Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Hillary's "sniper fire" story earns four pinocchios

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker column has soundly debunked this entertaining, but fictional recollection.

"Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport 'under sniper fire' and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios."

Here we see Hillary (and Chelsea) landing under sniper fire:


Sunday, March 16, 2008

Getting fooled again

A few weeks ago Frank Rich wrote a column in the New York times that, among other things, compared Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush in managerial style and judgment. Since then Hillary has unleashed what has become known as the "kitchen sink" strategy, dubbed for throwing everything available at front-runner Barack Obama. The strategy, though wide-ranging, is surprisingly simplistic in its approach. The main component of the plan is also Bushian in nature.

One could make the argument that the Bill Clinton nomination in 1992 elevated campaign tactics to a new level--with the induction of a 24/7 "war room" to handle press questions and disseminate negative information on opponent George H.W. Bush. The elder Bush appeared slow and weak, while the Clintons stayed ahead of the attack curve. These tactics did not go unnoticed by the Republican party which took eight years to catch up. By 2000 Bush junior was vying for the White House, and at his side were people like Karl Rove who could not only cripple other Republican candidates, but negate Democratic heavyweights like Vice President Al Gore.

After 9/11 those Rovian tactics found their muse in the form of shadowy terrorists, rogue nations, axises of evil, and illegal immigrants--all things nebulous, subversive and alien--designed to scare the hell out of white America and drive them to the polls to vote for those who could save them. The Clintons, eying the White House again in 2008, have shown themselves exceptional political students. As Barack Obama gained momentum they got busy sowing the seeds of fear and tapping into white America's unrelenting xenophobia.

First, Bill Clinton rejected Obama's win in South Carolina as purely racial--noting that even Jessie Jackson won there not once, but twice. Then, after a lackluster Super Tuesday in-which Hillary not only did not win the nomination, lost her lead among delegates, the Clintons focused on Texas and Ohio and began scaring the daylights out of blue collar white workers.

Pictures of Obama in native Kenyan garb appeared on the Drudge Report. (Drudge claims they arrived via the Clinton camp.)

Meanwhile, the Clintons began painting the good citizens of Ohio and Texas as unfortunate victims of outsourcing.

Too painful to admit reality, that jobs have been lost because labor workers priced themselves out of the market and did not make themselves competitive enough, job losses were instead attributed to NAFTA, the evil trade agreement that allows our products to be made by Mexicans. Never mind that those Mexicans often work in appalling conditions with no insurance so we can, and do, buy their productions on the cheap. And never mind that NAFTA itself was enacted by the Clintons. As we have discovered over the last eight years the discontent and anger of the scared white voter knows no reason and no bounds.

Finally, there was the "red phone" add White children are sleeping soundly in their beds, yet something is amiss. Mom is alert, peering into their rooms to make sure everything is fine. But outside, somewhere, something is happening. There is a burglar in the proverbial bushes. The hedgerow surrounding the suburban house has been breached. Barbarians lurk at the gates. But fear not, Hillary Clinton is there to take the call and avert a national crisis of some unknown origin.

Hillary, vowed to go to Washington and fight. Against what, no one is really sure, but that's not the point. There's a lot of anger out there, a lot of uncertainty. It's the type of thing that can give fruit to an Iraq war, and give reason to a candidate gone mad. Barack Obama may just be the candidate who represents too much uncertainty. While Hillary has been a familiar white face we have recognized all these years.

And to no big surprise, all of this all worked. Obama's momentum was halted and both Ohio and Texas swung Hillary's way.

This week, Geraldine Ferraro dismissal of Obama as a flavor-of-the-month candidate. She ruminated that this month the flavor is black, and America is "caught up in this concept" as she said. To think that this statement, by a well-handled, politically savvy trailblazer was not intentional is to be totally ignorant.

And that brings me to Obama's minster, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose name alone not only sounds concocted but hearkens back to the Salem witch trials. Imagine Obama's misfortune at having to attend a church for twenty years where the minister shouts things like "God damn America!" from the pulpit. Obama has every right to attend what ever church he wants, and the rhetoric of Rev. Wright, which resonates with so many disillusioned African Americans, may be what keeps Obama grounded. There are millions who are hurting and broken and Wright taps into that spirit and Obama listens. Still, that comes with a steep price when white America begins listening in.

What does Wright have to do with Clinton? It plays right into her tactics. The Wright issue is huge, and any Obama supporter had better understand that. It is huge for the very reasons I mention above. As Obama himself pointed out in the wake of the Ferraro attack, "I think that if anybody was looking for the quickest path to the presidency, they would not say 'I want to be an African-American man named Barack Obama.' I do not think that is in the handbook for running for president."'

Obama says this for good reason. If there is any doubt about the precarious chances an African-American faces when getting elected to a federal position, one only needs to look back on the voting history of this country. Then, give that person a foreign-sounding name. A name so atypical all you have to do is say it to make the many whites cringe. Barack Hussein Obama.

And Now that very person is introducing himself to the country, and is, to many, a man educated in a madrassa, a man who when in Kenya does as the Kenyans do, a man who happily attends a radical black church. He has been painted that way not just by bigoted and agitated right-wing radio hosts but also by the Clinton campaign. This was a calculated ploy to show Clinton as the more trustworthy candidate. Because, in-comparison to Clinton, who seemingly has been around forever (many would say far too long!) Obama
is the unknown. To many nervous white voters he is becoming a shadowy and therefore untrustworthy candidate.

You could tell in his rebuke of the Rev. Wright Obama knew he was walking a fine line between a black community with whom most of Wright's message resonates with, and a white community that finds the comments deplorable. So, what is a man of God to do? What Obama should have done was not put Wright on his staff, and should have done as much as he could to distance himself from what he knew, even a year ago, was a potential problem. One wonders what asset Wright was for Obama that outweighed his obvious liability. Maybe Obama was a little stunned at how distasteful his minister sounded to many Americans. Not good when many will rely on what they think they know rather than the unknown. A perfect voting block for calculating politicians.


Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Ferarro and Fairwell

Geraldine Ferraro is back, relishing her second chance at the limelight after emerging from the dustbin of history. Once again the former Vice Presidential candidate is doing meaningful interviews on television shows with actual ratings, while offering her political acumen and support to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Ferraro’s latest remark was a racially tinged comment about Barack Obama. A comment which, when viewed in the light of history, makes absolutely no sense and sounds so overwhelmingly condescending and divisive it’s hard to believe anyone who considers themselves progressive could harbor any room for it in their minds. Even an obsolete progressive mind.

”If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she told the Daily Breeze, a California newspaper.

That statement may or may not be offensive, but it’s certainly a stupid thing to say. So stupid it is probably even be sane and deliberate. That may show how nutty this whole nomination process has gotten. By the time it’s over I’m not sure if anyone will have the mental capacity to be president.

Deliberate or not, it's hard to take her statement, that it’s an advantage to be African American in politics, seriously at all given our country’s election track record since reconstruction. Also, as many have also pointed out, any advantage a black man like Obama gains from consolidating the black vote is met equally by uncertainty from non-black voters.

That someone in a campaign said something crazy in a campaign is nothing new. But it’s that this whole process has become insane. I still can’t figure out why we need “super” delegates to save us from ourselves. They are at best rubber stampers or at worst unwanted judges in the democratic process. I still can’t figure out why any Democratic nominee needs 2025 delegates rather than a simple majority. And I can’t figure out why Michigan and Florida may re-vote after violating the rules and knowing their re-vote wont matter much anyway.

The press keeps spinning this process as if we’re not sure what is going to happen in the nomination process. They have to do that to have something to talk about every night. But what we do know is that Barack Obama will have the majority of delegates going into the DNC convention in Colorado. Only a miracle can stop that. The Michigan and Florida recounts will only add a few delegates to Hillary’s total and if she wins in Pennsylvania it will only had a few more. So what we do know then is that Hillary’s only chance of getting the nomination is to steal it away from the will of the people—to go into the convention and urge enough “super” delegates to vote for her.

And if that happens the Democrats will have effectively disillusioned blacks for years to come—after they have thrown the party their support all these years. The Democrats will also have disregarded the youth vote, which has turned out in record numbers this year for Obama. Whether or not they are prepared to go to the “nuclear option” for the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton remains to be seen. But a sane people like Ferraro are sounding more like loose cannons every day for their cause.

Perhaps that’s how Mrs. Clinton can offer, with a straight face, the vice presidential slot to Obama, the nominee who is winning, and will win the most delegates.

Still, why anyone would take someone like Ferraro seriously in 2008 is another mystery to me. When my grandma says something off-base I pay it no mind, even if she once was a powerful business woman. That was then, this is now. And with Ferarro I'm reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield line: you must have been something before electricity. In 1984 Americans wanted Reagan. Ferraro helped the Democrats lose a record 49 states in the election. In 2008 Americans want change. Ferraro hasn't changed her hair style in a quarter of a century. I think it may be time to call it a career.

I know many, many conservatives who are thoroughly enjoying how petty, and divisive, and indecisive the Democrats appear to be during this nomination. Liberals want to run the country? They can’t even figure out what to do with Florida and Michigan. These people are the non-fascist of the two political parties? Why do we have even a threat that “super” delegates may override all our votes? Not only do they seem to be no less enlightened then their Republican distant relatives, but they seem incapable of even picking a candidate.

I just can’t see how the Clintons are worth all this trouble. When Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last fall liberals were titillated with the idea that he might run for president. That’s why I was never convinced Hillary had enough support. Liberals were salivating at the idea of Gore running. Gore. When Obama stepped up people couldn’t wait to get behind him and leave Hillary. He was the breath of fresh air they were all looking for.

But now what’s rightfully Hillary's is about to be lost, something she waited for all these years, even through her husband’s humiliating infidelity. And if she has to steal it to make all that suffering and calculating and waiting worthwhile, well, you can see how all of that could make someone a little crazy.

But for now, for Ferraro, it’s fun to be relevant again. Today, Ferraro dug her heels in and said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't know me."

There will be no backing down. There will be blood. But I think the best thing we can do for Hillary and Geraldine is to give them a nice long vacation, and, soon, no more attention.

UPDATE
Mrs. Ferraro has resigned her post as of this afternoon.


Friday, March 07, 2008

Larry David bashes Hillary

Larry David has a short and blistering column over on Huffington Post commenting on the Hillary phone ad.


There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

Read the whole thing here.

Personally, I think she's nuts. Really. I'm in 100% agreement with him.


Wednesday, February 27, 2008

For Hillary, conspiracies everywhere


We've seen all sides of Senator Hillary Clinton over the last year--the side that is happy when winning, and the side that whines when losing. I was struck last night by her performance in the final Democratic debate--starting off so strong and then derailing herself by complaining that the moderators were being too hard on her. It was almost a microcosm of her entire campaign.

And if you missed it, here's the clip.



Awkward.

Not to mention her complaint against MSNBC making her "go first" twice in a row was as senseless as her complaints about Barack Obama being all style and no substance. Clinton wanted to prove she was a fighter, but there she was also battling the press. She batted the first question on health care around for most of the first 16 minutes making Obama look a little slow. She was doing fine. I thought to myself--this is a good tactic. Don't even let him talk. Run the ball, eat up the clock. And then she got a chance to answer the 2nd question first. And I honestly though--they're playing right into her hands.

And, rather than seizing it, and keeping Obama on the ropes, she complained about how unfair it was to go first twice in a row. Wha? Obama was obviously dying to talk and by not being able to go first he couldn't set the tone like she could. But she just had to get that odd jab in there, obviously written by some handler. Tina Fey? Saturday Night Live? Saturday Night Live hasn't been relevant for 15 years at least.

And it was passive aggressive complaint at that--that she found it curious she had to go first twice but was "happy to do so." What? No, you weren't happy, that's why you're complaining, right? The dark side of Hillary came out, seeing conspiracies everywhere. Is this the kind of president we want?

I was reminded of the George Packer article on Obama and Clinton from the New Yorker:


When I described to Greg Craig the Clinton campaign’s skepticism toward the idea of transcending partisanship, he said, “You’re getting to that five per cent of Hillary that I don’t like—which is to see in every corner a conspiracy or an opponent that must be crushed. Look at her comment ‘Now the fun part starts’ ”—Clinton’s announcement in Iowa that she would begin attacking Obama’s record. “There is a quality of playing the embattled, beleaguered victim that I find unappealing and depressing.” He added, “I want a President who is looking to move the country with positive inspirational ideas rather than to fight off the bad guys and proclaim victory by defeating the forces of reaction. I would like us to inspire the forces of reaction to join us in treating people better, and lifting more vulnerable people and people in jeopardy out of their vulnerability and jeopardy.”

I was so surprised that Hillary, knowing those are her weak points, would emphasize them in the debate. But she can't help herself. She has been spurned on prom night. She has been left at the alter. And now, conspiracies are everywhere.

Obama did not have a great debate. He let her filibuster on and on and he seemed to be subdued and tired. But he was dignified. Compared with his poise her blatherings seemed to border on the lunatic fringe. She may be brilliant, but that last 5% of her is so unlikeable it will cost her 100% of the nomination. You can see why 40% of Americans would never vote for her.
Even when she was the presumptive nominee there was a type of malaise about it among Democrats. It turns out we were just waiting for the right person to come along. And it's not her.


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Super Tuesday Wrap-Up

As an Obama supporter, I'm pretty happy with his showing on Super Tuesday. Six months ago Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination. Since then she has been slowly loosing ground to Obama and yesterday he broke even with her on the biggest day of the nomination process. This essentially bought him another round in the fight. He has the money to go further and he has the momentum. The Clinton camp will try to play this off as a victory, but clearly Obama did better than expected.

On the Republican side John McCain seized control of the GOP nomination, all but eliminating Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee did well thanks to a strong showing in the south but he really has no chance anymore. Right now he is playing for vice president. A McCain-Hukcabee ticket could be interesting and formidable: experience plus values. You know how the conservatives love those things (reminds me of Cheney + Bush).

This brings me to an interesting situation for the Democrats. Thanks to the results on Super Tuesday they already know who they will be playing against in November. The Democrats can now pick the more formidable opponent to face McCain. This opponent is not Mrs. Clinton.

Clinton has been running on her so-called experience. McCain will neutralize that in a second. He has far more experience than Clinton does. McCain also has very high negatives among conservative voters. Clinton's, of course, are much higher. While McCain may not be able to unify and ignite the GOP electorate, the specter of Billary back in the White House certainly will. If someone like John Kerry incited so much contempt among the right-wing, what will they make of Hillary?

Many Democrats look at this and say--who cares? She's our candidate, and they don't have to like it. But the Democrats should carefully consider the losers they have run for President post-Clinton. Al Gore and John Kerry, while certainly experienced, and deserving, were certainly not charismatic. The fact that both of those luminaries could lose to a knucklehead like George W. Bush shows how much charisma does matter.

Enter Barack Obama. There's a reason why Mr. Obama is still alive and well, and gaining speed. There's a certain void open in the middle that Mrs. Clinton cannot fill. She is divisive and works the fringes and divides and conquers. Obama is filled with the rhetoric of unity and pragmatism. He says things like "we are the change we have been waiting for." He understands it takes all of us, the right, the middle, and the left, to create change. And he is not ashamed to say so. That might be why every Republican I know voted for Mr. Obama yesterday.

McCain would have his hands full against Mr. Obama, who is not running on insider experience or beltway connections. He is running on the power of grassroots and the power of the common person. He is youthful, and utterly unashamed. He claim the middle voter that McCain desperately needs to win.

The Democrats find themselves in an amazing position to win. The 2004 election loss was inexcusable for two reasons. One, George W. Bush was such a dope. And two, all the Democrats had to do was pick a person who neutralized his strengths. Someone like Howard Dean who did not vote for the war. But they went with Kerry, who tried to be like Bush, and was chewed up, spit out, and booed off stage. Will the Democrats make the same mistake in 2008? Or are they in it to win this time?


Sunday, January 27, 2008

The End of The Natural--Bill Clinton's last stand

William Jefferson Clinton's fairy-tale rise from broken family child to President of the United States was no accident. He was a man of sharp intellect, sincere concern, and incredible political acumen. By 1992, at the age of 46, those skills had melded together into an elite campaigning machine. George Stephanopoulus, then an adviser on Clinton's election team, later described the magic like this in his book All Too Human:

Every day Clinton showed how extraordinary he was. Like when he spent his downtime stroking the hand of a little girl, bald and yellow with cancer, and looked into her eyes until she believed she'd grow up to be a movie star. Or when you would prep him for a late-night-car-ride-to- the-airport interview after sixteen hours of nonstop campaigning. His eyes would float, the lids fluttering with fatigue, but once the reporter ducked into the backseat Clinton would repeat the briefing word for word and add six points we missed. We called him Secretariat, the ultimate political thoroughbred.
Former Newsweek reporter Joe Klein remembers another nickname for Clinton: The Natural, which was the title given to Roy Hobbs, the baseball phenom in Bernard Malamud's book of the same name. As political consultant Paul Begala said of Clinton, "He was the best there ever was." Clinton's singular abilities as a finely tuned political animal enabled him to become the third-youngest president in history. Along the way he became an icon of hope, youth, change. It is amazing what a difference a decade can make.

Now Bill Clinton bumbles around his wife's campaign trail, alienating voters, dismissing opponents, and falling asleep on stage. He's like an old pitcher who can no longer find the strike zone, hanging on to past glory. Bill Clinton was ushered into the White House nearly 16 years ago to the tune of Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop." Today he has us all thinking about yesterday. Meanwhile a new Democratic luminary, Senator Barack Obama from Illinois, looks forward. And, in a twist of fate, Obama is Hillary Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination. But Obama, not Clinton, represents youth, and hope, and change, and even Bill can't summon that magic for his beleaguered wife anymore. Obama, not Clinton, drew 300,000 Democratic votes in South Carolina, an unprecedented amount. Obama, not Clinton, has stared a movement.

And after his victory in South Carolina Obama noted, "This election is about the past versus the future."

Many political pundits blamed Bill for Hillary's sizable defeat in that southern primary. And even afterwards Bill was back at work, dismissing Obama's victory by pointing out that Jessie Jackson won in South Carolina twice. Jackson, of course, never became president and it doesn't take a political genius to connect the sloppy dots Bill is trying to lay out. But the problem is he just doesn't do it with anything like his previous flair. The willingness is there, but the execution and timing are gone. His charisma has given over to surliness. His uncanny ability to tap an opponent's weakness now sounds like a weak jab. Bill's time has faded. It seems to belong to Obama now.

Bill Clinton's parallels to Roy Hobbs, the main character in The Natural, are worth noting. Both came from obscure, humble backgrounds, and rose on their incredible talent to heroic levels. Both were corruptible by women. And another similarity is how both characters end their journey.

"Look at him standing there, like a goddamn gorilla," a character in Malamud's book says about Roy walking to the plate one last time with the winning run on third. "Look at his burning eyes. He ain't human."

"That ain't what I see," Someone else says. "He looks old and beat up."

That seems to me how Bill Clinton looks now. Old. Tired. Past his time. And more and more people see it. His unflappable confidence is waning. The limelight which seemed to expand him has turned. You can see how bad he wants one more crack in the big game, but his magic is gone. He is the child of another age. One whose time was, and will forever be, 1992. And where he goes, Hillary is bound. Their sword has been broken. Every day more and more people recognize 2008 seems to be Obama's time.

And how does it end? With the game on the line, Roy Hobbs walked to the plate one last time to face off against a rookie relief pitcher. This pitcher was also from an obscure background, and nobody even knew who he was. But he was a kid a world of talent, and the time to see it to fruition. The blessing had passed on to another. Roy dug in at the plate and reached deep down for one last miracle, but it was not there. The ball "lit its own path" and went right past him. In the end of The Natural--the book, not the movie--Roy Hobbs strikes out. The power was gone. It belonged now to someone else: the young pitcher facing him on the mound. And by the time Roy realized it, the game was over.


The New York Times Hillary / Obama round-up

I find it interesting today, after Barack Obama's commanding win in South Carolina, that no less than four of the top ten most e-mailed articles from the New York Times are anti-Hillary.

Two deal specifically with the emergence of former President Bill Clinton as Hillary's new hatchet man.

Questions for the Clintons, by Bob Herbert

Two Presidents Are Worse Than One, by Gary Willis

The latter is provocative, sighting the founder's desire to keep the Presidency to a single person, and why.


But as the debate went forward a consensus formed that republican rule would check the single initiative of a president. In fact, accountability to the legislature demanded that responsibility be lodged where it could be called to account. A plural presidency would leave it uncertain whom to check. How, for instance, would Congress decide which part of the executive should be impeached in case of high crimes and misdemeanors? One member of the plural executive could hide behind the other members.



The next article, The Billary Road to Republican Victory, accurately pins Hillary (and Bill) as incredible assets to the Republican party if they are to get the nomination.

The last article is A President Like My Father, in-which Caroline Kennedy compares Obama's ability to inspire and unite to President Kennedy. Considering the source, I think that speaks for itself.


Chicago Tribune endorses Obama

My first reaction to this was: well of course the Trib endorsed Obama, he's from Illinois. But then I remembered: so is Hillary Clinton (Park Ridge).

The article is fair, citing Obama's link to Tony Rezko, but also believing that gaff is not a deal breaker. The article also serves as a pithy summary of the two leading Democratic candidates, articulating much of what I have been trying to say about both Clinton and Obama.


Obama inspires people. He can draw from the middle and the right, and seeks to do so. He speaks what is not necessarily politically expedient. He works to form consensus. In an age of skepticism, people tend to disbelieve his charisma. It is as if we have battered wife syndrome, returning to the old political game we know too well. This game is embodied by Clinton who is a lightning rod unifying opponents, working from savvy political acumen to defeat those who oppose her rather than rise victorious for a nation. And her new reliance on her husband is simply uninspiring.

The article also admits that on the issues Clinton and Obama are very similar and so it's less about which one you agree with more, and more about which one can get the country behind their bid for the presidency (and, consequentially, which one will be able to get anything done in the White House).


The candidates' differences on issues are minor and largely irrelevant: Presidents don't dictate laws, they tussle over legislation with Congress. Much of the "experience" Hillary Clinton touts in that realm instead was proximity to power. Bill's power.


Well said.


To the contrary, the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama. We endorse him convinced that he could lead America in directions that the other Democrats could not.

Source: chicagotribune.com via Alarmed

Viva, Obama!


Tags: | | | | | | | | |


Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Obama O-Baminates Clinton's Lead

Viva Obama!!

Barack Obama has erased a once substantial deficit to climb into a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Among Republicans, John McCain charged to the front of a shifting presidential field, shooting past Mike Huckabee and a fading Rudy Giuliani as the opening contests of the 2008 White House campaign dramatically reshaped the races in both parties.



Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Clinton Back From the Dead

The news of her death greatly exaggerated, Senator Hillary Clinton, who little more than twenty-four hours ago had been written off and buried by many after a sharp defeat in the Iowa Caucus, was declared the Democratic winner of the New Hampshire primary last night, with all precincts reporting in. The news surprised everyone after polls predicted another victory for Senator Barack Obama following his win in Iowa.

Indeed, after Iowa, it was as if many on the left had suddenly discovered a deep emotional love for Obama, while finally admitting repressed uncertainties for Clinton. Many on the left seemed relieved, if not overjoyed that Clinton's campaign was collapsing so that they could finally come out and declare their love for Obama. That was, of course, yesterday, when crap like this was being written in the Los Angeles Times:

"Memo to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: We think you're aces. Really. And we love your husband. But we're running off with Sen. Barack Obama. Hope you understand. It's all about being part of history. We'll do lunch after the inauguration."

Cute.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Clinton fan. The last thing I want to see is a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clin..... dynasty. But come on. Let's get real. Only Hollywood could produce this kind of unashamed capriciousness about something so vital. I don't mean to take some of the fun out of things but this could be one of the most important elections in history and the selection of candidates gets reduced, seriously, to some kind of teen aged crush.

With that on one hand, I'm actually glad Clinton won. Now people can get back to steeling their resolve, stifling their fears about Clinton's un-electability, burying their best interests, and get behind her where they belong. But the odd thing is that all those who jumped ship on Hillary did so for the right reasons. The concepts they articulated after Obama's win in Iowa were correct. I just want to know why they weren't running with it earlier? And will it vanish again now after New Hampshire? Obama is the more likable, more charismatic candidate. He will draw in more independent votes, which are essential for a Democratic victory in 2008.

Let's boil the entire electorate down to 100 people. Let's say 35 of those people are hard-core Republicans, they will vote for any Republican no matter who gets the nomination. Then let's say 30 are hard-core liberals, they will vote for any Democrat who runs. That leaves 35 people in the middle who swing the election. The Republicans usually have to get fewer swing votes than the Democrats to win. Which of the two candidates, Obama or Clinton, do you think will pull in more undecided voters for the Democrats?

Let's try this another way. In the 2004 national election there were 16 states that were closely divided between Republican and Democratic. But some of these states are more important than others. Battleground states like Florida, with 27 electoral votes, are very important to secure in the national election, as are other close states like Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20) and Michigan (17). So the question is not which candidate do the Democrats like the best. But which candidate does the entire state like the best? Or, to put it another way, which candidate will bring in the most independent or swing voters?

Hillary polls very strongly because, ideally, she is the strongest Democratic candidate. On paper, between her and Obama, she would probably be the better president. Unfortunately this doesn't matter at all. It's not about who is ideally the best candidate, but who, at the end of the day, is the most electable. Voters from the middle don't care which Democratic candidate has been toeing the party line the longest. They are looking for the candidate who speaks to them. And in this election I imagine that person is probably Senator Barack Obama. I only wish more Democrats would now stick with the impulse that was fueled by Obama's win in Iowa. They were on the right track.

My friends on the right think it will be very hard for the Democrats to blow the 2008 election. But everyone I know on the left is waiting for their party to once again implode. And if they think they can win without the middle vote they surely will lose. Going with the less charismatic candidate is a good way to do that. I'm not saying any of this is fair or reasonable but what does love have to do with it anyway? Those people who couldn't wait to get behind Obama after Iowa, and who no doubt are now rushing back to Clinton after New Hampsire, should think clearly about which of the two has the best chance of winning. It's about who can sway the person in the middle, not which one rubs them the right way.