Unbelievably, Clinton Is Pushing the "Obama Cult" Smear. And She'll Sue If Necessary to Win. Is This Who You Want for President?

Read this astounding article from the highly reliable Times of London. Please: read it.

Then ask yourself: is this a person with ethics? Who plays fair? Is this a person who can heal wounds, bridge division, and lead the nation forward after the darkness of the Bush years? More practically, is this a person who seems capable of running a winning Presidential campaign?

Or does this sound like a desperate person, at the helm of a sinking ship, representing the failed policies of the morally bankrupt, appeasement wing of the Democratic Party, finally reaping the just electoral rewards of twenty years of putting triangulation and preemptive capitulation ahead of principle?

Please, read the whole article -- it contains much more than just the following quote -- but I'll give you a teaser. Remember how Paul Krugman called the Obama movement a "cult"? Turns out the Clinton campaign is busily promoting that whole meme -- and, as an extra, also is willing to sue Obama in order to win:

"Clinton’s camp has been circulating stories criticising the “cult” of Obama in the hope of portraying “Obamania” as a mass delusion. Media Matters, a watchdog organisation sympathetic to Clinton, compiled a report headlined, “Media figures call Obama supporters’ behaviour ‘creepy’, compare them to Hare Krishna and Charles Manson followers”.

It was forwarded by Sidney Blumenthal, a top Clinton adviser, to select reporters. The campaign entered a nasty phase last week with the determination of Clinton’s team to revive delegates from the “ghost” primaries of Michigan and Florida, by legal action if necessary."
_ _ _ _ _

I shouldn't be surprised anymore that it took a British paper to break this, or that the fundamentally lazy, go-along American media, who rely on "access" rather than investigation for their stories and so never want to alienate anyone as powerful as Clinton, haven't picked it up -- or that many supposedly competent journalists and pundits, like Robert Samuelson, are still embarrassing themselves today by using terms like "hypnotized" and "mass delusion" to describe Obama's supporters even AFTER the story above came out. Clinton's willingness to break the rules she personally agreed to -- in a signed pledge -- when it comes to Michigan and Florida, and to rely on unelected SuperDelegates to override the voters' choice, are old news. And I'm certainly not shocked at Clinton being willing to Swiftboat any opponent, even a fellow Democrat, even if it damages the party's chances of winning in November: it's becoming increasingly clear that her defining characteristics are ego and a sense of entitlement, and she (and Bill) have been on the attack ever since it became apparent that she wouldn't be handed the nomination that she deeply, truly believes she, and she alone, deserves. She started trying to unfairly corner the nomination two whole years ago (and more here), and lately she's falsely accused Obama of everything from laziness, to plagiarism (then lied about it, blatantly claiming they didn't actually hold a press conference to spread that rumor!), to refusing to debate her (after 18 Democratic debates already, and two more in the works), to being unqualified to be Commander in Chief.

And I should be reassured that we voters don't seem to be falling for Clinton's distortions and negativity anymore: in Wisconsin, for example, when [a]sked which candidate attacked "unfairly," twenty-six percent of voters said "only Clinton," while only six percent said that of Obama. Obama seems energized, not demoralized, as if the more Clinton attacks him, the surer he is that she's on the ropes. Sometimes even the mainstream media catches on, as Dana Milbank apparently has:

In the lavatory aboard Barack Obama's campaign plane, a cartoon shows the Clintons attempting to roast Obama in a cauldron. Bill stirs, Hillary adds salt and pepper. But Obama is smiling, and all that emerges from the pot are bubbles labeled "Hope."

But despite those hopeful signs, and despite my relative cynicism about politics in general and the Clinton machine in particular, I'm still frankly stunned by the sweeping Times piece, which everyone who claims to care about the character and competence of the next President -- every sincere patriot who's currently leaning towards Hillary -- should, in good conscience, read this and think hard before pulling the lever for her in a primary.

The whole, wide-ranging article is a must-read. It implicates every issue at stake in this primary, including Hillary Clinton's character, her ability to run a successful campaign, her ability to attract and retain competent subordinates (as every President must do to have a successful Administration), her electability. It sheds a lot of light on the Superdelegate/ Michigan/ Florida controversy, and the possibility of Clinton instigating legal action that could lead to the nomination being decided by the Supreme Court. Again.

Playing the media the way the Clinton campaign has done is unacceptable. I hate -- we all should hate -- the kind of cynical, amoral politics that would take a fresh new statesman who has the rare ability to give people hope again, and distort that quality into something Mansonesque. Practically speaking, if Obama does win the nomination, it also hands the Republican smear machine a built-in attack point (McCain's already borrowing Hillary's talking points verbatim in attacking Obama).

And as to "legal action" by the Clinton camp: do we really want to nominate a candidate who's willing to let the Supreme Court choose our President -- again?

[I]t has already been reported that Sen. Clinton will demand that the convention seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, two states whose delegates have been disqualified by the party for holding January primaries in defiance of party rules. The candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. But Sen. Clinton opted to keep her name on the Michigan primary ballot, and staged a primary-day victory visit to Florida, winning both of those unsanctioned primaries. Her campaign is arguing that the delegates she won in each state be recognized despite party rules and notwithstanding her commitment not to compete in those primaries. Of course. "Count every vote."

As the convention nears, with Sen. Clinton trailing slightly in the delegate count, the next step might well be a suit in the Florida courts challenging her party's refusal to seat Florida's delegation at the convention. And the Florida courts, as they did twice in 2000, might find some ostensible legal basis for overturning the pre-election rules and order the party to recognize the Clinton Florida delegates. That might tip the balance to Sen. Clinton.

We all know full well what could happen next. The array of battle-tested Democratic lawyers who fought for recounts, changes in ballot counting procedures, and even re-votes in Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 would separate into two camps. Half of them would be relying on the suddenly-respectable Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision that overturned the Florida courts' post-hoc election rules changes. The other half would be preaching a new-found respect for "federalism" and demanding that the high court leave the Florida court decisions alone.

Would the Supreme Court... take the case...?

Heaven help us if Hillary drives us to that. Too much is at stake for us to tolerate that kind of self-centeredness. Please: read the whole Times of London article. Then think. Hard. (Hat tip to Jack and Jill Politics and Think On These Things.)
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

The Obama Train Keeps Gathering Speed; Clinton Continues Trying to Jimmy the Tracks

UPDATE, FEB. 20: More on exactly how Hillary Clinton is trying to "jimmy the tracks" -- amazing revelations, to me, from a reliable source -- are here.

ORIGINAL POST: Primaries are being held today in Hawai'i (20 elected or "pledged" delegates, plus 9 "superdelegates" (more on "supers" here)) and Wisconsin (74 "pledged" delegates, 18 "superdelegates"). Hillary Clinton's campaign, which originally focused primarily on larger states and conceded smaller states and "caucus" states to Obama, has tardily recognized its error and has been fighting hard to win these contests, especially in Wisconsin. Obama similarly wants to win both states for several reasons -- to add to his "momentum" meme by increasing his winning streak to 10 in a row; to prove (in Wisconsin's state) that he can win in an industrial state similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania, whose primaries are coming soon; and of course to increase his lead in democratically-elected pledged delegates and therefore his moral entitlement to the votes of the SuperDelegates that Hillary's hoping will act contrary to their constituents' desires and throw their support to her (it's still an open question whether Hillary, who has Bill's Rolodex and an Establishment Democrat's ability to offer favors to Friends Of Hillary, does or doesn't retain her lead in the SuperDelegates who, in this tight race, almost certainly will make the final decision who the Democratic nominee will be regardless of who their constituents think it should be).

CURRENT EARLY RETURNS: CNN says Obama leads Clinton. Update: CNN projects Obama wins Wisconsin. So do USA Today and the Washington Post and, according to the WaPo, "the networks." Some interesting demographic details here. More demographics from CNN here. UPDATE, FEB. 19 11:36 PM PACIFIC: Record high turnout in Hawai'i's caucuses. Could it be that someone's energizing the electorate? UPDATE 11:47 PM: very early results show Obama winning in HI by a 2:1 margin. UPDATE, FEB. 20, 12:04 AM: News reports and analysis links: race moving to TX and OH; ditto here; different analysts' takes. UPDATE, FEB. 20, 12:38 AM PACIFIC: Honolulu Star-Bulletin: early returns show Obama winning by 3:1; turnout five times last election's.

FINAL RESULTS, Feb. 20: Barack Obama didn't just win in Wisconsin and Hawai'i; he won big: "Obama won 58 percent of the vote to Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) 41 percent in Wisconsin. Obama also captured the Democratic caucus in his home state of Hawaii by a wide margin Tuesday, picking up another 20 delegates." Now he faces two huge tests, two states that really are Hillary Clinton's "firewall": Texas and Ohio. She needs big wins there, not just slim margins, while even slim wins by Obama may force her to cave on all her anti-democratic maneuvering -- but it clearly is an uphill fight for him in both places. Of course, VichyDems will follow them closely.

(Two side notes. One is that Wisconsin's delegate allocation system is downright weird: Obama could win by 10% and still tie in delegates won. The other, for folks who quite properly are concerned about which Democrat is better able to beat McCain in the general election: Wisconsin is yet another piece of evidence that Obama, not Clinton, would be the better standard-bearer. Newsweek:

Wisconsin primaries are open to all voters. With the Republican race all but decided for John McCain, Republicans and independents might flock to the Democratic primary, and they have supported Obama more than Clinton so far this year.

So: pledged delegate gain for Obama good; continuing SuperDelegate controversy bad (and fundamentally undemocratic); Michigan/Florida question still up in the air as well.

What's a concerned citizen, who wants candidates to follow the rules and for citizens' votes to matter more than party insiders' votes, supposed to do? Here are some options:

- Write a letter to the editor of your local paper, pointing out the unfairness of SuperDelegates having votes worth roughly 10,000 citizen votes;

- Call the SuperDelegates in your state (much contact info here) and tell them how you feel;

- Sign a petition here or here;

- If you think Obama's playing fairly and Clinton is not, donate to Obama or make phone calls for him.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Who Do Republicans Want to Win the Democratic Nomination?

UPDATE, APRIL 3: Add Joe Lieberman to the list of conservatives who want Hillary to win the nomination (but McCain to win the general election).

UPDATE, MARCH 22: After reading some blogs and articles on this subject, I think something needs to be made clearer: there's no question that Republican leaders and pundits want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, because they know that (regardless of the passing impact of her "kitchen sink" smear strategy over the last month) she is much less electable than Obama (scroll down and check out the yearlong, 70+ poll chart). (Also, a Zogby poll here.)

President and Laura Bush, Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal), and Rush Limbaugh -- as well as the most conservative members of the Democratic Party -- all have helped Hillary out. (Addendum, March 23: as if Fox News throwing Hillary a campaign fundraiser (see "Rupert Murdoch" link immediately above) weren't enough to prove that the Republican power brokers want her to be the candidate, Fox News anchors are even admitting -- and some are upset -- that their network is tilted toward HRC: "Fox News' very own anchors are speaking out — and walking off — over what they perceive to be "Obama-bashing" on their network....") (Fox News' clear preference for Clinton over Obama more than outweighs any implication that could be drawn from Murdoch's adult daughter's preference for Obama.)

But Republican voters are crossing party lines to support Obama (e.g., in Ohio), not strategically to hurt the Democrats but because they honestly like him, just like the famous "Reagan Democrats" left the Democratic fold to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Heck, even my diehard Republican mom is among them. "Strategic" voting by rank and file Republicans didn't start until Rush Limbaugh started urging his listeners to do so -- something that may have violated election laws and could get him indicted.

So please be careful to distinguish between what honest voters (who happen to be Republican) do -- support Obama in surprising numbers -- and what Republican strategists (who want the most beatable opponent in November) do -- support Clinton. There's a big difference between the two. (Addendum: Found a great Time article proving exactly my point here; check it out.)

ORIGINAL POST: A tidbit from Wisconsin, that serves as an example of what seems to be Republican strategy overall -- even George and Laura apparently want Hillary to win, as does Fox News' Rupert Murdoch, who threw her a fundraiser -- and which is yet another piece of evidence supporting my argument that Obama's significantly more electable. From Reason.com:

Some talk radio jocks suggested that Republicans (it's an open primary, and they can vote in either race) vote for Hillary, since polls show her losing the state to McCain in November.

(Relevant media reports here, here, here, here, and here.)

Just think about it... I'll have Wisconsin and Hawaii election results and analysis as soon as reliable returns come back.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Feb. 16 Update on Misc. Primary Election Issues

Tying together several different threads, there are some hopeful/interesting developments as of very early today:

- Some Black Congresspeople, who prematurely decided to endorse Hillary Clinton in their capacities as Superdelegates, are reconsidering, especially in light of pressure from their constituents. That's only fair: as Mark Meyers of the Superdelegate Transparency Project points out here, since Superdelegates aren't bound by any rules -- a point Clinton loves to make -- then they're free to put their constituents' concerns before all else, especially a promise they shouldn't have given so soon, in the exercise of a power that shouldn't apply in a two-candidate race where a "tiebreaker" isn't needed.

- Obama -- who managed to beat Clinton's early fundraising lead by using grassroots organizations to win in smaller and "caucus" states where big TV ad buys weren't so important -- is now raising enough money to compete head-to-head with Clinton by buying TV time (also here) in the large states where she previously was dominant. That's important, because Clinton's banking on winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and/or Texas -- all states where television is key to reaching the huge numbers of voters. Basically, she conceded smaller, caucus states to Obama while she used her large war chest to buy votes in larger, primary states -- an error, because the momentum he gained with his "unimportant" wins brought him enough new contributors to allow him to compete with her on her own turf. As between these two, anyway, this election isn't going to be bought and paid for; it's got to be won.

- As I reported earlier, the fastest-growing union in the country decided yesterday to throw its weight behind Obama, using not only its 1.9 million members, but also its ground-level organizers and its strong relationships with the Latino community and others to try and tip the scales Obama's way. (UPDATE, FEB. 27: It's happening; Clinton's starting to lose her grip on her "firewall" Latino vote.) The story here, which the mainstream press hasn't caught onto yet, is that taking a strong stand against an incumbent or a favorite in a Democratic primary is a new tactic for unions. These aren't Jimmy Hoffa's "scratch my back" insider politics anymore, which again hurt Hillary, who is backed by most of the AFL-CIO unions and was counting on Hoffa-style favor-trading to tilt labor her way. I'm betting it will pay big dividends here, both for Obama and for the SEIO and other unions that spun off from the more conservative AFL-CIO to create the new Change to Win organization partly to gain leeway to do more creative politicking like this.

- Finally, John McCain is embarrassing himself when it comes to fundraising. He's criticized Obama and dared him to accept public funding (and therefore limit the amount his campaign can spend in privately-contributed money) -- basically, hoping that Obama will voluntarily hobble himself by surrendering his (unexpected) advantage over McCain in fundraising. But now it turns out that McCain wasn't just being noble in limiting himself to public funds: rather, it turns out he ran short on money and privately agreed to go the public finance route as security for a loan he needed to stay competitive. I'm all for public financing of elections, but only if it's mandatory, not optional. If private contributions are going to play a role, then Obama -- who still has taken far fewer corporate and lobbyist contributions than Hillary has -- might as well retain any fair edge he's got over McCain.

Don't forget to stay on top of both the Superdelegate and Michigan/Florida controversies. They're being "spun" wildly, but the issues remain simple, and we voters need to keep reminding all parties -- including Obama -- that they need to do the right thing by (a) encouraging all "supers" to surrender their pledges and instead vote however their constituents did, (b) encourage the Michigan and Florida parties to hold new primary elections so that their delegations can be seated fairly, and (c) if they don't do so, insist that the party's Rules Committee NOT seat those delegations if doing so will tilt the apparent popular vote in a different way than it otherwise would fall. Studies of these issues are here, here, and here; please keep on top.

I'll be away for a couple of days with the family, and offline. See everyone next week, and have a great weekend.

Thersites
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Another Good, Simple Solution to the SuperDelegate Problem

is offered by Mark Myers, one of the co-creators of the Superdelegate Transparency Project (which I'm also involved with, as a ground troop). He explains why only w.a.t.b.s complain about the voters trying to influence the supers to do the right thing, and offers a superb solution that both avoids the train wreck we could be facing this time, but allows the supers to serve the purpose they intentionally were intended to serve (helping choose the candidate when not 2, but 3 or more, make it to the Convention, none with 50% of the popular vote):

The solution, if you ask this outsider, is simple. Keep the supers, but after 2008 don't allow them to vote on the first nominating ballot. If a candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates, he or she deserves the nomination. If the nomination process goes to a second round, let the supers step in and cast votes.

There are other good ideas too, like Rachel Maddow's (have instant runoff voting), but this is a good one. Most important is to recognize that this problem is solvable by anyone who sincerely wants to solve it, and candidates and trolls who muddy the issue should be shushed.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Service Employees Union Endorses Obama, Which Could Tip Scales in Key States

UPDATE, FEB. 20: And now the Teamsters hop on board the Obama Express as well, which should be very helpful to Obama in Clinton's must-win industrial states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

ORIGINAL POST: One thing I've learned to do as a political blogger who cares about getting his facts straight is to ask politicians and organizations to put VichyDems on their media contact lists, which they're increasingly willing to do. Getting the same press releases and participating in the same press conferences as ABC and Fox News' correspondents allows me to get the real facts, before the news outlets put their "spin" on them. [Update: this story has made the news wires now; here are the stories from the Associated Press, Washington Post (also via Reuters here and here, and via AP here), CNN, USA Today, and the Austin (TX) Statesman.]

So I just got off a press conference conference call with the Service Employees International Union's Executive Board, which announced that it "overwhelmingly voted to endorse Barack Obama" over Hillary Clinton in the Presidential primary. While saying they have "tremendous respect for Hillary Clinton," speakers explained that their union has worked with Obama for 25 years -- the community organizing work he did in Chicago before entering politics was in the same communities the union works with -- and that "there hasn't been a [union-related] fight in Illinois that Barack Obama hasn't helped us on."

More significantly, though, everyone who spoke said clearly that their decision was based primarily on two things. One, which was mentioned in passing but seemed significant, was the candidates' differences on the Iraq war, since many union members have children serving in the armed forces, want them home, and apparently trust Obama to do that more than they do Hillary. The other, and the one the various speakers kept emphasizing, was the union's desire for "change" and their growing "excitement" about Obama. One member of the Executive Board said:

“This is a moment of change.... we think this is a really determining issue, not just for those of us who are working today, but for our children and grandchildren... We have tremendous respect for Hillary Clinton” but "it’s time for something new." In response to a question from Fox News about the candidates' policy positions on labor issues, a speaker responded that the decision "isn’t about specific positions taken alone, but about the right person at the right time... exciting a group of our members who feel very excited about being enfranchised and being involved.” He mentioned a "new generation" and said that “Barack Obama’s the one to take us there."

The SEIU Board says it made this decision now for several reasons. One is that internal polling showed that at least 60% of its members were ready to make this endorsement, which is required before the union will endorse. Another is Edwards' withdrawal; several state organizations that had endorsed Edwards moved to Obama.

Third, and most significantly: the union is making this decision now, on a national level, precisely because they're in a position to help tip the scales one way or another, and they want to exercise that power while they have it. (More about that new strategy below.) SEIU has 150,000 members in the remaining primary states; is the largest union in Oregon and, one speaker thought, in the key state of Pennsylvania; and believes it's particularly well-positioned to have an impact on "the next couple states" primaries -- ones that Clinton desperately needs to win if she wants to stop Obama's momentum. In other words, the union wants to be a player, not just in the general election, but in the primary.

How much impact can this endorsement, and the actual work the union will do on Obama's behalf, have on the outcome of the primary?

- SEIU is the fastest growing union in America, and currently has 1.9 million members.

- SEIU has 30,000 voters in Ohio, where Clinton desperately needs a win.

- In Texas -- another "must win" state for Clinton -- SEIU has been growing quickly, and actively organizing new locals, in Texas -- which means it both has lots of grassroots organizers on the ground who can add "help Obama" to their to-do list, and it has significant inroads with the Latino community there, which Clinton has been counting on to put her over the top there.

- In all states, but especially Texas and Ohio, the union can mount strong "get out the vote" (GOTV) efforts.

A few final notes that I find interesting:

- The SEIU organization in New York, Hillary Clinton's home state, did not oppose the decision to endorse Obama. Instead, they abstained from the vote, not wanting to alienate their own senator but not supporting her either. If Clinton can't get the wholehearted backing of one of the largest unions in her own home state, she may be in trouble with the labor vote overall -- which is important not only to her prospects in the primary, but also to her ability to energize the union vote in a general election.

- The decision to endorse a candidate relatively early in a primary is part of a new strategy for the SEIU -- a strategy that could play a significant role in politics at all levels in the future. Board members bragged about their role in helping progressive newcomer Donna Edwards defeat the incumbent Democrat, Albert Wynn -- who has served 8 terms in Maryland's Fourth District but took the wrong position on the Iraq war and other progressive issues. (In the strongly Democratic district, Edwards is almost certain to be elected against any Republican challenger, so the primary race effectively determined who that district's next Congressperson will be.)

The Edwards-Wynn race was the first time the SEIU actively helped a challenger defeat a "Vichy" Democratic incumbent, and represents a significant change from politics-as-usual. A SEIU Board member described their support for Edwards as "holding candidates responsible" for voting illiberally and promised that there "will be more of that in the future," ranging from the union "putting the spotlight on particular votes" to recruiting candidates to actively run against incumbents who, despite being Democrats, are seen as working against union members' interests. Now the union is bringing the same approach to the big leagues, throwing its weight behind its preferred candidate at a critical point in the primary. If it succeeds in tipping the scales, it will emerge as a kingmaker -- and primary races at all levels will become much more significant than they are now. Which is good news for those of us who want to reform the primary system, and unseat entrenched "blue dogs, Vichys, DINOs", etc.

Upsetting the incumbent in a primary is both rare and essential to unseating Vichys -- it's long been a theme on this blog; as the Washington Post put it, "The defeat of an incumbent in a primary is a rarity, but two in one state is almost unheard of. In Maryland, no congressional incumbent had lost a party primary since 1992; it had been 28 years since two fell on one day... Lawmakers on Capitol Hill took it as a sign that the election season could be bad for incumbents ....."

- The union's influence with Latinos applies outside Texas, too. The Change to Win Federation, the union umbrella organization which spun off from the AFL/CIO in 2005 and which SEIU belongs to, has been working to engage in politics not just by donating money to candidates, but through grassroots activism and by building relationships with local communities, not just union members. (Mirroring their fundraising and campaign strategies, Clinton has more AFL/CIO union support; Obama has more CTW unions' support.) One SEIU Board member emphasized that SEIU has built particularly strong relationships "with the Latino community.” In other words, they may help tilt the Latino vote -- which already is starting to be more evenly balanced between Clinton and Obama than it was in the early primaries -- Obama's way.

Finally, a suggestion for the SEIU: as part of its strategy, it's in perfect position to lobby the Democratic superdelegates and pressure them to vote consistently with their constituents, or else face the same kind of challenge that lost Wynn his job, and also to have its Michigan and Florida members pressure party leaders to hold new primaries rather than try to seat delegations that don't represent all those states' Democrats and that are unfairly tipped toward Hillary Clinton.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

SuperDelegates and the Anti-democratic Perquisites of Power

UPDATE, Feb. 19: Hey -- bloggers make a difference? I'll bet Thomas Paine's pamphlets had some impact on the creation of our democracy, too. So pay attention, and please participate. (CNN overview of "supers" here.)

UPDATE: Feb. 15: USA Today and CNN on the Michigan and Florida delegates problem; Wall Street Journal on yet another reason Obama would be the better candidate.]

UPDATE: FEB. 14: Happy Valentine's Day from Sen. Clinton: with her campaign floundering, and losing both the popular vote and the specific constituencies (women, Latinos) she had considered her "firewall", she's now pushing for the flawed Michigan and Florida results to be included in the delegate vote tally.

This follows her earlier, but not well-publicized, statement defending the superdelegate system on the grounds that her inside-the-Beltway friends have better "knowledge of the candidates" than we voters do, and calling Obama's proposal (that the "supers" simply vote the way their constituents voted) "really contrary" to the way things are supposed to work.

Put the two positions together -- that we should count the two states that intentionally broke the rules and which even Hillary originally agreed should be disqualified (but where, unlike Obama or any other Democrat, she still campaigned), and that it's OK for a relatively small group of party insiders to override the popular vote -- and it's clear that Clinton has now officially abandoned any remaining pretense at (a) supporting small-d democracy, (b) playing by the rules, or (c) putting the Democratic Party's interests before her own drive for power. There's no question any more: she'll break the rules and shatter the party -- even have the nomination wind up being decided by the Supreme Court, a la Bush 2000 -- rather than even risk losing in a fair fight.

[Update, Feb. 14, 11:48 am Pacific: The Boston Globe has more damning detail about Clinton's outspoken disregard for the democratic process, and her self-serving flip-flop on seating the Florida and Michigan delegations:

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," he added. ***

Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

Clinton's even trying to reframe the issue by changing our language; her campaign no longer refers to "superdelegates" (a term so well accepted that it draws 2.75 million Google hits), but will start calling them "automatic delegates" (which both downplays the fact that each of them has a vote worth 10,000 of ours, and implies that they don't actually have a choice who to support). Orwell would be proud. So would Joe Stalin, and especially Karl Rove.

So considering all this, ask yourself: does Clinton sound like an agent of change, or an establishment politician committed to winning at all costs, even if it means ignoring both the will of the voters and the rules she herself helped put into place?

David Sirota, writing today for the Huffington Post, echoes my analysis of what this means:

So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons. Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty -- not even to the founding principles of democracy.

At least the mainstream press -- here, here, here, here -- is finally catching on to what a big deal this is, though they're still focusing on the Superdelegates and less on the equally important -- and more deceptive -- issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations without pushing them to hold new caucuses or primaries that allow all candidates to compete and all voters to participate. The original post below explains why this news today is so significant, and why it puts Hillary Clinton in such a poor light. (Meanwhile, you can sign petitions here and here, and contribute to Obama here.)

ORIGINAL POST, Feb. 9:
After checking out CNN's primary watch page late last night, I pretty much know what I'm going to be doing for the next six months:

Yesterday there were three Democratic primaries/caucuses: Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana. Obama won all three states overwhelmingly: 68-31% in Washington, 68-32% in Nebraska, 57-36% in Louisiana. He also won the more complex race for delegates in those states: 35-14 in Washington, 16-8 in Nebraska, 23-15 in Louisiana. (All figures are as of midnight last night, with between 96% and 99% of precincts in all three states reporting.)

So Obama gained 74 or so democratically-elected, "promised" delegates yesterday, and Clinton gained only 37 of such delegates. And since (depending on who was counting) the candidates were either neck-and-neck or Obama had a slight lead in the "promised" delegate count heading into today's primaries, he should have about a 40-delegate lead overall, right?

Wrong. Here's CNN's leaderboard as of about midnight Saturday, after substantially all the day's results were in:


Look closely: according to CNN, Obama has 908 democratically elected candidates to Clinton's 877 -- a 31-delegate lead -- but Clinton is still over 70 delegates ahead overall, even after getting her tail whupped today, because she's won the loyalty of (read: campaigned and done favors for, made huge campaign donations to, and shared Bill's donor Rolodex with) 223 party insiders called "superdelegates", while the less-well-connected Obama has only lined up 131!

(UPDATE, FEB. 12: After Maine last Sunday and with the "Potomac primaries" underway today, Obama is continuing his winning streak, but the situation still hasn't changed. CNN reports: In total delegates, Clinton tops Obama 1,148 to 1,121, according to CNN estimates. The breakdown paints a slightly different picture, as Obama leads 986 to 924 in pledged delegates, and Clinton is winning among superdelegates 224 to 135. Does this sound democratic to you, or does it sound like a system designed to ensure that only "establishment", business-as-usual pols can be elected?)

Gain a sweeping victory in elected delegates and yet wind up farther behind because while you were diligently campaigning, your opponent was (much more fruitfully) bribing or twisting insiders' arms. It's our current DLC, Centrist, Clintonian, Democratic (but not democratic) party in a nutshell. And while Obama is asking the superdelegates to simply vote the same way as their states or districts -- a fair solution -- Clinton is defending the superdelegate system, supposedly because the "supers" know the candidates personally and therefore can make better decisions about them than we mere citizens can! It's hard to imagine a less democratic position for a "Democrat" to take: that the aristocrats in the House of Lords quite properly can override us commoners who don't know what we're doing when we vote.

Wait, it gets worse: there's also the Michigan/Florida question. When those states moved their primaries earlier in the calendar without the DNC's permission, the party told them that if they persisted their delegates wouldn't count. They persisted. Clinton sneak-campaigned in both states by making sure her name was on the ballot then buying regional TV ads that would air both in contested states and in the disqualified states. Clinton, unopposed, won big in both states. And now the DNC says, firmly, that those delegates won't be seated -- unless the party decides otherwise at the convention itself. Big loophole, that: two huge, influential states' delegations show up and demand to be seated, it's all the news will cover, it threatens to overshadow the party's message on the issues, and you don't think they'll cave in and seat them? Especially if Obama wins the popular vote, but admitting Michigan and Florida will swing the popular vote the other way and make it look like Hillary actually won?

Yeah, right. The ongoing impeachment proceedings of Bush and Cheney illustrate the degree to which the current Democratic Party leadership -- with, I hope, the exception of Howard Dean -- stands firmly for truth, justice, fair elections and the American Way.

I'm trying to remember the last time the people voted for one candidate, but the other candidate manipulated a small group of power brokers to gain the Presidency anyway. The whole situation just seems really familiar. Just give me a sec. Was it... was it... Bush-Gore 2000, where Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the five Supreme Court votes that really mattered?

So that's what we're coming down to: We The People vote for one candidate, power brokers pick the other, power brokers win. And it doesn't matter which well-connected candidate is pulling the strings, because both parties will roll over for the people with power.

It's offensive. It's undemocratic, and unDemocratic. If the superdelegates don't do the right thing and align themselves with the popular vote, there may be -- there should be -- uncontrollable protests at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August, a la Chicago 1968.

If Clinton wins the nomination unfairly, without huge protests from the roots, then regardless of the outcome of the general election it'll be a good time to check New Zealand's immigration rules. There's great mountain climbing there, the fly fishing is tremendous, the political system is only a little bit rigged -- and it's half a planet away from the former United States of America. But let's not lose faith. Instead, let's work to make sure that doesn't happen, because America's worth fighting for.

That's why I know what I'll be doing for the next sixth months: still doing my climbing on Mt. Hood, my fishing in the Deschutes and McKenzie -- and working to un-rig the Democratic Party's rigged and unfair primary system.

P.S. Feb. 12: Paul Abrams at HuffPo has a good idea for resolving the superdelegate controversy, and holds out hope for Florida and Michigan as well. Fingers crossed. And the Democratic Party is considering revamping its primary process -- but only after November, which is sensible but does us no good now. Meanwhile, though, Hillary still seems to have the lead overall despite falling farther and farther behind with primary voters. A little sunshine and a little progress shouldn't lull us into complacency...

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

All Kinds of People Are Riding the Obama Train... Even Republicans

UPDATE, MAR. 2: Interesting NY Times Magazine analysis of Obams's trans-racial politics. To me, this underscores that for once, this isn't a black man; it's just a good man, running for an important office.

UPDATE, FEB. 28:Consistent with the previous trend, Texas Republicans are crossing the party line to vote for Obama.

UPDATE, FEB. 20: And now some pretty ugly revelations about how Hillary is responding to Obama's momentum -- including smears and threats to sue to win. Yech.

UPDATE, FEB. 15: More important news on how the primary is being rigged unfairly; plus relevant articles from USA Today and CNN on the Michigan and Florida delegates problem and the Wall Street Journal on yet another reason Obama would be the better candidate.

UPDATE, FEB. 13: Please don't stop here; check the sidebar, and the VichyDems home page, for more on the superdelegate and Michigan/Florida problems, electability -- and why (electability aside) VichyDems is strongly endorsing Obama (who's not perfect) over Clinton (whose imperfections -- different ones than those Fox News, a major Clinton campaign contributor, tells us about! -- make Obama's insignificant).

ORIGINAL POST:
Today Barack Obama scored huge wins in the Potomac Primaries -- in one case by a 3-to-1 margin -- and he did so not only with African Americans but with a broad range of voters. CNN reports:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama pulled support from virtually all sectors of the voting public Tuesday on his way to defeating rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., Democratic primaries, according to CNN exit polling.

Obama was expected to poll well among young voters, independents and African-Americans, and he did -- taking 60 to 70 percent of the votes in the first two groups and nearly 90 percent of black voters, the polls suggest.

But he also was edging out Clinton among voters 65 and older, blue-collar workers and women, all groups that Clinton was counting on as the core of her support. ***

[Y]oung voters flocked to the Obama campaign... . Seventy-five percent of poll respondents under 30 and 67 percent of those under 45 voted for him in Virginia. Those numbers were 68 percent and 71 percent in Maryland. ...Obama also edged Clinton ... among voters over 60 in Virginia and ... Maryland .... And he split white votes about 50-50 with Clinton in both states.

Also check out the Washingon Post article on today's sweeps here. That paper notes:

Even Latinos, who helped deliver Nevada and California to the senator from New York, split about evenly between Obama and Clinton -- although the number of Hispanic voters was much smaller. "Certainly he broadened his coalition," [pollster Celinda] Lake said.

So let's stop talking about Hillary's "firewall" or fearing discrimination in November. Obama's electable with white people, OK? And with Latinos. And Asians. Young people. Old people. Definitely with real Progressives, but also with Independents. Moderates of all stripes. Even some Republicans. He's electable, he's electable, he's electable; only the execrable Bob Novak still thinks he'll face any "Bradley Effect", as if America hasn't changed any in the 25 years since 1982.

Obama's broad popularity is critical to a Democratic victory in November. McCain's main advantage is that independents and moderate Republicans like him. That means that Obama can cut into McCain's voter base in a big way, even snagging Republican voters the way Ronald Reagan took "Reagan Democrats" away from Jimmy Carter in 1980. (Hillary can't do that: every poll shows she has no traction at all with independents and that Republicans of all kinds essentially detest her; that's why as many as half of all Americans say they would never vote for her.) Obama, thankfully, doesn't carry that kind of baggage.

Think hard about the potential impact of Obama winning those "Obamacans" (not my term; I prefer simply "Obama Republicans"). CNN again:

Voters who described themselves as independents made up 22 percent of those who cast a ballot in Virginia's Democratic primary and 13 percent in Maryland, according to the polling. Those voters favored Obama by a margin of 66 percent to 33 percent in Virginia and 68 to 24 in Maryland. ... Eight Seven percent of voters in the Virginia primary described themselves as Republicans -- and 70 percent of those polled voted for Obama. According to CNN exit polling, 3 percent of people who voted in Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday described themselves as Republicans -- most of them backing Obama. ***

(Video report on Obama Republicans here.)

The Clinton campaign's only response -- the only response they could have, frankly, given Obama's increasing momentum, his remarkable and unexpected string of victories, and what the WaPo calls "cracks in [the] Clinton coalition" -- was to play the same card President Bush and Dick Cheney pull out of their cuffs when the polls turn against them: national defense.

Clinton's chief strategist told CNN that Clinton is the only candidate who can "block" John McCain from playing "the national security card", as if Clinton's few years of service on the Senate Armed Forces Committee and her votes for the Iraq War resolution, the surge, and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment accusing Iran of terrorism somehow will stand up against McCain's honest-to-gosh wartime experience and heroism. (If real wartime experience and heroism didn't help John McCain beat a chickenhawk like George W. Bush, how can Clinton's non-experience somehow trump McCain on national security?)

Luckily, national security isn't what the voters we care about, care about. Or, at least, they're figuring out that the Republicans are weaker on real security than we are; after all, they're the ones who've wasted 3,000 American lives in Iraq, pretending to avenge 3,000 American lives lost on 9/11. McCain offers no hope of improvement; he's welcomed a 100 year war in Iraq. And while we're distracted in Iraq, Afghanistan falls apart, our military alliances are deteriorating, the Taliban are flaunting their untouchability even in nuclear-armed Pakistan -- and we're losing control of our own nuclear arsenal right here at home! It's understandable that even some Republicans are starting to recognize that Democrats probably make our country and our troops safer than the Republicans have; after all, we could hardly do worse.

On the issues voters really care about -- fighting on our own ground, not the enemy's -- Obama was the winner among respondents who said the economy, the Iraq war or health care -- a trademark issue for Clinton -- was the most important issue to them. "This is the new American majority," Obama said at a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, where he declared victory in the three contests. "This is what change looks like...."

Yep. This is what change looks like. Let's just hope the Establishment Dems can't steal it from us at the National Convention using Superdelegates and by seating the currently-disqualified Florida and Michigan contingents.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Paul Krugman vs. Obama: Brilliance, Unhinged

UPDATE, FEB. 19: This is a big deal: as it turns out, Krugman's "cult" smear is actually a meme that's been helped along by the Clinton campaign itself. I had been second-guessing the severity of my criticism of Krugman in this post, because I believed that Krugman was at least sincere, if misled. But if he's one of the "select reporters" that the Clinton camp fed the whole "Obama's hopefulness is really just brainwashing" line -- and he parroted it to his readers without disclosing the campaign's connection -- then he should not only recant, but retire, because it would be as disingenuous as the things Robert Novak does. At a minimum, Krugman owes his readers a full disclosure of any communications with the Clinton camp on this issue -- and, if there is a connection, a sincere apology.

ORIGINAL POST:
The man who in ordinary times is the best, most honest, most lucid columnist out there, Paul Krugman, seems to have come (I hope temporarily) unhinged in his zeal to promote Hillary Clinton and attack (not too strong a word) Barack Obama. Honest debate is fair, I understand that politics is a contact sport, and while I prefer Obama to Clinton I've never pretended he's perfect -- but Krugman's going over the line, calling Obama supporters a "cult", among other things claiming (contrary to the evidence) that Obama isn't any more electable than Clinton, and (citing only one study by one economist) inaccurately asserting as fact that Obama's health care plan would only cover 50% of Americans (Obama himself, who learned from John Kerry's "Swiftboat" mistake and isn't taking any attacks lying down, dismantles Krugman's analysis on this one). It's sad to see one of the people on my "ideal dinner party" list develop symptoms of what looks like 'roid rage, but he has.

In addition to his regular newspaper columns, Krugman has a blog over at the NY Times. If the moderators allow it, you should find a lengthy comment from me over there soon responding to his recent post claiming Obama isn't any more electable than Clinton. I put enough time into that comment that I thought I'd post the same material here: *****
*****

Paul, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you before on any significant issue – you’re by far my favorite columnist and political author – but in several recent articles you seem to have lost all perspective in your inexplicable campaign to see Obama fall and Hillary nominated (which I’m not the first to observe: when you call half your readers cultists for supporting Obama, folks are gonna point it out). A Google search for the words ‘krugman attacks obama’ yields 195,000 results, and just the first page of results from a similar search on Google blogs yields examples of how you’re embarrassing yourself here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (great quote in the last one: “A few weeks ago I wondered aloud if Barack Obama had stolen Paul Krugman's girlfriend or maybe accidentally run over his dog. At the time, I was joking, but after reading his piece in today's New York Times, I'm really beginning to wonder”). This post, on electability, is just another example.

Until Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), McCain was just a hypothetical nominee among half a dozen Republicans, while it was fairly clear by mid-January that the Democratic nominee would be either Clinton or Obama. (In your own list of polls, only one before Jan. 10-11 even lists McCain; that’s how unlikely his nomination was thought at the time.) So you’re right to look at the more recent polls, when it was clearer who the likely nominees were. And contrary to your post, those recent polls – as well as older polls with weaker relevance – consistently show that Obama has a big edge over Hillary in a race against McCain. Time puts it at SEVEN POINTS – well outside the margin of error.

In your update adding the two latest polls, both of which show Obama pulling far ahead of Clinton in electability, you dismiss both those polls AND your entire post (which relies on recent polling) by claiming that polls are irrelevant this far before the election, nearly a year away. OK, then, let’s look at long-term trends: for over a year now, in a total of 62 polls, Obama has outperformed Clinton in hypothetical matchups against McCain. The graphic at the bottom of this post shows it clearly: Obama ALWAYS has polled better against McCain than Hillary. If you average the polls each quarter for the past year, Obama NEVER LOSES to McCain, while Clinton spent half the year losing to McCain, even when he wasn’t considered a serious competitor!

Even looking at the pre-Super Tuesday polls you cite in your original article, I see Obama having a significant edge in electability. Let's break it down:

Time, Feb. 1-4: McCain and Clinton tie, Obama wins by 7 points. Spread: 7 points.

CNN/Opinion Research, Feb. 1-3: Obama wins by eight points, Clinton wins by only three. Spread: 5 points.

Cook Political Report, 1/31-2/2: Clinton loses by 4 points, Obama wins by 2. Spread: 6 points.

ABC/WaPo, 1/30-2/1: Clinton loses by 5 points, Obama loses by 1. Spread: 4 points.

Fox/Opinion Dynamics, 1/30-31: Clinton and McCain tie, Obama wins by 1. Spread: 1 point.

NPR, 1/29-31: Clinton loses by 3, Obama loses by 1. Spread: 2 points.

NBC/WSJ, 1/20-22: Obama ties McCain, Clinton loses by 2. Spread: 2 points.

LA Times/Bloomberg, 1/18-22: Hillary Clinton beats McCain by 4, Barack Obama loses by 1. Spread: -3

USA Today/Gallup, 1/10-13: Clinton loses by 3, Obama loses by 5. Spread: -2

Diageo/Hotline, 1/10-12: Obama wins by 1, Hillary loses by 3. Spread: 2

Reuters/Zogby, 1/10-11: Clinton loses by 5, Obama loses by 2. Spread: 3.

(None of the other polls contains relevant matchups.)

Let’s crunch the numbers, shall we?

- Obama outperforms Clinton in 9 of the 11 polls listed. She outperforms him in only 2.

- The “point spread” between Clinton and Obama – ie, how much better Obama does against McCain than Clinton does – increases over time, showing that as Obama gets better known, he pulls ahead of Clinton in electability. By the last four polls, Obama is better than Clinton by margins of 4, 6, 5, and 7 points – a statistically significant advantage and far more than the "they both lose by 1.2%" (i.e., no spread) figure you cite.

- Over the 11 polls you listed, including the earliest ones, Obama runs neck-and-neck with McCain with 5 wins, 1 tie, 5 losses, while Hillary notches on 2 wins, 2 ties – and 7 losses.

So Obama, unquestionably, is not just more electable – he might be the only one of the two candidates who CAN beat John McCain. Given that reality, my two questions are:

(1) Do you really detest Obama so much that you’re willing to lose the election and have a Republican appoint John Paul Stevens’ replacement to the Supreme Court, and possibly Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s as well, making all nine justices Republican for the next 40 years?

(2) Why, oh why, are you jeopardizing your excellent reputation by turning into a disingenuous attack dog for the Clintons?

UPDATE, FEB. 11: BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT: An Associated Press-Ipsos poll just released (more analysis here) shows Senator Obama's continuing strength, both against Senator McCain and as compared to Senator Clinton. In that newest poll, the first major one conducted AFTER Super Tuesday (specifically, Feb. 7-10), Hillary Clinton arguably beats McCain by one point (within the 3+ point margin of error) -- while Barack Obama cleanly beats McCain, 48% - 42%. Which, of course, is where the Democratic candidate should be after seven years of Bush's mismanagement of the country. And the specifics are significant, too. Some are worried that a hidden, racist "Bradley effect" will sink Obama in the general election -- but Obama keeps winning in solidly white states throughout the midwest and north, and this poll indicates that white voters like Obama and Clinton exactly equally. Women? In a matchup against McCain, Obama does BETTER than Clinton with women voters! Minorities? In a McCain matchup, Obama will get 74% of minority votes. Young men? Obama beats McCain by 9 points; McCain beats Clinton by 7 -- a 16 point advantage to Obama. And on and on. Krugman says that both Clinton and Obama will lose by 1.2%? He's just flat-ass wrong. Sorry, Paul. The wish may be father to the thought, but it's time for you to rethink.

Most tellingly about the most recent polls: Obama is winning the votes of moderates and independents, even though his Senate voting record is more liberal than Clinton's. He's winning those voters back to the Democratic Party the same way Ronald Reagan stole them from us: not by running to the center, calculating and triangulating all the way, but by standing on his principles while not being afraid to look for common ground when it truly exists. One is Machiavellian; the other is statesmanlike. And voters, who know a lot more than we give them credit for, will go for the statesman every time they're offered on -- which is about once a generation. Barack Obama is this generation's unique statesman, and none of Hillary's inside-the- Beltway tricks can cancel that out. Or at least, we shouldn't let them cancel that out.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Yet Again: It's About Electability

(Last updated March 22, 2008, at bottom, with new poll data and analysis.)

It's fine to debate which Democrat we'd prefer to have in the White House, but boil it down and the hard reality is that while both have their flaws -- and Hillary has more flaws than Obama -- either of them would be preferable to having another Republican in the White House. It's crass, but we can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats need to win. In other words: it's the electability, stupid. (I've written about this before; check out the "electability" links here.)

So here are the latest "matchup" poll numbers, testing how Clinton and Obama each is likely to perform in the general election against the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain:

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. *** The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

The same Time article also emphasizes that Democrats can't take electability for granted:

For much of the year, Democrats have enjoyed a wide margin over any Republican rival in theoretical match-ups. Those margins have begun to shrink in recent weeks.

Bill Schneider of CNN agrees:

Clinton [has] ... higher negatives than Obama -- and McCain. Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3. *** Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. ... But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie. Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins. Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton). But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent).

There are three big things to think about here:

1) Independent and moderate voters matter: McCain and Obama both are doing very well with Independents. Hillary, significantly, is not: as a party insider and power broker, she has tons of partisan loyalty but little appeal outside of die-hard Dems. So if the race is Hillary vs. McCain, the independents will flock to McCain, and McCain will win. But if the race is Obama vs. McCain, they'll split the Independent and moderate votes; Obama will eliminate McCain's main advantage, which will let voters' general sense of fatigue and dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration work its magic.

2) Prejudice Doesn't Seem to be Hampering Obama: In a hypothetical matchup against McCain, Obama performs better than Hillary, not just with blacks, but with whites as well. On the "Mars vs. Venus" front, Clinton performs worse than Obama with men, and has no advantage over him even with women. This means that, contrary to some people's fears, his race isn't going to hurt him -- it may even be helping him -- while Clinton's sex won't help her against McCain -- not even among women. This black man is more electable than this white man or this white woman. We can debate the role of sexism in this election -- some see overwhelming misogyny, while I think the anti-Hillary sentiment has more to do with her Margaret Thatcher-like politics and personality than her sex -- but the bottom line is that, to the extent racial and gender demographics matter, Obama has the advantage over Clinton in a contest against McCain. At a minimum, we don't need to fear the "Bradley effect" (that secret racists will cost Obama the election).

3) A Tie Is Not OK: Obama has a six-point edge over McCain. Clinton, who's already well known to the electorate, has no edge whatsoever --and the Republican attack machine hasn't even gotten rolling yet. After seven years of Republican mismanagement have ruined our military, our schools, our world standing, and our economy, any Democratic candidate who's able to draw a feeble breath should have a built-in advantage over any Republican. Yet Hillary has no advantage at all over McCain. If the best she can do now is a tie, is she really who we want to pin our hopes on in November?

UPDATE, FEB. 11, 2008: These electability figures continue to hold true, and more and more people are starting to think seriously about Hillary's deficit in that area, if the number of blog posts on Google, and Google searches leading readers to this site, are any indication. Jedreport at MyDD.com has a good, neutral analysis of this issue. His most salient graphic, I think, is this one:


Both Clinton and Obama have suffered some as they've battled each other and as McCain has gained a "bounce" from moving into "presumptive nominee" status -- but for over a year now, and taking a total of 62 polls into account, Obama has ALWAYS run better against McCain than Hillary has. And while Obama seems to be regaining his mojo (see how his curve is flattening out at the end?), Clinton is continuing to worsen, albeit a little more slowly than she was a couple months back. UPDATE FEB. 12: and as yesterday's poll shows (see very bottom of this post), Obama is now beating McCain by six points -- meaning that his Q1 2008 number on the chart above probably will be not just flat, but spiking back up near its previous high point -- a tremendous uptick -- while Hillary's probably will stay below McCain's "baseline."

Maybe most significant is the fact that Clinton began her campaign as a loser when compared to McCain, despite being one of the most well-known politicians on the planet already. Obama, too, started off 1.1% below McCain, but he wasn't well-known, and voters tend to pick names they've heard of, even if they don't know much about them. But Clinton was at least as well known as McCain a year ago, and still fared poorly against him, just as she's faring poorly against him now.

So for those who argue that there's not enough difference between Obama and Hillary to matter (including Paul Krugman, who I usually admire but who strongly supports Clinton and is obsessively, and inaccurately, attacking Obama every chance he gets and gets both the numbers and their interpretation completely wrong here) -- to those people, I ask: if we want to actually win the Presidency, would you rather we run the candidate with the consistently successful orange line above, or the one with the sometimes-up-sometimes-down, and still dropping, green line?

UPDATED AGAIN, FEB. 11: I keep laying out the fact that Obama's more electable than Hillary. HispanicPundit has a clear, cogent explanation of why that is:

Democrats are likely to win the presidency in November for two reasons: Independents going Democrat and Republicans staying home.

Hillary Clinton, to a much greater degree than Obama, reverses these two trends. Independents, given Hillary’s high negative polling, are less likely to vote for her compared to Obama. The right despises her, significantly more so than Obama - making many Republicans vote against her who would have otherwise stayed home.

There are really two things that give the Republicans a chance to win this election: Nominating the most moderate Republican - which they have already done given McCain – and get the most polarizing figure on the Democrat side, making Hillary the most favorable candidate.

The Republicans, by sacrificing ideology for more electability, seem serious in wanting to win in November - Democrats, by favoring Hillary over Obama, do not.

Wish I'd said that so well.

Also, I debunk Paul Krugman's inaccurate pro-Hillary electability analysis here.

AND AGAIN, FEB. 11: In the "who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" category, Hillary Clinton has released a memo to journalists claiming that she is more electable than Barack Obama vs. John McCain. Yet in the same WaPo piece today reporting that development, her claim is debunked:

[R]ecent polls from Time, CNN, Cook Political Report, Post/ABC, Fox News and Rasmussen ... all ... show Obama running slightly to considerably stronger than Clinton in hypothetical matchups against McCain. A new survey out today -- conducted by the Associated Press-- affirms that idea with Obama leading McCain, 48 percent to 42 percent, while Clinton leads McCain, 46 percent to 45 percent.

It also nicely explains the two candidates' takes on the electability issue. Hillary's is old-school, DLC-centrist, fear-based; Barack's is hopeful, forward-looking, and takes the fight to the Republicans instead of pretending we can win a fight on their turf:

The electability argument is, at its center, dependent on how Democrats view this nominating fight.Clinton and her team believe that the party is essentially risk-averse, a position born of the disappointing results of the last two presidential elections in which the party's nominees were negatively defined by a concerted Republican effort.

Obama's claim of electability is based on the idea that the way politics has been conducted over the past several decades need not to be the way it operates going forward. The driving force behind Obama's argument is that unlike the past several elections that have been focused on turning out the base of each party and trying to peel off just enough independents to win, the 2008 contest could well be a transformational choice in which independents and even many Republicans put aside partisanship and cast a vote for him.

Left unsaid, but of course implied, is that Clinton is far too polarizing to change the electoral math and that, if she were able to win, would do so in a squeaker.

Which, of course, is what I've been saying.

STILL FEB. 11, AND UPDATED AGAIN, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT:

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll just released (more analysis here) shows Senator Obama's continuing strength, both against Senator McCain and as compared to Senator Clinton. In that newest poll, conducted AFTER Super Tuesday (specifically, Feb. 7-10), Hillary Clinton arguably beats McCain by one point (within the 3+ point margin of error) -- while Barack Obama cleanly beats McCain, 48% - 42%. (Which, of course, is where the Democratic candidate should be after seven years of Bush's mismanagement of the country.)

And the specifics are significant, too. Some are worried that a hidden, racist "Bradley effect" will sink Obama in the general election -- but Obama keeps winning in solidly white states throughout the midwest and north, and this poll indicates that white voters like Obama and Clinton exactly equally. Women? In a matchup against McCain, Obama does BETTER than Clinton with women voters! Minorities? In a McCain matchup, Obama will get 74% of minority votes. Young men? Obama beats McCain by 9 points; McCain beats Clinton by seven -- a 16 point advantage to Obama. And on and on.

Most tellingly: Obama wins the votes of moderates and independents, even though his Senate voting record is more liberal than Clinton's. He's winning those voters back to the Democratic Party the same way Ronald Reagan stole them from us: not by running to the center, calculating and triangulating all the way, but by standing on his principles while not being afraid to look for common ground when it truly exists. One is Machiavellian; the other is statesmanlike. And voters, who know a lot more than we give them credit for, will go for the statesman every time they're offered on -- which is about once a generation. Barack Obama is this generation's unique statesman, and none of Hillary's inside-the- Beltway tricks can cancel that out. Or at least, we shouldn't allow them to cancel that out.

UPDATE, MARCH 22, 2008: When I first posted this, few people were paying attention to Clinton and Obama's relative electability, and many of those who did found the question distasteful. My, how quickly things change! Clinton's campaign has changed themes many times, but now has pretty much abandoned anything related to actual issues and is focused almost exclusively on electability, her meme being: "although I can't conceivably win the popular vote, the superdelegates should toss me the nomination anyway, because polls increasingly show that Obama has been damaged so badly by attacks on his experience, his ability to serve as Commander in Chief, his patriotism, his race, even his religion, that he is unelectable. Oh -- and please ignore the fact that I'm the one who intentionally caused most of that damage."

That's it; that's Clinton's last stand. That Clinton's strategy is to kneecap-then-diss is clear, if you just note (1) that she officially announced she was going to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama just before the Texas and Ohio elections, (2) all of her attacks have centered on Republican talking points, reinforcing McCain's ability to reuse them in the general election (which violates all the unwritten rules of Presidential primaries -- you attack your opponent on differences that matter to Democrats, not damage your party's chances of winning the general election by adopting the other side's frame), and (3) no significant polls showed Clinton more electable than Obama until AFTER (1) and (2) above took place.

But Clinton's miserable strategy doesn't have legs. If one wears one's reading glasses and focuses only on the poll in each day's paper, then Obama's electability has suffered lately; but the general election is eight months away, so what really matters is long term trends -- which, as the original post shows, is that Obama is fundamentally a better matchup against McCain than Clinton is.

And even short-term, Clinton's tactics aren't holding up very well. Two bits of news today show the thinness of Clinton's "lead":

A) Voters fundamentally trust both Obama and McCain and deeply distrust Clinton -- a bias that will be almost impossible to overcome; and

B) Despite what Clinton's campaign keeps claiming, Obama has polled as being more electable against McCain every day for the past week (as well as for the past year!), and even his brief sag in polls against Clinton has reversed.

Will those numbers be the same tomorrow? For A, absolutely: voters know Clinton well and their poor opinion of her -- only 44% find her trustworthy? Yikes! -- isn't likely to change much. For B, absolutely not: Obama, Clinton and McCain will swap places over and over in daily polling, which is precisely my point: like investing in the stock market, it's long-term trends, not day-trading, that wins. So don't be fooled: McCain's likely to whup Hillary in the Fall, but Obama remains likely to whup McCain.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

A Possible Chance to Solve the "Mentor" Question Once and For All

LAST UPDATED: FEB. 8, 12:00 Pacific: A big chunk of VichyDems' traffic for the last couple weeks has been from Google searches somehow referencing Joe Lieberman (hiss!) being Barack Obama's "mentor." Many bloggers make a big deal out of this, as did I (over a year ago) before learning that all freshmen Senators are given a "mentor" to show them the ropes. But now that aged post is the first result if you Google for "obama lieberman mentor."

I don't know whether Obama chose Lieberman or vice versa (different stories are floating around), and I was seriously unhappy when Obama boosted Lieberman over Ned Lamont when Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary to Lamont and decided to run against Lamont as an independent when Lieberman's re-nomination was challenged by newcomer Lamont (I think it's vaguely undemocratic when incumbents take sides in primaries; let the party's members decide for themselves!).

But, as Connecticut Bob correctly points out, Obama DID NOT campaign for Lieberman once Lieberman lost the nomination and still decided to run as an Independent against the democratically-elected Democratic candidate, Lamont; to the contrary, Obama stuck with his party (unlike some others, like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana).

And, very significantly, Ned Lamont -- who stands against everything Joe Lieberman stands for -- HAS ENDORSED OBAMA. Think about it: Lamont beat Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. Lieberman ran as an independent and beat Lamont, but Lamont is the closest thing Connecticut has to a second Democratic Senator right now. Lamont would not endorse a Lieberman clone -- so if Lamont can let the "mentor" thing go, shouldn't we do the same?

The bottom line -- which Lamont understands -- is that while Obama's not perfect, Lieberman has a lot more in common ideologically with Hillary than he does with Obama, and that the connections between Lieberman and Clinton run deep. Lieberman and Hillary were in lockstep on the Iraq war resolution, the resolution declaring Iran a sponsor of terrorism (lay the groundwork for yet another war), the surge, and the bankruptcy bill; Obama was on the correct side -- the opposite side of Lieberman and Clinton -- on all those issues. So I think the "mentor" bit is a red herring.

But we may have stumbled on a wonderful opportunity to learn with a fair degree of certainty where Lieberman's loyalties lay, because he apparently is being denied his "superdelegate" status for endorsing John McCain. Not only is that delightful news -- the thought of Senator Palatine playing any role at all in nominating the candidate galls me -- but it may give us a window into the inside working of the Democratic machine.

Here's why: all the major news outlets have been calculating each candidate's delegate count, including both elected or "pledged" delegates AND THE SUPERDELEGATES LEANING TOWARD THAT CANDIDATE. How do they know which way the supers are leaning? By confidentially interviewing them.

Time/CNN has projected Connecticut's pledged delegates to go 26/22 in favor of Obama, with 99% of the vote counted. That's firm. Time/CNN don't say how many supers are in each candidate's camp on a state by state basis -- but they DO say how many supers each candidate has in total: Hillary 193, Obama 106 . Of the Connecticut delegates, according to CapitolWatch, five of Connecticut's 12 (now 11) supers are uncommitted (plus 5 for Obama, 1 for Clinton). Lieberman may also have been uncommitted, but we don't know, and Time/CNN may have had different info than CapitolWatch anyway.

So here's what I'm gonna be looking for: a one-digit change in one of those national numbers shortly after Lieberman's disqualification hits the mainstream media. That could tell us which candidate he backed. If it's Obama, I'll take my lumps and admit that Lieberman was paying back Obama for helping him win re-election and that their relationship was relatively close. If it's Hillary, as I suspect, then the "Obama's mentor in the Senate" anvil should be removed from Obama's neck immediately.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME