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?

Ignore Him

Rumor has it that a washed-up attention whore is going to be running for President, and wants to be the subject of passionate debates about the importance of himself.

We don't need to react.

If a political career falls in the forest and no pundit is there to notice, does it make a noise?

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?

Come On, People, Get Out and Vote!

Yeah, it's already raining and it looks like the lousy weather will last all day. Yes, it's true that most of us will have to park and walk ten or twenty yards in cold rain to cast our votes. No doubt about it - it's nasty out there.

But IT'S YOUR CHANCE TO CAST A VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY!

Sadly, some people will look outside and decide it's just not worth it to get their heads wet and slosh through a puddle.

Your vote will count more because of their weakness. Regardless of who you're supporting, go out and cast your vote.

Jacking with the Pollsters

I've received a bunch of calls lately from political pollsters, mostly from the Republican side. While it would be easy to explain to them that I will not be voting in the Republican primary on Tuesday, or to simply hang up, I would be missing out on a real opportunity to confuse the issues for the "experts" on the Republican side.

Somewhere, the Republican strategists are pondering why a strong Huckabee supporter is also strongly pro-gay marriage. Why is a portion of the "leaning Romney" electorate mostly concerned with Second Amendment rights? And McCain is apparently the choice of those who want immediate deportation of all undocumented immigrants.

Republican pollsters are welcome to call me anytime they want, and I promise to answer their questions.

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.

John Edwards in Missouri

A couple of the other Democratic Presidential campaigns have tried to gin up some excitement by opening offices in Missouri. Oh, boy, we got phone banked - thank you.

John Edwards is the only one of the front-runners with an actual visit planned to the Show-Me State. Here's the info, for those of you who can make it:

A special event with Senator John Edwards

When: Saturday, January 19, 2008, 9:15 a.m.

Where: Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity (CDC) Union Hall
1401 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63139
And, if you plan to attend, please take a moment to RSVP here.

Sick of Iowa

Let me just get this off my chest - I hate Iowa's role in selecting presidents. They have the stupidest system (caucuses) with a population incapable of forming a thought deeper than "ethanol good", and yet we give them the first crack at deciding which candidates are serious and which aren't. I have never seen any justification for this idiocy other than tradition, and, let's face it, tradition has not served progressives all that well.

I say this before I know any results - if I were an Iowa resident, I would start off with Dodd, and, after the Dodd camp fails to get anywhere, I would shift over to Edwards. In case you're wondering, yes, I will happily campaign for whichever Democrat wins at the convention. For the first time since I have been watching politics, each candidate on the Democratic ticket is better and more electable than each candidate on the Republican ticket.

This isn't sour grapes speaking - I will be happy with whatever results come from our frigid sister to the North. I would rather draw names from a hat, though, that watch our Presidential candidates prostrate themselves before the Altar of Undeserving Iowa.

Would You Sell Your Vote?

A survey of NYU undergraduate students shows that 20% would trade their right to vote in the next Presidential election for an iPod Touch. "66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million."

Ironically, these students are aware of the value of a vote. "70.5 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference - including 70 percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for free tuition."

At first, these numbers surprised me, but further thought on the matter puts it into a more understandable light. Over one third of voters relinquished their right to vote in the most recent Presidential election. If you were going to relinquish that right for nothing, why not pick up an iPod Touch for the lack of effort?

Student explanations of the results varied. One pointed out that none of the likely candidates closely reflected his views, anyhow. The obverse of that point was made by a young woman who observed that New York would remain a blue state without her vote. None of these students pointed to the Supreme Court's overriding the election process in 2000 as ground for their electoral nihilism, but they were mostly under 15 at the time.

Personally, I'd enjoy an iPod a lot more than I enjoyed the results of the last two presidential elections . . .

Beltway Myopia

It's disquieting enough that Fox actually has a show called the "Beltway Boys", where "boys" of around 70 pontificate on what the insular DC crowd is thinking. "Beltway thinking", in this age of information and analysis, is almost synonymous for misguided, arrogant, conventional and flawed thinking. And Fox gives us 30 minutes of it every week.

I accept, however, that Morton Kondracke and Fred Barnes do represent a portion of effete DC culture. That's why this quotation from Fred Barnes is so incredibly disturbing:

You know, I've thought for a long time that Obama's not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is. Remember, when he famously came out against the war, it was back in a time when the entire world believed that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point. I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be. But that argument's not going to be used against him in the Democratic primaries. It would, however, by Republicans in a general election.

So, when everyone else was wrong, OBAMA WAS RIGHT!! And that makes him weak?! What kind of topsy-turvy world must you live in to criticize someone who dared to be correct when everyone else around him was wrong?

The irony gets even worse if you go back and look at what Obama had to say when the United States was being driven to war by a fear-mongering, war-bent President and a cowardly Congress:

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income -- to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Now, I'm not endorsing Obama for President right now. But I wish our Beltway Boys, and all the other "serious" voices who help form our public opinion, had paid attention to him then. Instead, because they were wrong and he was right, they are paying attention to him now, and deriding him for the crime of not suffering from the Beltway myopia that has damaged our country so horribly, and killed so many people.

English Only Racists - Univision??

Spanish-language channel Univision is setting up a Democratic presidential debate for September 9 in Miami, one of the most polylingual cities in our wonderfully polylingual country. Oddly enough, Univision has decided to REQUIRE "that all presidential candidates in a debate on the Spanish-language television network Univision speak in English."

Too funny.