I think Hillary Clinton is absolutely right to suggest that she’s been criticized in the press more than any other candidate, but the way I see it, her fame is a two-edged sword. While she gets held to a different standard due to her fame, she wouldn’t be where she is now if it weren’t for her name recognition and the fact that she inherited her husband’s political machine. Just as it’s puzzling that she somehow deserves credit for all the good things that happened during the 90’s but none of the bad, if she’s willing to capitalize on the unique advantages of her position as the inheritor of the legacy of the previous president (and all the political and fundraising power that comes along with it), she should have been prepared to deal with the unique challenges that come along with that as well.

For a candidate who constantly touts herself for being “prepared” to be president, Clinton’s lack of preparation in dealing with an antagonistic media doesn’t bode well for her prospects in a general election (much less her ability to govern). A smart campaign would take media bias as a given and come up with a plan to mitigate these negatives, yet this week, Hillary has settled on the strategy of whining about the press being mean to her, seemingly blind to the fact that this is an industry full of yellow journalists who have spent the past fifteen years printing and broadcasting some truly shameful muck. Was the Clinton campaign really naive enough to think they’d be any different this year?

With hindsight being 20/20, it seems to me that the Clinton campaign’s strategy should have been to treat their candidate like an underdog all along, highlighting every trivial item written about Hillary and using her quasi-bully pulpit to use these examples as “proof” that the media it out to get her. Instead, they spent most of the past year insisting on Hillary’s “inevitability” and reveling in the press’s willingness to help them write the storyline. Yet for all their media savvy in using early polling and press laziness to declare the nomination over before it began, they seem to have made the mistake of believing their own bullshit and got caught off-guard when the pendulum of press opinion predictably swung back and hit them in the ass. Once again, this doesn’t really do much to convince me that she’d be a good general election candidate or that she’d be “ready on day one” to deal with an hostile press.

Thankfully, a Clinton candidacy is something we won’t need to worry about for much longer.

At tonight’s debate, Tim Russert engaged in one of the most vile and reprehensible lines of questioning I’ve ever seen in a debate. It started with a question to Obama about an endorsement he received from Louis Farrakhan, which Obama rejected and followed with a reminder that he has consistently denounced Farrakhan for his anti-semitic hate speech. Rather than drop the issue there, Russert had a followup “question” which was little more than an excuse to quote some of Farrakhan’s more infamous remarks and mention that the minister at Obama’s church is friends with Farrakhan. So despite the fact that Obama repeatedly denounced Farrakhan without even being prompted to do so, the goal of Russert’s little game of “Six Degrees of Barack Obama” seems to be to give voters the impression that Barack Obama hates Jews.

If using the word “pimped” is enough to get you suspended at MSNBC, Tim Russert’s shameful attempt to link Obama to anti-semitism should be grounds for dismissal.

Why should any Democrat waste their time chasing the Evangelical vote when their shrinking ranks weren’t even powerful enough to help Mike Huckabee the Republican nomination? It seems to me that the downsides (pissing off your base, looking like a shameless panderer to independents) outweigh the upsides by far.

Every time Lou Dobbs says the word “aliens”, America gets one step closer to Hell. Except if he’s referring to extra-terrestrials, which would be awesome.

Please tell me I’m not the only one who saw this :

…and was thinking of this :



“Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate”

Since the race is all but decided on both the Democratic and Republican sides, here’s a few random things that have been going through my mind :

- It’s funny how quickly conservatives are so quick to jump on Michelle Obama for a relatively innocuous statement. If the right-wing really wants to drag the candidates’ wives into the mud-slinging, let’s start a conversation about how John McCain’s wife is a former drug-addict who was investigated by the DEA for stealing drugs from a non-profit organization. Do they really want to go there?

- This business about Obama’s “pledge” to opt for public matching funds is silly. If he opts out, it’ll be a story for 2-3 days and then die. If he opts-in, he kneecaps himself for the general election at a time when he’s sure to raise millions of dollars more than McCain. What Obama needs to do is publicly criticize McCain’s smarmy plan to use public funds to bail out his campaign in case he didn’t get the nomination and insist that when it comes to the spirit of the law, Obama’s the one on the side of the angels here. John McCain is self-righteously trying to take the moral high ground by seeking taxpayer money to match the contributions of his lobbyist and corporate pals while Barack Obama raked in the cash by getting small dollar donations from more than a half a million ordinary Americans. So which campaign has a claim to the mantle of “publicly funded”?

- In 1992, the Clinton campaign’s mantra was “It’s the economy, stupid”. This year, I think the Obama campaign’s should be “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. It’s hard to listen to McCain speak in the future tense and take it seriously when the man has no new ideas. Even worse for McCain, when late-night talkshows are already joking about him like he’s Mr. Magoo, you know he’s in for a rough nine months.

- Finally, is it just me or does McCain’s candidacy lack a coherent raison d’être? Hillary Clinton is the hyper-ambitious former first lady who wants to continue where her husband left off. Mike Huckabee is the conservative regular fella who wants to do save our nation from moral decay. Barack Obama is the inspirational guy who wants to bring people together to Change™ the nation. John McCain? He seems to be this year’s “I’ve been around Washington forever and it’s my turn to run for President” guy. Maybe he’ll have more luck with “Vote for me, I’m really old.” than Bob Dole did, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

As awful as it would be for superdelegates to pick the candidate at odds with the winner of the pledged delegates and/or the popular vote, I can sorta see the value in giving elected officials and party activists an extra say in who represents the party. The supers should, in theory at least, be motivated to pick the candidate who best represents the Democratic party. I’m not so sure the same can be said of independents and fair-weather Democrats who show up to open primaries to vote for what they see as the lesser of two or more evils. It’s undemocratic, but I get it.

Having said that, I think the clear choice of superdelegates would have to be Barack Obama. Yes, Hillary has a longer history with the party, but isn’t it better for the long-term growth of the party for its leader to be the guy who’s bringing tens of thousands of new voters to the polls? The Democratic party would be best served by expanding its reach beyond its traditional bases of support and who would be better to do that than the man who’s been racking up double digit leads in the south, midwest, rural areas, and other enclaves that the traditional Dem leadership has completely written off?

An even greater motivator for the superdelegates would be to have the Democratic brand associated with another nine months of Obama’s stadium-filling crowds. If I was one of those superdelegates running for reelection in an “insignificant” state, I’d jump at the opportunity to have Barack come into my district and be able to join him onstage for a massive rally. If Obama becomes the nominee, not only will he travel beyond the 5-10 states that old-school, electoral math-obsessed politicians like the Clintons would campaign in, but his continued candidacy would have a ripple effect throughout the party.

Even if you discount the presidential race itself, the party would be best served by having Obama be its public face between now and November. He draws bigger crowds, he raises more money, he campaigns in more states, and he brings more new voters into the Democratic ranks. If the thing that makes a superdelegate “super” is that they’re longtime, trusted members of the party, they’d be fools to pass up the chance to expand the Democratic party and make it more powerful than ever.

(As an aside, I bet the GOP is really wishing they had superdelegates right now. It must suck to accidentally nominate somebody you hate.)

The Clinton campaign has spent nearly $500,000 on parking?? Maybe her staff could help the campaign by taking the bus or carpooling.

For all of those undecided, uncommitted voters who don’t really pay attention to the news and probably only get the Sunday paper for the ads, I can’t help but wonder how they’ll react to tomorrow’s headlines declaring “Obama, Huckabee Win Clean Sweeps”. Frontrunners aren’t supposed to get their asses kicked this badly.

Last weekend, I was phone banking for the Obama campaign and left a few dozen answering machine messages. It was pretty much what you’d expect. I sat in front of a computer, dialed some numbers, and recited the message from a script. Unfortunately, the script’s key line seemed to be written by someone who never bothered to try to read the line out loud :

“I’m supporting Senator Obama because he is committed to overcoming the partisan political battles that have tied up the government during the past two decades”

Needless to say, the sentence length and alliteration made this difficult to say without sounding like a stuttering idiot.

The phone bankers seemed to be split into two groups, the people who awkwardly tried to make it through the script and left amateurish messages or those who just ventured off-script and winged it. Those in the second group (of which, I’m embarrassed to say, I wasn’t a part) did great, but in having a phone script too difficult to say, the campaign sacrificed a lot of message control to their volunteers. If they’re cool with that, they’re probably be better off replacing the script with some talking points instead.

I’m not complaining about the script’s message itself, I’m just sayin’ a couple of word changes and a well-placed comma would have helped a lot.

Ugghhh…CNN is now covering the election under the banner “Ballot Bowl ‘08″. It’s nice to see them take the election so seriously…

Funny :

Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton said Wednesday she loaned her campaign five million dollars of her own money in January to keep up with rival Barack Obama’s record cash windfall.

“I loaned the campaign five million from my money,” Clinton said a day after more than 20 state nominating contests resulted in no clear front-runner for the Democratic party ticket.
. . .
[Obama's] campaign announced it had raised 32 million dollars in January alone, compared to 13 million raised last month by Clinton.

Funnier :

***Page Exclusive: Some Clinton Senior Staff Working Without Pay***

SOURCE: THEY HAVE “VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN TO WORK WITHOUT PAY THIS MONTH” AS PART OF CLINTON CASH CRUNCH AGAINST OBAMA MOOLA FACTORY.

Includes campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.

Funniest :

The Clinton campaign’s attempt to turn their Massachusetts win into some sort of Giants vs. Patriots underdog story is pathetic :

UPSET OF THE NIGHT

One of the biggest surprises of the night is Massachusetts

Despite the fact that Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry were actively supporting and campaigning for Obama, Hillary Clinton won the state.

Despite the fact that the Governor of Massachusetts endorsed Obama, Hillary Clinton won the state.

Despite the fact that Obama visited Massachusetts just last night, Hillary Clinton won the state.

This is a strong victory and shows that Hillary Clinton has strength in places where Barack Obama was expected to win.

Expected to win? By whom? Here’s what the polls looked like in Massachussets :

Congratulations, Senator Clinton. You won a state that every single poll but one expected you to win. Same goes for California and New Jersey, where most polls showed Clinton ahead and Obama had the disadvantage of being far behind in the polls when early voting began.

If anything, it was Barack who showed unexpected strength in places Hillary was supposed to win. If you look at the trendlines for Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Missouri, and Minnesota, they favor Clinton, but Barack won them all. Going forward, things are looking worse for Clinton :

There are ten more primaries/caucuses this month and Obama is expected to do well in all of them.

Now the landscape gets much more favorable for Obama. On Saturday, it’s Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington. Then on Sunday it’s Maine. Then Tuesday offers Maryland, DC, and Virginia. Then February 19 offers Wisconsin and Hawaii. That’s a lot of states, but not a ton of delegates. On March 4 comes the big showdown in Texas and Ohio. The question is whether Obama can build up enough momentum between now and March 4 to put Clinton away, or whether Clinton can draw enough blood in the intermediate states to shut him down on the March 4 firewall.

I’m not sure how Ohio will go, but considering that the delegates from Texas are being chosen via a weird hybrid that plays to Obama’s big primary strengths (open primary and caucus), I expect him to do well there. If Obama can spend a month kicking ass all over the country and delivers a big win on the 4th, I think the superdelegates will see the writing on the wall and start falling into place.

UPDATE : There’s a great breakdown of the upcoming primaries here.

That’s the word from the Clinton campaign despite widespread concern about voting problems reported by the LA Times, LAist, and Calitics. Just the sort of thing I’d expect from a campaign that has been trying to win via voter suppression, changing the rules mid-election, and a reliance on the support of party insiders.

That’s the unfortunate thing about Obama’s surge. Even if he sweeps today’s primaries, institutional support for Clinton and the “didn’t count until they favored Hillary” delegates from Florida and Michigan could have us wind up in a brokered convention which will, without hyperbole, turn the convention into utter chaos. Perhaps if the Clintons had a history of using this sort of ruthlessness to accomplish any of their progressive promises I’d see it as a selling point, but right now I’m not very inspired by the option of electing our Machiavellian candidate.

Newsweek had an interesting item the other day that I think really speaks to Barack Obama’s ability to inspire the electorate :

“Barack Obama will really be in a singular position to attract moderate Republicans,” she told NEWSWEEK. “I wanted to do what many people did for my grandfather in 1952. He was hugely aided in his quest for the presidency by Democrats for Eisenhower. There’s a long and fine tradition of crossover voters.”

Eisenhower is one of a small but symbolically powerful group of what Obama recently called “Obamacans”—disaffected Republicans who have drifted away from their party just as Eisenhower Democrats did and, more recently, Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. They include lifelong Republican Tricia Moseley, a former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the one-time segregationist from South Carolina. Now a high-school teacher, Moseley says she was attracted to Obama’s positions on education and the economy.

Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” says many conservative friends—including Bush officials and evangelical Christians—sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama’s post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. “He doesn’t attack Republicans, he doesn’t attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does],” Scarborough told NEWSWEEK.

I know a few conservatives who support Obama that would never have dreamed of supporting a Democrat before they saw him speak. I know a lot of Obama’s detractors think his promises to bring people together amount to a bunch of naive “fairy tales”, but having spoken to Republican voters that are excited to vote for Obama, I can’t help but give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially compared to Hillary, who I doubt will ever be able to get Republican support (in the election or in Congress). This “Obamacan” support is really the basis for the urgency I’m feeling about the primary now. As Barack himself noted in an interview posted at The New Republic :

BRODY: Will Hillary be a drag for down-ticket races as a presidential candidate?

OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining democratic candidates. That’s just a fact and there are some who will not vote for her. If you look at the results in Nevada, for example, she eked out the popular vote victory over me, but I ended up winning more delegates because she got almost all of her votes from Clark County, Las Vegas and some of the traditional democratic areas. We got votes there, but we also got votes in northern Nevada and rural conservative regions of the state that traditionally don’t vote Democratic, but were excited about my campaign.

I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward.”

Personally, I don’t quite understand why Republicans would support Barack Obama. His positions across the board are solidly Democratic : universal(ish) healthcare, ending the war, reversing tax cuts for the rich, government transparency, raising the minimum wage, etc. But I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. If conservatives and moderates are being inspired to support a liberal agenda, why the hell would we want to throw that support away?