Chelsea's Wedding

So Chelsea finally got married, and to get the stuff out of the way: (1) her husband is "Jewish", (2) she did not convert, and as such it was an (3) interfaith wedding (as shown in this quote from the Times: "The interfaith ceremony was conducted by Rabbi James Ponet and the Rev. William Shillady. Ms. Clinton is Methodist, and Mr. Mezvinsky is Jewish." I guess the rabbi is my old New Haven colleague Jim Ponet of Yale Hillel who is a Reform rabbi and possibly knew the President at school. The picture of the chossun shows him in his tallit, so way to go Jim for doing that, and it wasn't during the 9 days, but it was on Shabbat. Oops.

Anyway, rather than lament about the nature of intermarriage among American Jews, or some other weirdness, I would like to point out that we live in a remarkable age when in a single administration the President and Vice President (both non-Jewish natch) have children who married Jews. Cheslea to Mark Tallisdork yesterday, and Al Gore's daughter Karenna Gore Schiff (OK, the Schiffs are now separated but its (a) besides the point and (b) pretty typical for intermarried couples, especially who name their firstborn son "Wyatt".)

To make this point clear: the two most powerful men in the world, two men permanently engraved in American history, have Jewish inlaws. And you can even add that the same president had a Jewish mistress, you can see that Jews have come a long way (oy). OK, forget the mistress and concentrate on the marriages.

While intermarriage is terrible for the Jewish people, and will bring sadness and teeth gnashing to non-Orthodox Jewish continuity, to think of either Clinton & Gore's marriages as 'intermarriage' misses the point: it would have been assumed that for this to happen in a previous era, possibly up until the mid-1960s, the Jew would have been the one to convert. What an age we live in when we would even assume that the daughter of a two-term popular Baptist president would herself convert to Judaism. Let's get real, people.

Am I Worried About November?

Well, in a large abstract way, I am worried about the election in the same way I'm worried about death or Nazis. Two national elections have been awarded to a profoundly unqualified man (Bush) and a party that decided to commit themselves to strange and evil policies.

2000 was terrible but until 9/11 most of us thought that the damage would be temporary, given that we were living through peace and prosperity. 2004 was heart-rending because it was clear how bad Bush was and things were getting worse and worse. The past 4 years have been horrifying and I know my kids will ask me about them with the same hushed awe I asked my parents about 1963-1968 (assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon). And if things were teetering on the bad in 2004, the re-election of Bush in 2008 would be a full-gonzo catastrophe.

It bears repeating: all of us who warned about the horrors of a second Bush term, and were ridiculed by Goopers who claimed we were being paranoid hysterics, were proven to be correct. And I was not correct by accident - i.e. many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

Anyway, I went on this tangent to talk about the stakes of the election: just as the loss in 2004 was bad, and I knew it would be bad beforehand, I can say with confidence that McCain winning in November would mean total freakin' disaster for the U.S. of A. McCain is unfit to lead and will most likely die soon in office (based on simple actuarial prediction) leaving the country in the hands of a serial-fabricator hillbilly Evangelical.

And, as some dude pointed out, Bush managed to destroy our country from the starting point of Clinton's peace and prosperity. McCain - an uck-fup of Bushian magnitude - would be elected in the midst of two draining wars and an economy teetering on the brink.

Stop, You're Scaring Me!

I hear you cry. Yes, if McCain wins in November, we are totally screwed. But I don't expect it to happen. In fact, and you can quote me, the only way for the GOP to win in November is through fraud. I say this based on three proofs: (1) the frauds of 2000 & 2004, (2) the 2006 midterms, and (3) American history.

1. The only way the GOP won in 2000 and 2004 was through fraud.

Yeah, the Goopers amongst you will deny that 2000 was fraud, even though, based on facts, it's clear that Gore *would* have won in Florida if the votes that the voters cast were actually tabulated. If you prefer winning at all costs, and see a 'win' as proving retroactively everything done as right and correct, then the fact that the Supreme Court allowed Bush to win Florida, and thus the whole election, to be enough to say that Bush actually won.

But in the world of facts, it's important to remember than no matter what the weird rules stated, Gore won in 2000. A sports analogy, if I may. If quarterback Jack Drake throws a 95 yard touchdown pass while being tackled by a blitz of linebackers, yet the play is invalidated because the second-string slotback was barely offsides, do you credit the QB with a touchdown.

In the official game scoring, Jack Drake does not get credit for a touchdown. In the world of real life and of commerce, Jack Drake will be known as an amazing athlete who can perform under pressure and whose expertise was proven in real events. The rules of sports, while important to those who follow sports, are arbitrary and do not determine actual events.

Gore *should* have won in 2000; and for this argument it means that the country was willing to have a third Clinton term, and to elect Gore-Lieberman, even though arbitrary (and ultimately skewed rules) undermined the true events.

2004 was not as close as 2000 and for months after the election I was devastated not only because Bush was still in office, but with enough of a margin to suggest that people approved of his idiocies.

However, as the numerous scandals that were uncovered from 2006 on have shown, the Bush administration was involved in systematic voter fraud in every election since they took over the Justice department. I don't have time or space to get into great details - yet, they are easily found all over the internet - but event after event has shown that Bush administration politicized every aspect of the executive branch, skewing policy and actions to help Republicans get elected. The very core of the attorney scandal was that Bush/Gonzales were forcing the U.S. Attorneys to (a) suppress the vote of probable democratic voters (e.g. minorities), and (b) indict Democratic politicians or their staff-members close to the election date. The 8 attorneys who were fired all refused to engage in malfeasance.

Read the data, get scared, and conclude - as you should - that 2004 was won via fraud.

Now, this does not deny that the Democratic candidates of 2000 and 2004 were poor candidates. They were pusillanimous, uncharismatic, and not great leaders. But also recognize that conditions were such in 2000 and 2004 that would have made the country vote for an accept a mediocre Democrat.

Barack Obama is not a mediocre politician. He has many detriments, tis' true - he's young, black, and smart. But he also is a galvanizing speaker and a sober thinker who has raised the most money in history and did so with small donations. Which means he excites millions of people. These facts militate against the not-unfounded anxieties that Americans won't vote for a black man with a funny name. I'd have said that - and in fact did - back in 2007. Today, it's an unfounded fear.

2. The 2006 Midterms showed that the country wants change.

Even with the Justice Dept. vote-fraud, even with the Senate lineup stacked against the Democrats, we still managed to win Congress in 2006. Things were so terrible, in just 2 years, that the country threw their bums out. And, it needs to be said, it's hard to throw out congressional incumbents, and a switch-over in the Senate is not a great way to gauge public mood since only 32-33 people are up for election and not always in states that express the public mood. Even with all that, the Democrats won in 2006.

In 2008, the country is in even WORSE shape. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, the Iraq war is still hated (and our soldiers are still dying), etc. Add onto that the fact that congressional oversight of the Executive has led to mass firings in the Justice Dept. and elsewhere, making it very hard to repeat the fraud of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Without the fraud, it's very hard for the GOP to win... even in a good year. And this year is one of the worst.

3. The past 100 years have shown that it's very hard for the incumbent party to win a third term in the presidency.

Since 1900, there have been a few third terms:

1. 1896-1912: McKinley was re-elected, but his assassination makes things difficult to gauge, so we start with Teddy Roosevelt. He had two terms, and he was succeeded by Taft who only had 1. Note, Taft would have been re-elected if Roosevelt hadn't run against him in '12, so following my Gore-2000 rules above, I think the GOP should get real-world credit for winning in 1912.
   
2. 1920-1932: Harding's death led to Coolidge's ascension and his two terms was followed by Hoover's 1.
   
3. 1932-1952: FDR had four terms - the only true 'third term' proof we have - and he was succeeded by Truman who won 1 term on his own right. He would have lost in '52 if he had run.
   
4. 1952-1960: Eisenhower almost won a third term; Nixon barely lost in 1960 (and, following Gore-2000 rules, it could be that this is a third term).
   
5. 1960-1968: LBJ, despite being elected via a grief-fueled nostalgia landslide in 1964, was quite unpopular in 1968. His successor didn't get a third term (even though I could hear an argument that he would have won if Wallace wasn't a third-party spoiler, but it was a complicated year).
   
6. 1968-1976: Nixon led to Ford who lost to Jimmy Freakin' Carter.
   
7. 1980-1992: Reagan was able to secure a third term for his bland VP.
   
8. 1992-2000: Clinton won a third term, but just just barely.

What does the chart prove? That a party can win a third party only when things are going very well, and the incumbent is popular. Coolidge, FDR and Reagan are the successes that prove this rule. Even when the incumbent is pretty popular, and the country is in good shape, the party still has a hard time staying in power: Nixon in '60 and Gore in '00 show this. Even if you want to say that Nixon and Gore actually were cheated out of their deserved victory, it's also demonstrable that the elections were very very close.

The bottom line is that a party gets a third term when (1) people like the outgoing president and (2) the country is in good shape.

In 2008, Americans hate George W Bush and 80% think the country is on the wrong track. The Iraq War is killing our soldiers, breaking our military and draining our coffers. The economy is going through shocks unseen since Herbert Hoover. Just on history alone, it's nearly inconceivable that the voters will reward the incumbent party with a third term.

This is why, ultimately, I'm not so worried about 2008. Barring fraud, which will be hard to do this year, the GOP will lose.

P.S. If my enormously long-winded description above doesn't comfort you, doesn't quiet the 2004-embedded fears that the GOP is so scummy and/or the American people so stupid, that they will defy the rules of logic and history and elect Growly McSame and Jesus S. Palin, I will just say that there are three presidential debates coming up. If the polls are still depressing after the debates, then it will be time to panic.

Why Aren't They Reporting the Lies?

I mentioned below that the press will try to cover up for the McCain/Palin horrors as much as they can. How do I know this? Well, uh, because they've been doing it. Were Obama, Hillary, Gore, or Billy J Clinton to have said or done the same things McPalin has done, they would already have been laid out on a spit and roasted by the press. So why the double standards? Here's why:

1. Fox News & WSJ plus about half or more of the columnists in the major newspapers are lock-stock part of the GOP. No, they're not paid by them (as far as I know), but they identify closely with the GOP and believe that its crucial to their financial well-being and possibly the existence of civilization that the GOP remain in power. So this group of "journalists" - plus, naturally, all the known scum on the radio - will be campaigning for the GOP, attacking Obama, and covering for the GOP stooges. I suspect that based on the roster above, more than half of the voices in the major mainstream media are part of the GOP. Add onto that what I wrote about here - that the mainstream media is not liberal because of the market for news.

2. Reporters are basically cowards driven by market forces and will support anyone who's popular and attack anyone who's out of favor. People seem to really like Sarah Palin - and who doesn't want a evangelical dominatrix with a Fargo accent? - and the press won't rock that boat. Until people stop liking her.

3. Above all, the press need a horse race. The tension and conflict of politics sells news. We got the Iraq War because the press were cowards and we got a Bush re-election because the press needed to keep the election close. Even though in 2004 the Abu Ghraib story had already broke, and we hadn't found WMDs in Iraq, even with all these horrible things, the press decided that we needed a close election. Thanks.

What this means for 2008 is that even though McCain is clueless, has a temperament problem, changes his views more often than he changes shirts, appears to be very very stupid, and all in all will be a very dangerous president... were the press to point that out, there'd be a landslide for Obama and nobody would watch TV.

And even though Sarah Palin is a crazy Christian who can't tell the truth, bullies her enemies - which include those whose religion she despises - and is manifestly unqualified to be Vice President... if the press pointed all this out, they'd lose advertising dollars because of lack of interest.

As I said before, I think there's a good chance Palin/McCain will end up like Romney, but the press will do it's durndest to make sure we don't hear it from them.

Glenn McCoy - Voice of the Wingnuts

Political cartoonist Glenn McCoy not only can't draw that well (or at least he makes his figures purposefully disquieting) but he has one of the lowest common denominator minds of the idiot Right Wing. For a quick primer in what the wingnuts are thinking (or, a better term for right-wing nut: freeper), just read Glenn "W is God" McCoy.

These cartoons are from September 2007, but McCoy is as persistent as all small minds, so what holds back then, still holds for today.

Exhibit 1 (Aug 14 2007)

Exhibit 2 (Aug 8 2007)

Exhibit 3 (July 26 2007)


Exhibit 1: A standard Freeper view is that the media is unabashedly liberal. I disproved that canard here, - and it's pretty obviously a lie to anyone who pays attention - yet it's a rock solid axiom of the right wing.

Exhibit 2: Heh heh heh. Up until she actually left the race in June, the freepers believed with absolute certainty that Hillary was going to be the democratic nominee. It came from two coincident axioms: (1) The Clintons were unbeatable (proven by the fact that they hadn't been beaten) and (2) that the Democrats were so stupid, venal, evil that they would naturally choose Hillary.

Exhibit 3: Same with #2. Extra points for making Hillary look monstrous.

Summary: The key question is does Glenn - and by extension the rest of his freaky-right-winger ilk - actually believe this narrischkeit? Yeah, they're convinced, like most radicals, that the press is against them. The secret truth, that the press is on their own side, doesn't penetrate (but that's a different screed). But about Hillary? Or are they just trying to stack the deck in favor of who they think is the worse candidate, Hillary? This is what Rush Limbaugh did, with his Operation Chaos, and I at least give him credit for knowing that he's on the side of evil (same with Rove). So I guess the real question is: is Glenn in on Rush/Rove's joke?

Backpost, started 9/4/07, finished 2009-12-07.

Hillary's Martyrdom

Jason Zengerle makes a good point today in TNR: Hillary's Martyrdom Isn't All It's Cracked Up To Be:

Hillary's martyrdom differs from Bill's [Styx: post-GOP witch hunt] in one key detail: he survived impeachment; she didn't survive the Democratic primary. Heilemann makes it clear that Hillary still wants to be president, but it's really hard to see how she'll ever accomplish that. If Obama wins, she won't be able to run until 2016, when she'll be 69 and as fresh as Hubert Humphrey was in 1968. And if Obama loses, a decent segment of black and activist liberal voters will probably hold Hillary at least partly responsible for his defeat, no matter how hard (and how disingenuously) she campaigns for him this fall. And as Hillary learned in '08, you can't win a Democratic primary without those voters. In other words, Hillary's martyrdom might have made her more resonant, consequential, and potent, but I don't think it's made her more presidential.

She's damaged goods, and the damage was all self-inflicted.

Backpost finished 2009-12-03, with a fixed link.

What Hillary Wants

John Heilemann in NYMag should get credit for a great title: What Hillary Wants, and Why She’s Jesse Jackson ’88. Yet, I think he's dead wrong. Heilemann, in his predicition of Hillary behavior is based on these three ideas: (1) that Hillary is, and has been throughout the primaries, a rational actor, (2) that Hillary wants to set the stage to run in 2012, and (3) that Hillary believes that Obama is doomed in November.

The refutation of these points is simple: (1) and (3) are contradictory, and (2) follows from (3). The "rational behavior" assumption is thorny because logic is ultimately concomitant on perception. Hence there's an argument in epistomology (at least the one I employ) over whether an illogical person has a problem with logic or with perception and evaluating evidence. A person who weighs evidence in a kooky way (e.g. a person who denies there's a fire burning because a rabbi told them there wasn't, even though it's right in front of their eyes), may still come to 'logical' conclusions, despite the data being bad. Which is why I posit that (non-psychotic) insanity isn't about whether someone thinks logically, but whether they are able to perceive reality. If someone acts "insane" we often come to that conclusion because the person has acted "illogically" yet it's more likely because that person cannot perceive reality with confidence and reproducibility.

As an example, take Heilemann's idea that Hillary thinks Obama is doomed:

As I’ve written many times, Hillary believes with every fiber of her being that Obama is going to lose this year. (And so does her husband.) So her aim is to put herself in the best position possible to stand up on November 5 and say, if perhaps a tad more subtly than this, "I told you so."

Now, I've also read (can't remember where) that - contrapositive - Hillary believes that the situation in '08 is so favoriable for Democrats that whomever becomes the Democratic nominee will automatically win in November.

Since we have no quotes from her on the matter (and who'd trust 'em if we had 'em?), we need to use behavior as our guide to thought. If she believes that Obama is doomed to fail in Novemeber, what is she basing that on? As I said a few moments ago, the overwhelming evidence is that the Democrats will win no matter who the nominee is. And while ordinary educated Americans may not see this yet, political junkies (like me) and more importantly actual politicians know this to be true. All indicaters point to a slaughter. That's why it's much more plausible to say that Hillary believes that she needed to win the primary at all costs because that was the actual contest (like primaries in New Haven, where I live, the Republican candidate is a foregone loss and as such the real election is the Democratic primary).

If Heilemann wants to say Hillary is logical, then she can't belive that Obama will lose in Novemeber. So, he contradicts his premises.

Her behavior, logical or not, comports much more to a deep belief that the primary was the whole game.

However, in Heilemann's partial defense, I don't think she has been acting 'logically' but mainly because of her known personality flaws, her past behavior, and from sociological analysis of campaigns.

Anna Marie Cox, the Wonkette, put it best a few months ago (can't find the link yet, sorry) that a campaign (and especially a losing one) is so tumultuous, huge, complicating and personally-draining that what most people from the outside think are conspiracies are actually just blind chance. Sure, there are certain things that can be determined (like speeches, announcements) but these are boxing-jabs not billiard bank-shots.

I take Wonkette's point further about Obama and Hillary; both of them have been through a hell of scrutiny and stamina that has not been seen in the modern era outside of warfare. Both of them, I believe, have been reduced to their basest elements through the monthslong stress and exposure. Hillary has been revealed to be a petty and small-minded narcissit. Obama has been seen as a resiliant and cool-headed gamesman. I don't think her behavior has been rational primarily because it's unlikely than anyone who has been taking the pounding in public that she has will ever remain rational.

Her constant attacks on Obama, her tone-deaf race-baiting, her unthinking strategizing, shows a person on the brink. So no matter what she may want out of the process, I think her rationality has been burned away over the past few months and she's just operating out of her limbic system.

Anyway, Heilemann gives a Q&A for how the next few days/months play out. His answers and mine, based on the analysis:

1. Is she going to quit sometime soon or fight on to the convention? Heilemann: "my guess is that she might very well be out of the race by the end of next week. For Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in 2012, she must limit the extent to which she’s seen as having caused Obama’s (in her mind, inevitable) loss this fall. And setting off on a scorched-earth march to Denver runs in diametric opposition to that goal."

News to Heilemann, it's too late not to run a scortched earth campaign. That bridge has been burnt already. I believe she will at best 'suspend' her campaign - but keep open the fundraising to help relax the astronomical debt. Her behavior, according to my limbic - fight or flight - theory above, will be to take the next few days to let the adrenaline drain from her body. Since she believes that Obama will win, she's going to try to extort from him as much as possible to get as powerful a position she can in the next Democratic administration.

If it looks like he will fail - against the odds - then she will do to Obama what she did in Kerry in '04; just walk away. But if she thinks Obama will win, she'll use the weapons at her disposal to be a kingmaker, or at least an idispensible power broker.

That's why she's still ginning up feminist resentment; why she's claiming her people are the only true Democats, why she's stoking their desire to see her raze Denver to the ground, why she's claiming she'll march on. All of this is to keep the pressure on Obama to accede to her demands.

2. Does she want to be offered the VP slot?
Heilemann: "No, she does not. If it’s offered, she has to take it, because turning it down would be a signal to her supporters that she doesn’t support Obama (see above). And if she’s on the ticket and Obama goes down (again, as she’s convinced he will), she is then complicit in the loss, and her prospects in 2012 are damaged. Does Hillary want be the next John Edwards? The question answers itself."

Dumb. She will take the VP in a shot! It's power, baby, power. And she and her husband can engineer scandals in 2010 that could force Obama to resign. See my food-taster comment below. I don't think she'll get offered it, because Obama is a smart guy and why would he want all of Hillary's negatives and none of the positives?

3. So what’s with all the leaks that Bill wants her on the ticket? Heilemann: "He probably does. The idea of Hillary as veep must sound like a sweet deal to him: It would be history-making, it would cement the Clintons’ status as one of America’s great political dynasties, and in the second-fiddle job his wife would pose no danger of overshadowing him." On this we agree.

4. Will she work hard for Obama or undermine him in the fall?
Heilemann: "Implicit in all this analysis is that Hillary Clinton is a cold-eyed rationalist, and despite the occasional shard of evidence to the contrary, this is true. She’s aware that even as she’s become a much larger figure in the course of this race in one segment of the party, her reputation has taken a beating in another. She thinks it’s unfair, but she knows it’s the reality, and also that whether Obama wins or loses, it’s difficult to imagine a promising future for herself without repairing her standing among those who regard her poorly. I suspect there won’t be many louder Obama cheerleaders this autumn — or more insincere ones."

You see how crazy that is? If she was *rational* about a 2012 run, she would have dropped out earlier (citing the real money problems) and did what Heilemann is suggesting. However, he could be correct, that she will be a cheerleader etc, but only according to my analysis - that she'll do so only if Obama is seen to be winning and she will do so with a maximum focus on how she will deliver the women, white-males, whatever. Which means to me that Obama needs to neutralize her quick by announcing Sebelius as his VP (or whomever it is) BEFORE the convention.

5. If Obama wins, what will she do next?
Heilemann: "One rumor going around New York is that she’ll run for governor — an eventuality only marginally more likely than my pursuing that office. HRC cares not a whit about state government. She loves Washington, thinks of it as home, and of Albany as hell... No, in all likelihood, Clinton will head back to the Senate and take her place as arguably the most powerful member of that body. There are those who say the hard feelings of this race will cripple her with her colleagues. What a crock. Having campaigned in all 50 states and won millions of votes in the process, Clinton will surely be the most sought-after fund-raiser in all of Democratic politics besides the putative President Obama."

Right wrong wrong. He's right about governor; because the Senate is the sweetest job around and governor is only meant to be a stepping stone to the White House (which she doesn't need now). And like she cares about NY. Please.

He's wrong about Hillary being powerful and that there won't be hard feelings. She has burned WAY too many bridges. The polls show that she would have lost California and New Jersey had the vote taken place in April or later. And if Obama plays things right, he will construct a Democratic coalition based on pre-and-post-Clintonians (but anyone can join). Note, that's been his support so far from the Senate/House: Democrats who came onto the scene before 1992 and after 2000. The post-2000 don't owe the Clintons anything and the pre-92s have that and also resent the fact that while the Clintons built power for themselves, they didn't help the party at all (not only did we lose in the midterms under him, but we lost 2000 and they were nonexistent during the Bush administration, when we needed them the most!)

Hillary will be marginalized by the gamesman, Obama, and if she plays nice, she will be given the chance to spearhead the health-care through the Senate. If she doesn't play nice, then Obama may have enough power to silence her on purpose, echoing her silence from 2000-2006.

h/t Fallows.

Wes Clark for VP?

There was much blog-praise for this article by Matt Stoller on Open Left entitled and arguing for The Unifying Choice: Wes Clark for VP.

SPOILER ALERT
It's a good article but not as good as this one by Lawrence O’Donnell from NY Magazine; O’Donnell was a West Wing writer and he describes, in West Wing theatrical fashion, what could have happened in the convention were neither candidate were to have reached the necessary number of delegates. It's a great great read and thank God it won't come to pass.
/SPOILER ALERT

Stoller's point has been made by others, and I could be resisting the allure of Clark because a colleague of mine - whom I think is wrong on everything - was advocating Clark while I was advocating Daschle. I just don't want to be wrong to that guy.

Anyway, the reason why I he thinks Clark is necessary is (a) Clark is a full-bore Clintonite and it would heal the wounds of the primary, (b) Clark is a talented and successful wartime general and brings that foreign policy/military credibility to the ticket, (c) Clark has run for president and has that experience.

Ironically I reject Clark for those reasons and a few more: (a) any connection to the Clintons should be seen as poison right now. The only way the Clintons will be mollified is if Obama were killed by a scandal (or, who knows, a bullet). Even having her as VP won't calm them down (and, as someone wrote, if he does pick her as VP he also better hire a food-taster).

(b) Obama actually has all the foreign policy credibility he desires right now - he opposed the Iraq War, McCain loves that war, and the Americans hate the war. All Obama needs for credibility is to have surrogates (Webb, Nunn etc) do the military talking to rebut McCain. Moreover, as many have pointed out, to admit you need a military man on the ticket is to admit you aren't military enough. Look at Bill Clinton in '92 - he had far less foreign policy experience than Obama (he was a governor of a land-locked state and a draft-dodger) and he picked a virtual clone as his VP (who, admittedly, had been in the Senate for 8 years).

(c) Clark's presidential run was a joke. And he has never won an election! OK, he won the 2004 Oklahoma primary, whatever. Stoller argues that since '04, Clark has a highly requested speaker: "In 2006, Jon Soltz of Votevets tells me, Clark was the single most requested surrogate in the country, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton." Whatever. While I think he is an impressive person (four star general, Rhodes scholar, military Democrat) I don't think he's been nearly tested enough in politics. Make him Secretary of Defense, or NSA, let him be a politician for a while.

I still back the idea of Sebelius.

The Jacket Can Come Off

Obama has (putatively) won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in what may be the biggest upset in (modern) American political history. Now the jacket comes off. Two jackets, really. The first jacket is doffed when gentlemen prepare for fisticuffs. Or a duel. Of all Republicans, McCain is a gentleman, and we know over and over that Obama is, so this battle of two men of honor will be as bloody as a hillside duel, but it portends to be on a higher level than other contests in the past.

The other jacket is a straight-jacket that Obama has had to wear since Hillary announced her intention to run for president. Bill Clinton was enormously popular in America and even moreso in the Democratic party, where he was the Democrat to leave office as popular and powerful (contrast to Carter, LBJ, Truman; this point was first made by Marshall). And the Clinton's fought dirty.

Obama was straight-jacketed, hamstrung, shackled by having his opponents be the most popular Democrats in a generation. And Hillary compounded the trouble by invoking female-disempowerment at every slight. Her "unconcession" speech last night - a disgusting display of narcissism, hubris, and neurosis - contained an especially galling line in this vein. I was fortunate to hear the line uttered live (we get only one TV news channel, it was showing her speech, and I could only listen to her for a minute or two at a time), transcribed passage from here:

You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? ... I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.

What's galling about the 'invisible' line is that it is red-meat to angry feminists who have cried 'sexism' at every criticism of Holy St. Hillary.

I won't refute the 'invisible' remark because it is beneath contempt; I bring it up to show the lines of the straight-jacket that has now been removed. Other bindings that have been loosed: now every single Democrat can, with full voice, support Obama. Many have been silenced because (a) they don't want to unleash the Clinton fury or worse (b) the fury of Clinton voters. So Reid, Pelosi, Webb, Emmanuel, Salazar, Gore - all big names with set constituencies who have had to remain 'neutral' can now plaster the walls of America with pro-Democratic, pro-Obama words and ideas.

As a number of smart commentators have noted, until last night McCain was at the highest point he could be and Obama the lowest. McCain enjoyed a unified GOP and comparitively little press scrutiny while Obama had a deeply divided party and attacks coming from three sides (GOP, Clinton Democrats, the Press) with only 1/4 of a defense (his part of the party). No longer.

McCain and Obama may be in a dead-heat today, but now that Obama is unrestrained? It's going to be a slaughter.

As an anonymous blogger from the Economist online (UK) wrote last night, comparing the speeches of all three candidates:

At the risk of bolstering the reporters-mooning-at-Obama stereotype, if this evening's speeches were a video game, a wrinkled wizard would be hollering "Finish Him!" to Barack Obama while a dizzied John McCain wobbled. And Hillary Clinton would be frenetically mashing the buttons on an unplugged controller.

The biggest proof that Obama will destroy McCain comes from simple structure. The same structure that elected Harding in 1920 and Carter in 1976: that when the populace has had enough of the status-quo, they will elect the other party.

The only person, truly, who could have screwed that up this year was Hillary. Because she's so divisive, so hated, and quite frankly such a bad campaigner, that it would have been possible for the Democrats to have lost. It would have been a repeat of '04, when an unpopular incumbent was ALMOST unseated by a deeply flawed, lackluster candidate. And while I'm no fan of Kerry, he didn't prompt the deep visceral hatred that Hillary can and does. We just dodged the bullet.

Ah, but I hear you cry, what about Obama's weaknesses? The ones that are skin-deep, if you catch my drift. Well, 16 months ago, I thought the strongest ticket for the fall was Edwards-Obama, and I claimed that I didn't think America would vote for an inexperienced Black man with Hussein for a middle name. But, uh, he won. He won over whites, blacks, hispanics, in all the states.

Yeah, but he lost Ohio and Pennsylvania! Yes, and no. As I said earlier, he lost *closed primaries* in those states. A closed primary has no bearing on the fall general election. All a closed-primary proves is that he's not as popular to Democrats. And while, intuitively, that may bother people (how can a guy win when his party doesn't like him as much as another), it also repudiates the biggest weakness of the primary process which is that it rewards the extremists of each party, which give a rather poor general election contender.

More open primaries may have spared us from Dukakis and Kerry. And if PA/OH were open, I would wager that Obama would have won them handily, like he did in Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota (all open).

Obama is a very strong candidate, which is how he beat the Clintons. Let that settle into your skin for a moment: he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton. Nobody beat the Clintons since 1980! And Obama is inspiring, a historic orator, a gifted thinker, a talented writer, and damn near perfect campaigner. He has also just campaigned in all 50 states - something not done in any previous primary - which means he has already run a general election campaign once. From now til November, it's just picking up the lost sheaves.

And the structural reason why Obama/Democrats will win? The Iraq War is enough. And McCain, god love him, has decided to embrace the Iraq War as his running mate. It's the one thing which may be more unpopular than Bush, and McCain's embracing it?! And he embraces Bush, too. Why else would McCain reject the improved GI Bill? In an election year, the Republican nominee rejects a veteran-friendly piece of pork, a rejection not shared by his party but only by the incumbant president who enjoys the lowest approval rating since Andrew Johnson.

And you think McCain can win? Running on a platform of "I like the Iraq War and Bush's treatment of the country!" The only way Obama can lose now is if there's a crippling scandal. Could happen, sure. But I don't play lotto, and I don't bet on long-shots when the stakes are this high.

The twin jackets are now off. It's a great day for America.

The Sad Tale of Wilentz

In the last post I described the core constituency of Hillary as basically women, old people, dumb people and racists. So where do Professor Sean Wilentz, and his fuzzy alter-ego Paul Krugman, fit in? Both are not women, dumb, or racist. Why do they hate Obama, and like Hillary, so much.

Part of the answer comes from analyzing their screeds. For Wilentz (who, I should add, was my professor in college and knows me personally, even if won't remember my name correctly), see this piece of guano in the New Republic:
"Making the Case... for Hillary Clinton" and for Krugman, just read any column over the past 4 months.

What both have in common is the small group of the Democratic elite who support Hillary:

1. Baby-boomers (who are the "old" category of the previous post)
   
2. and/or fierce liberals who hate the GOP so much that they want to keep fighting the fractious red-blue wars of the 90s (and the 60s, go figure).
   
3. and/or pundits who endorsed Hillary too early - before Obama showed himself the real deal - and are now trapped in either cognitive dissonance or, worse, Pundits Dissonance (the malady that afflicts moron commentators, disallowing them from admitting error).

Wilentz and Krugman are in all three of these groups.

Baby-Boomers Against the Youngin': These hypocrites were inspired by JFK as teenagers, flocked to an inexperienced hillbilly when he was in their age group, but now that the candidate is younger than they are - like the narcissitic nihilists they have been since the banana-peel smoking 60s - they can't handle it. Punk bastards. I'll be glad when they are shoved aside, because the next president will either be the anti-baby boomer Obama (say that 5 times fast) or the stodgy crew-cutted square that the hippie boomers rejected back in the day (McCain).

Liberal Fighters: Nothing quite so sad as a victim turned bully. Especially when they don't know how to bully well. Wilentz and Krugman don't want the culture war to end. They hate Bush and the GOP so much - for what happened to Bill and Hill in the 90s and for what Bush has done since then - and heck, maybe allaway back to Nixon - that they want to keep the fight going. The logic - and Wilentz/Krugman say this explicitly - is that the GOP needs crushing and Obama is a weenie and Hillary is a fighter.

Let's take this apart, because all three premises are wrong. First, we see what a great fighter Hillary has been (even when this was first proposed, back in 1-15, and its crystal clear now): she's awful. A shrill maladriot. She can't convince a drowning man to drink and she can't beat Obama - a political newcomer with a funny name, handicapped skin, and who refuses to fight back! Hillary is as good a fighter as Kerry/Dukakis/Gore. That is, she sucks.

But the real false premise combines the misdiagnosis of Obama and the nature of our battle with the GOP. Assume for a moment that the GOP needs to be punished for the horrific misdeeds of the past 15 years (the Clinton-Bush terms). What's the best way to do that? There's the shrill victim way - that of Hillary/Wilentz/Krugman - which is just fantasy. The victim getting the upper hand on the bully... doesn't happen in the schoolyard, and it certainly doesn't happen in the boardroom. Power is power and doesn't switch hands unless the bully is in a coma.

Which brings us to the weenie charge. Only true weenies - like Hillary/Krugman/Wilentz, and their mentors in weenie-dom: George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Rush Limbaugh - think that direct conflict is the way to win a war. Obama's skill is that of great politicians (think FDR or LBJ): diplomacy. To quote LBJ: "Remember the prophet Isaiah: Come let us reason together. Telling a man to go to hell and making him go there are two different things." A diplomat will defeat a bully unless he's outnumberd 5:1.

Obama has the true political skill that converts enemies into allies and to get his agenda - which is delightfully left-wing - passed. Bullies and other weaklings want wars because they like the glory of battle (specifcally the glory of winning). Obama, following the principles of Master Sun Tzu, will win. And if Wilentz/Krugman were real culture warriors they would flock to Obama because of that. But they're blinded, or bullies, and can't escape their prisons of thought.

Pundit Dissonance - Just as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge became towering figures because they were the populist opposition to Pres. Clinton, so academics like Wilentz and Krugman were the necessary opposition to Bush. Especially when the mainstream press rolled over and played dead during these years, these pundits were must-reads, providing information and courage during the dark times. These smart guys became talking-heads, and they lost their academic skills and fell into a papist 'just so' trap, where they considered that their words were incontrovertable truth (note: this is also known as the Charedi Rosh Yeshiva With Only a High School Education trap).

But times have changed since Krugman had been elevated into infallibility. From 2000-2006 his indispensibility was valid and unquestioned. But then came the realigning midterms of 2006, the explosion of trusted blogger journalism, and Youtube. The Democrats now have the GOP in a fair(ish) fight, the news and reality are getting out there. Krugman is not indispensible, and he seems to have let the revolution pass him by.

One proof of Wilentz/Krugman's failure is to assume that Hillary is experienced, and/or liberal, and/or a fighter, or whatever new guano comes out of her self-inflicted wounded bunker. Her claims are demonstrably false. Any intelligent person can see that. Wilentz/Krugman won't. They are infallible! They cannot be wrong. It is we mush-headed youngsters who are being snowed over by a talented black man! Whatever.

The mystery fourth category

Even were my above analysis to be wrong (and it isn't because I am now a pundit), I have discovered, through this painful primary, a mystery fourth category that Wilentz/Krugman - and many other wrinkly Democrats who support Hillary - are in: they are McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry Democrats (MMDKD). I'll explain that later.

Backpost: 1/15/08, 1:48 PM. All I had was the link. I'm adding the context and commentary now. Pic from here of Wilentz in 1994, 2 years after I had him in class.

Secret Service Code Names

Marc Ambinder (Atlantic's "expert" politics blogger) reports (on February 12, 2008) that McCain doesn't have secret service protection yet [note: yesterday, he agreed to it]. He didn't have it because he's super macho. And, evidently, stupid.

Anyway, Ambiner asks what McCain's nickname would be. To illustrate that, he lists the current & former nicknames: of this list of notables: "To the Secret Service (technically to the WHCA), President Bush is Trailblazer, Laura Bush is Tempo, HRC is Evergreen, Bill Clinton is Eagle, Dick Cheney is Angler, and Barack Obama is Renegade."

Renegade for BHO?! That's so cool. OK, two questions:

1. Marc's: what to call McCain.
   
2. My question: What would you like for yourself?

To answer #1 many commenters suggested 'maverick' (which makes sense both for his persona and for the movie Top Gun.) And I'd put money on that. If not that, maybe "Goldwater" or "Dole" after his two doomed predecessors.

For me? I'd suggest "Styx," "Rabbi" (which was also the nickname of one of the top-gun fliers, Lt. Ben Schneider), "Chumbucket", "Wideload", "Jabba", or "Rover."

Backpost finished 4-8-08. Had link and some commentary.

Toni Morrison Endorses Obama

Toni Morrison's endorsement is very important because she's the one who coined the phrase/concept that Bill Clinton was the "first black president" (which I bristled at when i first heard it but its been repeated often by the black community)

I read the original article (which I can find somewhere). her point was that Bill Clinton was being hounded and persecuted for no reason - something that black men and women understand. Note, Jews understand that too. But anyway. I remember hearing Chris Rock in the late 90s talking about and defending Clinton. It's one reason why they feel so angry now - that the Black community stood by Bill during the impeachment (because they thought it was a lynching) and now that there's a viable black candidate, they want him to stand aside.

However, what the black community has always been angry about is that the white do-gooders are doing things selfishly and not for altruism. Altruism would be to stand aside and let Obama take the nomination. In that sense, I think the Kennedys are being altruistic here - they want Obama to be president because of his talent, yes, but also because he's black.

Ironically, the Clinton-Kennedy split occurring right before our eyes is a sign of which direction the history of the party will take.

Back in 1960, the decision was between FDR vs. Truman. JFK wanted the mantle of FDR while Truman himself argued in favor of Estes Kefauer.

In 1992, Clinton wanted the mantle of Kennedy; but as I said yesterday, Clinton was basically Reagan-lite (and, note, I don't mind that!). But Obama is a liberal, and he'll be an effective liberal.

Obama's liberalism is seen by his work in the Illinois legislature. Against great opposition he managed to get bipartisan agreement for many things - some examples from the Washpost:

"he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable."

Here's the Times description of the endorsement with Morrison's key statement:

In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which, coupled with brilliance, equals wisdom.

I totally agree.

{2009 Update, added some missing lines from the original email source and the picture, from here.}

Are the Clintons Hurting the Party?

The body of a letter I sent to the TPM over the recent debate about the behavior of Bill & Hillary Clinton:

Sorry I'm late to the party over the comments of AK, RA, and whether or not the Clinton attacks are hurting the Democratic party. I agree with AK that the Clintons are hurting the party. Moreover, my republican relatives are now gloating over how Democrats are waking up to what they hated about the Clintons in the 90s (or so they say). Back in the 90s, I defended the Clintons because they were fighting for Democrats. Now, Bill and Hill are savaging Obama (Muslim smears, drug smears, bald-faced lying about his record) and that hurts a rising superstar.

One thing that needs to be emphasized, especially in response to RA's contention that the GOP will fight dirty so the Democrats will have to fight dirty. Besides the blatant immorality, it's not really true. The reason why McCain is popular even among Democrats is because he seems to have a smidgen of truth-telling and honor. Yeah, it may be false, but that's how he comes across. So does Obama. However Romney and Hillary appear to be pandering liars - and that's why they have very high negatives.

Another reason why Obama vs. Hillary is different from Obama vs. GOP - there is no greater uphill battle for any Democrat than to go against Bill Clinton. The only president in recent years who comes close to the ardor the rank and file Democrat feels towards a president would be to JFK (and, of course, to FDR). Obama has to fight against a very popular figure to the people who form the base support! The fact that Obama is doing so well - and he is, when you look at the increasing rising poll numbers, the close elections in states that Hillary was carrying by two-digits only weeks before - is testament to how strong a candidate Obama is. If he can keep winning against these insane odds, than he can beat a GOPer.

And let's look at the converse. Obama can't attack the Clintons because Democrats love 'em. But Republicans hate Bill and Hill. The attacks against Hillary in the general election won't be under-the-radar swift-boating... it will be over the top, full throated attacks 24-7 for months and months. It will be the impeachment battle level rancor and slime without the protection of the Presidency.

The idea that Hillary is better suited to fight against the GOP is false. Especially, as we see, she falls apart into quick-response madness, self-inflicted wounds, and unforced errors against Obama. She'll get destroyed destroyed destroyed when against McCain and/or Romney. Ugh.

Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

Kerry & Clinton

The body of a letter I just wrote to Sullivan, re: Kerry's backing of Obama:

Despite being a life-long Democrat, I also shudder at Kerry's endorsement. However, it is the first step in balancing off the damaging bias of Bill Clinton. If Bill had decided to be above-the-fray then I would consider him the leader of the party, but he has decided to forgo that honor. So there are 3 people who can credibly be called the leaders of the party in descending (basically chronological) order: 1. Nancy Pelosi, 2. John Kerry, 3. Al Gore.

Pelosi is the current party head, the second in line to the Presidency (and for some reason the milestone of her female-ness hasn't been mentioned too much by the rah-rah Hillary crowd... could be because Pelosi wasn't married to a former speaker of the house?). The link to MSNBC you gave suggests that Pelosi won't endorse, but we'll see.

After her is Kerry, who, whether I like it or not, was my party's nominee four years ago. That means something. And even though the Republicans managed to create a cult of hatred around him, he's an innocuous politician with a lot of experience (who would have been a decent running mate for Obama had he not run in '04).

After that comes Gore, who you also indicate may be above it all.

But in any case, all three lead my party. Bill has decided to abdicate his leadership in favor of his wife - which I can understand as a husband - but he won't regain the title unless he does penance (e.g. campaigning STRONGLY for Obama or Edwards should they be the nominee). Bill won't do that, but hey, I need to be fair to the rules (I just made up).

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-13.

Hillary Steinem Clinton

I should talk about Gloria Steinem's disgraceful column in yesterday's Times. If she still retains the role of standard-bearer of feminism, then I am hopeful that my generation may very soon take over from hers.

Just as Obama's successes show that my generation can lead the way to put old racist bromides to bed, so Hillary & Steinem show that old-guard feminism should similarly be made obsolete.

To back a candidate JUST because of their identity - whether its backing the Jew, backing the Black, backing a Mormon - or to the opposite (voting against a candidate on the identity alone) - is stupid. People do it, but it's stupid. Yet, despite her protestations to the contrary, that's what Steinem is effectively asking people to do and what Hillary will request if she thinks it will get her more votes.

Steinem claims a woman with Obama's skill and background would never be considered a candidate. Oh really? You mean a stunningly beautiful woman who is a mesmerizing public speaker with a proven record of legislative success by uniting both parties, wouldn't be a candidate for president? Steinem is blinded by sex.

And, of course, if Hillary wasn't married to a former president, would she be a senator and presidential contender? Well, if you're like Steinem, you think that being married to power is the only way a woman ever gets power (just as old closeted gay men like Larry Craig think that sex is only possible in men's' rooms). But, Steinem should be happy that the younger generation wants women who succeed on their own merits, not from the dude they marry.

Then this stinker from Steinem:

Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

Steinem argues that women are more oppressed than African Americans. Oh really?

The slave trade? Lynchings? Fire hoses? Did I say lynchings?

I haven't mentioned much about why I think Obama's win as an African-American, would be incredibly important for America, because - as I mentioned above - it's stupid to use identity to vote. However, for the sake of rebutting Steinem, I will go there. America needs, some day soon, to get over our racist past. Racism is a defining sin of America. We fought the establishment of the Constitution over it, fought the civil war over it, and continued the fight a century later with the civil rights battles (which Hillary denigrates, by the way).

Steinem and Hillary's playing of the gender card will work for soft-hearted Democrats, but it will not work in the general. Does either woman care? Probably not. Let's put these geezers back on the shelf, up their meds, and wave bye-bye.

More Ammo: People Who Agree With Me

Here's a great rebuttal by Tim Noah of Slate. And another by, I shudder to link to it, the batty Maureen Dowd. I hate to agree with her, but she hates Hillary more than I do, and she repeats many of my arguments, so she's gotta be right, no?

Postscript about the Polls

Note, I don't blame the polls. They were accurate to describe Obama's support, they were 'wrong' about Hillary but only in that the polls were taken a day or two the major "Help Me Women" things occurred.

Also, it's important to remember that New Hampshire voters are ornery about preserving their 'first in the nation status.' They were made irrelevant in 2004 when Iowa was able to coronate Kerry, I totally believe that New Hampshirerers felt that they wanted to be contrary and keep Hillary alive... just to show us they are the 'first in the nation.' Thanks guys.

And Hillary's tactics were desperate for a reason - she had just a short amount of time to convince her base to save her. And they were all calculated tricks. As I said yesterday if they weren't calculated then she's unfit for office.

Still not convinced that the crying wasn't a trick. How about, what I'm just hearing about now, that there were two hecklers at a rally on Monday who called out to her "Iron my shirts!"

Look, I hate her, but I would never think about saying that to her. Democrats are generally not presumed to be sexist... so that is a very strange thing to say to her. It's not why people hate her. It's what Hillary and the odious Mark Penn want to make people say so they can design her as a victim. How much to want to bet that those hecklers were plants? It's not like she doesn't plant questions...

Postscript about Bill Clinton

I liked him as president. I stood by him when we was mercilessly attacked by Newt Gingrich and his Gang of Hypocritical Adulterers. But his attacks against Obama hurt the party and show him to be a slimeball buffoon. Shame on him.

Weepin' Lizards

Below is a clip of the Weepy Hillary moment. The analysis, after seeing the breakdown, is a catch-22. Either:

1. the tears are manufactured - and there's ample evidence that they are - and that shows she's packaged to a dangerously fake level (and the packaging is strategically miscalculated)
   
2. or the tears are real and that means she doesn't have the grit, guts, strength, or will to be President of the United States.

Her packaged nature is a symbol of why people hate her and especially why the press hates her. As detailed yesterday in the TNR answering why the press likes McCain (and Obama): the press like candidates who give them access.

It's not as simple as just tit-for-tat, though. Accessible candidates are honest candidates because - whether I like it or not - and I hate it - the press are MY representatives. Politicians who give reporters access show they know their responsibility to inform and their 'public-servant' role in our Democracy. Obama, McCain - and Bill Clinton we should remember - were very accessible and as a result the press loved them.

Oh, you say, didn't the press hate Clinton? Sure they did: Hillary. Not Bill. Bill shot the bull with reporters till the wee hours of the morn but Hillary would maintain the bunker-mentality, shoot on sight, 'they're all bastards' attitude that quickly turned the press into her (and by association, her husband's) enemy. And it's a terrible bind for a politician, but given the continuum of choices between access and lockdown, the press rewards access and I appreciate that... because I demand that information and candor.

Hence, Hillary's packaging. She's trying to control the media, and the perception of her, and just like her GOP clone (Romney), the press hates it and tells everyone who will listen just how bad, phony, and unacceptable that is. And I agree. Bush was packaged, Nixon was packaged, for a reason: they were evil freakin' liars who wanted to hurt as many people as possible while helping their small group of supporters. Hillary will be the same.

Her tears? I assume they're not real. It's a ploy to make us sympathetic, to gin up her base (proof: her weepin' was in front of a specially chosen group of FEMALE supporters). To show she really has great ideas for our republic and its such a (crying) shame that people are stopping her.

More proof? Note how, during her weepin', she stays to her talking points of how she's experienced and everyone else will doom our country because they won't be ready on day one.

EXCUSE ME? If she is disciplined enough to stay on message then she's disciplined enough not to cry. And this is not even taking to account, as I've said repeatedly, that the assertions are WRONG. She's weeping because bad men are stopping her from applying her experience and talent? Well, stop crying honey, you have no experience and talent, so all is well! In fact, once we're in the realm of reality, she should be reassured that by stopping her, we're actually helping everyone on earth from the two possible disasters of either Hillary as next president or the GOP. See, don't you feel better now?

And, again, if she's REALLY crying as some meatheads want to assert, then that's even better. She needs to drop out immediately because it's a tough world out there and there's no room for crying just because you lost a freakin' caucus. Grow up.

Glenn Greenwald Has a Good Point

Glenn Greenwald is not my favorite political commentator (a little too knee-jerk lefty, especially about Israel), but he's a meticulous reporter and hard to argue against when he marshals his facts. In a recent column, he brings up a good point about how the grudging respect the Right Wing has for Obama will quickly turn sour. Yeah, we've all been predicting it, but he brings a good proof (and something I've marvelled at as well): "Hatred is their [the Right Wing Crazies] fuel. Just look at the bottomless personal animus they managed to generate over an anemic, mundane, inoffensive figure like John Kerry. At their Convention, they waved signs with band-aids mocking his purple hearts while cheering on two combat-avoiders."

I dislike Kerry because he's everything I don't like about machine Democrats. But, the GOP whipped the country into a Kerry-bash frenzy that extended even until the '06 election (cf. "the botched joke").

Note, that I don't think the Kerry-Gore hatred that the GOP created will work against Obama in the same way, just as it failed against Bill Clinton. The two men are natural politicians and charismatic as can possibly be. But it does mean that the same hatred that worked to almost impeached Clinton will be the same hatred brought against Obama.

Except for one BIIIIG difference: the GOP used the hatred to take over Congress and that caused the impeachment. It would take multiple miracles for the GOP to regain the House in the next 2 election cycles.

Hence why I'm not worried about the 'swift-boating' vs. Obama. The man has charisma which equals to Teflon. And the GOP is out of Congress, so all they can do is fan the race-bating flames. And I just don't know how well that flies in 2008.

We're in a different world. The mainstreaming of black actors, black sports figures, and especially black music has made them less marginal figures than ever before. And since the GOP has been trying to attack the immigrants (read: Mexicans) for the past four years, that's made the black question more off the table.

And, it very well may be that the bald-faced tokenism of Condi Rice has also inured many of the younger voters as well.

The First Black President

The Obama-Clinton battle is heating up and the Clinton's allies seem to be leading the Rovian-counterintuition-assault against Obama's 'blackness.' Andrew Young, UN Secretary under HGM Carter, claimed that Bill Clinton has more 'black' cred than Obama(from NPR):

Mr. YOUNG: Bill is every bit as black as Barack.
(Soundbite of applause)
Mr. YOUNG: He's probably gone with more black women than Barack.
(Soundbite of laughter)

Now besides the fact that this is disgusting (especially about the women... do you really want to bring that up, ugh), it is also crazy as hell that the Clintons and their allies want to abuse their popularity in the black community this way. Please, Bill, don't do this. You were called 'black' because you were attacked with blind hatred - i.e. bigotry. And the black community understood bigotry. But don't confuse your 'honorary' status with the real thing.

Backpost finished 2009-11-29. Pic from here.

I Finally Figured Out What Hillary's Experience Is

It's not in leadership - of which she has none - but experience in CAMPAIGNing.

That's the lesson from the recent dustup. She's blaming Obama for being inexperienced, even though he's been in elected office longer than she has. It's a code not only for "my husband" but also "I can campaign better than anybody." And, note, by campaign I mean "sling mud and stomp on the faces and necks of voters til they barf all the way to the voting booth."

A lot of the verve for this desire in Democrats to have an "experienced" campaigner is to defend against the Swift Boat attacks that supposedly felled Kerry. Except why are we ignoring the fact that Kerry was a HORRIBLE candidate?!

More stories about the above (Ambinder, Digby).

Fear of a Female President?

Yet another column from the New Republic by Michelle Cottle, about how people just don't like Hillary because it's ingrained in the American psyche to assume that any high-ranking woman is automatically a Bit-h (or is it b-tch? or bi-ch?). Anyway, because we think powerful women are mean and unfeminine, Hillary is seen that way. And, using a hidden syllogism technique unknown to Socrates, that's why Hillary is unliked.

So, by the numbers:

1. I hated Hillary when she was Bill's wife. First ladies have no power.
   


2. I don't hate all first ladies. Yeah, I didn't like Nancy, but I am indifferent to Barabara & Laura Bush.
   


3. I have no problem with these women who are (currently) in power: Barbara Boxer, or Dianne Feinstein, or Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Mikulski, or Amy Klobuchar, or Blanche Lincoln, or Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins, or Claire McCaskill, and Nancy Pelosi.
   
   These are the current Senators from California (2), North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Arkansas, Maine (2), Missouri and the Speaker of the House. I am bipartisan in my 'no-problem-ness' (except that I have an instinctive dislike for Kay Bailey Hutchison but just because she's a Texan and a Republican... I can only be so charitable).
   

Note, that Nancy Pelosi is the freakin' Speaker of the House. And I'm happy and proud that she's a decent, talented, Democrat. The only reason I may think she's unpleasant is that (a) she's from San Francisco and is probably more liberal than I could stand, and (b) her facial features seem pinched in public. But I have no negative feelings towards her and she's seriously in power.

I have no problem with Elizabeth Dole, even. Maybe because she's Southern and they've always been good at softening a politician's image.

But I hate Hillary!

I have hated her ever since the first Clinton term because she was a king-hell gonzo biyatch back then. She caused every single self-inflicted wound his administration: specifically the way she would attack the press, or anybody who she felt disagreed with her. Bill doesn't do that; he's truly a lover not a fighter. If Bill were married to any woman on earth, he would have been president because he is immensely talented. Hillary would never be near the Senate or now the White House if she hadn't married the big-horndog-teddy bear Bill.

So, sorry, Michelle and your brain-dead "pundit" ilk. Hillary is considered a b-tch by me and most of Creation not because she's a "powerful woman" but because she is a mean, nasty, woman.

{2009 Update: Weird Bill-Hillary mashup pic from here.}

Merle Haggard Helps My Point

I said below that the main thing going for Hillary is nostalgia - and actual fondness - for Bill Clinton. And that is it. People will vote for her because many people would have voted for a third term of Bill and now they get that chance.

In a recent Time magazine interview with Joe Klein, Merle "The Fifth Duke of Hazzard" Haggard endorses Hillary. Why? Well in his words:

[Haggard is] not shy about saying that one of the biggest things Hillary has going for her is Bill,..."He cared about this country, about our problems," Haggard said, with a twinkle. "And I figure that whatever she doesn't know, he does."