On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, the host Joe Scarborough was discussing the airline industry with business reporter Erin Burnett.
Burnett said something like "I'm against regulation and in favor of the free market, but something has to be done about the failing airline industry. Perhaps it's time to nationalize it." Joe seemed to agree.
What was the reason these two stauch Republican free market advocates think the airlines should be nationlized or at least regulation be reinstated? They both fly a lot and they are concerned about cancelled flights, smelly airplanes and poor treatment.
We're hearing the same kind of thing about the housing industry now that everyone is losing equity in their homes and we are in a recession because greedy companies violated the ethics that are supposed to be automatic in a free market, part of Adam Smith's "invisible hand." And we heard something similar during the Enron debacle which cost California and innocent Californians billions of dollars.
Republicans love the free market, except when it fails, or inconveniences them. They love deregulation until it hurts them. They believe in the invisible hand, until that invisible hand sticks itself into their pocketbook and withdraws cash.
When will they learn that deregulation and the free market have some dangerous downsides and that unrestrained greed inevitably wreaks havoc on economies?
They will never learn. Even those who are today calling for regulation will change their mind when the economy gets back on track with a Democratic president and congress.
This is why Democrats cannot ever allow Republicans to foist their free market, deregulation voodoo on the country again.
That is one of many reasons why John McCain must be defeated.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Bill and Hillary Clinton
Every time I type in "Hillary Clinton" in the "labels" to be listed at the bottom of each blog entry, it automatically puts in "Bill and Hillary Clinton." Then I have to go back and delete "Bill and."
I'm sure it does this because of the frequency with which I have used the phrase "Bill and Hillary Clinton" in both my blogs and the labels.
At first it was simply annoying. But now it has gotten curious, perhaps even prophetic.
It's as if my computer, which seems to have a mind of its own, wants to remind me that there really is no such thing as "Hillary Clinton." There is only "Bill and Hillary Clinton" and if I want Hillary to stand alone I have to take extra measures to remove Bill.
I think that's exactly how it would be in a second Clinton administration. If you think for one minute that Hillary would be the sole president you are dreaming. We would have a presidential duo, and Bill would be all too willing to make trouble, overrule his wife, exert enormous influence over her, and outmaneuver any vice president or cabinet member. I don't think there should be any doubt about that.
That is why you will hear most reporters refer to "The Clintons" rather than to Hillary Clinton. They know the truth, that if you vote for her, you get him as well.
Some may think that's okay because there was prosperity during the first Clinton administration. But let's not forget. There was also NAFTA, Rwanda, Monica, and impeachment, the latter two fueled by Richard Mellon Scaife, whom the Clintons have just cozied up to.
So if Hillary is the next president, we could not only have Bill back in the White House, might we also have Richard Mellon Scaife and dare I say it, another Monica?
Whoopee!
I'm sure it does this because of the frequency with which I have used the phrase "Bill and Hillary Clinton" in both my blogs and the labels.
At first it was simply annoying. But now it has gotten curious, perhaps even prophetic.
It's as if my computer, which seems to have a mind of its own, wants to remind me that there really is no such thing as "Hillary Clinton." There is only "Bill and Hillary Clinton" and if I want Hillary to stand alone I have to take extra measures to remove Bill.
I think that's exactly how it would be in a second Clinton administration. If you think for one minute that Hillary would be the sole president you are dreaming. We would have a presidential duo, and Bill would be all too willing to make trouble, overrule his wife, exert enormous influence over her, and outmaneuver any vice president or cabinet member. I don't think there should be any doubt about that.
That is why you will hear most reporters refer to "The Clintons" rather than to Hillary Clinton. They know the truth, that if you vote for her, you get him as well.
Some may think that's okay because there was prosperity during the first Clinton administration. But let's not forget. There was also NAFTA, Rwanda, Monica, and impeachment, the latter two fueled by Richard Mellon Scaife, whom the Clintons have just cozied up to.
So if Hillary is the next president, we could not only have Bill back in the White House, might we also have Richard Mellon Scaife and dare I say it, another Monica?
Whoopee!
Obama will win
As Hillary Clinton is hanging on to hope (but little else) in her bid for the democratic nomination, already pundits are looking at the electoral map for the general election. One thing that stands out is that an Obama candidacy would put more red and purple states in play, making an Obama victory potentially history making in terms of changing the electoral map. It appears that only Obama has the chance to reach out and win over independents and republicans, while Clinton could better count on a few states like Florida and Ohio that Dems lost in the last two elections.
Hillary's team is, of course, using this argument, that she could squeak out the two states that Gore and Kerry lost and thus win the election. She truly doesn't believe Obama can win, at least not by her formula, and thus she wants the party to play it safe and give her the nod.
But Obama's supporters want to go for broke, they want to take the "risk" of nominating him because they know how very big the pay off can be. Furthermore, they are willing to take the gamble because they see his impact on those who hear him, and they genuinely believe he can win over a large pool of voters, regardless of race, accusations of inexperience, and even the Rev. Wright.
Everywhere Obama competes (with the possible exception of Ohio, my birth state unfortunately) he has either won, or narrowed a huge Clinton lead to make the election close. As voters see him, hear him, and get to know him, they are captivated, and willing to take a chance. They see Obama as refreshing and new, optimistic and energetic, brilliant and confident, and after eight years of a president who is anything but brilliant, they are ready to take a chance.
I believe the Democratic Party will nominate Obama, and the voters will make him the next president, because there truly is something different in the air and the voters really are ready for a bigt change. In fact the voters are so tired of the problems created by this administration, that they are willing to take a gamble on someone young, fresh, and new, someone with a level of wisdom and quiet confidence far beyond his years.
Today, we see that 81% of the people say the country is going in the wrong direction. That is good for Obama, the only candidate who looks, sounds, and is different.
We see the Clintons engaging in the old style of politics and we increasingly know we cannot trust what they say.
As for McCain, we may admire his service to country, but service to country doesn't translate into ability to be president, especially when he is so tied to the party that took us in the wrong direction.
Hillary thinks the people want to play it safe and will vote for her, but she is wrong. She continually underestimates Obama, as do a lot of pundits who thought he might be finished after the Rev. Wright flap. But Obama continually surprises.
As voters get to know him, they begin to feel good about him. They begin to see how presidential he is, and they are willing to vote for him. He has narrowed the gap in Pennsylvania, where Hillary once had a twenty point lead, and he will narrow the gap in many states that John McCain is expected to win. He could even win some of them.
Change truly is in the air. The people are ready. Those with open minds and open hearts will listen and vote for change. Some, of course, will not vote for Obama because he is black or because he is young or because they are mad that Hillary wasn't chosen, or because they cannot imagine ever voting for a Democrat. But I believe there are enough Americans to overrule them.
I believe more than ever that this will be a historic election, and that forty years after the assassination of the greatest African American leader of our lifetime, the first African American will be elected president. And that will make me enormously proud of my country.
Hillary's team is, of course, using this argument, that she could squeak out the two states that Gore and Kerry lost and thus win the election. She truly doesn't believe Obama can win, at least not by her formula, and thus she wants the party to play it safe and give her the nod.
But Obama's supporters want to go for broke, they want to take the "risk" of nominating him because they know how very big the pay off can be. Furthermore, they are willing to take the gamble because they see his impact on those who hear him, and they genuinely believe he can win over a large pool of voters, regardless of race, accusations of inexperience, and even the Rev. Wright.
Everywhere Obama competes (with the possible exception of Ohio, my birth state unfortunately) he has either won, or narrowed a huge Clinton lead to make the election close. As voters see him, hear him, and get to know him, they are captivated, and willing to take a chance. They see Obama as refreshing and new, optimistic and energetic, brilliant and confident, and after eight years of a president who is anything but brilliant, they are ready to take a chance.
I believe the Democratic Party will nominate Obama, and the voters will make him the next president, because there truly is something different in the air and the voters really are ready for a bigt change. In fact the voters are so tired of the problems created by this administration, that they are willing to take a gamble on someone young, fresh, and new, someone with a level of wisdom and quiet confidence far beyond his years.
Today, we see that 81% of the people say the country is going in the wrong direction. That is good for Obama, the only candidate who looks, sounds, and is different.
We see the Clintons engaging in the old style of politics and we increasingly know we cannot trust what they say.
As for McCain, we may admire his service to country, but service to country doesn't translate into ability to be president, especially when he is so tied to the party that took us in the wrong direction.
Hillary thinks the people want to play it safe and will vote for her, but she is wrong. She continually underestimates Obama, as do a lot of pundits who thought he might be finished after the Rev. Wright flap. But Obama continually surprises.
As voters get to know him, they begin to feel good about him. They begin to see how presidential he is, and they are willing to vote for him. He has narrowed the gap in Pennsylvania, where Hillary once had a twenty point lead, and he will narrow the gap in many states that John McCain is expected to win. He could even win some of them.
Change truly is in the air. The people are ready. Those with open minds and open hearts will listen and vote for change. Some, of course, will not vote for Obama because he is black or because he is young or because they are mad that Hillary wasn't chosen, or because they cannot imagine ever voting for a Democrat. But I believe there are enough Americans to overrule them.
I believe more than ever that this will be a historic election, and that forty years after the assassination of the greatest African American leader of our lifetime, the first African American will be elected president. And that will make me enormously proud of my country.
Monday, March 31, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Hillary and the third stage of grief
One way to look at Hillary's refusal to concede to Obama, and her determination to fight on even though she has no real chance of getting the nomination, is through the prism of grief.
As Elizabeth Kubler-Ross taught us several decades ago, grief is a process that involves several stages, each of which can overlap with the others and occur in any order.
The stages include denial, anger, bargaining, sadness or depression, and finally resolution.
When this campaign season began, Hillary thought the nomination would easily be hers. Her strategy was to wrap things up by Super Tuesday (in early February) and glide to the convention in August as the queen-in-waiting. None of the candidates could pose a real threat to her, she thought. Then Obama's candidacy caught fire, and he won 11 contests in a row, soaring to a lead of 150 delegates. Since then, she has been unable to narrow that gap, even with wins in Texas and Ohio.
Although the final act has not been played, and we do not know for sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton has in front of her a stark reality: Obama is favored to win. So her long held dream of being the first woman president is dying. Hence, the grief analogy.
At first, Hillary was in denial. There was no way this upstart could defeat her. Her loss in the first caucus in Iowa was merely a blip, a mistake, erased by her victory in New Hampshire. Then she won Nevada and all seemed on track, until South Carolina showed her that she was losing the African American vote. This would be disastrous for her, so while on the outside she and her husband continued to deny reality, underneath there was anger. This was most obvious in Bill Clinton's behavior: yelling at reporters and making subtle racist comments: calling Obama's record on the Iraq War "a fairy tale" and comparing his win to that of Jesse Jackson.
While Hillary, Bill and their supporters are still in some denial, and still allow their anger to break through from time to time, they have entered the third stage of grief: bargaining. Thus we hear all kinds of scenarios by which they expect to win: the superdelegates must deny Obama the nomination because he is too flawed or because she won the big states, the blue states, or the most populous states; Florida and Michigan must have their votes counted even though they violated the rules which would disallow those votes; pledged delegates must follow their own conscience and not the will of the people who sent them to the convention. Now, some of Hillary's big donors have sent a threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi, demanding that she tell superdelegates to vote their conscience or they will take their ball and bat and go home. This is bargaining at its most brutal, and it is all because at some unconscious level, Hillary and her supporters know the truth: her campaign is dying, her dreams are dying, her hopes are dying.
Bargaining is all they have left. Denial no longer works and anger is counterproductive. Bargaining is all that keeps them from falling into the abyss of sadness and depression. So in that respect it makes a certain kind of sense, even though it is destructive.
I don't think it will be too long before Hillary and Co. will have to give up the bargaining and accept the inevitable sadness and grief that follows. It will be tough to take, tough to endure, and tough to go on when the dream dies. But the one good thing about grief is that over time there is resolution. The person who must grieve learns to live with the pain, and even create something new and positive from it. Look at Jimmy Carter's amazing humanitarian work, begun only after he lost a bid for his second term.
Hillary can do enormous good once she allows herself to experience the pain of her loss, once she acknowledges that she is not the only person in this country who could be a great president. Once she accepts that Obama is going to be the nominee, once she allows herself to see how great he could be with enough support and help from people like her and her husband, she will be at peace.
Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman and can continue on as a great senator or even governor if that is what she chooses. She can join her husband in his philanthropic work, start a think tank or even accept a cabinet position in an Obama administration. Letting go is painful, difficult, maybe even excruciating, but once one is courageous and gracious enough to do it, and to not go down a road of bitterness, much good can come of it.
Hillary can postpone the fourth stage of grief for a long time, but doing so will hurt the party and the eventual nominee. It will also hurt her. It's time for her to face the inevitable, allow herself some time to heal and throw her support behind an amazing candidate. Only then will she achieve true resolution and true statesmanship. She still has a tremendous role to play in electing our next president and contributing to our country, but first she has to move past the bargaining stage so she can finish the work of grieving.
As Elizabeth Kubler-Ross taught us several decades ago, grief is a process that involves several stages, each of which can overlap with the others and occur in any order.
The stages include denial, anger, bargaining, sadness or depression, and finally resolution.
When this campaign season began, Hillary thought the nomination would easily be hers. Her strategy was to wrap things up by Super Tuesday (in early February) and glide to the convention in August as the queen-in-waiting. None of the candidates could pose a real threat to her, she thought. Then Obama's candidacy caught fire, and he won 11 contests in a row, soaring to a lead of 150 delegates. Since then, she has been unable to narrow that gap, even with wins in Texas and Ohio.
Although the final act has not been played, and we do not know for sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton has in front of her a stark reality: Obama is favored to win. So her long held dream of being the first woman president is dying. Hence, the grief analogy.
At first, Hillary was in denial. There was no way this upstart could defeat her. Her loss in the first caucus in Iowa was merely a blip, a mistake, erased by her victory in New Hampshire. Then she won Nevada and all seemed on track, until South Carolina showed her that she was losing the African American vote. This would be disastrous for her, so while on the outside she and her husband continued to deny reality, underneath there was anger. This was most obvious in Bill Clinton's behavior: yelling at reporters and making subtle racist comments: calling Obama's record on the Iraq War "a fairy tale" and comparing his win to that of Jesse Jackson.
While Hillary, Bill and their supporters are still in some denial, and still allow their anger to break through from time to time, they have entered the third stage of grief: bargaining. Thus we hear all kinds of scenarios by which they expect to win: the superdelegates must deny Obama the nomination because he is too flawed or because she won the big states, the blue states, or the most populous states; Florida and Michigan must have their votes counted even though they violated the rules which would disallow those votes; pledged delegates must follow their own conscience and not the will of the people who sent them to the convention. Now, some of Hillary's big donors have sent a threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi, demanding that she tell superdelegates to vote their conscience or they will take their ball and bat and go home. This is bargaining at its most brutal, and it is all because at some unconscious level, Hillary and her supporters know the truth: her campaign is dying, her dreams are dying, her hopes are dying.
Bargaining is all they have left. Denial no longer works and anger is counterproductive. Bargaining is all that keeps them from falling into the abyss of sadness and depression. So in that respect it makes a certain kind of sense, even though it is destructive.
I don't think it will be too long before Hillary and Co. will have to give up the bargaining and accept the inevitable sadness and grief that follows. It will be tough to take, tough to endure, and tough to go on when the dream dies. But the one good thing about grief is that over time there is resolution. The person who must grieve learns to live with the pain, and even create something new and positive from it. Look at Jimmy Carter's amazing humanitarian work, begun only after he lost a bid for his second term.
Hillary can do enormous good once she allows herself to experience the pain of her loss, once she acknowledges that she is not the only person in this country who could be a great president. Once she accepts that Obama is going to be the nominee, once she allows herself to see how great he could be with enough support and help from people like her and her husband, she will be at peace.
Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman and can continue on as a great senator or even governor if that is what she chooses. She can join her husband in his philanthropic work, start a think tank or even accept a cabinet position in an Obama administration. Letting go is painful, difficult, maybe even excruciating, but once one is courageous and gracious enough to do it, and to not go down a road of bitterness, much good can come of it.
Hillary can postpone the fourth stage of grief for a long time, but doing so will hurt the party and the eventual nominee. It will also hurt her. It's time for her to face the inevitable, allow herself some time to heal and throw her support behind an amazing candidate. Only then will she achieve true resolution and true statesmanship. She still has a tremendous role to play in electing our next president and contributing to our country, but first she has to move past the bargaining stage so she can finish the work of grieving.
Medicine and prayer
My husband comes from a very religious family. They are fervent believers in prayer.
However, they are also fervent believers in medicine. Several family members have suffered serious illnesses over the past decade and in each case, while they prayed fervently for healing as well as courage, they wasted no time in seeking medical help to treat their conditions. They are all doing well now, having been the recipients of some of the most advanced medical treatments available.
I can't imagine any of them ever believing that prayer alone would cure or successfully manage their illnesses. They believe that medicine is part of God's world and is there for all of us to utilize.
Once again, though, we read the story of a family that refused medical treatment for a child because of their belief that God alone would provide a cure. An eleven year old girl is dead today because instead of seeking treatment for their daughter's highly treatable diabetes, a family chose to stay home and pray for direct divine intervention.
How sad it is to me that any parent could put any belief – religious or otherwise - over the well being of their own child. And how foolish it is for anyone to believe that God only works through direct intervention as a result of someone's prayers, rather than indirectly through medicine.
Are some people really so naïve that they can't see that all medicine is the result of discoveries made by the very human beings, with the very exceptional brains, that they also believe were made by God? Do these believers think that human beings were all put here to live in isolation and not help each other with scientific and medical advances?
I have never seen a contradiction between religion and science, between prayer and medicine, or between the possibility that God created the world and the probability that he did it slowly, through evolution. But others, apparently, insist on creating that divide, even when the consequences are deadly.
How about this for a possibility? What if God created the world, and specifically created intelligent human beings to preserve creation, make the world a better place, manage resources, provide for the needs of all the creatures on the earth, heal illness, mediate disputes and create a prosperous and peaceful planet? What if he did this so that humans would turn to each other for solutions rather than expect him to intervene individually in each isolated case? If this was indeed God's plan, then human beings who reject that plan are really rejecting God.
Whatever the theology, I think it is time we hold parents like these criminally responsible for the unnecessary deaths of their children. If a parent had a chance to stop a child from running into the street and stood by and simply prayed that the child would stay put, and then that child was run over by a car, we would hold the parent responsible. This seems no different to me.
Prayer can be a great comfort, and an adjunct to medicine, but it is both stubborn and stupid, in my opinion, for any parent to believe that when simple medical care is available to save their child's life, they reject that medical care and expect God to intervene directly in their child's condition. It seems to me God already answered their prayers when he created human beings who developed life saving medicine. To insist that God save your child the way you want them saved, and not in the way that is already provided, is the height of arrogance.
However, they are also fervent believers in medicine. Several family members have suffered serious illnesses over the past decade and in each case, while they prayed fervently for healing as well as courage, they wasted no time in seeking medical help to treat their conditions. They are all doing well now, having been the recipients of some of the most advanced medical treatments available.
I can't imagine any of them ever believing that prayer alone would cure or successfully manage their illnesses. They believe that medicine is part of God's world and is there for all of us to utilize.
Once again, though, we read the story of a family that refused medical treatment for a child because of their belief that God alone would provide a cure. An eleven year old girl is dead today because instead of seeking treatment for their daughter's highly treatable diabetes, a family chose to stay home and pray for direct divine intervention.
How sad it is to me that any parent could put any belief – religious or otherwise - over the well being of their own child. And how foolish it is for anyone to believe that God only works through direct intervention as a result of someone's prayers, rather than indirectly through medicine.
Are some people really so naïve that they can't see that all medicine is the result of discoveries made by the very human beings, with the very exceptional brains, that they also believe were made by God? Do these believers think that human beings were all put here to live in isolation and not help each other with scientific and medical advances?
I have never seen a contradiction between religion and science, between prayer and medicine, or between the possibility that God created the world and the probability that he did it slowly, through evolution. But others, apparently, insist on creating that divide, even when the consequences are deadly.
How about this for a possibility? What if God created the world, and specifically created intelligent human beings to preserve creation, make the world a better place, manage resources, provide for the needs of all the creatures on the earth, heal illness, mediate disputes and create a prosperous and peaceful planet? What if he did this so that humans would turn to each other for solutions rather than expect him to intervene individually in each isolated case? If this was indeed God's plan, then human beings who reject that plan are really rejecting God.
Whatever the theology, I think it is time we hold parents like these criminally responsible for the unnecessary deaths of their children. If a parent had a chance to stop a child from running into the street and stood by and simply prayed that the child would stay put, and then that child was run over by a car, we would hold the parent responsible. This seems no different to me.
Prayer can be a great comfort, and an adjunct to medicine, but it is both stubborn and stupid, in my opinion, for any parent to believe that when simple medical care is available to save their child's life, they reject that medical care and expect God to intervene directly in their child's condition. It seems to me God already answered their prayers when he created human beings who developed life saving medicine. To insist that God save your child the way you want them saved, and not in the way that is already provided, is the height of arrogance.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Hillary's true believers
If it's true, as Josh Marshall tells us, that "the new Gallup poll says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary and a whopping 28% of Hillary supporters would abandon Obama for McCain," then we have a bigger problem with race than we do with gender.
This would seem to contradict George McGovern's claim that it would be easier to elect an African American man than a woman.
Or is it possible that some of those "Hillary supporters" were never really supporters, just Republicans who are causing mischief, some of whom may have voted for her in the primary, at Rush Limbaugh's suggestion?
If, on the other hand, these are true "Hillary supporters," then that tells me that Hillary supporters are far less loyal to the Democratic Party than are Obama supporters, and believe their candidate is entitled to the nomination, regardless of the poll numbers, delegates won, and the popular vote count, all of which put Obama in the lead. It also tells me that the Republican Party isn't the only party with a race problem.
That said, I don't think these numbers will hold up. When Obama is the nominee, either Hillary will support him, bringing her supporters with her to support the party nominee, or she will not support him, and continue to indicate McCain would make a better commander in chief, proving her to be a narcissistic, poor loser that she has recently appeared to be.
Furthermore, everywhere Obama has a chance to meet voters, his poll numbers go up. As the country finds out what a truly visionary and talented candidate he is, he will win them over. And as the flawed candidate McCain becomes unacceptable to the majority of Americans, no Democrat will vote for him. They may stay home. They may not vote for anyone for president, but they will not cast a ballot for McCain, the candidate who wants to continue the "You're on your own society."
So I'm not worried about what will happen in November, but I think this poll is informative in that it shows us some problems with a large number of Hillary Clinton supporters.
This would seem to contradict George McGovern's claim that it would be easier to elect an African American man than a woman.
Or is it possible that some of those "Hillary supporters" were never really supporters, just Republicans who are causing mischief, some of whom may have voted for her in the primary, at Rush Limbaugh's suggestion?
If, on the other hand, these are true "Hillary supporters," then that tells me that Hillary supporters are far less loyal to the Democratic Party than are Obama supporters, and believe their candidate is entitled to the nomination, regardless of the poll numbers, delegates won, and the popular vote count, all of which put Obama in the lead. It also tells me that the Republican Party isn't the only party with a race problem.
That said, I don't think these numbers will hold up. When Obama is the nominee, either Hillary will support him, bringing her supporters with her to support the party nominee, or she will not support him, and continue to indicate McCain would make a better commander in chief, proving her to be a narcissistic, poor loser that she has recently appeared to be.
Furthermore, everywhere Obama has a chance to meet voters, his poll numbers go up. As the country finds out what a truly visionary and talented candidate he is, he will win them over. And as the flawed candidate McCain becomes unacceptable to the majority of Americans, no Democrat will vote for him. They may stay home. They may not vote for anyone for president, but they will not cast a ballot for McCain, the candidate who wants to continue the "You're on your own society."
So I'm not worried about what will happen in November, but I think this poll is informative in that it shows us some problems with a large number of Hillary Clinton supporters.
A question for mothers
Here are a few questions every mother who also supports Hillary Clinton should ask:
If that infamous trip to Bosnia was as dangerous as Hillary Clinton claimed it was, and if she knew that ahead of time, as she claims she did, why on earth did she take her only child with her?
If there was indeed sniper fire as they landed, and sniper fire when they walked out onto the tarmac, why did she stop and greet an eight year old girl? Why did she not insist she and her daughter stay on the plane or return to the plane so that the pilot could fly them out immediately?
What kind of a mother takes her only child into a war zone and risks her life?
Is this good judgment?
If this is how Hillary treats her daughter, how will she treat the rest of us?
If this is an example of Hillary's honesty, what can we expect if she becomes president?
If that infamous trip to Bosnia was as dangerous as Hillary Clinton claimed it was, and if she knew that ahead of time, as she claims she did, why on earth did she take her only child with her?
If there was indeed sniper fire as they landed, and sniper fire when they walked out onto the tarmac, why did she stop and greet an eight year old girl? Why did she not insist she and her daughter stay on the plane or return to the plane so that the pilot could fly them out immediately?
What kind of a mother takes her only child into a war zone and risks her life?
Is this good judgment?
If this is how Hillary treats her daughter, how will she treat the rest of us?
If this is an example of Hillary's honesty, what can we expect if she becomes president?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Just a thought...
As Gov. Bill Richardson endures James Carville's continuing accusations of disloyalty because of his endorsement of Barack Obama, one wonders just how many of Hillary Clinton's supporters are true supporters, and how many are supporting her because they know the viciousness of the Clintons and they feel they have no other choice.
Maybe all those super delegates supporting her are in self-protective mode rather than enthusiastic endorsement mode.
And one begins to understand why Al Gore and John Edwards have not yet endorsed anyone.
Maybe all those super delegates supporting her are in self-protective mode rather than enthusiastic endorsement mode.
And one begins to understand why Al Gore and John Edwards have not yet endorsed anyone.
Another winning scenario for Hillary
Some days, when my irritation at Hillary Clinton's arrogance threatens to ruin my day, a little humor is a saving grace.
This post made me laugh out loud.
This post made me laugh out loud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)