VOTE!

Of Podiums, Plain and Tall

Ok, now that we've gotten past the non-convention day due to Gustav, and the Republicans in St. Paul have gotten their convention off to a partisan start, I have to comment on the podium.

I've had a fascination with the “set design” of political conventions for years. I remember back in 1988 when the Dukakis campaign was criticized for the palate of colors used for the podium in Atlanta. They didn’t use true red white and blue, but pastel substitutes.

Last week the Democrats had a pretty spectacular podium at the Pepsi Center,

and when they moved it to Mile High Stadium; they added some stately columns and a rostrum to the mix, taking design elements from the 2004 GOP event in New York.

Contrast the current podium at the Republican convention this week:

It is very plain. In fact the design of the whole convention is quite understated as compared to what we saw with the Democrats last week, and podiums we have seen in the past. I haven’t seen a design this plain since maybe 1972 or 1976. Sure, the huge digital screen that serves as a backdrop is high tech, but it is technology that is delivering some simple and bold imagery. I do suspect that there is some amateurishness in the McCain camp, but I don’t think the design cues at the Excel Center are an accident or a sign of penny-pinching the convention budget. Perhaps this look is meant to telegraph McCain as the opposite of the “celebrity,” Obama.

Shame on you, James Dobson.

Hurricanes are serious business. As I write this, over two million people have evacuated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as Gustav bears down on the area. We all remember the devastation of Katrina, and I pray that the nation is spared from the death and destruction Gustav could bring.

Michael Moore (and Don Fowler) got themselves into trouble today because they took note of the irony of a major hurricane headed for New Orleans just as the George Bush and Dick Cheney were preparing to address Republicans at their convention on Monday. The comments were callous. Natural disasters are not a joke, and certainly not fodder for political "gotchas." That is exactly why I just can't stop thinking about James Dobson and his cronies at "Focus on the Family."

Back in the beginning of August, Focus on the Family unveiled a video on their website where they urged their followers to pray for rain to disrupt Barack Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field. Essentially, they asked God to smite Obama with rain:

“abundant rain, torrential rain … flood-advisory rain ... I’m talking about umbrella-ain’t-gonna-help-you, swamp-the-intersections rain.”

The video called for a weather disaster to befall Denver on the day of Obama's speech because Focus on the Family disagrees with Obama and the Democratic Party.

It is not ironic that there now is a terrible storm heading for the Gulf Coast that is disrupting the Republican Convention. It IS a reminder of the stupidity of individuals and tax exempt organizations that purport to have a religious mission invoking the Almighty to get involved in partisan politics. By James Dobson's logic, the God he prayed to for meteorological punishment on his political enemies, heard his prayer and responded by smiting his allies instead.

Thankfully, the God I believe in would never do any such thing. I pray that the good people of the Gulf Coast be spared another devastating storm.

Breaking News: McCain throws deep

I'm going to take a break from talking about my experiences in Denver to go to the big news of the day: McCain decided to 'throw deep' and make a very bold, unexpected pick of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his VP nominee.
As an aside, the scheduling of both conventions so late, and back to back (first back to back conventions since 1956) has really wrecked havoc with the news cycle. I wonder if the typical convention bounce will happen this year, as McCain just turned all focus on the GOP ticket today after a history-making night for Obama and the Dems.

McCain's pick is a brazen move to appeal to the women's vote, particularly in the aftermath of Obama's passing over of Hillary Clinton. Gov. Palin's resume is thin for someone who would be a heartbeat away from being commander-in-chief. I've said along along that putting a woman on the ticket would be a great move, but McCain had to look way down the bench to find someone who would be acceptable to the right wing of his party. Selecting a Pro-Choice moderate woman would have brought him more swing voters, but since he is beholden to the extremists in his party, Palin was the option.

James Carville was quoted in the National Journal earlier in the week saying that the goal of the VP pick is to make your opponent's campaign manager throw up. I think if I was managing Obama's campaign, I'd have my head in the trashcan right now. A McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have been much easier to game plan against (and a bit of a snoozer). David Plouffe and the rest of the team are going to have to figure out how to attack Palin without stepping on the historical significance of the 2nd woman on a national party ticket. Others will probably try to "Ferraro-ize" her as best they can (recall that Ferraro was dogged during the 84 campaign about investigations into her husband's finances) with the brother-in-law scandal and her ties to big oil.

There is no question that there will be some appeal to a portion of swing voters. In a sense, this provides an opportunity to make history, regardless of which ticket one votes for. Palin dramatically cited the anniversary of women's suffrage in her remarks this morning. Whether or not that resonates with a significant portion of the electorate remains to be seen.

I do think this underlines the misstep that Obama made in not choosing Hillary. I like Biden fine. I like his Catholicism, his working class roots, I loved how he talked about his mom during his speech, and we got to see her reaction -great stuff. I did talk to some Hillary supporters in Denver who had profound disappointment that Hillary was not on the ticket. The vast majority will support Obama-Biden, but all of them would have been tireless fighters in the trenches for the ticket if she was on it. Many still will be, because Obama is the best choice when it comes to "women's issues" (notice the prominent mention of fighting for equal pay in his speech), but we can't deny that the selection of Palin is another crack in the glass ceiling.
I had the privilege of attending both meetings of the Women's Caucus at the DNC. I consider myself a feminist in many ways (more men should consider themselves feminists, especially husbands, brothers, and fathers). As I watched Michelle Obama give a good speech to the caucus, I could not help but feel wistful that once again, it was the spouse of the candidate who was a woman, and not the nominee. What does the selection of Sarah Palin mean to others who may feel that way? I know the Democratic Party and our allies at NOW, Planned Parenthood, and others, will deliver the message that McCain-Palin is wrong on issues like Choice and pay equity, education, etc., but we have a serious fight on our hands. (Hey, did anybody really believe it would be easy?!?!?)

The Convention Builds

The drama of the last two days has left me pretty drained. The anticipation for Hillary Clinton's speech on Tuesday night was great. The MSM was fomenting the so-called riff between we Hillary supporters and Obama backers. After Gov. Ed Rendell pointed out his "Hillary Supporter for Obama" button to me, I couldn't wait to get one myself. It's been on my lapel since Tuesday and has garnered lots of nods of approval and comments.
Hillary gave a wonderful speech. (She looked great in that orange pantsuit!) I watched it from an entranceway to the floor, alongside for a time, Annette Benning. There was a hint of sadness in my heart that Hillary wasn't the nominee, but my admiration for her grew event stronger for the way she handled herself.
Hillary has been outstanding throughout this Convention. She has been held to an impossible standard, (typically imposed on a woman) and she nailed it. I heard her speech to her delegates on Wednesday, and later in the day, her move to nominate Obama by acclamation was more than we have ever expected from a candidate who fell short of victory.
President Clinton helped to re-focus this convention on the candidacy of Barack Obama with his speech tonight, and Obama's surprise visit to the Pepsi Center was a brilliant move. I've been concerned about some of the missteps on the part of the Obama Camp during this convention. Wednesday night firmly nudged attention back to Obama and why he should be President.

I'll be getting out of town before Obama's speech at Mile High, but not because I am a disgruntled Hillary supporter. I can't get tickets, and I need to get back home to my real job as soon as possible. If I was lucky enough to attend, I would express my concern for the logistics. I keep hearing buzz from attendees about the six hour wait they face at the stadium and the challenges of transportation. I hope 70,000 people get there; they will be witnesses to history.

Day 1 in Denver for the DNC/ Some Photos from Day 2

Denver has really rolled out the red carpet for the DNC, and the city looks great! The logistics and security are a bear, but that is the world we live in today.

Said hello to Gov. Kaine of VA (we have a mutial friend). I was struck by how very different his life would be right now if he had been tapped for VP:



Also chatted briefly with the gregarious Ed Rendell, Gov. of PA. I told him he was doing a good job giving voice to those of us who supported Hillary and are loyal Democrats:





Much more to say, exhaustion setting in after a long day of travel and no sleep . . .


DAY TWO: some photo highlights

Music on the Trail

As I get ready to head out to Denver for the DNC, I am reminded of how the campaigns use music at their rallies. I'm sure we will be hearing some of these songs in Denver. This is an itunes mix of songs heard during the primaries and this summer:

How Many Mansions Does McCain Own?

Great new viral campaign!

Just the Facts, Please

A great way to keep tabs on the TRUTH during the upcoming campaign, check out Fact Check.org:

Visit Fact Check

More about the "double standard" in the Hillary-hating MSM

Editorial today from Geoff Garin, strategist for the Clinton campaign:

Fair Is Fair

By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23

What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.

The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

I keep saying that at some point we are going to make sense of the hostility the Hillary Clinton receives from the media and theorize as to its root cause. In the meantime, voters are going to have to come to terms that Barack Obama is a politician, just like Hillary. That's not a bad thing, folks. The 'game' being played (and it is a 'game' with serious real world consequences) is POLITICS. It is best conducted by those who understand how it works. And, so, the 'game' continues.

The PA Primary is finally here

To all my friends who are Obama supporters, and one obvious piece of advice to the Obama campaign:

Want Hillary out of the race? Beat her today in the Pennsylvania primary. Not a 'moral' victory, not "we closed the gap to only 5 points". Win.


All those who have been calling for Hillary to get out of the way of Obama's nomination continue to ignore the obvious. If Barack would just win PA (of if he had won OH) then it's over. Hillary would be out of the race in 48 hours.

If HIllary does win PA today, as is likely, then I think we need to acknowledge that there is a flaw in the Obama movement. I will embrace the nominee of the party when all is said and done. For now, I will continue to point out the shortcomings of the Obama campaign. Winning important states like Ohio, PA, Florida, NJ is critical for the nominee of the Democratic Party, we all know that. Utah and South Carolina will not be in the Democratic column in November.

The MSM beats the drum of Clinton's 'improbability'

Great column on the RealClearPolitics site written by Fromma Harrop about how the Media have embraced the idea that Hillary has virtually 'no chance' of winning the nomination:

The latest collapse started some days ago on what is normally a four-star destination for good journalism, PBS's "NewsHour." The news summary started off with this: "Clinton's fellow Democrat in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, today urged her to leave the race for the good of the party."

The "fellow Democrat" also happened to be one of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters, but whoops, they forget to mention that. For days even mainstream media were portraying Leahy, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and other members of the Obama team as "elders" thinking only of the party.

David Brooks and misogyny

In today's column, David Brooks spews the typical hostile rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has been facing lately. To wit: "why would she insist on pursuing her campaign now that the odds of her winning the nomination have narrowed? what an egomaniac! What a monster! She is bent on destroying the party!"

With all the attention on race in this campaign, it seems that no one is noticing the gender issues. Does anyone think that such attacks would be levied at Hillary if she were a man? Folks, it's classic. If Hillary were a man, the narrative would be about Clinton's brave effort to continue a difficult campaign, complete with lots of war/warrior terminology. I cannot recall any other primary battles where the underdog was so dismissed and disparaged.

Bad Arguments Against the Candidates, Will they influence the election?

As I was deciding which candidate would get my support in the Democratic primaries, I heard folks make this argument against Hillary Clinton:

She is divisive. People hate her. If we nominate her, the right wing will be foaming at the mouth and use the dirty tricks of the 90's, so she should not get the nomination.

More recently, I have heard Obama's supporters make similar claims. i.e. Hillary can't bring the country together because so many conservatives hate her. Barack can bring the country together. In fact, this idea of "unity under Obama" seems to be one of the most powerful arguments in his favor, after his inspirational oratory.

I think in the last few days we are seeing what the right wing is going to be doing to candidate Barack Obama. Radio personality Bill Cunningham attacked Obama as a 'Chicago Hack' and repeatedly used his middle name. Afterwards he disingenuously claimed that he meant nothing by it. Hogwash. Of course Cunningham and the others who are doing this intend to inflame racism and suspicion of Muslims, and imply that by virtue of his name, Senator Obama has some connection to "our enemies in the Islamic world." A Republican member of Congress appeared on MSNBC earlier this week, and attacked Obama's patriotism because Obama does not wear an American flag lapel pin. Host Dan Abrams immediately pointed out his hypocrisy given that the congressman himself was not wearing one. Now, McCain distanced himself from Cunningham (but, so far not from Rep. Jack Kingston), but this is not going to stop the 'haters' like Cuningham, like Rush Limbaugh from proceeding to cast these aspersions on Obama.

So, I ask you, can Obama be the messenger of Hope and bringer of unity, if these hateful right wingers are going to impugn his patriotism at every turn? They will point to the misinterpreted 'no-hand-over-his-heart' photo, gleefully display the picture of Obama wearing the garb of his father's homeland, crow about the flag lapel pin, and on and on. Even if McCain distances himself from this at every turn, it will not matter. The public will be barraged with these hateful messages and lies. How, then, can we Democrats get our positive message out and win the election? For all those who are excited about Senator Obama's message of Hope and Unity, please be prepared to have to fight a very different battle: a battle over lapel pins and patriotism. I've already found myself telling people that Obama is not a muslim (in response to the infamous email going around) and then doing my best Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with that."
We Democrats may want to wage a campaign about Hope and Unity, but I fear "the right wing freakshow" has a very different battle in mind.

I do not present this as a reason why we should not nominate Obama. I rejected this argument when I heard its corollary against my first choice candidate, Senator Clinton, and I reject it now. I do want my friends who do support Obama to be ready for the kind of campaign we are going to have. Those who chose Obama because they wanted to avoid a 'dirty' or divisive campaign need to know the politics of America in a post-Bush/Cheney world won't allow it. Prepare for battle.

Hillary Gets Key Ohio Endorsement

From this week's Akron-Beacon Journal (and Ohio.com):

For President

Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary

Published on Sunday, Feb 24, 2008

Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.

Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.

Can't we all just get along??

Paul Krugman hits the issue on the head again today in his Column:

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.

I'm sorry, but there just aren't enough significant policy differences between our two leading candidates for there to be this kind of intensity and antagonism. I am a strong supporter of Senator Clinton, but if Obama is the nominee, I will support him strongly as well. We all need to agree that we need a Democrat in the White House. I expect Obama's supporters to return the favor. To not do so reveals a selfishness and a lack of understanding of the political situation in this country. It reminds me of the catastrophic mistake made by left-leaning voters in 2000 to turn their backs on Al Gore, and look what that wrought.

We've already had Barack stating publicly that his supporters "might not support her in the fall," and Michelle Obama said in an ABC interview that she might not be able to bring herself to vote for Hillary. What is this nonsense? Could it be policy based or is it really just about personalities and pettiness. I keep hearing Bill Clinton talk about all the great choices in this primary season and how they would all make great presidents. Imagine the outburst of Clinton-hating that would occur if Bill said he may not be able to support Barack in the fall??? This brings me to another excerpt from Krugman's column about 'Clinton rules' that the Obama supporters better keep in mind, because the MSM will turn them in to 'Obama rules' soon enough if he is the nominee or President at some point:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent . . .

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

That's it for now. I'd love to write more about the sexist coverage at MSNBC, but I'll save that for another day.

Every Vote Counts!

If you think that a single vote can't make a difference (do people STILL think that after all the close elections in recent years?, take a look at this:

Dead heat: Obama and Clinton split the Syracuse vote 50-50

February 7, 2008

In the city of Syracuse, the strangest thing happened in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama received the exact same number of votes, according to unofficial Board of Election results.

Clinton: 6,001.

Obama: 6,001.

"Wow, that is odd," said Jay Biba, Clinton's Central New York campaign coordinator. "I never heard of that in my life."

The odds of Clinton and Obama tying were less than one in 1 million, said Syracuse University mathematics Professor Hyune-Ju Kim.

"It's almost impossible," said Kim, who analyzed the statewide and citywide votes.

Lisa Daly, Obama's Syracuse campaign coordinator, said she thought a mistake had been made when she was first told the tally by the Board of Elections.

What are the chances of it happening?

"Good thing it wasn't a mayor's race," quipped Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

A total of 12,346 votes were cast for Democrats in the city. Four other Democrats also received votes: John Edwards, 114; Dennis Kucinich, 113; Bill Richardson, 90; and Joe Biden, 27.

Is this going to be what we hear about for the next two months?

Interesting bit from the Sunday Telegraph of London:

As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.
Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy

She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.
And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.
As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".
According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates

Now, Hillary Clinton once served on the board of Wal-mart, where she asserts she fought for workers rights. I found the piece above of interest as an example of the kinds of opposition research, journalistic 'digging' and attacks we could be in for over the coming weeks, and certainly in a general election.

going into Super-Duper-Tuesday

Some good analysis from NCEC. Two pieces worth mentioning, the first shows how well Hillary did in Florida (despite the lack of delegates 1.7 million voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary:

More than 1.7 million Democratic voters cast ballots in Tuesday's primary, the largest presidential turnout in the state's history, exceeding the previous 1976 high by more than 400,000 votes and more than doubling the 2004 turnout and tripling the 2000 turnout. The winner, Senator Hillary Clinton, amassed more votes than did any previous Democratic contender, including two past southern presidents -- Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Read more

NCEC also reports that going into S-D-T, the race is tightening even here in NJ, where Hillary's lead is down to 6 points. Obama is in the state for a major rally today, and Chelsea is stumping for mom at a famous diner here in North Jersey.

As we approach Super Tuesday, it is extremely hazardous to formulate predictions. Here is what we do know: The national polls show an ever-tightening race. Obama has drawn close to the margin of error with Clinton . Moreover, a poll in New Jersey , released today by Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Al Quinlan, revealed that the Clinton margin is down to 6%.

We should anticipate something of a mixed verdict on Tuesday. While Senator Clinton is likely to carry New York , and is favored in California and New Jersey by diminished margins, and is also expected to carry Arkansas , Senator Obama is thought to be ahead in Alabama , Georgia , Kansas , and his home state of Illinois . A state to watch is Missouri , with a large African-American vote, and a proximity to Illinois . The winner there, in a quintessentially red state, will boost either candidate. Read more

Hey, Dems, Let's Not Snub Florida!

Ok, so I don't make much out of Obama's so called 'snub' of Hillary last night, but I am more concerned about the party snubbing Florida voters, who are turning out in large numbers today despite being told by the DNC that they will not seat FL delegates at the convention in August.
We need to win Florida and Michigan in November, and while I respect the DNC for laying down some rules and trying to control the primary calendar, we are kidding ourselves if we think we won't seat the delegates from these two swing states in Denver.
What will the media make of today's results in Florida? My guess is that they will discount it as 'irrelevant' because the delegates 'don't count'. But, here's the thing: millions of voters in Florida are voting today. Should we count their votes? (Hey, does THAT sound familiar???) The lack of delegates is a DNC procedural issue. The voters in Florida have been exposed to the media coverage of the campaign for weeks. Both the Clinton and Obama campaign have aired ads that were seen by Florida voters. The expression of the Democratic voters in Florida will be an accurate reflection of their choice for President. It counts.

Why Hillary?

I have been attempting to articulate my choice of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama for some time now. My natural inclination would be to be very attracted to Obama's message of hope and unity, but you see, I lived through the 90's. Bill Clinton's message in the '92 campaign was one of hope and unity as well (see: "I believe in a place called Hope" from the campaign and "there is nothing wrong with America that be cured by what is right with America" from the inaugural). As a young person just out of college, I was very inspired. Unfortunately, the right did everything it could to discredit a sitting Democratic President, they had no care, no USE, for bi-partisanship and unity.
Paul Krugman does a much better job of explaining this in his column today:

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

So, as I look around at the young people all around me who are excited by Obama's message, I too get excited. Without the mobilization of the youth vote, the US will never break the chokehold the right has on our country. I just remember what happened to the last guy, and I have no reason to expect anything less from the right in the years ahead.

The 'bonus' in this primary election is that we have an extremely qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton, who KNOWS the battles ahead. She's lived through them in the past and has learned from them (see her successful work in the Senate).

I hear many people say we cannot afford to fight the battles of the 90's again. I agree. That's why my choice for President is Hillary. She won't have to learn how to do the job, she is ready from day one.

Also, Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office represents CHANGE. Change from the damaging policies of the Bush administration in EVERY way, from foreign policy to domestic and economic affairs. Inaugurating our nation's first woman president will send a signal throughout the world that we have changed and America can go about restoring its place in the world.

None of this should be construed as an attack on Senator Obama, who is an inspirational figure. In fact, I very much want him to be on the scene, what could be better than a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall? His presence on the ticket would continue to mobilize and inspire young voters. Now, if we can all just get though the next few weeks of primary season without tearing each other down, we can make sure that the person sworn into office in January 2009 will be a Democrat.

Liberal. Liberal! LIBERAL!!!!

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." -- Matt Santos, The West Wing

Hillary Wins NH, Obama coming to Saint Peter's in Jersey City

Well, looks like Hillary pulled a big upset and is now "The Comeback Gal"!
I thought this blogger post on "Open Left"does some interesting delegate math.


Meanwhile Senator Obama is coming to my workplace!:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4vyz8

In New Hampshire

I'm watching the debates tonight from the Current TV storefront here in Manchester, NH. I'm up here to see the retail politics of the New Hampshire primary up close. Today, I saw Huckabee, Kucinich and Bill Clinton. I was just interviewed by Joan Walsh of Salon.com, and I 'came out' as a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I am ready to embrace her as the nominee. The right wing echo chamber is going to play dirty against our nominee, and I am convinced that Senator Clinton is our best hope to defeat them and put a progressive in the White House.
I'll write more later about my experience up here, but I could not pass up a post from this unique venue sponsored by Current TV. There are multiple TV screens here and iMacs and interested folks watching. They also have a little production booth here for citizens to video their thoughts to be posted on the current.com site. (Here's a sample one by Ms. Walsh herself).

The trip up here was neat, I took a flight from LaGuardia. Had Bill Schneider from CNN and GOP Rep. Peter King on the prop plane with me. Saw Tom Brokaw and George Stephanopolous at the gates. Downtown Manchester is chock full of campaign workers, signs, media ... it's all here.

My good friend Chuck put together this excursion, he brought his wonderful 12 yr old daughter up to New Hampshire for her first taste of politics, and she was great, asking Mitt Romney a serious question about torture at a Q&A on Friday.

Saw Gov. Huckabee at an event with Chuck Norris and his much younger wife in the morning:


After the debate, went to the Clinton 'afterparty' and got to see and hear the Clinton's up close:


and I got to chat with Chelsea and she was kind enough to pose for a photo:

What does Huckabee's win in Iowa mean?

As I predicted some time ago, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus. With his evangelical populism, Huckabee is anathema to many traditional fiscal conservatives.
A possible rise in popularity for Gov. Huckabee (lets say he has a good showing in a few more states with evangelicals like South Carolina) might signal the beginnings of collapse for the social conservative/fiscal conservative/corporate Republican coalition that has been so successful for Republicans in national elections.