Krazy Kristol tops 2008 worst list

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Foreign Policy has published its list of "The 10 Worst Predictions for 2008." Topping the list: Krazy Bill Kristol, with this doozy:

If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she's going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then... Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I'll predict that right now.

He predicted that "right now" on Fox New Sunday on December 17, 2006 -- and, of course, it turned out, like so much of what he predicts, to be entirely wrong.

But was it really a worse prediction that this truly appalling one -- this dangerously misleading one -- from Crazy Jim Cramer?

Peter writes: "Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?" No! No! No! Bear Stearns is fine! Do not take your money out... Bear Stearns is not in trouble. I mean, if anything they're more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear! That's just being silly! Don't be silly!"

Yeah, how'd that work out? Bear collapsed six days later.

Kristol was just doing what so many political pundits do, namely, making ill-informed, partisanized predictions, whereas Cramer was actually giving investment advice.

So what if you accepted Kristol's prediction? Unless you had money on the outcome of the Democratic primaries, which you shouldn't have had, what did you lose by agreeing with him that Hillary was going to win? Back then, before Iowa, many people, including me, thought that she was going to win. She was well ahead in the polls, after all, and Obama had not yet become, well, Obama.

But if you accepted Cramer's prediction? Well, you could have lost a lot of money.

In other words, what Kristol predicted was wrong, but what Cramer predicted was both wrong and deeply irresponsible.

Now, what was clear long before the Bear collapse was that you shouldn't trust Cramer with your money -- or any single investment advisor, for that matter -- and you deserve some of the blame if you accepted Cramer's word on Bear without doing your own due diligence, but that doesn't excuse Cramer from being so downright ignorant just days ahead of one of the biggest corporate meltdowns in American history.

Obama and the Hispanics

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Remember back during the primaries when Hillary was pretty much trouncing Obama among Hispanic voters and there was all that talk about how Hillary's success among Hispanics contributed to her so-called "electability" and how doing so poorly among Hispanics would be a big problem for Obama come general election time?

Yeah, well... here's Gallup:

Hispanic registered voters' support for Barack Obama for president remained consistent and strong in June, with Obama leading John McCain by 59% to 29% among this group.

While Hispanics generally preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, a solid majority of Hispanics have consistently backed Obama against McCain in general-election trial heats. Obama has led McCain by about a 2-to-1 margin since Gallup began tracking general-election voting preferences in early March.

I don't want to say I told you so -- after all, I don't know who you are -- but, well, I told you so. McCain has some support among Hispanics because, unlike most Republicans, he isn't completely crazy (in that xenophobic sort of way that characterizes so much of the nativist GOP) when it comes to immigration -- he worked with Ted Kennedy on a compromise bill, but it's not quite clear where he stands on the issue now, what with all the flippin' and floppin' and panderin' -- but Obama is clearly much more attractive to them, given his positions on the Iraq War, the economy, and other key issues.

Besides, it was clear all along, if not so much to the short-sighted and narrow-minded punditocracy, that Obama was only doing poorly among Hispanics relative to Hillary, not in absolute terms. Hispanics may have preferred her to him, but that never meant that they preferred anyone to him, let alone a warmongering faux maverick who sucks up to the GOP's right-wing base like McCain. Remember that Hillary, like Bill, is especially strong among Hispanics. But now, with the long and sometimes bitter Democratic race over and done with, "Hispanics of differing demographic backgrounds all tend to solidly support Obama."

Which, needless to say, bodes well for November.

Unity: "Today our hearts are set on the same destination for America."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As many of you already know, I'm sure, Obama and Clinton appeared together today at a rally in Unity, New Hampshire. After a long and sometimes bitter campaign, one that drove a wedge into the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, one that was trumped up by the typical media sensationalism that drives the news cycles, it was a welcome display of what I take to be genuine friendship between these two towering figures in the party. The media are calling it "choreographed," but there was never much difference between Obama and Clinton -- and there was never as much disunity in the party as was often suggested.

There are lingering bad feelings, no doubt, notably among some of Clinton's supporters, but today's rally was a positive display of unity that should resonate among those still in doubt. What I took from the primary campaign was evidence of a strong party able to withstand a tough race, a strong party that was united throughout in terms of policy, a strong party that was prepared for the general election campaign and to take back the White House. The media wanted drama, and they got it, but the race ended as it should have, with the candidate with the most votes and the most delegates winning the nomination and with the candidate who came so close putting aside the bitterness of the past, withdrawing graciously, and, today, appearing alongside the nominee and offering nothing but the fullest support.

And it is just the beginning.

**********

The Obama campaign has posted a lengthy clip of the rally that you can watch here. Below is a shorter clip from TPM TV. Make sure to watch it.

A campaign to make you afraid

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This was Obama on Friday, speaking in Jacksonville (via Reuters):

It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?

*****

We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us.

This is something else I really like about Obama. It's not just that he's willing and prepared to fight back against those who smear him, it's that he also knows his Republican Smear Machine, that against which he needs to fight back, really well.

He gets it. He understands it. He hows how the GOP works.

And is he right here? Yes, absolutely.

McCain and the Republicans won't be able to run on anything positive -- expect for the positivity of more war, more torture, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and so on -- so they'll do what they usually do, which is run on the negative, cultivating the culture of fear and smearing Obama and the Democrats. (It's happening already. Rudy Giuliani, for example, is playing dirty on McCain's behalf, attacking the Democrats for being weak on terrorism.)

And it will only get more personal as the campaign rolls along. (And it will get much worse if an Obama victory looks certain. We saw what happened when Hillary got desperate. That was nothing compared to what we could see from the Republican Smear Machine.)

So, yes, they'll try to make voters afraid -- not just of the Democrats but of Obama personally.

Now, even two of the smarter conservatives in the blogosphere, Ed Morrissey and Sister Toldjah (smarter than the usual rabble) have criticized Obama for playing the race card here. But is suggesting that the Republicans will bring up Obama's race playing the race card or is it speaking the truth about how the Republicans operate, what their "strategy" is (because we have indeed seen it in action before)?

Ed argues that Obama "ignores the tactics his fellow Democrats used in the primary, while also overlooking John McCain's efforts to distance himself from the same tactics." ST argues that Obama played the race card against Hillary and that the Republicans won't engage in an ad campaign "disparaging Obama’s race".

But Obama wasn't talking about "his fellow Democrats" here. (And I, like many others, was highly critical of the "kitchen sink" smear campaign Hillary launched against Obama during the primaries. And it was Hillary and her surrogates who played the race card in earnest, not Obama.) Furthermore, the Republican Smear Machine is a well-oiled machine. There won't be an explicit campaign targeting Obama's race because they know it would be a backfiring non-starter in most parts of the country. (Race just doesn't play among most conservatives anymore, not like same-sex marriage). What there will be is a much quieter (and more insidious) campaign to remind voters of certain things: Obama's middle name, Obama's familial links to Islam, Obama's education at an Islamic school, etc. The religious aspect of the smear campaign will be quite explicit at times, but the racial element -- the sort of whisper campaign that can find all the fuel it needs among the various bigots of the right -- will be there, too, just lingering beneath the surface, implicit.

McCain himself will be removed from all that, of course. He'll take the "high" road, smearing Obama in other and perhaps less insidious ways, but his surrogates will get the message across loud and clear, to those who can hear it, to those at whom it is targeted. (Just have a look at the handiwork of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.)

With all due respect to the likes of Ed and ST, if you haven't yet figured out how the Republicans and their Smear Machine work, you're either in denial or utterly clueless.

Headline of the Day (Clinton legacy edition)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The NYT gets the nod today, with this:

Campaign May Leave Blot on Clinton Legacy

You think?

The Hillary Zealots can't quite see this, so blinded are they by their delusions and their absurdly irrational worldview (Hillary = good, Obama = evil), but the Clintons -- both of them -- inflicted an astonishing amount of damange upon themselves over the course of the race. Bill seemed to lose his mind at time, not least when, near the end of the race, he claimed that the media were against Hillary, as if there were some sort of vast conspiracy against her candidacy. And of course he also played the race card in South Carolina, questioned Obama's patriotism, and melted down whenever anyone challenged Clintonian supremacy (such as Bill Richardson). As for Hillary, well, suffice it to repeat that she waged a dirty "kitchen sink" smear campaign against Obama (even going so far as to praise McCain at his expense), turned into a Republican faux populist (god, guns, and the gas tax), and, overall, ran a right-wing campaign (even going so far as to cozy up to the vast right-wing conspiracy along the way).

It's not just a blot on their oh-so-cherished legacy that the campaign leaves, that is, that they themselves leave. Their scorched-earth campaign damaged the Democratic Party, the party to which they allegedly belong, leaving it disunited and weakened.

And of course it also damaged Obama, their target. She is now behind him, supposedly, even if many of the Zealots aren't, but in losing the race -- and specifically in doing so so bitterly, so negatively, and so egotistically -- she effectively fed Republican efforts to go after him during the general election campaign, efforts already underway, providing the GOP smear machine with a great deal of ammunition. And so we're going to see a lot of McCain channelling Hillary in the months ahead, taking the kitchen sink, refashioning it according to Republican prejudices, and throwing it at Obama once more, if more brutally.

Thanks again for everything, Hillary. You, too, Bill.

Hillary's racist strategy?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For now, this is just one New Jersey superdelegate's word, but... well, you never know. Here's The Star-Ledger with the gory details:

A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey said this week he is worried that unifying the party behind Barack Obama may be difficult because the Clinton camp "has engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have."

U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning over Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.

"Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

So it's actually the word of a pro-Clinton New Jersey superdelegate. And so I think the word carries some credibility.

And it makes sense, doesn't it? That is, that Hillary -- or, more specifically, the Clinton campaign -- would have employed this sort of strategy in its "kitchen sink" effort to take down Obama. (Anything to win, even at great risk to the Democratic Party. Thanks for everything, Hillary.)

Let's see if this story goes anywhere -- and if more credible witnesses emerge to confirm Andrews's allegations.

**********

It may be somewhat presumptuous -- again, let's see if there's more to the story -- but I would tend to agree with Steven D over at Booman Tribune: "Obviously he's coming out now because his support for Clinton didn't help him win the primary and so he no longer has any reason to fear payback. And just as obviously it would have been a much more courageous move to disclose this call back when it happened in April, rather than now in June, when the race is over and it serves little point. Still, it demonstrates that Obama supporters were not delusional about all the racial crap coming from the Clinton camp. This is simply more proof that the tale being told among Clinton supporters that Obama was the one who played the 'race card' was as false as every other spurious charge they have slung at him and Michelle."

And with Ron Chusid over at Liberal Values: "The strategy, like so much of what Hillary Clinton did during the campaign, was what we would expect from a Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, not a Democrat.

(For more, see Jack and Jill Politics.)

America's moment

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, or want to watch it again, here's Obama's brilliant speech from St. Paul last night. HuffPo has the full text here. It gets off to a slow start, with Obama a bit flat, but it builds and builds to this awesome conclusion:

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

America, you need Barack Obama in the White House.

Why I think Hillary should fight on

By Carl

I'm often asked how I can support the "corporatist" candidate in the Democratic primary.

As opposed, I assume to the non-corporatist candidate who magically pulled three campaign financings out of his ass, for legislature, Senate and now President. Anyone who believes Obama isn't as beholden to corporate interests as any other candidate is fully deluding himself, but I'll get back to that in a moment.

Believe it or not, on the liberal scale, I consistently score to the left of Dennis Kucinich, so no, Hillary does not come close to representing the ideal changes I'd like to see in this nation.

But she's the strongest step in that direction.

Here's how I view political history: the cyclic nature of short-term changes is one of broad sweeps of the pendulum from one end of the spectrum to the other, extremist and ultimately unhealthy to the nation's well-being.

But like all pendulums, there are larger forces at work besides gravity: momentum, friction, and periodicity all play a part in change.

Long term, it would hard to deny that two opposing forces struggle against each other: the isolationism of effectively an island nation, bordered by only two other countries (no other major nation save Japan and Australia has fewer), and the inevitable march of time forcing us into new technologies and exposure to new ideas and cultures.

Ultimately, it is THIS battleground that I want to win a progressive agenda on, and if that means sacrificing the short term liberal agenda (which in truth, is nothing more than another group of elitists imposing their will on me), then so be it.

Now, to Obama. Run with me a little on this, it will involve some suspension of disbelief:

As a result of an unhappy circumstance, I was forced to watch All the President's Men last night on DVD.

As I sat there watching it for the umpteenth time, discussing it with my daughter with regards to how all political campaigns involve dirty tricks and how hard it is to uncover them if they are financed and backed with a lot of money, a few tumblers clicked in my head.

In the world, as a free agent, is a man who is fully capable of executing the ultimate "rat fuck" on the Democratic party: Karl Rove.

In watching how the Watergate investigation revealed this entire netherworld of Republican operatives only too happy to do the dirty work to set up the nomination of George McGovern, it occured to me, "what if this was the scenario that played out in 2008?"

Think about it: Hillary was the nominee-presumptive in December, and despite her missteps and gaffes along the way, has garnered more votes, and certainly more Democratic votes, than any other nominee for President. Ever.

And still hasn't secured the nomination and sure looks to be a fair distance from doing so.

What if these nickle-and-dime contributions to Obama's campaign weren't from honest citizens, but were part of a larger campaign to push a different candidate for the November election, one who would be almost guaranteed to lose the important states that Democrats need to win: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan?

I added those last two, mostly because in those instances we have overt evidence of Republican involvement in the Democratic campaign: both Florida and Michigan (Florida more so) moved their primaries ahead of New Hampshire and Ohio, and as such have been punished by the DNC, hampering Hillary's efforts and crippling her chances of taking the nomination on the first ballot.

The Florida initiative was promoted and passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor.

Florida. Remember them?

The Michigan case is harder to make, as the governor is a Democrat (but an Obamist) and half of the legislature is controlled by Democrats, but that still leaves significant input from the Republicans.

Too, Obama had significant support from Republicans who crossed over to vote for him in (nominally) Democratic primaries that were open to all (which is why Hillary has a case that more Democrats voted for her than Obama, nevermind more votes, full stop.)

Indeed, at one point when it looked like Obama might knock Hillary out early on, Republicans suddenly started voting in large numbers for Hillary, primarily in Texas.

Apparently, the powers that be that would run this kind of trick didn't want to show their hand too early. They had to extend the season a bit to cover for their own candidate, whomever that might be (at that time, the race for the GOP nod was still in the air).

One more point to make before getting on to conclusions: much if not most of Obama's support comes from states which held caucuses. Caucuses are ideal places for infiltration and dirty tricks, since there's no real paper record of what transpired: you stand in a room, are counted, and then recounted until one person wins a majority.

How hard is it, particularly since caucuses tend to be open to all, for a Republican squad to dispatch posers? Not hard at all.

You think this is all unlikely, yet in 1972, there's Nixon's CREEP running a dirty tricks operation that not only had Muskie knocked out of the race on a very trumped story about him crying over the "Canuck letter" (even then, the media played lap dog to Republican politics), but ensured the weakest possible candidate would take the nomination.

So, here's the scenario: you have an uberstrong candidate, clearly unbeatable in the general election, and a really weak case to make for your own party, no matter who the candidate is (Nixon was despised in 1972, almost as much as Bush is today)

You have the media in your back pocket. No one can deny that Obama benefitted clearly from the Hillary hatred of the media...the GOP-owned media.

You have a candidate who is irresistible to liberal Democrats: a first-term Senator, African American, who espoused 6 years ago his opposition to the war and four years ago his desire to bring the country together and heal its wounds.

Let's call him the Manichaean Candidate.

And you have a political machine that has shown its ability and propensity in the past for stealing elections (Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, and Austin in 1994).

In all of these, Karl Rove has played a vital role, indeed, the key role, in swiping these elections.

Would it be too hard to imagine that, given the intricate mechanics of the Watergate scandal, that Rove took a look at the environment he grew up in in the party, and saw how to improve it and to nearly bulletproof it?

Apparently not.

Now, yes, this has been a fairy tale, but....

If it turns out to be true, remember you read it here first.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The Last Super Tuesday: Montana, South Dakota, and the end of the Democratic presidential race

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

Okay, let's get right to it:

8:25 pm - The media are really trying to milk this, aren't they? I know why they do it, and I know that sensationalism sells, and I know it's all about the drama of it all, however manufactured, but come on. Obama has "effectively clinched" the nomination -- it was clear well before today, but there's a new AP delegate tally -- but CNN, for example, with Wolf hyping it up in The Situation Room, is breathlessly counting down the number of delegates Obama needs to reach the magic number of 2,118. As I write this, he needs 4. It was 6, then 5, then 4, each step BREAKING NEWS, and it could change... momentarily!

8:34 pm - Honestly, there's hardly any genuine drama tonight, if any. Obama will win Montana and perhaps also South Dakota, but the race is over. For Hillary, the question isn't what to do -- drop out, that is -- but when to do it. It won't be tonight, from what Hillaryland is saying, but it will be soon, and there have been countless clues to that effect. (Over the past couple of days, I've posted at length on this here and here.)

8:39 pm - Superdelegates are surging to Obama. Said one of Hillary's more prominent supporters, Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "I think after the campaigns are wrapped up today, it is in fact a moment of truth." Even Hillary extremist Terry McAuliffe knows it's time to give in to reality.

8:43 pm - And so now the next stage of the campaign begins: Putting Hillary on the ticket as Obama's running mate. Personally, I'm against this. I may change my mind, but I don't think Obama, who stands for hope and change, needs the Clintons dragging him down. Far better for Hillary to remain in the Senate, perhaps in a leadership position.

And yet, as the AP is reporting: "[Hillary] told colleagues [today] she would consider joining [Obama] as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket." Some of her supporters are pushing for a so-called "unity ticket" -- is she now pushing for it herself? Perhaps, with distance from this long and sometimes bitter race, this will begin to make more sense to me than it does now.

8:48 pm - McCain is speaking. He said some nice things about Hillary and called her a friend, and he's putting on his "I'm-such-a-serious-and-sincere-guy" voice while, as usual, reading off a teleprompter without being able to disguise it. You know, it's all about trying to come across as tough yet soft. Some people still think he's a straight-talker, but he's such a phony bullshitter -- and he's got it going tonight.

Creature here with my two cents: So, John McCain is on my TV trying to weasel in on Obama's thunder, except not. The candidate is dull and so is his audience. The contrast couldn't be more stark. I can't wait until November.

9:01 pm - And there we have it. It's over. Obama has reached the magic number. He will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. I may object to media sensationalism, but there is no denying that this is a truly historic moment.

9:22 pm - On CNN, David Gergen, contra Jeffrey Toobin, defended McCain for reaching out to Hillary and for playing up his "A Leader You Can Believe In" creds. Nonsense. It was a horrible speech. (Why am I watching CNN? It's my default cable news network. I suppose I'll turn to MSNBC later. But that means Chris Matthews. So perhaps not.)

9:26 pm - Hillary's up soon, but on to more pressing news: Jays 3, Yankees 2. (The Jays, my favourite team, have exceptional pitching this year, and their ace, Roy Halladay, is on the mound tonight. It's just too bad they can't hit. And as for the Yanks, they're not even over .500. And tonight was the formal Deification of Joba Chamberlain, his first start in the majors. He settled down after a rough first inning, but, honestly, what does it say about the '08 version of the Pinstripes that the team's hopes and dreams seem to be resting on the untested arm of a second-year quasi-phenom?)

9:33 pm - Okay, here's Hillary...

9:57 pm - Creature here with my two cents: Senator Clinton is on my TV still making her case. I just don't get it. I really don't. I respect the historic nature of her candidacy, but she is offering false hope. She says the word unity, but she is offering none.

Ted, via text message, adds: "Clinton just said 'she won't be making a decision tonight.' She's like a bad rash."

I guess it's all about the VP slot, but seriously why should he offer when she won't even acknowledge his win. I say Obama should adopt her health care plan and let's all move on.

11:31 pm -- MJWS back again. Sorry for the delay.

Creature and Ted put it well. What an appalling speech. Early on, I was thinking how appealing she can be when she's positive. When she was talking about what she wants, I was reminded of why I once liked her, and I understood, in a way, why so many people like her still.

But the rest of the speech... again, appalling. Look, I get it. She wanted to stay in the race to the very end, or at least through all the contests, until Obama reached the magic number. And she has. And he has. And it's over. And yet there she was, arrogance and egotism to the max, stressing her version of the popular vote totals, talking up her alleged experience, and, campaigning. In other words, her speech was all self-glorification -- specifically, self-glorification in the wake of unacknowledged defeat. Its sole purpose, it seemed, was to keep up the fight, or at least the facade of a fight. And that meant continuing to diminish Obama, just as she has done all along. On CNN, Gergen noted that the night would have been so much grander for Obama had Hillary come out and endorsed him. But of course that was never to be. This is Hillary we're talking about, and it was, as always, and despite her bullshit about how this was all about "you," about herself.

And so she didn't concede. Instead, she kept up the campaign rhetoric. No, it wasn't as negative as it has been in the past, but the message was clear: I'm the best and I deserve to win. In other words: Obama's win is a huge mistake. Those who voted for him are wrong. For fuck's sake, the self-glorifying song that was played when she finished was Tina Turner's "Simply the Best." How utterly arrogant and egotistical is that?

And what will she do now? She'll talk to party leaders about where to go from here. Really? Here's some advice: Get the fuck out of the race! It's over.

11:48 pm - The contrast between Hillary and Obama could not have been clearer tonight. His speech -- delivered to more than 17,000 people in St. Paul, Minnesota -- was simply awesome, one of the best I've heard him give in a long time. He was generous in his praise of Hillary -- so much so that I was again remainded of why I once liked her. He didn't talk much about himself, but he was gracious in victory, reaching out to Hillary and her supporters, and to Democrats generally, as well as to independents and disgruntled Republicans, effectively beginning the general election campaign with a fair and tough critique of John McCain, the Republican Party, and their deranged and destructive policies, and conclusing with an inspirational yet substantial appeal to the very best of the American spirit.

Simply put, I am in awe of Barack Obama.

11:59 pm - I couldn't agree more with Andrew Sullivan: "The speech tonight was a remarkable one for a candidate who has lost the nomination, though not remarkable for a Clinton. It was an assertion that she had won the nomination and a refusal to concede anything to her opponent. Classless, graceless, shameless, relentless. Pure Clinton... She will not go away. The Clintons will never go away. And they will do all they can to cripple any Democrat who tries to replace them. In the tent or out of it, it is always about them. And they are no longer rivals to Obama; they are threats."

And that's what she did tonight: In a speech that was all self-glorification -- arrogant, egotistical, delusional -- she threatened to keep on fighting even in defeat (not that she accepts defeat). And she wants her supporters not to rally behind Obama, not to work to unite a party that she has done so much to divide, but to keep fighting with her.

Like I said, appalling.

1:30 am - Let's get to the results before signing off for the night:

-- South Dakota: Hillary 55-45 (almost all precincts reporting).

-- Montana: Obama 58-40 (64 percent of precincts reporting).

No surprise in Montana, but the South Dakota result is a bit of one. I must admit, I wasn't paying much attention to the polls, but, then, there weren't many polls. Hillary campaigned there aggressively, but I thought Obama's connections to former Sen. Tom Daschle would have given him enough of a boost to win. In both states, though, it looks like turnout was really low.

1:34 am - So that's it for the primaries. It's been fun, eh? Well, no, that's not the right word for it. But it's certainly been exciting for us political junkies -- and especially for us Obama supporters.

What remains to be seen is what Hillary does now. I suspect that despite tonight's bluster she'll bow out soon enough, likely in the days ahead.

Regardless, the general election campaign has begun. And we'll be there to follow it.

(Oh, and by the way, the Jays can hit... sometimes. They scored 6 in the 7th en route to a 9-3 thrashing of the Yanks.)

Good night, everyone.

Will the leaders in Congress stand up, please.

By Carol Gee

Today's the very last set of Democratic primaries to be held this year. And aren't we relieved! After South Dakota and Montana voters make their choices, as they have every right to do, the country can move into its next phase. As it has turned out, the highest ranking Democrats in the party serve in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) will step into action in the next few hours, urging their party super delegate senators and representatives to announce their candidate preferences. The three presidential candidates are senators. Holding even lower public approval ratings than our already thoroughly discredited current president, their leadership will be essential to victory for Democrats in November. Today's post offers a few news items regarding what is happening in this Congress. From Politico.com this (6/3/08) story explains: "Super Delegates predict quick primary end." To quote:

As the Democratic nomination marathon neared a potential finish line, key senators said the results of Tuesday’s South Dakota and Montana primaries will have a domino effect on uncommitted superdelegates – quite possibly clinching the nomination for Barack Obama.

With only 31 total pledged delegates at stake in the two states, Obama cannot win enough in the final two primaries to reach the 2,118 necessary to clinch the nomination.

The highest ranking Democrat has made her mark already. Though many wish Speaker Pelosi had not ruled out a presidential or vice-presidential impeachment, I can understand her decision as one of pragmatism. She was a newcomer to the position, and not yet familiar with what would actually be possible to pull off. But that does not mean she has been shy about exercising power. Politico.com (6/3/08) has the story,"Pelosi concentrates power in office," by John Bresnehan. To quote:

Pelosi says she feels a “natural gravitation to the floor,” but there’s more to it than that: The speaker’s propensity to speak reflects her determination to lead from the front, not the rear, of her caucus.

Since taking the gavel in January 2007, Pelosi has consolidated power in the speaker’s office. She has overruled influential chairmen such as Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) on key issues such as global warming and children’s health insurance, bringing legislation directly to the floor without committee approval.

She personally forced through a rules change creating a new Office of Congressional Ethics, despite loud complaints from veteran lawmakers in both parties. She ran a recent Iraq war funding measure through the House as an amendment, an unusual procedure that allowed Democrats to bypass the powerful Appropriations Committee while providing political cover for anti-war members who opposed the funding measure.

All the money is sinking into Iraq. No wonder people remain upset with Congress being so inept at handling their power of the purse. An earlier article from Yahoo! News* (on May 23), revealed that there is a huge amount of military spending unaccounted for. Congress, alone, has the kind of oversight authority to do something about this disgustingly disheartening news -- that is unfortunately not really a surprise to many of us. To quote:

The Pentagon cannot account for nearly 15 billion dollars in payments for goods and services in Iraq, according to an internal audit which members of Congress blasted Friday as a "shocking" accountability failure.

Of 8.2 billion dollars in US taxpayer-funded defense contracts reviewed by the defense department's inspector general, the Pentagon could not properly account for more than 7.7 billion dollars.

Congress needs to investigate whether the military has been compromised for propaganda purposes by the White House. That same day, 5/23, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher's activist newsletter held out this opportunity to get involved, if you are still interested in doing something about the "Propaganda Pundits," as Hamsher calls them. To quote her idea:

For the first time in our history, the American military has turned its operational apparatus upon the American public. And it's high time that it stop.

We're teaming up with some other groups like Freepress to send a letter to the five members of Congress - Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Armed Service Committee Chair Ike Skelton, Senate Armed Service Committee Chair Carl Levin and House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Chair John Tierney - who can start up Congressional hearings on this despicable program. Add your name to the letter:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/propagandapundit

Life will feel a bit more politically normal after today. Congress may be in the news a bit more frequently, as it should be. The mainstream media has gotten too focused on the horse race between Clinton and Obama. Congress has begin debate on landmark climate change legislation, reported out of Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) environmental committee. The bill's sponsor, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman has called for citizen activists to let those who represent them in Washington know how they feel about the proposed new cap and trade program. Lieberman will need a few more votes to override the threatened veto by our current president. Kudos to both for standing up on this vital issue.

*Hat tip to "betmo" at life's journey.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Clearer today than yesterday

By Creature

Senator Clinton will not concede, she will not suspend, she will not endorse. She will acknowledge Senator Obama has the delegates needed and she will then spend every ounce of political capital she has left trying to convince any superdelegate who will listen to change their minds come August. Throw in an underground smear campaign that will make the last few months look like child's play and you have the next phase of the Clinton campaign.

Please, Senator Clinton, prove me wrong.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Backing his way in

By Carl

This is likely the last negative column I get to write about Obama, so you'll pardon me if I let it all fly now.

While the inevitable march of Obombers and their mindless drones has at last reached the conclusion that they seemed in their Hillary-hatin' cups determined to foist upon the Democratic party, we should probably pause a second and reflect on just how damaging their Manichaean quest has been to the party and to the chances of securing the House and Senate further.

This is a party that was only able to wrest Congress away, and that by the slimmest of margins in a culture that was thoroughly disgusted with all things Republican, particularly Bush, by hewing to the right. The people who ran in 2006 ran under the regime of Rahm Emanuel, who at the time was among the most hated Democratic leaders (and probably still is).

The Senate seats won, in particular, were won for the most part by running a close-to-pro-life ticket in states like Montana and Colorado. Hillary Clinton seemed a natural progression to nudge the country slightly to the left in her first term, then more in her re-election campaign.

Clearly, that was not going to sit well with the minority of Democrats who a) hate all things Clinton, and b) can't bear the thought of evolution. For these folks, a jackhammer is sufficient when a scalpel is needed.

There's the overwhelming need, I suppose, to try to establish some power base of about a twenty percent of the country, but at what cost to the nation as a whole? Is this any different than Ralph Nader throwing the 2000 election to George Bush? What is this basically suicidal need to run anyone who is bright and shiny and new, when governing demands someone who knows the ins and outs of governance?

No one is more adamant about the need for change in politics and governance in the country than I am, but I also remember the last time we tried replacing a tired, corrupt administration with a "fresh face" who spoke well, and held a lot of promise, and was even one of the most intelligent men to ever sit in the White House.

Remember him? Jimmy Carter?

His administration did some good things for this country, to be sure, but simply put, he could never live up to the troubles in the world that he found himself in, and I suspect Obama will be the same kind of President, if he makes it past the general election.

And Carter begat Ronald Reagan. Obama could beget, who? Mitt Romney?

Pendulums swing, but they don't miss the midpoints in their swing. It's almost like the bizarro world, non-reality-based liberal wing has decided that they'd wrench the pendulum out of its fulcrum and drag it kicking and screaming to the far left.

Trouble with that is, once you've done that, pendulums tend to swing back as violently and extremely. There's a majority seating on the Supreme Court that is going to vehemently enforce conservative values and ideology and any attempt to alter the political dynamic by uprooting the nation and shoving it leftward is going to run up against that rather large obstacle.

With any luck, the SCOTUS could be lulled into a passive mood, but not if they feel pressure from the right wing to become activist, which is pretty much certain no matter which of these three is President, but more so if Obama wins.

And we must keep in mind that, given at least a half dozen chances to score a knockout blow against Hillary during the primary season, Obama couldn't muster up enough support outside of his narrow-interest base to throw her off stride, while in the later primaries, the ones that should have been coronations of an Obama candidacy, enough anger and rancor remained that she actually gained support amongst her base and chipped away at his base.

This is not the sign of a particularly strong candidate, that his own base begins to desert him at a time when they should be more confident than ever of his leadership.

In backing into the nomination, not a given as I write this, but it seems likely that Hillary will concede tonight, Obama has a two-fold task: one, convince enough of Hillary's supporters that he deserves their support and two, make inroads into traditional Republican and independent bases.

This last, I think, will be the harder sell for Obama. Clearly, the patina of "purity" that Obama had has been washed clean: the Wright and Pfleger videos, his Rezko ties, his elitism towards anyone who's hands get dirty for a living, or who believes in church and God (apparently, something he's now lost), or who owns a gun, and his apparent arrogance.

After all, what other less-than-first-term Senator would dare challenge the establishment for the sake of his own political ambitions?

We have a saying in city politics here: That man is running like he's got something to run from.

As opposed "to run for."

There are many who disagree with me, who say Obama is different, that he will change the political dynamic.

Perhaps they are right.

Perhaps Obama really is who he says he is, and will change the political dynamic and put this country back on course. I will admit the possibility that one man could do that, however unlikely and unprecedented in the history of democracies reaching back to Athens.

And perhaps, not only are they right, but they are right in ways even they aren't aware.

Maybe he's worse than the average politically motivated corrupt politician, a flim flam man.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

"It ain't over 'til it's over." (It's over.)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As usual, I'll be live-blogging the primary results this evening, but, for now, here's an update to my post from yesterday on the state of the race (and on the state of the Clinton campaign in particular):

1) The clues are rolling in. Hillary will end her campaign... soon... perhaps tonight. HuffPo's Thomas Edsall provides some of the more persuasive evidence:

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech [tonight] in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama -- if not [tonight], within a day or two.

Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities, according to reliable sources.

See yesterday's post for more clues. (Marc Ambinder has yet another here.)

**********

2) Or... wait... what if... what if she doesn't end her campaign? Here's The Politico's Ben Smith:

A Clinton donor tells me that on a conference call today with major fundraisers this afternoon, Harold Ickes told them Clinton isn't planning to drop out. He pressed donors to stay unified, and reviewed tactical options, including challenging the Michigan delegation.

State finance committees are also circulating letters to deliver to Clinton [today] in New York, and I've obtained a draft of the Illinois finance committee's letter, being circulated by a Clinton fundraising aide, Rafi Jafri, which stresses a fight until the convention, and a resolution in "August, and no earlier."

These are the hardcore donors and fundraisers, though. They may not speak for the Clinton campaign, let alone for Hillary herself.

The writing is on the wall, clearly, and, evidently, Hillary has read it, at long last.

**********

3) And the writing is getting clearer and clearer. CNN is reporting that "[m]ost of the seventeen Democratic senators who have remained uncommitted throughout the primaries will endorse Barack Obama for president this week."

At MSNBC, Mark Murray is reporting that there may be "a superdelegate flood coming" for Obama:

Buzz on the Capitol Hill suggests that has many as 34 of the undeclared superdelegates residing in the House will endorse Obama by Wednesday. As many as 18 of these 34 -- many of them elected to Congress in the last four years -- will come out for Obama [today] so he can edge closer to his magic number before the vote counting ends in South Dakota and Montana. The biggest Obama get in the House to date will come [today] when House Dem Caucus Chairman Jim Clyburn officially declares.

Meaning, it's almost over.

Hillary's speech tonight may not be a concession one, as Ambinder is reporting, but Bill -- astute political mind that he has -- knows very well that this could be "the last day" -- for him? for her? perhaps not, no, and likely not, but at least for the 2008 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Last exit to graceland; or, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Someone call Yogi Berra. Hillary's ripping him off.

Here's what she told reporters en route to South Dakota last night: "It is not over 'til it's over."

Thanks for the clarification.

**********

She prefaced that remark with this: "My political obituary has yet to be written, and we're going forward."

Well, of course, she's going forward to Montana and South Dakota, the last two primaries. That's correct.

But beyond that? -- "I'm sort of a day-at-a-time person, and we'll see when Tuesday and the day after Tuesday comes."

Thanks for the un-clarification.

Understand, though, that no one is talking about her "political obituary." No one is suggesting that this loss means the end of her political career.

On the contrary, she remains a powerful and influential political figure with a bright future -- in the Senate, running for president again, whatever.

There's no all-or-nothing here, and many of us who have opposed her (more because we supported Obama than because we disliked her) hope she remains a leading figure in the party.

**********

Speaking of her still-bright political future, Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported yesterday that "[Hillary] will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in [Obama]'s cabinet under plans for a 'negotiated surrender' of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides."

Specifically, according to one Democratic strategist with ties to the Obama campaign, "[s]he will get something to do with health care, a cabinet post or the chance to lead the legislation through the Senate."

Which makes sense, though I'm not sure a cabinet post -- Secretary of Health and Human Services? -- would be the best fit for her.

And she won't be Obama's running mate. Period.

**********

Today's reports from Hillaryland are, well, unclear.

The NYT is reporting that Hillary is weighing her options -- which, presumably, are a) get out on Tuesday; b) get out soon; c) fight on as a matter of (Clintonian) principle while more or less conceding; and d) take the fight all the way to the convention without conceding.

The AP is reporting that she's still targeting the superdelegates, including those that have committed to Obama: "One thing about superdelegates is that they can change their minds," she also said en route to South Dakota. Which is true -- if not exactly a stirring campaign strategy. (Why would they change their minds? Because she tells them to?)

The LAT is reporting that she may soon lose some of her key supporters -- especially if Obama passes the 2,118 delegate-threshold, which could happen tomorrow.

So what's really going on?

Hillary is preparing to drop out of the race. It may not be tomorrow, but it will be soon.

The Politico's Ben Smith reports: "Members of [Hillary]'s advance staff received calls and emails [yesterday] evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending."

The results will be coming in from Montana and South Dakota, but Hillary will be in New York. After a long and sometimes bitter campaign that has been short on grace, especially since she started losing, we're about to get her long-awaited graceful exit from the race she was once expected to win.

Beginnings and Endings

By Carol Gee

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES

Many women in the United States are facing the ending of a dream these days. Those of us in that place are now relatively sure that next January there will not be an inauguration of the first female president in the nation's history. And in a way that awareness can be heartbreaking to longtime feminists. I count myself in that cohort, even though I began to be an Obama supporter a few weeks before our state's primary. It is not that I did not want a woman to be the nominee. I have deeply looked forward to that eventuality for decades. I just could not support the particular woman running in 2008, ending my dream for now.

Beginnings plus endings equal transitions. Sometimes these periods can be discomfiting psychological stages in which to be thrown, because we have so many associated emotions. We might feel sadness that something we valued has ended, anxiety about what is to come, anger that transition was forced upon us, or ambivalence because of unresolved mixed feelings. We might have changes in appetite, sleep patterns, increased hyper-vigilance or numbness, tears or other unusual behaviors. Not everyone sails easily through transition.

The Democratic party's primary season is ending Tuesday. As this very useful WaPo election season map clearly shows, Montana and South Dakota are holding the final two elections that should decide the nominee for POTUS. This begins the period when heretofore undeclared Super Delegates will announce their preferences, moving the party towards its desired unification in order to win the election in November. The problem is that Senator Clinton is yet unaware of this reality. She remains in denial and in transition. She appears to be having the most difficulty of any of us in letting go of her dream.

The presumptive nominees of both parties are already out of transition. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have already begun the general election campaign to win the chance to be center-stage at the presidential inauguration.

And Barack Obama and his family have ended their membership in their church. Senator Obama and/or his wife and daughters all faced some of those uncomfortable transitional feelings after making this difficult decision. My hope is that relief will come, too.

NASA IN SPACE

NASA's Shuttle mission, STS-124, has begun its journey to the International Space Station, where the Japanese module Kibo ("hope") will be installed. This mission marks the end of the major construction of habitable space on the ISS. The shuttle docks with the ISS today.

PERSONAL

One of our granddaughters ended her high school years Saturday with a grand graduation ceremony. And very soon she will begin preparations in earnest for starting college in the fall. She begins to make the transition from adolescent to adult, just like millions of happy "mortar board tossers" all over the country.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Most Fabulous Object In The World

By J. Thomas Duffy

Not too many have noticed, as it has been going on for some time.

And, no doubt, following yesterday's Rules and Bylaws Committee resolution to the Florida-Michigan kerfluffle, we'll continue to get more, likely amped up louder, more forceful, more desperate.

What are we talking about?

Only that Hillary Clinton is The Most Fabulous Object In The World.

Hillary and her band of Clintonistas have embraced the Terry Gilliam film Time Bandits, claiming they have the map (and only they have it) that shows Hillary to be "The Most Fabulous Object In The World."

Here was Hillary, just a few days ago, writing to the superdelegates:

Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I’ve enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.

In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee – the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.

Want more?

Here was Lanny Davis (still crying), writing in The Wall Street Journal just yesterday (and never mind about the irony of appealing for support via Rupert Murdoch-owned media):

First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both "in" and "outside" the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee ...

Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).

Davis even, after the committee meeting last evening, roamed the hotel's hallways, ranting to anyone that would listen to him how Hillary Clinton is "The Most Fabulous Object In The World."

(And we can't ignore Davis's uncontrollable sobbing earlier last week.)

And in the Prophetic Department...

More?

We have Hillary tossing around assassination manhole covers (and her cronies claiming she's the victim) and her husband intimating the biggest mystery since The 39 Steps, that there's a conspiracy to deny Hillary the nomination:

"I can't believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out," Clinton said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News.

Clinton also suggested that some were trying to "cover up" Hillary Clinton's chances of winning in key states that Democrats will have to win in the general election.

"'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh, my goodness, we have to cover this up.' "

Clinton did not expound on who he was accusing.

"The Most Fabulous Object In The World."

Ahh, but we know, from Time Bandits that "The Most Fabulous Object In The World" was just a ruse to lure one into the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness, where Evil resided.

Do Hillary and her band of Clintonistas follow the map all the way?

Does this all end up in the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness?

Well, "the drinking-from-the-Lanny-Davis-cup" Harold Ickes intimated that at the RBC meeting, bitterly (another irony) chastizing his fellow board members for tossing Hillary overboard, saying he was "empowered by Mrs. Clinton" to reserve their right to continue claiming Hillary is "The Most Fabulous Object In The World" to the Credentials Committee.

Here's the video of it.



Based on what went down yesterday, with the RBC clearly indicating they don't want to go near the Ultimate Fortress of Darkness, it's likely the Credential Committee will give Ickes an Ickes-like thrashing right back:

Did Hillary campaign with the sceptre of entitlement, underestimating Obama, and all other candidates?

You bet your ass she did ...

Did Hillary lose this primary fight?

You bet your ass she did ...

Is Hillary attempting to hijack the nomination now?

You bet your ass she is ...

The Clintons are quickly becoming Willie Mays with the Mets, or Joe Louis opening doors in Las Vegas.

Relics of the past, of better days, a sad memory jolt, of when once they were on top.

The Dems, to stay in the Time Bandits motif, are going with the Supreme Being, the antidote, the protector, the one standing up against the Ultimate Fortress of Darkness.

Hillary, complete with her band of Clintonistas, marched into the primary campaign, boasting of entitlement and inevitability, of just showing up, of Hillary being "The Most Fabulous Object In The World," setting their campaign strategy up to Super Tuesday, when, the following day, the coronation would take place.

Hillary campaigned to win an election.

Obama, meanwhile, dug down, from the roots, setting himself up across the land, building support from the ground up.

Obama campaigned to win the primaries, to win delegates.

And therein lies the difference.

From the U.K.'s Telegraph:

Dee Dee Myers, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said: “It seems clear to me from watching her, and talking to people, that she doesn’t really know what she wants.” But after 17 months of campaigning, and $150 million (£76 million) spent, the question that haunts the Clinton camp is: how did someone who a year ago had unrivalled name recognition, a legendary campaign organisation and more money than her opponent contrive to throw it all away?

The answers come down to wrong message, wrong tactics, complacency, character – and, ultimately, the opponent. Even Clinton aides agree that she wrongly sold herself as a candidate of experience, when voters yearned for Barack Obama’s message of change. Her campaign machine then failed to win January’s crucial opening Iowa caucuses, handing lethal momentum to Mr Obama.
Her staff mistakenly believed they could knock her rival out by “Super Tuesday” on February 5, when 22 states voted. When that did not happen, she had neither the resources nor the organisation to compete in the succession of caucuses that followed, allowing Mr Obama to build the delegate lead he maintains to this day.

Closing out with Time Bandits, if Hillary is "The Most Fabulous Object In The World," then John McCain is the smoldering, dead piece of Evil sitting in the toaster oven.

The best advise we can offer at this point is, Obama, stay away from the toaster oven, the Evil. It will implode, soon enough, all on its own.

Bonus Links

Today's Must Read: Al Giordano's "Damn you, Barack Obama" ... It lays out what we are seeing now
Three "Must Reads" from Al Giordano

CSI Hillary RFK Gaffe

Wolcott: Nixon in a pantsuit

What About on Day Two?



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Hillary wins Puerto Rico... and?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As expected, Hillary has won the PR primary by a wide margin. With almost a quarter of precincts reporting, she's up by a 2-to-1 margin, 67 to 33. (CNN has the results here.)

Not much will change in terms of the delegate math, however. Hillary will pick up a net gain, but, with expected wins on Tuesday in Montana and South Dakota, Obama should wrap up the nomination.

The bottom line, according to TPM's Greg Sargent: "After Tuesday, Obama may need less than two-dozen super-dels to clinch the nomination. Hillary would need more than 16 dozen of them."

**********

Update: With almost all precincts reporting, it's Hillary up 68 to 32.

And she still doesn't seem to realize it's over.

(While Obama is being as magnanimous as ever.)

**********

Update 2: This, from the NYT, bothers me: "In many ways, Mr. Obama is wheezing across the finish line after making a strong start: He has won only 6 of the 13 Democratic contests held since March 4, drawing 6.1 million votes, compared with 6.6 million for Mrs. Clinton."

I do not dispute the numbers -- Hillary has won more votes and contests since March 4 -- but how is Obama's performance akin to "wheezing"?

As I have said over and over again, Hillary is a very strong candidate. There's no disputing that. To suggest that Obama should have been able to "finish" by now -- that is, finish her off -- is to make much less of Hillary than she really is. Pundits have made that suggestion, but so have Hillary and her campaign, along with her supporters and surrogates, and it's what I've come to call "self-condescension." Is it that Obama is so weak or that Hillary is so strong? The latter, clearly. Were it not for Obama and the movement that has coalesced around him, Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination a long, long time ago. And, even with Obama leading, she continues to do extremely well. Why should we be surprised by this?

Furthermore, while it is true that Hillary has won more votes and contests since March 4, it was Obama who drew even with her on Super Tuesday -- winning more contests, proving to be an equally (if not the more) formidable candidate, and crushing the presumed inevitability of her nomination -- and then ran the table from February 9 to 19, winning 11 contests in a row. It's not that he's "wheezing," it's that the calendar, which benefitted Obama back in February, had Hillary-friendly contests scheduled for March 4 and later, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.

The pundits, along with Hillary and her campaign, are treating this race like a college football season, where a loss early on is far less meaningful than a loss at or near the end: a school loses one and then wins ten, it goes to the BCS and competes for the national championship; it wins ten and then loses one, doubts erupt. But this isn't college football, and Obama's recent losses to a strong rival candidate in states that are friendly to her should not be taken to be signs of inherent weakness and impending doom. Obama's February run was amazing, and those contests count just as much as the more recent ones, but, in general, the race has gone pretty much according to expectations.

And it's a race that Obama has won.