Dream Team?

With Hillary Clinton preparing to endorse Barack Obama, the punditocracy and political class has immediately begun wondering about the possibility of a Obama-Clinton ticket. She's apparently receptive to the notion, and at least one of her supporters plans to openly push for it. The idea of the nominee combining with his closest rival has precedent: In 1960, John Kennedy teamed with Lyndon Johnson and in 1980 George Bush joined Ronald Reagan. It's the quickest and simplest way to unify a party: It shows respect to the supporters of the runner-up and demands that the runner-up campaign actively for the ticket. In the case of Hillary Clinton, Obama would tap into a formidable organization and donor base.

But, he would also take on the baggage of party insiders who think they should be running the show. Putting Clinton and all that comes with her on the ticket would hardly burnish his carefully cultivated image as a new breed of politician practicing a new kind of politics. And, of course, it would mean taking on that tangled thicket of complications known as Bill Clinton. The spotlight would be on the Clintons as much or more so than Obama. Should he be elected, what role would the former president play? Does Obama really want two Clintons looking over his shoulder when one is likely one too many? Of course, the last thing Obama or the country needs is a revisitation of the events leading to Clinton's impeachment. For all of these reasons, it's hard to see Obama asking Clinton to be his vice-president. There are other ways to unify a party that smells victory anyway, so why take a cure that might well be worse than the disease...

Eric Alterman and George Zornick provide a corrective to the right-wing media characterization of illegal immigration. Apparently, Lou Dobbs et. al. really believe in a plot to build a "NAFTA Superhighway" that will connect Canada, the United States, and Mexico as part of a scheme to undermine American sovreignty. More insidiously, this crew pretty much lies about the impact of illegal immigrants on crime. Read it and weep...

Bill Fletcher of The Black Commentator reflects on the meaning of Obama's history-making victory. While appreciating its significance, Fletcher points out that "...if we are not thinking both about building for an Obama victory, but more importantly, laying the foundation for stronger social movements and a mass political organization that can advance a progressive direction, we will have misunderstood our challenge and fallen prey to illusions."

The Nation reports the following:

• Percentage of Iraqis displaced by the war: 20
  
• American cost of the Iraq war per second (as of 3/08): $4,563.18
  
• Total number of coalition personnel in Iraq at the height of the "surge" (including all contractors and civilian support): 343,100
  
• Total number of actual U.S. combat troops in Iraq at the height of the "surge" (excluding support personnel): 38,000
  
• Number of police officers in NYC: 37,000
  
• Number of embedded journalists during the March 2003 invasion: 775
• Number of embedded journalists in March 2008: 23
• Number of U.S. troops killed and wounded, Hue City, Vietnam, 1968: 147; 857
• Number of U.S. troops killed and wounded, Falluja, Iraq, 2004: 104; 1,110
• Number of Iraq troops diagnosed with PTSD: 300,000
• Number of troops stop-lossed: 58,300
• Number of troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001: 1,668,000
• Number of troops deployed after being declared medically unfit: 43,000

No Woman, No Cry

A downside of the internet is its endless craving for something, anything new to fill the information vacuum created by its very existence. Hence, we get articles like this waste of time, talent, energy, and space, which supposes that Hillary Clinton's looming defeat signals the end of any real possibility of a woman president in the near future. There's no one, it seems, with Clinton's "name recognition, fundraising network or political connections." (These are the kinds of "qualifications" that tempt a candidate to make a calculated vote in favor of a war he or she likely has little enthusiasm for.)

It belabors the obvious to point out that four years ago almost any American would have bet on the likelihood of hellfire in the Arctic Circle over the probability of an African-American being a major party nominee for president of the United States. And, somehow or other, Barack Obama managed the feat without name recognition, a fundraising network, and virtually no national connections. Obama does have charisma, vision, an agile intellect, and superior political mind. A woman candidate with these credentials will be formidable indeed, even if we don't know at the moment who she might be. If nothing else, Barack Obama has proven that a genuine political force can come out of nowhere and dominate the political scene.

In truth, the "next" woman candidate (and who is to say that there won't be more than one?) doesn't have to be the second coming of Barack Obama to be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. After all, Clinton's name recognition, fundraising, and connections result from being the spouse of a popular president. Her successors will achieve what they achieve on the basis of their own abilities. They may not be so lucky, but my guess is that they'll be better.

How He Did It

How Barack Obama came to the verge of the Democratic party presidential nomination will be the subject of books, articles, theses, and dissertations for years. What I know is this much: Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iraq war exposed an opening on her left. Democrats opposed to the war -- in other words, just about all Democrats except for the U.S. Senator from Connecticut -- were left to ponder the rationale behind the decision of the woman who was not only the early front runner for the party's presidential nomination, she was virtually the assumed nominee.

In her speech to the Senate explaining her vote, Clinton walked a line between support for unilateral intervention and for seeking full U.N. approval. She carefully said that she was not voting for "any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world." (Truer words were never spoken.) But the money quote, the one that raised suspicions about her judgment and motives came earlier in the speech:

"I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war..."

This flew in the face of grass-roots assumptions about Bush. How could anyone trust a man who would steal a presidential election? How could anyone trust a man who ran as a uniter and already governed as a divider? And biggest of all, how could anyone trust the word of a man that he wanted to avoid war when he was clearly rushing headlong toward it? And if Clinton actually didn't trust Bush, what kind of person would vote for war as an expedient means of covering her right flank?

All of this would have been moot had the occupation gone well. Instead, the predictions of anti-war politicians and citizens came true with a vengeance. Clinton stood by her vote, wondering on Larry King Live, wondering how the administration could "have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath" of the invasion. To her would-be constituency, this missed the point, since the inability of the Bush Administration or anyone else to win the peace in Iraq was a fundamental reason for opposing the war in the first place. How, we wondered, could a Democratic U.S. Senator even be wondering about what had been obvious all along? To all appearances, Clinton had believed that the war and occupation would be a success, a stance that now achieved the seemingly impossible combination of naivete and cynicism.

The opening for an alternative widened. What no one expected was that a freshman Senator from Illinois would fill it, or that his opportunity would be the result of a wildly successful book tour. Barack Obama offered two things that Hillary Clinton did not: He opposed the war from the onset and he offered an antidote to the expediency that many of us felt underlay Clinton's vote. Thus, he could plausibly lay claim to correct judgment about the war and to an aversion to the cynical political calculus that helped produce the war. (That she resolutely avoided discussion of her vote led more and more Democrats to conclude that she had in fact made a vote she believed was politically smart.)

Did this preordain an Obama victory? We tend to forget that Clinton handily led all comers on the eve of the primary season. Barack Obama took maximum advantage of the opening Clinton gave him with a superior campaign strategy that involved grass-roots organizing and fundraising and a consistent message of changing the way things were done. Clinton's campaign suddenly seemed to be without a rationale: What she and her supporters anticipated as a triumphal coronation march had suddenly become a referendum on the way on the S.O.P. of the Washington establishment she claimed to have mastered.

Clinton ran on a strategy that was to culminate in victory on Super Tueday. Obama -- ironically, as it turned out -- saw the campaign as a drawn out affair in which he would relentlessly bring his superior 50-state organization to bear. When Super Tuesday proved inconclusive, he was able to win big in states that Clinton considered irrelevant to the campaign and had not bothered to organze. By the time she recovered and sharpened the rationale for her candidacy, Obama had built a delegate lead that she could not cut into with relatively narrow victories in the states where the demographics favored her. Indeed, a similar dynamic played itself out over and over: In Clinton states, Obama cut into a big lead to finish closer than expected, whereas she made no headway in Obama states.

In the end, a superior candidate with a superior strategy successfully appealed to a party that wants to turn the page. While Clinton commands an important constituency, there's no reason to think that Obama can't pull it together under his campaign in the general election. He will have more money than John McCain. It's already clear that he is as gifted an organizer as he is an orator. He will be the candidate of change in a country tired of a failed war, disgusted by the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and increasingly frightened of a deteriorating economy and the increasing lack of access to health care. So far, all his opponent will say is that Bush has the right ideas, he's just put them into action (or inaction) incompetently -- in other, McCain promises more of the same with better results.

The big question -- and it is a big one - is whether the country will vote for an African-American president even in the face of a failed administration. In that sense, the coming campaign will be a referendum on whether we as a nation truly believe what we say: That all men are created equal. It is time, in Martin Luther King's unforgettable words, for this country to live out the true meaning of its creed.

It's All Over But The Crying

By now, it's apparent to anyone outside the circle of Hillary Clinton's most devoted supporters that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party nominee for president. Clinton soldiers on for reasons known only to her at this point. As her attacks on Obama become shriller and shriller, Obama adds to his tally of superdelegates. That her remark questioning Obama's support among "hard-working Americans, white Americans" has been met with a relatively muted response only highlights her situation: No one is listening any more.

Think for a moment about the magnitude of Obama's achievement. An African-American community organizer from South Chicago rose to the United States Senate and now is about to defeat the most recognizable name in the Democratic party for the presidential nomination. It is by any definition an historic accomplishment, perhaps unmatched in American politics. And yet Hillary Clinton would have us believe that Obama cannot defeat John McCain in the fall.

But what do we care anyway? Everything's great right now (click to enlarge):

(For more surreal inanity, see www.zippythepinhead.com)

If you want to be moved and touched, don't miss Aaron Neville's reflections on the 2008 JazzFest. (Thanks to Ned Sublette for calling this to my attention. If you haven't read my review of Ned's excellent book, The World That Made New Orleans, it's here.)

Until the end of this month, Seattle's Davidson Gallery has a wonderful show of work by print-maker Artemio Rodriguez. If you live in the area, don't miss it. Here's a sample of Rodriguez's amazing work:

Barack Obama's Crime

A saloon in the Old West hires a Shakespearean actor to declaim a few lines from Othello. He arrives on the noon stage; a pair of town drunks waylay him immediately. They fire their guns at his feet and order him to dance while the whole town looks on. Through no fault of his own, the actor becomes the lead player in a demeaning spectacle. This pretty describes the gravitas level at Wednesday night's Pennsylvania primary debate.

Especially ridiculous was George Stephanopoulos' question about Barack Obama's connection to the Weather Underground:

"A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

"An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"

An incredulous Obama protested that "the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."

Needless to say, Hillary Clinton disagreed, adding that "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position."

Who is William Ayers? Today, he is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. He's also an advisor to Chicago Mayor William Daly on education issues. He was once a member of the Weather Underground, and actually went underground after an accidental explosion at his apartment killed his girl friend and two others. Ayers and his new wife -- fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn -- surrendered themselves to authorities in 1980. All charges against them were dropped owing to prosecutorial misconduct. Unlike David Horowitz, another Sixties radical, Ayers retained the courage of his convictions while channeling his considerable intellect and energies in more constructive directions. For example, Mayor Daley selected him to lead Chicago's highly regarded school reform effort.

Let's take a close look at the exchange between Stephanopoulos, Obama, and Clinton. The September 11, 2oo1 edition of the New York Times did contain Ayers' provocative statement. However, for inclusion in that day's paper, Ayers must have made the statement prior to 9/11, when neither he nor anyone else outside of the Oval Office had advance warning of the attack on the World Trade Center. Moreover, the Times would have put the edition to bed prior to the bombings. As someone who has spent his career in or working with the news media, George Stephanopoulos knew this. Thus, he deliberately framed his question to inflame and mislead. This kind of juvenalia one expects from Fox News; it's a broach of the public trust that it came from one of the most recognizable members of ABC News. Why is it a broach of public trust? ABC may be a business, but we own the airwaves.

We now know that right-wing talk show host Sean Hannity virtually spoon-fed the question to Stephanopoulos on his radio program: Stephanopolous dutifully informed Hannity that he was "taking notes." (You can listen to the actual exchange here.) ABC claims that they were researching the matter anyway, but neither they nor Stephanopoulos must have been taking very good notes. For if they had, they'd know that Ayers clarified his remarks as referring to the Vietnam war and that he should have worked even harder to oppose it. They would also have known that -- far from being unrepentant (as Hannity would have it) --Ayers told the the Times in the same interview that he was "embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism..." As Stephanopoulos failed to include this context, he was either ignorant of it or again deliberately chose an intellectually dishonest way to raise the matter.

I lean toward the latter explanation, as he took his cue from a leading light in a club of dissemblers with such members as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. Utterly without scruples, Sean Hannity and his ilk treat journalism like professional wrestling. Hannity would become a liberal tomorrow if he thought it would increase ratings and book sales. That Stephanopoulos would lend credibility to this person by appearing on his program makes one wonder about the man's own scruples. Or at least his self-respect.

As for the actual fundraiser at the Ayers home, it seems that Obama's predecessor in the Illinois State Senate knew William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and asked them to host a fundraiser for Obama. That's it. That's the extent of this particular sinister nexus.

But what about the sinister Woods Fund? By eagerly associating it with Ayers, Clinton connected the Fund -- and by extension former board member Obama -- with the violent activities of the Weather Underground. For starters, the Fund's Board of Directors is comprised mainly of such dangerous characters as educators and business executives. (That Hillary Clinton, for six years a paid member of WalMart's Board of Directors, tut-tuts Obama because Ayers may have held a paid board position with the Woods Fund is downright comical.)

As for its mission, it turns out that the Woods Fund "is a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them." And perhaps this is Barack Obama's crime in the eyes of the media elite: Telling the disenfranchised that their voice counts as much as anyone else's and that they must make it heard.

Coach Gibbons Friday:

3 rounds of:

10 squats

10 sit ups

10 push ups

4 rounds of:

21 kettlebell swings (36 lbs)

18 lunges

15 dumbbell thrusters (2x20-lb)

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton:

While I support Senator Obama, I have steadfastly defended your candidacy and told anyone who wanted to know (and more who didn't) that you would make a fine president and that I had no problem voting for you enthusiastically in November. When my son sent me Frank Rich's column calling you out for race baiting, I told him that Rich was over the top. But, Geraldine Ferraro's comment about Senator Obama has forced me to change my mind: Once again, your response to the provocative racial remarks by a surrogate has been tepid and unsatisfactory. 

There's an unsettling pattern here. A member of your campaign makes a pointed remark about race, which you disingenuously turn aside without really condemning it. (Compare this to Senator Obama's denunciation of Louis Farrakhan in a far less inflammatory context.) It's not the content of any particular incident that bothers me, it's the accumulation of them. Together, they take on the cloak of a vile, cheap tactic to isolate Senator Obama by appealing to racial fears and attitudes.

You and your supporters deny this, of course. As for me, I only know what I read:

1. Your pollster Sergio Blendixen told The New Yorker that Hispanic voters did not tend to support black candidates. You defended this statement as a historical reality when in fact it is not, as Gregory Rodriguez pointed out. A politician as knowledgeable and experienced as you must have known this; Blendixen's comment (unchallenged by either The New Yorker or the MSM) now comes across as a coarse attempt to drive a wedge between the two constituencies.
2. Billy Shaheen, your New Hampshire campaign chairman, raised Senator Obama's "drug use" as a young man, hinting darkly that Obama may have sold drugs. Despite this allegation having no basis whatsoever in fact, your campaign kept it alive for nearly a week. And although you obtained Shaheen's resignation, his raising of the matter appears to be part of a high-level campaign strategy.
3. During the South Carolina primary, President Clinton belittled Senator Obama's campaign (and by extension, his supporters) as relying on the black vote and later dismissed the senator as "the black candidate."
4. Matt Drudge claimed to have obtained the infamous picture of Senator Obama wearing Somali ceremonial dress from "Clinton staffers." Even considering the source -- especially considering the source -- your campaign's "denial" was insincere and defensive, and had plausible deniability written all over it. Your response to a question during the Texas debate did nothing to alter this impression.
5. Most recently, of  course, you barely responded to Geraldine Ferraro's ridiculous assertion that Senator Obama occupies his current position as front-runner for the Democratic party presidential nomination because of his race.

It's ridiculous, Senator Clinton, because Senator Obama owes his position to a superior campaign plan, a superior rhetorical strategy, and because he is a superior politician. To what extent does his race play a role? I don't know and neither do you or Geraldine Ferraro. Racial dynamics are subtle and elusive, something two experienced and intelligent New York politicians surely recognize. That Ms. Ferraro reduced this to the kind of language that exploits the resentments of the so-called reverse discrimination, anti-affirmative crowd is worse than ridiculous: It's despicable. That you responded no more strongly than with a vague and smarmy reference to "regrettable" behavior by "supporters...on both sides" is equally despicable.

Senator, the discussion should be about the implications of Admiral Fallon's retirement, the mortgage crisis, health care, and the state of the economy. You should be working to keep the Iraq war on the front pages instead of helping to push it to the back.

The list above is long and depressing. If by some political miracle you become the party's nominee for president, I will vote for you in November. But I won't lift a finger to help and I won't contribute a cent. I won't even put a bumper sticker on my car. Not that you care, but I'm that disillusioned.

In the 1960's, Democrats surrendered the South and the presidency for the cause of civil rights. Our party faced a momentous decision and made the right choice. More than anything else, that's made me proud of my party and proud to be a Democrat. That you are willing to trash that legacy in the interest of your fading ambitions is cynical and pathetic. How did it come to this?

The Math

Although Hillary Clinton emerged from Tuesday's primaries with new energy if not actual momentum, it remains exceedingly difficult to see how she can catch Barack Obama in the delegate count that ultimately determines the party nominee. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter tried mightily to devise a scenario under which she wins, and couldn't do it. 

Using Slate's delegate counter and the most recent state-by-state poll numbers (where they exist), I calculate that the remaining 982 delegates apportioned by primary will break 496-486 for Obama. That would give him 1,688 primary and caucus delegates, leaving him 337 short. And, he already has pledges from 201 superdelegates, cutting the number needed to 136 (under my calculations). As the uncommitted superdelegates are extremely unlikely to vote counter to the will of the voters in their states, he would almost certainly get at least that many. (Today, 279 superdelegates are uncommitted.)

Now, that's using my methodology, which is hardly scientific: I based my numbers on current polls, which are bound to change. But, I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and always gave her most of the undecided voters. In any case, it's a reasonably educated guess about where things stand today.

The wild cards are, of course, the Michigan and Florida delegations, which right now won't be seated. (They scheduled primaries in violation of party rules, and as result lost their delegates.) Howard Dean wants a do-over, but says the national party won't pay for it. The Clinton campaign wants the faux primary results to count (she won both), but that's unlikely. On the other hand, it's unimaginable that those two states won't have convention delegates, so something will be worked out. Even factoring in Clinton wins (and that's an especially debatable proposition in Michigan), she has not to date won any primary by the kind margins required to surpass Obama. In fact, whatever happens with those two states, he would likely wind up needing less than 100 superdelegates.

All of which explains recent hints from the Clinton campaign that they'd be amenable to a Clinton-Obama ticket. However, there's no reason for Obama to sign up for that. He's ahead, after all. Moreover, recent national polls have him trouncing John McCain, running much more strongly in the general election than Clinton. Despite last Tuesday's setback, he remains in a commanding position. At some point, Clinton must pull off a couple of genuine upsets to change the dynamic. Otherwise, one of the most anticipated campaigns in recent memory will collapse, mostly done in by the weight of its own baggage.

This is a low blow, and stupid in the bargain...Obama is not only African-American, he's black Irish as well...

Electability

Last night's primaries and caucuses left the battle for the Democratic party presidential nomination unsettled. If you are a Clinton supporter, you feel good about her (finally) blunting Obama's momentum and about her winning two more big states. (Although Texas is in some ways a split decision, since while Clinton won narrowly at the polls, Obama again won the caucuses handily.) On the other hand, the delegate picture remains more or less unchanged, with her having to win the remaining contests by margins she has yet to demonstrate she can compile.

If you are an Obama supporter, you're likely to point out that your candidate cut deeply into what were once 20 point margins, and that he still holds a commanding lead of about 100 in the delegate count. The fact remains, however, that he missed a chance to exert strong pressure on Clinton to end her campaign. He now faces at least six more weeks of campaigning until the Pennsylvania primary, where Clinton holds a lead of from anywhere from 6 to 14 points. Moreover, demographically Pennsylvania is one of the oldest states in the country, which plays to Clinton's strength among voters aged 50 and over.

In my mind, picking a candidate on the basis of "electability" is a sucker's game: Anything can happen between now and the first Tuesday in November to change assumptions made today. However, it's going to become an item of discussion regardless of what I think. You can anticipate arguments from the Clinton and Obama camps along the following lines.

Clinton will argue that the electorate remains split into red and blue states. She will argue that no Democrat can be elected president without carrying the states John Kerry carried in 2004, plus Ohio. She will point out that she won primaries in the vital states of California, Michigan, New Jersey and New York, not to mention Ohio. Pennsylvania, because of its demographics, is hers to lose, and Kerry barely carried it in 2004. Because of the strength she's shown in the Midwest, she is the candidate who can hold the Kerry electoral base, add Ohio, and be elected president.

Obama will spin the debate in a different direction. The electorate is closer to purple than red and blue, he will posit, and this election offers a historic opportunity to Democrats if they can legitimately offer a change in the way we conduct politics. He'll remind us that John McCain is more Catholic than the pope when it comes to an Iraq war that the public has turned against; that with the country in or on the brink of recession, Republicans offer a candidate who admits that he "doesn't really understand economics;" and whose solution to the health care access crisis is to continue letting the market work its wondrous magic. This sets the stage for a Democrat to win big, and Obama is the candidate who has shown strength in states like Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, and Missouri -- states that Bush won narrowly or that Democrats didn't dare think of winning until he (Obama) demonstrated the possibilities.

What the electability debate comes down to is whose reading of the political landscape you agree with and whether you think America wants a new politics enough to elect an African-American president. I will say this: I don't think Hillary Clinton can overcome her disapproval ratings enough to win big, no matter how favorable the terrain. She's simply not a good enough campaigner. Obama has the better chance of a big win, but he must figure out a way to finesse the preparedness argument that Clinton successfully raised in Ohio. As for Obama's race, let's hope that the better angels prevail.

The Clipper and The Kid

Is this a wonderful picture or what? Besides being two of the greatest players ever, Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio had two of the greatest nicknames ever: The Splendid Splinter and The Yankee Clipper. And Yankees fans? I hate to break the news to you, but the Splinter was Teddy Ballgame a long time before Don Mattingly was Donnie Ballgame. Anyway, with Ted and Joe, you're looking at two of the sweetest swings ever, here and here. And here's the last at bat of Ted's brilliant career. The guy knew how to make an exit. (Note the empty seats, an unknown sight for today's Red Sox fan: The last 388 games in Fenway Park have been sellouts.)

We're also interested in entrances at this blog, so I'm proud to offer the first video of The Revelators, winners of Seattle University's Epic Rock Contest. That's P.K. on drums; he also wrote the first and last songs. The video is in HD, so it takes a little while to load.

Last night, Senators Clinton and Obama debated for the final time before next Tuesday's primaries. By now, Clinton has an awfully steep hill to climb, and she has to do it while walking a tightrope. She tried mightily last night and once again showed off her command of policy. Her problem now is that voters aren't buying what she's selling, and she's understandably reluctant to go negative. Obama simply refused to rise to the bait that she and Tim Russert laid out; in fact, he tended to come off well in these instances by falling back on his his equable temperament. (This will come in handy against John "Mount" McCain.)

Early on, this exchange may have hurt Clinton:

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, as you two --

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Brian -- Brian, wait a minute. I've got -- this is too important.

You know, Senator Obama has a mandate. He would enforce the mandate by requiring parents to buy insurance for their children.

SEN. OBAMA: This is true.

SEN. CLINTON: That is the case.

If you have a mandate, it has to be enforceable. So there's no difference here.

SEN. OBAMA: No, there is a difference.

SEN. CLINTON: It's just that I know that parents who get sick have terrible consequences for their children. So you can insure the children, and then you've got the bread-winner who can't afford health insurance or doesn't have it for him or herself.

And in fact, it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary -- that's -- you know, that's -- let's let everybody get in it if they can afford it -- or if President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, let me --

SEN. CLINTON: What we have said is that at the point of employment, at the point of contact with various government agencies, we would have people signed up. It's like when you get a 401(k), it's your employer. The employer automatically enrolls you. You would be enrolled.

The content of the argument aside, every boyfriend or husband who thinks he can't get a word in edgewise reacted negatively to this exchange. I point this out only to observe that the male-female dynamics at work exacerbate Senator Clinton's difficulties. She has to make her case, she has to be heard. But she also has to be just about impossibly subtle at the same time or she awakes male fears and prejudices. Were the shoe on the other foot -- with Obama attempting to come from behind -- race dynamics would be more in play. He would need to be heard without stirring latent (and not so latent) bigotry about aggressive blacks. Certainly, white male candidates don't have to factor these things into their calculations. We may have come a long way, but we still have a ways to go.

Speaking of blustery white males, last night Tim Russert wore proudly his crown as King of Stupid Questions and Ridiculous Hypotheticals:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, if the Iraqis said I'm sorry, we're not happy with this arrangement; if you're not going to stay in total and defend us, get out completely; they are a sovereign nation, you would listen?

[Then comes the following exchange, which must have sorely Clinton's patience, not to mention her laugh reflex.]

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's --

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

[Later on:]
RUSSERT: He's [Russian president Dmitri Medvedev] 42 years old, he's a former law professor. He is Mr. Putin's campaign manager. He is going to be the new president of Russia. And if he says to the Russian troops, you know what, why don't you go help Serbia retake Kosovo, what does President Obama do?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments. [I'm expecting some newsworthy revelation like "Raul Castro has resigned" or "Dick Cheney shot another one of his best friends." Instead, we're treated to the following stupid question:] On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan? [Russert then wastes several minutes on a political figure as marginal as Ralph Nader or Fred Thompson.]

Yeesh. How do these guys get their jobs?

Barack, Hillary, Scott, and Woody

In Texas, voting begins a month prior to election day, and the state posts results as they become available. Texas political observer Rick Casey has mulled over the initial numbers and predicts an Obama victory next Tuesday. He notes that turnout will be high everywhere, but that the early returns indicate a fantastically high turnout the in the Obama strongholds of East Texas and Travis County. Obama isn't conceding the Latino vote without a fight, either, as this video shows. Note that he follows through on appealing to young voters: You can download an mp3 of a reggaeton campaign song.

Nationally, Democrats continue their migration to the Illinois senator. This New York Times  article breaks down the latest numbers, which show Obama leading Clinton in every constituency except white women. And even there, he's made noticeable inroads. Although she continues to hang on in Ohio, with her Texas hopes fading, you have to wonder how much time she has left. Although I've learned never to count out a Clinton, there's more than a good chance that the race for Democratic party presidential nomination will be down to one candidate by a week from tomorrow. 

Clinton and Obama debate tonight on MSNBC at 6pm Eastern time. Howard Fineman thinks it's the beginning of the end.

I've read The Great Gatsby a half dozen times. And these kids make me want to read it again. As a word smith, I'll take Fitzgerald over any 20th Century novelist. Gatsby contains arguably the most lyrical prose in any American novel: "...the silver pepper of the stars..." and "the full bellows of the earth..." appear in the same paragraph. (I'd be happy to write something like either once in my life.) Its treatment of the themes of aspiration and class and the careless destruction wrought by money resonate through the years. But I've never considered the book from the perspective of a young immigrant -- I never even thought to. Now, I'd like to see the green light as they see it.

This arrived in yesterday's mail. It's the only known recording of a live Woody Guthrie performance. Under the TLC of the Woody Guthrie Foundation, the recording has been cleaned up and prepared for general listening. The package includes a 72-page book of photographs, reminiscences, a transcripts of the recording, and an explanation of the restoration process. A must for fans of folk and/or political music.

Valediction?

If you watched the Clinton-Obama debate last night, you saw Hillary Clinton's graceful and gracious closing. If not, it's here, at the 7:oo mark. There's a great deal of debate and spin as to whether or not she in effect conceded the battle last night. I heard it as a message to her supporters and to all Democrats that her opponent has been a worthy adversary behind whom she will close ranks should it come to that.

Joyce Marcel explains here why she supports Obama despite the sexist muck that Clinton has always had to wade through. Even so, Marcel points out that Clinton has been her own worst enemy in critical ways, starting with her decision to staff her campaign with long-time party power brokers. Marcel draws an interesting parallel between Obama's success and Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. 

She also mentions a recent screed by Robin Morgan, whose 1970 "Goodbye To All That" is one of the seminal documents of modern feminism. Morgan revisited the same themes in a January 2008 sequel. Sadly, "Goodbye to All That (#2)" is a bitter yowl that ignores Clinton's limitations and that in effect tells an African-American man that he should wait his turn. Morgan makes Clinton out as a powerful woman who is nonetheless entrapped by the vicious coils of sexism. She makes some fair points, but it's impossible to imagine Clinton seeing herself as a victim to the degree that Morgan does. After all, Clinton is a United States Senator with vast support and a powerful organization.

BTW, the actual first Good-bye To All That was Robert Graves' classic memoir of his very British upbringing and service in the savagery of  World War I trench warfare. The book has an interesting history, here. 

Coach Gibbons day! Three sets of--

200-meter run

21 thrusters (45-lb bar)

21 sit ups

Why is Hillary Clinton in such trouble?

Yesterday's Boston Globe carried this odd piece concerning the frustrations feminists feel over Hillary Clinton's struggling campaign. Many feminists believe that, despite an impressive resume, a "...female candidate with a hyper-substantive career is now threatened with losing the nomination to a man who charismatic style and rhetoric are trumping her decades of experience." They argue that Clinton faces a diabolical Catch-22 "because she never would have been able to reach the final stages of the nomination process unless she had spent her life emphasizing her professional record over stylistic abilities."

The flaw here is that the perception Clinton's supporters have of her diverges from that of other Democrats:

• Voters don't necessarily see Clinton's career as "hyper-substantive." She would likely not be either senator or formidable candidate were her name Hillary Rodham: She acquired her current status by virtue of being First Lady. Moreover, her chief initiative as First Lady -- the attempt at universal health care -- was a failure in large part because of her errors;
• Clinton left the White House a controversial figure. Her unfavorable rating has hovered at 40% or above since 2000, at least in part because she never shook the perception of being a key behind-the-scenes figure in the Travelgate affair;
• As recent as January, her rational for running was unclear.  I watched a complete debate in mid-January. She impressed with her command of the facts, but never really said why she wanted to be president or where she wanted to take the country.
• The decision to go negative against Barack Obama in South Carolina and in effect play the race card boomeranged on her, and left many undecided Democrats and previous supporters with a bad taste in their mouths;
• She voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized the use of military force against Iraq. Moreover, she opposed the Levin Amendment, which among other things would have required a separate Congressional vote to approve a unilateral invasion of Iraq. As she has never repudiated these votes, they have caused her no end of grief with the Democratic party base, which  vehemently opposed the war from the onset. It didn't help that her votes appeared to be ones of political expedience and not conscience and conviction.

Many of these obstacles -- arguably self-constructed -- were in place before Barack Obama came along, and created a vulnerability independent of gender. The last especially left her susceptible to a candidate presenting a creditable and desirable alternative. Moreover, the negative attacks in South Carolina reflected poor decision-making that, compounded with the bad judgment shown by her vote on the war resolution, called her competence into question. Again, this was a self-inflicted wound. 

Clinton has many strengths and would make a fine president, but she's not the sterling picture of expertise that she presents herself as. How can anyone complain if Democratic party voters have figured that out?

End Game?

Another impressive Tuesday for Barack Obama; he took a small but clear lead in the delegate count while showing signs of cutting into Clinton's base. Clinton's back is to the wall: Obama will likely win the February 19 Wisconsin primary, which means she'll have to win convincingly in Ohio and Texas to keep her superdelegates from bolting. I'm not sure she has to win as big as the pundits are saying -- why would anyone withdraw after winning any kind of victory?  -- but narrow wins leave her vulnerable to a fast fade.

McCain's general election problems against Obama are obvious. Look at the two pictures above: One of a youthful, gifted politician reaching out to enthusiastic young people, the other of a near comatose septuagenarian senator celebrating with an octagenarian senator (John Warner of Virginia) and Florida governor Charlie Crist. If this election is about change, who of the two is more likely to deliver it?

In 1968, the Wisconsin primary played a key role in unseating a sitting president. After narrowly beating Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, Lyndon Johnson foresaw defeat in the upcoming Wisconsin primary and decided not to pursue a second term. Read about it here, and even if you don't, be sure to scroll down to the pictures. Johnson's address to the nation announcing his decision not to pursue another term is here (scroll down to the March 31, 1968 speech).

Monday evening, T. and I went to a fundraiser for Darcy Burner, Democratic congressional candidate in Washington's 8th District. Two-term incumbent Dave Reichert, described by conservative pundit Robert Novak as "a former sheriff of King County, Wash., who has not distinguished himself during three years in Congress," is a walking, barely breathing definition of the term "empty suit." (Check out this video, in which he has no answer to...well, you have to see it to believe it.) Burner, on the other hand, is knowledgeable, passionate, and energetic. She's raised more money than Reichert, will outwork him, and stands poised to knock him off his perch.

Now is the time for your tears: We're so desperate for troops that we're pulling Iraq veterans out of psychiatric care and sending them back to Baghdad. Read it and weep.

This and That

Today, Barack Obama expects to win the so-called Potomac Primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. There's some thought that an unstoppable tsunami is cresting, and even Clinton supporters say privately that she must win big in Ohio and Texas to remain in the race. I'm less certain of the tsunami theory. As of now, Obama's campaign reminds me of the football team that puts together some impressive wins early in the season, struggles for a couple of games, then hits its stride and mows down the weak middle part of its schedule. Tough late season road games loom, though, and stand as the true test of the team's mettle. Ohio and Texas have, respectfully, large concentrations of blue-collar workers and Latinos, key parts of the Clinton constituency that Obama has appealed to with limited success.

The Justice Department has the time and resources to investigate Roger Clemens, but won't make the effort to determine whether or not waterboarding is torture...In yesterday's review of There Will Be Blood, I neglected one of the film's most compelling aspects: Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood's evocative score. It's a string-fed melange of crescendos and delicate violins emerging from an atonal primordial ooze of cellos and basses. Original and compelling...Early polling shows Obama leading McCain and Clinton tied with him, but let's face it: At this point, it's meaningless. Too much can happen between now and next summer, and no candidate has had a chance to introduce himself or herself to the electorate at large...The players are coming! The players are coming!

Whew!

Just back from my district caucus. Someone announced attendance of 583, but it had to be closer to 1000. There were 20 precincts represented. Mine, which seemed no larger or smaller than most, had 54 people. A friend's had something like 74. No parking and lines out the door. I remember the '96 caucus have a total of about 20 people. Some precincts weren't even represented. My precinct went 34-20 for Obama. T.'s went 70-2 for Obama. A friend texted me that hers looked like 4-1 for him. He's going to roll in Western Washington. He's actually organized in Eastern Washington, so I expect him to do well there.

The caucus process is confusing and arcane. It's hard for some people to commit an afternoon. The causcus is also full of energy and humanity, and in many ways shows the democratic process at its best. Neighbors meet and debate and choose representatives from among themselves. As one man at his first caucus told me, the caucus is so much more personal than voting. Nice story about a first-timer's experience here; don't miss the slide show.

The involvement and excitement of young people is inspiring. Two of my precincts five delegates (three Obama and two Clinton) are college students. I've known both of them since grade school. T.'s son decided to go at the last minute and became a delegate. It's wonderful to be a part of the process and just as wonderful to see young people -- the future, after all --become invested in said process. I've been going to caucuses in Texas and Washington since I was 18; I always come away feeling great about this country.

The Best Laid Plan

The plan was to look at a house in Seward Park, then drive over to the Obama rally at Seattle Center. T and I looked at the house all right, but the traffic into Seattle Center was impenetrable -- and we tried from a variety of directions. Traffic at the Mercer exit off northbound I-5 backed up at least a mile. Southbound 5 was no better. We tried various surface street approaches to no avail. We eventually gave up and had lunch in Pioneer Square. I did pick up some interesting stuff at Wessel & Lieberman Booksellers, plus we checked out Seiko Tachibana's impressive prints at Davidson Gallery.

But I digress. Early reports of the Obama rally had 17,000-seat Key Arena filled with enthusiastic supporters, with thousands more outside. By contrast, Hillary Clinton attracted 5,000 to a waterfront rally with hundreds turned away. It's worth noting that the Obama event happened during working hours, while Clinton's was after work. I don't know what all that means for tomorrow's caucuses, but Obama has done very well in caucus states.

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall reports on the latest bit of Bush Administration chicanery. In short, the Mukasey-led Justice Department declines to investigate the legality of waterboarding or warrantless wiretapping because, well, the Gonzales-led Justice Department said they were o.k. Gonzales, of course, eventually resigned because of his role in the NSA domestic eavesdropping plan razed his credibility in and out of the Justice Department to a level lower than the Seattle Underground Tour.

This business of unfettered executive power is arguably the most dangerous aspect of the disastrous Bush-Cheney legacy, and yet it's the least reported on. Presidents regardless of their party are loath to cede authority. Besides ignoring the will of Congress via its unprecedented use of signing statements, the Administration has attempted -- with great success -- to politicize the judicial branch and federal justice system to the extent of making them offshoots of the Republican party. An independent judiciary and Justice Department are vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy. It won't do the country any good if President Obama or Clinton regards them the same way as President Bush has.

Super Tuesday

Super Tuesday has come and gone. While the Conventional Wisdom has it that the Democrats decided nothing, I personally would rather be -- marginally, I admit -- in Barack Obama's shoes this morning than Hillary Clinton's. As for the Republicans, John McCain took a decisive lead on Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, but nonetheless ended the day with ominous question marks for the future.

For Hillary Clinton, every day that passes with Barack Obama in the race as a strong candidate is a bad day. A year ago, her campaign assumed that yesterday would be a knockout blow setting her up for a triumphal parade through the remaining primaries and caucuses, culminating in a coronation convention. She figured to be loaded with unspent cash and backed by a party that had been unified behind her for months. Now she's locked in battle with well-funded, well-organized, incredibly charismatic candidate whose campaign thrives on continued exposure. Think of it as the best-of-seven World Series. Clinton is the team whose best shot is to win in four or five games; Obama is the team that benefits the longer the series goes on. 

Some maintain that the Clinton-Obama contest may split the Democratic party. The argument is that the strength of each emerges from contending coalitions: African-Americans, students, men, and college graduates for Obama; women, Latinos, seniors, and blue-collar workers for Clinton. Nonetheless, there's no reason to think that these coalitions can't unite behind one candidate, especially in a year when there is so much enthusiasm within the party. Much depends on the tone of the campaign, but consider that her early stab at going negative reflected poorly on Clinton and drove undecided voters into the Obama camp.

As for me, I'm supporting Obama at Saturday's Washington state caucuses. On some issues, such as health care access, I'm closer to Clinton than Obama. In the end, though, I can't get past Clinton's vote to give Bush war-making authority in Iraq or her refusal to repudiate the vote. (She blames Bush for abusing his authority -- the subject of another entry). I'm supporting the intelligent, inspiring candidate who appeals to the hopes and aspirations (check out this video) of all of us, to the better angels of our nature. But you know what? I'm proud to be for either.