Different arguments, different strategies, different times

In the democratic presidential primary, there are not just two candidates running for the nomination. There are two completely different arguments about how the winner should be decided.

I have been looking over some blogs this morning and it is apparent that those on Obama's side view the path to victory totally different than those favoring the Clinton campaign.

The Obama campaign has been working to pile up delegates according to the rules set down by the DNC. They are not just looking for state wins, they are looking for as many delegates as they can get within states, even states they lose (all of the states divide up their delegates according to weighted votes). They are not doing this (as far as I know) by cheating or demanding more than they have legitimately won, but by following the rules of the party. Because of the way the DNC rewards certain congressional districts within states, because of loyal democratic voting or other reasons, a candidate can actually win a state and lose the delegate count and vice versa. This may seem to the causal observer to be an unfair way to run a primary, but it is what the DNC laid down and what all the candidates knew going in. Obama is using the rules to his advantage.

Obama has also been trying to wrap up the contest by winning the most delegates, whether they come from caucus states or primary states. He does not see the delegates from caucus states as any less countable than delegates from primary states, nor it should be added does the DNC. Nor does he see the delegates from small states, or so-called red states, being any less important, as it is the overall delegate count that determines the winner.

Obama also wants to adhere to the rules laid down by the DNC regarding Florida and Michigan. The DNC, with the agreement of both campaigns, punished Florida and Michigan, as they said they would, because they moved their primary date up. Over the past couple of years, states have been moving their primaries up to an earlier date to have more of a say in who the nominee would be. My own state of California went from a June primary to a February primary for example.

My understanding is that the DNC was troubled by this development and we all saw Iowa and New Hampshire, who have traditionally been first, keep having to move their primaries up to stay in the first positions. The whole moving primary thing was getting ridiculous, so the DNC decided where the first four contests would be and asked all states to comply. When Florida and Michigan defied them, the DNC said they would not seat their delegates. This isn't because they didn't value the voters of Florida and Michigan, but because they were trying to put a halt to this "me first" contest in all the states and avoid fiascos in upcoming election years.

When the DNC made this decision, all the candidates were on board. All of the candidates (except Clinton and Dodd) took their names off of the ballot in Michigan, but Florida didn't allow that, so all the names remained. Furthermore, the candidates agreed not to campaign in these states. Obama has agreed to abide by the DNC's decision, although he says he would like to find a compromise by which the delegations could be seated.

Finally there are the superdelegates, those party officials who can also cast one delegate vote and possibly determine the winner of the nomination regardless of who wins the most pledged delegates. Obama has been trying to woo superdelegates as much as Clinton, and he is very aware that the superdelegates could vote for any candidate, including the one with the least pledged delegates. So far, he has not said anything publicly about wanting the superdelegates to abide by the will of the people, although some members of the party have said that.

In summary, then, Obama is moving forward trying to win as many delegates, pledged and super, as possible in order to secure the nomination. He is adhering to the rules, even though some believe those rules are unfair. So far, that strategy has served him well, so it is not difficult to stick to it. Obama is consistent. His message is trustworthy.

Hillary Clinton, who is currently behind in total delegate count, and most especially in the pledged delegates (those won in primaries and caucuses) has a very different strategy which operates on two fronts. One is to discount Obama's victories. The other is to emphasize "fairness." In neither of these fronts is she concerned about adhering to DNC rules.

Hillary and her surrogates have been discounting Obama's victories since he began winning them. In fact, this has become so obvious that some of the bloggers are writing parodies of her surrogates' attempts to downplay Obama's wins. So far, we have heard from Hillary's campaign that small state delegates aren't as important as big state delegates, red state delegates aren't as valuable as blue state delegates, and caucus delegates aren't as democratic as primary delegates. In other words, the delegates Hillary has won should count more than the delegates Obama has won. Of course, since the party rules are that a delegate is a delegate is a delegate, this is all spin and will make no difference in the final count.

What could make a difference in the final count is what what happens with the Michigan and Florida votes, and what the superdelegates ultimately do. Here again, Hillary has a different strategy.

While Hillary originally accepted the DNC rules regarding Michigan and Florida, she now talks about the "unfairness" of not seating the delegations. Since she "won" both contests, even though she was running against "uncommitted" in Michigan, and even though Obama had no chance to introduce himself to the voters in Florida, she now wants to change the rules in mid-game. There is a certain appeal to her argument, especially when she claims it is unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida not to count their votes, but she is not looking at all at the fact that it was unfair to Obama not to be on the ballot in Michigan, and not to be able to campaign in Florida, where had he campaigned he undoubtedly would have done better. Her argument also makes sense in terms of giving her an advantage. Since she won both contests, however unfairly, she wants those delegates and the only way to get them is to convince enough people her "fairness" argument is valid and the DNC rules should be overturned.

As to the superdelegates, Hillary is counting on them overturning and thus dishonoring the popular and pledged delegate votes (which is an ironic twist considering her cry that the votes in Florida and Michigan should be honored). She hopes that by winning Pennsylvania and many of the remaining states, she will prove she has momentum and will be a better candidate than Obama. The only problem with this is that there is nothing in the rules about momentum. Yes, if the Obama campaign implodes, for which the Clinton campaign is praying, the superdelegates can be a safeguard to vote for a better candidate, but this would be extraordinary and could tear the party apart.

The superdelegates would only overrule the will of the people who have given Obama more votes, and put Hillary in as the nominee, if they really believed Obama was radioactive. Right now, in opinion polls, Hillary has higher negatives than Obama or McCain, and is seen as the least likely to unify the country. So all she may have going for her is momentum, Michigan, and Florida and they are all long shots. In addition, Hillary's mind-changing with respect to the DNC rules makes her look untrustworthy and inconsistent, as does her dishonest story about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

A presidential election campaign is really two things: a deadly serious business in which candidates' character, demeanor, leadership, and position on issues is evaluated, and a strategic game in which one side tries to outmaneuver the other with a variety of tactics and tricks.

Ronald Reagan was the last candidate who won on the first set of criteria. His character, personality, leadership style and conservative views (during a very conservative time) won the day. Since then, while Democratic candidates have generally had better positions on issues, candidates have either prevailed because of personality issues or through the use of tactics and (mostly dirty) tricks.

Bush I won because of dirty tricks against Dukakis while Bill Clinton won because of a combination of personality and Perot, who stole enough votes from Bush I to allow Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote. Bush II won as we all know because of the dirty campaing and electoral tricks of Karl Rove.

This election, however, may be different. These are different times. The problems the country faces are enormous, and the man who became president because of dirty tricks has not only failed to solve them, he has created more of them. This time, a reliance on strategy alone may not work. The people are treating the presidential election of 2008 as deadly serious business and are in no mood, I believe, for another Rovian election season.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not very different when it comes to issues, however, so Hillary is trying to win with tricks and tactics while Obama, no novice when it comes to smart tactics, is playing by the rules and emphasizing character, leadership, and demeanor. After he nearly got thrown off course by the Rev. Wright controversy, he came back with a speech in which his loyalty, his honesty, and his calm demeanor won the day. People admired his courage in addressing a hot topic, and in not completely disowning his pastor. They liked his ability to talk in more than sound bites, to address them as adults, and to look at issues in a complex rather than simplistic good and evil way. After eight years of lies, overly simplistic arguments, and dirty tricks, the people find Obama refreshing, and too many are seeing Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy.

Even the choice of the Republican nominee is a testament to the fact that people have Bush and Rove fatigue and want more honesty, more character, and less dirty tricks. McCain, the so-called Maverick, is ahead in the polls right now, beating both Obama and Clinton, even though the people are clearly on the side of both Obama and Clinton when it comes to the issues. The people like McCain's demeanor and character, and the Republicans nominated him even though the so-called conservative base does not embrace him.

Ultimately, I think Clinton's tactics will not work. While her supporters have accepted and even promoted her rationalizations that the Michigan and Florida situation is unfair to voters, and that she is a better candidate because she wins in large blue states this is not accepted by a majority of voters. The voters know she signed on to the DNC rules and they also know that in large states like California, New York and Massachusetts, Barack Obama will defeat John McCain. Clinton wants to use a Bush-Rove strategy, winning by tactics and rhetorical tricks, and the voters who are not among her most loyal fans do not like it.

This is why today Obama is ahead of Clinton by 10 points, and it is why, once Obama is the official nominee and is pitted one on one against McCain, McCain's numbers will go down. And the sooner that happens, the better.

After seven long and disastrous years, Hillary is not the change we have been waiting for

I have always admired Republicans and Democrats who were willing to stand up and speak out against candidates or elected officials of their own party when they believed those candidates or officials were acting unethically, immorally, or unadvisedly. To put country in front of party strikes me as the most patriotic thing you can do, especially when the person or persons speaking up are highly vested in their party.

Republicans who oppose George W. Bush and his war in Iraq have shown courage, as did Robert Byrd and others who condemned Bill Clinton for his behavior in the oval office.

I wasn't sure I could do the same. Even though I have no power or status within the Democratic Party, and therefore my view matters very little, I always thought I would support Democrats because the alternative to me was unthinkable. However, with the recent behavior of the Clintons that has changed. Just as I have been unable to bear listening to or looking at George W. Bush these last seven years, I have found myself becoming nauseous each time I see Hillary or Bill on the TV screen.

I can't believe how far I have come.

When this campaign began, I liked a lot of the candidates, including Hillary. I always thought it a bit unseemly that she was running, being a former First Lady and the wife of a president. And I had no illusions. I saw her as a calculating politician who planned her run for the presidency while her husband was still in office by running for a Senate seat in New York, even though she had never lived there, knowing it would be a great launching pad for her eventual campaign. However, I thought she was smart and capable. I always thought the attacks on her and her husband were unfair and I was willing to overlook her raw ambition. I even kind of liked the idea of finally having a female president.

But now I cannot even stand to look at her. She promotes ideas I tend to agree with, but she acts no different from George W. Bush when it comes to political machinations and attacks on opponents, even opponents of her own party. And her husband's behavior has been outrageous, and unseemly for a former president.

Hillary has shown that she is willing to do whatever it takes to win, including changing the rules laid down by the Democratic Party regarding Michigan and Florida, rules she agreed to, using superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, and now trying to peal off delegates won by Obama in caucuses and primaries.

What Hillary seems not to grasp, and what Obama gets, is that the people who despise George W. Bush and who have been in despair over the direction of our country for the past seven years, have not had those feelings solely because of Bush policies they disagree with. In fact, they have felt both despair for the country and contempt for the president because the president cannot be trusted, because he violates rules and laws, because he is more interested in himself and his own power than the well being of the people.

I don't care how brilliant Hillary is, nor how enlightened her policy positions, if her ethics and her political maneuvering serve only to enhance her bank account and her power, while they overrule the will of the people, she is no better than George W. Bush.

The country has waited seven years to put someone in the White House they can trust, admire, and look up to. And it isn't Hillary. If she becomes president, and we have to wait another four years, or even eight to renew our country and rescue our democracy from deceitful, calculating and narcissistic politicians who care nothing for the people, I fear we might never recover.

The best possible thing that could happen to our country in the next few weeks is for the people to send a message loud and clear to Hillary Clinton:

Your time has passed.

It is time for you to exit gracefully and let the next generation repair the damage that you, your husband and George W. Bush have done to this country.