Unity

Being a politician requires certain skills and talent, like any human activity. Merely understanding policy options is just one useful talent for a politician, but not even a necessary one.

One of the most effective local politic ans I ever covered as a town report was a man who had been a town selectman for close to three decades. He was not the brightest bulb who ever sat in a chair of power. He really had only the most rudimentary grasp of things like the town budget.

But he understood people very well, and had little trouble winning re-election year after year because he knew that he was ultimately in a people business and he could hire people who understood the budget. By the same token, I've seen a lot of people who had a very good grasp of the mechanics of government yet no ability to get people to work together.

Politicians at the level of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, of course, must have some ability to handle all the aspects of being a leader. Despite their reputations, for example, neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush were/are unintelligent.

But talents are unevenly distributed and the long campaign has already highlighted that Obama may be the best balanced leader among the final three. Whether that means he will be a success as president remains to be seen. Sometimes the times a president finds himself in my require character that is particularly strong on one way or another and not balanced.

Hillary Clinton seems to understand policy very well, but one is still left with the feeling she doesn't understand people as well. Her husband was famously a people-person, but she has to work at it. Her relationship with her staff suggests a person who has to manage explicitly rather than instinctively.

McCain, on the other hand, is very much a people person, but seems to have a weak grasp of policy issues. Even in areas where he imagines himself to have expertise he seems spotty with his positions taken on "gut" rather than analysis.

Watching Obama and Clinton perform their little Unity dance at Unity, N.H., is a reminder that purity and uncompromising principles are all very well for pundits and professors, but totally unsuitable for a politician. If one could imagine little thought balloons over their heads the words would undoubtedly belie their public presentation.

But politic ans have to have the discipline to set aside their feelings for the larger goals they are pursuing and this is not inappropriate. We see the same things in other fields and think nothing of it. Medical personnel are faced with horrific sights all the time yet maintain a professional demeanor as they provide care.

No, she won't

Make a good VP, that is.

Poltiblog explains why:

Beyond the general difficulties for Obama of dealing with Hillary (as well as Bill), I think that the main chance that the Democrats have of wooing independents and some Republicans is an Obama ticket sans Clinton. While I lack empirical evidence to support the argument at the moment, I think that the general dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, mixed with the unpopularity of the Iraq War will translate into a number of Republicans being willing to vote for Obama in the Fall. However, those same disgruntled Republicans have a great deal of animosity aimed in the direction of the Clintons and will be utterly unwilling to vote for a ticket that contains a Clinton and they will either stick with McCain, cast a protest vote for Barr or stay home in November.
Put another way: an unpopular war and economic problems equals problems for the incumbent party–in a generic sense there is plenty of historic evidence to support such an assertion. Under such conditions, voters normally predisposed to vote for that party will defect or abstain. As such, it is reasonable to assume that Obama has a real chance of winning a decent number of Republican votes in the fall. However, Republicans, in general, have a great deal of dislike for the Clintons, and her presence on the ballot would suppress, to a substantial degree I believe, the generic pattern described in the first portion of this paragraph. As such, Obama-Clinton is far less of a “dream” for the Democrats as many pundits may think.

Democrats

The inability of the Democrats to make rules and stick to them provides the Republicans for their best long-term hope that their time in the political wilderness will be shorter than it might otherwise be.

Discipline and Democrats are, evidently, not words with an affinity. It has explained why the GOP, even with its problems, has been able to stymie the Democrats on most issues.

Can there be any doubt that the GOP, if it had a congressional majority and a Democratic president as unpopular as Bush, would be running roughshod over them?

One of Obama's challenges, should he become president, will be bringing some discipline to his own party. This will likely be difficult because electoral success will tend to blind the Democrats to the problem. The fact that it's hard, does not make it any less important however.

Clinton drama

A funny post from Roger Simon
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=362E5C1F-3048-5C12-00E8E3FF95048442

Is there any excuse for her to stay in now?

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Sen. Hillary Clinton


If, God forbid, anything did happen to Sen. Obama, how could she be offered the nomination after saying such a stupid, tasteless, disgusting, narcissistic, inhuman thing?

Bring back Gore. Give it to Edwards. Anyone but her.

Obama wins

Well, Kentucky covered itself in glory today, eh? While polite company tried to ignore it as best they could, it was clear from the exit polls that good old fashioned racism was the main reason for Obama's poor showing. Oregon, which is, in economic terms virtaully the same as Kentucky went the other way, so we can discount the "class" arguments being used to excuse the Appalachian voters.

In the end it doesn't matter. Clinton is toast, but don't look for a graceful exit. Her spokespeople and herself are veering into Baghdad Bob territory. She's ahead in the popular vote IF you count Florida and Michigan and IF you give Obama 0 votes in Michigan (where he followed the rules and wasn't even on the ballot) and IF you don't count the caucus states.

So in other words, IF she cheats then she's the winner.

I had drifted into acceptance of Clinton as an acceptable choice if it came down to her because I was so disaffected with the GOP but she has managed to remind me of all the things I really dislike about the Clintons. I've had quite enough of presidents with a dodgy relationship with the truth and facts for the last 16 years, thank you.

Let all the votes happen

Obama drawing a crowd of 70,000+ in Oregon was pretty impressive.

Things have kind of moved on for us here in Connecticut as we already voted a while ago, so it's easy to forget that there's a lot of excitement in those places that are having their primaries now.
Seeing all those people in Oregon made me reconsider my desire to see Clinton bow out of the race. I'll admit I'm pretty weary of Clinton, but maybe the race going on isn't such a bad thing after all if it can generate this level of excitement.

So if Clinton runs until Montana votes, then so be it. Today Obama was in Montana campaigning. How often have Democrats visited that state during a campaign.

Obamanami

Well the tide's coming in now. Every news organization had a slightly different count, but they all seem to agree Obama has overtaken Clinton in the Superdelegate count.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

I never thought for a minute that the superdelegates would turn around and give Clinton the nomination barring some huge disaster involving Obama. Clearly most of them were going to wait until someone established themselves as the winner. Obama has done that. The most reluctant supers will switch over once Obama passes the 50% of pledged delegates milestone. The rest once he passes the magic number. After that happens some deal will be reached on Michigan and Florida so they get to seat some portion of their delegation -- probably all their supers and half their pledged. They probably won't get all because the Democrats still want to make their party discipline point. A little discipline would do the Dems some good. It's been one of their biggest problems dealing with the Republicans, who are nothing if not disciplined.
On the other hand, the GOP could use a little more dissident spirit. Some ability to say "no" might have stopped their lemming-like following of Bush over the electoral cliff.

HRC forges ahead

As so often, George Will has the best words:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050808.php3

But perhaps the best mental image to just remember the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)

"It's only a flesh wound!"

John Coles sums up how I feel

From Ballon Juice:

Whatever. She threw everything she had at him. He weathered the storm. Consider him vetted. Consider Rev. Wright kicked in the junk. Consider me relieved. Now, can we get to the very serious business of dismantling the GOP? I have a very serious axe to grind, and it is deeply, deeply personal for me. There are a bunch of frauds, crooks, and phonies with whom I have a serious grudge that I want to settle. You see, I still have my “Peace Through Strength” button from when I campaigned for Reagan. I believed in limited government, I believed in a strong national defense, I believed in fiscal restraint and balanced budgets and I believed in personal integrity and individual liberty and personal freedom.

I am pissed. I want the frothing nutters, the fraudulent hucksters, the race-baiters, the anti-science frauds, the anti-intellectuals, the gay-bashers, the big-money cheats, the torture fetishists, the religious nuts, the tax and spenders, the xenophobes, and the phonies to pay. I want payback. I want the people who ruined my former party relegated to permanent minority status. I know I am a newly minted Democrat, and, as such, it is ballsy for me to start telling you what I want from the party, but this is my website and you are just going to have to deal with my opinion.

I am under no illusion I will buy into everything Barack Obama puts forward, but I am damned sure convinced he is a decent man who, at the very least, will restore a sense of competence to the national stage. I am willing to meet most Democrats half-way, and I am already doing everything I can to get this man elected. I think Obama will act in good faith for this nation, and I am responding in kind. His policies are not outlandish or crazy or uber-left- they reflect a rational, and I would argue, a decent and progressive way forward out of the mess I helped to create. I won’t like all of them, and I will not agree with all of them, but there is no chance that I will ever be President, so perfect agreement is never a possibility.

And don’t get me wrong- I am not for Obama because of what I am against. I am for Obama because he is a decent man, a break from the past, and really a once in a lifetime opportunity. He has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults. There will be times we feel he lets us all down, but we are not electing a diety. We are electing a leader, and Obama is that leader. It is time to get past the bullshit of the last 20 years, the battles I am really tired of fighting, and time to turn our attention to the really important issues of the day- the economy, the budget, our international presence, our crumbling infrastructure, our military, medicare and medicaid and social security, and on and on and on.

If Barack Obama was not your your preferred candidate, I am sorry that person did not win, but it is time to remember that the target is John McCain and the Bush/Cheney way of doing things. If you can not accept that and help move us forward, please at least get out of the way.

Clinton wins by just enough to hang on

It's like one of those Friday the 13th movies where the monster will not stay dead.

It really also demonstrates why the Democrats are, generally, such sorry-ass losers. If only we had a half-way smart opposition party. The GOP should be such dead, dead, dead meat this time around. Bush and his enablers are the biggest screwups in history and yet the Democrats can't help themselves but keep the Hillary crap alive just a little bit longer.

That's rich

So the Clintons have raked in more than $100 million since they left the White House. Nice gig if you can get it.

The Logic of Hillary

Check these out:

http://coudal.com/logic.php

Hellery

It appears Hillary Clinton is gearing up to try to win her nomination via seating the Michigan delegates (in the race everyone said they would not campaign and almost everyone managed to take their names off the ballot) and the Florida delegates (in another race everyone promised not to campaign and everyone except her kept that promise) and thereby eke out some kind of backroom deal.
Even if the GOP had managed to select Rudy or Mitt I don't think I could have swallowed this kind of crap, but considering that the GOP settled on McCain, who is at least acceptable, then there's no way I'd end up voting her way. It would have been different if she managed to win fair and square. In that case, even with her many flaws, my desire to punish the GOP and see the kind of good housecleaning you only get with a change of party would have made me hold my nose and vote for her.
Now, my lonely little vote might not count for much, but here is something that should give the Democrats pause: If Clinton were to win that way, there is no way that black Americans would regard the affair as anything less than stealing the election away from Obama.
Largely, this is because the perception would be accurate!
If Obama manages to win pluralities in every category and she wins by cheating, the the Democrats will have managed to do the impossible and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

A lie too far?

Have the Clinotn's stretched the truth one too many times? The Tuzla tale seems to have considerable legs.

Carville ought to understand Judas

If there's a nastier political operative on the scene today than James Carville then I have yet to see him.
It's certainly an illuminating glimpse into the mindset of the Clintonites that one of them could liken Richardson's decision to endorse Obama instead of Clinton to Judas' betrayal of Christ. The sense of entitlement is palpable. How dare that uppity you-know-what not wait his turn and let Hillary have what is rightfully hers? How dare he?

I will be soooo glad to see the Clintons retire into graceful obscurity when Obama wins. The only downside is if McCain manages to pull it out, because then the Clintons will be in full I-told-you-so-mode.
Fortunately the Republicans seem determined to continue their self-destruction, not to mention seem doomed to reap a full measure of whet Bush as sown, so I think there's a good chance Obama will do it.

Clintonian Crap

Here we go again.
Already the Clintons are starting up their crap. They say there are "unanswered questions" about Obama's relationship with Rezko. (Obama said all questions have been answered and I'd like to hear what question, exactly, is still outstanding)
Meanwhile Clnton will not release her tax returns and there are a lot of questions (unanswered ones, by the way) about how they suddenly became so rich they could lend their campaign $5 million. There response is to attack the right to ask the question.
Well, the biggest problem of the last four presidential terms (two Clinton and the last two Bush) has been this sense that somehow the rules don't apply to the King. I, for one, don't want four more years of that crap. Pretty soon we'll have a whole generation of voters who don't know an era when the President was accountable under the law like everyone else. Instead we're getting our own politics Putin-ized.

Will she blame the weather?

They are predicting bad weather in Ohio Tuesday. Will Hilalry blame the weather if she doesn't win or doesn't win by much.

Will Hillary go on?

The question is not whether Obama will build on his lead Tuesday, but whether or not he can add enough to persuade Hillary that the jig is up. The Clinton camp seems resigned to losing Texas and Vermont already, and are even putting out the word that anything less than a clean sweep by Obama will be a disappointment.
Oh really? It's hard to see how a singular victory in Rhode Island will be enough. Indeed, it seem ready-maid for mockery. "Clinton takes smallest state! Touts R.I. as turning the tide!"
So it will come down to Ohio in the end, it appears. The latest polls show her holding on to a diminishing lead. The pattern so far as been for Obama to make big inroads inn the last week or so, but it's an open question whether he'll make up enough ground to win outright. The most likely result seem to be a Clinton victory in the single digits. A victory like that can plausibly be given a positive spin -- it is a victory, after all. But the reality is that it will do nothing to halt Obama's march to the nomination.

Negativity

Negative campaigning has been around since there have been elections. (And by negative campaigning, I do not mean simply criticizing your opponent. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize your opponent's substantive positions on issues.)
Smears, innuendo and worse has enjoyed a heyday in the past coup,e of decades, however. Some call it Clintonian. Some call it Rovian. Many blame the late Lee Atwater. It's had many fathers and many practitioners and the fact is that it has worked.
But like every marketing technique, it appears to have a shelf-life. And it appears it has expired. Those politicians running the most positive campaigns (Obama, Huckabee and McCain) have done the best. Some running campaigns relying on more negative techniques (Clinton, Romney) have faded.
Being positive is not a guarantee of success, of course. Otherwise Dodd and Biden would have done better. But the media and the public seem to have much less patience for crap like the Obama in Somali garb photo flap. (And is it embarrassing or what that a U.S. Congresswoman could be so ill-informed as to believe that this was Obama in the dress of his "native " country? Geesh! Get a clue, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones! Obama is U.S. born!)
Tonight Hillary will be tempted to go negative on Obama. Good luck on that. If she sticks to substantive criticism, good for her. But if she goes off into silliness expect her campaign to finally collapse.