What a Night!

This is what I "hoped" for. The dimensions of Barack Obama's victory in South Carolina are astonishing. The numbers are mind-boggling. He got more than twice the votes as the second place finisher, Hillary Clinton. He was the first candidate in a contested primary to win over half the total votes--55%.

The sheer number of votes also reflects the number of voters he inspired to the polls. The turnout was huge, and in a state with a much higher number of registered Republicans than Democrats, Obama alone got more than the combined votes that John McCain and Mike Huckabee got in their S.C. primary last week. Obama's vote total alone was greater than the total of all votes in the 2004 Democratic SC primary.

He got 4/5 of African American voters, and he was even with the others among white men, winning about a quarter of the total white vote. He won most age groups and income groups, and he won young voters overwhelmingly, including more than half of the white voters under 30.

The exit polling was replete with revelations. Voters essentially repudiated the Billary attack strategy. They found Obama the most electable in November, and they wanted change more than anything else. But they also rated him first on how to handle the economy and foreign policy.

Once again Obama rose to the occasion in his victory speech.:

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.It's about the past versus the future.

It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

With a vision like that, is it any wonder that Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Barack Obama in a Sunday New York Times op ed (obviously written before the South Carolina results) entitled A President Like My Father:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible. We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama."

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Also published Sunday, though written earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle endorses Obama.:

America deserves better than these cycles of vengeance and retribution. Its possibilities are too great, its challenges too daunting, for partisan pettiness.

In a Jan. 17 meeting with our editorial board, Obama demonstrated an impressive command of a wide variety of issues. He listened intently to the questions. He responded with substance. He did not control a format without a stopwatch on answers or constraints on follow-up questions, yet he flourished in it.He radiated the sense of possibility that has attracted the votes of independents and tapped into the idealism of young people during this campaign. He exuded the aura of a 46-year-old leader who could once again persuade the best and the brightest to forestall or pause their grand professional goals to serve in his administration.

Of all the candidates who talk about change, Barack Obama has made the case most forcefully and most convincingly. He gets our endorsement for the Democratic nomination.

Obama is also being endorsed today by the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and St. Louis Post Dispatch.

But response is also coming in already to Obama's South Carolina victory--to the tune of half a million dollars an hour in online donations.

The response to Obama on television was weird--because not only the liberal commentators but the conservative ones--Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan--were praising him, and Joe Scarborough couldn't get over the text messages supporting Obama he was getting from conservative Republicans as well as liberal Democrats.

As for where the campaing goes and how Obama positioned himself in his politically brilliant as well as transformationally inspiring victory speech, I thought this comment by blogger Todd Beeton on MYdd was incisive: "Obama's speech is making clear how the Clintons' tactics this week really may have backfired on them: they played into the need for what Barack Obama offers, this sort of "new kind of politics" that until this week, was an amorphous concept. Obama doesn't even have to say "see what I mean, this is what I've been talking about" but it's the subtext of this speech. Hillary Clinton managed to seal the image of herself as the poster child for business as usual politics and played perfectly into Obama's hand. The question is will this fall-out spread throughout the country? Certainly the media, if MSNBC is any indication, is pitted against the Clintons on this score right now."

In fact it is hard to see what the Clintons do now. Bill has already tried to spin South Carolina as a racial victory, but that's not going down well. Their post-Iowa strategy of distortions has seemingly backfired, and at least has been exposed. Apparently Billary expected to lose, since neither remained in South Carolina, but the dimensions of this victory must have stunned them. Hillary gave a graceless concession of two seconds, and went into her stump speech, her voice noticeably tense. John Edwards, who got just under 20% of the vote, was his usual graceless self on election night, but this time he at least congratulated Obama in a sentence before launching into stories he's told before. Neither mentioned the victory for the Democratic party in this incredible turnout in a southern state. That so many African Americans voted is historic in itself.

All that's left for the Clintons is political infighting, back room stuff, strong-arming local party structures and unions. Obama warned his supporters that there is struggle ahead, at least for delegates. Mark J at MYdd makes the case for Clinton still having an advantage, because of her national lead.

But this victory could signal the flood of response I had hoped would come after New Hampshire, if Obama had won there. Now it might even be bigger, because Obama has weathered the worst the Clintons could throw at him (well, I'm sure they can be worse, and will be) and people have come out admiring him all the more. Remember, those endorsements came before these results were known. If this truly becomes a flood reflected in endorsements and poll numbers over the next ten days, then Obama has a great chance to be nominated. In fact, the nightmare for the Democratic Party is for Billary to win narrowly through political machinations, and stuff like counting her delegates in Michigan and Florida when Obama honored the party's de-certification and didn't have his name on the ballot. Then we're back in Bush v. Goreland.

I'm liking Obama's chances on February 5, and I am especially looking forward to the prospect of winning California. It's within reach. No, it won't be easy. But yes, we can.

Pre-Spinning South Carolina

I'm not going to quote polls because they've proven unreliable in the recent past, but they do affect expectations. Barack Obama is expected to win the South Carolina primary today. But what will he win? It depends in part on perception.

Clearly if Obama doesn't win, it hurts him greatly going into Tsuami Tuesday. But if people are buying Bill Clinton's latest pre-spin--and some of the media clearly are--then the margin of his victory doesn't matter as much as the percentage of the white vote he gets. In past primaries and caucuses, where the proportion of black voters in the state was lower, he got 35-37%. How will his percentage in South Carolina be judged? Now that it's officially a three-person contest, what percentage will signal that he can win enough white votes to not be ghettoized as the black candidate?

In this article, political scientists disagree on what the proportions will mean. At least one believes the Clintons are counting on marginalizing Obama as the black candidate: "There is a substantial residual of race-related fear, and President Clinton's frequent invocation of race/gender differences is tapping into it. Iowa and New Hampshire did not have the demographics to tempt Obama's opponents to play to racial identity, but from here on the demographics for this style of campaigning are very seductive. I look for continued hints, then denials and high road talk, then hints, etc."

The South Carolina results may answer a couple of race-related questions: how much do black voters believe that the Clintons are playing the race card, and how much do they resent it? And given Obama's race-neutral campaign, will white Democrats erase this issue by voting for Obama in at least the same percentage they did elsewhere?

Some polls show John Edwards (who won this primary in 2004) surging, largely from white voters, although some polls suggest he is taking votes from Obama, and others from Clinton. There's even the suggestion that if the Edwards surge continued Friday, that he could come in second, which would be a major embarrassment for Hillary (assuming she doesn't come in first.)

Another element to watch for is the extent of the turnout, which South Carolina Democrats believe will be record-breaking. That adds even more uncertainty to the outcomes.

Obama did a couple of smart things in the last few days of the campaign: he concentrated more on women voters, and he talked economics. There's always a bit of a lag between what gets reported locally or statewide and what gets reported nationally, especially when everybody is so focused on Bill Clinton. But if Obama got through to voters, he could be sealing the deal with undecideds.

At this point I'm way too not objective to be confident in what I'm sensing at this distance. All I can say is I'm "hoping" for a big--a really big--Obama victory.

That would mean that Obama and Hillary would go into Tsunami Tuesday more equally matched, with Hillary's recent momentum blunted. As was discussed on Keith Friday, the math is such that no candidate is going to come out of TT's round of primaries with enough delegates to claim the nomination. But the expectations game could mean the momentum game again. But first things first: South Carolina Democrats vote today.

Back and Forth Lash

A Washington Post story followed up on the unrest being caused by the Billary distortions:

Harpootlian, a prominent voice in South Carolina politics and a onetime Clinton supporter, said the Clintons' recent tactics have been "all about deceit."
"This is harmful to the party, it's harmful to the state. And I understand they want to win, but this is about -- should be about -- a competition of ideas, not who can pull the hammer harder," he said.

For some rank-and-file Democrats, the tack against Obama is prompting a reevaluation of Clinton and her husband. Bill Clinton gained enormous popularity among Democrats in the 1990s partly because of his ability to achieve tactical triumphs over Republicans. Now, watching the use of rough-edged tactics against a fellow Democrat, some of those who supported him then are having second thoughts.

"They're obvious distortions," said Ralph Byrd, a retired electrical engineer in Greenville, S.C., who voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. "We've had enough spin in the White House the last eight years, and we don't need any more. It's deliberate distortion that we don't need."

And even in its editorial endorsing Hillary, the New York Times commented:

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

Joining the chorus is former Clinton Sec. of Labor Robert Reich, who begins a blog entry (jeez, he's uses a Blogger template just like me, except I'd never use that one):

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party.

Moreover, columnist E.J. Dionne recalled a moment when another candidate referred to Reagan kindly, and gave credit to his ideas, as Billary accuse Obama of doing. The candidate was Bill Clinton in 1991. "I have been thinking about that episode ever since Hillary Clinton's campaign started unloading on Barack Obama for making statements about Reagan that were, if anything, more measured than Bill Clinton's 1991 comments." Dionne writes in the Washington Post. "Obama's not particularly original insight was a central premise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Clinton argued over and over that Democrats could not win without new ideas of their own."

After joining in the criticism of Billary for distortion and division, Dionne puts the whole charge in the proper perspective: And with both Clintons on record saying kind things about Reagan, why go after Obama on the point? Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander. "

Now as the voting day comes nearer in South Carolina, the Clinton campaign has withdrawn their latest attack radio ad, and the Obama campaign has withdrawn its response. But that often happens this close to voting, and doesn't mean much for the future. They called one truce, after all, and Billary broke it immediately. I wonder however if those scurrilous direct mails are going out again, accusing Obama of being weak on choice. Hillary's hope in SC is women, and also in siphoning off enough African Americans (now largely for Obama) and white voters (now splitting for Edwards) with appeals like the new radio ad featuring Bill Clinton, talking about the good economic times when he was President, and saying Hillary will do it again. This is their ultimate argument and could move some undecideds their way--if Bill has any credibility left.

Who's your wonk? Speaking of the economy, Congress and the Smirk agreed on a quick economic stimulus package Thursday which more closely resembles the proposal Barack Obama made a couple of weeks ago than Hillary's, although by the time the package was being negotiated, Hillary had come around to Obama's position on rebates. Obama said that the package should have included extension of unemployment benefits, which he also proposed.


Who's your GOPer? I didn't watch the Republican debate--I saw a moving performance by talented high school kids of Arthur Miller's The Crucible instead. But I did see some of the MSNBC pundits afterwards, and they thought Romney won the debate, hands down. Elsewhere on the web I've seen similar opinions, though Hotline thought McCain did well but so did Romney. Apparently they all mention Hillary many times. The MSNBCers talked about how Romney is running as an outsider, so much like GOPer Obama that he used one of Barack's signature lines. (But then Hillary does that, too, and now Obama has begun talking about being ready on Day One, Hillary's big deal.) They see Romney as drawing a sharp contrast with Hillary and maybe winning. Somebody said that Democrats seeing how enthused the GOPers are to run against Hillary--it helps them raise money for one thing--that this helps Obama.
(Interesting that MSNBC had Chris Matthews running the post-debate show without Keith, and that Keith will pair with somebody else for the South Carolina primary coverage, and will do the next Dem debate by himself.)

Anyway, it does seem that if Romney wins Florida, he is likely to win the GOPer nomination. Nobody gives Rudy a chance anymore, and McCain is already having money troubles, so it's hard to see how he remains competitive on Tsunami Tuesday if he doesn't win Florida. Even then he has to hope for a big cash infusion. This is apparently not just his problem, but a problem for all Republicans--the enthusiasm to contribute to their campaigns just isn't there. Which is why Romney could still win it all.

The Backlash Continues--and Extends to Gender

The backlash against the Billary distortions of Barack Obama's statements and record continue--even as those distortions continue, with a Clinton ad in South Carolina that repeats what various commentators are calling simply a lie: that Obama praised the good ideas of Reaganistic Republicans. Latest to weigh in is the non-partisan factcheck.org, which also details this Clintonian distortion.

But a little noticed distortion by the Clinton campaign that apparently was effective in turning women voters away from Obama in New Hampshire is now being exposed--and causing its own backlash. The Clintons got what the Washington Post describes as "two dozen" prominent women to sign an open letter faulting Obama for being "soft on abortion rights." Now three of those same women have issued another letter proclaiming that Obama is "strongly pro choice," and one of the signers--Katie Wheeler, a former state senator--has called out the Clinton campaign for misleading her and issuing this lie:

"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

On the heels of this comes a video now on YouTube made by Lorna Brett Howard, former President of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization of Women, where she also worked with Planned Parenthouse, and she is currently on the board and the political action committee of a large pro-choice organization in New York. She has personal knowledge of Obama's strong pro-choice record in Illinois, and says that later when the call went out to U.S. Senators to help fight against the South Dakota legislation to criminalize abortions, only one Senator answered the call and helped: not HC of New York, but Barack Obama.

What makes this statement powerful at this moment is that she was a Hillary supporter, who says she witnessed Hillary falsely telling women in Iowa that Obama was weak on choice as a state senator, when Howard knew for a fact he wasn't from having worked with him at the time, and then she was shown a direct mail piece from the Clinton campaign making the same charges in New Hampshire. At that point she switched her support from Hillary to Obama. "This line of attack on an issue I care about so deeply is not acceptable to me," Howard said. She ends her video statements with the words: "Barack Obama, 100% pro-choice, 100% honest."

The apparent basis for the Clinton claims has to do with votes in the Illinois state legislature when Obama voted "present" on bills concerning choice. But this claim has long been known to be specious--I saw it debunked at least three months ago-- and was fact-checked once again today.

In South Carolina, Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic party chairman in that state and friend of Billary, said recent distortions by the Clintons are "reprehensible." Asked to respond, Bill Clinton blamed the media and the Obama campaign. Bill is alone in the state at the moment, as Hill campaigns elsewhere. He is already spinning the outcome as being about race.

Meanwhile, the Political Wire suggests it knows what Hillary and Edwards talked about at their post-debate meet: Hillary told him she has more dirt on Obama.

Among the GOPers, the Wire reports that not just the Huckabee campaign but the two-primary winner John McCain's campaign is having money problems, while the cash-strapped Rudy may be in free fall in Florida. That leaves Romney as the man with the moolah to sustain a campaign. A couple of polls have Romney and McCain fighting for the lead in Florida. So John Edwards annointing McCain as the GOPer nominee may be as accurate as his assessment of who the Dem nominee will be. (But one poll suggests Edwards is climbing in South Carolina, and may be in striking distance of finishing second.)

Gov. Ed Rendell of PA endorsed Hillary, while two other South Carolina newspapers and the New York Observer endorsed Obama:

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America. ...

It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.

And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world. Because of who he is and what he stands for, a former constitutional law teacher with few ties to the Washington establishment yet a sophisticated respect for it, Mr. Obama stands the best chance of restoring the essential relationship between power and the American people. He is not flanked and blocked by an existing, entrenched power structure; his words are not muddied by layers of handlers; he still says what he means.

Backlash

The Billary attacks on Obama are receiving a backlash in several areas. It seems a long time ago now that the other Senator from Illinois referred to those attacks as "swiftboating." Now the man who was the target of the Swift Boat attacks, John Kerry, has characterized such attacks the same way.

This story leading with the Kerry email also cites a couple of journalists calling out the Clintons: On Tuesday, ABC News' Jake Tapper reported that Bill Clinton has been "spreading demonstrably false information," while Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn provided a rare conclusion for the political press: "Bill and Hillary Clinton have lied brazenly about Obama's recent statement about Ronald Reagan." Here's a link to Zorn's column. These weren't the only ones.

Obama himself suggests in an interview that the emails Obama was asked about in a debate--suggesting he is really a Muslim, etc.--are part of a "systematic political strategy," although he says he does not know who is behind it. The Obama campaign announced a South Carolina truth squad to combat distortions.

For what it's worth, a sampling of online comments plus live reaction suggests to me that the backlash has gone beyond politicians and the media. The Billary tactics are reminding people of the bitter divisions and sniping of the 90s involving the Clintons. It's tapping into the "shrill Hill" as a polarizing figure identity that was a major problem for her earlier. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in South Carolina, and whether it gets enough traction to affect the final few polls in the Tsunami Tuesday states.

Other news affecting the campaign: Fred Thompson dropped out of the GOPer race without endorsing anyone yet. And in the realm of maybe important, maybe not, a report that after yesterday's debate, Hillary had a brief closed door meeting with John Edwards.

South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State, endorsed Obama. The editorial said in part:

The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.

Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.

Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.

He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.
Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.

And America certainly has things to get done. From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.

He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.

Debate Reaction Without A Single Boxing Metaphor

Tonight's Democratic debate was about as schzoid as is possible, and reflects the impossible situation of these candidates: none can fail to respond to attacks, yet they cannot appear mean, defensive or negative; to regain advantage, candidates feel it necessary to attack candidates doing better, but again they can lose more than they gain by appearing mean, dishonest, embittered or unfair.

The first part of the debate featured attacks and counterattacks, either fresh or reinterated from the campaign trail. Most of these were between Hillary (the official representative of Billary) and Obama, but Edwards chimed in, most often attacking Obama. Much of the second half, when they were all seated, was as conciliatory as the standing half was confrontational. Weird, but I'm sure CNN is pleased: good TV, by their dubious standards.

John Edwards had a good debate, at least in talking about the issues and his positions. He did himself no favors piling on in what he should know is the spurious issue of Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, and I thought Obama explained how that works there pretty well--it's a way to signal support for a bill but dissatisfaction with one of its provisions, special if not unique to that legislature. When Hillary raised this, Obama countered her very well, since she made the mistake of mentioning that he voted "present" on a bill which he had in fact sponsored. If these folks are actually grownups, they'll stop using what they know is bullshit just because it sounds good.

Hillary had good moments articulating her positions, as did Obama. But when Hillary was attacking, she went too far--she was hissed by the crowd. We all have our immediate post-debate opinions and it will take a few days (or even until after the primary) for the Conventional Wisdom on this debate to be sorted out, but I have a feeling that these attacks are going to rebound on Hillary. Obama probably did himself good in South Carolina at least by defending himself well. He may also have blunted the Clintons double-teaming by calling out the ex-Prez, and saying pointedly that he wasn't always sure which Clinton he's running against.

If the Clintons have been successful in making this a black/white race, then Obama won't gain much by winning South Carolina, as he is expected to do because of the presumed majority African American participation in the primary. But on any account, if he loses it would be very bad for his prospects.

If all the chatter coming out of South Carolina is about race, and unless the Clintons do or say something that really screws them during the pre-TT week, there won't be time for any emphasis on Hillary to develop. The backlash against her, if there is one, may not be obvious in the South Carolina voting. And contrary to the New Hampshire primary, voters in those other states are likely to be influenced by polls, which mostly show Hillary ahead.

Some people online who are more directly aware of visual imagery said that Obama looked presidential. There were times he looked and sounded like the only grown up in the room. He did look uncomfortable in the middle of those attacks, but I'm not sure that hurts him. His balancing act was to defend himself without losing his emphasis on vision, and he kept making a point that seemed lost on commentators but I don't think will be lost on voters: that being honest in a campaign is important, because it shows you will govern honestly.

I've been known to give people too much credit for the ability to see through spurious and scurrilous attacks, and maybe I'm being naive about it now. But unless you are prepared to believe that Obama would fail to commit himself on a bill he sponsored to protect children against violence, you have to see Hillary's attack as beneath contempt. And if you do believe it, I don't think I'm the one who is naive.

Both Cops Now


At Dr. Martin Luther King's Church on Sunday, Barack Obama emphasized King's call for unity:

"If Dr. King could love his jailer, if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds and erase the empathy deficit that exist in our hearts," Obama said.

But that doesn't mean he's going to stay silent when his opponents are lying about him.

“You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview taped Sunday and set to air Monday. “He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate.”

Snow Job

God didn't want Mike Huckabee to win after all. Snow in places that have no snow plows may or may not have dampened the Huckster's turnout, but John McCain was able to win in South Carolina. (Count the puns, I don't care.)

This makes McCain the GOPer favorite, especially when (as I predict will happen) Fred Thompson drops out and endorses McCain. Money will start flowing McCain's way, fueled by the disdain for Romney. It sets up an interesting dynamic for November, if two old faces square off in a change election moment. I don't know how McCain expects to sell Iraq to a public deeply set against it, but if Hillary is the nominee it's going to be tense.

On the Dem side, John Edwards ran such a one note campaign that it's hard to see what he does now but remain John "a noun, a verb and a millworker's son" Edwards for the duration. Unfortunately he is unlikely to bow out and swing his supporters to Obama, but if he really cares about change, he will--and the sooner, the better.

The House Wins

Confounding even the modest amount of conventional wisdom, a huge caucus turnout in Nevada--more than 100.000-- went for Hillary by about 5 points. She remained very strong with women and apparently polled better among Latinos. However, the actual delegates--as in New Hampshire--were about even between Hillary and Obama [update: Obama actually got one more delegate in Nevada ]. Hillary had been up by around 25 points for a long while, but the Culinary Union endorsement of Obama was seen to give him the edge in recent weeks.

There's a disquieting account of strong-arm tactics by Hillary's people, and Bill's personal politiking in a caucus room as voters gathered--either a rules violation or very close to it. Along with the Billary politics of distortion and fear, and a last minute Barack Hussein Obama robocall. It seems the Clinton machine learned from Iowa that a caucus can be managed, or bullied. But Hillary's strength among Latinos is itself worrisome (although it's probably more accurate to say Billary's), as is--further along the line--this evidence of a severe black/white racial divide over Obama in the deep South. (In Nevada, Obama got about half the white vote, and 80% of the black vote.)

John Edwards did poorly--due in part to the 15% viability rule, he got about 5% total.

And some of these numbers may yet turn out to be bullshit--the official figures don't reflect the actual popular vote, and I'm not sure what the entrance poll percentages mean, except they are more likely to reflect what people said going in. Who knows what this means? But overall, this is going to look like a Hillary victory, and the sense of her inevitability again will affect future elections. Obama may have to pull off a big win in South Carolina to offset it a bit, and that's now going to be harder. The courage that people need to accept the possibility of transformative change I believe was sorely wounded by not only Obama's loss in New Hampshire, but his loss in the face of universal expectations of a big win. Now the Billary politics of ugliness is chipping away, inciting people to vote from their fears. Actually, my vote for Obama is a vote not only of my hopes but from my fears--that this election is the last chance I'm going to see for positive transformative change.

The last few weeks have made one thing clear: Bill Clinton ain't going to be no roving ambassador in a Hillary administration. And it's not going to be a vice president running things from behind the scenes this time. Jonathan Alter in Newsweek writes of Ted Kennedy and others complaining to Bill Clinton about his attacks on Obama. The article also quotes Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could." People seem to know and a lot of people see to want a Billary presidency. This kind of takes the bloom off the first woman thing.

Salvation Saturday

Tomorrow Nevada Democrats caucus, South Carolina Republicans vote in their primary. Chastened by their faulty judgments about New Hampshire, and helped by a hard to read caucus system, the media muted their predictions about the Democrats. Hillary leads narrowly in a couple of polls, and according to the reporter you pick, things are either moving her way or they are moving Obama's way in the final hours. The Clinton people are already making excuses for why they lose if they lose, but they did that in New Hampshire, too. Bill has been angry, as he was in the final New Hampshire days. Hillary, instead of tearing up at a lunch counter, appeared on Tyra Banks talk show--which needless to say many men have never heard of--where she talked about getting through Bill's infidelities with prayer and concentration on what was best for her. So their game plan is the same.

One ventured opinion that seems to have some numbers behind it is that if there is a huge turnout, it favors Obama, but not even that is certain. Democratic party officials were variously quoted as expecting 30,000 participants and hoping for 60,000. However, if you hear estimates tomorrow of anything over 40,000 participants, it looks pretty good for Barack. But both the low and high figures quoted add up to many new participants, and nobody knows how that will go.

Conventional wisdom on the meaning of the outcome in Nevada is that a Hillary victory is big for her, but a loss is bigger. Obama figures to go into Tsunami Tuesday with the final victory, in South Carolina. If he can win in Nevada as well, there could be movement in his direction. Nothing like the wave that looked to be building when a double digit victory in New Hampshire seemed likely, but enough to make Bill even madder.

In South Carolina among the Republicans, McCain and Huckabee are virtually tied in the latest polls, and movement is said to be towards Huckabee, but an unusual snowstorm is forecast for a part of the state where a lot of his Evangelical supporters live, so this one may depend on what they used to call an act of God.

CW on this is that McCain gets a huge boost if he wins, a huge blow if he loses, but if Huckabee wins, it's almost as good as if Thompson were to win: in other words, utter chaos. In another state with more Evangelicals than the norm, if Huckabee loses, he's probably finished. (There are GOPer caucuses in Nevada, too, but Mitt Romney is about the only one who campaigned there.)

Stories on final Dem campaign appearances in Nevada were again contradictory--one reporter said Hillary was getting large, enthusiastic crowds, another said her appearances have been lackluster. Obama however was said to be upbeat and joking, though his wit had a sharper edge:

Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night's debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork _ something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.
"Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, `Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"

Rather than dwell on the continuing distortions by the Clinton campaign (Okay, one of them--in a thoughtful answer to a question, Barack Obama said that the GOP was the party of ideas for ten or fifteen years in the 80s, they went against the conventional wisdom, they were bad ideas and now they're stale ideas. But taking the "party of ideas" sentence out of the statement, Hillary and Bill both criticized Obama for saying the GOP was the party of good ideas. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to believe that? Not that they would say it--because they did, and it's fully in character--but that anyone would believe that Obama, a lifelong Democrat with endorsements from major Democrats, would say that. Meanwhile, Hillary is saying nice things about Joe Lieberman, a former Dem who now supports McCain.), I'll end with a few selected quotes from Obama's interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board.

Asked his reaction to an angry outburst by the former president - who in Oakland Wednesday suggested the at-large system was "rigged" - Obama laughed. "This caucus process was designed by the Democratic Party of Nevada in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee," said Obama. "I, as somebody who's not part of the establishment of the Democratic Party, had no say in the rules ... (but) individuals like Harold Ickes, Clinton's key adviser, were a part of making these rules. And some of the people who filed the lawsuit were a part of making these rules.

"President Clinton now suggests they didn't understand the rules that they designed," Obama said. "This is coming from the campaign of extraordinary detail and thoroughness and experience. "But somehow, they didn't know what these rules were," Obama said. "Six days before the caucus - two days after I received the endorsement of the Culinary Workers (Union), suddenly these rules are grossly unfair and a violation of 'one person, one vote.' And a lawsuit is filed that would disenfranchise mostly Latino maids, dishwashers and bellhops." Obama said that was "an implausible argument before the court rules. I am glad the court bought none of it. I think it took about an hour for the court to decide that this lawsuit had no merit. "And I think at this point we should go out and persuade the caucus-goers of Nevada who the best candidate is," he said.


Here are more Obama answers in the "Quotes Only" part of the Chronicle story:

On whether he has the experience to handle the toughest challenges as president:
"If the question is, do I have the internal fortitude to make tough decisions and take on tough issues, I would say throughout my career I have dealt with very difficult issues. Sen. Clinton keeps touting her experience, but has no management experience that I can see in her resume. It's presumed through osmosis, as a consequence of having been first lady.

But I would point to this campaign, where I went from zero, starting from scratch, to compete with a legendary political organization 20 years in the making built by a former president. That's not an accident. It shows my capacity to put together a team and point it in a direction that I think is important.

"The skill sets that are required to move the country are not different from the skill sets that are required to move somebody across the table. It means listening to them, it means having very clear principles - what you're willing to fight for, where you're willing to compromise. And it means being willing to walk away from the table. "Those skill sets are the ones, I think, I am most confident I can apply ... where I think I have an edge over Sen. Clinton, who I think has a tendency - when confronted with somebody who doesn't agree with her - to demonize them or push them away."


On his foreign policy experience:
"There's going to be a lot of repair work to be done internationally. This is an area where Sen. Clinton and others have suggested they are most concerned about my experience. It's actually the area where I most trust my judgment, because I've lived, traveled, have family overseas. If you look at my track record over the last three or four years on big issues - like opposition to the war in Iraq, the need to engage directly with Iran, our approach toward Pakistan and putting all the eggs in the Musharraf basket - on big strategic issues, I've been right and the conventional thinking in Washington has been wrong."

On how an Obama presidency would change the country:
"The day I'm elected and sworn in, not only does this country look at itself differently, but I think the world looks at itself differently. And that's not just symbolic. When I go to a poor country and talk to them about America's obligations, but also that poor country's obligations to help itself by dealing with corruption or to reduce ethnic tensions, I do with credibility as somebody with a grandmother who lives in a small village in Africa without running water. If I convene a meeting of Muslim leaders ... I do so with the credibility of somebody who lived in the most populous Muslim country on Earth for four years and has a sister who is half-Indonesian. ... That will allow me ... to be an effective spokesperson for a different version of American foreign policy."

It Didn't Last Long

The amity was over quickly, as the Clintons returned to appropriating Rabid Right Rovian tactics against Barack Obama today. Distortions of his health care plan continue, and now this new wrinkle, as described by Obama to a Las Vegas crowd:

"You may be getting some fliers, you may be getting some phone calls from the Hillary Clinton camp saying she will solve the social security crisis through fiscal responsibility while Barack Obama wants a trillion dollar tax hike," the Illinois senator told a jammed crowd Wednesday morning at the convention center in this booming Las Vegas suburb. Obama then explained he would bolster social security by removing the current cap on the very highest of earners and not be a general tax raise as implied by Clinton. "Maybe she thinks the top 3% of earners are average American taxpayers, but I don't."

Calling Repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy a "tax increase" is a Rabid Right standby. They've had a patent on this bullshit since Goldwater at least. And suggesting that middle class taxpayers will pay more social security tax if this plan were enacted is the same cynical dishonesty. Furthermore, should Hillary become President, she's pre-empting an alternative she might well have to consider.

As for the past two days of apparently burying the race hatchet as mutually damaging, columnist Mark Shields has a different opinion. Here is what he said on the PBS News Hour today: "I had six senior Democrats this week, unaligned in this campaign, independently volunteer to me that they thought it was part of the campaign strategy of the Clinton campaign to get this in to make it a black-white race going into February 5th."

The calculus is, Shields said later in the broadcast, that there are simply more white voters than black voters in the Democratic primaries. The Michigan exit polls suggests that black voters may see this for what it is, and if they come to believe what Shields says is the Clinton strategy, and Hillary ends up the nominee, she and the Democratic party are in big trouble. She's got enough enemies without alienating the single most dependable constituency the Democrats have.

A Good Night For Democrats

After the Democratic debate in Nevada and the Republican primary in Michigan with the third winner in three contests, it feels great to be a Democrat. Trapper John liveblogging the debate at Kos said it best: "We've got three potential presidents up there -- they've got Lord of the Flies."

The three Democratic candidates came together to make the Democratic party stronger going into the decisive part of the primary campaigns and especially into the general election against the Republicans. This will help whoever the nominee will be, and also it will help elect a more Democratic and progressive Congress, which each will need to govern effectively.

Individually, I thought each had moments that helped them and hurt them, but on balance they all helped themselves. I feel better, although I don't think I'll soon forget how the Clintons behaved when they felt they were losing, in contrast to how Obama has behaved since his loss in New Hampshire.

As an Obama partisan now, I was glad to hear him focus on the economy in his first few answers. He's matched Hillary with his own economic stimulus plan. And he gave a great answer when asked about that Clinton pollster quote that Latinos don't vote for black leaders: We didn't have that problem between blacks and Latinos in Illinois--they all voted for me."

Michigan gave Romney his first primary victory. It's impossible to predict what it will do to their race but it is likely to shake things up a bit for South Carolina. We're rooting for Fred Thompson there, and then Rudy in Florida. (I'm also rooting for Rudy so I can call my blog entry "Rudy Tuesday.") Let's go for the record--five contests, five different winners! Some of the pundits are wondering where Romney wins again, and others say that in a fractured field he wins because he's got the money to go on, in his personal bank accounts.

There was voting on the Democratic side, but Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot, because Obama and Edwards dropped out when the Democratic Party sanctioned Michigan for violating its rules. So it was Hillary v. Uncommitted, and she avoided disaster by getting more than 50% of the vote, but the exit polls--for what they're worth these days--suggest she ought to be worried. She won a majority among women, older voters and committed Democrats. But she lost young voters, Independents and upper income, was about even among men, and lost black voters by a stunning margin--she got less than 30% of their votes, while Uncommitted got 70%.

The questions in the Nevada debate were not as bad as they usually are, and with just three candidates sitting at a table, the interplay and followup was
good. But while they got asked one Nevada question--the proposed nuclear storage dump at Yucca Mountain, which they all oppose--the NBCers failed to ask about the attempt by Hillary's campaign to change the rules of the caucus voting, to outlaw the "at large" sites. It's assumed these sites will favor casino employees, but no objection was made until Obama got two key union endorsements. I'd like to hear that debate.

Stop the Silliness

Today Barack Obama held a press conference, at which he said:

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”

"I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”

At last some sanity. At last, an adult.

Hillarious

It keeps getting uglier. Now the Clintons are amping up their charges that Obama's been inconsistent in his opposisition to the Iraq war, and Obama's people are calling it swift-boating.

Meanwhile, on the "positive side," Hillary's hired an advertising man for Wal-Mart to re-brand her.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and Al Gore doesn't lead a third party ticket, I'll vote for her. I learned my lesson on election night in 1968, watching Nixon eke out a narrow win over Humphrey. I'd had my heart broken when my candidate was assassinated, and my party sent police to beat up my contemporaries. I filled out an absentee ballot and voted for Robert Kennedy anyway, although I'm not sure I even mailed it.

But not voting in that election was a mistake. Hubert was a jerk by then, but Nixon was a liar to even himself. I doubt we would have still been in Vietnam for another 6 years if Humphrey had been President, and that's the most important outcome.

So I'll grit my teeth and cast my ballot to hire her, and then I'll turn my back on the whole thing. I'd have no hope for the future whatsoever, beyond some repair of the immense damage done by eight years of Smirk. Her campaign is already stinking up the joint, and it's putting more distance between me and respect for both Clintons every day.

Her staff is weighted towards arrogant thugs. Her supporters are divisive, attacking others for sexism while defending or engaging in racial politics. Now she's accusing "the Obama campaign" of keeping alive the controversy over her remarks about Martin Luther King and LBJ. Yet it is her own words that haunt her. One of her supporters cries that the New York Times and other media are misquoting her, lifting her remark out of context. That does happen to be a nasty habit of our arrogant, theme-driven, cliche-making media. But here is the full quote as he produces it:

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

So this is supposed to make it better. Actually, I grasped the point she was trying to make the first time--it may take a village but in the end it takes a President, and in a narrow framework, I agree. That's why we need a President who will lead on the Climate Crisis in particular, but also many other issues.

It's a metaphor for a legitimate if insulting point, which is-- Obama (King): poet, dreamer, who can't get things done. Hillary (LBJ): no poetry but ready to execute. There's no real evidence this is so, but it does state an assertion of why she should get the nomination.

People are upset because she disses Dr. King, who did a lot more than make speeches, when and where even making speeches was pretty courageous and important. They are upset by the implication that black people are dreamers who aren't competent executives, and that black people always need white people to do the heavy lifting. Maybe that's unfair, and I'd like to believe she didn't mean it that way. But considering some of the people around her, I can't really be sure.

But what really gets me about this "in context" quote is " when he [LBJ] was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do..." Recall the context of this statement--the New Hampshire primary, when Hillary was accusing Obama of inspiring "false hopes." Hope is great, but you want action. So every time she used the word "hope" it sounds suspiciously like code. And here we have another dreamer apparently, President Kennedy, who--let's straighten out her grammar for her--hoped to pass Civil Rights legislation, but apparently he failed. It took experienced pro LBJ to do it.

Well, it's true that JFK proposed the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act. But I wouldn't exactly call it a failure of leadership. It was more along the lines of somebody killed him.

So for my money, her expanded quote not only insults Martin Luther King, Jr., it insults John F. Kennedy.

Meanwhile her "surrogates" continue the "experience" drone. Gloria Steinem repurposes this as a feminist issue, insisting that a woman with as little experience as Obama would never be considered for President. Only a man.

Which apparently means that this society hates the idea of a woman President so much that it would even rather have an unqualified black man. Think about that for a minute.

Another underlying assumption is that because Hillary has so much experience, not even this male chauvanist power structure can deny her.

Shades of the vitriolic wing of womens lib in the 70s. Steinem ignores the uncomfortable fact that most of Hillary's "experience" is of being what she was so caustic about in the past: a wife. Hillary was the wife of the President of the United States, after being the wife of a Governor. She can claim all she wants to claim about what she did there, but on the face of it, this is the qualification for President of Laura Bush.

Hillary was never elected to anything until the year 2000. Before that, she had accomplishments on various issues, as did Barack Obama. Obama was elected to the state legislature in 1997. Hillary has roughly four more years than he does in the U.S. Senate, while he has roughly three more years as an elected public servant.

On the other side, you have a guy in the White House who failed at everything until he became Governor, and 6 years later ran for President, with no foreign policy experience and a well-earned reputation as a dim bulb. If the inexperienced G.W. Bush hadn't gotten anything done, this country would be a far better place.

Hillary knows about raising false hopes. As the designated Clinton in charge of the plan, she hoped to bring universal health care to the U.S. in 1993 when it was a very popular idea, and she failed. I don't think it was all her fault, but the fact is, the Clintons raised hopes, and those remain failed hopes, and people like me are affected by that failure.

It's not easy being a woman seeking power. They're damned for being too masculine and too feminine. But Hillary has shown the ability to play manipulative gender games when she feels she has to. That New Hampshire debate when she said the charge that she wasn't likeable hurt her feelings--did you see her body language? She was going all girlish. At first it seemed like she was making fun of the question, and clearly Obama thought the question was unworthy when he said, "Hillary, you're likeable enough." Some women took that as insulting. But I watched Hillary's body language--she acted like a high school girl who had just been complimented. And I do mean acted.

What Hillary has the most experience at is being attacked. That's clear from her defensiveness, her scattershot attacks, and from the kind of people she has around her to protect her by attacking and demeaning her opponents. Nixon had that kind of experience as well. It's not in and of itself much of a qualification.

I didn't see Hillary's Meet the Press performance today but I gather from several stories she spent most of the time attacking Obama. I don't doubt that the Obama campaign is guilty of some sub rosa guff, and their adoption of the "Yes, We Can" slogan in Nevada is something close to code for Latinos (In Spanish, it was the chant during the demonstrations against the Bush policies on immigration and illegals.) But I'm ready to endorse this statement by Obama, made in a conference call to reporters responding to Hillary's TV show:

"I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election."

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."

Obamamania

It's hit New Hampshire. Accounts of large enthusiastic crowds for Obama, smaller ones for Hillary. According to some polls, Obama was already trending upward in New Hampshire before Iowa. Now he's pulling ahead: American Research tracking poll has him up by 12 points: he's beating Edwards among men, and Hillary among women. Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 10 points. They have Obama leading among Democrats by five points and among Independents (40% of New Hampshire's electorate) by 16 points.

"If we cast aside our fear and cast aside our cynicism and we stand up for what we genuinely believe, this is our moment, this is our time, you can feel it, you can see it," Obama told an overflow crowd in Nashua.

So far the polls I've seen haven't shown much of an Iowa bounce for Huckabee among NH GOPers. But more info on this should be available Sunday. Meanwhile, there are debates today for both parties' contenders. It may be Hillary's last chance to affect the outcome Tuesday, and Huckabee's only chance for GOPer voters to take a good look at him. He's still polling in the 11-12 % range.

Katherine Hall Jameison was on Bill Moyers last night. I always listen to what she has to say about the intersection of politics and media. She made a good point that commentators (especially Chris Matthews) who kept saying that two-thirds of the Iowa caucus voters voted against Hillary. She pointed out that the vote was for someone, not against anyone, and could indicate a preference among acceptable alternatives. She's right, especially this year. Polls show Democrats are pleased with the candidates running.

Where I differ from her is her assertion that the prediction that Huckabee will do less well in New Hampshire because of fewer Evangelical voters is an unfounded extrapolation. I think the data from Iowa entrance/exit polls pretty strongly indicates that Huckabee got most of his support from Evangelicals, and scant votes from GOPers who aren't. If he's going to be really viable, he'll have to do well in more groups than one.

Ironies of Change

Today everybody is a change candidate: Edwards, Hillary, even Mitt Romney join Obama and Huckabee. Well, they're all right--none of them is Bush.

Which is actually a big problem for Huckabee. If he was Gomer Bush, he'd be on his way to the nomination. But without establishment GOPer credentials, he's going to have to win it on his own, opposed not only by Democrats but by much of his own party.

But according to the persuasive E.J. Dionne, Huckabee may represent a change in the Evangelical community. In his conversation with Keith today, he points to a number of popular grassroots EC leaders who are folding in compassion for the poor and stewardship of the earth--in other contexts, traditional Christian constructions--to their political portfolios. However, at this point the EC community is split, and if Huckabee can unite it under a more capacious banner, that would be change.

Hillary Clinton would like to be the Democratic change candidate. The irony for her is that in 1992, Bill Clinton was the change candidate. I remember one network newser counting the number of times he said "change" in one of his debates with Bush the First, just as I heard one reporter today count the number of times Barack Obama said it in a speech.

On her first day in New Hampshire, Hillary and her people downplayed the significance of Iowa--they were never going to win there, it's a caucus not a primary, it's like running for mayor in a middle sized city. I'm not happy Hillary lost in Iowa, but I am happy Howard Wolfson and others on her staff lost. I'd like to see them lose their jobs.

But Hillary also sounded the theme she's likely to continue pushing, a judo move not on "change" which hasn't worked for her, but on Obama's "hope." She warned today against "false hopes," that is, pinning hopes on a candidate who doesn't have the experience to deliver. That's actually a reasonable argument and a decent formulation. We'll see how it plays. We'll see if Obama's personal qualities and charisma as well as his verbal response counter it.

But the Bill Clinton example is instructive in other ways. Clinton got elected as the change candidate, and he didn't bring it enough--or fast enough--and he was in political trouble pretty quickly in his first term. Perhaps he didn't have the experience. But it was also true that his missteps combined with an insurgency that had been building in the R party, led to the devastating losses of the 1994 off-year election in which Dems lost control of Congress.

If you listen to Obama talk about bringing people together to effect change, his premise is that he has the votes in Congress to make that possible. So if he gets the nomination that's going to be his message--he not only wants to be elected, he will make a Democratic majority in Congress part of his campaign.

Finally, this thought on change. The word itself isn't very specific--it could mean change for the good, for the worse, towards or away from any number of things. The direction of change is important. JFK ran effectively on the slogan of getting the country "moving again" which was a change in tempo and presumed direction, from the apparent torpor of the second Eisenhower term. Change in the right direction, and in the right way, is the support structure for the one-word anomalous slogan.