & major news magazines have already declared Obama to be the winner. It doesn't matter whether they are right at this time (they are NOT), they have created a perception that he is the Democratic nominee. So if the SDs vote for Hillary, they will be roundly and loudly and widely criticized for stealing the nomination from Obama. They will also be accused of being racists. The details (delegates, Florida and Michigan, etc., etc.) will not matter.

2. They can point to a lead in pledged delegates (even if that means excluding Florida and Michigan, because of the Rulz) and, possibly, in votes (although we won't know that for sure for a couple of more weeks.)

3. Obama has already given 2-3x as much to SDs for their election campaigns as Hillary has. I have no doubt that he is waving dollar bills under the noses of the remaining udecided SDs.

3. Most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama.

4. So Obama loses the GE. How do the SDs defend themselves? They will blame Hillary for staying in the race so long that Obama didn't have the time to campaign against McCain. They will also claim that Americans as a whole are more racist than Democrats and those racists were the margin of victory. This may work if the election is close. It will, of course, fall flat if McCain wins big. They will also point out that there is no proof that Hillary could have done better.

Nominate Hillary
5. Same as #1 above. SDs are human, too. The media backlash for voting against Obama will be vicious.

6. They would have to include Florida & Michigan in spite of the Rulz. Florida can be easily justified. Michigan cannot, even if Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot. Then they would have to say that votes (assuming Hillary gets the most votes) count more than delegates even though it has always been the delegate count that has mattered (that this is probably because there's never been such a close nominating race under the current rules is irrelevant.)

7. The Democratic Party will lose almost all the African American votes, and possibly destroy that base for the future.

8. If Hillary wins, the media will say that Obama could have won, too and should have been the nominee. If she loses, the media and Obama's supporters will claim that he could have won and if the SDs had followed the lead of the Party (delegates, states, caucuses, etc.), a Democrat would be President.

Conclusion
If the nominee wins and that nominee is Hillary, there will still be considerable dissent in the Party on the part of the Obama supporters. The media will criticize every little thing that Hillary does for 4 years, or more.

If the nominee is Obama, there will be vast media support for his Presidency and, possibly, an extended honeymoon ala Bush 43's. Disgruntled Hillary supporters will disappear from view (not to be unexpected since her supporters have been ignored by the media for months).

If the nominee loses and that nominee is Hillary, they will face the wrath of the media and Obama supporters (which we have already seen can be massive).

If the nominee loses and that nominee is Obama, they will blame Hillary and racist Americans. The media will support them.

Each SD will be weighing the consequences of a vote in terms of his or her own electability. They perceive that a vote for Obama, even if he loses in the GE, will be more advantageous (or less disadvantageous) than a vote for Hillary.

In short, the cost of being wrong about Obama is lower than the cost of being wrong about Hillary.

(see also Obama: Super Delegates and Affirmative Action)

After Pennsylvania - The Math - Plus Ça Change....

Well, the day after and nothing has changed. Obama's supporters and the media say that Hillary's win doesn't matter. She didn't pick up that many delegates and will lose them in North Carolina - which has many more delegates than Indiana and is owned by Obama. (38% of the registered Democrats are African American.) Hillary's forces don't deny that they will lose N.C. They just hope it will be a respectable loss.

Then, of course, there is "The Math". Some of the calculations, by supporters of both Hillary and Obama are wondrous in their complexity. After all, there is a lot to work with: Florida and Michigan - to count or not and if to count, how. Turning caucus votes into "real" votes. Even the pledged delegate votes have some wiggle room due to the multi-stage process of assigning them. Then there are the maps of electoral votes vs. primary & caucus wins. And so on and so on. The one constant amidst all of this complexity is that the method employed always ends up supporting the designer's preferred candidate. It is unlikely that any of them will impress a supporter of the opposite candidate, although the designers hope their models will influence the Super Delegates (SDs).

Will the SDs be impressed by these models? I doubt it. I've discussed my analysis of their decision making earlier, but will repeat and add a bit here.

The SDs want the Democrats to win in November. But they have a couple of perhaps insurmountable obstacles.

1. Supporters of one candidate who say they won't vote for the other candidate.
I think these percentages are overstated and represent the gulf that has opened up between the two camps in the past several months. I blame Obama's supporters for this gulf, but, then, I am a Hillary supporter. But, when the proverbial push comes to the proverbial shove, most will vote for the Democrat. There are, however, and unfortunately, a couple of exceptions.

Hillary's voters:
Certainly, some of Hillary's supporters will either sit on their hands next November or vote for McCain. I think this is most likely to happen in Florida if its votes are not counted in full, as voted. Who will switch from Hillary to McCain rather than to Obama? Most likely the older voters. They may not approve of many of McCain's ideas, but I suspect that given a choice between a man of their generation, a war hero and the guy (Obama) they think stole the nomination from Hillary by disenfranchising them, they will go for McCain and probably in large enough numbers (it doesn't take many in Florida) to swing the state to the Republicans.
Obama's voters:
Yes, some of the white elitists will sit on their hands, write in a name, or even vote for McCain. They have done this before (voting against their political interests) to disastrous effect going back to Nixon vs. Humphrey. But they are not the main problem the SDs must consider.

The main problem is the African American vote. It has gone 90% for Obama. Barring some major misstep on his part, it will take very little in the way of "math" to make an SD vote for Hillary appear to be racist. SDs are not dumb. They know this. For the Democratic Party to deprive an African American candidate of the nomination when even some, not to say most, of the numbers favor him will likely do to the Party a variation of what LBJ's Civil Rights movement did to the Party. LBJ knew he was turning over the South to the Republicans. The SDs may rightly believe that a majority of AAs will not vote for McCain. But they will also, rightly I think, assume that enough AAs will sit home to deprive Hillary of a win in November.

There are two ways to solve the Florida problem.
The first, of course, is to count Florida but not Michigan. (Michigan's voters might get just as mad, but most will admit that since Obama's name was not on the ballot, it wouldn't be fair to give the state to Hillary. True, it is Obama who refused to accept a revote, but relatively few of the Democratic voters, in my estimation, realize that.)

The second is for Hillary to drop out. And that is why there is such a clamor for her to do just that. There is simply no way to finesse the African American vote. Her voters will be disappointed if she drops out, but they will be furious if they think that Obama stole the nomination (by pressure on the SDs or some version of "The Math".)

Do I want Hillary to fight until the end? Yes. Do I think that Obama can win in November under any circumstance? No. Not because he is AA (think Colin Powell), but because he is so clearly unprepared for the job compared to McCain. However, I also think the odds are against Hillary's winning in November (the misogyny her campaign has exposed is greater than anything we could have anticipated.). Not so great that she couldn't pull out a victory, but it would be a victory that would leave an uncomfortably large segment of the Democratic Party unwilling to give her the support she would need as President.

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that we have backed ourselves into a corner from which there is no conceivable good way out.

Poor Obama. He's going to have to go negative now?

I suppose it was to be expected. Obama lost in Pennsylvania because of Hillary's negative attacks. So now, the poor guy, in spite of all of his better instincts, is going to have to go negative?

This is what? The 100th time we've heard this. When, exactly, has he not been negative? I seem to recall his starting out the campaign by saying she was too old. Well, OK, he didn't exactly say she was too old. He just said, my paraphrase, that she was stuck in the old, adversary politics of the 60s. And it's pretty much gone downhill from there.

But there is a bigger issue here: the definition of "negative". As applied to Hillary, it appears to mean any attack of any kind against Obama: experience, positions, relationships with questionable people, public statements. None of these are acceptable targets.

Once upon a time, "negative" meant untruthful, distorted, grossly unfair. Now, at least for Hillary, it means any attempt to draw a distinction between her qualifications and his.

Similarly, "attack" is now a completely negative word. What, pray tell, should one call an attempt to draw distinctions between oneself and one's opponent?

Another Reason for Hillary to Stay in the Race

While working on the prior post about why Obama's supporters want Hillary to quit, it occurred to me that there is a reason, other than hoping she will eventually get the nomination, that Hillary should stay in.

If Hillary stays in until the end, and the nomination gets decided by Super Delegates, either her supporters or Obama's will feel cheated. This is GOOD.

I know that is counter-intuitive, but only if one focuses solely on this election. If, however, one looks at the system from a longer-term perspective, this outcome should be beneficial if it leads to a revised and more rational primary system.

What should be the purpose of a primary system? To nominate the person who best represents the will of the Party's members. The current system does not accomplish this and is little better than the smoke-filled room.

The problems with the current primary system are well known.
1. Iowa and New Hampshire as gate-keepers
With the exception of the people who live in these two states, everybody realizes that their gate-keeper function is anti-democratic and damaging. Only candidates with relatively deep pockets can survive a loss in these two states especially because the media consider the outcomes to be definitive, in every sense of the word.

2. Caucuses vs. primaries
The sheer idiocy of having caucuses can be seen in Texas this year where it appears that Obama may win more delegates (due to the caucuses) than Hillary in spite of her trouncing him in the popular vote.

There is simply nothing democratic about a caucus. Turnout is low compared to that in a primary. Only people with spare time on their hands can attend. Peer pressure can easily overwhelm personal wishes when people must publicly state their preferences.

3. The primary season
Although primaries & caucuses are scheduled from Jan. - June, everybody seems to want and expect the nominee to be chosen by March. This is absurd. It means that both parties have set things up so that many, if not most, of the states have no say at all in who becomes the nominee because they vote too late. This is the reason so many states, including Florida and Michigan, moved their primaries up this year.

It is unfair in the extreme to create a system that disenfranchises many, if not most, of a Party's members.

All of these problems have been apparent for years, but nobody does anything to fix them. The Party bigwigs seem content to have a few states determine the nominee - no matter how badly the nominee may fare in the general election.

But if this year's Democratic nominee is chosen by Super Delegates, there will be enormous pressure on the DNC to finally fix the system. (Anglachel has a proposal worth serious attention by the DNC. )

I know that many will argue that I am right, but this is the wrong time. Winning the GE is too important this year. Unfortunately, it is precisely because this election is so important to Democrats (and, really, be honest, what election in the history of the country has not been important?) that we must ride it out to the end.

The DNC must change the system and the only way to make them change the system is to have a nominee (be it Hillary or Obama) who is not viewed as the legitimate winner by a large number of Democrats. If Hillary quits, this won't happen. If she stays in, it's pretty much inevitable.

The Real Reason They Want Her To Quit

After reading yet another hyperbolic demand that Hillary withdraw from the race before she destroys Obama, The Democratic Party, the Unites States of America and Western Civilization, I decided to sit down and work through my interpretation of these calls (which can be summarized as "She Can't Win and He Will Be The Nominee No Matter What She Does So She Should Quit"):

Their Reasons (my interpretation)
1. It will destroy Obama.
I don't see how. They assure us that he is the nominee already in all but name.

2. It hurts Obama's chances against McCain because Obama can't campaign against McCain.
Well, if Obama is not free to campaign against McCain (because Obama is not yet the nominee), McCain by that same token is not free to campaign against Obama because, of course, Obama is not yet the nominee. So, no advantage to either side. There is, however, nothing about the current situation to prevent Obama from campaigning against McCain (or vice versa). He certainly has enough money.

3. Hillary's attacks will hurt Obama in the Fall.
If they haven't been damaging enough to keep him from being the presumptive nominee, why should they hurt him against McCain? And it is hard to believe that, at this stage, she could say anything that McCain doesn't already know or can't find out on his own. I vaguely remember a Republican by the name of George H. W. Bush deriding his opponent Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics" in 1980. Now, who won the Republican nomination and the election? Hmmm, let me think, gee whiz, it was Reagan.

4. It is distracting Obama from his need to focus on McCain.
What's distracting? He is the presumptive nominee. Nothing she does can change that, so why are they worried? He knows this to be true, so he doesn't have to spend any of his valuable time on Hillary. He can focus on McCain if that is what he should do.

The REAL reason: Fear of Losing
All of the above reasons and their variations are rationalizations and, deep down, their supporters know this. You see: Obama has only two ways to win (unless Hillary really blows it in the remaining primaries): Hillary can drop out or he can get more Super Delegates than she can. And that is the problem. If Hillary does not drop out and if, this is key, she beats him soundly in most of the remaining primaries, his claim to the nomination will be weakened.

For the DNC:
If Hillary does not drop out, and Obama can't reach the magic number of delegates, the DNC has two problems it must face:
1. Florida and Michigan
2. Super Delegates choosing the nominee.
The DNC, of course, does not want to deal with either.

For Obama and his supporters:
Consider a worst-case scenario: Hillary wins most of the remaining primaries & soundly trounces him. Perhaps she comes out slightly ahead in the popular vote while significantly narrowing his lead in pledged delegates. NOTE: I am not predicting this will happen or even that it is likely. I'm simply posing a worst-case scenario for Obama as an explanation for the demand that Hillary withdraw.

Obama will then have to convince the Super Delegates that his wins mean more than Hillary's wins. There are lots of ways to do this. The one Obama's supporters use most often (in addition to pledged delegates & the popular vote) is that he has won more states. Hillary's supporters argue that she has won more of the larger & more important states.

On The Hillary 1000 (Mar. 8, 2008), Donna Darko argues that, based on turnout, results in caucus states should mean less than results in primary states.

Related to this argument by Darko are the arguments that winning a majority of the states that held primaries is more indicative of potential success in the Fall than winning a majority of the states that held caucuses.

The New Editor pointed out that (prior to the Pennsylvania primary) most of Obama's popular vote margin can be attributed to Cook County in Illinois.

Sean Wilentz points out that the results would be different if the Democratic Party used a winner-take-all system instead of the current system.

The Reclusive Leftist has maps comparing Obama's wins to electoral results in 1996 (the last time Democrats won the WH).

I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party change the rules ex post facto. I am simply arguing that, under the above stated circumstances, the Super Delegates who have not yet committed themselves will need some criteria other than the primary results to determine which candidate to support, and that looking at the results of the primary season in different ways may be one method they will use.

Obama and his supporters do not want to be in this position in June. The only ways they can avoid this scenario are for Hillary to fail miserably between now and June or for her to drop out.

The real reason they want her to quit? In one word: FEAR.

Obama's Whiners: Neglecting the Obvious

Amidst all the hand-wringing by Obama's supporters about Hillary's staying in the campaign and hurting the Democratic Party, one sometimes forgets to notice the obvious.

With 10 states left to vote, Obama has the chance to increase his lead in both delegates and votes and, thus, make his claim to the nomination even stronger.

In short, this is a major opportunity for Obama to clinch the nomination. So why all the storm und drang?

The answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?

The Insidious Nature of Misogyny and Sexism

The The Wall Street Journal's Mar. 29, 2008 Page One has an article on the reaction of women to Hillary's campaign that is reasonably fair and accurate but also disturbing, because some of the men and women interviewed have bought into sexism and misogyny without even realizing it.

Listen to Professor McCollester:

"Charles McCollester, a professor of industrial relations at Indiana University of Pennsylvania who works with union members, says he is ready for a woman president, "just not this woman." He supports Sen. Obama. "Several of my really close female friends feel this is unleashing some kind of antiwoman sentiment. But I don't see it. We love women. I just never cared much for Hillary. She has set out to become as male as all the rest of the boys."

Look at his justification: "We love women. I just never cared much for Hillary. She has set out to become as male as all the rest of the boys". Can one imagine anything similar being said about a man? What does it mean to "set out to become as male"? And if being a man is good, why is this bad? If this isn't sexist, if this isn't misogynist, than what is?

So, OK, McCollester, is a man. What about Amanda Moniz, a PH.D. candidate?

"It isn't easy being a woman in academia," says Amanda Moniz, a 36-year-old Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Michigan. "I want a woman candidate who is strong, but also feminine, and who doesn't feel she has to be tougher than men to succeed," she says.
"Although Hillary has achieved a lot on her own, she wouldn't be where she was if not for her husband -- and that isn't an inspiring lesson."

First, of course, she echoes McCollester's sentiment: "... a woman candidate who is strong, but also feminine, and who doesn't feel she has to be tougher than men to succeed." What on earth does she mean? What is Hillary supposed to do? Speak softy? Wear flowery dresses? Cry? (Oh, no, she can't do that. Only men are allowed to cry in public these days - which I suppose is one kind of progress.)

And I wonder how many people who voted for Bush 43 worried about the fact that he wouldn't have gotten where he is if not for his father? The U.S. political system has from day one had political "families". Check the Wikipedia if you want to see how prevalent this is. What about family businesses? Since when have we insisted that only self-made individuals can make a name for themselves in the arts (the Fondas, Redgraves) business or government?

Then there's Alexa Steinberg:

Alexa Steinberg, 25, a graduate student at the University of New Hampshire, says she recognizes "that women only make 78 cents for every male dollar, and there are still hurdles for women that I'll face." She says she thinks it's only a matter of time before she'll be supporting a female candidate for U.S. president -- but it won't be Sen. Clinton. "Politically and personally, she's trying to take on the male persona, and isn't a woman in the way I want a woman candidate to be," she says.

Ms. Steinberg, who supports Sen. Obama, says she's far more drawn to Michele Obama as a role model. "Michele has a career and even earns more than Barack, and she can knock him for not picking up his socks or doing the laundry," she explains. "But she has a sense of humor, too. She has a blend of many things, a balance that I can see and appreciate."

Do you see a pattern here? It's McCollester again. "Politically and personally, she's trying to take on the male persona, and isn't a woman in the way I want a woman candidate to be". Does Steinberg think that Obama is trying to be too Black, or too White, or too multicultural? No. What does it mean to take on the "male persona"? Competence? Strength? A willingness to defend herself? I have no idea. These characterizations go back to the days of suffragettes and the ERA. Women who opposed getting the vote or an Equal Rights Amendment used similar arguments against the Suffragettes. These women absorb male prejudices and don't even realize they are doing it.

Ms. Steinberg also, of course, doesn't seem to know much about Hillary - who has been a lawyer all her life, was the chief breadwinner while Bill was running for office and Governor of Arkansas, who has been a mother and raised a daughter to be proud of, who has demonstrated a fine sense of humor on the campaign trail. I don't know if she has ever complained about Bill's laundry habits in public, but good heavens, what kind of criterion is that for the Presidency.

Why does Pelosi support Obama?

No, I don't know Pelosi and I've never heard her directly endorse Obama, but anybody who has been following this campaign understands what she means when she makes a comment about the primaries.

I have been trying to understand Obama's enduring appeal. I can see being infatuated with him: the rhetorical skill, those high-flown sentiments. But the more one looks into his past, the less one finds. This is a man who got his legislative seat by using rules, yes "rules", to disqualify his opponents. The bills he passed in his last year in the Illinois legislature? Handed to him on a silver platter by Emil Jones. His election to the U.S. Senate? The Republican opponent had to bow out due to a sex scandal & was replaced by an out-of-stater. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats could have run and won with anybody who was breathing.

He does not appear to have any deep-seated convictions. A review of his career in the Illinois legislature & the U.S. Senate suggests a man who doesn't want to make anybody angry or require him to defend himself. Remember, many of those "present" votes were not orchestrated by Democrats. They were his choice. And he seems to have ducked votes in the Senate that might negatively impact his run for President.

As far as I can tell, he fulfills an unknown (to me) need on the part of Democrats for their own Ronald Reagan: you know, a guy who holds a few global principles, can deliver a good speech, but doesn't want to be bothered by the details.

How does this explain Pelosi's support and, I suspect, Harry Reid's as well? Simple. As a Bay Area resident, I hate to say this but Pelosi has proven herself to be a singularly ineffective Speaker. And Reid might as well be Minority Leader for all that he has accomplished, although he, at least, has the excuse of a 1-vote majority (Lieberman- who no doubt uses his position as an Independent to exert pressure).

The guiding principles of Pelosi and Reid seem to be:
1. Don't make waves.
2. Don't embarrass anybody, Republican or Democrat or the President, by making them go on the record by voting "no" or issuing a veto. Reid counts noses and if he can't get 60 votes (to avoid a fillibuster) or 2/3 to override a veto, he doesn't even bother to put legislation to a vote. After all, why make Republicans angry by actually forcing them to go through the discomfort of a fillibuster? Pelosi seems to rely on a similar strategy.

Their governing philosophy has much in common with Obama's "unity" trope - and his "present" votes. "Let's just all get along." I think Pelosi and Reid see in Obama a President who won't get in their way, a President who will set forth some Reagan-like exhortations and let them go about their business.

But they know that a President Hillary will demand results. She cares about the big picture, but she knows the details matter. She will make demands upon Pelosi and Reid; she will expect them to do everything possible to pass her agenda.

I rather suspect, therefore, that Pelosi and Reid don't really care whether or not Obama becomes President as long as Democrats retain control of the Congress. After all, with McCain in the White House, they can continue to blame their incompetence on a Republican President.

Are They Pro-Obama or Anti-Hillary?

I don't have the bandwith, time or technical skills to test this hypothesis, but the impression I get from TV, magazine, and "liberal" blogs that are for Obama is that the ratio of anti-Hillary rants to pro-Obama posts/opinions/reports/puff pieces is about 10-to-1.

If's as if all the pro-Obama political coverage is actually nothing more than an extension of Just Hillary - whose owner at least openly admits to being obsessed with Hillary.

Why Do They Want Her to Quit? No, It's not "The Math"

Why do all off Obama's supporters want her to quit? They say she can't win, that Obama has it in the bag. So, why do they care? The primaries will go on whether or not Hillary is in the race, so the states to come won't save money. Do they want to save Hillary's supporters from wasting their money in campaign contributions? Unlikely. Are they trying to save Hillary the ignominy of defeat? (Is it less painful to resign than to lose?)

Or could it be that they are afraid Hillary will win most of the remaining primaries and head into the convention on a roll?

The Amazing Clinton

My admiration of Hillary Clinton has grown enormously during this campaign. She has demonstrated courage, class, unbelievable energy, and an unsurpassed grasp of the issues.

JoAnne Tybinka Blasko at The Democratic Daily has noticed it, too.

One of the many differences I've noticed between Obama and Clinton is that he is great at giving speeches from a teleprompter* but is a lot less fluent when being questioned (even by Larry King) and in the debates. I've suspected this is because Hillary really knows her stuff. Obama, like Bush 43 and Reagan, doesn't really know his stuff. He's just a superb a performer.

bostonboomer at The Confluence says it better.

* this was first evident when he lost in New Hampshire. Besides showing himself to be a poor loser, he gave a perfunctory congratulation statement and then launched in to the victory speech he had prepared. He was, to be blunt, completely unable to recast his speech to reflect reality.

Anglachel does it again with her post about Clinton's response to the market meltdown. I do not know how the MSM, let alone the so-called liberal blogosphere can be blind to the understanding and competence and simple level-headedness that Hillary demonstrates time and again. It's as if they find competence not just irrelevant but ridiculous and useless.

Open Letter to the DNC

OPEN LETTER TO HOWARD DEAN
SUBJECT: SEAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA

I have drafted this letter in the hope that others will use it as a starting point for their own letters to the DNC and other major Democratic Party leaders (like Nancy Pelosi). This is a case where I think snail mail may be more effective than email.

Mr. Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St., SE
Wasington, DC 20003


Dear Mr. Dean:
I am writing to insist that the votes in Florida and Michigan count. The fate of the election, and of the country, most probably will depend on the outcome of the DNC's decision.

Michigan and Florida
I can think of no valid reason, other than "The Rules" for not seating Florida. Both candidates had a presence during the primary (Obama's national TV ads ran repeatedly). The campaign had national coverage. Yet the DNC seems to believe that it can exclude Florida's voters without harm. Has it forgotten 2000? Is it willing to do to its own Party what George Bush and the Republicans did to it in 2000? To, in effect, admit that what Bush did in 2000 was OK?

Moreover, the Democrats had no choice about the primary's date. So if the DNC penalizes the Party's voters, it is essentially letting the Republican Party determine whom the Democratic candidate should be.

Michigan is trickier because Obama's name was not on the ballot - even though that was his choice. But the DNC could assign the uncommitted votes, as well as those for the other Democrats on the ticket, to him with reasonable certainty that the distribution more or less reflected the will of the voters.

Obama's objections no longer deserve to be considered. Hillary was willing to accept a re-vote, with all the risk that implies. James Carville had pledged to raise half the money needed to stage the re-vote if Obama (who has a huge campaign war chest) would match the money. It was Obama who refused to go along. By my calculation, his refusal to agree to a solution accepted by his opponent abrogates his right to complain about the seating of Michigan's delegates.

The Rules
It is pretty obvious that, had the DNC known going in how close the race would be, it would have handled this situation differently.

More important for the long term is the fact that the DNC should not have continued to let Iowa and New Hampshire set the terms and dynamics of the primary season. It is well past due for a major overhaul of the system to prevent those two small states from, election after election, winnowing down the field before 99% of the Party gets a chance to vote. If there are any states to be penalized in the future, it is those two. It is absolutely vital that a rotating system of primaries be set up such that no single state will ever again be viewed as a gatekeeper to the nomination because there will simply be insufficient history for the media to seize on past history to predict current results.

If, however, the DNC insists that "The Rules" are "The Rules", then, to be consistent, the DNC must also permit Super Delegates to vote for whom they want, regardless of the results in their districts or states because those, too, are "The Rules". (And if Super Delegates Kerry and Kennedy and Richardson can publicly back Obama, in spite of the fact that their states voted for Hillary, then I simply do not see how the DNC can demand that other Super Delegates follow the votes rather than their own judgment.)

Legitimacy
The Party is split pretty much 50/50 between Hillary and Obama. If Hillary is perceived to have lost because the DNC did not count or only partly counted the votes from Florida and Michigan, her supporters will not consider Obama's nomination to be legitimate. The DNC may feel confident that the vast majority of Hillary's supporters will back Obama. Hillary has certainly pledged that she will. And I, too, will vote for him. But I won't, under those circumstances, contribute either time or money to the campaign. Nor will I feel compelled to defend him against attacks during either his campaign or, if he is elected, his term in office.

Worse, however, is the fact that some of Hillary's supporters will not vote for Obama under those circumstances. May I remind you that Gore lost Florida by about 1000 votes? Ask yourself one very simple question: How will you feel on Nov. 11, 2008 if the Democrats lose the White House again because of 1000 votes in Florida? Will you assert that playing by "The Rules" was more important than winning the election? I am not stating here that the Democrats will win if Hillary is the nominee. McCain will be a much stronger opponent than, for example, either Giuliani or Romney would have been. The Democratic nominee will need every possible vote to win this election. That's why the DNC cannot afford to alienate Democrats in two large states.

A Dream Destroyed
Democrats began the campaign season on a high. We had many good candidates to choose from. For various reaons, including, I am sorry to say, the behavior of some Party leaders, it has turned ugly.

No matter who wins the nomination, or how the nomination is won, many Democrats may feel cheated. But it is the DNC which has created the environment (a bizarre collection of primaries and caucuses and byzantine delegate rules and penalties) in which such hatred has taken root.

I can assure you that, as a Hillary supporter and a person who strongly believes that she is much better equipped to fight McCain than Obama, I do not consider her exit from the campaign to be the solution to this dilemma, however much some may want her to drop out.

There may be no fix which will appease everybody, but it is time to put away partisanship and pride in "The Rules" and at least try to engineer a fix - or McCain will be inaugurated next January and all the Democratic Party will have left for comfort is "The Rules".

Why do they all want Hillary to quit?

Why do all of Obama's supporters want her to quit? If she has the energy and courage to go on, if people like me are willing to contribute (however little it may be) to her campaign, and if people like Democrats in Pennsylvania seem to want her to go on, and some poll I read about said that a majority of Democrats want her to fight on, well, why shouldn't she?

Unless, just maybe, "The Math" isn't really "The Math" and Obama's supporters aren't quite as sure as they pretend to be that he's got the nomination in the bag?

What's even weirder, of course, is why all the pundits and so-called journalists want her to quit. What would they talk about for the next several months? How will they fill the air time if there is no Hillary to trash?

One would think that the TV networks, at least, would want the campaign to go on as long as possible, would want a brokered convention. Think about TV coverage of the conventions. It's shrunk considerably during the past several rounds because there was no drama and the networks got tired of trying to invent drama. Well, barring something truly weird happening, it looks as if the Democratic Convention may be a real, old-fashioned nail-biting thriller. Journalists should be falling all over themselves to ensure that Hillary goes the distance.

I am truly baffled.

OBAMA AND HIS PASTOR - A DEFENSE

Caveats:
1. I am a Hillary supporter.
2. I think it is pretty obvious now that Obama lied when he said he had not heard any inflammatory sermons.
3. The sermons will give the Republican Party plenty of ammo in the GE.
4. Since I don't have broadband, I've not seen any videos. I assume, however, that the partial transcripts I've read contain the most objectionable parts of those sermons.

That said, I am dismayed to see so many hard-core liberals, even those who adore Obama, professing such great indignation at the pastor's words. They are not new or unusual. Indeed, they can be traced back at least to the 60s: the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement - yes, those old battles that Hillary's generation fought and Obama has dismissed as outmoded. Liberals who condemn the pastor for the words and Obama for continuing to frequent the church, cannot then object when Conservatives condemn the liberals of the 60s who used those same words - or who may use them in the future.

I also believe, to some extent, Obama's explanations for not leaving the church, and I admire him for not denying the friendship - not that he had any choice.

However, I suspect there is another reason for his not leaving his church. Granted, I don't know either man and have absolutely no proof, but that doesn't stop Hillary critics from in-depth analyses of her motives, so I don't see why it should stop me. I think the reason the pastor's words haven't bothered Obama is because Obama, a superb performer himself, knows that the pastor's sermons are pure performance art. The man may or may not believe what he is saying - I rather suspect he is something of an Elmer Gantry - but he is obviously playing to the audience he wants to acquire and maintain. In short, the pastor is a bit of a fraud and Obama knows it.

THE SPEECH
Obama's speech on race was wonderfully crafted. He managed to subtly accuse Hillary's side for the injection of race into the primaries, reduce the issue of the sermons to a minor scene in a greater picture, and also, a little less subtly, suggest that electing him President would be the first step in a healing of the nation's racial divides. Nevertheless, he deserves most of the credit he is getting for the way he chose to address the issue.

The Amazing Hillary and Her Amazing Campaign

Today's conventional wisdom is that Hillary's lousy* campaign machine destroyed what was her claim to inevitability. There are, as usual with Hillary coverage, two problems with this claim. First and foremost, she never claimed that she was inevitable. It was the punditry which labeled her as the front-runner, long before even the first vote was cast. As for her campaign, well, I suppose there have been mistakes, but no other candidate has faced the obstacles Hillary has faced.

Once it became clear that Hillary had a real shot at the nomination, probably after the first debate, all the positive statements about her Senate performance, even from such Conservative slugs as Tucker Carlson, stopped. Since then, when the media, MSM and blogosphere, fell in love with Obama, press coverage has been brutally negative.

Not a single "liberal" magazine (The Nation, The New Republic, The Progressive, etc.), to my knowledge, has endorsed her. In the liberal blogosphere, all the first tier blogs (Kos, TPM, Huff, etc.) have been for Obama. This might not be all that exceptional except for the tone of the coverage. It has been brutal and almost completely personal. The language on the blogs, from owners, formal participants and commenters has been vicious. Supporters of Hillary have been slimed because they haven't accepted the divinity of Obama. The coverage by TNR, which hasn't been a liberal magazine since Nixon (but retains the sobriquet because once the media label anything or anybody, the label sticks regardless of reality), especially but not limited to its blogs, has become a cesspool of vitriol indistinguishable from all but the most disgusting comments about Hillary which have flooded the blogosphere.

We are not talking here about a reasoned evaluation of the careers of Obama and Clinton. Nobody in print or online is talking in detail about the careers of the two candidates, the votes they have cast, what they have done for their constituents, how their peers perceive their performance, to what extent they have voted in line with their major contributors, etc. No, that would require research, dull, unexciting research. And, these so-called journalists will say, it's not necessary because the facts are on their web sites. What they provide is "context", informed criticism. Bull. The coverage is little more than gossip about the two personalities in which the roles have been set in concrete: Obama is a saint and Hillary is Kali, the Destroyer.

TV coverage hasn't been any better. MSNBC has been the "Vote for Obama" network for months, led by the oleaginous Chris Matthews but including all the major pundits (Olbermann, Carlson, Scarborough, etc.) and their guest talking heads. NBC's "real" reporters, like Tim Russert, are down in the dirt with their MSNBC colleagues. CNN, ABC and CBS are not far behind.

Time and Newsweek just did cover stories on Hillary. In contrast to the glowing cover stories on Obama and his wife, most of the articles on Hillary in these issues are negative.

Yet, and this is what turned me from being neutral about Clinton (a year ago, I could easily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates except Gravel) into a supporter, Clinton has not only won the major primaries, she has done it in the face of this endless stream of abuse from all the media, and she has done it with grace, style, and humor. The contrast between her and Obama became clear after the Iowa loss and New Hampshire win. Clinton was gracious both in defeat and victory. Obama gloated and then sulked.

She is not only one smart cookie, she is one classy lady.

*according to The Clinton Rules, it is "lousy" only when she doesn't win. When she does, it is a diabolical machine that will stop at nothing in order to destroy Obama, The Chosen One.

Michigan and Florida Must Have Their Real Votes Counted

Let's be honest. Hillary wants their votes to count because they are her best shots at beating Obama in the popular vote if not in pledged delegates.

But, it is also clear that Obama does not want their votes to count, at least as they currently exist or could turn out in a re-vote, because he is afraid that Hillary will get what she wants.

All the Obama talk about rules is simply a cover-up of this simple equation. One need only think about the issue if the roles of Obama and Hillary were reversed. Can anybody doubt that Kos et. al. would not then be so fixated on the "rules"?

The case for Florida is simple. All the candidates were on the ballot; they were all subject to the same campaigning rules - and Obama's commercials were played throughout the state.

Michigan is harder because Obama was not on the ballot. Those who argue that it was his choice (as it was) are playing the same "rules" game that Obama is playing.

As for those "rules": the DNC should never have given in to the blackmail by Iowa and New Hampshire. If any states should have been excluded, it should have been those two for their selfish insistence on being first. It is well past time to develop an alternate primary setup (regional, groupings of states by pop., etc.)and simply ignore N.H. and Iowa if they don't agree. The most important part of any new primary setup is that it be changed for every election. It is imperative that the media not be able to rely on past performances in early states to call a winner before all the voters get their say.

Back to the current situaton: if Dean, Pelosi, or the Florida and Michigan representatives in the House and the Senate think that Obama (or Hillary) can become the legitimate candidate without counting the real votes of Florida and Michigan, they are living in a dream (nightmare) world.

After the 2000 debacle in Florida, the reactions of Obama supporters and the DNC (to date) re the legitimacy of the votes in Florida and Michigan are bizarre, to say the least.

Electability. Why Obama Can't Beat McCain

When it comes time to pull that lever or mark a box with an X in the General Election, more voters will choose McCain than will choose Obama.

This isn't because they will agree with McCain's stand on Iraq. They won't. Or because he is an inspirational speaker. He isn't.

No, I think when push come to shove, voters will see a very ambitious young man on the move who has not yet paid his dues vs. a man who has served his country above and beyond the call of duty, a man who has earned the right to be President.

Hillary, too, would have to overcome this fundamental respect for McCain the soldier. But they are closer in age. And she, too, has paid her dues and then some. No, she wasn't a prisoner of war. No she hasn't suffered physical torture for her country. But she has been tested, and she has proven her mettle. And that vote on Iraq that hurts her so much with liberal Democrats will be a plus in the general election because it will demonstrate that she is willing to support force if force is needed.