It's Ugly

And I wonder if it's going to stay that way. The political blogs are bursting with anger over perceived racism (against Obama) and perceived sexism (against Hillary.) Controversy over remarks that offend African Americans, including by a "feminist" defending Hillary. Controvery over remarks about Hillary that offend women, including remarks by other women. (These selections from Huffington Post are representative of what's going on elsewhere, but perhaps better written.)

All of this might be lauded as cultural consciousness raising but people vote their emotions, and there have already been angry women voting for Hillary and are likely to be angry African Americans voting for Barack, now that there are elections in states with notable black populations. And here's a sexist comment for you: it looks to me that the racial remarks are being discussed and debated out in the open, but that women are taking their anger with them to the voting booth in silence. On the other hand, as someone noted, Hillary has talked openly about being the first woman President, while Barack hasn't prominently mentioned being the first African American President.

By the way, if Giuliani were to win, he would be the first Italian American President. Think about what that says about stereotypes and prejudices.

This week Karl Rove entered the fray, sprinkling a column with racial code words in his lambasting of Obama, calling him "lazy" and referring to his playing basketball. He must be pretty happy about the polarization that's going on now.

Some dispute whether gender or race ultimately will matter for the electorate. I think in the general it will matter less. But you have to get to the general, and the primaries may well continue on their present course: ugly.

Now there's a diary at Kos: Clinton Polster: Latinos don't like Black leaders.

P.S. "it's the economy, stupid" has been a cliche since 1992, and has been used countless times with a different, "it's the x, stupid" to make a point by coining a new cliche. It's this generation's "gate" at the end of every scandal. In other words, it's stupid. It's also insulting to keep calling people who disagree with you, stupid.

Now for the first time since it was used in the original Clinton campaign, the economy is in serious danger of tanking, and somebody has actually come up with an apropos twist: It's Stupid's Economy.

It's the Economy

I'd hoped we'd heard the last "It's the x, stupid" cliche but no chance of that now. I see the Washington Post concurs with my insight that the economy has become a top campaign issue, and Hillary Clinton has taken the initiative with a new stimulus plan proposal. Obama better have something to say when the subject comes in at the debate in Nevada. If he doesn't, a slow uptake on this issue could turn out to be the fatal flaw come Tsunami Tuesday.

Why Obama

It's long been my contention and belief that the Climate Crisis is the most significant set of problems to face humanity, and therefore the core issue in electing the next U.S. President.

So I read with interest a Kos diary by JohnnyRook that expresses some of my sentiments about why I support Barack Obama, even though the apparent policy differences on this issue with Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards) seem small. Like JohnnyRook, I am not happy with Obama's apparent support for ethanol and clean coal, nor am I happy with his willingness to allow nuclear power into the mix, although in that case his caveats are significant: provided safety is proven and the nuclear waste problem is solved (and we're nowhere close to that.) But there are overriding issues, and JohnnyRock expresses one for me in this paragraph:

Policy differences (over coal, ethanol) are less significant in my calculation than the ability to inspire and motivate. Clearly, any of the Democratic candidates, if elected, will take action on global warming, but I believe that Obama is uniquely suited to the task, because of his ability to inspire a vision in people. Without that vision, I believe, there will be far greater resistance to the policies that we must of necessity adopt to halt the heating of the planet. I see in Obama and his rhetorical, motivational and organizational skills an American leader who can turn global warming in the public consciousness from an important issue into the defining issue of our age (which is what it truly is), giving us a genuine sense of national purpose (as opposed to the shoddy imitation of purpose that Bush has tried to make of the Iraq War.

Endorsements

I got an email today from John Kerry (as did three million other close personal friends) telling me he was going to endorse Barack Obama, and apparently he's already campaigning for him, with an appearance in South Carolina and some phone-ins to talk shows in Nevada. But probably more important to Obama's chances in the Nevada Caucuses was the Culinary Union's endorsement, and this article I happened across tells why. (South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson and a Congressman closely associated politically with Speaker Pelosi also endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, Gov. Bill Richardson dropped out of the race, not endorsing anyone.)

Chuck Todd, NBC's new political director, said on Keith that Hillary can afford to lose both Nevada and South Carolina, but she could really use at least a split going into Tsunami Tuesday. Obama must win the South Carolina primary. If he does, it proves he can attract black voters in the South, which gives him an advantage in the Southern states on TT. If he doesn't, it's going to cut into his credibility as a winner. I'm guessing that a victory in Nevada gives the victor an apparent advantage in the West and among Latinos.

And man, it's been hard to avoid the blather over the polls and the results in New Hampshire, including conspiracy theories. What little I've heard and perused tells me it's not that big a deal--the polls essentially got everything right except Hillary's surge, and that New Hampshire voters have done this before. It is a little scary how a glistening eye and a guy holding up an IRON MY SHIRTS sign close to election day can decide an election.

But what has impressed me the last few days is the lack of panic among Obama supporters and the follow-through on endorsements that were planned before New Hampshire. Tells me the support for Obama is real, and so is the belief that he can win.

This NY Times story suggests Obama could get more endorsements, this time from black leaders offended by Hillary's comments awkwardly making the point that the talk of Martin Luther King didn't get Civil Rights without the action of President LBJ. That is not playing well with black politicians in the South.

Pivot

I am not going to obsess about this, especially the polls. But--the Culinary Workers did endorse Obama, which is good news for his Nevada campaign.

That was the only story I read today on the election. But I couldn't help thinking (in the shower) that Hillary's narrow victory may well be most related to the somewhat surprising #1 issue in the exit polls of both party's primaries: the economy. People are worrying about the economy, and they went to a Clinton. Bill Clinton not only ran on that in 92, he delivered (or was the beneficiary of) some good economic times.

The economy is the issue Obama probably needs to pivot on, shaping his message to emphasize it. It's a very strong issue for Hillary since people give Prez Clinton credit for managing it in the 90s.

Okay, that's it. No more. Goodbye.

After New Hampshire

It's chaos. Hillary Clinton's surprise 2 point victory over Barack Obama throws this election season into complete chaos. Everything that seemed to be revealed by Iowa is called into question, probably until the final results on Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, and maybe not even then.

The Democratic race itself now has no shape, except as a two person contest, at least for the next month. If Obama had won by even 5 points, the endorsements would have started to roll in tomorrow, and the wave would keep building. Now the Culinary workers in Nevada, set to endorse him, are scratching their heads again. They are said to be a key to the Nevada caucus.

Hillary won her base constituency that Iowa said she'd lost: women and party Dems. The Obama organization lost out to the establishment party organization. The youth vote slipped back to its usual unpredictability--even whether it will show up at all.

The polls were spectacularly wrong, indicating a last minute surge, or more troubling, the race gap problem in which voters say they will vote for an African American candidate, but don't. The polls were not so wrong predicting John McCain's GOPer victory (though his margin decreased through the night to about 5 points) so race may be a factor. Ugly.

The questions that the New Hampshire results open up will not necessarily be answered in Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama still has to be favored.
The possibility that Hillary got traction with her last minute negative campaigning, and that of husband Bill and her usually negative staff, may make the next month Uglier.

In concession, Obama was eloquent, though adding only new phrases (Yes, we can) and emphasis (a New Majority) to his Iowa victory speech. In victory, Hillary's speech was great in tone and substance for its first half ("I have found my voice") and mostly meandering thereafter, stealing liberally from Obama.

As chaotic as the Dem contest is, the GOPers are in even greater confusion. They've had 3 state contests with 3 different winners, and may get yet another in South Carolina and another in Florida. Whereas the Democrats had record turnout in New Hampshire, the GOPers didn't even match 2004, when there was no actual contest.

I think I'm going to pull back from this electoral obsession--I really don't want to have to wallow in the muck and mire of the next month. On Feb. 5, I'm voting for Obama. I never thought we'd get the chance for the transformative, inspirational leader we will require to have a chance to save the world from the worst of the Climate Crisis. He's that hope. I don't see another.

New Hampshire Day

720PT--John Edwards is talking. The Edwards campaign lives in a world of its own, and every event is exactly the same, as if nothing around them was actually happening. It's arguably Edwards attacks on Hillary that energized women to defend her in the voting booth today, his focusing fire on her in the debate Saturday and especially his stupid comment that her tearing up was evidence she isn't tough enough. Meanwhile, he's at 17%, which is consistent with opinion polls, so this is definitely an Obama-Hillary race.

710pmPT--The difference for Hillary so far is the women's vote, which she lost in Iowa but which she's strongly winning in NH. My partner turned analyst said immediately that it was her tearing up, and the reaction to it in the media. I thought that would help her--it was unfair and sexist--but not to this extent. Still, the college town votes aren't in yet. A narrow victory for Obama is still a victory, but it will be interesting to see if the endorsements start coming in, especially the Nevada unions, as were expected when he was projected for a double digit win.

620pmPT--Surprising if not shocking so far: Hillary is holding onto a four point lead with some 36% of the votes counted. Exit polls indicate she's won on some issues, and some 14% didn't make up their mind who to vote for until today. But nobody expected her to win, including her own campaign, and her own husband. If she wins it will be major, and even if she leads on TV for the first few hours and comes in a close second, we'll hear "Comeback Kid" before the night is over.

If Obama's momentum is blunted a bit--though he is still likely to win the next two contests--the big question I have is whether his campaign's ground game was ready for prime time in New Hampshire. Hillary had the tested Kerry infrastructure getting out the vote today.

I'll also be curious to see the status of my theory of where the Independents went and why. Certainly John McCain's substantial and early victory suggests he got a lot of Independent votes.


A half hour or so before many of the voting places close-- though others are open an hour longer, some in urban areas--signs point to a big Obama victory. The final tracking poll from Reuters/Zogby has Obama by 13 points, voting turnout is reported to be very heavy, and exit polls are showing a lot of Independents voting in the Dem primary.

There's a little more mystery for GOPers. Though this same poll has McCain with a 9 point lead, reporters are saying the Romney campaign feels undecideds are swinging their way. If Romney falls short, he will be the first Massachusetts (former)governor or Senator to lose the New Hampshire primary. And one interesting finding from the exit polls has been released--showing major dissatisfaction among GOPers with the Bushite presidency. This could translate into bigger numbers for the only anti-war candidate on the GOPer ballot, Libertarian Ron Paul.

Key to New Hampshire

It's just a few hours before the polls open in most of New Hampshire (some have already voted.) The final poll at this hour, taken by the American Research Group Sunday and Monday shows Obama with a 9 point lead (down from 11 points), and at 40% of the total, followed by Hillary and Edwards. McCain has a 7 point lead over Romney, with Huckabee, Guiliani and Ron Paul.

Weather is forecast to be clear and bright, so turnout is expected to be high. The one unknown at the moment is which party will get the most Independent voters (they can vote in either party's primary but not both.) The nightmare scenario for McCain is that the Obama boom attracts so many Independents that his natural constituency is depleted enough to give Romney a narrow victory. The nightmare scenario for Obama is that all the talk of his runaway victory persuades too many Independents that their votes aren't needed, so they can afford to give McCain some help in the GOPer primary. But if those early voters in Dixville Notch are any indication, Obama has nothing to worry about. Out of 17 voters--12 Independents, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats--he got 7 votes. 3 0ther votes went to Democrats, but none to Hillary.

Right now to even meet expectations, Obama has to win pretty big, while McCain has to win. Hillary may have won back a few votes in the past two days, but she probably lost others. Reporters are detecting a Romney surge but several newspapers are reportedly trashing him in very strong terms. His saturation negative ads seem to have hurt him. If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say Obama wins by more than 10 points, maybe a lot more. And that McCain squeaks out a win of just a few percentage points--but he also could go bigger. But to make some real money I'd bet on Libertarian Ron Paul to come in fourth, above Giuliani. To meet expectations now, Huckabee has to come in a strong third. Anything over 12% and he gets a bump.

Obama may even get write-in votes in the GOPer primary. And a suggestion of how big this phenomenon is--and maybe how deep--there's a poll in Iowa taken after their caucuses matching Democratic candidates against Republicans. Obama obliterates them all: the closest race is with McCain (Obama wins by 17 points) and the worst drubbing is of Giuliani--Obama wins by 40 points.

Taking the Temperature

Judging from the polls and what reporters are saying, Obama is still plenty hot in New Hampshire. Their speculation now centers on how big a victory he'll have there tomorrow. (If he wins by less than 10 points, will their narrative be a Hillary resurgence?) On the GOPer side, the reporters are feeling a movement back to Mitt Romney, partly because Obama is attracting Independents who might otherwise have voted in the GOPer primary for McCain.

And of course they're all looking past New Hampshire. It's not clear where McCain goes if he does win there. A couple of polls show Huckabee with a large lead in the South Carolina primary. If Romney reemergences as the best of a bad lot in New Hampshire, that could be the end for McCain. And if he then wins in Michigan, he has some momentum going into Florida and the February states. But if McCain wins bigger than he's polling at the moment (he did that last time) then GOPer voters may take another look at him. But he'd almost have to win Michigan as well, because it's hard to see where else he posts another victory.

Guiliani is off the radar this week, campaigning virtually alone in Florida, which is supposed to propell him into Tsunami Tuesday, which includes primaries in New York and New Jersey. That's his last chance. So the GOPer scenario is still wide open, with the distinct possibility that they won't have a clear front-runner even after February 5.

The polls also show Obama is developing a large lead in South Carolina, so while Hillary has to campaign there to hold on to her endorsements from black political leaders in the state, her real resurgence--if it is to happen--will be on Feb. 5 in those Tsunami Tuesday primaries. That's where the Clinton influence on the Democratic Party mechanisms will have to work. Meanwhile Edwards hangs around to step in as an alternative should either of the other candidates falter.

As for Obama, he's become a phenomenon. Chris Matthews attended one of his recent speeches and he said that it was the best political speech he'd ever heard. Joe Scarborough said that there hasn't been an inspirational candidate like Obama since June 6, 1968, which was the day Bobby Kennedy died from gunshot wounds he suffered immediately after his victory speech from the California primary.

The 'False Hope' Example Hillary Can't Use

In Saturday's debate and on the stump, Hillary Clinton is making the argument that hope is fine, but that a candidate not ready to be President will raise "false hopes" by being too inexperienced to fulfill those hopes.

It's a reasonable argument, and there is a very good example which she knows very well, but that she can never use. It's Bill Clinton.

In 1992, it was (perhaps ironically) Bill Clinton who was the "change candidate." He was not only the young candidate--the first baby boomer to seriously seek the office--but he made "change" a major campaign theme. The other day, a reporter on TV said he counted how many times Barak Obama said the word "change" in one speech. A different reporter did the same thing with one of Clinton's debates with Bush the First. In both cases, they said "change" a lot.

After twelve years of Reaganistic Republicanism--with its ardent privatization and deregulation and hollowing out of needed government agencies, its championing of corporate power and policies of impoverishment, its lethal foreign adventures and war in Nicaragua, its corruption and abuses of power, and its demonization of political opponents and fostering of polarization--the country was in deep debt, the economy was wilting, the middle class endangered, the government threatened, and it was time for the kind of progressuve changes Bill Clinton articulated.

After decades near despair, his election was one of the sweetest moments of my life. We were able to breathe again. He was the "Man from Hope."

By the end of eight tumultuous years he had managed to lead us back from the brink, to reverse much of the destruction wreaked by 12 years of Republican rule, and put the country back on track and with a solid foundation to move ahead in the 21st century. On the other hand... We all know what threw his second term off track. But his first term also started disastrously.

Once in the White House, he attempted to move boldly, but he and his people failed to anticipate the powerful opposition to his attempt to reverse the ban of gays in the military by presidential order. His pencil thin Democratic majority in Congress gave him some early victories, but as other controversies and perceived disorganization allowed the Republican noise machine to blow mud on the waters, there were limitations and defeats.

The biggest defeat was on universal health care. This became an issue in the 1992 campaign mostly because of a single TV ad in Pennsylvania a year or so before, when Democrat Harris Wofford ran for the Senate seat that opened as a result of the tragic death of moderate Republican Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. In the ad, Wofford was seen outside an operating room or some such medical scene, asking why members of Congress get complete health care, and other Americans don't. Given little chance of winning at the beginning of his campaign, he was elected by 10 points, and suddenly universal health care became a winning issue.

The idea of universal health care was arguably Bill Clinton's most popular issue when he ran. It wasn't all "the economy." When he took office, it remained popular. He was so confident that Congress had to pass his plan that he branished a pen at a State of the Union address, and said he would use it to veto any plan that didn't include universal coverage.

But both Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't experienced enough in Washington politics to see the extent and the power of the opposition, particularly from powerful corporations and lobbyists. They weren't experienced enough to build coalitions in framing the plan, although the case can also be made that pretty much everyone--media included--believed that their plan would pass overwhelmingly, and that whatever mistakes they made were unforeseeable.

Partly because Clinton had raised hopes for change that he couldn't make, his popularity plummeted, and for this and other reasons--some probably more powerful than this one--the Democrats suffered their devastating off-year election defeat in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America swept into power, and swept many Democrats out (including Harris Wofford, who was defeated by newcomer Rick Santorum.) Democrats lost control of Congress, and have yet to fully regain it.

This is not an argument against or in favor of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, nor a knock against Barack Obama. If it wasn't possible to learn from other people's experience, we may as well forget about education. It's just, if you will, one of those curious ironies of political campaigns.

This is really the subtext of what Hillary Clinton means by experience--she lived through this nightmare, and eventually she and Bill Clinton survived and triumphed, though having done much less than they had hoped, or led those who elected them to hope.

But what she can't come out and say is, when an inexperienced change agent raises hopes and can't fulfill them, the immediate result can be disaster, and the attempt to survive the catastrophe will cause him to pull back on much of that change, and concentrate on what most needs to be accomplished that can be accomplished, and that can rehabilitate his political power. And the reason she knows this is it happened to her husband, and to her.

Polls and Other Pre-New Hampshire Notes UPDATED

Update 2: The USA today poll shows basically the same spread as CNN but this is the first to show Obama with more than 40% support. They have him at 41% vs. 28% for Hillary. Edwards is at 19%, about the same as in other polls. So that's the other part of this story--not only has Obama's lead grown but he's getting a higher proportion of the total field. Here's a summary of this poll and others announced Sunday. END of Update 2.

3pm PT: New polls are confirming a ten to twelve point lead for Obama in New Hampshire, including the CNN tracking poll which yesterday showed a tie. Their survey says Obama is gaining about 3 points a day, at the expense of both Hillary and Edwards. On the GOPer side, Huckabee is up a couple of points to 14% which may be good enough for third place, behind John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Rasmussen poll has a slightly larger lead for Obama, but otherwise is much the same. This poll was taken before the debate yesterday. If that changed anything, it won't show up until tracking polls tomorrow. A couple of other polls show the same Obama trend, but see the race as tighter. They agree that the order is Obama, Hillary, Edwards. END OF UPDATE.


Not all the New Hampshire polls show Obama will such a large lead--one of the latest has him up only a couple of points, while others show a tie with Hillary. But these polls are also consistent in not showing Huckabee with an appreciable Iowa bounce.

There are lots of stories about discontent and dissension among Hillary's top staff and monied supporters--but that's consistent with the predictable media narrative: the rise of Obama, the fall of Hillary. But if Hillary's staff is being criticized, it couldn't happen to nicer guys. And it is right now when we begin to see their true colors--when they're under pressure.

We've seen them when they were arrogant, now we see them being even nastier. They've already reportedly engaged in what they know is a false accusation about Obama's record on abortion. A similar argument was made before and they know what they are asserting is false: Obama had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood while a state legislator, and he voted "present" on some bills at their request. And the Clinton staff is desperately attacking from the Rabid Right, noting Obama's past statement on limiting mandatory minimum jail sentences. Shades of George Bush the First v. Dukakis and the old "soft on crime." Truly despicable.

Apparently that's also the opinion of a number of executive officers of AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union that endorsed Hillary Clinton, who signed an open letter protesting the negative ads targeting Barack Obama that their union is sponsoring--not only on the basis of being unauthorized and directed against someone who has always supported their union, but for being distorted and misleading:

"It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and the progressive community."