Hillary Postmortem: She Ran in the Wrong Primary

Akin to failing to recognize that an upset transpired when the Giants beat the Patriots in the most recent Super Bowl, the political punditry seem to lack proper perspective at the conclusion of this 2008 Democratic Primary. As time passes, perhaps, all will see the treetops and give full credit to Team Obama for pulling off the single greatest upset in modern political history. Although Obama’s march through America consisted of an ingenious strategy combined with the most effective ground game in the annals of Dem primaries, it does not account for the slaying of the Clinton Goliath. There is but one person fully at fault for Hillary Clinton’s demise, and that one person is Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons truly believed the campaign would be over by March – an obvious fact elucidated by their campaign and fundraising strategies, or lack thereof. How the Clintons ran out of money, how the Clintons placed so much trust in Mark Penn, why the Clintons did not utilize James Carville at the outset – is all beyond me. The most dominant political machine the Democrats have seen since the 1960s fell asleep at the switch. Hil and Bill were right – it was over by March. Yet, Obama ended it by blindsiding the Clintons with a message of hope, by ‘knowing thy enemy’ to exploit Clinton weaknesses more effectively than Sun Tzu and by purely out-hustling them every step of the way. David Plouffe, the caucus savant and ground campaign guru, had Obama’s victory mapped out before Iowa.

However, Barack Obama did not win this election as much as Hillary Clinton lost it. Not only did she surround herself with incompetent advisors, not only did her hubris and utter lack of respect for Obama lull her to sleep, but most importantly, she ran in the wrong primary. It’s astounding that Hillary Machiavelli didn’t throw her hat into the GOP ring. Why was she trying to win a Democratic nomination on a Republican platform? She fought, convincingly, to prove she could win over the white conservative blue-collar voters, otherwise known as Reagan Democrats. However, here is an announcement for Mrs. Clinton: “Reagan Democrats” are Republicans. Continuing to consider “Reagan Democrats” Democrats is like calling Joe Lieberman a liberal. Most “Reagan Democrats” voted for Bush – twice.

Hillary reinforced the conservative planks of her platform on a daily basis. She threatened to nuke Iran, touted herself as a gun-lover, race baited more obviously than Buchanan, transformed herself into an evangelical, and agreed with McCain on a gas tax-cut holiday that defied economics. She did vote in favor of invading Iraq, although claims she would withdraw troops from Iraq upon entering office. But, can we really trust her? Bush told us he was going to be a compassionate conservative, and look what he delivered. If that’s compassion, I would hate to see Bush’s idea of disdain.

Hillary’s supporters appear even more Republican - thirty percent of Hil’s backers promise to vote for John McCain. So much for their pro-choice and anti-war convictions, I guess. The Hillary supporters despise Obama to such an extent that they are willing to usher in a third Bush term. Should McCain win, Hillary supporters will have to live with the blood on their hands from another five thousand dead in Iraq, and must shoulder blame for the appointment of justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Trying to secure the nomination of a liberal party with right-wing tactics is tricky business. Hillary was supposed to be the champion of the feminist cause; the savior of a group discriminated against for centuries. Ironically, she pursued victory at the cost of another group discriminated against for centuries by preying on the very same types of prejudice and emotions that have kept women out of the board room and in the kitchen.

Hillary did not lose because Michigan and Florida voters were disenfranchised. Hillary did not lose because the media fell in love with and crowned Obama king. Hillary did not lose because of sexism. Hillary lost because of Hillary, and no one else. And don’t confuse Hillary with the feminist movement. The feminist movement didn’t suffer a setback. It caught a break.

Any way that the Hillary cult slices it, Obama will win – and it is their brave leader’s fault. I still use the future tense, of course, because, although Hillary endorsed Obama, she only “suspended” her campaign and has yet to release her delegates. I shall not consider Mr. Obama the winner, until I either hear Hillary Clinton utter the word “concede”, or until the convention has actually ended and Barack is still standing.

Prelude to a Dis

 

There are few things I’d want to see less than the Clintons skulking about the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again, unless, I suppose, they were there to return the ash trays, soap dishes, bath towels and other sundry items with which they absconded in January of 2001.  With all due respect to the world’s most famous archeologist, sequels rarely equal, let alone surpass, the originals from which they were spawned and, despite her campaign’s numerous awkward attempts to compare Hillary’s fortitude and tenacity to those of a fictional fighter, a Clinton redux in the White House would likely smack much more of “The Next Karate Kid” than “Rocky II.”  Plus, the First Gentleman’s expectation of the precise interactions between himself and the wives of visiting foreign dignitaries when greeting them on the official White House “Receiving Line” might be radically different from that of his predecessors.     

Nevertheless, until last week, I wholeheartedly disagreed with the urgent calls for Madame Hillary to withdraw from the primary race.  Frankly, the whole notion seemed rather, well, undemocratic to me.  The Democratic Party created a system that required a candidate to garner a simple majority of all delegates in order to secure the nomination for president.  The party officially ordered Michigan to join the other bastard stepchild, Florida, on the list of banished convention delegates in December of 2007 and since that time, basic mathematics confirmed that the aforementioned “simple majority” of delegates stood at 2025.  At present, neither of the candidates remaining in the race had obtained said number so the primary contest, by definition, cannot yet be over.  Granted, I haven’t parsed every word of the Democratic National Committee’s 2008 Election Call, but I’m pretty sure I would have noticed if it contained a chapter entitled, “Invoking the Mercy Rule.”

Even more puzzling, though, was the Clinton campaign’s seeming inability to articulate a concise or credible retort to those demands.  It seemed easy enough to me.  Every time a member of Obama’s campaign or, pardon the redundancy, the mainstream media hysterically brayed that “Hillary must drop out because she can’t win,” Clinton’s camp should have calmly responded, “neither can he,” and pointed out that the number 2025 did not appear anywhere on those ubiquitous “Delegate Count” graphics, which, by the way, have been scrawled across the bottom of cable channel screens almost as frequently as those “Frank Caliendo” promos did during last season’s baseball playoffs.  With another ten seconds worth of effort, Team Clinton could have driven home the point that there was nothing in the party rules requiring, or even suggesting, that superdelegates vote for the candidate leading in pledged delegates or popular vote and, therefore, Hillary’s continued campaign, geared towards swaying those very superdelegates, was completely justified.        

Incomprehensibly, that never happened.  Instead, Clinton argued that in the interest of “fairness,” the delegates and votes from Florida and Michigan should be added to her column.  This desperate attempt to shroud selfishness in a cloak of populism was so flimsy that even her own supporters had to battle the urge to roll their eyes, since so noticeably absent from it was any effort to explain how doing so would be, um, “fair” to the candidate who, pursuant to the pre-existing party rules, did not campaign in either state and wasn’t even on the ballot in one of them.  Parenthetically, on a more tactical level, I never quite understood what Hillary’s strategists were thinking by potentially inviting a re-examination of the Michigan primary, unless Howard Wolfson thought “5 ½ out of 10 Voters Recommend Me Over ‘Uncommitted’” would make for a sharp bumper sticker.

          Another traditional, otherwise referred to as “sane,” avenue Hillary could have pursued in stemming the tide of demands that she drop out of the race was to argue that despite being behind in delegates and popular vote, circumstances had changed during the course of the primary and she was now clearly the stronger candidate to face McCain in the general election.  If only there was some precedent for such a position.  Oh, wait, the last time the Democratic nomination was contested going into the convention, a mere twenty-four years ago, Gary Hart made that very argument.  There are seemingly endless similarities between Hart and Clinton, and he’s got a few things in common with Hillary, too.  In ’84, Hart was behind in pledged delegates but his opponent, Walter Mondale, had not attained a majority of delegates either and had lost some of the bigger states, such as California, to Hart during the later stages of the primary.  Further, polls suggested that Hart would fare better against Reagan in the general election, which, in hindsight, wouldn’t have been too hard to accomplish.

So, at the very least, I expected Hillary to hammer away at the fact that Obama’s feet didn’t begin to sink below the surface of the water on which he was walking until Reverend Wright’s inspirational homilies first began to uplift the spirits of the entire nation at the end of March, by which time, approximately 3000 pledged delegates had already been determined in primary elections.  Certainly, a credible case could be made to the superdelegates that at least a portion of those voters would have felt differently had the ever-expanding cracks in Obama’s veneer manifested themselves sooner, thereby nullifying the demagoguery of the “superdelegates must follow the leader in pledged delegates and popular vote” refrain being sung ever louder by the Obamaniac Chorale.                 

          Naturally, Hillary didn’t make that case to the public, either.  Instead, utilizing her best Sally Field Oscar acceptance speech impression, she breathlessly reminded the voters how much they all liked her.  Well, at least the white voters.  Actually, not just whites, but the “hard working” ones, at that.  Which is a legitimate point, unless, of course, you’re seeking the nomination of the Democratic party, the attainment of which, presumably, requires you to make said point to, well, Democrats.  Possibly some Republicans, too, depending on whether the Janus-faced hyperventilators at MSNBC felt Rush Limbaugh had any real influence in the political process on that particular day. 

          Unfortunately for Clinton, that stratagem went over about as smoothly as it came out of her mouth when she first voiced it.  Thus, it appeared she might finally be poised to put forth a cogent justification, not just for her continued campaign but for the superdelegates to provide her with the support necessary to achieve the nomination.

What came next could simply never have been predicted.  Not even in a Kurt Vonnegut novel.

 

Neo-conservative Republican Prerequisites for President: Negotiations & History 101

 

I fervently recommend Negotiations 101 and Eighth Grade History as prerequisites for any Neo-conservative Republicans with designs on holding the highest Office in the United States of America. Now, a structured curriculum for president may seem absurd if not impractical, a concept articulated by John F. Kennedy when Robert McNamara expressed dubiety in his qualifications for Secretary of Defense: “Look Bob, I don’t think there’s any school for Presidents either.”  Yet, especially in light of recent support for comments equivocating negotiations with appeasement, a few rudimentary courses in these subjects would greatly enhance the national security acumen of the ascendant nominee from the Right Wing of the Republican Party:  Mr. John McCain, otherwise know as Mr. McBush.

It is a wee bit late in the game for the current Commander-in-Chief to profit from these courses, leery to abscond from the Bush Doctrine that resulted from the warping of Straussian principles into modern neo-conservatism that justified preemptive war.  Actually, this President has refused to take any of the Presidential Leadership Core Curriculum, thus, as a result, Mr. Bush is in the midst of descending from the throne with a first-time-in-history failing grade of 26%.  What is even more maddening is McCain deliberately choosing to take Bush’s notes and copy off this President’s test.

McCain’s assertions that Barack Obama’s strategy of attempting to hold discussions with adversaries is tantamount to Neville Chamberlain’s Nazi-appeasement before the outbreak of World War II, provides evidence to McCain’s dearth of diplomatic negotiations prowess and either an inability or indolence to learn from history.  As Chris Matthews pointed out on Hardball, Chamberlain’s tragic error was allowing Hitler to swallow Czechoslovakia, not the fact that Chamberlain talked to him.

It is rather surprising that the modern Neo-Conservative Republican is not adept at conducting win / win negotiations, considering how it had been honed within the party’s own lineage.  The private sector is filled with conservative-types who have wielded these tools with great success.  I have personally delivered negotiations training as a management consultant to dozens of senior corporate executives over the past ten years, based on the concepts of Ury and Fisher from the Harvard School of Negotiations.  Supplier negotiations are, of course, galactically different from conflict resolution with a rouge regime.  However, the likes of Nixon, Kissinger, Bush I, Schultz, Baker and Reagan have effectively employed these principles in the foreign policy realm since the dawn of the Cold War - and – lo and behold - the United States prevailed over Communism. 

I speculate that many critical questions and issues were not properly addressed by the administration before invading Iraq.  Moreover, it is apparent that Bush and McCain had not conducted any thorough analysis before making statements that told the leaders of Iran:  “Nothing is negotiable.”  Actually, everything is negotiable.  I would suggest to Mr. McCain to at least try negotiating, and if he does not understand how to, I would advocate following this simple process. 

 

National Interest

The first step is to define the national interest and ensure all actions align with meeting this interest.

 

Understand Leverage

What are our alternatives to a negotiated agreement?

 

Objectives

What are the specific and measurable objectives?  What is the timetable for each?  What are the Most Desirable and Least Acceptable Outcomes?

 

Walk-Away

What are all the options and scenarios we are willing to propose and accept?  What is our “walk-away” position?

 

Facts: Know Thy Enemy

What do we know about the strategic, cultural, tactical, operational, militaristic, technological and systematic strengths and weakness of our enemy?

 

Facts:  Know Thyself

What resources, equipment, capabilities and dollars do we have available to deal with each scenario?

 

Tactics

Understand the other party’s interests, determine affordable trade-offs and use threats when appropriate.  Propose deterrence via sanctions, diplomatic isolation and finally, leverage the threat of the U.S.’s military strength (which is typically the final option presented, not the first).

 

Benefits

Why should our adversaries meet our objectives?  If no true benefits exist for the other side, besides avoiding getting bombed, there really is no negotiation.

 

Negotiations is not synonymous with “cave in”, in fact, the objective is diametric.  Negotiations will not guarantee fail-safe national security or full prevention of terrorist or rouge regime attacks.  What it shall guarantee is securitization of the best position possible without firing a shot and enhancement in the odds of achieving the most desirable outcome prior to making strategic defense decisions.  It puts all possible options on the table, which is a more sound process than Bush/McCain’s either/or options of meet U.S. objectives completely or get bombed.  Bush/McCain’s approach guarantees military intervention.

I do not really give a damn if McCain spent five years as a P.O.W. and has a character of steel.  Based on his recent statements, the planks of his national security policy and his voting record, his experience as a P.O.W. has NOT provided him with the temperament, the wisdom, or the aptitude to fill the role as Chief Executive of this country.  Even if we put aside his diplomatic deficiencies, his passion for tying himself to a failed administration and repeating history is astounding, which makes me question his judgment and fitness for the highest office.

McCain was a poor student at the Naval Academy – finishing in the bottom of his class – and is a poor student of modern history. Reagan helped the U.S. win the cold war by out-spending as well as out-negotiating the Soviets.  Not only does McCain need to take a course in negotiations, but perhaps a refresher course in the history of his own party.

McCain’s current record and incapacity to grasp raison d’État suggests he has not learned from the history of Bush’s failings.  And if the American people vote McCain into office –we are guaranteed to repeat it.

 

Proud to Say I’m a Liberal

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.””

- John F. Kennedy, 1960

 

Democrat Primary Not an Election - it’s a Nomination Process

  

Here’s an article from an Independent (posted by The Left but not my article - for the record).

  

FROM THE INDEPENDENT VIEW

  

by The Defector 

 

First, I don’t understand the need to continually over-analyze and fight over the democrats primary process as it unfolds.  Especially, if you are a democrat.  Every time I hear an opinion from someone about what is currently going on within the democratic party it seems it either comes from an obama supporter, clinton supporter or mccain supporter.  At least when originating from a declared Republican or McCain supporter I understand why.  At least they have a motive, they want the Democrats to lose.  But, when this debate is initiated and argued from an Obama supporter or Clinton supporter I only shake my head.  Why do so many people in the Democratic Party hate themselves?  Isn’t Hillary Clinton and Barck Obama nearly IDENTICAL on EVERYTHING expect for Hillary’s vote on the Iraq war?  So, why all the fighting?  Why all the bitterness?  And, why all the anger?  Shouldn’t the question be who is the best candidate within the party capable of defeating John McCain?

 

I believe the current conflict within the Democratic Party stems from three issues:

1.  The rules of nominating a candidate are insanely confusing and difficult to enforce.

2.  Most members of the Democratic Party are more focused with getting thier candidate elected nominee and not objectively picking the candidate most likely to defeat McCain.  Lack of discipline and selfishness.

3.   And, most people (democrats) perceive the primary process as an election when it is not!  It is, however, the process by which a party nominates (hopefully, for them) the best candidate.

 

As an Independent, I reserve the right to vote for whomever I believe will be the very best leader of our nation.  However, if I was a loyal party member of the Democratic Party or Republican Party I would concede to the defined primary process to determine who has the best chance in defeating the opposition - then cast my vote accordingly.   I really wonder why democrats are picking sides and fighting over who is winning, who is losing, who should drop out and who should stay in this primary process.  It is thier process.  They created it.  Why are not the party leaders being honest with thier party members and explaining this is not an election based on public will!  It is a process that does not depend just on the will of their members.  It seems to me they need to let it happen and at the end of the day decide based on results, electability and who they are competing against has the best chance at defeating their opponents.

 

Impossible, I know. 

 

In my opinion, the process is not over.  Of course, unless you are an Obama supporter.  And, if the numbers were reversed, a Clinton supporter. Most importantly, the primary process is not an election in the traditional sense. There are several dynamics in place to ensure this party nominates the very best candidate to compete against the competition.  For example, there is a primary in each state which appropriates pledged delegates to each candidate base on vote totals.  There are also a number of super-delegates who are given the discretion to support the candidate who they believe has the best chance in defeating the opponent.  Regardless, neither candidate is there yet based on any of the defined criteria.   

 

Maybe the best way to alleviate this ongoing conflict is for everyone within the Democratic Party to stop being either a Hillary supporter or Obama supporter and just be Democrats.  They are the same after all.  Terribly unlikely, of course. 

A Win Is A Win…

What in the world is a “win”? 
 
“A win is a win.”  That’s the definition Hillary Clinton provided to a group of reporters in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, the date of the Pennsylvania Primary.  A concise and easy to remember definition, but a decidedly circular one.  Looks like a bit more research is necessary.  
    
“A win is 50 plus 1, so if Senator Clinton gets over 50 percent, she’s won the state,” explained Barak Obama during an April 22nd interview with XM Satellite Radio.  Thank you, Senator, for providing us with not only a mathematically verifiable answer to the question, but for expounding upon it and using it in a sentence that applies it to the political process.  Sweet.  Now we’re getting somewhere.  Unfortunately, Obama’s supporters, especially those in the mainstream media who experience paresthesia at his every utterance, seem to have suffered from a bout of sudden onset group dyslexia because when Hillary won Indiana a few weeks later with, coincidentally, 50 plus 1 percent of the vote, they were saying that she lost, a claim that stoked a great caterwaul for Madame Hillary to drop out of the race. 
 
For the past several weeks, I have heard a great deal about who can’t win, a response which seems to have sprung from the same bob-and-weave playbook as the reflexive “distraction” moniker Obama’s acolytes attach to any of those pesky, and apparently irrelevant, questions about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers or any other subject that seeks even the slightest illumination on the beliefs or judgment of a heretofore unknown candidate.  More recently, in the days immediately following Hillary’s “50 plus 1″ win, er … I mean “loss,” Obama’s Campaign Information Office, otherwise known as MSNBC, began to refer to him as ”presumptive nominee.”  While this title sounds impressive, a brief flip of the pages in Webster’s demonstrates that the inclusion of the adjective in that term confirms that he has not yet won.  
 
So, who’s winning?  Looking at the math concerning the pledged delegates, which, to my knowledge, is the only way a “winner” can be definitively determined before the Democratic convention, it is indeed true that Hillary cannot win.  Of course, neither can Obama.
 
Admittedly, the methods by which the Democrats select their presidential nominee, and the rules that govern them, are about as easy to follow as a Choose Your Own Adventure book.  Nevertheless, since the beginning of this primary season, which, if I’m not mistaken, started sometime in the Carter Administration, the “winning” number of pledged delegates was 2025.  Incredibly, even that number has recently proven to be malliable, at least according to the Clinton Camp, but since 2025 has been branded into everyone’s brains, that’s what we’ll go with. 
 
Let’s assume that Obama wins 100% of all the pledged delegates that remain up for grabs.  A rather formidable goal, for sure, especially when one considers that Hillary didn’t come close to that percentage in Michigan, and she was the only candidate on the ballot.  Even if Obama did get all remaining pledged delegates, it is universally accepted that he, too, would fall well short of 2025.  So, if neither Obama nor Hillary can get to 2025, then no one can “win” before the convention.
 
According to the Democrat Party rules, and I use that term almost liberally at this point, there are only two ways to “win” the nomination.  First, the primary is over when a candidate reaches 2025 pledged delegates.  Second, in the event that no candidate reaches 2025 pledged delegates, then the superdelegates weigh in and vote at the convention to select a nominee.  That’s it.  There are no asterisks that require a candidate to drop out if said candidate is behind in pledged delegates and popular vote.  If that was the case, then there would be no need for superdelegates or the 2025 magic number.  Similarly, there are no mandates that a superdelegate vote for the candidate who is ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote at the time of the convention.  If there was such a requirement, then there would be no need for the actual superdelegate vote and the candidate ahead in those two areas at the end of all the primaries would simply become the nominee.
 
Simply put, there is a process to select the Democratic presidential nominee.  The calls for Hillary to drop out for the “sake of party unity” are misguided, at best.  More likely, they stem from cowardice of the party itself.  Certainly, it would be much more palatable to the party masses and the general public if the nominee was the candidate who led in popular vote and pledged delegates.  If that is such a major concern to the Democrats, then where is the great rush of superdelegates to commit for Obama?  The entire controversy could be over tomorrow if enough superdelegates publically committed to Obama and pushed him over the 2025 threshold.  If that occurred, Hillary would have little argument to push on.  The superdelegates, however, have chosen not to follow this course.  So, it would appear that Clinton is not the only one who thinks she might be the better candidate in the general election.  Mayhap this has something to do with a certain “damning” revelation pertaining to Senator Obama that came to light in March, well after a great number of states had already conducted their primary elections, which legitimately and seriously calls into question his ability to win the general election?       
 
There could be any number of methods by which the Democrats could select their party nominee.  If, for instance, they used the “winner take all” primary delegate method of the Republicans, Hillary would actually be leading Obama by just over 200 pledged delegates.  (I note, for the sake of accuracy, that I tallied only the delegates committed to the primary election in each of the states/territories when calculating this number and did not add in the superdelegates.) 
 
The time for the Democrats to worry about the system they use to determine their presidential nominee is not now.  Currently, their only concern should be to follow the system they have.  That system requires, in this particular instance, that the superdelegates ultimately decide the nominee at the convention.  Of course, the superdelegates could wrap things tomorrow by publically pledging their votes and boosting Obama past 2025.  But they haven’t.  If they don’t have the guts and fortitude to stand behind their candidate of choice for the good of the party, why should Hillary throw in the towel for the same reason?
 
Who wins?  Well, the gutless, unfair and ludicrous position taken by the mainstream media and a majority of the Democratic Party have just forced me to defend Hillary at length, so it sure isn’t me.

Jeremiah Wright Defeats Obama in Indiana

Because of the Reverend Wright issue, many moderate Hoosiers jumped on the Clinton bandwagon.  As a result - Obama might be doomed to select Hillary Clinton as a Running Mate to secure the Democratic working class base.

 

The middle-aged white construction worker placed a forearm on his doorway and rubbed his chin. He let out a deep sigh appearing lost in thought.  There were a few moments of silence as I stood on the doorstep of the man’s suburban homestead north of Indianapolis, with my partner Linda, awaiting his answer with anticipation and worry.

“I mean…I really like the guy,” he said shaking his head, obviously a torn soul, one of the few undecided on the day before the Democratic primary vote in Indiana.

“But this Jeremiah Wright thing…,” he said, his voice fading into the wind as ominous clouds filled the skies.

 “Honestly, I just don’t know, I’ll probably make my decision as I stand in the dang booth.”

Fair enough.  But my heart sank.

As we stood two houses down I was surprised to hear the man’s voice.

“Hold on y’all!” he exclaimed as he jogged towards us with his twelve-year-old daughter at his side.

“How close is this thing really?” he asked.

“It’s a toss up,” Linda said.

“Every vote counts.  We need your vote,” I said.

“Well, she loves the guy,” he said, looking down upon his daughter.

Her arm wrapped around one of his legs, looking up at us with shining eyes of hope.  Her pink shirt had one word scrawled across it in dark red block letters:

“LOVE.”

“Put me down for Obama,” he said with a smile.

My heart leapt because perhaps we were turning the page.

 

****

 

Yet my heart sank at 6PM CST as I sat stone like with my eyes glued to Politco.com while real-time early results flowed through internet protocol onto a flat screen.  By 6:30PM CST Hillary Clinton was beating Obama by 20 points in Indiana, with 3% of the precincts reporting.  Barack was getting his clock cleaned in white working class areas once again.

I felt a surge of relief when he closed the gap near midnight.  However, it was because of the urban areas with demographics favorable to Obama: non-white votes.   And nine out of ten black people voted for Obama, giving him a wide margin of victory in N.C.  Yet, Hillary once again secured the Reagan Democratic base that Obama must have to upend McCain in the general election.

 

****

 

Hillary and Barack then conducted a dysfunctional mating ritual, sending mixed messages in their closing remarks.  Hillary stood on the platform with a red-faced, bored or drunk, surly Bubba over her shoulder.  There was irony that the spouse of “the first black president” was potentially knocked out by the black vote in N.C. and nearly knocked out due to the late night onslaught from Gary, IN and its surrounding areas. 

But the message from white working class America was not encouraging.  They are not a racist lot, they just do not want a Louis Farrakhan figure in the White House.  It’s hard enough for Republicans and rural whites to vote for a liberal, let alone a liberal who has associated with the likes of Reverend Wright.

Hillary gave a bipolar message that was a call to arms laced with a tone of reconciliation, her strategy now obvious.  A bittersweet overture that contained a threatening message at its core, a subtle ultimatum that I read as:

“You cannot win without me.”

50% of Hillary supporters in Indiana said they would vote for McCain should Obama be the nominee.  33% said they wouldn’t vote at all.  Hillary has fought her way into the position of being indispensable to the Obama campaign.

Obama needs to assess the risk / reward.  He risks losing Hillary white working class Democrats, but also could lose independent Hillary-haters with a “dream team” ticket.  But Obama may have no choice because of the damage rendered, not by Mrs. Clinton, not by Rush Limbaugh, not by racist America, not by white middle class workers, but amazingly by one man and his message of racial poison.

          And if the Obama / Clinton ticket should fall in November, I pray for the soul of one man.  I could picture him after a devastating loss such as this, in a dungeon beneath the Holy Trinity Church on the South Side of Chicago, where Reverend Wright shall take refuge. A sliver of light from a window dissects a mirror that he looks upon.  A mirror that will reflect the bruised ego of a lonely black man, a supposed disciple of Christ, ironic self destroyer of his own cause, betrayer of his flock.

For the first time in our country’s history, Americans of all races were ready to crown a half-black, half-white man as President.  A candidate close to fulfilling a dream that started with another man from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.  The same state that gave birth to the Great Emancipator of black slaves, freeing them from iron chains of bondage, also gave birth to this potential freer of blacks from the remaining chains of institutional oppression and some of the self-imposed chains from a culture of poverty and violence. 

Because of the Reverened, a third Bush term of neo-conservative ignorance might be ushered in.  McBush may take the reigns – a ruler who doesn’t understand the economy, who shall continue the war in Iraq, and who doesn’t understand constitutional law and the true objectives of the Framers, with his desire for terms limits for Supreme Court justices.

I predict that the Reverend shall stare in the mirror with bubbling self-disgust and regret, staring deeply into the eyes of a narcissist who put his own ego above the interests of his people and the interests of all Americans.  Reverend Wright shall be haunted in his self-made prison by the voices from the unfulfilled legacies of Abraham Lincoln, John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. 

And most importantly, the lost legacy of Barack Obama and the echo of the True Word that shall reverberate through the Pastor’s chambers so long as he shall live.  The echo of what all Americans believe in their hearts.  It might be a lost opportunity for a divided country, on the precipice of coming together for the first time.  For who knows when a brighter day shall come.  Who knows when we shall fulfill the objectives of the second coming of Lincoln.  Yes, these words of the man who had the potential to be the Great Reconciler, shall ring from ear to ear inside the head of the race-baiting preacher, words that are perhaps his Lord’s revealed Truth:

“Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.”

“…and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.”

 

There is still hope we shall see this brighter day, as long as this preacher realizes his proper role in history and remains in his own ancient, political darkness.

Hillary “George Bush” Clinton Saber-Rattles: KEEP HER AWAY FROM THE RED PHONE

“Never fear to negotiate.  But never negotiate out of fear.” 

                            –John F. Kennedy

Hillary “George Bush” Clinton said she would obliterate Iran should they attack Israel.  While this might be the proper military option depending on all the facts at the time, the neo-conservative saber-rattling is ridiculous.   Mrs. Clinton was on FOX news pandering to the audience - who will see right through her nonsense.  It reminds me of a pathetic John Edwards screaming something like “Al Qaeda we’re coming after you” at the ‘04 dem convention.  He lost credibility - and so does Hillary.  Annie Oakley is back. 

And here is wisdom:  Obama stating we don’t need that type of language right now.  We don’t need a presidential candidate igniting the flames of hate.  Iran is a country we may need to negotiate with and we may need to cooperate with in order to help us stabilize Iraq.  There are many that may not like caving in to negotiate with Iran.  This is a fool-hardy mindset that will catapult us into Iraq Part Deux.

She used Reagan-like rhetoric, but even Reagan had more legitimate grounds to use such language, because Iran had hostages.  Although not the most brilliant suggestion, by bombing the country where they are located - at least Reagan had some actual rationale and not a What If.  Rather, she reacted incompetently to some ratings-hungry hack on FOX news who dreamed up a ”What if” scenario that may never happen.  Nothing like disclosing our worst-case scenario national strategy during a meaningless interview on a whim -  without all the facts - in order to gain a few more votes.  A bit reckless and incompetent, considering Iran DOES NOT HAVE nuclear weapons.  Her declaration motivates our potential adversaries, it does not deter.  A great point made in the Independent today:

Forget the fact that the latest CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concludes that the Iranians have suspended their nuclear weapons programme. No, Mrs Clinton was perfectly happy to skip across two lily pads of ‘if.’ Mrs Clinton treated the scenario of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability and launching a nuclear attack on Israel as a round-the-corner possibility. Someone keep her away from the red phone, please.  Suddenly, the fact that Barack Obama’s nutty, former pastor believes that AIDS was an attack on black Americans orchestrated by the Federal government seems almost quaint by comparison.  http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/05/the-dangers-of.html

 Just more proof that Obama is more prudent and more well-suited for the highest office.  He suggests a NEW, common sense  way of handling foreign policy.  Clinton’s approach - like Mr. Bush’s and Mr. McCain’s - has not worked out too well over the past 5-6 years.  The goal is to ensure Iran never develops nuclear capability in the first place - that’s the message we want to send. 

Thank God Bush or Hillary were’nt around during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We may not be standing here today.  We might have been obliterated.

THE LEFT

CrossPolemics Poll: Obama Leads by 5% in Indiana

I was on the ground in Indiana today, polling about 150 people face-to-face from about 11AM until 8PM.  I am writing this, exhausted from today’s work, at about 11PM EST in a hotel room in Indianapolis.  The results are very encouraging for Mr. Obama.  In the Indianapolis region he is up by a huge percentage - over 10%.  The entire area was dominated by Obama workers who are out in force.  Obama has more money and more volunteers and according to even former Clinton campaigners - is much more effective at grass roots organization.  Something that the McCain team has admitted to fearing.  The main reason Obama is even in this race is because of his campaign’s ability to out-organize Camp Clinton.  I walked the city for hours on end and saw numbers of Obama signs but not one Hillary sign. 

Because of Obama’s dominance in the bigger cities, he should carry the state-wide vote by at least 5%.  72 delegates are up for grabs.  25 of those delegates will be chosen by statewide results.

Downstate pollsters say it’s a draw right now.  Hillary has a 2-3% advantage vs. Obama in rural areas south of Indianapolis.

I think undecideds and late-deciders are leaning towards Obama as the Wright sting fades.  Many Republicans and independents seemed to favor Obama 2-1 over Hillary Clinton in today’s on-the-ground polling.  It is an open primary, but you have to identify yourself as a Democrat or Republican on that day, and take a ballot for that particular party.  Some Republicans said they would’ve voted for Obama, but they had to take a Republican ballot because of some heated local races.  Many of them had very positive comments about Barack.

The trend is turning back around on middle-class and working class voters.  A high percentage of the working class seemed to back Obama over Clinton in Indiana.  The working class voters make up a large percentage of undecideds at this point.  Most working class people had a negative reaction to Hillary’s proposed gas tax, believing that it was for short term political gain, and they believed Obama that it was not a viable or wise long term solution.

Most Hillary supporters polled in Indianapolis said they would back Obama against McCain, should Obama win the primary.  There was a favorable reaction to Obama even from non-supporters.  However, many of the Obama supporters do not have a favorable opinion of Hillary.  Although most said they would back her against McCain.

Many Hoosiers polled were very amazed that the battle has reached their home state, and were excited that their votes would count.  Expect a big turnout on Tuesday.  One of the biggest in this state’s history for a primary.

I predict Obama to win Indiana by 5% or more in a surprise - considering that many polls have Hillary closing the gap.  That’s what it looks like from the ground, as I march my way around the great state of Indiana.  As David Letterman has said: “Ain’t God good to Indiana..”

Good Night!

The LEFT

Ignore The Crazy Drunk Uncle Who Wouldn’t Leave

TO: All Good Voters of Indiana and North Carolina

RE: Candidate With Best Idea Wins (And the Drunk Uncle Isn’t Running for Office).

It is fair to weigh recent issues that have surfaced with Obama’s pastor.  But consider Barack’s dilemma.  Reverend Wright is kind of like the drunk uncle who shows up and ruins parties and occasions, like a college commencement for example.  Imagine if you will…. 

…that you were a yong brilliant student, off to the Ivy league, perhaps, president of the class, giving the valedictorian address.  Folks have always seen you as a leader with strong values, strong spiritual beliefs, a model citizen.   The crowd is awestruck at your eloquence, ability to motivate a crowd, delivering the speech of your lifetime.

And stumbling into the ceremony is Uncle Gus, drunk as a skunk with about a gallon of Jack and Coke coursing through his veins, even though it’s well shy of NOON.  People can hear him in the back of the church babbling, as he interrupts your artful speech - the address classmates and faculty will remember for the rest of their lives.  Uncle Gus than blurts out the asinine comments of a drunk man for everyone to hear, indelibly searing a scene into the collective memory of those in attendance, as your draw drops.

“atta boy…you tell ‘em….<burp>… I knew this young man could do it…you tell ‘em boy.  You tell these bastards how ya really feel!  These rich sumbitches been against ya all your whole dang life,” the drunk uncle says.  And then, to your utter shock and dismay, begins chanting:

“We shall overcome!  We shall overcome!”

Uncle Gus is gently escorted from the church as he continues the inappropriate incantation of the chorus of a Joan Baez song.  You have no idea what he’s talking about.  Your family kindly tells him not to show up for post-ceremony gatherings.  He barks back at them in anger and they are forced to throw him into a taxi.

“Ya gotsalotta nerve,” he stammers falling backward into the cab.

But lo and behold, just when you prayed he would just go home and pass out, there he is again, bumbling into your party, slurring his speech, ranting, literally puking up insane comments, insulting most of the guests.  He traps your new girlfriend in a corner and hits on her, embarasses you in front of friends and your favorite professor. 

“Hey baby, you know I taught that sumbitch everything there is to know bout a woman’s bod, ” he says as he winks multiple times, mouth agape, the smell of Jack Daniels assaulting your poor girlfriend’s senses. 

He spins to the crowd.  ”Hey…<burp>…,” he screams as he backpedals into a wall, nearly crashing to the floor.  He then stands erect and recommences his new favorite credo:  “We shnall owercome!  We shnall…”

You gaze in wide wonder and your heart drops into your gut, as you watch your once untarnished reputation spinning and spinning in a vortex of water, as the flushing sound of a toilet rings in your ears.      

Have empathy fellow citizens!  Put yourself in Barack’s shoes, I say.  And don’t forget to vote for the candidate with the best ideas.  Not the one cursed with the crazy drunk uncle who wouldn’t leave.  Principles over moronic relations should be the battle cry.

A great example of a bad idea is one the Huffington Post points out - Hillary’s tax plan that is way off base.  Her and McCain propose “summer gas holiday” plans that are a sham:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/clintons-gas-tax-plan-cal_n_99570.html

On the other hand, Obama is advertising a progressive tax idea lauded by many experts, and strikes back at Hillary’s short-sighted plan:

Now, the two Washington candidates in the race have been attacking me lately because I don’t support their idea of a gas tax holiday. This is an idea that, when all is said and done, will save you - at most - half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer. That’s about $28. It’s an idea that some economists think might actually raise gas prices. And without a plan to pay for it right away, it means that the money would come directly out of the fund we use to pay for construction projects, which could cost the state of North Carolina up to 7,000 jobs.

Well, let me tell you, this isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s designed to get them through an election,” said Obama. He said his call for middle-class tax cuts would be far more beneficial than suspending gas tax collections.

So, fellow voters, if we remember to weigh the issues as much as we do the scandals, if we focus on the candidate who can provide the best leadership rather than unfortunate incidents that don’t reflect the candidate’s beliefs and are out of his control - if we can do all this - perhaps we shall overcome.