Eating my words, and loving every minute of it!

There are some times in my life where I love being wrong. On this blog nobody has been more critical of John Edwards that I. Long have I waited for Edwards (whom I supported for president) to stand up and make an endorsement of a Democratic candidate. My waiting turned into impatience and I incorrectly predicted that he would sit on the fence until the convention. Today my friends, I was proud to eat those words as I flicked on the television to see Breaking News: Edwards endorses Obama! Only one day after pundits predicted total divide in the Democratic party, Edwards rushed in and offered words of reconciliation at just the right time. This is exactly what we needed folks. If you listened to his tone he congratulated Hillary, applauded the gains the party, and simultaneously pumped up Obama. This folks, is the tone that the Democrats have longed for, which only Edwards could provide. I am so proud today, I could barely contain my excitement. For the first time in two years, I would consider myself a Democrat again. Thank you John Edwards for transcending the garbage news headlines and providing stewardship for your party when they needed you most.

Hillary Wins, Nobody Cares!

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? This is the logic I apply to Hillary's victory in West Virginia. Sure, her victory was huge (according to the pundits), but I have never seen so much ado about nothing. So for those who skipped out on some previous discussion, let's go over this one more time. Mathematically she can't win. If the party gives her the nomination, they lose the African American vote and fracture Democrats forever. Barring catastrophic meltdown, Obama is in. While the pundits were busy gabbing about Hillary's victory, very little attention was paid to the fact that on the day of her triumph, Obama picked up more Super Delegates. Don't be distracted by the Hillary's warped rhetoric or reasoning that no Democrat can win the White House without West Virginia. At this point she will say anything to keep her prospects going just a little longer. I hate to burst your bubble, but don't count on it ending anytime soon while networks like Fox News and CNN can draw in ratings on fake drama and mathematical improbability. I don't know about you, but my tuner is set to American Idol. Forget Hillary versus Obama, it's David versus David. Now that's what I call a competition!

Do I Smell an Endorsement?

Is it me, or did it just sound like Senator John Edwards said he supports Hillary? If you listened to Face the Nation on Sunday morning, Edwards said that Clinton was gaining steam and would be a stronger candidate in the fall. Maybe it's me, but I can take this one of two ways. Either Edwards has little chance of becoming the VP under Obama, or there's more than meets the eye to this race. Is it me or is it strange that pundits keep saying that it would take a shocking revelation to knock out Obama? Why do they keep saying that? It's almost like they're trying to cushion the blow when Hillary overtakes Obama because of some nasty scandal or political secret. Edwards words reminded me why I hate politicians more than any other profession, because they can never say plainly how they feel. They have to dress us their words and encode them, almost as if they think we are incapable of handling the truth. I think this story is far from over, so stay posted.

He's Winning in Every Column Folks!

Quick hit before I got to bed. Obama picked up another four Super Delegates today vaulting him ahead of Clinton in yet another category. While none of these are set in stone, it definitely marks a shift in momentum and may display a trend that will emerge in the next three weeks. I'm predicting a small trickle of delegates (as we are seeing now) rather than one mass exodus from one candidate to another, whereby they save face and don't alienate Hillary supporters. Regardless, time is running out as Obama now leads in the popular vote, delegates won, and pledged Super Delegates. Tick Tock Hillary. 

Nine more pick Barack but Hillary takes another shot

The earth is officially crumbling underneath Hillary's feet. Another nine Super Delegates have now joined the Obama camp swinging even more momentum his way. I understand Hillary's desire to exit gracefully, but all these charades are just delaying the inevitable, not to mention they are running up quite a bill for the Clinton campaign. At this point, as I have said in numerous blogs, I think it's time for the heavy hitters to step up to the plate and make an endorsement. That means John Edwards and Al Gore need to stop playing politics andhave to start to think about the big prize, November. A prolonged race could have lasting negative effects. 

 

Hillary might be eliminated, but that hasn't stopped her from using racially divisive language in trying to smear Obama. Recently in a phone interview, Hillary reiterated that Obama will not win in the fall because white voters and blue collar workers don't identify with him. All these shenanigans might actually hurt her standing in the party and should Obama lose, especially if his loss is attributed to all her attacks. The Dems are hungry and if they are denied the White House after an eight year drought because of Hillary she can say goodbye to any chances of running in 2012. I know that Mike said in his earlier post we need to step back and appreciate exactly what Hillary is trying to accomplish, but I have to disagree with him on one major point. I was hoping that the first female candidate would conduct herself with a little more dignity and grace instead of running (in my opinion) one of the most divisive primary campaigns in modern history. I understand that top Super Delegates don't want to feel as if they are "forcing" Hillary out, but the time for subtlety is over.  Hillary take a hike!

Obama Wins North Carolina

His victory in NC looks decisive. Indiana at the moment is trending toward Senator Clinton. It remains my contention that simply making the margin very slight in Indiana will uncork a flood of super delegates eager to get this thing over with. We'll see over the corse of the night if my prediction holds up. 

Hillary: The Choice of the Last Generation!

Analysis of the polls will tell you that young people don't favor Hillary. Maybe it's her mullet, or the fact that she represents everything wrong with the world of politics; double talk, skeletons in her closet, and the ability to pawn pure bullshit on an unsuspecting and uneducated voting public. Let me not mince words, because now my narrative is taking a turn for the worst. After tonight's primaries it is abundantly clear that she cannot win. In baseball this would be where a team's magic number is zero, but oddly enough Hillary is still playing for the postseason. Why? Pure vanity and megalomania have consumed the person that once claimed she was in the race for the ordinary voter. Oh, please Hillary! 

This isn't about the voters, it isn't about the Democratic party, it isn't even about who is the best suited candidate against John McCain. What is left of your pathetic and desperate run for the White House is all about one thing, your ego. Perhaps you cannot fathom how you, the inevitable heir to the White House, were beaten by this upstart that captured the hearts and minds of voters the Democratic party has been unable to mobilize despite "Rocking" the vote for the past eight years. Not even a pop laden MTV campaign could accomplish what the Obama campaign has done in a few short months. How could this happen? It's because the young voters don't want a band aid to fix the bullet wound that has injured American government. People with college educations, (who mainly vote for Obama if one should analyze the statistics) can see right through your crappy gas tax idea, which will leave most of the middle class with a little less than seventy dollars. I would rather set fire to that seventy dollars than to see your unoriginal ideas, which mirror those of McCain, become policy in the upcoming months. 

Despite the media's (and Republican talk radio's) clear attempts to turn this election into a debate on everything except the economy, the war, and other pressing issues, you are still not winning. So go on and cry about how if you count Florida and Michigan, you are winning the popular vote. Continue to say that you won the battleground states where the old Democratic guard has been so well received (despite losing twice to the unelectable George W. Bush). Continue to play the race card and continue to tie Obama to his preacher, who I might mention IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Continue to duck sniper fire and hold on to your connections in the inner circle of the Democratic party. The more you do, the more you will demonstrate how bitter and "unlikeable" you really are. It's no surprise that you are basically winning every Republican county, because you are the choice of the last generation, and if the Democrats want change in the White House, your scowl will not deliver it. 

For Clinton Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

George W Bush is everyone's favorite punching bag. And at slightly below 30% approval I say why not. Senators Clinton and Obama have taken shots early and often at the beleaguered POTUS. But it if imitation is the highest form of flattery then Senator Clinton is praising W to the heavens. Over the course of the last week, we've heard her say things like, "I'm not going to cast my lot with economists." when challenged to name one credible expert who thought the gas-tax holiday was a good idea. Essentially putting herself above and beyond things like fact and logic, not unlike a certain someone we've come to know and love.

Then of course there's everyone's favorite middle eastern straw man. Iran. Despite our own country's National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran was not presently developing nuclear arms, Senator Clinton decided to threaten to "totally obliterate" Iran if she attacked Israel with nuclear arms. A credible presidential candidate might have pointed out facts, instead direct threat of force was he stand of this presidential candidate. Given the chance to back off the comment she simply restated her threat. Ah yes decisive cock-sure leadership, the kind Americans crave. The kind President Bush has provided.

Am I trying to equate Clinton with Bush on policy, no. But when it comes to leadership style, I was struck by a certain feeling that I had seen this movie before...

Brooks: The difference between...

Today Brooks at the NY Times gives us a clear understanding of the leadership difference Clinton and Obama provide and why that is the real choice this year between candidates.

The Dems Latest Round

Here's a quick primer for those whose attention span for Democratic Primaries has completely been tapped out. 

Senators Clinton and Obama continue to battle. Tomorrow Indiana an North Carolina get their crack at deciding this thing. Obama came into this week with a lead in North Carolina (around 10 points depending on the poll you read) and still maintains a lead. He is expected to win the state, as always the question will be by how much. Senator Clinton will look to close the gap and continue her fighting on theme. 

Indiana by the accounts of all those watching this even more closely than I, is said to be a toss up. Obama polls slightly ahead but usually well within the margin of error. Here's what I think is going to happen. 

The win is going to be by the slimmest of margins in Indiana, whoever gets it. In either scenario Senator Clinton will not quit. However, look for a flood of super delegates (which to this point has only been a consistent trickle) to move toward Obama after the primaries. If he essentially nets a delegate and popular vote win out of the two states the mathematical logic of a Clinton win is much harder to come by. The only way Hillary stops the flood is if she runs the table and wins both Indiana an North Carolina. 

Guam Wit Yo Bad Self!

CNN is reporting that Sen. Barack Obama won Guam's Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday by just seven votes, according to a Guam election official. With all 21 precincts reporting, Obama finished with 2,264 votes, or 50.1 percent. Sen. Hillary Clinton got 2,257 votes, or 49.9 percent. With the race as close as it is, these additional delegates could be crucial to Senator Obama.

What a minute!!! Guam??? Guam gets a vote???

Here's a scary thought for you, too. What if we end up maintaining a presence in the Middle East as we have in the Pacific after WWII? Could there someday be a primary in Tikrit? I know...that's just crazy talk. But on a day when I read that Guam is making an impact in the election, I s'pose anything's possible.

Maybe Brooks was right.

Have we reached an age where we lack fact?

When a blog like huffington post can publish as prominently as the NY Times, when anyone can photoshop any image, when anyone can edit together any clips to make nearly anyone say nearly anything, are we living in a fact-less world? This question of course has already been posed by folks smarter than I.

But I wonder if you can't take the logic of that question and apply it to Brooks' thesis. He posits essentially there are demographic blocks that hold immovable beliefs because of their social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. In a society that's far less homogeneous than our parents and certainly our grandparents' demographic groups and by extension voting bloc's are creating their own reality.

If I am a staunch liberal, I can get my news from the NY Times, watch Keith Olberman, and read books by Al Gore. Sources like the evening news may portray stories I don't like or agree with, but I can chalk it up to knowing that a particular source is owned by Rupert Murdoch, or that they are being run by the corporate media.

If I'm a staunch conservative, I can read the Wall Street Journal, watch Sean Hannity, and read books by Bill O'Reilly. Source like the evening news may portray stories I don't like or agree with, but I can chalk it up to corporate media being slaves to the liberal bias.

But in the age of the internet it's far worse than that. I can ensconce myself in ideological blogs and podcasts, the echo-chamber effect. And when empirical evidence begins to pop up that my ideology or political leader might not be right, I can simply recreate reality through unfounded stories and minority reports. We see this currently with the public reaction to the Bush Administration, no one can defend the results this administration as wrought, so the Conservative blogosphere has simply tapped into the idea that W was not conservative enough. And the liberals in congress forced his hand.

This modern media landscape is having a profound effect in the Democratic Primary. Barack Obama is simply elitist. A man raised by a single mother, who only paid off his law school degree a few years ago is out of touch. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton who lived in the Governor's mansion for 12 years and the White House for 8, and has since made $109 million is somehow a woman of the people. Why? Because that's the narrative particular demographic groups have set up for themselves. And in this new media landscape, opinion matters as much as fact, perception as much as reality, and no one has to acknowledge something they don't believe.

The Internet for all it's power to share information, might actually be encouraging people to pull further into their demographic an ideological enclaves than explore others.

Rev. Wright resurfaces, Obama has to lay the smack down

Rev. Wright refused to go quietly. In deciding to speak again for the National Press Club Wright defended his incindiary remarks and stuck to his guns. Claiming that the US government created AIDS and dispatched it to the African American community. Barack Obama has effectively tossed Wright under the bus.

For two takes, I offer George Will, who thinks it's the right of all Obama's political oppostion to use Wright against him all season. And Eugene Robinson who wanted to give Wright the benefit of the doubt, but now thinks he needs to go.

We'll have more on policythought as the day progresses.

Tuesday Brooks Day: Its the demographics stupid

Today Brooks explains his theory that campaigns have stopped mattering and its demographics that now rule the race. Give him a read and see if you agree.

Roger Simon: Get (Less) Smart

Roger Simon over at politico has a great critique of the race since Pennsylvania. He lampoons the way we need our candidates to play down to masses. Look to see if it shifts media focus, as politico has tended to drive the nature of coverage this season.

Sick of it, yet?

Alright, I'll come out and say it.

I'm sick of it too.

I'm sick of the back-biting, the name calling, the not-so-thinly-veiled references. I am sick of them, and I am a self-confessed politics junkie. It's not that I think Hillary should just quit already. I've written before, and still believe she has every right to continue the race. She even has a semi-plausible path to the nomination. She can hope that her campaign, the McCain Campaign, and the fox news team can find more damaging things about Obama, enough damaging things that will give the super delegates pause and make them switch their alliance to her side. It could happen, and I say that not mockingly.

The answer here of course lies with Obama, not Clinton. The narrative continues to swirl around her, despite her narrow path to victory. Obama should start to play the front-runner in this race. Acknowledge he still has a nomination to win, but get back to basics. "When I'm this party's nominee, I will do....." He has allowed Clinton to drag him down to her tit-for-tat level, and its time for him to stop. If he elevates his rhetoric and lets the Clinton machine simply sputter out, its the best thing he can do.

So enough about Rev. Wright, the weathermen, flag pins, and sniper fire. It's time to start framing this debate as why democratic proposals and principles are stronger for the bulk of the nation than republican ones. Time to start fighting on policy and forgetting about politics.

Deja Vu?

As a last effort before voters head to the polls in PA today, the candidates are doing their best to differentiate themselves as the best choice for president. As part of her effort, Hilary Clinton highlighted and underlined her position on Iran according to this BBC news report. In short, she would "obliterate" them if they launched an attack on Israel. Now, I am not about to argue against protecting our interests in this region, but we have to do it as prudently as possible. Our current situation in Iraq is an example of why. Perhaps this attitude on display now serves as a reminder of the same gung-ho pro-war/retaliation attitude that made Hilary Clinton vote for the Iraq war in the first place. Or perhaps it shows how she can be swayed by what she sees as the most politically prudent thing of the moment. I surmise that when she voted on Iraq, she did it partly so that she wouldn't seem weak in a post-9/11 U.S. (especially as she would be running for President in a few years). When the war because unpopular, and the evidence of its misdirection became blatant, she suddenly turned into a staunch critic. And when President Bush made comments similar to her current ones about retaliation on Iran if they obtained and used nuclear weapons, she was all up in a dander about his statements and how it would have to receive new authorization by Congress.

So, what is it, Hilary? Is President Bush wrong for suggesting forceful retaliation against Iran or right?

I also find it interesting that she complains about her media coverage, and suddenly the media is focusing on Obama's "bitter" comment in great, minute detail and ignoring her war-mongering comments--both this one and her umbrella retaliation brought forth in the latest debate.

Are we so enamoured with political melodrama and gossip that we are willing to overlook these serious diplomatic policy statements? Am I the only one worried that all this haste for "obliterating" feels mighty familar?

Politico gains some perspective

Ben Smith took a moment on his blog to discuss why Hillary Clinton still drives the narrative of the democratic primary. It's a good read, and gives some perspective to how we pay attention to politicians.

And Roger Simon takes a scary look at the possible inherent racism of the American electorate.

Bittergate: What's really going on.

Barack Obama has been getting slammed for being elitist, mostly because he accurately described a voting trend among midwestern and rural voters. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have wasted no time pouncing on these ill-chosen words. But I want to clarify a few things here, because I just don't think the media is covering these developments accurately.

1. The media needed to hit Obama for something. Rev. Wright seemed perfect, but then Obama gave the speech of his political career and squelched that beast, at least for the moment. This was an easy comment because it fit a media narrative. Obama is a liberal elite, who will always have problems with "downscale" voters. Nevermind that he was raised by a single mother, paid his way through school, and passed up high paying jobs to become a community organizer.

2. The story got legs because the narrative that Hillary was dead was getting tired, this story gives the media a way to revive her. At most this problem knocks Obama down a few points. It certainly doesn't gain her any especially nationally.

3. Hillary Clinton made up a story about landing under sniper fire and told it exactly the same way three different times. The media has treated Obama's poorly chosen words with the same credence and Clinton's fabrication.

4. There is a legitimate critique to be made about Obama's comments. The candidates all recognize them and have pandered to them since the election cycle began. They've been in a race to prove who has a stronger faith in God. Hillary Clinton tells gun stories like she grew up on the frontier. Obama runs around condeming trade as if it were to blame for all the countries ills. Both candidates wrapped themselves in knots trying to answer simple questions pertaining to illegal immigration.

5. There is one question to be asked of America's working class. What's more insulting? Having a candidate accurately describe a voting trend? Or having candidates (like our current president) use their deep seeded faith in God or their dedication to tradition against them for decades. What is more insulting? Being reminded that you are bitter about how our economy has treated you? Or having a candidate who has made 109 million dollars since her husband left the White House pretend to be like you by playing to your stereotypes, that all you do is drink boilermakers, bowl, and shoot guns?

This story will have life until the debate on Wednesday and the recaps Thursday. Let's hope we don't have to hear about it again until the fall.

The fight is a good thing

Democratic big-wigs are worried about the ongoing brawl between Senators Obama and Clinton. I'm here to tell you the fight brewing between the two of them is the best thing the democratic party could have hoped for. The longer this fight goes, the longer John McCain has to define and fight against two candidates, instead of just one. The longer is goes the more Obama will have to prove he is as much steak as he is sizzle, and the longer it goes on, the longer two thirds of the presidential news cycle will be dominated by the dems, while McCain continues defining himself to a public that feels they already know him.

Had the primary fight been over by now, the General Petraeus message to congress would have been a simple affirmation by McCain and rejection by Obama or Clinton. But together, while debating each other for attention and votes, Obama and Clinton can raise the rhetoric of the liberal agenda, and keep the Dems on top of the news.

There's a reason the Super Delegates haven't ended this thing yet. The debate over what type of leader they want to nominate is an important one. Many of these super delegates are going to have to deal with the next president directly on a score of issues. They want to and need to know how that relationship will work over the long term. These candidates are fully fleshing out how they will operate as leaders. When the Wright scandal hit, the Obama campaign showed us all how it would deal with a crisis. Rather than shrink from it they decided to face it head on by giving an intelligent, rarefied speech on the overarching topic of race in America. We have seen the Clinton camp's willingness to cut off campaign operatives who stop spreading the proper message and they're general willingness to fight hard for what they believe in.

In other words for good and bad, we are learning far more about how these people would lead the country. That I think is a good thing.