Steinberg Says What?

The Wall Street Journal reporting on Obama's upcoming economic roll-outs, quoted Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, addressing reporters aboard Air Force One returning from Canada with President Obama saying NAFTA "didn't even come up," in Ottowa. He refers to NAFTA as a "little issue" that has "fallen to the wayside," in light of the bigger concerns of the economy. Steinberg said, "There was not a kind of narrow focus on little issues. It was a very strategic discussion...heavily focused on the economy."

First of all, I call bullshit. The President of the United States goes to Canada to meet with the Prime Minister while global markets are on the brink of disaster, and they didn't discuss NAFTA? Yeah right. Second, NAFTA is a "little issue" now? Very shoddy spin control from an adept politician like Steinberg.

Is Clinton The Real Unifier?

I have long been saying that voters are considering presidential hopefuls Obama, Clinton and McCain on a Liberal-Moderate-Conservative scale, in that order, independent of party affiliation. McCain is playing a balancing act, putting his "maverick" image out to the public and courting the conservatives on the inside of the GOP. Obama, on the opposite end, is challenged to maintain his liberal image without seeming too divorced from the bread-and-butter concerns of middle America. This allows Clinton to slide right in between them and frame herself as the true "compromise candidate." It also opens her to attacks on all sides. Liberals slam her for doing what you are supposed to do in a presidential campaign: use your resources to win; conservatives slam her for her obvious departures and disagreements with how Republicans have been running the country for the last 8 years.

Ironically, both Democratic candidates have been friendlier toward McCain than each other. This is changing since it has become obvious that people are tired of the negative campaigning. Obama has repeatedly spoken for unity in November, and yesterday Clinton (finally) said that if Obama gets the nomination she will "work her heart out for him." Admittedly, it is easier for her to say now that she is on her way to being the perceived front runner again. However, the same could be said for Obama, calling for party unity, at a time when he was soaring on public opinion. The Illinois senator has also repeatedly accused Clinton of using GOP tactics against him, and many people believe that the "vast right wing conspiracy" (a term ironically coined by Clinton) is currently conspiring for Clinton.

My first question is: just what are "GOP tactics" and if this "Rove Playbook" exists, I'd like to see a copy of it, because it seems to me it has been pretty effective. Maybe Democrats should take a lesson from the other side of aisle. The last time I was old enough to vote for a Democrat that actually won an election was 16 years ago, or 12 if you count Bill's second term. Since the Rove comparisons have fallen largely on deaf ears, Obama has now begun comparing Clinton's campaign strategy to McCain's, which I think is backwards. Obama has seized on the proposed Gas Tax Holiday that both Clinton and McCain support and he opposes to frame Clinton as a "defector." In reality, I think it was McCain co-opting a Democratic strategy, which is very good for his (illusory) moderate image. I find it an erroneous comparison, in fact, I find the idea that there is any specific and particular way you should run a presidential campaign silly.

I believe the main conceit of liberals is not their ideas, but the attitude that the rest of the world would see it their way if they would just "wake up" or if they were not so "ignorant." Maybe this is the conceit of every broad group of people. Regardless, the liberal vs. conservative dynamic in American politics always falls along these lines. We are told that liberals want change, implying that change would be good for everyone. We are told conservatives fear and abhor change because it will undermine our social structure and destroy "the establishment."

I believe Clinton represents the closest thing to a true bipartisan presidency we can hope for. I've said this before, but allow me to reiterate: Obama wants us to believe he is the "change" candidate and the one who will bring a spirit of cooperation to government, yet he holds the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Clinton represents liberal ideal for individuals, and very moderate ideals for government. Her voting record shows that she is a party-line Democrat, but she has crossed the aisle quite a few times in order to achieve goals she believed were for the best. Obama has made gestures in this area, but has continually withdrawn when it was time to put his name on bipartisan compromises.

The Weekly Standard recently published an article called An Exceedingly Strange New Respect, and while it points out why Clinton is gaining respect from the GOP and conservatives, I believe it also points out the growing respect for her overall. They make a very compelling case for the idea that the 2008 campaign itself has transformed Clinton into what she claims to be based on her past experiences. She's shown toughness, resilience, and tenacity, and moreover, she has demonstrated that she will not be forced to back down by the loud clamor of dissent, something every president faces. I would ask: isn't being respected by the GOP a key factor in encouraging cooperation? When Obama calls for change and unity and makes sweeping promises of compromise and shared responsibility, this is actually (as I have said before) code for: I will encourage bipartisan cooperation in my administration. But would he? Or does he simply believe that by virtue of being President he will be able to strongarm the GOP into submission? They do not like him; the GOP sees Obama as a threat, as a reversal of their efforts, and the end of conservative dominance of government. That's great right? I don't think so. I'm not sure we need another president that half the country hates. I'm not sure we're really ready for the kind of fight Obama will have to fight. There are much more pressing issues facing America than the Red & Blue Divide. Why not go with the candidate who's already purple?

Clinton has a very liberal background. Back in the '60s and '70s, she would have been in the front row of every Obama rally chanting, "Yes we can, yes we can." But the Woodstock era politics largely failed. What is really different now, forty years later? We're still fighting other people's wars. We're still detaining political prisoners without trial or representation. We're still killing the environment. We're still allowing radical religious governments to dictate our foreign policy. We're still in bed with the oil companies and the drug companies and the huge mega corporations that drive our economy. Senator Clinton lived through all of that, and her politics have been tempered by it. She has slowly slid closer to the middle and has dedicated her efforts to areas where a difference can still be made. She has embraced modern politics and modern ideas of compromise, and understands that sometimes you have to pick your battles. She is not seeking to upset the balance, only to refocus. What's wrong with that? Not radical enough? Do we really need another radical in the Oval Office? Obama is the Anti-Bush, which is precisely what makes him such an attractive option, but I don't believe the reality of an Obama presidency would deliver on his huge campaign promises. Clinton has not made any of these sweeping claims. Her most radical promise is a plan to provide health care for every American, which Obama has the audacity to call a bad idea.

Clinton represents a very interesting dichotomy. On the one side, her social programs are almost Communist, but she has presented a very conservative stance on war and foreign relations, citing US military might as her method of restoring America's preeminence worldwide. She has been widely attacked for what is being spun as a nuclear threat to Iran, when if truth, that is exactly what we would do if Iran launched an attack on Israel, which they have repeatedly made overtures toward. Clinton is not trigger happy, and I very much doubt she would authorize a full scale nuclear assault on Iran, unless they used nuclear weapons first. Moreover, using the very real threat of US military superiority is a valid and often used tactic, and one that is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton sees an America that prioritizes itself, and its citizens. She wants to see every American have health care, better jobs, and stronger families. She also wants to see an America that takes its responsibility to the world seriously, instead of treating the world like its playground. If we have to puff up our feathers and pound our chests and strut around a little bit to get that done, she is willing to do so, and Americans like that. Support for Iraq is very low, and everyone knows it is a terrible situation for everyone involved. This does not mean other threats are not real, or that we should not get involved. Clinton understand this as well, although she may not fully understand Iraq. She does understand we need to get out, and we need to do so in an orderly fashion, and at the end of the day, that is what matters.

Clinton is making friends on the other side of the aisle, drawing support from the GOP, and solidifying her middle class base. This sparks all kinds of controversy, and opens the door for her to be cast as a secret Republican or worse. I find it unspeakably odd that we spend so much time wistfully imagining a united America, where we all get along and every politician's first priority is the good of all, and yet we reject politicians who are moderates. We want these uber-liberal politicians to create a common ground when they have as little common ground with the average American as the uber-conservative.

The Presidency is like a turn-based video game where competing sides "get their turn," and Democrats feel that their turn was stolen from them in 2000, and again in 2004, although they cannot deny the reality that Bush actually won in '04. Regardless, the Democrats now have an even greater sense that the Presidency is rightfully theirs this time around. I believe that Bill Clinton announced Hillary's candidacy in 1992 when he declared you get "two for the price of one," and later threw the entire force of the White House behind her 2000 Senate run. This is the source of the disparity between Hillary and the Democratic party, the largely unspoken accusation that focusing on Hillary's senate campaign compromised the necessary focus to get Al Gore elected. Because of the political and media firestorm created by the Gore-Bush race, we have forgotten that Gore had already greatly distanced himself from Bill long before the 2000 campaign, and it was seen as a career move for Gore, to keep his nose clean so to speak. He cannot fully blame the Clintons. You can't have your cake and eat it too, step back from the President when it is politically expedient, then expect him to prioritize you when it's convenient. It's certainly not very consistent with the loyalty model the Clintons expect. Hillary's sense of entitlement to the Presidency is completely in line with the Democratic party's own attitudes, but Al Gore casts a long shadow. However, I believe party leadership is also cognizant of the risk of alienating the Clinton machine, and while this has been held up as a reason to dislike Hillary even more, it also represents a very real network of political power and capability that could be put back into direct control of the White House, something the DNC greatly desires. Obama lacks this kind of extended network, which would require a good deal more effort on the part of party leadership to ensure smooth transition to solid Democratic control.

So, like her or not, Clinton is forming a large base of support, has shown extreme potency, and is now even attracting fans inside the GOP. What's bad about that? Isn't it the real goal? To draw everyone together? Or do we mean, we'll draw Democrats together? Perhaps what the party fears is the return of the New Democrats to power. The critics of the New Democrats, and Bill Clinton who was the DLC Chair until his 1992 presidential campaign, cite the perceived failures of NAFTA as the reason the New Dems are wrong. I find this erroneous as well, and would point to the overall success of Bill's presidency as the proof. People fear "dynasty building" as well, the idea that a second Clinton is in some way building a presidential dynasty comparable to the Bush regime. This logic completely ignores the fact that Clinton politics and Bush politics are very different creatures, draws another false comparison. The deeper you look into it, the more it looks like the Democratic party actually fears change, the realignment of the party toward the middle. And yet, isn't that exactly what we need? Isn't the endless tug of war in Congress and the White House tired yet? A centrist president is exactly what we need.

Clinton's Path To The Nomination: Clearer Than You Think

I find it interesting that the majority of people who are writing about Clinton's "path to the nomination" are mostly Clinton eulogists. These essays read like this, "Clinton needs to achieve this long list of unlikely victories and then will still have to face a hostile elective body in Denver who clearly prefer Obama." They then go on to point out that Clinton's only real hope is that Obama will do something to tank his own campaign and make himself unpalatable to the DNC. Then, and only then, will Clinton have a chance of swaying the superdelegates to back her, and by then, the image of the Democratic party in general will be so trashed that McCain will sweep the election, and everyone will be sorry they didn't speak out louder for Obama. They're already plating up a big, healthy meal of buyer's remorse, when no one's been bought yet. In light of all this, I think it is far and away time to see a Clinton-favoring "path to the nomination."

Of course these eulogies started popping up as soon as Clinton achieved what everyone said she needed to achieve: big wins on March 4th. Everyone from both campaigns, to the media, to the DNC said this was the "firewall." She passed that firewall with flying colors. And, in spite of accusations that Clinton is capitalizing on the Wright scandal, the more likely reality is that March 4th gave Clinton momentum for Pennsylvania. She was already in the lead in the Keystone State, and her lead started to grow immediately after March 4th. Yes, the Wright scandal probably helped, and Clinton cannot be blamed for passively benefiting from it. More likely, the Wright situation is helping her more in North Carolina, where Obama's lead has been drastically shortened. Three weeks ago, Penn and NC looked like mirror images of each other, now it's a landslide for Clinton in Penn and a narrow win for Obama in NC. Since the beginning or March, the head-to-head schematic has started to slide Clinton's way, too, with the "vs. McCain" results no longer favoring Obama (which they were by 5 points) and with Clinton performing better against McCain. In that race, Obama has lost nearly 6 points and Clinton has gained 3. That is a 9-point variance, which is outside most margins of error.

So, what is Clinton's path to the nomination?

Florida and Michigan

While the pundits are calling the likelihood of nothing happening in FL and MI towards re-votes a "blow" to Clinton, I think this is a media-created fallacy. First of all, a re-vote in either state presents the very real chance that Obama could close the gap. Campaign schematics are different, the media coverage is different, only 25% of the original candidates are still standing, and Obama is seen as a much more serious option than he was pre-Edwards drop out. Second, if nothing happens in the two contested states, and the DNC continues their shut out of those delegates, they still represent 1.2 million votes for Clinton. Official or not, those votes close the gap. With FL and MI included, the popular vote total only favors Obama by 0.3%. Anyone who tries to claim that those votes should not count should also check their cries for the popular vote to be respected. Regardless of a rule that disenfranchised millions of American voters because governmental bureaucracy made a bungle, votes are still votes.

Big States Strategy and Electoral Strategy

These two are related, and are a very normal and typical general election strategy. In spite of the nit picking about the importance of such and such demographic and arguments about who can turn red states blue, the simple fact remains that Clinton has performed the strongest in the big states and that she leads in electorate strength. Barring a huge reversal in Pennsylvania, that argument will be almost unchallengeable by April 22. Obama has cleaned house in small states and in caucuses. And, in spite of creative math supported by questionable arguments that Obama appeals to swing voters more than Clinton, big states decide the general election, and the general election is not run caucus-style. Yes, there are states that are so blue that any Democrat will carry them, but that is true of Clinton too. Also, Texas is the major big-state stronghold for Republicans, and there is a very compelling case that Clinton would be much more competitive in Texas than Obama. I'm not sold that Democrats could take Texas at all, but stranger things have happened. If 700,000 Latinos come out to vote on Election Day in Texas like they did on March 4th, we might see an upset in Texas. An area where Clinton has an arguable advantage is in voter empowerment, and in energizing her ground game at the last minute.

Swing States and "pink" states

The swing states are: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. They represent 71 electoral votes which is 13% of the nationwide electorate and 26% of the required majority to win. Based on a combination of results and poll projections, Clinton beats Obama in the swing states by 10 points. I believe there is also a strong argument that Clinton could take Florida, a "pink" state. She is performing much better in head-to-heads than Obama in the Sunshine State, she won the Florida primary by a very convincing margin, versus McCain's narrow win over Romney. If Clinton can hang onto her Latino base and regain the white male vote, she could give McCain a run for his money in taking Florida's 25 electoral votes. The other pink states are: Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana. In terms of the Democratic race, those states are split in half with Georgia and Colorado for Obama and Arizona and Montana for Clinton (Montana projected.) Of the pink states other than Florida, only Georgia has much electoral weight, and in fairness to Obama, I do think he would stand a fair chance of taking Georgia, but he would lose Florida which would cut into his net gain pretty seriously.

The Money Myth

"Obama outspends Clinton." "Obama raises more money than Clinton." The fact however, is that since the beginning of March, Clinton has been raising at least a million a day, and when they sent out panicked calls for donations last week, they raised over 2 million on 1 day. I do not see that kind of push from Obama, who is currently coasting on financial advantage based on higher debt on the Clinton side. Also, Clinton is much more financially prepared for the general election, by more than a 3-to-1 margin. Both Democrats have left McCain in the dust financially. If Clinton can get to the general election, she will have a huge financial advantage. Obama would have to focus on fund raising, whereas Clinton would be much more agile because of her money lead. In the general election funds, Clinton is ahead of McCain 7-to-1 whereas Obama is ahead just over 2-to-1. Obama is blowing through money very fast right now trying to regain his momentum, outspending Clinton by over a million a day. While that makes him look like he is winning, it is literally costing him. If Clinton can stay financially afloat for the next 5 weeks, the financial schematic will look very different by June. By that time, the Clinton campaign will have paid off its debt, and Obama will be struggling to keep his lead against McCain and the GOP who will no doubt open their wallets wide. Clinton has also been slammed for her big-donor strategy, which I cannot fathom being a bad idea. With big, cash-flushed donors on her side, there is a much greater chance that when push comes to shove, Clinton will be able to keep her lead, versus Obama's "grassroots" financial support. If I was in dire straights for money, I'd ask my rich friends for money before my poor ones.

General Election Focus and the Issues

I believe that Clinton has been focusing on general election strategies from the start: take the big states, build up a big general election fund, stay centrist on the issues. Clinton is appealing to the wallet -- economy, housing, health care. Obama is appealing to the spirit -- change, cooperation, reform.

I think it is clear at this point that the working class prefers Clinton, and in the end, her positions on keeping your house and getting medical care will win the day. While it has come out that Clinton apparently "misrepresented" her position on NAFTA, I still think that one goes to (or against) Obama. Clinton held pro-NAFTA meetings while Bill was president, and NAFTA was widely seen as a good move for the US economy. Clinton has said that NAFTA is hurting the economy now, and said that she would use opt-out threats to renegotiate NAFTA terms. Obama pretty much said the same thing, but it also came out that his campaign strategists knew this was just rhetoric and didn't really mean it. So, 10 years ago Clinton said, "Let's do NAFTA." Now it's not working out, and she acknowledges this and wants to fix it. Obama just looks like a liar in this case, whereas Clinton has a much stronger argument that, "We tried it, it didn't work out as planned. We can fix it."

As for Iraq, people think that Obama has a better plan because he opposed the war from the start. This is another media-created fallacy. Just because Clinton voted to authorize the war doesn't mean that today, five years later, in a completely different political climate, Clinton is not capable of coming up with a reasonable solution. Also, the likelihood that Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better is still very real. Pro-Iraq sentiment is at an all time high again. Even though liberals won't acknowledge it for the most part, the troop surge worked. I believe Clinton's Iraq position is also a general election strategy to appeal to moderates who support the war effort (even if they opposed it originally) but want to see progress toward withdrawal. Obama's anti-war stance is much stronger and louder, and that may not be a strength against McCain, although it presents more contrast. Clinton and McCain are both on the Armed Services Committee, which begs the question, who knows more about Iraq? Probably Clinton. Couched together with her very real point that Obama has been seriously negligent in his duties as the chair of the sub committee on Europe, Clinton comes out looking much more prepared to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

The Superdelegate Myth

The prevalent attitude at this time is the the superdelegates favor Obama. Currently, Clinton is holding a 14% lead in superdelegate support. Clinton has had superdelegate majority since the beginning. Obama is closing that lead, but he is doing so with his primary and caucus numbers, not with unpledged "defectors" as the media is portraying. The main myth that is being perpetrated is that the superdelegates are in some way going to automatically support Obama based on "large" popular vote leads. First of all, I don't see much of a large lead, and it is getting smaller. Florida and Michigan are going to count in the arguments, even if they don't count in the math, and that erases Obama's "big lead." The superdelegates are not bound to the popular vote, otherwise their function would be what? Nothing. Superdelegates exist because of the obvious need for discernment in the nomination process. If Clinton can convince superdelegates that she is the right one for the job, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the pundits are already saying that this is exactly what she has to do. When all the primaries are over, and the nominating process enters its final stages, either one of them is going to need the superdelegate contingent to get their majority. Obama has to campaign for their support, too, but you don't see anyone saying he shouldn't. The superdelegates are voters in the nominating process just like the pledged ones, and arguably their role is more important at this stage, since neither candidate is going to win without them.

If find no compelling argument that Obama's case is any stronger than Clinton's. The two are still in a dead heat, and Obama is currently suffering. If Clinton had experienced the horrible week Obama just had, the opinion would be that it was over for her. The fact that she has hung on, is gaining in the head-to-heads and is closing the gap in states that were "Obama Country" a week ago, is certainly not a sign that she should quit. It is a very strong sign that she could turn it around. Clinton has come back every time it has looked like it was over. There is more evidence to support the idea that she can come back again, rather than she won't. This battle aint over til it's over. Clinton very well may win the argument that she is more electable, and that is going to win the nomination. Democratic party leaders have made it very clear that their priority is a Democratic win in November, and whoever demonstrates a stronger elective case by August will be the nominee.

Silly Season Is Here

Barack Obama said it. Mark this one on the calendar: I agree with him. The Political Silly Season is here.

In truth, I agree with Obama about quite a few things. There are things I don't like about him. The same is true of Clinton. There are things about her I don't like. I know I have come out very strong for Clinton, but I have drawn my own line: short of a few snarky comments, or discussion of other people's negativity, I have tried not to attack Obama unfairly. I have criticized what I see as arrogance on his part, but have tried to avoid personal attacks. I can support Clinton without slinging mud at another Democrat. I truly despise negative campaigning. I have said before that I understand the uses and justifications, even the logic, of going negative, but I still don't like it. It opens the door for cutting personal attacks on all sides, and puts an ugly smear on the democratic process. Silly Season comes when all campaigns have gone as negative as they can without crossing the line in the public eye beyond repair. They can't cut into each other any deeper, so they all retreat to campaign rhetoric and fine tooth combing. Everything has to have "precedent" and context becomes important, and any event in any candidate's entire life since adulthood is open to investigation.

Silly Season this year features a showdown between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, with box seats for the GOP.

Here's a few of the Silliest Moments so far:

NAFTA Debacle

First, mark this one on the calendar too. I see no substantive evidence that either Democratic campaign misrepresented themselves on NAFTA. I believe there is a more compelling case that if Canada's role in the NAFTA dealings is anything more than a conspiracy theory, it is a campaign play inside the Canadian government to support John McCain and conservative leadership in North America. Another thing I have been worried about since the beginning of the election cycle is the prevalent attitude that the GOP is so shamed and weakened by the Bush Administration that Democrats are overconfident. I have summed that long statement into my mantra: do not underestimate John McCain. NAFTA has been very kind to Canada. The Canadian dollar is stronger than the US dollar now. McCain is in favor of NAFTA. Both Democrats have publicly stated a willingness to at least threaten NAFTA opt-out in order to get US-favoring conditions built in to NAFTA. If I were the conservative and unpopular Prime Minister of Canada, I would be hoping for McCain to win, too. Economic woes seem to dominate Canada's Prime Minister Harper. And, barring McCain, if I were Harper, I'd prefer Clinton, who seems much more likely to be more centrist on NAFTA policies. Evidence and Canadian public opinion seems to agree that Harper probably leaked the Obama story himself, and his increased efforts on the "leak probe" support this. Harper narrowly avoided a legal imperative to hold elections on March 3rd, avoiding what could easily be the end of his tenure, losing to the Liberal party.

Regardless of all this drama and intrigue, I think the whole mess is really more Canadian politics than American. The NAFTA reality as I can see it is: McCain will support NAFTA as is, either Democrat will offer very moderate and expedient NAFTA revisions. The outcome of the US presidential election could easily influence Harper's control of the Canadian government. Harper has to make strategy, too, and regime change in the US always has ripple effects, the biggest waves close to home. US conceits that we are alone on the planet are being challenged by events like this, when it is fairly blatant that a foreign head of state it taking an active role in US elections. Of course, it's been going on forever, and the US is most guilty of it.

Republicans are conspiring to influence the Democratic race

Please. Can we just leave this one alone? Again, I see no substantive evidence that this is really going on. So Rush Limbaugh told them to go vote for Hillary. Big deal. Rush had the best ratings of his lifetime when Bill was President, of course he wants another Clinton to hate. When Obama drew Republican votes they said he was a "uniter." When Hillary draws them it's a sign of a conspiracy? Come on. Also, there is the dramatically overlooked fact that just as many or more Democrats voted Republican this year. Is that a conspiracy? No. The fact is, this election cycle has drawn so much interest and so much attention and so much scrutiny that increasingly more and more people are voting their conscience instead of the party line. There is nothing wrong with that. The right to vote is so much a keystone of this country there is no way it can a bad thing that people are doing it. I think the huge rushes of voter turnout are responsible. The people who never or rarely vote are coming out, and who knows anything about those people's political views? They don't vote so they don't show up in the exit polls or the vote tallies. Now they're voting. I think the reality is right there.

The idea that anyone is messing with the process or intimidating anyone

Again, come on. We've all seen what a tampered campaign does to us. If anyone is tampering it's the GOP, and I'm not convinced they are ballsy enough to try it again in a general election. Delayed vote counts always spur these little playground dramas, which is the biggest fallacy involved. Hyper-sensitivity to fairness and media spin are causing vote tallies to take a long time. Both Obama and Clinton have taken attacks for using inappropriate, illegal or intimidating tactics to influence voters at caucus and primary locations. On that count, I'd say the worst offense goes to Chelsea Clinton for bringing donuts.

Change vs. Experience, Woman vs. Black, Ideas vs. Actions

It's all political balderdash. The real race for the Democrats is Moderates vs. Liberals. I think there is no doubt that Clinton would be a far more moderate President and Obama would be far more liberal. Both pose problems. Clinton would stand the chance of getting bogged down in populist balancing acts. Obama would spend large chunks of his time dodging bitch slaps from conservatives. Clinton would likely be most adept at spreading Democratic dominance of governement. Obama would be more likely to use bipartisan policies to direct US policy. Clinton has framed much of her campaign on response to Bush and GOP bungles in the last 7 years. Obama has challenged the system and said it's time to think outside the box. I think the irony there is that Clinton would be the one to push the envelope on her personal issues, whereas Obama would end up being far more centrist. The ground battle is really being fought between the working class and the white collar democrats. Moderates by and large prefer Clinton, and the working class is largely moderate. Liberals tend to be more affluent because of higher education, which means more earning power, and they prefer Obama. There is a very condescending argument going around under the surface of the campaign that "more educated" people like Obama and "ignorant" people like Clinton. This is a very low octave of the moderate vs. liberal struggle. Working class people are much more directly effected by government than the white collar caste. Money creates an insulating layer around individual liberty and leisure. Also, the "education" argument is a conceit. The working class, which ranks low on the college education scale, is not ignorant or stupid. These are the people you call when your toilet is overflowing, the majority of medical professionals nationwide, skilled factory workers, the people who make our vacations effortless, the people who haul our trash and sort our recycling, most working artists, and teachers. The white collar class has a strong voice too. They are the doctors and lawyers, engineers and scientists who create technology and medicines, respected journalists and elected officials, liberal business owners and philanthropic patrons of liberal charities. The conceit that Democrats are going to win this year created the luxury of a protracted race. The Democratic party has been angling for change since 2000, but they meant change toward Democratic control, not advocating for major institutional shakeup. So, both Clinton and Obama hold an appeal inside the party meta structure. The case for either is not as clear cut as either would have you believe. A real debate is going on in the Democratic primary for what leadership style they want, or which one they can tolerate if it achieves their personal aims. I also think the thing is getting overblown, as broadly there is very little difference between Clinton and Obama. In the details there are plenty of differences, thus: Silly Season.

Let me conclude with another one to mark on the calendar: chalk one up for Obama for calling it Silly Season. It was a very well timed plug that downplayed scrutiny on him and made Clinton look like she was grasping at straws. Without that little quip I think Clinton would have been the clear winner of the Cleveland debate, but with a single sentence Obama swung it back toward himself. Regardless, the Cleveland debate was the opening event of Silly Season.

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.