Two more reasons for Dems to root for Obama

1. -- It will break the Massachusetts Democratic Party logjam. A President Obama would have many, many positions to fill with people who have read the Constitution. With our rich supply of Democratic Senators, Congresscritters, state legislators, mayors, etc., here in Massachusetts we can fill many of those positions. Getting John Kerry into some embassy would open up that slot for one of our accomplished Congressmen, which would open up a Congressional slot, etc. Or appointing a mayor or two would let local Democrats gain more experience. We have an aging group at the top of the Democratic Party, and we need an outlet for them so a new generation can advance.

2. -- If Obama loses, the recriminations will be terrifying. With some DNC aristocrat who supported Hillary now endorsing McCain, and Obama on uneven ground in states such as Ohio because he can't hold on to the rural white voters who believed in Hillary, we have all the pieces in place for a real internecine war. The accusations would be thick as a 15th century flock of passenger pigeons should Obama lose, and I can see divisions forming that would take years to heal.

Convention thoughts, night 2

I'm glad Sebelius didn't end up as VP...what a deadly boring speaker.

I'm not listening to every word of the speeches, but it seems that I'm hearing John Kennedy's name an awful lot, Bill Clinton's nearly not at all. Wasn't he the Democrat who presided over the post-war record stretch for American prosperity? I'd think that would count for something even if he is married to the lady who almost beat Obama.

Aaaah...stop trying to dance, delegates!

Signs that have light blue writing on medium blue background: pretty but hard to read, and they all look alike.

NY Gov. Paterson on McCain: "If he's the answer, then the question must be ridiculous."

Mark Warner on the last 8 years: "An energy policy that basically says 'let's go borrow money from China to buy oil from countries that don't like us.' " Bingo.

Deval Patrick walks out to the tune of "Smooth". Heh. I caught a use of "together we can" in there. I can see why Deval would be tapped to give the education speech given his personal history, but as someone who's read his "Readiness Report", it doesn't ring great to me. And I don't know what it is with the lighting, but he looks kinda orange. Bit of a hurried speech, but I'm sure nobody wanted to tell Hillary, the media, or anyone else that this guy was going to delay Hillary's Moment. Not fair, but true.

And know the lady. Thoughts later on her.

Holy carp

Hillary Clinton gives a feisty speech on the day that is really her last day with any chance to be the Democratic nominee. She's lost Maxine Waters to Obama, who now has over 50% of the needed delegates to reach the nomination.

Meanwhile, she's still making the case that it should be her, not Obama. The crowd is chanting encouragement, chanting "Denver" (implying a floor fight at the convention). Clinton smiled, but did not seem disturbed at this reaction. It blew the minds of most every pundit. Mine, too. I didn't expect supplication, but she sounded as if it's a close contest that she has an even chance to win.

It's a real shame, and a real loss of what could have been such a good night for the Democratic Party...won't be. The story should have been Obama Triumphant, McCain Pathetic. Now, McCain's wobbly, sad little speech (that felt like a Kiwanas Awards Dinner) will be forgotten, and it will remain Clinton v Obama. As strongly I support Senator Clinton, I can't agree with that speech.

If I were to guess, it would be that it was been made clear that Obama will not accept her as VP nominee, and she felt she'd nothing to lose. I don't know.

I just hope McCain spends a lot of time in front of the cameras. I'll never be able to vote for Obama...but I can vote against McCain.

Bright idea of the day

I can't imagine that Hillary Clinton would work out as Obama's vice presidential candidate. I know it worked for Reagan/Bush, but it still seems a waste of a VP slot (for Obama) and a waste of the talents of Hillary Clinton. That said, I do believe that the vice presidency is a good keystone upon which to rebuild party unity. So here's my suggestion today, which is really quite good:

Obama should ask Hillary to chair his VP Search committee.

Here's why I like it:

• If the VP is anyone other than Hillary, we'll all know that it was because Clinton didn't want the job (remember Cheney?) But this Obama from being publicly rejected by Clinton, and Clinton for being in that somewhat embarrassing position.
  
• It gives his eventual VP pick the air of being somebody of whom Clinton approves. That is, "her" committee probably isn't going to come out with somebody she dislikes.
  
• It guarantees a fair hearing for her allies. It keeps the Obama campaign from striking off the list anybody who supported Clinton. This especially means Wes Clark.
  
• It doesn't really take the choice way from Obama. The VP search committee's job isn't really that hard. They do some "vetting", but chances are you don't end up a Senator if you're completely unable to campaign (though Jim Webb comes darn close to that). Anyway, the committee usually provides the nominee with a "short list" annotated with plusses and minuses. Obama would make the final decision.
  
• It sends a strong signal to the Democratic Party. It makes clear that Hillary Clinton is a person of deep knowledge and strong influence within the party, and will be a partner in Obama's presidency. It makes clear to his supporters that there will be no tolerance to turn this bitter primary into a left-wing center from which to attack her in the Senate. It also makes clear Obama's awareness and respect of her influence within the party as a valuable tool, and not a threat to him.
  
• It also mends bridges. Seeing Clinton touring the country on "official" business for the Obama campaign will make it more smooth for her supporters join the Obama campaign.
  

The offer would have to be handled carefully. This job is a somewhat bureaucratic task, and if handled poorly comes across as rather demeaning to Clinton. I'd hope that a statement would make clear that Clinton would have a great deal of independence and autonomy in this job. She should be meeting with/interviewing people on the list. It allows her some prominence throughout the spring and summer.

Read this

Since Alexis de Tocqueville, some of the best writing on America has come from non-Americans. Here's Andrew Stephen from Britain's New Statesman

What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"?

[...]
Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Read the rest here. Go read it now. H/T Linfar at MyDD.

What was Hillary thinking

In the wake of her inartful comments about RFK's assassination -- that Hope Central is using to attack her -- I've read a few variants on "what was she thinking?" How about this:

Jesus Christ, another one of these. Where the hell am I, anyway? McAuliffe promised me that Iowa, Nevada, a few other states, and it would be over. I never expected to be talking to every Pennysaver operation published on the Great Plains.

Another two-bit newspaper, asking questions I've answered thousands of times. Asking questions I answer seven times a day. But these self-important small-time journalists want to feel big just once in their lives, so here we go.

Do you think Shirley Chisholm went through this? She's lionized now as a groundbreaker, but I bet from day one the pundits were telling her to shut up and go home. Funny how we never hear about them anymore.

I suppose we could skip this "meeting" if we were in a state with a decent number of Democrats...or people. But noooo...the votes of the three Democrats of South Dakota count more than the votes of the Democrats of Florida. Still don't get that one. Well, I do get it...it was a dumb move, and the people must be punished. Idiots.

What's after this? Some cattle ranch, and then talking to Stephanie Herseth's assistant fart catcher, while she hypes Obama. Obama. Jesus, Barack...get over yourself and stop refusing to put me on as VP. that's what most Democrats want...including the working class and Latino voters you just can't win. I can't win African-Americans and upper middle class. We can help each other...you need me in North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada...God knows where else. Edwards was right...Obama's a nice guy who doesn't have what it takes to win.

Edwards. Heh, another Richardson type...happy to play both sides of the street until they think it's safe to take a stand. And they talk about leadership.

Hell, I want this whole thing over, too. I haven't spent a week in the same place for months. I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm a respected and feared Senator, a mother with a classy daughter, and a husband who was the most successful president of our lifetimes (they've lied about him as much as about me). The media hates me -- what else is new -- and a loud sliver of the Democratic Party hates me. It's not enough for them to see Obama win, they want to see me lose. Christ, how long has it been since I wore shorts for a whole day? The pundits are bored now, and everyone wants it to be Obama v McCain and wants me to shut up. Why not give them what they want?

Because I did this shit for several years, and they want me to shut up two weeks from the finish line. Because they have no attention span, and it ticks them off that not everyone has signed on to their little program. It ticks them off that some people still like me. It ticks them off that I'm still here, and most people in Puerto Rico want to vote for me, and thousands of people in Montana and South Dakota do, too. It's gonna make them uncomfortable to see thousands of people still voicing their own opinion that maybe Obama isn't so great after all...even though they don't care that 1 out of 4 Republicans are still telling McCain to get stuffed. Even though this shit keeps McCain off the front page and holding sad little barbecues in Arizona.

Okay, speech is winding down and lo and behold he has a question..here we go again. "Why am I in the race?" Why the hell not? This is the closest nomination race in decades, and I didn't come all this way to give up when Chris Matthews' leg gets tingly.

Cue answer: I'm the natural substitute in case something happens to Barack. Is anything going to happen? Of course not...but I'm not going to back out two weeks away from the finish line after two years of this crap.

Offer examples: how about 1980, when Ted Kennedy contested the nomination at the convention with a fraction of the odds that I have. Did the media try to push him back into the kitchen? Nooo...he was a Kennedy, even if he was undermining a sitting president in serious trouble, everyone ate it up. Ted...poor Ted. We can't lose him. These days we need every Kennedy in the Senate we can get. How many tragedies can they stand...

The presidential campaign is an exhausting, nearly endless exercise in superficiality that demands the tolerance and patience of a Paris Hilton while also the incisiveness and smarts of a James Wolcott. It's a testament to the professionalism of Obama, Clinton, and McCain that more of this stuff doesn't happen everyday.

The real voting bloc at play

Watching the CNN coverage tonight, the dominant theme about West Virginia seems to be those white, working class voters. The one that Clinton wins consistently against Obama, the one that puts her over the top in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and similar states...a swing bloc in swing states. I've seen some threads whereby Obama backers, assuming the race is run, are seeking advice on courting those voters.*

But to me, that overlooks the other major key to Hillary's past success, a bloc that the Washington Monthly calls the "real prize": Hispanic votes. Rove and Bush saw their criticality, and I agree that this is the major bloc up for grabs. Clinton won 2/3 of the Latino vote on Super Tuesday, for example. It's a consistent pattern...it's what kept her close in Texas, California, and most any state with a Hispanic population.

Through it all, I'm more interested in the Latino vote. It's growing by election, not only as the Hispanic portion of the American population grows, but as does that proportion in the American electorate. Furthermore, I don't see a solid habit yet, a cultural alignment. I think it's more up for grabs, with less institutional, fiscal, and financial investment needed to shift it. I'm not sure how Obama looks to fare in the general with Latino votes, but that will make a difference in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and possibly Florida. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more on that...

*It's not entirely unreasonable to ask about these white, working class voters. They're the reason Hillary does 14 points better than Obama against McCain in North Carolina.

"Anywhere, anytime" -- if you're Republican

Obama below promises to debate John McCain "anywhere, anytime" on foreign policy...



... while saying no to debating Hillary in Oregon and North Carolina. No "anytime, anywhere" for her.

Nice to see that he's treating McCain with more respect that Senator Clinton.

Reaction from IN and NC

So Hillary got fairly pasted in North Carolina, where she'd hoped to narrow the lead. And she barely won in Indiana, a state that she was expected to win fairly well by many (including me). Granted, the shenanigans in Obama's home base of Gary were eyebrow-raising...heck, they were outright suspicious of a Daley-type flavor. But that doesn't change the net result of Tuesday.

I think that short of an Obama meltdown, the Senator from Illinois will become the Democratic nominee. While I have thoughts about the likely consequence for the party and country, I won't get into that here. But here are some simple thoughts for now:

• Obama is most likely the nominee, as is apparent to most who follow politics closely. This includes superdelegates. I don't think anyone who can be convinced disagrees. Note that doesn't include Clinton die-hards.
  
• There is frankly nothing that Clinton can do to change the dynamics of the race...nothing that will grievously drive his numbers below Clinton's. If there were, she'd have done it by now. All Clinton can do is remain alive in case Obama completely implodes.
  
• Given that Obama will almost definitely win the nomination, and Clinton pretty much can't win, there's little point to destructive attacks. Peddling Jeremiah Wright, or Bill's marital infidelities, hurts the Democratic Party far more than it helps change anything. This wasn't true in March -- a fluid race meant a possible 5 point swing when the race could turn on that, which would mean many delegates. Plus, America would have 8 months to forget.
  
• That said, authentic disagreements on policy issues -- such as education -- still belong in this discussion.
  
• Also, over 40 states have participated in a meaningful primary season. It would be disastrous to cut short this process for the sake of some nebulous early start on McCain, especially when doing so would leave out swing states such as Oregon and West Virginia. At this point, it would seem grossly preferential to void the quality and gravity of the late voting states' choice for...what? "Healing"?
  

From now until June 4th, I would like to see a respectful policy-based campaign, mentioning differences yet aiming squarely at McCain where he stands against the Democratic Party and the American people.

And while that last statement may seem Pollyanish in the wake of this campaign season, the thing that I maintain is that at this point, there's nothing to be gained from anything else. Sure, in a fluid race there is something to be won from driving candidates up and down. But at this point, the numbers won't be moved enough to change much.

(Granted, where this turns into a grey area is a scenario where something bad does come out about Obama, and he truly struggles. How much does Hillary help? If her campaign has learned anything from the campaign so far, the answer is: don't bother.)

CNN graphic

An important CNN graphic flashed on the screen, during a break in the knives the anchors have been joyously thrusting into the Clinton campaign. Everyone except Suzanne Malveux was slavering at the thought of calling her death, declaring it's over, it's over, it's over!! One of them even said that Obama had the nomination (the same way that the West had then lost China in 1949, I guess). Anyway:

Refusing to accept your candidate's apology

We're getting into a wearying cycle regarding apologies. Obama and Clinton are giving several speeches a day, and once in a while something slips out. These two are gong through a meat-grinder, and once in a while they mess up. They end up correcting it -- Obama on the bitterness of small-town folks, Clinton on sniper fire in Bosnia. Eventually, the candidate ends up apolo-gizing.

What is odd is the supporters who refuse to accept the apology. Sure, maybe the apology is more to get the story out of the headlines than heartfelt. But still, if your candidate -- who you're supposedly trying to get into office -- says sorry, shouldn't you just shut up? The Clintonites who maintain that it was actually some sort of sniper fire, or the Obamaites who maintain that he was right to call out people for clinging to religion (more on this tomorrow) aren't helping their candidates.

Obama today

Desperation will do this to a man. Obama condescends to working voters, and Hillary talks up her experiences learning to shoot. Then we have:

"She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her...she is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley.

Ladies and gentlemen, your candidate of hope.

More leadership...from elsewhere

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced today that he would join Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in skipping the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics as a gesture of protest against Chinese barbarities in Tibet and elsewhere. They are joined by a smattering of athletes on this matter, as well as Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Still silent on this: George W Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama.

Update: Obama and McCain have since followed Clinton's lead. No word from Bush about canceling a trip to the Openers.

Enough is Enough: Boycott the Ceremonies

I've long been a passionate supporter of the Olympics. My first visit to an Olympic host site was in 1993, when I first went to the Olympic Stadium of Montreal at 13 years old. My parents said that I acted as if I was on "holy ground". I wore out my volume of Made in America, Peter Ueberroth's book about the organization of the 1984 Olympic Summer Games in Los Angeles. In 1996, I had the thrill of attending the Centennial Olympics in Atlanta, including the Opening Ceremonies and several events (I learned everything I know about team handball from a German gentleman).

Since then, I wrote a couple papers on politics in the Olympics -- particularly those of sub-state nationalism -- partially researched with files kept in Montreal from the 1976 Games. I've visited the Olympic Museum in Lausanne, Switzerland.

But as much as I revere the Olympic tradition, it does not override human dignity and freedom. It does not override concern for the victims of the Sudanese genocide (perpetrated by a government afloat on Chinese money) not does it override concern for the illegally occupied region of Tibet.

While I think that it is counter-productive and hurtful to assault torch-carriers and officials taking the long trip to Beijing as happened in Paris today, I believe that there are ways to demonstrate our displeasure.

I disagree with a complete boycott of all athletic competitions at the Olympic Games. American athletes have sacrificed too much for too long to be kept from this stage. However, I do stand with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that there needs to be some action that denotes this dissatisfaction. I'm glad to see that she will not attend the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, and I'm glad to see French President Nikolas Sarkozy is keeping that possibility open. Skipping this show is the slimmest, safest show of support.

I hope that our President will not attend this ceremony to show American displeasure with the Chinese government's contempt for human rights. I join Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Hillary Clinton in calling for Bush to skip these ceremonies, and I only hope anybody who claims passion for human freedom and dignity will do the same.

One argument for a "dream ticket"

I have argued elsewhere that a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is a bad idea. It puts two Senators on a ticket, that wouldn't include any executive experience, or foreign policy bona fides. Hillary has little true foreign affairs experience, and Obama has none. I've said in the past that I think that the national security/foreign affairs credibility that a Jim Webb or Wes Clark would bring to a ticket would be vital.

That's one way of looking at how to balance a ticket. Such a view tries to balance off issues and personalities in a global sense. Another approach to ticket building is purely electoral math, talking about what states a VP candidate can make competitive (indeed, the ability to bring in New Mexico is a big part of the 'Richardson for VP' argument). Nothing is guaranteed, however...if you remember, John Edwards delivered nothing to the ticket in 2004 -- not his home state, nothing in the South. I realize that he finished second in the race, but Edwards lent nothing to the Democratic ticket in 2004 from an electoral point of view.

In an ideal world, you expand the field of play by adding a VP candidate who can bring in states and issues. Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia, does bring with him serious foreign policy and national security heft. Also, it does up the Democratic argument in Virginia. However, given how close Webb's election was (.3%), I don't know how much extra he'd offer.

However, there is one Democrat running who single-handedly flips a state from sure-red to true-blue...Hillary Clinton. In a recent poll, there is a notable gap in the fortunes of Obama and Clinton in that state. Against McCain, Obama would lose Arkansas by 16 points, whereas Clinton would win by 15 points. That is a 31-point difference between Clinton and Obama in the state. Furthermore, Hillary is polling at above 50% in Arkansas against McCain, which means a victory even with undecideds breaking for McCain.

Now, this swing would be diluted if Hillary were the VP. Even if the impact of Hillary's presence were cut in half, we're still talking about a 15 point swing. We're still talking about the difference between losing Arkansas and winning Arkansas -- and a 12-point swing in the electoral vote count. Should Obama become the nominee, I can't imagine him finding a VP candidate who can single-handedly swing the EV count by 12 outside of Hillary. If he's in it to win it, then it would be up to him to swallow his pride and ask her to join forces, for the good of the party.

Delegate math updated

I continue with my obsession as the numbers of pledged delegates outstanding diminishes. Despite the media hype, the window for Obama to clinch the nomination without superdelegate backing is getting narrower.

Using the CNN numbers and barring significant change in superdelegate alignment, we have:

Total delegates: 4,049
Total pledged delegates: 3,253
Pledged delegates not yet contested: 1,147 (35.2%)
Delegates required to win: 2,025

Obama delegates (incl. pledged supers): 1262, 763 req'd.
Clinton delegates (incl. pledged supers): 1213, 812 req'd.

To win on just current superdelegates and remaining pledged delegates, Obama would need 66.5% of the remaining pledged delegates, and Clinton 70.1%

Whether it comes down to their abstention, bullying, or independent choice, the superdelegates are going to have a major role in this process.

Not-so-usual suspects

Back in the day, all us political junkies were crying foul about the compressed schedule: "Iowa, New Hampshire, and maybe Nevada will decide the nomination!" we said, "by the time those small states are done, we'll have a clear frontrunner! With about 1% of the population having voted, the choice would effectively be made by our ADHD media." Heh...good times, good times.

Fast forward a bit. Remember how this sucker was tied after Super Tuesday? The day when, as somebody put it "an irresistible force will meet an unmovable object". So the only normal thing in such circumstances came about: almost a dead-even split. Wow! Two great candidates in almost a perfect tie!

Sooooo....after surprising wins in Washington, Maine, and Virginia, what do we hear?* That Obama is the frontrunner, almost guaranteed to win this thing. There are already people whining that Hillary should get out of the race...because she's trailing by a whopping 50.3%-48.6% of delegates committed with over a third of them still to be decided.

I figured a few contests in small states would give the media their frontrunner, even though such nomenclature would short-circuit the democratic process. I didn't think those states would turn out to be Maine, Washington, and Virginia.

*No, Obamaites, Maryland and Louisiana weren't surprising wins.

Latest in the "favorite line" series

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (aka Hillary's secret weapon in California) after the Thursday debate:

People in my district have a lot of hope. They go to bed hungry, they have trouble heating their homes but they have a lot of hope that things will get better. They don't need more hope, they need help.

A two-headed leader for America

From question one in Thursday's debate, it is obvious how uncomfortable Obama is with discussion of policy. He stutters, corrects himself, pauses, falls into cliché. Obama is a barn-burner of an inspiration, but clearly uneasy with the nitty-gritty of policy management. Meanwhile, Hillary opens with a methodical point-by-point summary bereft of soaring rhetoric or jazzy beats. One makes a delicious sandwich, the other makes it appetizing.

If we had a two-headed government, we'd have the two heads right here. Obama would be great as an American cognate of the Israeli, German, or Irish President -- a largely ceremonial head of state who embodies morality and pride. Clinton could be the Irish Taoiseach/Prime Minister or German Chancellor -- the nuts'n'bolts head of government who implements policy and manages the economy.

Sadly we gotta combine them.

"Southern strategy"??

CNN's coverage of the South Carolina primary, and some talking head says that he "and folks in the media" are just starting to talk about Bill Clinton's behavior in the run-up to this primary as his "Southern strategy". Let's remember where that term comes from, as defined by the Republican lapdogs at the Washington Post:

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

In 1968, Republicans began their ongoing effort to gain votes by signaling a willingness to accept or at least ignore seething racism among white Southerners. It was a political effort to win votes through exploiting racism.

Now, Bill Clinton has been aggressive in attacking Obama, and in attacking the poll-obsessed media over the last week. But I would love to find out how questioning the preparation and qualifications of an African-American candidate is appealing to racism. Pathetic.