The Politics of Hate and Desperation

It's hard to know where to start -- with McCain or Clinton, so I'll start with Claude Raines. You remember -- in Casablanca when he was "shocked, shocked I tell you" -- which is EXACTLY what John McCain's reaction was to having a bigoted, hate-mongering, yahoo talk about "peeling the bark off of Barack Obama." In a class with Rush Limbaugh saying a few weeks ago that he wouldn't "lynch Michelle Obama unless…." -- there is something TERRIBLY wrong with pundits who go that extra mile to insinuate physical violence against Democrats. (It never seems to happen that liberal pundits threaten Republicans for some reason.) Of course, this is America, and people can say what they want. I'm pretty sure that if Obama does get elected, their words will be considered threats against a sitting president, and that usually doesn't work out for them. But the point is, McCain didn't walk in and denounce Bill Cunningham -- he waited until MUCH later, after the audience had started leaving. It seemed all good fun to him, much like when he laughed when a supporter, talking about Hillary Clinton asked "how are we going to beat the bitch?" He was "shocked, shocked I tell you." I'd rail on about McCain, but he's got enough problems - what with the FEC refusal to let him out of the public financing program since he crossed the line and pledged the funds for a loan, his lying about his relationship with Paxon and Iseman (as proved by his 2002 testimony under oath), the fact that his WHOLE upper campaign staff is comprised of lobbyists, and the fact that we're only scratching the surface of his inability to integrate his words and his actions.

And then there was the debate.

It was in some ways hard to watch. For all one can hold against Clinton, you've got to admire her spunk, her toughness, and her Senate accomplishments. She's a smart policy wonk, and some of her ideas hold merit. We should send her a shovel, since it would make it easier for her to continue to dig the hole she's in.

She lost the debate, and by extension the nomination race, by twisting the truth, re-writing history, attempting to rest on semantics, being petty, and basically allowing the worst of her to be brought out. I guess the thing that most got to me was the exchange about Louis Farrakhan. Hillary Clinton, a woman who kissed Soha Arafat, possibly the ONLY American public figure to kiss a terrorist in public, railed that Obama only "denounced" Farrakhan, in lieu of "rejecting" him. Obama made a strong case for his fight against anti-Semitism, pointed out that his voting record has ALWAYS been strong on Israel, and said he saw no difference between the two words, but if she preferred "renounce", then he both renounced and rejected.

That sort of crystallizes it for me -- she wants it both ways. She can publically love Palestinian terrorists, who actually kill people, and wants to parry Obama because someone supported him. And as any of us who have ever run for office or worked campaigns know, you cannot chose your supporters. They pick you. However, YOU can pick who you kiss in front of cameras.

She predicates her run on her record, and a lot of her record, in her mind, has to do with being First Lady. But then, she only wants the parts of the Clinton years she likes, but not the other parts. So she can seek glory in the economy of the 90's, but overlook her support of NAFTA. I have to tell you, a lot of her "experience" either doesn't count -- as in voter registration drives do not count as political experience in terms of running for office -- they're just something MILLIONS of us have done -- or actually was her husband's experience that she watched. Her experience is her position in the US Senate -- and if you add up the years she spent there, and compare them to the years Obama spent there and as an elected state official in Illinois, there isn't that much difference.

Clinton was mean, caustic, desperate, and completely non-presidential.

The Clinton campaign failed because of arrogance. They NEVER believed things would go on past 5 February. They hadn't planned for it. Not strategically, nor financially. While people are railing about the money spent in January on donuts, that really isn't a big deal. $1200 over 30 days is $40/day which is NOT a lot of money to feed volunteers. The Times even did an article on what all the candidates spent on baked goods in January -- what a red herring. But the Clinton campaign did spend unwisely on consultants (MILLIONS and Mark Penn didn't even give up his day job) and luxury hotels. (In Vegas, not in Iowa, for obvious reasons, which I base on having visited Vegas and having lived in Iowa -- trust me on the choices). We all knew this was coming based on what she spent on her last, predominantly uncontested, Senate race -- the arrogance of only going first class.

While this is the year that anything could happen -- it appears we have a nominee, and his name is Barack Obama. It would be interesting if McCain's ethics problems cause the Republican convention to be more interesting than the Democratic convention. And for those of you who remember 1968 -- we Democrats DO know how to run an interesting convention. (And remember, Abbie Hoffman was 32 in 1968, and therefore shouldn't have been trusted <grin>).

But Dodd endorsed yesterday, Bill Richardson is set to endorse SOMEONE in the near future, and then the Senate may all endorse (25 are currently uncommitted, and ALL are SuperDelegates). Obama is leading in Texas and Vermont (Bernie Sanders says VT should be a blow-out). Hillary will likely take Rhode Island, and at best will split in Ohio. And then it's over. There is no firewall here in Pennsylvania.

When the campaign started last year, I didn't pay much attention to Barack Obama -- he seemed a lightweight, inexperienced, and lacking message. He came in, for me, behind preferences I had for others. But they faded away (and my personal favourite never entered the race….) and I watched him grow -- his maturation in the past 6 months has been miraculous. If you look at him at the debates last summer, and the orator he has become -- it's nothing short of impressive.

While Clinton built a campaign machine that resembled the Keystone Cops (and she should have known better, having the benefit of being involved in both winning and losing campaigns), and McCain built a campaign machine entirely based on lobbyists and special interests, the Obama team worked SMART. They did retail politics, they used the internet as it should be utilized (and if you haven't seen his site -- go look at it, then at Clinton's or McCain's and you'll see the difference between a Mac and PCs). They have more than ONE MILLION discrete donors (which is a first for a primary), they have organization, they have guts, they live on the high road. (That's the moral high road, not the financial high road.) Everything they sell is American-made, even the clothing. (That's both the moral high road AND the financial low road.) He has proved he can run a large organization.

On to the Buckeye State, the Ocean State, the Lone Star State, and the Green Mountain state. It may well be a rout.