Shoot the People Who Ignored the Message

(Updated thrice below)

Before you start screaming at Standard & Poor's for downgrading U.S. debt for the first time in history, remember this: they warned G.O.P. leaders, very specifically, that U.S. credit ratings were at serious risk of downgrade EVEN IF the debt ceiling was lifted. In fact, S&P warned on July 14, and then reiterated on July 15, that a deal in the $1-2 trillion range (like the one that was enacted) would be insufficient, and kicking the can down the road (as the "Joint Committee" does) would be insufficient, and a deal that doesn't demonstrate that the G.O.P. is a serious partner in bending the debt curve (i.e., one that doesn't contain immediate new revenues as a sign of "seriousness") would be insufficient.

[Update, Aug. 5, 10:33 PT: full text of S&P's two "downgrade" press releases can be read at this link.]

On July 15, I wrote the following for PoliticusUSA:

The credit-rating agency Standard & Poors has released a statement that says, among other things, that merely raising the debt ceiling is not enough to prevent a downgrade of the United States’ credit rating, triggering market instability and causing the interest rate on U.S. debt to skyrocket.

On July 18, I expanded on S&P's warnings in a piece for Alternet:

Late Thursday, the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's released a statement announcing that merely raising the debt ceiling will not be enough to prevent a downgrade of the United States' credit rating for the first time in seventy years, potentially causing the interest rate on both government and private debt to skyrocket and destabilizing the entire economy. Remarkably, the statement also prescribed the specific numbers and conditions that would allow the U.S. to avoid such a catastrophe: to ensure a stable credit rating, any deal between Obama and the Republicans must reduce debt by $4 trillion, should include some "mix" of spending cuts and tax increases, and must involve concessions by both sides (a strong hint that the G.O.P. must consider closing tax loopholes, as well as a repudiation of Eric Cantor's assertion that merely attending negotiations is the only concession the GOP intends to make).

In short, Standard & Poor's has put G.O.P. lawmakers on notice that if they take the easy way out instead of making the "Grand Bargain" that Obama has advocated for, including tax increases, they may be responsible for disrupting the U.S. economy.

The S&P statement clearly states that merely raising the debt ceiling, or implementing a deficit-reduction package in the $1-2 trillion range, will not be enough to prevent a costly rating downgrade, because it would show that the country is not serious about tackling the deficit....

And on July 19, here on VichyDems, I discussed S&P's July 15 warning, which neither I nor any MSM reported had noticed immediately:

A Standard & Poor's report dated July 15, the day after it threatened to downgrade U.S. debt if a debt-bending deal is not reached, underscores what I've been writing about: that merely lifting the debt ceiling, or authorizing a so-called "Debt Commission" to propose further spending cuts by the end of the year, is not enough to ensure that U.S. debt is not downgraded to AA status, with enormous "knock-on" effects to the rest of the economy.

I don't blame S&P for doing its job (identifying borrowers that are no longer as reliable as they used to be). Does anyone on Earth believe the U.S. is, indeed, as safe and reliable a borrower as it was in, say, 1999, when we had both a balanced budget and enough of a budget surplus to begin re-investing in education and infrastructure? In fact, by trying to warn U.S. politicians of the problem and avoid a downgrade, S&P was actually bucking pressures to aggressively downgrade flimsy AAA debtors, because there's currently far too much false AAA debt in the market right now. (That fact also answers the correct but irrelevant complaint that S&P and the other major credit-rating agencies contributed to the bad economy by failing to correctly identify the riskiness of AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities in the past. True, the agencies blew that call -- but the lesson they (properly) learned is to not take healthy-looking debtors at face value. A wise agency, burned once by a AAA credit bubble, should be more willing to downgrade AAA debt in the future -- exactly as S&P has just done.)

Standard & Poor's is just the messenger. It did exactly what it said it would do (and tried to avoid doing). The House G.O.P. is who refused to endorse a "clean bill" early, before S&P became an issue; the House G.O.P. is who refused to accept the "Great Compromise" that both Obama and S&P clearly wanted; the House G.O.P. is who refused to accept any new revenues in the immediate deal (though new revenues starting in 2013 are embedded in the plan), thereby showing S&P that they were not (in S&P's word) "serious."

Don't shoot the messenger. Shoot the people who ignored the message.

UPDATE, Aug. 5, 7:00 pm PT: Harry Reid, at least, is seeing the political leverage this provides; his office just issued the following statement:

REID: S&P ACTION SHOWS NEED FOR BALANCED APPROACH TO DEFICIT REDUCTION

Washington, D.C.- Nevada Senator Harry Reid issued the following statement following the decision by S&P to downgrade the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+:

“The action by S&P reaffirms the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines spending cuts with revenue-raising measures like closing taxpayer-funded giveaways to billionaires, oil companies and corporate jet owners. This makes the work of the joint committee all the more important, and shows why leaders should appoint members who will approach the committee’s work with an open mind - instead of hardliners who have already ruled out the balanced approach that the markets and rating agencies like S&P are demanding.”

UPDATE, Aug. 8, 2011: Standard & Poor's held a conference call this morning to explain its decision. Full audio of that call can be found here, as well as an excerpted clip of S&P's global Managing Director of Sovereign Debt Ratings saying that S&P's "upside scenario" is for the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire. That alone, said S&P, would restore the U.S. rating from "outlook negative" to "outlook stable."

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Why It's a NOUGAT-FILLED Satan Sandwich

Yes, the Deal is clumsy and unsatisfying, kicks the can down the road, and is an embarrassment to a supposedly functional democracy -- a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich." But it's still a Democratic win, because it leaves the probability of Republicans, suicidally, at election time, either agreeing to tax hikes (in the Joint Committee) or allowing tax hikes to happen (by letting the Joint Committee deadlock, causing all Americans' taxes to increase automatically).

That is, it's a Democratic win IF progressives can keep their sh*t together, stop the idiotic and nonproductive internecine warfare between so-called Firebaggers and Obamabots, and pull together to demand that the Joint Committee include true Democrats who'll hold firm rather than Blue Dogs and Vichies who'll surrender on the electorally all-important new revenues issue.

Here, in a highly sophisticated graphical format developed after over one minute of communications-strategy research and diligent labor, is why the Satan Sandwich contains a nummy, pro-Democrat nougat center:



BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Standard & Poors to G.O.P.: "We'll Downgrade U.S. Credit Rating If You Don't Accept Obama's Offer"

Holy cow. This is mind-blowing (and confirms my contention that Barack Obama has been working closely with "Big Money" to pressure the G.O.P. to commit what may be electoral suicide):

The credit-rating agency Standard & Poors has released a statement that says, among other things, that merely raising the debt ceiling is not enough to prevent a downgrade of the United States' credit rating, triggering market instability and causing the interest rate on U.S. debt to skyrocket. What's more, S&P is attaching numbers and conditions to its statement: to ensure a stable credit rating, any deal between Obama and the Republicans must reduce debt by $4 trillion, should include some balance of cuts and revenues (ie, tax increases), and will involve concessions by both sides (a thinly-veiled repudiation of Eric Cantor's assertion that merely attending negotiations is the only concession the GOP intends to make).

In short: the G.O.P. must grow up and accept Obama's offer, including politically suicidal tax increases, or the U.S. economy will tank.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders already have written to tell John Boehner to stop screwing around and take a deal, the credit-rating agency Moody's had threatened to downgrade U.S. debt, and a blistering editorial in The Economist last week took Republicans to the woodshed:

"[T]he Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

"The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical."

The Economist even advocated for the tax hikes that Obama has demanded (but which the GOP knows may cost them control of the House of Representatives in 2012):

"This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

"And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer."

Coming on top of this, S&P's remarkably detailed statement -- almost a prescription for what Congress must do, much as the World Bank instructs third world nations to adopt austerity measures -- may be the final blow to beleaguered Republicans, who are tasked tonight and tomorrow with deciding which way to proceed with debt ceiling negotiations -- but who now appear to have little choice in the matter.

A fascinating side question is whether the Obama administration had a role in whether or when S&P issued its statement -- and when Obama knew that the statement would be issued. It's already been reported that the Obama Administration primed the financial community months ago to put pressure on the G.O.P. (There's some benefit to having Wall Street insiders on the Cabinet!)

Earlier today, Obama appeared to retreat from his previous hard-line, must-raise-taxes position, and asked Republicans to choose which of three options they preferred: (1) work toward $4 trillion in total debt reduction over the next decade, including some tax increases and closed loopholes; (2) settle for a lower, $1.5-1.7 trillion debt reduction without tax increases; or (3) Mitch McConnells' complex plan that essentially simply raises the debt ceiling without any deficit reduction.

While Obama was making that seemingly-generous offer, however, Standard & Poors was preparing to issue its report announcing that options (2) and (3) would be ruinous to financial markets and to the nation's ability to borrow -- i.e., that only Obama's first option, the $4 trillion, must-increase-taxes plan he has pushed for all along. Taking it all together, I strongly suspect Obama knew the S&P report was coming and timed the day's events perfectly, coming away looking more reasonable than ever while making sure that the Republicans' box is getting smaller and smaller.

The key portion of the Standard & Poors report is printed below:

"We expect the debt trajectory to continue increasing in the medium term if a medium-term fiscal consolidation plan of $4 trillion is not agreed upon. If Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and if we to conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the 'AAA' long-term rating and A-1+ short-term ratings on the U.S.

"Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might agree on. But for any agreement to be credible, we believe it would require support from leaders of both political parties.

"Congress and the Administration might also settle for a smaller increase in the debt ceiling, or they might agree on a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio. U.S. political debate is currently more focused on the need for medium-term fiscal consolidation than it has been for a decade. Based on this, we believe that an inability to reach an agreement now could indicate that an agreement will not be reached for several more years. We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a 'AAA' sovereign rating, given the expected government debt trajectory noted above.

Further delays in raising the debt ceiling could lead us to conclude that a default is more possible than we previously thought. If so, we could lower the long-term rating on the U.S. government this month and leave both the long-term and short-term ratings on CreditWatch with negative implications pending developments."

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Eleventy-Dimensional DADT Chess

(Updated below, Nov. 17, 2010)

It's certainly possible that Barack Obama plans to appeal District Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling holding Don't Ask, Don't Tell ("DADT") unconstitutional. Doing so would be a strong, and historically conventional, assertion of the Presidency's ultimate right as Commander in Chief to decide how the military will operate.

But a White House threat to appeal the federal court ruling doesn't necessarily mean that the White House will appeal that ruling. Nor does the White House's request today for a temporary stay of that ruling while it "decides" whether to appeal. The United States has 60 days to appeal any ruling against it, and it might be wise for it to pretend it may appeal the ruling until the last minute, to increase pressure on conservative Democrats to toe the party line and vote to repeal the entire DADT law during the upcoming, post-election "lame duck" session of Congress.

Obama has made no secret of his preference for overturning DADT legislatively rather than through the courts. A single trial judge in California can be dismissed by conservative pundits as "activist" and demagogued endlessly in tomorrow's culture wars. What's more, a single judge's ruling has no precedential value should other courts be asked to decide similar but jurisdictionally distinct issues in the future. A legislative decision to overturn DADT, on the other hand, could only be reversed if both a future Congress and a future President chose to re-impose military bigotry, after gay soldiers already are incorporated openly into the military and over the predictable filibuster. In other words, the Congressional solution Obama seeks would be better from a P.R. perspective AND stronger legally than merely letting the District Court ruling bear the weight alone.

But even though it would be better for Congress, the President, and the federal courts all to condemn DADT rather than have the decision made by a single judge, the problem of how politically to obtain that sweeping condemnation remains.

The political problem is that if the Justice Department doesn't appeal Judge Phillips' injunction, the pressure on Congress to repeal DADT dribbles away. Remember that just last month, Democratic senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor voted against ending the GOP's pro-DADT filibuster -- but only after reserving their votes until the very end of the hearing, and confirming that the motion would fail anyway. In other words, they likely would have voted to repeal DADT if there had been a chance of actually succeeding, but chose not to rile their more conservative constituents in a lost cause.

If DADT is already dead by court order, conservaDems and moderate (or precariously closeted) Republicans aren't likely to go out on a limb during the "lame duck" session by voting to drive another stake through its already-dead heart. But if they believe the court's order may not stand, they still may be susceptible to pressure to repeal the underlying law outright. Will they succumb to that pressure, and do the right thing? No one knows, though Lincoln's and Pryor's delay in voting last month is a good sign that those two, at least, are secretly in the "repeal" camp. What is for certain, though, is that the chances of Congress repealing DADT next month are maximized by the White House's pretense of appealing -- or even, if still more pressure was needed, by actually appealing, since that appeal could be dismissed later.

Bottom line: the DOJ's and White House's saber-rattling about appealing Judge Phillips' ruling does not necessarily mean they will appeal. Even an actual appeal of that ruling wouldn't necessarily mean the White House is actually unwilling to let Judge Phillips' decision stand in the end. The White House's behavior so far is equally consistent with a negotiating strategy aimed at ramping up pressure on Blue Dogs and other Congressional Panderers-to-the-Right to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell for good. Only time will tell which one it really is.

UPDATE, NOV. 17, 2010: DADT repeal remains alive in the Lame Duck Congress -- and the GOP, if no one else (you listening, Dan Choi?), knows that having another crack at it is important to Senate Dems, and therefore is putting a high price tag on letting hearings happen: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/dadt-not-dead-yet


BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Obama, Teddy, & the Perils of Governing Without Conviction

Four years ago, I wrote a pair of meditations on my irascible old blog, VichyDems, warning of the harm that would occur if Democrats regained national power without first abandoning the incrementalist, centrist approach advocated so unsuccessfully by the Democratic Leadership Council and instead returning, consciously and assertively, to their traditional, liberal roots. On the one year anniversary of the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the day after Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat was lost to a conservative male pinup with a pickup truck, my fears about the dangers of trying to govern without referring to fundamental principles seem to be coming true.

In the first of those posts, dated March 17, 2006 and titled An Overlong Dissertation on Courage, Strategy, Populism, and Respecting the Base, I expressed my fear that governing without boldness and conviction would do more harm than good to Democrats' electoral longevity. I began by explaining why the conventional distinction between "pragmatism" and "purity" is misleading:

Some "liberal" bloggers and commenters (and many, many "concern trolls" who love to give bad advice to the enemy) express "concern" (it's almost always that word, "concern") that targeting and ousting "Vichy" Democrats will cost us seats we need to win back one or both houses of Congress.

My usual response is this: I don't believe that's the case, because [politicians like] Joe Lieberman ... are more trouble than their seats are worth and if we unseated them, the rest of the caucus would sit up, take notice, and start acting cohesively again, which ultimately will win us a lot more seats than we lose.

The Republicans won complete control of government not by running to the center, but by running to the right and persuading the media and the American public to shift right with them. They don't tolerate defections from the party line; they stick to centrally-distributed talking points and abide by rigid party discipline enforced by a man nicknamed "The Hammer." They don't fall silent when discourse turns discordant; they trot out the Big Lie and repeat it so often that it becomes Truth in the same way that big mountains create their own weather. They won by doing the exact opposite of what the DLC crowd preaches we need to do to win.

It's as if the Democratic leadership doesn't understand how mirrors work: the key to Republican success wasn't in the fact that they ran to the right (and that we similarly must shift right if we want to win); it's in the fact that they ran AWAY from the center -- became more extreme -- and in doing so earned both the support of their base and the trust of centrist voters, who respect people who can articulate and adhere to principles even if they don't agree with all of them. Copying the Republican formula for success doesn't mean becoming more conservative.... [I]t means becoming more liberal and being proud of it. Articulating, and expecting some reasonable degree of adherence to, a unifying party platform is a good way to articulate principles and win elections, and if that means tossing one or two enablers like Lieberman overboard, good riddance; they're dead weight anyway.

Then I pointed out the danger of Democrats winning power without first reinventing their party along more principled, and more vigorous, lines:

But in addition to the above response, which I believe is true, I have a second reaction to the concern that attacking Vichy Democrats will cost us a potential majority: that until our "leaders" start listening to their constituents and acting like Democrats again, they (and we) don't deserve to be in power. Until we have our act together and are prepared to govern in a coherent, articulate, unified way, we should stay the hell out of it.

Our nation is facing tremendous problems; only a drastic change in course can possibly reverse them. If we Democrats are not prepared to change America's course, however, then it's better for the inexorable collapse to occur on the Republicans' watch than on ours. My preferences, in this order, are: (1) a dialed-in, unified, energized, liberal Democratic Party in power, correcting American's course and restoring her fortunes; (2) a faltering, dissipating, weakening Republican Party in power, living or dying with the consequences of their past actions while real Democrats continue to rebuild our party in the wings; and (3) a faltering, dissipated, weak Democratic Party in power, demonstrating once again to voters that we aren't ready for prime time and possibly being blamed for a nationwide economic, military and social collapse created by the Republicans but foisted on us.

A lot of intelligent, energetic grassroots activists are working to make sure that (1) above comes true. Most of the Democrats in Congress are working hard to see that (3) above comes true, even though they're too struck with Beltway Blindness to realize that's what they're doing. If they don't catch a clue and start working with us, (2) above is going to occur again in November, and then either (2) or (3) will occur in 2008. And that's simply not good enough. Democrats deserve better. America deserves better.

The reckoning is coming in 2010, not 2008, but otherwise, the crumbling of the national party is occurring exactly as I feared -- and for exactly the reason I predicted. On healthcare, Afghanistan, Wall Street reforms, LGBT rights, and every other issue where they hold both the moral and the policy high ground, the White House and Senate have waffled and compromised.

Even worse, they not only have allowed Joe Lieberman to continue pretending that his interests and goals are even minimally aligned with theirs -- letting him caucus with them, retain his chairmanships, and counting him among the fetishistic "60 votes" Reid supposedly possessed until Tuesday -- but they also have allowed his rebellion to infect others in the caucus. (The reason you remove bad apples from the barrel is that they ruin the apples next to them; Ben Nelson would never have the courage to block healthcare reform by himself.)

By allowing Lieberman to block passage of an institutional public option instead of affirmatively blocking his games by using reconciliation or by mimicking the Republican threat to declare filibusters unconstitutional, as they arguably are; by increasing troop strength (twice) in Afghanistan instead of bringing our troops home; by deferring a decision on Don't Ask Don't Tell, and naming Wall Street insiders Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to oversight posts; by constantly courting the center, placing comity above principle, triangulating instead of leading, and seeking incremental advances instead of bold new deals -- by all these concessions, Obama and Senate leaders have forgotten that courage begets voter confidence and voter confidence begets electoral success. To the extent the debacle in Massachusetts is a referendum on anything besides Martha Coakley's execrable and lazy campaigning, it is a referendum on Democratic leaders' failure to hew to liberal principles.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who knows no legislative strategies besides "compromise", bears much of the blame, as do other senior Senate Democrats. (The House side's coffee is noticeably hotter than the Senate's these days.)

But the ultimate responsibility for the Democratic Party's tepidity, and its electoral setback Tuesday, rests with Barack Obama, who for one year now has governed with an unseemly timidity. In his first year, Obama did not issue an executive order eliminating discrimination against gays in the military, as the Commander-in-Chief unquestionably has the right to do (and as Democrat Harry Truman did to desegregate the military in 1948). He did not go to bat for the public health insurance option when it was on life support in the Senate Finance Committee and again on the Senate floor. He elected (twice) to increase troop strength in Afghanistan instead of acknowledging that Afghanistan is no longer Al Quaeda's base and bringing our troops home. Instead of appointing agents of real change, he named Wall Street insiders Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to key oversight positions and appointed a consummate triangulator and centrist, Rahm Emanuel, as his Chief of Staff.

The bragged-about fact that Obama passed 97% of his Congressional agenda this year demonstrates merely that he played it too safe. As Robert Browning wrote over a century ago: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

There is a divide among Democratic activists today, between those who urge unity and support for Obama, and those who advocate dissenting at least enough to stop Obama from taking his base for granted and force him to shift left. What some people don't realize is that this divide, between progressive ideals and the pseudo-pragmatic impulse to compromise, is part of Obama's nature itself. The man himself doesn't seem to know which camp he belongs to.

In Joe Lieberman: Barack Obama's "Mentor In The Senate"?, which I wrote on April 3, 2006 in response to then-Senator Obama's embrace of Joe Lieberman over challenger Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, I discussed the contrast between Obama's progressive potential and his predilection for overcautious triangulation. The questions I asked about Obama's political soul back in 2006 -- about whether Obama would choose the old-school Democratic path of triangulation and compromise, or would save the party by leading a resurgence of Progressive ideals and courage -- are even more pressing today:

I want to like Barack Obama. His riveting, energizing speech at the last Democratic National Convention converted him from an attractive Senate candidate into the leading Democratic candidate for first African-American Vice-President and, eventually, President. His statement that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states" not only articulated the beliefs of that misunderstood, underrepresented and vital majority of Democrats and Independents who possess some sort of religious faith, but his use of evangelical "code" language -- "awesome God" -- reclaimed territory we had ceded to the Republicans and showed that not all Democratic politicians are tone deaf to religious nuance. I really want to like Barack Obama.

But then I read things like the following, which comes from an otherwise-delightful New York Times article about Democrats ignoring and even booing Joe Lieberman at a recent event:

[H]owever, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room.

When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

Joe Lieberman -- gutter of bankruptcy protection for working people facing disastrous health emergencies, supporter of an illegal war that's killed over 2,000 working-class Americans, apologist for hospitals that deny birth control to rape victims -- secretly has a "good heart" and "cares about working families"?

Yow.

Here's what's good about Barack Obama: despite his relative youth and political inexperience, he is in the first ranks when it comes to political astututeness. He understands the game, plays all the angles with a skill approaching genius. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be better than Bill Clinton.

Here's what's bad about Barack Obama: at an age and place in his career where he should still be known for idealism, he instead is known for political astuteness. He has mastered the game instead of the ideals, applies his genius to playing the angles instead of changing the world for the better. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be worse than Bill Clinton.


NOT being a "Star Wars" geek in any way, I hate to say this, but some analogies just leap out at you: Barack Obama is the Anakin Skywalker of the Democratic Party. He's an incredibly gifted young man whose gifts who will do either incredible good or incredible harm to the Democratic Party and to the nation. ***

This incident is not the only one; Obama also spoke out against the Alito filibuster, working against us behind the scenes by trying to persuade other senators not to rock the boat, and he likewise is lobbying others not to support Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Obama looks good on the outside, but in his short Senate career he has come down on the wrong side of nearly every issue this blog's readers care about.

Notwithstanding the above, I think Obama can be saved. What's needed is for [him to take] ... a nobler path than the one outlined by Bill, Hillary and Joementum. When we progressives recapture the soul of our party, the party may recapture the soul of Obama. Then Obama may be a tremendous force for good. But we need to show him that the path he's currently walking is a dead end.

Please understand: I'm not trying to undercut Obama. As regular readers know, I supported him vigorously in both the 2008 Democratic primary and in the general election, because I believed he was the best, and potentially the most progressive, candidate. I don't regret that choice. I want him to succeed. Hell, I cried when he won in November, and again when he was sworn into office one year ago.

But that doesn't mean I've smoked the hopium. Party unity is essential, but so is competent, courageous leadership. I want Obama to be the best leader he can be; at present, he's falling short. If, as Howard Zinn said, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, then dissent with one's own party's leaders is the highest form of loyalty to that party. (That's why, in my VichyDems days, I blogged under the pseudonym "Thersites"; in the Iliad, Thersites was the courageous soldier who dared to speak the truth about the failings of his own side's leader, Agammemnon.)

For exactly one year now, Obama has been keeping his powder dry, apparently without realizing that, in fact, he has almost no powder left. Political capital unused tends to dissipate like the dew; to be preserved, let alone compounded, political capital -- which Obama had a surplus of just one year ago -- must be invested if it is to be preserved. The fact that Obama's late effort to save Martha Coakley in Massachusetts failed, and that a state that overwhelmingly elected him in 2008 just handed Teddy's seat to a conservative Republican, demonstrates the truth of this assertion. There's a reason Teddy Kennedy held onto his seat for 46 years: he leavened his practicality with principle. If Obama and D.C.'s other Democrats want to retain their seats the way Kennedy did, they need to follow his example.

It's not too late yet for Obama to deliver the change he promised -- and to salvage as much as possible of Democrats' Congressional advantage next November. For example, he doesn't need Congress to eliminate DADT; he simply needs to act like the Commander-in-Chief, order an end to discrimination, and tell his soldiers (including the general staff) to follow his orders.

Likewise, healthcare reform can be salvaged without any disrespect to Massachusetts voters by the simple expedient of pushing House progressives to pass the Senate bill as-is, with a promise to effect further reforms later this year (via reconciliation if necessary). If that fails, a bold, principled Obama could rock the GOP's world by immediately pushing a singlepayer plan through the budget reconciliation process -- which could be accomplished well before the November elections and re-establish Democrats as a party with the courage of its convictions -- after which Obama could negotiate with conservatives to replace that (to Republicans) intolerable law with a reasonable compromise, including a strong public option, that they would not dare to filibuster (because that would leave singlepayer in place) and that would not be subject to reconciliation's ten year sunset provision. (Mark Kleiman wrote brilliantly on that negotiating strategy here.)

Obama could even do what the GOP threatened to do three years ago by dispatching Joe Biden, as President of the Senate, to declare the filibuster unconstitutional and simply call a vote on any healthcare reform package that can win a simple 51 votes. That may seem crazy, and it may be overreaching, but as a lawyer who's examined both sides of the Constitutional argument, I've concluded that Kevin Drum arguably is right about this and that the "nuclear option" could be exercised -- or at least threatened -- in colorable good faith.

Most readers probably disagree with some or with all of these proposals. That's fine. The point is, bold options remain open to Obama. It's not too late.

But he's losing his window. His choice -- the direction his presidency, and his political soul, will take -- must be made soon. As he surveys the debacle his party has made of Teddy Kennedy's legacy in Massachusetts, and embarks on his sophomore year as President, it's past time for Barack Obama to finally decide what sort of leader, and what sort of man, he chooses to be.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

McCain: "The Rights of the Unborn Are As Important as the Rights of the Born."

In a "virtual town hall" Saturday designed specifically to boost his standing with independents and disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, John McCain did his best to project a moderate, bipartisan image - but wound up enunciating policy stances that sharply conflict with positions held by Clinton -- and by most women, and by most Democrats -- on such things as women's right to choose, gay rights, the composition of the Supreme Court, America's role in using force overseas, and even the importance of intelligence and academic success in a good President. Instead of effectively wooing social moderates, McCain instead has clearly delineated some significant differences between his views and those normally considered "moderate" -- and may have given those voters who were thinking of sitting out the November election, or of crossing party lines to vote for him, some new and compelling reasons to actively oppose his election instead:

McCain on Roe v. Wade:

"Roe v. Wade, we obviously will have a disagreement. I think it was a bad decision."

McCain on abortion rights:

"[W]e have to change the culture of America. We have to convince people of our view that the rights of the unborn are as important as the rights of the born."

McCain on medically necessary late-term abortions:

"I am unalterably opposed to partial birth abortion."

McCain on the two or more Supreme Court appointments the next President is likely to make:

"I would find people along the lines of Justice Roberts."

"I wouldn't have selected Justice Ginsberg or Justice Breyer."

"I believe that interpretation of the Constitution, and only that, should be the criteria for Supreme Court justices."

McCain on gay rights and "don't ask, don't tell":

"Don't ask, don't tell: I want to rely on the advice and counsel of our military leaders. As President ... I will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to go back and review that and other policies to see whether those policies are appropriate, and I do rely on them to a large degree because they're the ones we entrust the leadership of the lives of our young men and women in our military. And I'm sure you may have a disagreement with that policy."

McCain on his own intelligence:

"You don't have to be real smart. I stood fifth from the bottom of my class at the naval academy, which shows in America anything is possible."

McCain's on what makes America great:

"We're the only country in the world that has over time sent our young Americans to shed our most precious asset - American blood - in defense of someone else's freedom."

I'll supplement this post later with more details, and with audio when it becomes available - but for Clinton supporters wondering what the effects on America would be if they either voted for McCain in November or simply stayed home and allowed him to be elected, just the few quotations given above - again, delivered in a setting designed to woo social moderates, not extreme conservatives - may be a powerful indication of how deeply reactionary a McCain administration is likely to be.

I tend to think that the DNC talking point that McCain would be "a third Bush term" is oversimplistic. On the other hand, though, in just one public appearance McCain has announced that he is pro-life, anti-Roe v. Wade (and other privacy rights), would appoint Supreme Court justices just like those that Bush appointed, is blindly instead of wisely patriotic and doesn't know his history (America is the ONLY country that's ever shed blood in defense of someone else's freedom?!?), and is dismissive of his own poor grades in a superb university that his family connections got him into. If that's not "Bush III," I don't know what is.

Anyone who thinks Obama is running against the pro-choice, fiscally conservative, socially moderate John McCain that we all respected in 2000 had better check behind the house for pods, because the John McCain of 2008 is nothing like the straight-talking "maverick" we used to know. And anyone who feels estranged from the Democratic Party by the unfortunate divisiveness of the primary season should look very, very carefully at John McCain - ver. 200.8 - before indulging any shortsighted inclination not to cast their vote for the Democratic alternative next November.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Text of Obama Speech on Gas Prices and the Economy

Following a couple of weeks of media obsession about a man who's not his pastor, debates over debates (one that wasn't, and one that everyone wishes hadn't been), endless speculation over "banked" superdelegates, an 18-year-old mumble caught on film, and other distractions, Barack Obama gave a speech today at Lawrence High School in Indianapolis, Indiana, that returned attention to issues that matter, especially gas prices and the Main Street economy.

Before posting the text of that speech, I have a favor to ask, designed to maximize the level of discourse: before commenting, please read the speech. (Seems like that would be a good rule for all posts!)

Here's what Obama said in Indiana today:

"When I began this campaign for the presidency, I said I was running because I believed that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics in Washington – the pettiness and the game-playing and the influence-peddling that always prevents us from solving the problems we face year after year after year.

"I ran because I believed that this year – that this moment – was too important to let that happen again. And I had faith that you believed that too – that you were ready for something different; that you were hungry for something new.

"Fifteen months later, we’re already doing what none of the cynics in Washington thought we could do. In the face of a politics that’s tried to divide us and distract us and make this campaign about who’s up and who’s down and who-said-what-about-who, we’ve built a movement of Americans from every race and region and party who desperately want change in Washington.

"I have no illusions about how far we have to go. Our road is still long. Our climb is still steep. But fifteen months later, I also know that our mission is even more urgent because the challenges facing people across Indiana and the country are growing by the day.

"I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.

"You don’t have to turn on the news or follow the stock tickers or wait for all the economists and politicians to agree on what is or is not a recession to know that our economy is in serious trouble. You can feel it in your own lives. And I hear it everywhere I go. Like the young man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job but can’t afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. Or the woman from Anderson who just lost her job, and her pension, and her insurance when the Delphi plant closed down – even while the top executives walked away with multi-million-dollar bonuses. Or the families across this country who will sit around the kitchen table tonight and wonder whether next week’s paycheck will be enough to cover next month’s bills – who will look at their children without knowing if they’ll be able to give them the same chances that they had.

"But here’s what Washington and Wall Street don’t get:

"This economy doesn’t just jeopardize our financial well-being, it offends the most basic values that have made this country what it is: the idea that America is the place where you can make it if you try. That no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours if you’re willing to reach for it and work for it. It’s the idea that while there are no guarantees in life, you should able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you get sick; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential. That’s who we are as a country. That’s the America most of us here know. It’s the America our parents and our grandparents grew up knowing.

"This is the country that gave my grandfather a chance to go to college on the GI Bill when he came home from World War II; a country that gave him and my grandmother – a small-town couple from Kansas – the chance to buy their first home with a loan from the government.

"This is the country that made it possible for my mother – a single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point – to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country with the help of scholarships.

"This is the country that allowed my father-in-law – a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant – to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis – who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation.

"That job didn’t just give him a paycheck, it gave him dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn’t just reward and honor wealth, but the work and the workers who helped create it.

"And we are here today looking for the answer to the same question:

"Where is that America today?

"How many veterans come home from this war without the care they need – how many wander the streets of the richest country on Earth without a roof over their heads? How many single parents can’t even afford to send their children to the doctor when they get sick, never mind to four years of college? How many workers have suffered the indignity of having to compete with their own children for a minimum wage job at McDonalds after they gave their lives to a company where the CEO just walked off with that multi-million dollar bonus?

"And most of all, how many years – how many decades – have we talked and talked and talked about these problems while Washington has done nothing, or tinkered, or made them worse.

"There is no doubt that many of these challenges have to do with fundamental shifts in our economy that began decades ago – changes that have torn down borders and barriers and allowed companies to send jobs wherever there’s a cheap source of labor. And today, with countries like China and India educating their children longer and better, and revolutions in communication and technology, they can send the jobs wherever there’s an internet connection.

"I saw the beginnings of these changes up close when I moved to the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago to help neighborhoods that were devastated when the local steel plant closed. I saw the indignity of joblessness and the hopelessness of lost opportunity.

"But I also saw that we are not powerless in the face of these challenges. We don’t have to sit here and watch our leaders do nothing. I learned that we don’t have to consign our children to a future of diminished dreams – a future of fewer opportunities. And that’s why I’m running for President today. Politics didn’t lead me to working people – working people led me to politics.

"I’m running because we can’t afford to settle for a Washington where John McCain gets the chance to give us four more years of the same Bush policies that have failed us for the last eight. More tax breaks for CEOs who make more in a day than some workers make in a year. More tax breaks for the same corporations that ship our jobs overseas. More of the trickle-down, on-your-own philosophy that says there’s nothing government can do about the problems we face – so we might as well just hand out a few tax breaks and tell people to buy their own health care, their own education, their own roads, their own bridges. That hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t work for our future.

"We can’t afford to settle for a Washington where our energy policy, and our health care policy, and our tax policy is sold to the highest-bidding lobbyist. We can’t keep taking thousands of dollars of their money year after year, election after election. Senator Clinton says they represent real Americans, but you and I know who they really represent – the oil companies and the drug companies and the insurance companies who keep us from bringing down the cost of our premiums and our prescriptions and investing in renewable fuels.

"We can’t afford to settle for a Washington where politicians only focus on how to win instead of why we should; where they check the polls before they check their gut; where they only tell us whatever we want to hear whenever we want to hear it. That kind of politics may get them where they need to go, but it doesn’t get America where we need to go. And it won’t change anything.

"Some of you might have seen that Senator Clinton’s spending a lot of money on a television ad that attacks me for not supporting her and John McCain’s idea of a gas tax holiday for the summer. Now, this is an idea that will save you – altogether – half a tank of gas. That’s thirty cents a day. For three months. That’s if the oil companies don’t simply jack up their price to fill the gap, as they’ve done when this was tried before. Does anyone here really trust the oil companies to give you the savings when they could just pocket the money themselves?

"It’s a shell game. Literally.

"In a moment of candor, her advisors actually admitted that it wouldn’t have much of an effect on gas prices. But, they said, it’s a great political issue for Senator Clinton. So this is not about getting you through the summer, it’s about getting elected.

"And this is what passes for leadership in Washington-- phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems.

"Now Senator Clinton’s been using this issue to make the argument that I’m somehow “out of touch.” Well let me tell you – only in Washington can you get away with calling someone out of touch when you’re the one who thinks that thirty cents a day is enough to help people who are struggling in this economy. I’ll tell you what I think – I think the American people are smarter than Washington gives us credit for.

"I wish I could stand up here and tell you that we could fix our energy problems with a holiday. I wish I could tell you that we can take a time-out from trade and bring back the jobs that have gone overseas. I wish I could promise that on day one of my presidency, I could pass every plan and proposal I’ve outlined in this campaign.

"But my guess is that you’ve heard those promises before. You hear them every year, in every election. And afterwards, when everyone goes back to Washington, the game-playing, and the influence-peddling, and the petty bickering continues. Nothing gets done. And four years later, we’re right back here making the very same promises about the very same problems.

"Well this year you have a choice. If you want to take another chance on the same kind of politics we’ve come to know in Washington, there are other candidates to choose from.

"But I still believe we need to fundamentally change Washington if we want change in America. I still believe this election is bigger than me, or Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain. It’s bigger than Democrats versus Republicans.

"It’s about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this country, at this moment, will continue to stand by while the wealthy few prosper at the expense of the hardworking many, or whether we’ll stand up and reclaim the American dream for every American. It’s about whether we’ll watch the Chinas and the Indias of the world move past us, or whether we’ll decide that in the 21st century, the home of innovation, and discovery, and progress will still be the United States of America.

"Reclaiming this dream will take more than one election. It will take more than one person or one party. It will take the effort and sacrifice of a nation united. And that’s the truth.

"We can provide relief that’s more than a holiday to families who are struggling in this economy. I’m the only candidate who’s proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that’s paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens. It would save nearly every working family $1,000, eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000, and provide a mortgage tax credit to struggling homeowners that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

"I also have a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums and provide the uninsured with the same kind of health care Members of Congress give themselves. That’s real relief, but we can only pay for this if we finally rollback the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them.

"We may not be able to bring back all the jobs that we’ve lost to trade, but we can create tomorrow’s jobs in this country. I happen to believe in free trade. But we do the cause of trade no favors when we pass agreements that are filled with perks for every special interest under the sun and absolutely no protections for American workers. There’s absolutely no reason we should be giving tax breaks to corporations who ship jobs overseas. When I’m President, I will eliminate those tax breaks and give them to companies who create good jobs right here in America.

"We can also create jobs if we finally get serious about rebuilding our crumbling and decaying national infrastructure. A few years ago, one out of three urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient, and we all saw the tragic results of what that could mean in Minnesota last year. It’s unacceptable. That’s why I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.

"And if want to take a permanent holiday from our oil addiction, we can finally get serious about energy independence and create five million new green jobs in the process – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. We’ll do what I did when I went to Detroit and tell the automakers it’s time they raised fuel mileage standards in this country. We’ll make companies pay for the pollution they release into the air, we’ll tax the record profits of the oil companies, and we’ll use that money to invest in clean, affordable, renewable energy like solar power, and wind power, and biofuels.

"I’ll be honest – this transition to a green economy won’t come without costs that all of us will have to pay, but it’s the only way we’ll free ourselves from the whims of Middle East dictator; the only way we’ll make sure we’re not talking about high gas prices five years from now and ten years from now; the only way we can pass on a planet that’s still recognizable to our children and their children.

"And if we want our children to succeed in this global economy – if we want them to be able to compete with children in Beijing and Bangalore – then we need to make sure that every child, everywhere gets a world-class education, from the day they’re born until the day they graduate college. That means investing in early childhood education. It means that we need to recruit an army of new teachers by not just talking about how great teachers are, but rewarding them for their greatness with better pay and more support. And it means that in this country – in this global economy – we will not create a small class of the educated few by allowing thousands and thousands of young people to be priced out of college year after year. We are better than that. When I’m President, we’ll create a bargain with every American who wants to go to college: we will pay for your tuition if you serve your country in some way for two years after you graduate.

"Real relief for middle-class families, seniors, and homeowners. Lower premiums for those who have health care and coverage for everyone who wants it. Five million green jobs right here in America. A world-class education that will allow every American to reach their God-given potential and compete with any worker in the world.

"All of this is possible, but it’s just a list of policies until you decide that it’s time to make the Washington we have look like the America we know – one where the future is not determined by those with money and influence; where common sense and honesty are cherished values; where we are stronger than that which divides us because we realize that in the end, we rise or fall as one nation – as one people.

"It was forty years ago this May that Robert Kennedy took his unlikely campaign to create a new kind of politics to Indiana. And as he campaigned in Fort Wayne, he laid out a vision that America we know. He said, “Income and education and homes do not make a nation. Nor do land and borders. Shared ideals and principles, joined purposes and hopes – these make a nation. And that is our great task.”

"It is still our task today.

"We’ve always known this wouldn’t be easy. The change we’re looking for never is. Generations before us have fought wars and revolutions; they’ve struggled and they’ve sacrificed; they’ve stood up and spoke out and marched through the streets for the opportunities that we enjoy.

"And that’s why the only way a black guy named Barack Obama who was born in Hawaii, and started his career on the streets of Chicago, can win this race – if you decide that you’ve had enough of the way things are; if you decide that this election is bigger than flag pins and sniper fire and the comments of a former pastor – bigger than the differences between what we look like or where we come from or what party we belong to.

"And if you do – if you decide that this moment is about what kind of country we’ll be in the next year and the next century; about how we’ll provide jobs to the jobless and opportunity to those without it; about health care and good schools and a green planet; about giving our children a better world and a brighter future – then I ask you to enlist your neighbors, and knock on doors, and work your heart out from now until Tuesday. In the face of all cynicism, and doubt, and fear, I ask you to remember what makes a nation – and to believe that we can once again make this nation the land of limitless possibility and unyielding hope – the place where you can still make it if you try. Thank you, and may God Bless the United States of America."
*******
Back to VichyDems Home.

Donate to Barack Obama.

A Big Win in Pennsylvania -- But Not Nearly Big Enough to Change the Math

Update, May 6: Obama wins North Carolina, squeezing Clinton mathematically even more than this post predicts. Big voter turnouts in both NC and Indiana, which bodes well for Obama (and the party's chances in November).

Americans, schizophrenically, love two things: winners, and quixotic heroes who do great things in a losing cause. Last night in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton was both: the winner of what in an ordinary election year would be a tremendous victory, and the protagonist of an unequivocally lost cause.

Clinton won Pennsylvania. But in the national Democratic primary election overall -- and by that I mean the go-to-a-polling-place-and-cast-a-ballot part of the nominee-selection process -- Pennsylvania put the last nail in Clinton's hopes of winning anything resembling the popular vote or popular delegate count nationwide.

Before I go further, please understand: this post isn’t about hating Hillary, but about math. It’s no secret that I support Obama, -- but I honestly can’t help but admire any candidate who can win Pennsylvania by ten points (which, as of the time I'm writing this with 99% of precincts reporting, appears to be Clinton's margin of victory). It’s a great victory in anyone’s book.

And yet mathematically, Pennsylvania didn’t move her forward; it actually put her further behind. That’s what makes her win there tragic.

In a post the day before the Pennsylvania primary, I explained in detail what margins Clinton needed in order to win the majority of elected delegates before the last primary election occurs on June 3. This election is like a footrace, I explained; with a relatively small handful of primaries left, and a finite number of delegates remaining to be won, she needs to gain ground with every primary if she wants to make up the ground she lost in the first 40-plus contests.

Before Pennsylvania voted, Clinton trailed Obama in the elected-delegate count by 162. With only 566 delegates left to be won in the remaining contests, some fairly simple math showed that to catch Obama, she needed to win everything from Pennsylvania forward by 28 points – i.e., to win 64% of the elected delegates to Obama’s 36% in all the remaining contests (with the exception of North Carolina, where she currently trails by 17 points; all my math asked her to do there was tie). Again, this isn’t pessimism or misogyny, it’s just a calculation. Here’s the algorithm: (Remaining delegates) - (Obama’s lead in delegates) ÷ 2 + (Obama’s lead in delegates). You can do the math yourself.

If she didn’t win Pennsylvania (or any other primary) by 28 points, she’d only fall farther behind. If she won Pennsylvania by ten points, Clinton would actually have lost ground. In my post before the vote in Pennsylvania, I explained it this way:

Think of it like a hundred yard dash. Catching up to Obama after a ten point “victory” in Pennsylvania would be like standing on the starting line and expecting to win the race – with your opponent having a 36 yard head start. And every step you take that doesn’t gain you ground puts you closer to defeat: every time Clinton falls short of the requisite 64% or 68% or even higher margin, the margin she needs in the remaining states goes up even more. Or, as Richard Durbin put it, Clinton is “running out of real estate.”

Hillary didn’t win 64% of the vote in Pennsylvania. She only won about 55% to Obama’s 45% – the ten-point spread I predicted, about two-thirds short of the 28 point spread she needed. Accordingly, she’ll only net about 16 delegates (87 for her, 71 for Obama) – not enough to stay on pace to win. After her win in Pennsylvania, Clinton now has to win 68% of the vote in all the remaining primaries -- up four points from the 64% she needed just two days ago.

In the real world, this is an insurmountable problem for Clinton. In some states, she may have had a little wiggle room; if she fell a little short in Indiana she might make it up by winning extra delegates in Puerto Rico. But Pennsylvania was Clinton’s best shot at a big win in a populous state – her “if you can’t make it there, you can’t make it anywhere” test (apologies to Sinatra). A month ago, a PPP poll showed Clinton leading in Pennsylvania by 26 points. Pennsylvania’s primary came after the Reverend Wright and “bitter” brouhahas. Clinton has family in Pennsylvania; her father and brother went to school and played ball in Pennsylvania; she spent vacations in Pennsylvania; her grandfather taught her to shoot in Pennsylvania. And Pennsylvania has one of the last great Democratic political machines – read this frustrated post by Chuck Pennacchio, a great Democratic candidate who lost a Pennsylvania primary because that machine was aligned against him, if you want a taste of how powerful the Pennsylvania machine is – and that machine was overwhelmingly in Clinton’s camp. If she couldn’t make the requisite margin there, she won’t be able to make it in state after state after state, without any major slips, from now til the end of the campaign. (In fact, even if Michigan and Florida were miraculously counted in Clinton’s favor, she still would have needed 12 point wins from here on out – but she fell short of even that lower standard. So not even Michigan and Florida could help her win the nomination democratically.)

No: Pennsylvania was her best shot, and she fell short. Hope is a wonderful thing, but no amount of blind optimism can change the reality: Clinton’s not going to win the majority of democratically-elected “pledged” or popular delegates. More broadly: no logical person can continue to argue that Clinton can win in any popular or democratic sense of the word; it’s inevitable that she will lose the popular vote and the popular delegate count.

That doesn’t mean she can’t win the nomination. It does mean that the only way she can win the nomination is if the unelected Superdelegates overwhelmingly and unexpectedly decide to disregard the wishes of their collective constituents and hand the nomination to the candidate who lost the popular delegate count (and the popular vote, and the majority of states).

Here’s the important thing to take away from Clinton’s win/loss in Pennsylvania: because she no longer has any realistic chance of winning the “election” phase of the nominating process, the rest of us need to insist that the politicians, pundits and prognosticators stop putting so much undeserved attention on the upcoming primaries, and focus instead on the single issue that could decide this election in Clinton’s favor: the likelihood, the moral right, and the wisdom of allowing the Democratic Party’s aristocrats to override the will of millions of Democratic voters.

Personally, I don’t think it’s likely, moral, or strategically wise for the Supers to exercise a veto of the voters’ choice. I think Obama has already won this election, and inevitably will win the nomination, and that Clinton’s just the last one to realize it. But I also understand that many of her supporters disagree, and feel strongly that it’s both meet and proper for the Supers to do whatever they want. I’m willing to agree to disagree on that question, at least for now; I don’t really want to have that argument today, because it, too, is a distraction at this point.

Instead, all I’d like, from Clintonites and Obamanuts alike, is an agreement, based on simple logic, that the issue is no longer whether Clinton can win the election – she can’t, even if we count Michigan and Florida – but rather whether she can, and should, win a contrary outcome via a Superdelegate override.

Polls and predictions no longer count. Michigan and Florida, and Indiana and Puerto Rico and North Carolina and my own Oregon, no longer count, simply because their primaries can’t realistically alter the outcome of the election. The only remaining issue is the propriety and wisdom of Superdelegates overriding the voters. So let’s talk about that from now on, instead of wasting time and energy on distractions that make money for CNN and MSNBC and play into the candidates’ spin but aren’t actually relevant to the decision that’s being made.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Defining What Would Constitute a "Win" for Clinton In Pennsylvania

UPDATE, APRIL 23: Post-Penna-election analysis here, though this post is a really good foundation for that one.

UPDATE, PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY DAY, APRIL 22: So far, it's looking like a Clinton win, as expected -- but the more numbers come in, the lower her margin gets. Again: if her margin's under 28%, she's losing ground -- and the spinmeisters, on MSNBC at least, aren't recognizing that fact. Hang on for more.

As politics junkies prepare for the Pennsylvania primary tomorrow, the pundit class and the candidates’ spinmeisters are endlessly debating what, exactly, would constitute a “win” for Clinton. Both campaigns are trying to manipulate people’s expectations; Clinton’s people are playing down her lead so that a 4- to 7-point victory will seem like a huge shift in her political fortune (and a double-digit victory, which polls consistently showed was well within reach until just a couple of weeks ago, will seem like a blowout), while Obama’s camp is portraying his support as being so low that anything under a 10-point win by Clinton will be anticlimactic.

But at this late stage of the Clinton-Obama primary, perception is not reality. Elections are a matter of counting votes, and counting is a matter of mathematics, not expectations or spin. Each candidate has won a precise number of delegates so far, and there are a finite number of delegates yet to be won. Instead of acting like Bush Republicans, responding to fear and greed and spouting bumper-sticker slogans and truthiness, Democrats can behave like real members of the Reality-Based Community, rejecting blind cries that “Clinton can still win!” or “There’s no way Clinton can win!” and crunching the numbers instead – in this case, analyzing the electoral data to determine what, precisely, would constitute a “win” for Clinton in Pennsylvania so that we can reject any spin, from any source, that isn’t grounded in reality.

Calculating Clinton’s necessary margin of victory is important for at least two reasons:

(1) Clinton’s ongoing, uphill battle for the nomination almost certainly is cutting into Obama’s yearlong lead over McCain in hypothetical head-to-head matchups; if her campaign isn’t actually viable, and she doesn’t actually have any realistic chance of winning the nomination, she should shut it down now so that Obama can focus on the general election. Conversely, if Clinton does have a good chance of a comeback, all Democrats should support her right to continue to fight. Objectively settling the “viability” issue would be a significant step toward resolving the question of whether Clinton should or should not bow out, and could reduce friction between the two candidates’ supporters.

(2) Even if the Clinton campaign’s viability isn’t conclusively resolved one way or another, the question of how she can and can’t win could be; in other words, her chances of winning the nomination with or without winning the popular vote, with or without Michigan and Florida, and with or without a counter-democratic “override” by Superdelegates could be winnowed down. If Clinton has no realistic chance of winning the elected-delegate race, then everyone should put much less emphasis on the final ten primary elections. If Michigan and Florida wouldn’t affect the outcome, then Michigan and Florida probably should be seated without alienating them further. If the only way Clinton can win is with a Superdelegate “override” of the popular vote, then we should be focusing like a laser on the principles and practicalities of allowing the candidate to be selected in contravention of the voters’ will – i.e., whether that outcome matches our democratic principles and how it might affect turnout by the disaffected candidate’s supporters in the general election, how it might affect independent and crossover voters’ perceptions of the nominee, and ultimately what the impact of a brokered outcome would be on the Democratic Party’s Presidential and Congressional chances in November. If Clinton still has a genuine chance of winning the majority of elected delegates, on the other hand, then no one has the right to question her right to continue her campaign. Evaluating the probability of the various combinations of scenarios will allow us to focus, hard, on the variables that actually will control the outcome – and to tell the spinmeisters to take a hike.

CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS: So I’ve crunched the numbers, looking primarily at how big a win Clinton needs in Pennsylvania tomorrow to remain a viable candidate in the “democratic” portion of the election (because if she’s not viable in terms of winning the popular vote, then we all need to shift our perspectives and start seriously discussing the principles and the practicalities of her trying to override the popular vote with Superdelegates). And what I’ve learned is that Clinton needs to win 64% of the vote tomorrow to Obama’s 36% – beating Obama by a 28-point spread – to have any chance of winning the popularly-elected delegate count. The TV pundits and campaign spinners may be talking about the relative merits of a six-point, ten-point or even fifteen-point spread – but it’s all smoke and mirrors: hard numbers say anything under 28 points represents an overwhelming Clinton loss. Aggravating for Clinton backers? Of course – and, in all seriousness, I’m sympathetic. But those are the numbers. Here’s why:

Pennsylvania is the largest remaining primary state. It has 158 elected (aka “pledged” or “popular”) delegates – delegates assigned democratically by the votes of the people. TV talking heads keep mentioning the possibility of a ten-point spread. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania’s primary by ten points (i.e., Clinton gets 55% of the popular vote, Obama gets 45%), then she’ll get 87 elected delegates to Obama’s 71 – a 16-delegate gain for Clinton. Obama’s current 162-elected-delegate lead will be reduced to a 146-elected-delegate lead. If she wins Pennsylvania by ten point, the TV talking heads will blather endlessly about her tremendous win – but in reality, a ten-point win would be a terrible loss, putting Clinton mathematically even further behind than she is now.

As of today, before Pennsylvania, Clinton needs to capture 64% of all the remaining delegates (including Pennsylvania’s) to catch up to Obama. Every time she wins a state by less than that, she falls farther behind. After Pennsylvania, there will be nine remaining primaries carrying a total of 408 elected delegates. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by only 10 points (55%-45%), then the mathematical reality is that she’ll have to win more than 277 of those 408 remaining delegates to beat Obama. That’s 68% – worse odds than the 64% she needs today.

Think of it like a hundred yard dash. Catching up to Obama after a ten point “victory” in Pennsylvania would be like standing on the starting line and expecting to win the race – with your opponent having a 36 yard head start. And every step you take that doesn’t gain you ground puts you closer to defeat: every time Clinton falls short of the requisite 64% or 68% or even higher margin, the margin she needs in the remaining states goes up even more. Or, as Richard Durbin put it, Clinton is “running out of real estate.”

Does Clinton have a rational chance of winning all the remaining contests by at least 28 points? Reality check: according to a pollster.com mashup of nearly 60 polls, Clinton has 48% of the Pennsylvania vote – 16% less than the 64% she needs just to avoid losing even more ground – and to make things worse, she’s been trending downward (though I expect her to get a bump tomorrow that’s not predicted in the polling data, as conservative Undecideds finally make up their minds for Clinton at the last minute):


Wait: it gets worse for Clinton than that. After Pennsylvania, the most delegate-rich primary is North Carolina on May 6, with 115 delegates. According to pollster.com’s mashup of 45 polls (24 in 2008 alone), Obama’s not just projected to win North Carolina, but to win it by over 17 points – AND he’s widening his lead over time:

It’s unrealistic to predict that Clinton go from an overwhelming loss in North Carolina (garnering only 36% of the vote) to winning it overwhelmingly (nearly doubling her base of support to 64%). In general, Obama closes gaps with her as elections near, not the other way around. But since we’re doing thought experiments anyway, let’s throw her a bone and say she somehow manages to come back from a 17 point deficit to tie in North Carolina, splitting those 115 delegates evenly with Obama. If she can tie North Carolina, then once again she’ll need to pick up 68% of all the remaining delegates, including Pennsylvania’s, to gain any ground at all.

So that’s where it stands, not as a matter of hope or faith or wishing really really hard or running up the Philadelphia museum steps like Rocky, but in hard numbers: unless Clinton can win Pennsylvania tomorrow by 28 points, and make up a 17-point deficit to tie in North Carolina, and win 68% of all the remaining delegates, she simply can’t, by any reasonable analysis, catch up to Obama, let alone beat him, in the upcoming elections. And the first hurdle in that triple-jump comes tomorrow: again, if she doesn’t win Pennsylvania by 28 points, then she can’t win the election democratically; her only hope would be a near-unanimous sweep of the undecided Superdelegates plus a mass defection of many of the Superdelegates currently endorsing Obama – which ain’t likely. And if anyone believes there is a serious possibility of such a mass migration of Superdelegates, prepared to engineer an outcome opposite of the one chosen by their collective constituents, then we need to stop pretending that it even matters whether Clinton can “win elections” and re-focus the debate on whether it’s wise or proper for party officials to override millions and millions of its members.

“But wait!,” someone’s hollering at their computer, “what about Michigan and Florida?!?” A legitimate question; let’s talk about Michigan and Florida.

First, some practical politics. Like it or not, even Clinton's most ardent supporters have to admit there’s almost no chance that those delegations will be seated at the Convention in the way Clinton wants. Sure, they’ll be able to participate at the Convention – why alienate their voters more than we already have? – but with Howard Dean as Chair of the DNC and the Rules Committee unanimous in their earlier decision to disqualify them, any agreement to seat their delegations will be negotiated after the Supers wrap up the nomination contest in June – or they’ll be seated under an agreement to split their votes more or less evenly – or their votes will be counted after all the other states’ delegates and Superdelegates at the Convention instead of in alphabetical order, so that they don’t affect the outcome. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, just talking practical politics: there isn’t a snowball’s chance in heck Clinton will manage to get credit for all the delegates she claims she won in those states.

But even if it’s ridiculously improbable, let’s imagine it anyway: that those delegations are seated and that they give Clinton every vote she’s asking for. In Michigan, where Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot, that would mean a net Clinton gain of 18 delegates. In Florida – where Clinton told a crowd on election night (though she wasn’t “campaigning” there) that she had won a “tremendous victory” – her perfect outcome nets her 38 more delegates over Obama. How would those 56 additional Clinton delegates affect the math?

Answer: it would affect it significantly enough to make the Pennsylvania election more interesting, but probably not enough to make a difference in the outcome. Giving Clinton every delegate she’s claiming from Michigan and Florida, and additionally assuming that she can recover from her huge deficit to manage a tie in North Carolina, would reduce Obama’s lead from 162 to 106 with nine contests to go. Yet even with such incredible good juju, Clinton would still need to make up a 56 delegate deficit to catch up to Obama in the pledged-delegate count by winning 254 of the remaining 451 elected delegates, or 56% to Obama’s 44%. In other words, even with impossible breaks going her way, deus ex machina, Clinton could only win by managing a 12-point spread across all the remaining contests, starting (but emphatically not ending) with Pennsylvania.

The important thing about these numbers is that while the politicians are playing the expectations game, and the TV pundits will proclaim a stunning victory if Clinton wins by five or more, and Howard Wolfson will talk about how Obama’s on the ropes, the numbers will let us focus on the issues that matter, according to how well Clinton does in Pennsylvania:

If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 28 points or more, then every Democrat should acknowledge that her candidacy is unquestionably viable and stop squawking at her to bow out, at least unless and until future elections changed the calculus.

If she wins Pennsylvania by more than 12 points but less than 28, then the only way she can win the nomination without some kind of Superdelegate gamesmanship – which almost certainly would have some blowback for the Democratic Party in November – is if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated as-is. Even though I don’t think there's any chance that's going to happen, a Clinton win in the 12 - 28 point range would definitely put the debate over what to do with those two states back on the front burner, with the heat turned up high.

If she wins Pennsylvania by fewer than 12 points, let alone loses it, then Clinton can’t win the race for pledged delegates even if Michigan and Florida are handed to her on a platter. Pennsylvania’s one of her strongest states, with an immensely powerful pro-Clinton Democratic machine and where every significant politician but one has endorsed her; if she can’t make the necessary margin there, then she’s lost the "election." And if she can’t make that margin, but still doesn’t drop out, then her plan necessarily is to win the nomination by persuading Superdelegates – and maybe, according to her unusual interpretation of party rules, even some non-Supers pledged to Obama – to override the democratic choice, effectively making all of the primaries and caucuses utterly irrelevant. If that’s the case, we need to stop wasting our energy pretending that the elections actually matter, and stop talking about Michigan and Florida, and start focusing, hard, on the real issue, which is whether we’re OK with our nominee being chosen by aristocrats instead of voters.

My purpose in presenting this analysis isn’t to pick a fight with Clinton supporters. I considered publishing this post AFTER the Pennsylvania primary, showing why the outcome – assuming it doesn’t meet the 28-point margin I believe actually governs Clinton’s chances – means Clinton can’t win. But I’m not interested in playing “gotcha” with Clinton backers, who mean well, share most of my values, and hopefully will support any Democrat running against McCain in November. Instead, I’m interested in determining whether Clinton has a serious shot at winning, how she might win (democratically or with a Superdelegate override), and using tomorrow’s election results to help focus the discussion among different cadres of Democrats who need to resolve their differences and learn to work together so we can start the serious and vital business of whupping John McCain, in a unified way, as soon as our nominee is chosen. And if Clinton does manage to pull a stunning upset in Pennsylvania – which in my book requires her to win by 28 points, and in everyone’s book should require her to win by at least 12 points – then I’m perfectly willing to eat crow, admit she’s still in the game, and rethink my positions. Hopefully every Democrat who sincerely cares about regaining the White House, whichever side of this debate they’re on, will be willing to do the same.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Clinton Downs a Beer and a Bump to Impress the Cool Kids -- And This Dad's Not OK With It

As a father of daughters, I've got a big problem today with Hillary Clinton.

Let's be clear: I've got no problem with a President who occasionally chases down a slice of pizza with a cold brew or a shot of whiskey -- or both. Like most Oregonians, I'm particularly fond of our state's great microbrews and small wineries; I'm no prude about liquor (or much of anything else). And, of course, our current teetotaler President has been a disaster. (I'm put in mind of Lincoln during the Civil War: when an advisor complained that the North's most successful general was drinking too much, Abe ordered a barrel of the general's favorite whiskey sent to each of his other commanders.)

So if Clinton likes an (imported) Crown Royal, neat, back on the campaign plane at the end of the day, or -- without fanfare -- tips back a cool one with supporters at a pizza joint, I'm good. But that's not what she did Saturday night at Bronko’s Restaurant and Lounge in Crown Point, Indiana Saturday night. No: she bumped back a boilermaker to make a point about Barack Obama being "out of touch" with blue-collar voters, playing off his comment about some middle Americans being "bitter" at being ignored by Washington insiders.

Hillary Clinton is not normally a brew-and-a-bump kind of gal; she's just not. But she is a political animal, through and through -- and drinking boilermakers as a strategy for reaching Pennsylvania's working-class voters was even discussed jokingly in a segment of MSNBC's Hardball earlier this month, which Clinton's campaign staff wouldn't have missed. No: Clinton intentionally chose to do a particularly unhealthy kind of drinking -- chugging beer and whiskey at once, a combo designed to make you drunker, faster -- to increase her popularity with people she really has nothing in common with so that they'll vote for her.

Politics is politics, but it's not OK for Hillary Clinton or anyone else in public life to flaunt heavy public drinking in order to be more popular.

I'm the father of two beautiful, brilliant, creative, loving, sometimes gloriously self-confident, sometimes tragically insecure daughters, ages 12 and 14. Both are deeply engaged and opinionated about politics (at a John Kerry rally, my then-8-year-old tugged my arm and said, "hey, Dad, isn't that Peter DeFazio?"). And both, like everyone their age, are sometimes too concerned with popularity.

The older one will start high school next year -- where, I know full well, she'll start making delicate decisions about boys, alcohol, drugs, and the whole dangerous balance between exercising independence and experimenting with life, on the one hand, and remaining safe, on the other. I'm no fool: I know she'll make some decisions I won't agree with. My hope is that she'll be able to draw on varied sources of wisdom to help her make decisions that are still sound, still sensible, even if they aren't exactly the ones her dad would choose. And as she does that -- as she tries to figure out how to grow up and move beyond my paternalistic rules to become a wise and self-sufficient and complete woman -- I'd like her to be able to look to accomplished, self-confident, successful women like Hillary Clinton as role models.

If one of my daughters, trying to win Student Body President, showed up at a keg party and got drunk in order to score points with the "populars" (ask your kid if you don't know who they are), I'd be incredibly disappointed -- and angry, and concerned. Should I feel any differently when Hillary Clinton does it?

Fortunately, my daughters already know that what Clinton did is wrong. At a supposedly irresponsible age, they know it's not cool to misuse alcohol to "fit in." Even for adults, even to win a big election, it's just. not. cool.

But Hillary Clinton -- the candidate who trumpets her experience and worldliness as predictors of her supposed good judgment -- doesn't seem to have figured that out. She's drinking in public to look cool and win votes. For the first woman with a serious shot at the White House to trumpet an unhealthy kind of drinking in order to gain publicity points, is to display either an utter tone-deafness to her role as a model for America's girls (and even adults), or a culpable willingness to ignore her moral compass in order to win. She's either inexcusably foolish or inexcusably calculating; take your pick.

Either way, she deserves to be grounded by the responsible adults in the Democratic Party, not elected Student Body President.
***********************
(Photo credit: AP)
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME