The Real Tragedy for Dems

Here's a story that seems to imply that Barack Obama is lying about contact with the Canadian government concerning NAFTA. I don't know if I believe it or not, but there are certainly signs that he is withholding full disclosure on the matter. This could be very bad news for Obama, particularly if it is even a little bit true. The Canadian officials involved have denied it, of course. Of course. They are not dumb enough to openly take a partisan role in a US presidential election. Even though Canada and Canadians get a bad reputation in the US ("Blame Candada") there is a much different fiscal reality to consider. Also, the easiest way to stay on the good side of the 44th President of the United States is to show no preference for any of them. I don't think an "official denial" from Canada is much of a realistic indicator of what is possible. Interestingly, here is another article claiming that the Republicans are organizing a voting conspiracy to effect the outcome of the Democratic primaries. There is evidence and argument that this strategy is being used in favor of both Clinton and Obama, depending on a) if you believe it, and b) how you read the few scraps of evidence. Don't get me wrong, I think it is likely true. The Democrats have and do use this same strategy. And it could be argued that parties like the Independents and the Green Party thrive on this tactic. There's nothing new about it, that's for sure. If we can believe our "fellow Americans" are capable of such sneakiness as to infiltrate the opposition party as double agents, surely we can believe that a presumptive conversations happened between a widely viewed "next President" and decision makers inside our biggest trade partner's government - Canada. It doesn't even mean Canada prefers Obama, it just means there was contact. But if there was contact, it means something. Clinton has taken blistering criticisms for what is perceived as "old school politics" and "dynasty making" and "manchurian maneuvers." If Barack Obama is already making overtures to world leaders, particularly if those overtures expose a lie he told the American people, isn't that exactly the kind of back room dealings he has condemned?

The more I look at the Democratic campaign, all I see is hypocrisy on all sides. The people calling the superdelegates "undemocratic" are the same people who want to throw away millions of votes from two delegate rich states. The DNC is accusing John McCain of playing dirty, while they are waging a legal and populist campaign against him before he even has the GOP nomination. Presumptive politics seems to be the flavor of the race, on all sides. Race and gender are the only things that made this election cycle what it is, but everyone politely says neither has anything to do with it. Both candidates have a built-in hypocrisy as well. Clinton is taking heat for not disclosing her personal tax records, but Obama got a free pass on his refusal to disclose campaign funds from the nuclear industry.

Just like their positions and voting record, Clinton and Obama's web sites are almost identical. We have two Inevitable Presidents in the race, and one of them has to give eventually, this time. The general sentiment is that Clinton either is too old to run again, or that her political career would be so devastated she would never have the momentum again. This argument is a crock. Even in 8 years, Clinton will be 69, well within the range of recent and current presidents and candidates. Also, the eulogy writers for the Clinton campaign are already saying "Senate Majority Leader" and "Secretary of State." The notion that Clinton is washed up if she is not President in 2009 is bunk.

What is true is that, I believe, everyone on the planet who reads the news knows that Hillary Clinton will be devastated if she loses. It will be a personal tragedy for her. The pictures circulated in Texas and the Internet of Hillary and Bill as "young Democrats in love" is moving in a way. It really does illustrate her as a long-time organizer and advocate, and shows that Woodstock-esque "spirit of change" that everyone is calling for. You can't help at least feel a little pang of sympathy for someone who has worked so hard to be rewarded with scorn. The real tragedy will be not who lost, but how much image played a role.

I think in the last week, Obama has seen a momentum slump. The polls are all decrying Obama the victor in Obama-McCain head-to-heads, and Clinton the loser, and claiming that Clinton should just concede now to spare the Democratic party an embarrassing drawn out campaign that will undermine a Democratic win in November. This argument is also bunk. Another poll result that has not been discussed is that, according to Real Clear Politics, as of today, Obama only beats McCain by 0.2% Also, Obama has dropped from nearly a 7 point lead over MCain in the last week. RCP shows Clinton losing to McCain by 0.8%. That is exactly a 1 point difference between Clinton and Obama, almost insignificant considering the margin of error. Also, the general notion that I can come across is that "Democrats will win in November." Of course Clinton should compete, at least on Tuesday.

Clinton has also taken heat for what is politely called, "stepping up criticisms" and harshly referred to as "mocking" Obama. I hate to bang this drum twice in the same argument, but really, Obama has gotten a free pass on his tone toward Clinton, which has been no less than grossly arrogant from haughty laughs to patronizing scoldings. I believe the nadir of this was on Feb 19th, when Obama didn't wait for Clinton to finish her concession speech in Wisconsin before starting his victory speech, causing every major network to simply cut to him, a deep insult to Clinton. That is just poor sportsmanship, and hurtful arrogance.

The question on people's mind, I believe, is what will Clinton do if she does not win? I believe this is the reason everyone, from Bill to your next door neighbor are trying to identify the final contest. I've got a news bulletin: the final contest is Aug 25-28 in Denver, Colorado. And even after that, there could be appeals inside the Convention structure. Of course, that is what everyone is afraid of -- that the hissing and biting between Clinton and Obama will somehow "tear apart" the Democratic party. While that is certainly dramatic, isn't that the same brand of change so many voters are advocating for, the same kind of change both candidates are calling for? The likelihood of the Democratic party being destroyed and of either Democrat to single handedly bring about The Revolution is dim at best. As I have already said, the real tragedy (if there is one) will be that image had so much to do with it. Even though it makes me feel a little bit dirty, I actually agree with Newt Gingrich who says that the modern road to the White House is insane. Regardless of this, both Democrats are still in the race, and both are still competitive, at least for another three days. Here is an interesting article about the delegate race including a delegate calculator, which easily demonstrates that both candidates could remain in a no-win state up to the Democratic National Convention. And, if they do, why not? Why should someone step out of the race when their opponent can't win, either? A brokered convention would not be the end of the world for democracy or Democracy. Again, as long as Clinton avoids the Huckabee impossibility problem, there is no reason the full, detailed process in place according to the DNC rules for 2008 could not be followed. Hype is hype, but at the end of the day, what happens, will happen, and so long as Clinton can mathematically justify staying in the race, why shouldn't she? Basing claims that she should quit on a 1% head-to-head margin and media-controlled predictions is a paper tiger.

I will wrap up with a final irony. The buzz you can come across has Obama being compared to JFK, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan. Of course the irony there is that the only one of those who really got much done as President was Reagan, a Republican who also paved the road for Bush Hegemony, massive budget deficits and colossal nuclear buildup globally. At the same time, Obama has toted Abraham Lincoln as his role model. First of all, duh. But also, Lincoln is a hero in American memory, and should be, for his role in pioneering equal rights. A Republican, Lincoln was a pioneer of the GOP as well. He was also very unpopular. He also suspended civil rights and supported vetoes that threatened his war powers. Clinton, in her own irony, is the woman women don't like. Clinton has regularly invoked FDR in her campaign, in spite of damaging comparisons to Eleanor Roosevelt, 15 years old. Eleanor was uniformly considered the "shadow President" during FDR's final years, and went on to secure a seat on the UN Council based on her experience in the White House. This slur has been going on ever since Bill chimed the "two for one" comment in 1992, and "Billary" quickly became a household word. The irony now is that people are saying, "Bill's charisma is what won me over," while simultaneously complaining that he is too visible. Of course he's visible. He's the spouse of a very possible next President. People want to have their cake and eat it too, on both sides. The only thing I can urge is that you research the candidates themselves, closely, without listening to the media buzz, and vote your conscience. I am still 100% behind Hillary Clinton, along with Jack Nicholson and over 10 million voters.