Dazed and Confused

I am terribly confused by the current state of the Democratic nomination process. I am disheartened by the fact that we've got a six-week slog to Pennsylvania, and that there seem to be at least two certainties in this period of general uncertainty: (1) Barack and Hillary will likely try to rip each other apart and (2) nothing will likely change after Pennsylvania. On the latter point, Barack seems likely to have a significant lead in the pledged delegate race even if Hillary wins decisively. And I can't articulate a logic for either of them to get out. Indeed, I would say the opposite--there is none. Why should she leave the race if she seems to have the momentum and has won a lot of big, important swing states that a Dem must carry to win the general and is behind by a relatively small margin? Even though she can't make it up, she is close enough to plausibly say they are essentially tied. And he has even less of a reason to leave, if he (as seems all but certain) will still be leading in pledged delegates. What is the rationale for quitting and conceding a race where you've won (1) the most states, (2) the most delegates and (3) (perhaps), the highest number of popular votes?

One thing that we seem to have learned is that Hillary has a base of committed supporters who seem unlikely to switch allegiance to Barack in the nomination process in large numbers. I think we already knew that about Barack's supporters (as the infamous David Brooks has described it, Barack's supporters are passionate and and many of them are not just supporters but believe he must be nominated and must win). While I don't know that I go that far in the Barack/Hillary battle (although I do go that far for whoever is the Democratic nominee, as I think another 4 years of Republican (at least Bush-style) leadership may put solving the world's environmental issues, in particular global warming, beyond reach for all time), I am one who believes that because there is a dedicated base of Hillary-haters in this country, that she will unite the opposition in a way that will be difficult to overcome.

But then back to point #1: in order to win, I think each of the Hillary and Barack camps feel the need to sharpen the distinctions between the two. I am not generally squeamish about a tougher campaign, but it works against Barack because that is one of the prime underlying rationales of his candidacy and its appeal: that he is a different kind of politician. But I despair that the likely result of the next 6 weeks (and beyond) is more fodder for the mounting Republican attack machine which will come with guns-ablazing against whomever--it matters not to them.

It also bugs me, as an aside, that Hillary includes in her laundry list of wins (and this is her, in her stump speeches, not just her campaign or other surrogates) Michigan and Florida. Florida is at least arguable, but including Michigan is completely disingenuous--no campaigning, and she was the only name on the ballot. (Didn't we used to criticize the USSR for "elections" where there were only Communist party candidates?) Every interviewer should question her on that in every interview until she stops. She has legitimate claims to victories, and, as Barack has said, to argue that her policies are superior to hers. But not to argue she won the Michigan primary where no-one else (most notably Barack) campaigned or was on the ballot. A whopping 40% took the trouble to come out and vote "uncommitted".

Also, although I can admire for sheer political chutzpah Hillary and Bill's notion that in a race in which you are behind, your solution is, we'll take the #1 spot and give you the veep nod, I'd also say it is possible to admire chutzpah (e.g., Lee Atwater and Karl Rove) and admit is is "brilliant" (or at least damningly effective) politics, while being disgusted by it.

I don't see any alternative but do-overs in Florida and Michigan. The argument in Michigan that we must "respect the voters" demands this--although not in the way most mean it. I hear that argument as a rationale that we must respect the votes cast in January. But what about those who would have wanted to vote for Barack (or others who were in the race at the time, Edwards most notably) but didn't have the opportunity? How is that showing "respect" for the voters of Michigan? 'Sorry, but you had one alternative, and since you took the trouble to come out, we're going to "honor" it.' That's just not right, no matter whom you support.

Son Volt

Time for a new post! One of my favorite musical colleagues is jazz guitarist John Farrar from Belleville. John is a fine, fine player, and covers many genres well. John and Neal Connors were my musical saviors, rescuing my trumpet playing from the dustbins of history, for which I will be forever in their debt.

Take a look and listen to John's brother's band. Jay Farrar is one of the founders, with Jeff Tweedy, of the alternative country music genre, and is still kicking it with his own band, Son Volt. They have some terrific music. Check out "Drown". Enjoy!

Missouri--a homer's perspective

I think George Will was correct to watch Missouri on Super-Tuesday. Maybe this is a "homer" mentality, but Missouri showed more courage than either "liberal" bastions California and Massachusetts. Illinois and New York don't count, given the "favorite son/daughter" dynamic. (See "It Isn't Easy Being Purple").

I am wary though of seeming to bash Hillary too much. I just worry she'll just unite the Republicans in a stroke, while Obama won't. So to all the Hillary voters who read this blog, I respect the choice you made--if you went by the debates alone, it is hard to make a case that she should not get the nod, hands down. I just don't think that's the end of the story. Looks like she is in a pickle and no consensus from the talking heads about what her campaign strategy moving forward should be--and they're not disagreeing on the edges but on fundamental approaches. No matter what happens, that Obama momentum appears it is going to be hard to slow.

Yeah, Baby!

"Viva Las Vegas!" - Elvis Presley.

My sis has a much more literate post and relevant quote regarding her travel plans. See Notes From the W.G. (link in sidebar).

I plan to return a much poorer man.

Barack to the Future

Great speech by Obama last night--I thought he was talking directly to Calfornia and other states coming up with the "we need you" bit. Not at all desparate or whiny or angry, but with the right sense of urgency, like: "Get a hold of yourselves and do the right and courageous thing--now is the time to step up". Brilliant.

It isn't easy being purple

When asked what the one thing voters should be watching for in the political morass of Super Tuesday, George Will said: Missouri. Strap in, it will be fun to watch!

Feeling Different?

I hope it's not just me, but that Mr. Obama has turned some sort of corner. Maybe the 1-2-3 punch is: route in South Carolina, endorsement by Caroline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy (read the NY Times piece by Caroline if you haven't) and Edwards dropping out.

I think Hillary is a smart cookie and a tough campaigner, but I think there are at least four reasons we must choose Obama over Hillary to have a chance at winning in November. They are interconnected, but yet at least arguably distinct:

1. No Dynasties/Clinton Fatigue. There are no dynasties or royalty in American politics. We've got more political families in the U.S. than Bush and Clinton. I think the Democrats are weary of the Clintons and won't be enthusasitic supporters in the general election. We can't afford not to have a juiced up Democratic base, because....

2. No uniting the Republicans. Related to number one, the Republicans are in disarray and disappointed with their field. The best (only?) shot they have of uniting and getting energized is clear: we nominate Hillary. And Barack will get some, if not a lot, of crossover votes, more than enough to compensate for those who won't vote for a black man. Were they ever going to vote Dem anyway? And especially for Hillary?

3. Yesterday's Politics. The Clinton way is to divide and polarize. Slice and dice the electorate. Get some votes by alienating some in the hopes that you'll attract more (net) than you drive away. Yes, the Republicans are the Zen masters of this art and perfected it with Atwater and Rove. People seem ready to turn the page I think, and this strategy may backfire. I loved Bill because he could "play the game" right with the Republicans; it was fun having someone who could hand them their hat from a purely political point of view. Sort of like trading for that big home run hitter. You love it when he belts one out for your side, but deep inside you also don't like what it does to the rest of your team; when Ozzie starts swinging for the fences and pops weakly to left center (instead of knocking the slap opposite field single and stealing second), you know you're cooked.

4. Billary. Bill may be quiet going in to Super Tuesday. But at some point he'll enter the stage again. And if Hillary gets elected, Bill is going to be involved in everything trying to burnish his own legacy and do everything he didn't get a chance to in the first eight years ("Hillary who?" he'll say). He did some great things (and was Abe Lincoln and George Washington rolled in to one compared with the current occupant of the White House), but I just think a co-presidency cannot actually be good in this instance. And I don't doubt that's exactly what it will be--when I was typing this entry, I typed "... if he gets elected...", and I was really thinking of it that way--that we'd be re-electing Bill. Enough already.

So let's all chant: Fired up! Ready to go!