They Pay For this Kind of "Analysis"?

Steve Kraske and Dave Helling needed to team up to produce the ludicrous "analysis" that the Kansas City Star recently published, posted and presumably paid for. In it, they claim that the "hard part" for the Democrats may be piecing the party back together after the primary season.

I wish I had been there to see the article get written. Was it written over the course of a tequila shot drinking contest, with the winner getting to eat the worm and the loser being made to list his name first? That would be kind of funny to watch.

Or did they write it while grilling wieners in an enclosed space, not realizing that the carbon monoxide was slowing their brain activity to a snail's pace? I would have rescued them.

Regardless of the circumstances, it takes a special kind of opacity to worry about the Democrats on the day that Obama clinched the nomination. After a primary season that saw record numbers of democrats, including millions of new voters, come to the polls to vote for their favored brand of CHANGE, the Democratic party has never been stronger.

From the beginning, the overwhelming majority of democrats have voiced the opinion that either Obama or Clinton would be great, regardless of which one they were supporting. While an occasional few have fallen to the intoxication of partisanship, they are not representative of a trend, or even of their more sober sides. Give them a week or two to calm down, and they will be fine. (Mr. Martin, were you really fearing a heart attack while watching a rules committee? That's not normal, and a specialist of some sort should be consulted.)

Because expressions of anger between the Clinton and Obama sides were apparently so hard to find, these two journalists were forced to resort to quotations of anger toward - journalists! They quote Mike Sanders:

“I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton was held (by the media) to a different standard than every other presidential candidate who ran in this cycle,” said Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders. “Not just Barack Obama, not just John McCain, but every other candidate.”

Helling and Kraske are weakly attempting to portray Sanders' dissatisfaction with how badly journalists did their job as some kind of dissatisfaction with his fellow Democrats. I suggest that they ask Mr. Sanders if he will be voting for Senator Obama in a match against McCain, and I promise that the answer will be a strong "yes".

The fact of the matter is that the dissension among the Democrats is nothing compared to that among the Republicans. Of course, in the heat of the moment, a few petulant Clinton supporters are going to overstate their disappointment in seeing their candidate fall short, but nobody who supports Hillary's progressive agenda and Democratic values is going to fail to see those same qualities in Barack Obama.

Within a couple weeks, Obama will be riding high atop a surge of enthusiastic Democrats eager to bring change to our country. I hope Kraske and Helling invite me to observe whatever collaboration they dream up then. It appears they may need adult supervision.

(I enjoy making fun of Kraske and Helling, because I'm frankly jealous they get paid decent money to produce such mediocre foolish verbiage a couple times a week, while I produce high-quality foolish verbiage almost every day, for free. I know, deep in my heart, that the only thing separating me from the professional pundits is a j-school degree and a willingness to really dive down deep into the murky depths of obtuseness and emerge with pearls like the article discussed here.)

Jumping Ship, Onward Obama!

Sorry, Hillary, it's over. A Democratic victory in the General is more important than a Clinton victory in the Primary, and my previous analysis that she is the least "Rove-able" (and hence, more likely to win in the General) has been nullified by the damage to the Democratic Party which will result from her continued campaign.

The historical race has settled into a normal campaign between warring camps, and I no longer believe the Obama supporters would be able to support Clinton enthusiastically even if some miracle gave her the nomination.

I still think she was a great candidate, and less susceptible to being redefined by Rove and the compliant corporate press, but I no longer see any plausible path to the Clinton White House.

I am enthusiastically pro-Obama. Onward to the White House.

"I'm F*ing Obama"

I'm still on board for Hillary, but this is pretty darned funny . . .

The Sermon Saga - Why I Fear Disillusionment with Obama

Let's get one thing clear up front - I am 100% behind the Democratic nominee for President, be it Clinton or Obama. I believe either will be an effective president, and can begin the process of rebuilding our country's standing domestically and internationally after the debacle of the past 7 3/4 years. I lean toward Clinton, but that is solely because of my opinion that she is the more likely to win the general election.

The past week demonstrates that Obama's support is like a cumulus cloud - impressive to see, but vaporous in nature.

It all started with reports about his pastor and "spiritual advisor" of his campaign spouting off with racially charged negativity more fitting on a joke blog than on a pulpit. Obama fumbled his first responses to the criticism, and it blossomed into a full-blown media event, complete with incendiary video and hand-wringing right-wingers shocked, simply shocked, that a black man could find something to criticize in this enlightened land.

It was all so stupid and manufactured. Republicans get in bed with people who claim God launched Katrina as a terrorist attack on us, and nobody raises an eyebrow. But if a loud, scary black preacher says something to provoke some thought and wake up the back pews, we have ourselves a genuine crisis.

But, sadly enough, it's working. For the first time in a month, Clinton has a statistically significant lead over Obama in national polls. Closer to home, the flap has caused Obama's margin of loss to McCain to mushroom from 6% to 14%.

The point is that when we are able to look at Obama as a fresh-faced, energetic symbol of our hopes and dreams for a new America, he's a winner. But when he turns out to be a real person with crazy friends and questionable decisions, his support dissipates rapidly. If people are supporting Obama because of an illusion that he will single-handedly transform us into a united, peace-loving, tolerant nation, I can assure you that the Republicans will supply us with plenty of DISillusion before November.

If a little videotape of a preacher caused an 8% swing in Obama's performance in Missouri, what will be left after Karl Rove gets finished with him?

And what will that do to the Democratic party's gains in Missouri?

Should Super-Delegates Vote with the Majority?

Interesting question. Here is Steve Bough arguing that they should, over at Blog CCP, and here's me taking the opposite side.

I sincerely hope it doesn't come down to a controversy - ideally, the party's choice will be clear by the Convention.

But, if it doesn't happen that way, what do you say?

I Love Obama, but I'm Voting for Hillary

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments on my post about shifting my support from Edwards to Clinton. I also received a few emails from friends disagreeing with my position, but it's been a pleasant disagreement. With virtually no exceptions, Democrats are happy with both candidates, and the dispute is centered on which candidate would be best. Our friends in the Republican party aren't in such a fortunate position - they are facing a choice between those they hate least.

Most of the criticism of Clinton's candidacy concerns her "electability". Les provided a quotation that sums up the fears quite well - "But I heard a pitch from an Obama supporter a while back that stuck with me: He unites the left and divides the right, while Clinton divides the left and unites the right."

I don't see it that way. While it's true that Hillary has a core of frothing crazies who absolutely hate her and her husband, the true Rush Limbaugh fans are a relatively small group, and won't be voting for Obama, either. In fact, as they increase their stridency and vitriol, I think they will discredit themselves even more, and make the crucial swing voters hesitant to align with the crazies. Check out the comments in my post asking why people hate Hillary Clinton so much - it's not an attractive or persuasive crowd. (As an aside, I posted that over three years ago, and I still get commenters visiting. I'm the second site that comes up if you google "I hate Hillary", and I got a spike of traffic after her victory in New Hampshire from people googling similar phrases.)

Even if they don't frighten away all the swing voters, we have seen their playbook. They've been slinging mud at Hillary Clinton since 1992, and there aren't any more Vince Fosters that she's murdered, any more communist parties she's belonged to, or any more alien lesbian love triangles she's joined. Whatever they try to make up now will lack credibility.

Obama does not have that factor - in fact, I fear he may have the opposite dynamic. Right now, it's easy to project our hopes and dreams on the bright young man. So, when you see his smiling face or his campaign logo that looks like an organic cereal box, it's easy to feel like everything is going to be sunshine and happiness through November.

In the last election, the right wing noise machine took a war hero and rebranded him as a traitor and a coward. They took a straight-shooting Senator and made him into a flip-flopper. They are experts at it, and they are ruthless. And, if you're informed and you're honest about it, you know there is material for them to work with.

Already, the negatives on Obama are creeping upward. In fact, by some polls, his are higher than hers.

Standing where we stand, and as a liberal democrat, I see a lot to love about Obama. He's actually closer to my personal views that Clinton is. If he gets the nomination, I'll be thrilled to have him as a candidate and I will work hard to get him elected. I agree with those who see him as a fresh, clean candidate who can bring in more young voters and rejuvenate the Democratic party.

But fresh and clean isn't going to last. I fear that after facing the Republican lie machine, fresh and clean will be questionable and muddy.

With Hillary Clinton, we know who will be on the ballot in November. And we know she can win. It won't be easy, but she can win.

Edwards Out - Go Hillary!

John Edwards was my favorite presidential candidate. With his emphasis on equality of opportunity and his focus on the working man, he represented what I wanted to see in our next President. The fact that such a smart and strong candidate did not dominate the Democratic field demonstrates what a great selection of candidates is running.

His withdrawal from the race is disappointing, but understandable. I'm glad he gave it a try, and didn't get involved in a nasty, vituperative effort. He's a great man, and I wish him and his family, especially his wife, the very best.

It's tempting to take some time off and look at the other candidates with a fresh eye, but there's no time for that. We have a primary coming up, and it represents Missouri's one opportunity to speak on who our party should select.

I'm on board with Hillary. She has the organization, the experience, and the toughness to win the big one. She is prepared and ready. We've seen her sliced and diced and accused of everything from murder to communism, and she's still thriving.

I offer these points as reasons, not as peruasion. If you've bought into the hope and excitement that Obama brings, I don't expect - nor particularly want - to change your mind in a paragraph.

May the better candidate win, and may both campaigns remember that the most important goal is to have a Democrat in the White House to clean up W's mess.

Deleting a Comment

I receive an email whenever a comment is posted here, so I see that even long-dead threads sometimes draw comments. For an amusing example of this, see the distraught students who google "Florida'a Culture" and find my short post on "Florida's Culture of Life" about Terry Schiavo and gun control in their research for a school assignment, and take the time to profanely chide me for my lack of helpfulness.

Wednesday evening, though, I received an email notifying me that someone had commented on a post I did way back in 2004 pondering "Why do They Hate Hillary Clinton so Much?" Believe it or not, this post appears near the top of a google search for "hate Hilary", and I regularly receive inarticulate rants about how bad Hillary Clinton is. Few commenters even attempt to explain the bizarre and over-the-top hatred of her, which was the central issue of the post. The comment section has become a dumping ground for weirdos who feel the need to vent about our probable next president.

The comment I received on Wednesday, though, included a suggestion that she should be harmed. I immediately emailed the FBI and provided them with a copy of the comment. According to a comment posted yesterday by someone claiming to be the same poster, the secret service visited him for a couple hours.

I deleted the comment this morning. So, from now on, when I claim that I don't delete comments for reasons of content (except for some spam), please add a mental asterisk to my claim. I will also delete comments that I think are threatening, or that could have the Secret Service knocking at my door for displaying them. Fair enough?

Hating Hillary in the Marketplace

Two and a half years ago, I did a post on this blog entitled "Why do They Hate Hillary Clinton so Much?", in which I pondered the bizarre and frothing hatred that many on the rightwing feel toward Hillary. It goes far beyond disagreement with her policies or dislike of her positions - for a certain minority of this country, the mere mention of her name (or the corruptions of it they prefer, such as Hildabeast or Hitlery) provokes an uncontrollable reaction. It's like projectile vomiting of vitriol, and for those of us who are relatively neutral in our feelings about the Junior Senator from New York, it's kind of sick and fascinating to watch.

Every now and then, I still get comments on that post - two and a half years later, random right-wingers google "hate hillary clinton" and find my site. Kinda creepy, huh?


Yesterday, I received an email from someone about "10 Ways to Buy Hillary" - a funny and bizarre exploration of the many attempts to make money off of this odd flashpoint in certain reptilian brains. How sick do you need to be to want to have your own Hillary urinal screen?

Take a few minutes and go see the rest of the products. While I suppose I should be more seriously upset that someone - anyone - thinks that a Hillary pet chew toy is a product worthy of marketing, I suspect that the purveyors of items like this have an even lower opinion of the rightwing intellect than I do . . .