Sen Vitter Seems Confused

Today Sen Vitter (LA-R) spent some time yanking at Hillary Clinton about her husband's foundation and the donations it takes. I'm sure it is imporant to remember that her husband is former President Bill Clinton who is pretty far up the Republican hate list. There is that issue about a blowjob and not exactly telling the truth about it, so it is clear that Bill needs some really special oversight. The implication is pretty clear, Hillary would prostitute the State Department and the US government for foundation money.

You have to give Vitter credit for doing his homework. He is pretty well acquainted with prostitutes, the DC kind and the NOLA kind, who aren't lobbyists or other Republicans but actual professionals - of the sexual kind. The Hillary connection is a bit more familial than that, his wife 'famously' said that rather than do as Hillary she'd go 'Bobbit' if it were true he'd been doing such extra-curricular homework. It was true and apparently Sen Vitter doesn't have to squat to pee.

Is it just me, or is there something really odd in his playing GOP front man on this? I know it's the Republicans and all, but you'd kind of think...

ah well

SoS Hillary...

Hillary may have been at the bottom of my preference list of Presidential candidates, but this is a bit different though I am reminded of "the cat that came back." I don't find the media frenzy odd, I do find the "leak" odd. This serves somebody's interests, but I'm pretty darn confused as to whose. Hillary Clinton has a power base to be envied, it is spread across the nation in the electorate, it is in the halls of Congress, it is in Agencies, it is in think tanks, it is in the media, and it is in the money heavy movers and shakers. A Cabinet position would separate her from all that, those officials do the will of the President in a manner he approves or they find another job. The President is your power base, you may have allies to make your case in persuading the President but they won't keep your job safe or advance you. Where do you go from SoS during an Administration? There is no upward mobility.

Hillary Clinton is the Junior Senator from New York and as far as titles go SoS is a step up. That step up ignores political realities, effectively Hillary can wield more power than Schumer. Her broad appeal can mean a lot more than seniority in the Senate, if she makes use of it. Laws with your name on them are a more lasting monument than an SoS can leave.

The question that is begged in this, is what is it that appeals to Hillary most? Real power for her lies in the Senate, but it may not be power that it is about. If her desire is to affect the policies of an Administration through direct input, SoS is the ticket. It certainly means she's in competition with Joe Biden in making her voice heard, but it is a seat right at the table, not from down the street.

For Barack Obama having her in the SoS would bring her into his orbit, in the end it is his will that would be carried out. In the Senate she is a free agent, within realistic limitations. I don't care to make an analysis of what she brings to the office versus others, she has the tools and that isn't what this article is about. This is politics being played at the very top of the scale and somebody or somebodies take benefit from this even being discussed. The PUMA/Hillary supporters thing is a dead issue, Barack Obama is going to be President for four years and if he does a respectable job, for eight. This isn't about electioneering, it is about something else. I don't like not being able to see clear benefits to both parties, I see a very mixed bag. Hillary is not the person to be satisfied with a limited role, not with the Senate as an alternative, and that could pose some rather large distractions. There is a difference between hiring someone with good ideas and a willingness to call BS and hiring someone who prefers to be the boss. None of these people are something other than ambitious, you don't get anywhere near these positions without a large dose of that, but there is a bit of a difference between, say, Bill Richardson's campaign and Hillary Clinton's both in outcomes and conduct. Rahm Emmanuel is a powerhouse player and no shrinking violet, but he wasn't making obvious moves for the top job. The 'chutzpah' involved in going after that particular ring is immense and I don't care if your name is Barack, Hillary, or John.

I want to watch how this unfolds very carefully because I'm missing something I should see. Now since these people don't consult with me, there may be factors I'm completely unaware of, but these people live pretty public political lives. I'm not in the least interested in the celebrity of the people involved, I'm interested in the "why" of it. It may be my mechanical background, I'm interested in how the gears fit together and why a particular solution was chosen over another. I know how a small thing can lever a large result and it counts to see it before it happens.

It is certainly possible that this is nothing more than a media driven tempest in a teacup and there really is nothing there other than noise. It's possible, but all that discipline demonstrated by the Obama operations make me wonder. I think this one is going to be fun.

Hillary Quits Friday

There have been those who have scoffed at my analysis of Hillary Clinton's next moves. It now appears that Charlie Rangel put together a conference call that was supposed to have involved the NY delegation and blew up into a bunch of Congressmen. This was followed by a Senate conference call with 8 of them brought in by her supporters. The NYT reports on this.

The speech Tue night was a mistake, it was graceless. Hillary has harmed herself with Party leaders by dragging her heels to the point of them having to push at her. The best result was if this had looked like her own idea, that is gone now. There will be payment made for this with voters and she bears that responsibility

Hillary Diplomacy

I've watched a lot of freaking out on TV and in blogs and other reports regarding Hillary's speech preceding Obama's St Paul speech. Oh no, she didn't suspend or concede or... She did start out referring to SD as having the last word, just over an hour later MT was the last word where Obama did win. She did make a few possibly flawed arguments and patted herself on the back and managed to compliment Obama on a great campaign. She wants to look at where to go and how to care for her 18 million voters. She wants leverage.

Hillary has a very narrow window to make any plays with her leverage. All her voters are not fixed in place, some are. The some are the question, the ones who won't vote Obama per the exit polls. Those voters are a minority and not a coherent group, there are those who await Hillary's word, there are those who will ignore any unity call. Most of Hillary's supporters are Democrats who will back the Party nominee, they won't be held hostage by a losing candidate.

It is surely the case that the voters awaiting Hillary's unity call will wait for her and absent it what they would do is questionable. These people are an important piece of the Democratic vote and not to be lost lightly. But here is the rub for Hillary whatever her level of Party loyalty may or may not be, the Party has the power to destroy her. If the Party sees Hillary playing too loosely with its chances for November the warnings will be stark.

I do not buy into the school of thought that places Hillary in some totally egocentric category where the Party that has allowed her and her family to thrive has none of her loyalty. I believe that she and her advisers ran the campaign they knew how to run and that it took her very nearly to the nomination - at the expense of driving up both candidate's negatives. If you look at Hillary and the people surrounding her and their histories the campaign makes perfect sense. I may believe it was fatally flawed in strategy and tactics both for her and the Party, but it very nearly worked for the Primary. It may have been a good General Election operation, though I believe the strategy would have come up short, the tactics might have been good. She benefited tremendously in her tactics from running against a candidate who did not take off the gloves. Her campaign does not signal a Party disloyalty, it does not signal egomania, it does signal an old style attack politics.

Hillary does not want this Primary to be her swan song, she wants to be a power in Democratic politics and a player of national import. This is an important piece, what has happened in this election just created a new power bloc, Obama's. Obama should be able to win this election, with Hillary's help, but that will mean four to eight years of time for a new power center to entrench itself and begin drawing to itself the strands of power and it will not be the Clinton power bloc finding a new home beyond what Hillary can carve out. The McAuliff DNC is now officially dead. Terry McAuliff and Harold Ickes are done, they can be bit players here and there but their model of Democratic politics is done for the foreseeable future and they're not young.

The road to keeping a Clinton power base is not in the Vice-presidency, the office holds no actual power. Dick Cheney is an aberration (and some other things). If Hillary took the VP Obama would be forced to bury her - and more importantly, Bill. Hillary must know this, this has to have been discussed late at night where only walls could hear, she hangs with some hard ball players. The VP is a place to go and watch her power slowly drain away. Cabinet posts might give her a basis to actuate some things she cares about, HHS would put health care very much in her hands - beneath the President - but it is also an invisible position. Anything inside the Executive Branch is a place for political power to dissipate.

Her position of 34th in Senate seniority doesn't hold a lot of swat, in itself. She is now a Senator with a powerful public voice in her own right; not as Bill's wife with a so-what junior senator ship on his coattails. Majority Leader isn't in the cards, there are way too many experienced and well senior Senators between her and it. She can make a case for a Chair and with a President's backing and a grateful Party that case could be strong.

There has been speculation about the Supreme Court, her legal background is very thin in that regard, but that has not been a bar previously. With election politics removed she might well find a backbone on the matter of principles. I am not comfortable with her stance on some issues involving the Bill of Rights and I'd probably oppose her (for all that counts). I do have to admit that there would be a certain amount of enjoyment to be found in watching the wing nuts' heads explode. This would remove her and her family from influence in electoral politics, pretty completely. That might be a trade I could live with.

If Obama wins the General Election Hillary is done in Presidential politics, her power base is now falling apart - witness the DNC RBC. Alliances based on influence are beginning to wane and that process will only accelerate under Obama. Other women will begin to gain national prominence whether Obama picks one as VP or not. Even if Obama were to pick a male for VP that would not bar changing to a woman for a second term if the male were an older man.

Hillary Clinton will be an asset to Obama's campaign because she will want a Democratic victory and because strategically she has no choice. If people don't lose their minds and start throwing conniption fits this will be fine. So, let's get to work getting Obama elected.

Hillary Open To VP

At about 3:00PM on June 3rd, 2008 AP reported that Sen Barak H Obama will obtain the delegates needed to take the Democratic Party nomination with the MT & SD votes. The result tonight would be historic whichever candidate won, the first woman or the first black. If you were to time travel less than 40 years back you would find a fight going on in this nation to end segregation. Does the mind boggle?

Evidently not if you are the Clinton campaign - as AP reported regarding a Clinton conference call with NY supporters.

Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.

You can make of this announcement what you will. I can definitely make something of the timing. The Clinton camp knew this evening was coming days ago or longer and while the voting she's claimed to be protecting was still going on she made this statement. She has managed to interject herself into the Obama headlines. That's something in itself.

The strategic part of this should be clear. Clinton has now publicly made a form of claim to the VP position and done so with timing that could not be of more impact on her supporters. Obama is quite publicly put in the position of either caving to her or seeming to dismiss her. This is an example of political hardball, and while it can be played this way it certainly is not exactly the way to create amity. I have no window into the Obama campaign, but I would expect that the reaction has not had anything to do with happiness.

If Obama supporters have had some problems with a Clinton Vice-presidency this will blow them up. This will go from opposition to explosion. This is another example of Clintonian short term thinking for short term gain. There is no other moment for her to make a more powerful pitch for VP than now, any point from here on out places her in a lesser position of force. The operative word is force. The opposing approaches are force and persuasion. Persuasion can have public elements, but is not based on threat while force rests exclusively on threat. The very simplest measure of outcome is to look at two adults in a disagreement and see which approach has what outcomes.

Whether this had occured or not there was never a chance that I would advocate for a Clinton VP slot. What this has accomplished is to prove my point once again about Clinton's short-comings. It is also quite true that I have exactly no say in the matter.

Dangerous To Predict Hillary, So I Will

Making a prediction about any candidate's switch in direction is pretty risky; I submit that with Hillary Clinton it is particularly risky. Since a dropped ball on that score is unlikely to harm my national prominence (how many Iraq war boosters lost their jobs?) I think I'll risk it.

I believe that Hillary will follow up the Tue Primaries with applause for her campaign and warm words for her supporters. She will note that she believes she's the one to get the best results and that Obama can win if we all pull together now that she has suspended her campaign. I believe the concession will be that Obama seems to have the delegates and she will begin to work to ensure a Democratic victory in November.

Suspension will be a matter of practicality, campaign debts that need to be retired. She will be able to piggy back appearances for November with appeals to help retire her historic campaign's debts. There is nothing contradictory in this nor is there something distasteful in it. Whatever you think of Hillary and her campaign, it has been a very close election and this is the first time any woman has had a credible shot at being a Presidential nominee. The campaign deserves to be able to retire as much of its debt as it can.

People have predicted or advocated Hillary taking the race to the Convention. Hillary may well believe that the Democratic Party's chances are reduced by Obama; but that does not mean that she is not surrounded by political professionals. The pros look at the Democratic Party and know the costs of a split Party going forward. The pros look at that and know who will get the blame for even the appearance of a Party split and do not want that for Clinton.

The political reality of these two candidates is that there is not enough difference in their policy ideas for either to find the other insupportable. The over riding need of the Party for a strong candidacy will drive how things play from MT/SD to November. I am not stating nor could I what Hillary Clinton feels about the whole thing, I am trying to lay out the hard reasons for doing what I'm predicting.

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, Reflections

This Saturday the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC met and sorted out the Florida and Michigan appeals. A lot of people were displeased, some were very displeased. There is an incredible amount of ignorance floating about that certainly enhanced that displeasure.

State Legislatures can offer to finance Primary elections for Parties and many do. These offers of financing often carry conditions such as open or closed Primaries or the date or... These election financing offers are just that, the State government does not control Party Primaries. The State Parties control their elections with in National Party rules. In this case we are interested in the FL & MI Primaries and the DNC. The FL & MI Legislators passed bills containing primary dates outside the DNC rules, the DNC had warned the States previous to their votes and after their votes that there would be serious consequences, the State Parties of both States told DNC to shove their consequences and went ahead. There were remedies available to both State Parties, the most affordable and legal was to refuse the Legislatures' funding and self-finance caucuses. This is the most basic reason caucuses exist, they are affordable.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee sanctioned both states with both the automatic 50% penalty and for, essentially, egregious behavior took the other 50% for a 100% penalty. The DNC further asked all the candidates to pledge not to campaign in those States. The candidates agreed. In the voting for sanctions the Clinton contingent voted 100% for 100% sanctions.

The States held their illegitimate votes on their proposed dates, in FL all candidates names were on the ballot because FL law did not allow them to withdraw them. In MI several candidates did withdraw their names before the deadline. This effectively separated the States into two different categories. Despite clear evidence of vote suppression in both states, the case could be made in FL that all suffered equally, in MI this was not the case.

The RBC held that FL would be subject to the automatic 50% penalty, this was in the face of no actual good faith attempt to remedy the situation. The question in FL was how the penalty would be applied, whether it would halve the delegation or their votes, the vote penalty favored the Clinton count. In MI with no valid vote measurement the choice came to either the DNC disallowing entirely the MI delegation or allowing the State Party to assign delegates on some relatively reasonable measurement of voter intentions. The State Party made a good faith effort and came up with a number to which a 50% vote penalty was applied.

Both States were ill served by their Legislatures, their Governors, and especially their State Parties. Regardless of the intentions of the other parties involved the State Parties are elected to serve the interest of the Democratic voters and candidates. Their loyalty is not to their legislatures or governors, their loyalty is to the interests of the Democratic Party. In particular, their loyalty is not to a candidate or even to all candidates, it is to the Party the candidates purport to represent by putting a (D) after their name. The DNC is by Charter neutral in a contested Primary and most if not all State Parties are, also. Whether a candidate expects to do well in one sort of vote or another is not within the scope of the Parties' interest.

To place this in context, the votes in FL & MI might as well never have happened for all the validity or concern of the State Parties. The Parties had remedies available to them. This blog pointed this out very early in the process and you can be assured that both Parties knew this. Both Parties knew that caucuses were their realistic solution. Both Parties ignored this. One candidate, Sen. Hillary R Clinton interfered in this process. The Clinton campaign had demonstrated poor performance in caucuses. If you wish, you can infer a motive for her interference, the fact is that she did so. Neither State was going to finance a general re-vote and FL claimed a physical inability to do so and MI law prohibited private financing in such an endeavor. It has been claimed that the Obama campaign interfered, factually they did not and could not.

The final responsibility lays at the feet of the Michigan and Florida State Democratic Parties. It is not the fault of DNC, which could not interfere. No matter what the stand of any candidate, the elections were in the control of those State Parties. The responsible people were elected by the State Parties and if they apportion blame correctly those people will no longer hold any positions of authority where they can once again so poorly serve their Party. The news media was complicit in this mess, they made little to no effort to make the actual story of authority and responsibility clear to the voters in those states or to the public at large.

Those choosing to criticize the RBC for its ruling are playing at partisan politics to the detriment of the Democratic Party and further the members so engaging are being liars by omission or actual commission. Harold Ickes is a flagrant offender, he voted for 100% penalty, once his candidate had a use for or necessity for those votes became an advocate of counting all votes - as long as they were his candidate's votes. At the meeting he used offensive, divisive, and inaccurate language to describe the motion in regard to Michigan. I do not advocate a blanket loyalty to Democratic candidates, I do state bluntly that an official of the Democratic Party owes it his allegiance and its best interests his full attention - or resign. I do advocate that supporters of candidates with equally good Democratic politics deserve the loyalty of Democrats. There is nothing in Democratic politics that justifies a vote for McCain over either Democratic candidate. John McCain is a straight line Republican and if those are the policies you prefer, then you are not a Democrat and should not claim to be now or to ever have been. If you make any sort of claim to racial or gender justice John McCain cannot possibly be seen as a reasonable alternative. In point of absolute fact as proven by votes, John McCain is George W Bush with a lot more years on him.

It is apparent that the mantle of Democratic Party leadership has been passed to a new group. I have heard and read pundits state that the party is now Obama's. I do not believe that is quite accurate, it has become the Party that Howard Dean fore saw and built for. Barak Obama has used the Dean 50 State model to great advantage and through force of charisma and organization has expanded on Deans's start.

In this article I predicted this collision, though I missed slightly on the timing:

...it is absolutely required by the state of the Democratic Party. We are going to have this out. We are going to use the process for what it was intended, to determine who and what the Democratic Party is. The process of proportional delegate apportionment is going to finally come into its own. The smaller pieces of State Parties are going have a say, the ability of underdog campaigns to flourish in that environment is going to come to pass, we are going to find some things out. We are going to find out where the Party officials and the elected Democrats want to go. We are going to find out what works and does not work in Democratic Party politics. The Howard Dean and the Terry McAuliff visions of the DNC are going to collide. This is going to be a brawl and it will go to the final round and end in a knock out. Sending the doctor into the ring will be pointless, because one is not going to get back up, ever.

I figured at that date, slightly after Ohio, that this had to go to the Convention to be sorted out. This meeting of the RBC accomplished it without the bloodbath at the Convention. I do not take seriously the Ickes reservation of right to take the delegate fight to the Credentials Committee, it would be political suicide for Clinton to do so. She is now in the remarkable position of being a Junior Senator with more Democratic Party exposure than the most senior members. She can wield tremendous influence in the Senate if she chooses to keep her political gains. Keeping those gains will require soothing the injuries to the Party and being a real part of a November victory for her rival. Her political base in the DNC is mortally wounded already, the lead up to the RBC meeting delivered that blow. Her alliance with Terry McAuliff guaranteed it.

Hillary Clinton stands at a cross roads, she can be a true power in the Senate and a guardian of the values she claims or she can lose it all on the altar of ego. She has a week or so to make up her mind, if she waits long enough to force the Party to slap her down - she is done. Despite her short comings, once the lure of the Presidency is out of the way Hillary Clinton could become standard bearer for progressive Democratic politics. She'll always bear watching, though.

Geraldine Stamps Her Feet

This election has been hard fought. Well, in certain respects it has been hard fought. One need only to look at the official statements of the campaigns and candidates to see the differences in strategy. Hillary has played the old style politics and Barack's campaign has hewed to something different, a less evident style of opposition. Politics is a messy business, close attention shows that neither candidate's hands are completely clean and that is exactly what will happen. Has either campaign appealed to race or gender? Please...is one a white female and one a black male? They need not even open their mouths and an appeal occurs. Both communities have eyes and what they do with that information is a foregone conclusion with certain members of those groups. Geraldine Ferraro's Op-Ed expresses something a bit different.

Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.

This argument seems odd to make, are any of Hillary's supporters a part of reverse sexism? Geraldine knows perfectly well they exist and not in small numbers, they are in fact clear about it - including Geraldine.

We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.

That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know. But I do know that it will never happen again as long as women are willing to stand up and make sure that it is just a one-time bad experience.

I am quite sure that sexism has been evidenced in this campaign and it needs to not happen, and Ferraro seems to agree.

If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white.

Is there a pattern emerging here?

They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate.

Where was it Hillary went to school and what was her parent's economic background? Where did her husband go to school? What was his last job again?

They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

And Geraldine's contribution to this is what? This Op-Ed?

So Ferraro's argument is that Hillary has been screwed by sexism and reverse racism? So she hasn't benefited from racism and reverse sexism? (really that is just plain sexism) There is an agenda going on here and it is not to analyze this election and it is not to straighten out the malfunctions - it is to create a victim status for Hillary.

I don't fault anyone for supporting a candidate. I think there are basis of support or opposition that are ludicrous and race and gender happen to be two of them. To the limited extent that Ferarro addressed this I agree, the plain fact is that she addressed this in not only a stupid manner, but a divisive manner. She makes it very easy to dismiss her as a spoiled brat stamping her feet. Maybe someone should ask Hillary is she agress with this tripe.

Lanny Davis Whines

There are some things you need to know about Lanny Davis. He was one of Hillary's supporters who voted to strip FL/MI of 100% of their delegation. All of them did, but he is the one under discussion here.

He's the guy who wrote and article on a "compromise" for FL/MI that has some really swell reasoning:

One principle is based in law, the second in pragmatic politics.

Watch closely now, we're going to dive off the edge of the world.

In U.S. contract law, the party breaching a contract usually has the right to "cure" the violation during the term of the contract. But if the other party stands in the way of that cure, the breaching party cannot be further sanctioned — and certainly, as a matter of fairness, the party preventing the cure should not stand to benefit.

This will get really strange in a little while, but let's do pragmatism first:

If more than 2.3 million Democrats in Michigan and Florida are told their votes didn't count even though their party leaders were willing to revote, that could anger them, to put it mildly. If they blame Obama for not supporting the revote while still blocking a fair solution by the Rules Committee, essentially not permitting their January votes to count, they are likely to be angrier still — if, that is, he is the Democratic Party's nominee. In a close election that could mean the difference between the Democratic candidate carrying or losing Michigan and Florida.

They surely will get ticked off, you folks have fanned the flames real well.

Now the Obama campaign would say that they neither objected nor approved; they just raised "concerns." That is a fact. But here is an unavoidable inference from other undeniable political facts: Had Obama instructed those supporters in Michigan and Florida who were opposed to the revotes to support them, and joined with Clinton in endorsing the revotes, the new rounds of voting would have occurred.

Here is where this got really strange, the "concerns" were quite valid, like the little matter of the complete illegality of the scheme under one state's laws, MI, and the other state's, FL, refusal to have anything to do with it. Oddly enough there was a completely legal and feasible remedy, called self-financed caucuses - but Hillary doesn't like them and froze the deciding entities, the State Parties. The actual impediment to a solution was Hillary. Does this qualify Lanny as a liar? I know the popular word is spin. (puke)

Or perhaps one Solomonic compromise, more generous to Obama than to Clinton, would be to divide the remaining delegates approximately 50-50 between the two of them, 28-27 (giving Clinton the extra delegate since she led in all the latest statewide polls prior to Jan. 15).

What do you make of the idea that Hillary ought to get not only the votes with her name on them but also the ones that didn't want her? This from an election she said didn't count. So people who cared enough to vote anybody but her in an election that didn't count are hers? I sincerely hope that the Greek concept of hubris bites him. Remember the night of the fake Florida election when Hillary said, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure your votes count?" Who was it exactly that interfered in any possible fix? She lied to those people by telling them she had a power she didn't have. Oh I know all about the wiggle words "my power" since she had none.

How about this, Lanny, delegates at 0.5 vote, uncommitted to Obama, and since the supers interfered along with Hillary (offender shouldn't benefit) 0 super delegates. Besides which, the State Parties deserve none for their willing boosterism of the original offense and the elected officials could have had sway and chose not to.

But wait, this "concerned Democrat" wasn't done making an ass of himself, nope, more stuff for Obama. You see Obama had the temerity to be winning. Four things pissed him off:
1)Edward's announcement stepped on Hillary's WV win
2)majority of delegates speech stepped on Hillary's KY win
3)announce head of VP search while Hillary still breathes
4)Bill Richardson - Judas

Ummm...Heat...Kitchen

Lanny, you are a puke and you guys ran a stupid and divisive campaign and you've lost in delegates and minus a complete bolt by automatic delegates to you it is over. I really like the juxtaposition of your compromise and your political strategy whining. From the time you wrote that stupid compromise post I've been waiting, knowing you couldn't, just could not refrain from further asininity in pathetic rhetoric blaming Obama for a bit more.

Obama has divided the Party, he's mean, he sucks, he deserves no votes, it was our turn, he can't win without our votes and we'll make sure he gets as few as possible and he can't win anyhow and I'm a girl and I can play politics anyway I want and if you say anything I'll cry and...

Holy Cow. Hillary has played a rough game for a Democratic Primary, it is politics and it does get rough, but she's used some Republican boosting methods and then claimed victim hood. Your campaign has been out maneuvered and out PRed at every turn, almost, and you try once again to use the victim card to justify freezing your supporters? Your campaign whines about caucuses and black votes while your candidate would be no one at all without the last name?

I don't find either of you to be the be - all - end - all of possible nominees, but I do find yours to be the lesser. Your candidate has a record of "old news" that was never addressed that goes right to the heart of her qualifications to be a President and you had not one battle on that front. You dragged every possible association and even imaginary ones in on your opponent and you claim dirty pool? You claim the opposition is alienating Hillary supporters? Does this sound like kicking a horse that's down? If it is, you and yours need to not be in any position of power and if this is what it takes, so be it. You ginned up the sexism card while you played on the edge of the racism card. Obama and his campaign have never hit you with sexism, it may have played a part with some, but you've seen to it Obama was blamed for it.

I objected from the beginning to your candidate's short term thinking and I'd say your campaign proves my assertion.

Fix This

I've spent some time on a friend's very reasonable blog trying to persuade a person that voting McCain rather than Obama was a bad idea. I've had some people get rather ticked at me for suggesting some are not reasonable. I've pulled a comment that is rather representative from a Hillary blog and one of the politer ones:

We have been sounding the warning bell to the DNC for months now -- they ignore it at their peril.

People will do what they want to do come November, but I certainly hope, if, haven forefend, this empty suit gets nominated, that voters won't forget or forego their promise NOT to vote for him.

This newbie Senator, with his arrogance, inexperience and his vile and evil campaign does not deserve the Presidency.
ani 05.27.2008 - 11:28 pm #

I won't let people forget. If I have to post the comments of the trolls here on a blog, or the trolls in other places or the Iron my shirt or the condescending remarks made by Obambi -

If I have to post these things a million times a day, I'll do it. we cannot forget. It is time for change, all right. But not the kind Obambi was expecting.

I will actively work against Obambi at every opportunity.

Now I'd like somebody to explain to me just what approach will work with this person. I've already found out what will not work someplace else. Do not, whatever you do, point out that there are serious consequences to such an action. I'll bet you might as well spit into the wind.

The site and commenter are not identified, deliberately. I won't drive traffic there or reward their behavior with "trolls." I also didn't cherry pick or go to the looniest site. You can find any number of them - yourself.

Maybe you can talk to this person who evidently used DPO to CC a lot of people:

Subject: Super Delegates


The voting should be a private primary ballet.


There is too much intimidation and there has been too much money donated to campaign fund for elected Super Delegates. Obama has donated more than $700,000 and Clinton in the range of $200,000. This out spending 3-1 in the state pledges should not carry through in the final SD vote.


The risk of retaliation to voters back home should be a serious concern.


Also, secrete ballet would reflect a fairness needed at this time.


Obama has only won 2 of the last 7 primaries and he has the ego to give a Victory speech in Iowa the same night after the close of the Kentucky primary. Putting out the fire of Clinton's power win and dominating the media exposure.
The same thing was done in WV with an endorsement of John Edwards the next day.


Hillary Clinton has been abuse by the media and her very own Party. I am appalled, and as a 40 year Democrat, I am ready to leave the Party.


I will not vote for Obama in the General Election. He said he did not need WV, KT and it seems FL and MI....... He does not need me either.


He is not our best candidate. We will lose. His baggage is dangerous and the Democrats are too polite to rummage through it.
The Republicans will not be that polite. Clinton's baggage is old news...Yawn.


This latest smear on Clinton about Senator Robert Kennedy is a sham. How can anyone reflect back at that time and not associate the horrible event..... it is burned in our memory.


I regret the direction my Party is taking with this Primary, it is as if the decision was made from the state. Nancy Pelosi has made her opinion very clear and from her seat of power, this is wrong.


The DNC will meet May 31....... If what they are doing is complicated, then what they are doing is wrong. Obama took his name off MI by choice, there was not a rule to do this.
Massive media and radio told voters to vote Undecided if their vote was for Obama or Edwards. 40% did....... Clinton was not the only one on the ballet, how does it make Kucinich feel? He got 7% and Hillary got 53%.
Obama want all of the 40%.


HE IS WILLING TO GIVE AND TAKE.......
Have Hillary GIVE some of her votes in Florida. (any split does this)
And TAKE some of Edwards votes in Michigan.


The solution is simple.... Votes given to Clinton are hers and Votes given to Obama are his with a portion of the undecided in MI.... yes, Edwards has endorsed Obama, but those pledged delegates need to be awarded at the convention. He has already sent troops to MI and they have already claimed ALL of the undecided and the Committee has not even met yet.


I am sorry this is so long, there is just too much abuse going on out there.
This rush to pledge SD before the close of these Primaries is strong arming and pressuring Clinton to quit. I, for one, think this is an insult on our system and may leave a scare for a long time.


Thank you,


Madeline Stewart

Now it might interest Madeline to know that Hillary started this out with 100 SD and that apparently wasn't an effort to short circuit the process? She seems to have the idea that publicly denounced as illegitimate votes are somehow extremely valid. Maybe she's open to persuasion that the Primary hasn't been stolen from Hillary. I have made the point that Hillary has used MI/FL in a cynical divisive manner designed to scapegoat the DNC and harden her supporters. Maybe I've made a valid point?

Kicking Your Friends

"Chuck, we can't allow a flap such as Sen. Clinton's latest become a reason to give up comity between factions of the party.My judgement of the Clinton campaign parallels your own, but this is politics and we have to be able to put behind us campaign tactics that rankle when it's time to close ranks and win.As for Hillary's gaffe, it doesn't matter to me why she explicitly raised the specter of assassination, because she has to have known better."

This is a blog friend of mine and we support the same candidate. He is exactly right in one aspect and exactly wrong at the same time. There are political supporters of both candidates and these folks will be approachable and then there are the Hilloons and Obamabots and these aren't approachable. The don't support their candidate, they have reached a cult like state of mind in which their candidate becomes messiah and through that definition the opponent is evil. (I give you This) It is, of course, utter nonsense, these are two politicians involved in a political struggle and separated by narrow differences in policy outside foreign policy and even there a large degree of commonality exists. Neither is sparkling clean in past and current associations or decisions.

I oppose Hillary Clinton more than I actually support Barak Obama and that is for political reasons. Race, religion, and gender don't enter into my calculations, I flatly don't care. There wasn't a Democrat in the race that I particularly opposed other than Clinton, opposed in a Primary race. That is a distinction. Some of her campaign I find pathetic, some of it I don't care about, and a couple pieces infuriate me. I can leave her alone about the pathetic victim sexism piece, if that's the image she wants to leave, her business. I don't get angry about her triangulation and pandering and short term thinking, I believe it isn't a good thing but I'm not angry and I can address it without blowing a gasket. Then we get to the piece of threatening to blow up the Party and trying to hold it hostage to her ends. That is where it ends with me.

For all its failings the Democratic Party far surpasses the Republican Party on almost every issue I care about and in general philosophy is a hands down winner. I care vastly more about the Party than I do either of these two candidates and I particularly care about the survival and construction of the DNC. Hillary Clinton has decided to turn Michigan, Florida, and the DNC into a political football for whatever advantage she can gain. Politics is a contact sport, whether you're Obama or Clinton you know it and work it from whatever theme your campaign has taken. I think a gas tax holiday is stupid, but it is a political device. Playing the, 'you can't win KY/WV,' is a political device. She may have wandered off from much of Democratic thinking with some comments, but they were aimed at Democratic voters - which is a reality, uncomfortable as that may be, and I figure pretty much useless, but...

There are two strings to the 'blow up the party' strategy and they both involve freezing supporters by establishing in their minds that this election has been somehow stolen. In order for this tactic to work there must be an offender or offenders and an obvious victim accompanied by aggrieved parties. The sanctions on MI/FL offer the most potent source of victim and aggrieved associates. Now, there is no doubt that the voters in these two states were poorly served by their legislators, their governors, and their state parties; there is even less doubt that DNC was going to have to help sort out something that helped smooth the waters, but these voters were not victimized by outside parties, not until Hillary stepped in. Hillary cannot make her stance as co-victim/primary victim of the mess on that basis alone. There is entirely too much involvement on her part and her representatives' part in the sanctions so the victim pose must have broader basis. This has gotten increasing play as time has gone on and she hasn't closed with or passed Obama and culminated in the June/RFK mess. I lost my temper.

The assassination statement didn't cause me to lose my temper, it was simply the straw. It was the last building block in her strategy that I could take. Now I don't care if people have a political or gender basis for supporting Hillary, neither is addressed by a McCain victory and they can probably see that once the campaign is over providing they do not see the nomination as theft. There isn't a 'super' delegate or political analyst that doesn't understand that particular piece and that is exactly the thrust of the Hillary campaign. If there is doubt in your mind that the strategy exists or is working look at the percentages of those who state they won't vote for their opponent in the General and who has what numbers.

I really don't have a problem with the supporters of either candidate, but the loons disturb me because there is something at work there that is not reasonable and as such at least somewhat out of control. That is not good. I have a huge problem with this strategy that the Clinton campaign has embarked on and I'm not about to back off on that. I'll go straight to the heart of the matter and I'll be real plain about it and I don't give a damn if somebody's feelings get hurt. If they cannot see this one, then there is no reasonable approach to them. What my friend I quoted misses is that the approach he advocates assumes the Hillary campaign has any intention of its realization - at any time. I agree with him and I'd love to leave Hillary alone but that is conditional, and the condition is the health of my Party. Not her continued campaign or policy disagreements, the health of the Party. That decision is not in my hands.

Now I've Goddam Had It

Yes I was offended by Hillary Clinton's comment to the Argus Herald. I was; her conflating herself with RFK pissed me off. A completely gratuitous usage of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy made me feel like my head had fallen off. Mrs Clinton, you have nothing in common with Robert F Kennedy except the sometimes questionable (D) after your name. You have nothing in demonstrated character, speaking ability, political tactics, political strategy, or political experience in common and you certainly are victim of no one other than yourself. Imaginary bullets in Bosnia don't compare with real ones in June 1968. Your supporter Bobby Jr may want your seat and he may honestly like you, I don't give a damn. I care that you use RFK to boost your candidacy of victim hood, that in your desperation to WIN you propose to compare yourself to RFK, MI/FL to the greatest struggles for civil rights, your gender based campaign failures to sexism, your inability to construct a consistent campaign image to media bias, attribute a stupid and shortsighted campaign strategy to an unfair delegate system, and quite frankly every failing you've demonstrated to someone else. I care that you're NEVER WRONG.

People are now starting to talk about the necessity of being nice to you in the interests of Party unity. This is the largest crock of garbage I can think of, other than maybe your repeated efforts to freeze your supporters and blow up the DNC. You, Mrs Clinton are trying to play hardball with a Party that should be able to cruise to a General Election victory and carry along a large down ticket. If you hope to have anything left for you after this Primary you had better knock that shit off. You are not going to win this nomination, you can stop with the phony popular vote nonsense, even the media is starting to laugh at your manufactured numbers and the Hilloons are already frozen; your supporters that operate in the realm of reason won't buy them, anyhow. Finish the Primary votes with some class and maybe a whole bunch of us won't make your political destruction our project after the General Election.

Democratic Senators, I know it's not easy trying to manage with a bare majority and you're tired of being blamed for everything that hasn't happened; but damn it show some nerve and set this woman down and explain to her how easy it is to make a Senator disappear in the Senate. Explain to her that Committee seats can go away, that Bills can go without sponsorship, that sponsoring their Bills can be denied, that earmarks and allocations can just go away, and that in four years another candidate for Senator NY (D) can get all kinds of support. Explain to her that the game of political carnage can be played by more than her and by better and more powerful than her. This is exactly enough of kicking the Party apart for her ambition.

For the Senator from NY to make an incredibly stupid reference and turn around and blame the Obama campaign for calling it "unfortunate" in the face of her attacks on him is ludicrous. 'I've been stupid and it's your fault for noticing' is one of the classics of this campaign. "I made an unfortunate and stupid reference," would work and I'd even let "I was tired," slide. Other than the word 'June' there was NO historical comparison and Hillary Clinton knew it at the time and it has been sufficiently pointed out since and preceding her NY Daily News obfuscation. There's heat in that kitchen, Hillary, and if you can't take it, shut up. It is the fault of exactly no one else that Hillary R Clinton chose the words she did.

If by some piece of insanity the name Hillary is on the Presidential ballot I will mutter to myself, "John McCainJohnMcCainJohnMcCainJohnMcCain," as I hold my nose and throw-up and mark Hillary. And I will never forget having had to do it, never.

Words Count, Really - Candidates

Let's start off with something that seems to get buried under the sturm und drang of political commentary and campaign spins; politicians live and die by the words and Obama and Clinton are professional users of language. Both are lawyers and political office holders. In law absolute precision of language is required, and a keen sense of connotation and emotional loading. In politics precision is less desirable but connotation and emotional loading are life blood. A politician who is too precise in language can easily get caught by moving events where even small adjustments look bad. The perceived meaning of words is how stage craft works, you are reached by the touch to your emotions and the illusion that it is your reason that is appealed to. This isn't to suggest that voters are idiots, this appeal is required by time frames whether they be speeches or interviews, only so much information and reasoning will fit in the time allotted.

Campaigns generally have a broad theme and underneath that, subsets, you are supposed to be drawn to a candidate enough to at least let them bring their subsets to your attention. The over arching theme for Hillary is experience and for Obama it is different politics, this is the hook, come in and see the amazing .... These hooks are very important, they cannot be let out of the control of the campaign, they must stay foremost in the voter's minds so that the subsets can be massaged to fit unfolding events. The media is both your enemy and your friend as a candidate, your words will be available to them for later contrast and comparison and it is important that it all hangs together as a consistent narrative. Thus, the broad theme stays intact and the adjustments to the subsets are justified as fitting it.

Campaigns have both advantages and drawbacks involved in their general theme - they seriously affect practical strategy. Obama's campaign theme of new politics bars some traditional approaches, attack ads and speeches are out. He cannot be seen to use traditional hard core hits on the opponent's character, he would immediately be perceived as exactly what he is campaigning against. The solution is to stay very subtle, primarily deflecting such criticism and making it look small and with an attack to do it effectively but framed so that it is not seen, a bleeding wound with no visible weapon. This puts great swathes of Hillary's own past out of reach and off-limits, a serious consideration when under attack. Hillary's experience theme places her in the realm of politics as practiced, it is part and parcel. It is the element of 'I've been there and know how this is done and how to do it.' Hillary's campaign can take off the gloves and play rough, this is how it's done.

While I may prefer Obama's approach in a Democratic Primary, both these models are valid and neither is something outre'. At some point in a campaign even these experienced propagandists are going to slip up and say something unfortunate, that's just how it is dealing with humans. Real problems occur when these slips fit into the model the campaign is using, "new politics" and "elitism" dovetail nicely and Obama has paid a large price for using shorthand and a partially completed thought expressed as "bitter" and "clinging." Hillary's campaign has walked into a couple buzzsaws, "hardworking white" is old politics of ramping up the "neglected" base and attacking the opponent by framing him as an outsider, and a disinterested one.

The collision between these models creates interesting consequences and outcomes, each candidate needs to validate their model and where they go with that is greatly determined by that main theme. One of Hillary Clinton's validations, Bill, is required by her basis of experience and others require past examples of her politics - especially ones that don't conflict with Obama's change theme. RFK and previous primaries fit that mold, she needs to connect these in the voter's minds and she has some problems. Her campaign is increasingly viewed as outlasting its point and as damaging to the Party and she needs images of the past to help with that. Never mind that politically there is no comparison that works for her, factually, image counts. RFK campaigned in June, he is a popular figure that doesn't offend "change" and most particularly for a campaign that is under attack, he was a tragic victim.

Many problems the Clinton campaign has run into are based on her usage of old politics strategies so the appeal to victimization fits nicely. She is being messed with over regular politics, which is patently unfair because this is the way things are done. Linking herself with RFK would seem to work. But then she got explicit, "assassinated" and things exploded. Obama's campaign can't go farther than "unfortunate" and must leave it lay but the media is under no such constraints.

I don't like Hillary Clinton, primarily for her short term thinking, but I won't have any truck with the idea that she wanted Obama connected with assassination. The connection was a time frame, a popular figure, and victimhood. This isn't some sort of validation of Hillary, I find it offensive that she falsely portrays herself as a victim and links herself to a true vicim. Hillary is a victim of her own construction not the media or Obama or society. Over the past 35 years she has behaved as she has and run her show as she has. Her lack of political experience has shown itself, as has her short term thinking. She has created boxes for herself that she is having problems getting out of intact and the unfairness of it all as a victim along with other victims is an avenue. Bobby, Florida, Michigan, blue collar whites, and any other she can think of at a moment will do. What is necessary is to call her on it and her cynical usage of people like FL/MI voters.

I think her supporters deserve to have the Primary elections played out, their investment in time, effort, and money shouldn't be short circuited. I don't think Hillary deserves anything. This is a ridiculous proposition, appealing to just deserts. Her misuse of FL/MI would call for her head in that case. Her nonsense that led to the '90s Republican head hunting would be tied around her neck like an anchor. Her Senate career would be over in the next election on the basis of her politically convenient votes. The stupidity of spousal entitlement would be rammed down her throat, this is politics not a divorce proceeding. Her supporters deserve consideration, not Hillary. The idea that her incompetently run ugly campaign entitles her to anything at all is ludicrous. A decent career in the Senate awaits her if she can keep herself in some kind of hand over the next couple weeks. If she decides wrecking the Party is a valid threat, she can be shown that she can be dropped into a Senate black hole.

She has served one very valid service in this Primary, the Obama campaign and Barak himself are improved by her opposition. How her strategy of hardening her supporters is going to be addressed is an open question, she may already have created an unclosable wound.

Walking Off A Short Plank With A Long Drop

Way back in yesteryear when this Primary started; the States of Florida and Michigan decided to move their primaries ahead of the DNC schedule, they were warned not to, and persisted. The warning involved a punishment from the DNC under whose rules the Democratic Primary is conducted. That punishment consisted of the primary punishment rule of 50% stripping of delegates and for egregious conduct the additional penalty of 100% stripping was imposed. The candidates all signed agreements with the DNC to not campaign and recognizing that the delegates would not be seated, the elections were not valid. The voters in the states were also informed in the clearest terms what their legislatures and governors and State Parties had done to them, they got to have no Democratic Presidential Primary on that date. So, before a single vote was cast, everybody knew exactly what was going on.

Today AP has a story containing a quote from Senator Clinton threatening to take the issue of Florida and Michigan to the Convention floor if it is not addressed satisfactorily to her at the 5/31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting.

Asked whether she would support the states if they appeal an unfavorable rules committee decision to the convention floor, the former first lady replied:

"Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

"I will consult with Floridians and the voters in Michigan because it's really their voices that are being ignored and their votes that are being discounted, and I'll support whatever the elected officials and the voters in those two states want to do."

From the time of the vote in Florida Hillary Clinton began casting herself as the saviour disenfranchised voters, despite signing an agreement stripping them of delegates and acknowledging publicly that the votes didn't count prior to their casting. What changed was that the election was not turning into the expected coronation and then by February 5th had turned seriously against her. She has been beating the drum of Florida and Michigan from the time it looked as though their help was important and beating that drum to the detriment of the DNC.

She effectively stopped any chance either state had of fixing the mess, that fix would have required caucuses. Neither state could afford or were willing to afford another general primary vote and no one else could. The State Parties could have afforded, barely, to hold caucuses but were dissuaded by the hope Hillary held out that their illegitimate primaries would be recognized. Through implication she has demonized the DNC and through her action has driven a hate campaign against them within those states and her supporters. She has convinced her supporters that an unfair advantage has been taken of her by Obama in regard to these states. She and her supporters accuse Senator Obama of cheating her by following the rules they all agreed to. Those supporters are being hardened into a position of either not supporting her opponent in the general or voting for the Republican.

This is a dangerous game to play, the DNC is the official body of the Democratic Party which sets the rules and keeps things going during the off years. The DNC is not the villain in this mess, the legislatures, governors, and state parties are the culprits. Charlie Christ is a lying Republican suntanned snake when he proposes he stands for the interests of all Floridians in this matter, sure as long as they are Republicans he does. Hillary Clinton plays the cat's paw for the Republicans in this and thrashes her own Party in the process (well DNC is no longer the Terry McAuliff big money playground so maybe it isn't her party). There is already damage being done to the DNC by her machinations and she is making noises about making it worse. That existing damage cannot be making the DNC happy and making enemies in politics is a poor practice.

Hillary may think she is putting the DNC on notice that it is her way or the highway by talking about taking the matter to the convention floor but what she is doing is making clear how she plays politics. The DNC and the automatic (super) delegates have it within their reach to knock her silly head off. No super delegate is bound by an endorsement and DNC can ignore her bluff and totally strip the states, a combination of those being flung at her would put her in the position of massive retaliation. If she plays this too far and does lasting damage to DNC and the Democratic nominee she will be finished in Democratic politics. She has taken this to the absolute edge already.

The argument of "I broke this, that Obama can't win, you have to nominate me" won't work, it is done and over unless Obama does something to himself. If Obama loses the General and it even looks like Hillary was responsible there will be a horrific backlash when her Senate seat comes up and the 2012 Presidential Primary would mean a crushing of historic elements. She will spend the next 4 years in the Senate as a pariah to many Democrats and many of her colleagues won't have short memories. "I told you so," won't work, self-fulfilling prophesies are really suspect especially when important voices aren't in the least fooled and John McCain is vetoing bills.

I have made the point over the last year and some that Hillary's difficulties arise from her attachment to short term gain and neglect of long term thinking. The scandals the Republicans tried to gin up against her in the 90s had their roots in that behavior, the Health Care debacle was a victim of it, her vote for AUMF was a symptom, the flag burning vote, and on and on. Her campaign was run with that thinking, have fun spending money, do shock and awe and Feb 5 finishes the deal. What ever damage she is doing to her party, her supporters vision of the process, and the nominee is farther away than her immediate concern of getting delegates she did not earn. Nobody earned delegates in FL/MI, any delegates awarded are an artificial sop to the states and Hillary and there is no way that they'll do her any good, her own actions have guaranteed that - the DNC is not going to reward her behavior.

Floridians "learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she told supporters. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: If any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

"The people who voted did nothing wrong and it would be wrong to punish you," she added.

This is an absolutely poisonous comparison to make to the DNC. The question that will be resolved is whether Hillary Clinton has done anything wrong and how her actions are addressed. I have gone through the stages of being unenthusiastic about her, through opposing her, to now reaching the point of active hostility. I might find it an interesting project to get past this election and begin a process of helping to destroy her. I don't believe I'd find myself short of allies - and not the Republican type, either. Too bad, Sen Kennedy's health may leave large shoes to fill... I've said it before, making enemies in politics where you don't need to is stupid behavior - ask George II.

2025 or 2210 ?

The latest "metric" (I'm starting to hate certain words and phrases) of the Hillary campaign is that the delegate total to reach nomination is 2210, despite their repeated uses of 2025 following the disallowed FL/MI primaries. They get there by using those state's fully allotted delegate slates. Since the first clause of DNC rules regarding inadvertent violation stipulate a 50% delegate penalty that would seem outright flaunting of the rules, the 100% penalty is for an egregious violation, which both states did. I am no fan of punishing voters, but I am also no fan of changing rules in midstream after all candidates agreed; there is simply no measure of any accuracy to be obtained from the results. The candidates all agreed to the penalties because to do otherwise would be unfair to candidates following the rules and punishing them for following the rules. There were no Democratic Presidential Primaries held in either state. Period.

Not seating FL/MI is not politically smart, but neither is seating them in an unfair fashion. Hillary would have it her way and no other way, despite having no ethical leg to stand on. This is exactly the kind of behavior that will cement the resentment of the citizens of those states towards the Democratic Party. Whatever other political manuevers Hillary has taken that offend some in the Party, this one is the most offensive and divisive.

The political problem with this stand of 2210 is that it is mathematically stupid, it raises the bar for Hillary even higher than it was at 2025, the delegates gained in the two states don't get her to 2025 much less a higher number. Add into the inability to do simple addition the irritation level raised within the DNC and you have (sorry here comes multiplication) stupidity squared. No organization as complex as the DNC can function without rules. The idea that something that encompasses 50 states and territories, varied races, varied genders, varied economic interests, varied etc ad nauseum groups like the DNC can function without adherence to rules of conduct is beyond ludicrous. You might as well turn 650 three year olds loose alone in a house and expect it to be spic and span when you return - and the dishes done and dinner cooked.

Democrats are a fractious group to begin with and leaving them without a rudder is an invitation to disaster. Despite the linked agendas someone or someones will try for an edge in their particular piece of the agenda. The gloves come off and at the end the most powerful win and the losers are quite angry. This is already playing out in the Primaries, there are a lot of hurt feelings and potentially hurt feelings. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will decide how to deal with this, but Hillary has already pushed it past the point where any decision will not leave anger in its wake. If I didn't fear the results of more Republican rule, I'd be satisfied to watch this go to the Convention Floor as a brawl and blow the Party apart for awhile - as long as it resulted in the complete extinction of the Clinton brand. On this basis alone.

Hillary's Wolfson And The Course Ahead

Howard Wolfson on MSNBC's Hardball stated that the Clinton campaign would do whatever is allowed in the rules to win the nomination and go as far as that takes. MI, FL, and Puerto Rico should all count in the popular vote metric, despite PR not being able to vote in the General, MI not having Obama's name on the ballot and their agreement from the outset that neither state counted in the Primary. Wolfson is willing to split the delegates by proportion, good for them since Obama has no MI delegates, and even better since nobody campaigned in either state.

Perhaps more interesting was his statement that she's all in for the campaign finances, noting there is a legal limit. That would be one half their joint assets. I'm not unhappy to see the Clintons throw money at this. It is not only their right, it pleases me to watch them do it. It does get a little difficult to play the shots and beer blue collar gal paying millions for a campaign. I'm sure they both picked up lots of blisters and calluses getting those millions. She's in $11.5M now, what's some more?

Here is the thing that bothers me with the Clinton campaign as it has since February, her willingness to say nearly anything to get elected. Since the only real difference between the candidates is foreign policy stance and attitude toward the electorate in campaign, her only moves can be to tear down Obama in the voter's eyes in search of the elusive nomination. Will she take this far enough to give the Republicans campaign material and will she so harden her supporters that they will not support Obama? Her reach is limited in neither regard except by considerations of the November election, which she seems to assume she will be campaigning in. If that mindset holds, there is no limit, damage to Obama is immaterial.

I do not advocate Hillary dropping out before the Primaries are over. She has earned her shot at this and her voters have earned the right to their votes considered. What does not seem to be in Hillary's consideration is that this is a Democratic Primary, it is not a General Election. It is not opposed Parties. It is one Party with a large reach in demographics. Attempting to play the Party off against itself is destructive. The idea that a campaign that closes out as the Clinton campaign has run since March can turn around and credibly support Obama is nearly nonsensical.

As the Clinton fortunes have decreased the rhetoric has gotten more harsh and the Clinton supporters have hardened. The harshness not only plays to Republicans but also creates bad feelings in her supporters. Those voters are not reflected clearly on the Internet and pro-Hillary websites, but there is an aspect of carried over reality. Both sides have looney tunes supporters who would rather throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic works than vote for the opposing candidate in the General, but the Hillary numbers in exit polls are distressing and the vehemence of dislike on the web is atrocious. The Clinton electability argument is picked up and carried to the extent that anyone associated with Obama is a traitor to Democrats. There is a consistent thread of Obama dishonesty and lies regarding Clinton. This is in the face of all the unused negatives Clinton has, all that left laying by Obama - unused. This is a real problem, it is not media fantasy.

There is no similarity between either Democrat and John McCain, absolutely none. To interpret the nomination of either candidate as a validation of McCain is beyond ridiculous, it is self-immolation. Anything Clinton does to encourage or to tolerate this is irresponsible in the extreme. Comments like the one today responding to the AP article with USA Today that emphasize racial and economic splits as a justification for a campaign are the sort of thing that nails supporters down. Regardless of how votes are splitting in race and education and economic status this is not an argument to make. It creates the cement that sets support in a fixed position and validates racism as reasoning, by inference. There are white blue collar Democrats who are uneasy with the idea of a black candidate for President, you do not give that any more impetus than it has on its own anymore than it would be smart for the Obama campaign to encourage misogyny. You do not set up conditions to make groups useless to your opponent in a Party primary, you do that in a General.

Hillary Clinton could choose to go out of this campaign stressing her positives, she could do that and gain more good will than all the votes gotten from the other course. I'll bet she doesn't.

Bosnia And Back Again

The Jed Report

I couldn't help myself

Hillary Is Human, So She Says

On the matter of mis-remembering being shot at, Hillary says, so what, just proves I'm human. If there is as much accuracy in that statement as claims of snipers and saving Ireland from itself, you might wonder if there are circuit boards in her head and a frame of alloy. I'm sorry, lady, lying is lying, or your mental circuits are so badly deformed that two completely self-exclusive events become the same. Do you make that case that you are most fit to be President when an entirely imaginary occurrence becomes your memory? Most of us know that Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, but there is probably no more famous un-uttered falsehood. What is there to make of this one? I'm human? Look here you unprincipled piece of work, I'm human and I live in a small town and if I ran my show the way you do, I'd never have work - I'm not running for President, just some construction work. If I did this, people would not hire me to pound nails into their house.

Put on your victim dress Hillary, people are just being unfair. You've answered, you were just tired, 3:00 AM tired, several times. But the real issue is Barack's pastor said mean things about the USA, his pastor said - you said - there is a difference You said people pick their pastor versus their relatives, did you pick your husband? Did you bail over a blue dress? No? What kind of judgement am I to take that as? Was it love, ambition, power, influence, what? To be sure, the issue isn't your lies, it is Rev Wright saying something rudely true. You haven't learned anything since your days in Arkansas. You've done pretty well counting on us to not have paid attention either.

Why's Everybody Always Pickin' On Me?

Peter Daou is Hillary Clinton's internet director. When does the unity part start?

I'm writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.

I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn't run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it's time to put that misconception to rest.

The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?

Since I'm in no way connected to the Obama campaign, including no dollars contributions and this was sent unsolicited to me, I'll post a short answer
AHAHAHAHAHA

Politics can get pretty darn rough at times and the Clinton camp sure knows it. This guy makes reference to the Power statement this way:

And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."

Yep, she since left the campaign - the next day, which could be contrasted to the 10 days it took for Ferraro's statement to sink in with camp Clinton... Nobody at Obama's place brought up Ken Starr, that piece of stupidity occurred right there at home. Since they wanted to bring that particular mess up, how about that Hillary, what about the stuff that set Starr off in the first place? No, Hillary, not the junk Republican smears, the actual real stuff? I actually tried to sort through this thing, what I got is 'being the victim in the 90's served me pretty well, let's go again.' I do kind of resent being treated like a rube. That also isn't real new. Funny thing, I said that stuff, Camp Obama never has, and they sure could.

I've got news for you, you were never inevitable except in your own mind and some lazy journalists' and you don't have a teflon coating - your stuff is going to stick to you. Whine at somebody else. Better yet, knock off the BS and folks won't have it to hit you with. I tried to leave you alone, but you just can't manage to stay out of the stuff that will put you right back into my pages. Too bad for you.

Clinton Pushes Another One Away

The Political Cat has had enough and ditched his neutrality in the Democratic Primary. He's another driven away by what Clinton sees as a winning strategy. Unlike me, he was giving her open consideration, well read what he has to say about it.

They're a friend of this Blog, through links and etc, so stop by. Good writing also. The Cat isn't a heck of alot calmer than me, either.