Old is the new Black

With the election of Barack Obama, America proved a few things to the world. It showed that it has moved beyond its divisive racial past and showed that it was both ready and willing to elect a black President. This is despite the endless lecturing we all had to endure about the resilience of the racist, white American. During the presidential campaign, Obama insisted that John McCain would play the race card, and try to tell voters to stay away because he didn’t look like the other Presidents on American money and in American history books, even though the honourable McCain never did. Pundits insisted that Obama’s race was an obstacle in his way to the White House. CNN spent many nights probing the effects of “race in the race” and how it may impact Obama’s electability. And voters had to watch news clip after news clip where reporters would dig up some idiot who said they can’t vote for Obama because of his middle name, and then insinuate that this is indicative of a larger trend. In the end, all of this worrying, hand-wringing and race-baiting was for naught. On Election Day, Obama’s race helped him. The exit polls show that only 9% of voters said race was an important factor to them. Not exactly a huge racial barrier for Obama to have to overcome. But of those people for whom race was important, 53% of them actually voted for Obama. Obama benefitted from being black! So much for racist America, eh? Unfortunately, the candidate who actually had the societal handicap was not the black candidate, but the old one. While nearly absent from the discussion during the campaign, age turned out to be a much greater factor in this election. A whole 15% of voters said it was an important factor to them and 77% of those people voted for Obama. Whereas Barack Obama’s race actually helped him, John McCain suffered greatly because people didn’t want to vote for a person of his age. But where were the nightly specials on age discrimination? Where were the advocates for the aged? Our society was so preoccupied with the potential for racism to hold Obama back that it missed ageism completely. Yes, with the election of Barack Obama, America proved to the world a few things. Sadly, first among them was that while America won’t judge you on the colour of your skin, it will judge you on the number of wrinkles in it.

The Great Double Standard

I have been shocked in the last few weeks at the outrageous double standard that is present in the media coverage of the US election. The media has lashed out at everything Sarah Palin and John McCain do while ignoring negative stories about Obama.
The media was quick to report that there was a shout of "kill him" at a Palin rally when she mentioned Obama's name. For sure, this is a disgusting comment. Or, rather, it would have been, had it actually occurred. The Secret Service investigated and found no evidence of it. Secret Service agents were at the Scranton rally and heard no such thing. Agents also investigated claims made about a Florida rally, where "kill him" was indeed yelled, but directed clearly at Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist. This fact was not only unreported, it was distorted so that it appeared the comment was directed at Obama.
The media was quick to pounce on the "kill him" report and it flooded newscasts, websites and magazines. Now that it turns out the two stories that started it all didn't happen, the media has been remarkably absent in setting the record straight. They have also been absent in covering the numerous attacks on Palin, from the Obama supporters' crude tshirts, to the warning by comedian Sandra Bernhard that Palin would get gang raped if she went to New York to the art exhibit where you can grab a gun and pretend to shoot her.
Where is the outrage over these examples? If a conservative comedian or radio host warned that Obama should stay out of Alabama lest he be beaten and hung, would the media be silent? If there was an art exhibit where you could "assassinate" Obama, would the media ignore it? This is outrageous! These are just a few examples of a double standard that is both unfair to the McCain campaign and to the American voters, who deserve a balanced and unbiased news media.

McCain Seizes Coal Gaffe

The McCain campaign has released this new web ad that capitalizes on the contradiction between the official Obama-Biden platform (pro-coal) and the words of Joe Biden himself (anti-coal). The McCain web ads have usually been better than his tv ads and if I was giving him advice, this is one that should definitely get moved to the television sets of Pennsylvania and the other Appalachian states (Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia) as coal is an important aspect of those states' economies. Plus, this ad is just plain effective. You've got clips of Obama, secret footage of Biden, and a catchy tune to boot! Roll this ad out Senator McCain. You'll be glad you did.

The Distasteful Attacks on the Palin Pregnancy

John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, deserves to be fully vetted and researched and questioned like all who seek public office, especially the 2nd highest position in the land. However, the absurd and bitter attacks against her and her family regarding the news of her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy are hitting new lows. First, this story all grew out of internet rumours that swirled a conspiracy theory ripped right from a Desperate Housewives script, claiming that Governor Palin's new infant is not hers, but rather her daughters, and the Governor was pretending to be pregnant to cover up this teenage mistake. The fact that this story, spun by some liberal blogger grew so fast and gained such momentum is shocking. Even more shocking is the vitriol that has been spewed in the days following the Palin's announcement that their daughter is indeed 5 months pregnant. To Barack Obama's credit, he has maintained that the family of Palin should be off limits, but that has not stopped his supporters, surrogates and other liberals and democrats from going on the attack (a move Obama perfected during the primary where his supporters attacked Hillary Clinton while the candidate himself was able to masquerade as staying above the fray.) There has been a barrage of insults levelled against Sarah Palin, from her hypocrisy for supporting 'family values' while having a pregnant teen, to the quality of her judgement for not refusing the VP spot knowing her daughter is in this sticky situation. But no attack has been so harsh, so unnecessarily vicious as Obama supporter Ed Shultz's words on Larry King Live last night. Not only does Sarah Palin apparently lack judgement for not dropping out, not only must she be a hypocrite for having a pregnant teen, but she is also a terrible mother? According to Shultz, its important to ask, "What kind of mother is she?" Apparently, teenage indiscretion equals bad mothering. Schultz even went so far as to muse that "most professional gardeners have a really nice yard, you know what I mean?" Thus, Shultz insinuates that if there is a problem in her family then it must mean Sarah Palin is a miserable mother and a pitiful leader. Does this mean that the woman who is cheated on is a bad partner and terrible wife? If a kid fails in school, does it follow that the parent is also an underperformer or unintelligent? This discourse is absurd and it's nonsense. And the Obama campaign better be careful, because with millions of independent-minded, moderate voters up for grabs in this election, attacking this mother for the choices of her children might drive many Americans into Sarah Palin's corner. Palin's best attribute is her down-to-earth, 'neighbourly' feel. Americans want to elect leaders to whom they can relate, and I'm willing to bet Americans can relate quite well to a strong, working mom who's family has its share of problems, just like everybody else's.

Hillary's Convention Home Run

Hillary Clinton demonstrated what makes her a political force in America with her speech at the Democratic Convention last night. She silenced the critics who said she wasn't helping Barack Obama enough, she gave tribute to her supporters and her own history-making campaign, and she showcased the skill, wit and grace that will ensure she has a role to play whether in an Obama administration or a Democratic Congress. She did everythign she can for Barack Obama, the outcome of the election will rest on what he makes of it. But whatever the result, the best of Hillary Clinton was on display last night, and here's hoping there's more where that came from.


"If you here the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going. And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going. I have seen it." Hillary Clinton, paraphrasing Harriet Tubman of the underground railroad.

Cone of Absurdity

Barack Obama and John McCain participated in a forum at the Saddleback Church with Rick Warren (of "Purpose Driven Life" fame) to answer questions about politics, leadership and God. Obama performed decently, but it was McCain who outperformed all expectations while appearing vigorous, succinct and straight-forward. Thus, since Obama was 'beaten' in this exchange, it was time for his supporters to light the Barack-Signal and call for the most absurd, belittling attack to be launched. And here it is: McCain violated the 'Cone of Silence'. It not only sounds like the name of a low-budget sci-fi movie from the 80's, it is also an unfortunate and pathetic attempt to undermine John McCain's strong performace and attack his credibility and character. NBC's Andrea Mitchell started this all by reporting that some "Obama people" were questioning whether McCain had been able to hear the questions Warren asked Obama, thus explaining how prepared and capable he was in asnwering them when his turn came around. There was a room with no audio or video feed which was suposed to hold whichever candidate went second so that the questions would not be known in advance. McCain was in this "cone of silence" for the final two-thirds of Obama's time on stage. For the first third, McCain was not in the green room, but was instead en route in a secret service motorcade. McCain inists he had no knowledge of the questions, his staff and campaign insist he was not watching the forum while in the car, and there is no evidence from either during the debate or after that suggests McCain knew what questions were coming. The only reason this claim has risen is because McCain did so well. This charge underscores the absolute arrogance of the Obama campaign by charging that the only way McCain could outperform Obama is if he cheated. This is character assassination at work and its wrong. Considering that Barack Obama and his supporters have spent 2 years lecturing voters to ignore all the baseless claims and accusations levelled at him, its discouraging to see them so eager to spread similar charges against McCain.

How Bush is Winning the White House for McCain

George W. Bush, once the albatross of John McCain's campaign, once the greatest obstacle for John McCain to overcome, is helping McCain win the election. The Bush Administration is undermining Barack Obama's most fundamental and defining political positions in an effort to aid McCain's White House bid. And I suspect it will be successful.
Although Obama's greatest weaknesses are foreign policy and defence, it is in these arenas that Obama has most fundamentally defined his candidacy. Obama's position on Iraq (will end it in 16 months) and on diplomacy (we must talk more to our allies AND our enemies) has been a central characteristic of his campaign thus far and was the central thrust in his attack on and defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama's cosmopolitan world view, his diplomacy-first policies, his bring-the-troops-home position, are the bedrock of his candidacy. And that is where President Bush has been undermining him, chipping away at the foundation of the Democratic candidate's platform.
In the last 4 weeks, Bush has made gigantic course changes on Iraq and foreign relations. Most of the media has called these moves flip-flops or as The Guardian puts it, a "remarkable turnaround". However, these moves are in fact constructed, nuanced changes designed to weaken the Democrats' positions going into the Fall election. Last month, Bush moved to adopt a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, reversing what was once a set-in-stone position against such a move. This will allow both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign to adjust their positions on the increasingly unpopular war. McCain can now (and he has) suggest that troops CAN come home as the situation on the ground improves. With this, Obama's central position disappears. By using the vague language of "time horizon" Bush allows McCain and the Republicans to minimize the difference between Obama and themselves and appeal to independent voters, while not alienating the Republican base. This move seriously undercuts Obama's charge that McCain will not bring troops and wants a never-ending war.
A similar move by the Bush White House on diplomacy is undercutting Obama's central tenant of talking and negotiating with our enemies: Bush has announced a hundred new diplomatic hirings; the Administration has decided to station a diplomatic mission in Iran (the first in 30 years); Condoleeza Rice entered talks with Iran last month regarding their nuclear ambitions; and Rice personally delivered the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement to the Georgian President this week. Suddenly, George Bush has discovered the diplomacy that Obama has been campaigning for. And just as suddenly, Obama's calls for more talking and more negotiating don't seem so new and exciting; they no longer count as a "new form of politics" if the Bush government has already adopted them.
What these two abrupt changes by the Bush Administration represent is an effort to move the Republican Party closer to Barack Obama's core positions on foreign policy so as to eliminate those as viable reasons to vote for Obama. This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and the perceived "riskiness" of electing an untested and inexperienced politician. If the Republicans can eliminate a few of the differences between Obama and McCain that may have driven voters into the Democrat's column, then Bush will have helped McCain win what should have been an unwinnable election. Voters have short attention spans and most Americans will just begin tuning in to the campaign in the next few weeks and THEN start making their decisions. If, come election day, there's increased diplomacy by the Bush government and McCain's talking troop withdrawal, it won't matter that Obama thought of them first, what will matter is that Obama will have lost his central thrust, he will have lost his campaign's foundation as a tenable issue, and he will have lost the election. And of all people, it will be thanks to George W. Bush.

The 2008 Electoral Map: 275 - 263

With today being July 14, there are still 113 days until the 2008 United States Presidential Election. But despite that great length of time, during which anything can happen to change the race, I'm prepared to make my early prediction on the shape of the electoral map. In the race to 270 electoral votes, Barack Obama will indeed put some current previous red states in his column, namely Ohio, New Mexico & Iowa. However, there will not be a reshaping of the political landscape as his campaign insists. In fact, McCain will hold most of the Bush states and will pick up both New Hampshire and Michigan, putting him over the top and into the White House.

<p><strong>><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/">Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

The electoral map is particularly difficult for Obama, because even if he can manage to pick up say, Montana or Nevada, or if he can hold New Hampshire, McCain still wins. I doubt very much that Obama will pick up any surprise wins for the Democrats. Colorado will stay red, it didn't even vote for Clinton in 1996, when he won his biggest victory. The Carolina's will stay Republican, despite Obama's popularity among black voters. And Obama was trounced in the Appalachian states during the primary, so he'll struggle to win Ohio and Pennsylvania, let alone Kentucky or West Virginia. I suspect Obama will make a lot of states closer races than they have been before, especially in the South, but he will be unable to win more than a handful.
For McCain, I'm giving him Michigan because he is polling a strong second right now, and with native son Mitt Romney becoming more and more likely to be his VP choice, Michigan will flip to red. But even if it doesn't, he still can win if he holds Ohio, which Bush won in 2000 and 2004. A lot rests on Florida for McCain, however, and that is a state he must win. If Florida goes for Obama, McCain could win Ohio AND Michigan and still lose. He must win Florida and Governor Christ, a strong supporter needs to be employed to make sure he does. The only potential coup for McCain is New Jersey, which I predict will be a lot closer than it has been in the past. I don't expect it to go to McCain, but it remains a possibility.

Final Electoral College Result: McCain - 275 Obama - 263
As those 113 days tick away, these predictions may become laughable, but they may just as likely become laudable. We'll see how I do in November.

Are There Alarm Bells Yet?

So the Democrats have had over a month to digest the fact that Barack Obama clinched the presidential nomination. Certainly by now all the wounds have been salved, the hurt feelings have been repaired and the rift with Hillary supporters has been more or less bridged. But unfortunately for the Obama campaign and its ardent supporters in the media and the DNC elite, that doesn't seem to be the case. A recent poll out has shown a widening gap between Hillary supporters and Obama, it shows still falling support for Obama and it shows a resilient commitment to the Clinton candidacy which is all but extinguished. (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll)
A month ago, before Hillary Clinton ended her bid and backed Obama, 60 percent of her supporters said they would support Barack. Now that number is down to 54%. More than 4 weeks ago, just over 1 in 5 Clinton supporters claimed they would not vote at all if their choice was Obama or McCain. Now nearly 1 in 3 say this. And way back in the beginning of June, 35% of all Democrats preferred Clinton be the nominee. Now, after his flip-flopping, his surge to the centre, after the slap-in-the-face hiring by Obama of Patti Solis Doyle, that number has climbed to 43%. The potency and resilience of those voters who do not support Obama is proving to be incredible, if not unprecedented. Can anyone hear the alarm bells ringing yet? Couple these new numbers with the fact that Obama's own internet network of supporters is now becoming a bit disillusioned with his policy changes, especially towards telecommunication spying, (apparently the largest group on his Facebook-style site is committed to getting him to change his mind on this issue) and you've got to expect that there's some alarm in the Obama campaign. And if there isn't, there should be.

The VPs: Joe and Claire

It's likely to be weeks or months still before Obama and McCain annoucne thier vice presidential running mates. But The Fledgling Blog has the scoop: these are the two people who will be on the tickets come November:

Barack Obama: He will choose Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri.Barack should be deciding between two politicians from swing states: Governor of Ohio Ted Strickland and Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Ohio would be the bigger prize to take on election day, but Strickland may not have the power to deliver the state the way Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell delivered his for Hillary during the primary. In the end, Obama will choose McCaskill, who will help him carry Missouri in November, will strengthen his message of "change" and will go a long way to helping him with women who may be distant after Clinton's defeat. Come November, I predict an Obama-McCaskill ticket.

John McCain: McCain's running mate should be Joe Lieberman. Nothing will blunt Obama's message of change and bi-partisanship more than having a Democrat turned Independent on the ticket. When Obama claims to be ready to 'reach across the aisle' and work with Independents and Republicans, McCain will be able to point to Lieberman and say "Done." He will be able to counter a major theme of the Obama candidacy if he makes this VP pick. Additionally, Joe Lieberman is Jewish, which may be able to help McCain win support of that ethnic group. There has already been rumblings of trouble between Obama and Jewish Americans, and putting Lieberman on the ticket could turn that group to McCain. With sizeable Jewish populations in the swing state of Florida as well as in several Northeastern states (including the potential swing state of New Jersey) this could be a big electoral windfall for McCain. When voters head to the polls in November, I predict there will be a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

Hillary's Best Bet is to Reject VP

The calls for a unity ticket with Clinton as Obama's running mate is growing, stoked (supposedly) by Hillary herself. But Hillary should take this piece of advice: stay as far away from that ticket as possible.
Throughout this campaign we have seen the tendency of the Obama campaign, its supporters and much of the media to turn on Hillary. A gaffe is suddenly an attack, perseverance is now blind ambition, a hard-working Senator is instead a cold, hard bitch. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will stop if Obama picks her to be Vice President. And if Hillary still has hopes of becoming President in the future, which is certain, then being Obama's VP is likely to cripple any such future effort. Imagine how this would play out: as Vice President, every word, every action, every look, will be combed over for hints of antipathy and ambition. If it is leaked that VP Hillary opposed Obama's Secretary of State choice, for example, it will be seen as her undermining him. If she misses a fundraiser or makes an error, she will be accused of gunning for his job. Everything she and Bill do will be scrutinized. Hell, the Huffington Post will probably secretly record Bill in candid moments like they did last week and use it to bash the Clintons. If an Obama administration fails to live up to the hype, you can be guaranteed that much of the blame will be laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton--and she'll never get the party's nomination after that.
And that's IF Obama wins. Imagine the outrage and hatred that will spew forth if he loses with Clinton on the ticket. An Obama loss won't be his doing. It won't be blamed on his shortcomings or gaffes, it will most certainly be Hillary who is crucified for this. She'll be blamed for hurting him too much in the primary campaign, she'll be accused of not working hard enough to bring her supporters over to him. I wonder what kind of "special comment" Keith Olbermann will have for her then? If an Obama-Clinton ticket fails in November, it will dash any hopes of a Hillary Clinton presidency in the future.
So, Hillary, please take this advice: stay away from the Obama ticket. You should, and you must, campaign for him: hold joint fundraisers, give speeches, raise his hand in unity, and the like. Not doing these things will make you a pariah in the democratic party. But if you hold any aspirations of still being the first woman President, your best bet is to reject the VP.

The Bizarre Behaviour of the Superdelegates

For the Clinton campaign, one of the most bewildering and maddening events of the Democratic primary season has got to be the behaviour of the superdelgates. I suspect that Hillary and Bill and all in their campaign must be flabbergasted that the superdelegates did not move to Clinton's side despite swells in momentum and some huge and important wins:
Take March 4th for example, the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won both states, with a big blue-collar win in Ohio, only 4superdelegates endorsed her in the following 2 weeks. In fact, she only gained 6 superdelegates in the month that followed. But Barack Obama, who lost big in Ohio and couldn't take the Texas primary, was endorsed by 15 supers in just the 2 weeks that followed his losses.
April 22 was the next big showdown, with the Pennsylvania primary. Another big state, another big win for Hillary Clinton, who beat Obama by 10 points and more than 200,000 votes. This primary also cemented Obama's problems with working class voters and rural Americans, a point highlighted by his infamous 'bitter' comment. But the supers? In the 2 weeks following that Clinton win, 15 supers went to her--but 18 went to Obama. This had to have had the Clinton campaign furiously perpelexed. She wins big in a crucial contest that will be a battleground state come November and Obama gets more endorsements?
Finally, there was West Virginia on May 13. Yet another state, one that may be a critical swing-state in November, overwhelmingly backed Clinton: she took every single county and won the state by 41 points. Going into West Virginia, Clinton had 270.5 supers to Barack Obama's 275. Coming out of West Virginia, another lopsided victory under her belt, Clinton gained 6 superdelegates while Obama got the support of 22.5. Puzzled? I bet. Clinton wins a swing-state by 41 points, more than half the voters say Obama is not trustworthy and 30% say they would back McCain over Obama, and the supers come out nearly 4 to 1 for Obama?
The behaviour of the superdelegates has been most unusual. Their job is to pick the candidate that is most able to win and that best suits the party. That they have ignored Obama's stumbling to the finish line and have thrown their support behind him is mind-boggling. Maybe they just got too swept up in the mindless excitement; maybe they are fearful of angering the rabid Obama supporters, some of whom are already planning to campaign against those members of Congress who backed Clinton. Whatever the reason, one of the biggest mysteries of this primary season is why they did not show up for Hillary Clinton. And I think that's one puzzle that will be on the Clintons' minds for a while as this campaign wraps up.

The Absolutely Despicable Uproar Over the RFK Comment

Despite the words that will follow, I am speechless. Hillary Clinton recently commented that the non-stop calls for her to quit the race are unprecedented, noting that her husband's last competitor didn't drop out until June in 1992 and that Robert Kennedy was still actively campaigning in June when he was assassinated. These are just two examples of nomination races continuing into June. There are many more examples of such and other exaples of nominations that went to the convention with a much greater difference in delegates than exists today between Obama and Clinton. From this simple, innocent explanation, the media, the rabid Obama supporters and the mindless pundits have discerned that Hillary made a gaffe: she exposed that she's staying in this race because Obama may get killed.
This is sick. To twist and distort this statement to seem like Hillary Clinton is simply awaiting the assassin's bullet is disgusting. I can not believe the reaction to this. This is not a gaffe, it's not a mistake. It's history. Since when is mentioning that RFK was assassinated unacceptable? It happened. We all know it. To outlaw mentioning it is nonsense.
The less-vicious media argued that it was distasteful that she mentioned it in light of the recent health news regarding Ted Kennedy, Robert's brother. Well, why is there no anger over Vanity Fair's current cover which is emblazoned with Robert Kennedy's face. Where is the anger over all the politicians and pundits who gave eulogies despite the fact that Ted Kennedy is still alive? Why was CNN not equally angry that Sanjay Gupta went through a brain scan to illustrate exactly what Ted Kennedy's tumor looks like. But there was no anger over those. The anger, the resentment, the coverage was reserved for Hillary Clinton. She was the one to be crucified for this and the media, the Obama supporters, the pundits, were ready and eager to do so. I can only shake my head in disgust and despair.
I refuse to waste any more energy discussing this mind-boggling display. I am ashamed. I am angry. This is despicable.

Exaggerating Caucuses

John McLaughlin of The McLaughlin Group raised an interesting point last week. He said that the way the Democrats award delegates favours the winner of the small caucuses. For example, McLaughlin illustrated how in Idaho, Obama won the caucuses by a margin of 13,000 votes, and as a result picked up a net gain of 13 delegates over Hillary Clinton. But in the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton won by a margin of 200,000 votes and only picked up a net gain of 10 delegates. So that 13,000 voter advantage resulted in more net delegates going to Obama than Hillary gained by winning Pennsylvania by 200,000. And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the conflated, bizarre and backwards caucuses. Let's not forget how the caucuses favour those voters who can spend 4 hours of their evening arguing and campaigning for their candidate. Have to work the night shift? Too bad! Sick and can't make it? Tough luck! Can't find a babysitter? Suck it up! The caucuses are overrun by the wealthy, the young and the activists who can afford to go and who live for such a partisan event. Caucuses thus result in strange outcomes. Washington state holds both a primary and a caucus: the caucus saw Obama win by 37 points, but the primary saw Obama win by just 5 points. Funny how when everyone is allowed to vote the results are incredibly different than when only those activist caucus-goers' votes are counted.

What's Up Joe?

A question I have been pondering for a while and which has never been answered is why has Joe Biden not endorsed Hillary Clinton. For this entire primary process, a process he droped out of early, he has sat firmly on the fencepost, never making a decision to go one way or the other. But Biden and Clinton clearly have a good relationship, both have served in the Senate together, and much was made of their sitting together during the state of the union address. The bait was there, but Biden never bit. Why not? Biden seems to mesh well with Hillary and his recent habit of coming to the defense of Obama on foreign policy issues rings insincere to me. We'll likely never know why Biden didn't endorse. It likely doesn't matter. None of the democratic drop-outs were able to make much of a splash with their endorsements, especially Edwards. I don't care what the pundits say about the headline-stealing power of his late move, it would have been much more effective if he had chosen earlier and perhaps driven some of his white, working class supporters to Obama. Oh well, most endorsements don't matter. Biden's likely wouldn't have. It's just funny why he never made the move, never made a commitment one way or the other. Decisiveness is a quality Joe, and it's certainly one we look for in a President.

Ending High and Ending Low

Who would have thought that as the primary season in America winds to a close, that the candidate who looks most likely the become the presidential nominee would be ending shakily while the loser would be closing on a high? It still looks likely (but not certain) that Obama will be the presidential nominee but his campaign is ending on a much lower note than Hillary's. Where there should be excitement, jubilation and celebration, the Obama campaign has lost 5 of the 6 most recent contests and is trailing Hillary in match ups with John McCain. And as Maureen Dowd points out, "Obama may have started the primary season with an inspiring win in 94-percent-white Iowa, but he is winding it up with a resounding loss in 94-percent-white West Virginia." There doesn't seem to be as much confetti and balloons lining his path to the nomination now that it seems unobstructed.
Meanwhile, Hillary is riding high, emerging from her campaign alight and alive, a phoenix-like rebirth that has granted her a convincing populist image, the adoration of millions of voters, and the respect of her competitors on both the left and the right. A day doesn't go by that CNN doesn't mention her tenacity; superdelegates, out of sheer respect, are no longer calling for her to drop out; and there's a flood of articles and blogs hailing her fortitude, her composure and her strength.
It's interesting to watch the nomination process close and see Hillary ending so positive, so upbeat, with a blowout win in West Virginia in her pocket and two more crushing victories in Kentucky and Puerto Rico on the horizon. Look out if Hillary upsets in Oregon, Montana or South Dakota, and if the Democratic Party Rules Committee seats Florida or Michigan's delegates. If those happen, then this interesting close to the primary season may get a little more lively yet.

The Dark Confessions of a Hillary Supporter

While watching the results come in from North Carolina and Indiana last night, I was struck by a sinking feeling that I had not felt since Iowa. With the polls showing a tightening race in North Carolina and a possible 5 point win by Clinton in Indiana, the actual results were disappointing. And in my gut, I realized that my candidate would probably not win the nomination. I am not ruling it out and I am not rescinding my support, but the path to victory is looking mighty dim right now. Perhaps I had gotten too used to Hillary pulling it out, winning when the chips were down and her back was against the wall. I was expecting another New Hampshire, another Ohio, another Pennsylvania. It's too bad that's not what we saw.
With this sinking feeling came a second realization, that Barack Obama would most likely be the democratic candidate come November. And here's my dark secret that I feel the need to confess to you now: I kind of hope he loses.
I know the differences between Obama and Clinton are small compared to the differences with McCain, and I know this sounds like "sour grapes," but deep down (and by 'deep down' I really mean simmering just below the surface) I hope Obama loses, to justify my support for Clinton, to legitimize Clinton's continuing her campaign when Obama supporters we calling for her to quit week after week after week. There has been an aura of smugness about the Obama campaign for some time now. But that coupled with the constant accusations of "old style politics" and the condescending dismissal of the 15 million Clinton voters by the media and Obama's supporters and surrogates has given birth to this dark secret that I am confessing now. I'm sure that my genuine belief that Obama will lose against McCain and my honest opinion that Clinton is the democrats' best chance to win the White House had something to do with it as well, but whatever the source of this deep dark desire, I can't ignore it, and unfortunately for the democrats, come November, I suspect that a big chunk of Clinton supporters won't be able to either.

The Turning of the Tide

When Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, she claimed that the tide was turning in the race to be the democratic presidential nominee. Now, a week and a half later and only 5 days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it seems she may have been right.
Polls have been showing a tightening of the race between Obama and Clinton. Clinton is now only 1 point behind Obama in a new national poll by CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/cnn-poll-obama-losing-support/
And according to a new Gallup poll, Obama trails Clinton by 4 points and Clinton does better in a direct match up with John McCain. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106945/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-49-Obama-45.aspx
Finally, over on realclearpolitics.com their poll average for Indiana now has Clinton up by nearly 5 points and Obama's lead in North Carolina has shrunk to just over 7 points from 15 points in early April.
If these trends continue, the tide has certainly changed in Clinton's favour. And if she is able to tighten up the N.C. race, it will be seen as a victory. But if she somehow manages to win North Carolina then the Obama campaign would be in real trouble and I mean ship-hits-an-iceberg-and-there's-not-enough-lifeboats kind of trouble.

Debate this! (Oh wait, you won't)

Another day, another bizarre position by the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign has been calling for more issues and less distractions for some time now. From CNN, to CBS News, to Fox News, Obama and his supporters have been decrying "distractions" like Rev. Wright and insisting that they want a campaign that focuses on the issues that matter to voters and where the candidates stand on them.
It's funny then, when asked to debate his lone competitor, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama brushes it off: "We’re not going to have debates between now and Indiana," he told Fox News. I don't know about anyone else, but what better way is there to see candidates in action than in a debate? It would be great to go to town hall meetings, go to speeches, meet them in person, but that's impossible unless you live in North Carolina or Indiana, and even then, very few of those people will actually get a chance to hear the candidates speak in person.
If it's issues we want, debates are a great way to air differences on policy positions. It's too bad the 9 remaining states/territories still waiting to vote won't get this chance.

Give me a break!

Yet again people in the media and the Obama campaign are whining about Hillary Clinton's new ad:



Did you see what's so offensive? Did you figure out how that is "fear-mongering" and low? It's because for one second (literally) there was a clip of Osama Bin Laden. I can't believe the audacity of some people to rip on Hillary for this ad. What is wrong with it? It's a legitimate and effective commercial. Yes, bin Laden is in it, but so is JFK and FDR, and clips of old warehouses and gas pumps. Is it too underhanded to show pictures of gas pumps too, Mr. Obama?
I especially find it absurd that the Obama campaign would decry the bin Laden reference when their own candidate has taken such a firm stance on bin Laden. Obama says troops from Iraq should be moved to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and he's said that he would call for military attacks in Pakistan to fight bin Laden even if Pakistan did not authorize it.
My goodness, what is there left to campaign on for Hillary? She can't question Obama's experience, because it's an "attack." She can't run ads because its "fear-mongering.". And she can't debate policies and issues because Obama refuses to do any more debates. I guess since Obama couldn't stop the primaries early, he's going to stop the campaign. Now THAT'S change we can believe in, alright.