The New York Post Got it Right?

Not that I'm as rabid as Keith Olbermann when it comes to Rupert Murdoch, but I just don't usually turn to Murdoch's media outlets for political news or opinion unless I want to learn how the other side is thinking. However, I've started checking the RealClearPolitics.com homepage every day for the poll numbers since being shown this website by a friend of couple of weeks ago (I apologize for being so far behind everyone else!) and came across a really good piece by the very liberal Kirsten Powers (she often subs for Colmes on Hannity and Colmes) from this morning' NY Post. She lays into both Obama and the national press corps for blowing their response to the Palin nomination with the most cogent analysis thus far. I've a feeling that as a woman, the ostensible dismissal out of hand of this "unknown" governor and the comparisons to Dan Quayle quite incensed liberal women like Powers, who are tired of women being underestimated by the establishment:

"Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.

"Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.

"Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden's Delaware has a similarly small population - but no mocking was forthcoming there."

The week of the Democratic convention, Maureen Dowd and Eugene Robinson described the Democratic zeitgeist during that week. Taking different routes, both concluded that many of the Democrats had a foreboding feeling that something was bound to go wrong for the Democrats. Even in this Democratic year with an unpopular president, an economy on the skids, and wars without end in two distant lands, the Dems just could not allow themselves to feel hopeful or positive that this is their year. The columns perfectly described my own dread that something was bound to go wrong. Friday of that week, following Obama's knockout convention speech, the McCain campaign announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be McCain's vice presidential choice, and the hand wringing began in earnest!

It's as though my worst fears were realized. See I told you so! The Dems just can't win at presidential politics! And now that I'm of a mind to criticize the Obama campaign and the Dems in general for being caught flat footed regarding the Palin nomination, I was pleased to read Kirsten Powers' piece linked to on the RCP homepage today. I'm reminded that I felt this way during the primaries and my man still came through ultimately, but in watching this campaign rev up, anyonoe can see that the Dems don't play hardball like Republicans do. Republicans care about winning and Democrats care about playing by the rules. Remember that that is how Obama won the nomination, not by dispatching his opponent but by playing a slightly better game and appealing to the judges.

Imagine if Obama loses the "I told you so's" about not picking HRC as his running mate! Even Gloria Steinem might have to retract her statement that "women are never frontrunners." But I doubt she would since she's determined that Sarah Palin is the wrong kind of woman. What arrogance! Palin (I know she's not at the top of the ticket but I've fallen into the conceit that this race is between Palin and Obama, the other two old white men notwithstanding) might just deserve to win because she's shown she's willing to fight for it, unlike our languid candidate. Ironic that Palin's ascent absolutely defies Steinem's setup argument in her NY Times piece, but that's because Steinem ignores the fact that politics is about taking advantage of opportunities, not just being right.

The Obama Sock Puppet

Of course on its face comparing Black people to primates is offensive. But also on its face, the sock monkey is cute and I want to own one too, so there! Some folks might collect buttons, t-shirts, or posters, but I want the sock puppet and the Hillary nutcracker too! Does this make me racist AND sexist? Have I so bought into four centuries of Black degradation that I would gleefully support the latest example of oppression?

No, not at all. I simply view it as a manifestation of Obamamania in the most exciting election of my lifetime. I don't like the idea of someone getting rich off the idea if the sock monkey really takes off especially if Black folks give it an OK. But I think that whining about such things sounds weak, like all those Hillary supporters who complained about the nutcrackers being sold in airports. Yes, it was sexist and practically given a pass in a way that the Obama/Curious George t-shirt was not. Yes, no white male candidate had to endure something equally offensive. But as Peggy Noonan wrote so eloquently, women like Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher knew they were up against the patriarchy yet never complained about sexism: "It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say, 'Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls.'"

So I agree with Jimi Izrael, whom I've been listening to every Friday for months on NPR's Tell Me More. Let's disarm the racists by showing that their objectification of Obama holds no power over us. We define who we are in this day and age. This is 2008, not 1908 and a Black man is at the brink of becoming president! And just ask Barack Obama himself. He's not about to be swift-boated let alone allow some dumb puppet to derail him from his bigger mission. So why don't we measure our collective racial outrage against an event like Hurricane Katrina, for example. In terms of racism and demanding a response, the sock puppet doesn't move the needle even one millimeter.

What a Difference a Month Makes!

Or a day or a week or an hour in this highly charged campaign! In reading my last post a MONTH AGO, I can't believe how much things have changed and how happy I am right now vs. then! Our man did it! He beat the Clinton machine! Something Republicans couldn't do even when he was impeached! The magnitude of this accomplishment is staggering. No wonder Hillary couldn't concede. She's in shock that she was beaten by such an upstart! The rest of us are as euphoric as Oprah! Even the conservatives are giddy that the democrats have finally voted to impeach the Clintons. And principled conservatives like George Will studiously backed Obama's decision to make his vice-presidential selection his own:

"Obama's choice of a running mate will be the first important decision he makes with the whole country watching, so it will be a momentous act of self-definition. If he chooses her, it will be an act of self-diminishment, especially now that some of her acolytes are aggressively suggesting that some unwritten rule of American politics stipulates that anyone who finishes a strong second in the nomination contest is entitled to second place on the ticket."

And her surrogates like Lanny Davis circulating a petition to make her the VP and Bob Johnson pressuring the Congressional Black Caucus to do the same! Another case of the "audacity of audacity" as Gail Collins put it. Thank God Charlie Rangel, Ed Rendell, and some others said, "Enough!" In the end, the superdelegates acted superbly. These people know that what is good for the party is not necessarily what's good for Mrs. (or Mr.) Clinton.

But as usual Peggy Noonan said it best: "They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.

But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.

May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party."

I already know that Obama's success may have the power to change the course of our nation. Even if he doesn't become president, he has shown us that it is possible for America to live up to its creed. Millions will mobilize for his campaign and for their own future campaigns. Hillary's supporters will doubtless do the same. Hope is alive! Do we now all get what Michele Obama meant? Many may oppose Obama for president, but most can't help but feel something major has happened in our land. We have held up a mirror to ourselves and there may be a few wrinkles or graying hairs out of place, but I think we look pretty good today. We can certainly be proud that in this era, our democracy is atop the list of Japan and the western nations where we usually find ourselves lacking. To the good ol' U.S. of A!

If I Were a Superdelegate...

I wouldn't know what the hell to do! (Except that I wouldn't want them to run together!)

• Barack or Hillary?
• Hope vs. Experience?
• Idealism vs. Pragmatism?
• Fight to Win or Fight the Good Fight?
• Baby Boom vs. Post Civil Rights?
• Black Man vs. a White Woman?
• Hillary or Barack?

I hinted in an earlier post that I've become somewhat disillusioned with Barack Obama. Now, I'll just say it outright. He's become just a regular old politician to me, and I blame it on his mishandling of Jeremiah Wright, which I'll explain further down. Plus, election fatigue has set in. I know these primaries are energizing democrats like never before and hopefully they'll all be back to vote in the fall, but I'm just exhausted with this race and can't take much more of the chattering classes talking about what ifs. What if Hillary wins Indiana but loses North Carolina? What if he wins both? Will she drop out? What about the delegate math? Can the democratic party really afford to take the nomination away from the first credible African-American presidential candidate? Enough already with the prognostications! NOBODY knows today what will unfold after Tuesday as there are TOO MANY variables! I'm so overwrought that I don't even feel like reading my usual favorite pundits or scanning my favorite blogs. It's Monday afternoon already and I don't know what Frank Rich wrote yesterday! And I swear Chuck Todd is ignoring me as I haven't gotten an MSNBC text message since this morning.

But I seriously can't take watching Barack lose another primary and then having to watch Hillary Clinton with those apple-y cheeks and a big fake smile on her face and saying crap like, "You may have helped me win tonight, but your votes are really a win for America." I looked to you, Barack, because I would seriously like to know what it feels like to cast a vote for a winner. Not just someone who wins but someone with the political skills to make things for the good of the country happen in his or her favor , i.e. a real winner. The country is in a mood to support the next President regardless of who that is because we are all (except for 28% in the Republican base) so over George W. Bush. Inspire and connect. I believe you can do it. Besides, you'll have to do both in the fall.

I haven't voted for a winner in a presidential contest since 1992. That's because I keep supporting the democrats, who, by the way, have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Other than Bill Clinton, the dems haven't had a president win re-election since FDR! Ponder that a moment. That would mean that since the Great Depression and World War II--that would be the war that John Wayne made famous in those black and white movies that come on PBS on random Saturday nights (What, you don't remember all those great John Wayne movies about WWII? What, well neither do I, but ask your great grandparents about what things were like back then), the Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to the majority of Americans. The NYT's John Harwood has a theory and guess what? It has to do with race!*

Meanwhile Hillary is coming on like gangbusters! She is clearly the better campaigner, while he has run the better campaign. She was pilloried for calling the hard campaign "the fun part," but anyone can see she is clearly enjoying the fight. Criticize her gas tax holiday and she'll tell you why it's good in the short term and the long term. Appear on Bill O'Reilly and legitmize the entire network and get the Democratic establishment to realize that yes, it's just another television network. Now that she's won four of the last five (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, but he won Vermont!) Obama needs to regroup and shake up the campaign staff with some new blood and some new approaches to the race as it needs to be run right now. Learn a thing or two from your opponents. Both Clinton and McCain fired people when they were losing. Well, guess what, Barack? You've been losing.

The first advice I might give is to take the gimme questions and run with them. When Tim Russert gives you a chance to talk about your sense of patriotism, it's wonderful to talk about your grandparents and World War II, but what values did they instill in you? Some Midwestern values that you could perhaps share with us and help you connect with the white working class? Right now all we know about your grandmother is that she loved you but she said things that made you cringe. It's great that Michele's dad was a hardworking shift employee with MS, but besides instilling in his children the importance of education, did she really grow up without ever having a proud moment as an American? If so, then explain why in a way that people will understand, otherwise is it really that hard to come up with an example? The Bi-Centennial Year? The Centennial Celebration of the Statue of Liberty? The U.S. defeating the Soviet hockey team in 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics? Michele's remarks have been out there just waiting for Barack to be named the presumptive nominee so the Republicans can paint you both as elitist and unpatriotic. Remember you'll be running against a former POW--an Annapolis grad who is the son and grandson of admirals--who chose to remain in a Vietnamese prison camp instead of leaving without his fellow sailors. Start selling yourself as patriotic and not just becaues you're likely to be the first African-American to win the democratic presidential nomination.

And now let's talk about Rev. Wright. Something does not ring true. I think I understand the why's of it all, but not not the what's. I don't think you've been honest about what went down at various flashpoints. Just because you may be ready to move forward and talk about issues that the American people care about, your enemies--and that's what they are, not mere opponents with differing philosophies of governing--will gladly keep reminding the voters that you sat in the pews of this church for 20 years without questioning some of the more radical ideas coming out of the pulpit. That's not leadership. I think that in an 8,000 member congregation there are doubtless numerous ministers on rotation and maybe Wright only preached there once a month. I take you at your word that you weren't there for certain sermons, but did you really not know the particulars of the man's reputation?

Well, you seem to have been able to take cover on that one. But what made you disinvite Wright from your campaign announcement? What was it that was so red hot that you were willing to insult a man who was like family to you? Did he understand why and gladly move to the background or did he smolder? Was he offended, as Al Sharpton was, that you would make such a calculating move? You wanted to avoid something, but what was it? Will you fully explain, or will you act like a politician on this one as well? You told Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning that you have now distanced yourself from Wright (permanently I presume) because he had an opportunity to contextualize his remarks and instead he only amplified them. Are you really surprised that he actually meant what he said? His behavior showed that you didn't know him so well and he apparently didn't know you so well either. I guess that could be true, but I would think that any pastor, but especially one of Wright's standing in religous circles, would make it his business to get to know a congregant who is a U.S. Senator. But Wright prides himself on speaking truth to power so maybe your political ascent itself forced some distance between you two. But still he married you and Michele, baptized your daughters, and blessed your newly purchased home. Over those twenty years did you so poorly misjudge the man that you were shocked at his ideas, truly?

For me, the biggest outrage is that you knew something was up over a year ago, and you let it slide, which points to sheer political miscalculation. You had a chance to introduce yourself as a man of faith. Did you not learn that talking about faith and the path that brought you to your church and to Jesus Christ are extremely important to voters in the current political climate? Remember Tim Kaine, John F. Kennedy, and even Mitt Romney? Yet instead of taking the opportunity to get in front of this story and define yourself, you waited for it to explode. How then can we supporters of you accept your misjudgment of Wright but believe that you have the proper judgment to function decisively as president of the United States?

I still support you, Barack, but I really liked supporting you as a winner. Can you get it back on point? Please show me that you're learning from your mistakes. We have a president who thinks changing course is a sign of weakness. Show me that he's wrong and that learning from mistakes and not repeating them is a strength that you possess.
-----------------------------------
*Technically, I also helped re-elect Clinton in 1996, after he lost the Congress to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and before he went off the rails with "that woman" and got himself impeached.

Our political process is a drag!

Elitist, out of touch, soft, not a fighter, too black, not black enough, terrorist, no experience...it goes on and on.

I'm sick to death of this election. It is depressing. In my opinion, why don't we all vote for McCain and make Hillary the VP. Seems to me that's what America wants.

All Obama's negatives above don't equate to what a presidency would be like under the two opponents. I can't tell what America wants. Do they want a president that had to tell people things that seem good at the moment and then do what ever they want when in office? Or do they want the truth of what is really going on? I'm on one side of this split personality and I'm starting to believe that I many think I shouldn't believe in a better government. A working government. It seems to me this country is happy with government just the way it is. I do believe all this extra is more damning to the needs of regular people than I have before. It really keeps people's minds busy with things not meaningful to their daily lives.

My biggest beef with this election is the way the media creates self-fulfilling prophecies. You know how a parent may say to their child, "I don't want you to date outside of your race, because you will face challenges. Those challenges will be too much so I don't want you to date that person." In this example the parent is the problem! Joe Scarface said the other day that it is elitist to reject the gas tax...ignoring the fact that just by saying that he is making it so. It's bs like this that angers me. He doesn't believe that half a tank of gas could really pay for going to the beach, does he? Or a trip to Six Flags...give me a break! It's just a ploy to say SOMETHING was done, even if it has long term ramifications. If a half a tank of gas on average would make that much of a difference in your summer, than you probably don't have a car anyway! It is so condescending and cheating of regular people! But maybe the people like the emotional high from it...The stimulus package was better because of the amount, but kind of the same thing. I'm not using it to pay for new stuff. I'm paying down debt! I feel like because we are such a free society it makes it easy to play on that to manipulate people. And thus, here lies why I think politics is a drag.

My choice for POTUS is now really clear, but if America doesn't agree, then I guess I'll be stuck with 4 more years of McBush and McBush in the form of a Clinton. To me that is the choice.

A Must See Interview--make it viral!

This man has to be president!!!!

The Democratic Party and It's Split Personality

The Democratic Party has an illness of split personality. We have those that believe tradition will see us through and feels safe and a those that believe the past has held us back from getting what we want. These "folks" have been split by education, race, age and gender. It is amazing what a choice between a black man and a white woman could do to an ideology. But the funny thing is I don't think it's about race and gender as much as it is about principles. If you believe that a good hard fight with a some good wounds is okay as long as you win (more work), you vote Clinton. If you believe a good hard fight is getting to the fundamental truth of what's wrong and believe that the more engaged the country is the more things will change (smart work), you are an Obama supporter. This is fundamentally huge differences between A types and B types in personality.

Let's look at this further. These are two extremely different points of view! The opposite if you will. Obama has not brought his message to a simple digestible state for Hillary's experienced fighters to grasp and Hillary hasn't touched the intellect of the educated with her brawling. It's split and only a few will cross over because it is simple personality. I think we will see more of this in the Fall. If Obama wins, the brawlers may find comfort in a military man. If Clinton wins, the intellects will have no where to go and stay home. This doesn't bode well for Democrats.

But if for a moment the brawlers and the intellects could just get together and find the common ground of economic woes, they will see that McCain does not suit their interests. Who can deliver that message best?

Now for reality meets myth.

Myth: Why can't Obama knock her out?

Fact: Why can't Clinton knock him out? The previous question is always asked as if there is something wrong with Obama. As if there is this expectation of perfection. When did coming from NO WHERE become so trivial! Clinton is losing!!! Losing! There is no pleasant way for her to win. Trust me if Obama was broke, behind in every concievable aspect of how to win the nomination with out the Superdelegates, he would not still be in the race! Clinton has failed. She represents the party establishment and couldn't hold off a rooky with a funny name from taking 11 states in a row that pushed his lead to a sizable gap that she can not overcome. HER FAULT! In fighting, no money, negativity is all created by her campaign. The only way for her to win is to convince superdelegates that he is unelectable. The only way she can do that is by trying to make him unelectable. The only way she can do that is by wrecking his creditbility as a new kind of politics. She should not conceed the race, and nor should Obama. But she is not doing anything bigger or better than he is either...except dragging the party into a not so good place to start the fight for the Fall.

Here is some juicy info on why Obama is ahead so far. He has won 15 contests above 60 points! Clinton has won 1. Obama's overall points average to 54 and Clintons is 41. He is on average beating her by 13 points! This is why he is ahead.

Let me repeat. Out of the 30 states of 45 Obama has won, he has won 15 of them with more than 20 points! This is amazing considering he is a rooky with a funny name and "association" baggage. He is winning. More people want Obama! She should have blown out PA since that is like his HI (He won 76 to 24). The same for NY. she won 57 to 40. Where in IL he won 65 to 33. These are things to compare. How do the people that know you vote? I won't even mention Kansas and Arkansas. Okay I will. His spread was 48 to her 44. The largest spread of this run for office has been 80 to 17 in Idaho for Obama. WOW!!!

Have faith my fellow Obama supports. This will be over soon. Change is wanted and Obama is that change.

Here's the Rub on the Final Debate

Obama didn't do well in the last debate. In fact, this debate may indeed be the last as he has indicated little interest in another proposed debate ahead of the North Carolina primary. I don't think skipping a debate is a good idea because he should end on a high note. Why allow your last debate performance to be one that was nearly universally panned?

Much rancor has been aimed at the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, for doing a shoddy job in the first 45 minutes and waiting until the debate was half over to get into the "real issues that voters care about." Are these same complainers at all chastened that for such a supposedly shoddy job done by the moderators, this was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle? Perhaps people care more than the media elite can measure.

While I can agree that Obama took fire from both Clinton and the moderators, he certainly did not show that he can perform under pressure. The White House press corps is not known for playing patty cake with the President. Yes, the questions were inane and not about the issues, but they were certainly about topics that have been in the headlines, the editorial pages and on the blogs. Our man seemed not only agitated but also ill prepared. Does he have feet of clay? Can he not take a difficult situation and use his political skills to turn the situation to his advantage? We saw him do that the day after, brushing himself off (talk about seeming pompous!) and decrying Washington tactics, but the job he is applying for is in Washington. It will take leadership to change the culture of Washington, more leadership and political skill than he showed on Wednesday.

He was so off his game from the beginning of the debate that when the discussion did turn to policies he was wrongheaded or decidedly impolitic in some of his answers:

1. Does he really think that the nuclear umbrella must extend beyond Israel to our other Middle Eastern allies like Saudi Arabia (with whom most Americans do not identify culturally)? This is new foreign policy seeminly concocted on the spot by both candidates.
2. If keeping the capital gains tax low brings in more revenues, what is the point of raising the capital gains? To punish people who invest in American companies (who are not all super wealthy by the way)? Many of us who have 401(k)s have been told that we need to invest in stocks to receive the best returns. Why punish ordinary folks trying to build their retirement income? And besides, he might have to lower the capital gains tax to zero if he wishes to entice Republicans to pass health care reform.
3. Why would he commit to removing troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground and advice from his generals? No one believes that he has enough information at this moment to make such a promise. How about a little wiggle room please?
4. And a no new taxes pledge? Ridiculous! Bill Clinton went back on his proposed middle class tax cut as soon as he took office and got a better understanding of the state of the economy in light of his economic goals (see #3 regarding committing before knowing all the facts). Clinton's flip flop came after bludgeoning Bush the father in the campaign for going back on his reversal of his "read my lips" pledge. Again, answer in a way that still provides cover.

I take solace only in the fact that the real campaign has not yet been joined. Once the presumptive democratic nominee has a chance to define himself to the general electorate in contrast to John McCain, we'll see a much better measure of Obama's political skills under duress. But what a shame that Obama's final debate performance was also his worst.

It's Painful but Necessary to Keep Going

Maureen Dowd, who has no love lost for the Clintons, has been like a journalistic mentor to Barack Obama. I can imagine her following him around on his campaign stops, sitting in back of his plane listening to him talking with the media and then going back to her laptop and writing her columns explaining the political universe to him. She writes in a rather literary style, sometimes referring to classical opera or even Harry Potter for her good vs. evil view of Obama vs. Clinton.

She has been gently prodding him over the last several months to administer the knockout blow to his rival not just to make sure that she stays down, but to prove to everyone that he could actually do it. We Americans like our presidents to be tough and resolute and the campaign is the forum to show one's mettle. Ms. Clinton gambled from the beginning that being on the Armed Services Committee, voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution and refusing to repudiate her vote would make her look tough. Instead, she reminds me of another decider who's just as intractable. Much as I favor Obama, he just hasn't shown me such toughness. He's a smart, scrappy fighter, but after seeing him bowl a 37 in Altoona (while wearing a tie no less!), he just doesn't look so tough to me. And at the South Carolina debate where she brought up Rezko, Clinton was--at that point anyway--looking like someone who was ready to do what it takes to win, in stark contrast to her opponent.

Dowd has written that Obama needs to slay the dragon, that the Clintons lie like nobody's business, and that they'll do anything to win the presidency despite Obama's upstart campaign. One might suspect that as a woman, Dowd would have some empathy for Ms. Clinton, the smart girl getting upstaged by the star athlete (bowling excluded) once again! But only another woman could get away with writing some of the most patroninizing (matronizing?) things about Ms. Clinton, some of which I've read with dropped jaw: "Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem." Dowd really exemplifies what Peggy Noonan wrote recently of how many in the press are so dismayed by the Clintons' lack of scruples that they can't bear the idea of covering for four more years someone for whom they have such little respect. (Was Peggy reading my mind or what?)

This morning's column took a different tack as Dowd advised her political charge that this long drawn out primary has been good for him. After reminding us that the point of a presidential campaign is to WIN and not just fight the good fight, she tells Obama that he has been toughened up by battling Team Clinton and made into a better candidate for it. This idea has been much repeated, but Dowd of course revels in taking potshots at Ms. Clinton's "helpfulness" before concluding that "Hillary’s work is done only when she is done, because the best way for Obama to prove he’s ready to stare down Ahmadinejad is by putting away someone even tougher."

Peggy Noonan Gets It! Do You?

Peggy Noonan is one of my favorite political pundits. She is a conservative speechwriter and committed Republican from the Reagan years. But she is not some blowhard partisan who is unwilling to look at the faults and flaws in her own side (like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). It comes as no surprise that she is not a Hillary fan. But the beauty and clarity of her writing is such that even if I don't agree with her conclusion I can appreciate her line of reasoning and her perspective. Her column this morning illuminates Hillary Clinton's candidacy in a way that makes me wish I'd written it myself:

"But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape. Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves."

Her description of how the press may feel in covering Clinton is how many of us now feel about President Bush. We are so over him and his presidency and the mendacity of those he has surrounded himself with that we are eager to move ahead with someone new, just NOT someone named Clinton. I am so fearful of another four years of cynicism that I just cannot bring myself to support her. The press and the country are obviously ready to move past oligarchy if she would just get the hell out of the way, er, I mean, step aside.

The Proper Role of "Super" Delegates

Stanley Fish is a law professor and online opinion columnist at the New York Times. His column of March 16, 2008, entitled "Memo to the Superdelegates: No Principles, Please," takes up the question of whether the superdelegates should cast their votes according to some agreed upon standard. Ironically many pundits have characterized leaving the decision of who will become the Democratic nominee to the superdelegates as decidedly undemocratic. Fish points out many parts of our democracy that could be considered undemocratic. I would add to his list of our undemocratic practices the fact that electors from the states, choose the presidential winners in their states. Never mind that this led to Bush winning the presidency in 2000 even though Gore had more of the popular vote. And it also seems inherently undemocratic that voters in so called battleground states get disproportionately more attention from presidential campaigns than voters in non battleground states, defying the concept of "one man, one vote." And we all know that the Supreme Court intervened in Florida to effectively stop the voting recount in certain Florida counties.

I could not agree more with Fish's two concluding paragraphs. Editorialists and pundits are consumed with finding out from superdelegates by what standard they will vote at the convention. They feign shock and dismay that the "democratic" party has such a seemingly undemocratic process for ultimately choosing the nominee and that there is no agreed upon method for casting their votes. I for one would not want there to be such a standard. Let every superdelegate vote according to his/her conscience and political interests. That is the same democratic principle by which we all vote. Why should all "super"delegates vote according to some agreed upon standard that I myself would not submit to? That sounds like some Soviet-style election in which the outcome would be pre-determined. Being unable to predict the outcome of an election means that democracy is at work and not some super imposed standard that delegates must align with whether they like it or not.

As usual in close elections, the ultimate choice will hinge on how the undecideds break when their votes must be cast. This gives all sorts of anxiety to both Obama and Clinton supporters who believe that superdelegates should not use their votes to overturn the outcome of primary process in terms of pledged delegates or popular vote (Obama) or that the superdelegates should exercise their judgment and vote for the candidate who will be the best candidate to win in the fall (Clinton). We already know how many of the superdelegates will vote and Hillary has a slight edge, but it's total delegates that matter and the vote of a superdelegate is equal to the vote of a pledged delegate. There is little surprise that most of the undecided superdelegates wish that one of the candidates would break ahead in the count of pledged delegates so that they will not have be the deciding factor and perhaps pay a political price. This democracy thing can be so difficult!

Can We Please Acknowledge the Obvious?

So I was listening to one of my favorite NPR programs on WAMU in Washington, DC and the guests were discussing race and the Democratic presidential campaign in light of the comments of Geraldine Ferraro and the embattled Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick. In particular, a guest that day on the Kojo Nnamdi Show posited that Geraldine Ferraro's now infamous quote was meant as code to white voters like some of those in Pennsylvania who might look at Obama as an affirmative action presidential candidate, and, resentful of blacks who've benefited from the perceived lack of fairness in affirmative action in general, might actually reject Obama as just another black guy who's gotten ahead (of themselves) because of his race. Whew! That's a lot to read into one quote from a newspaper that serves a community in southern California "from LAX to L.A. Harbor!"

There are many ways to pick apart this whole flap and my finger would first point at the Obama campaign itself and their crackerjack opposition researchers who were no doubt scouring the web for some quote to be used out of context to make Clinton's supporters (and by extension, Mrs. Clinton herself) look bad. That this story got so much attention unfortunately proves that the Obama campaign has not transcended race and is all too willing to play the race card to score political points. They certainly hit paydirt with Ferraro and the Daily Breeze, but come now, it's not as if she'd spoken on Meet the Press and said what she said. A reading of the original article shows plainly what happended: ahead of a paid political speech to be given in Torrance, CA, a reporter from Torrance's hometown paper, the Daily Breeze, called Ms. Ferraro to get an advance story on what her talk would cover, which naturally included her take on how the Democratic primary race is progressing as well as her role in the Clinton campaign.

While it's true that Obama has not closed the sale with white voters (see this Washington Post Story on the subject) whose support he will definitely need to win the presidency, it is not true that Ms. Ferraro was acting as a campaign surrogate in making her remarks. She was giving her own political analysis of the Democratic race and naturally expressed some frustration that the candidate she supports is not the frontrunner. One might think that someone steeped in Democratic politics who is also a Fox News Contributor would have been more mindful of her remarks. While inartfully expressed, hers were not anywhere near the level of coded language that President Bill Clinton used in trying to marginalize Obama as a Black candidate following Obama's decisive victory in South Carolina. In fact if President Bill had stuck to the script, Hillary might have clinched the nomination on Super Tuesday. But instead the media spotlight on Bill's reckless comments moved Black voters (including this one) en masse to supporting Obama, who just a year ago was perceived as "not black enough" by many.

Let me say that as a 42 year old African-American male, I take NO offense at Ferraro's comment. It is a statement out of context that ignores her political record. And shame on the Obama campaign for injecting race into the campaign only to imply that Ferraro is racially insensitive. The Obama campaign played the media like a fiddle as the story reverberated for three days, thanks in large part to Ferraro having the temerity to defend herself in the same race-baiting media outlets that were happy to have a controversy to cover. But for anyone to believe that Ferraro--who has acknowledged that her gender was a principle factor in being chosen as a vice presidential candidate--meant that Obama's race is the ONLY reason that he has gotten so far is laughable. It is obvious that part of Obama's appeal is the very positive view of race that his candidacy represents. A reconciling of our past, ugly racial history with the potential of a post civil rights candidacy of this highly qualified African-American is embodied in Obama. Rather than suppose that Ferraro's comment was anti-affirmative action code directed at whites suspicious of Obama as a black candidate, let those voters speak for themselves. If Obama is as gifted and sincere as his supporters believe, then he should be able convince those voters that he is the genuine article. Merely to discount their votes as somehow impure or racially tinged is irrelevant. Our man needs to make the sale to all voters. That's what campaigns are for and if Obama can't convince his detractors to vote for him (how many weeks until the Pennsylvania primary?), then perhaps Democrats and superdelegates should pause and consider which of our two highly qualified choices is the one more likely to WIN in the fall.