Now that we're all in this reconciliation mode, I felt a need to clarify a few points that I feel have been muddled along the way in the hope that it may resolve a few bitter thoughts. I'll take the risk that it just might reignite some smoldering embers but I just have this compulsion toward accurate perceptions. At least accurate in the way that I see the facts and as I am presenting them for all to critique.
The first is a misconception that the rules of the DNC's nomination process are faulty and contributed to Clinton's defeat. It was not the rules that were at fault at all. It was the breaking of the rules by the Florida and Michigan legislatures that led to a greater misunderstanding. The DNC disenfranchised no one. The Obama campaign in their negotiations for a resolution disenfranchised no one. The legislatures in the two states committed the disenfranchisement. This is a fact that needs to be made perfectly clear.
The rule to schedule small state primaries and caucuses first and keep larger states at a later date is a critical rule for a fair democracy and one Howard Dean deserves much credit for enforcing and defending. This allows lesser-known candidates with few funds to make a name for themselves with a few wins or good shows and then build a campaign that could then possibly compete fairly in a big state against a well-established candidate with national name recognition, wide-spread political infrastructure, and an influential donor base. If we were not to abide by this rule, our country would truly be run by large political dynasties and the people's democracy would be a farce. Just as Howard Dean deserves our sincere gratitude for his 50-state strategy in 2006, we also owe him much for standing up to the heat and protecting our democratic values in this presidential primary. 
The other perception I think is inaccurate is that the media contributed to Hillary's defeat. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the media had pretty much given Hillary the nomination before the first vote was even cast. I also remember nonstop loops and endless discussions of Obama's pastor and the "clinging" remark that Clinton advisors somehow managed to use to paint a South Chicago community organizer as an elitist. 
The Clinton campaign actually made skillful use of the media against Obama. He may never recover from some of it in Appalachia. But when the media went negative on Clinton was when she gave them good reason to. Inaccurate statements on Bosnia, Penn lobbying for free trade with Columbia, inflammatory rhetoric toward Iran, and numerous other misstatements and strategic blunders that I'm sure no one wants to see listed now. 
Toward the end, the Clinton campaign seemed to become a single-issue campaign. It appeared to me to be all about electing the first woman president. I would think that every good Democrat embraces this ideal and she has undoubtedly proven that its potential is political reality today. But her supporters should not let an attachment to this feat and the painful disappointment of not realizing it this time cloud their perception of the facts. Lingering anger vented in the wrong direction can only hinder our efforts to unite to achieve possibly the most crucial common objective we have had in a lifetime. 

A few years ago I bought a book for a friend’s birthday present titled Zen and the Art of Insight. It seems there’s almost always something her and I are dissecting and analyzing, pondering minutia from one topic to the next in search of some ultimate truth. So this appeared to be a good present. Sort of a guide book to our favorite pastime.

Well, the book sat around in her apartment unread as she went about her busy life. It was a bit esoteric and she had no time. So always wanting to be helpful, I offered to take it home, read it, and tell her what it was all about. Let her know if there were any gems of wisdom in it we could put to good use.  

I was blown away.

The book is a collection of Buddhist scriptures and commentary that pertain to the achievement of perfect insight. Though a good deal of the discussion struck me as repetitive, and perhaps for good reason, one simple, basic principle became crystal clear. In order for one to obtain perfect insight, one must relinquish all attachments.

Having studied a good bit of communication psychology, there was a familiar ring to this. Going under numerous names, we also know attachments as filters, bias, inclination, predisposition, prejudice, “things we cling to”, preferences, desires, etc. I think you get the picture. Each and every one of us has a truckload of attachments that serve as roadblocks on the pathway to perfect insight. Rarely do we ever get a good handle on all of them. Perhaps only a sacred few tucked away in some mountain monastery can ever grasp and maintain such an enlightened state.

But that isn’t to say we can’t all make an attempt at getting a bit further along the road than where we normally live. To understand the Buddhist teachings, in a way it seems quite simple. It’s more of a release, than a reaching. More a letting go, than a grasping.

And once we have let go of all our attachments, the world becomes clearer.

There's a passage from Tao Te Ching:

“ Do you have the patience to wait

till your mud settles and the water is clear?

Can you remain unmoving

Till the right action arises by itself?

The Master doesn’t seek fulfillment.

Not seeking, not expecting

She is present, and can welcome all things.”

So I
explained all of this to my friend.She wasn’t impressed. 

“There must be some kinda way out of here,” said Obama to his chief. 

There’s too much confusion,  I can’t get no relief.

Journalist, they drink my wine,  admen twist my words,

None of them along the line, know what any of it is worth.”

“No reason to get excited,” the chief he kindly spoke.

“There are many here among us, who understand the force of hope.

For you and they, have made this more, and it has become our fate.

So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”

All along the circus trail, pundits sold their views,

While politicians came and went, public servants, too.

Outside in the distance, an elephant turns foul,

November is approaching, and the wind begins to howl.

  Cue Jimmy

(Editor’s note: Though the content and tone of this post may be intensely critical of Hillary Clinton, the writer did at one time hold a deep admiration for her and her husband. For those supporters of Mrs. Clinton that may construe any of the comments regarding Mrs. Clinton to be offensive, such comments are intended to criticize the actions and the potential actions of the person, not the person.)

So what have we learned about Hillary Clinton in this exhaustive, knock-down-drag-out, go-on-for-ever, divisive, contentious, incredibly expensive, not-over-yet, Democratic primary that we can use to make a judgment on her fitness as a president:

1. She surrounds herself with advisors that tend to influence her toward manipulating facts in order to achieve an objective.

2.  She is skilled in delivering misleading statements designed to influence large segments of the population into believing things that are not true.

3.  She employs agents that privately work on objectives that are in direct opposition to policies she publicly claims to champion.

4.  She values individual achievement over party unity and success.

In what ways could these attributes shape a possible, but mostly improbable, Hillary Clinton presidency:

1.  She could lie to the American people over critical matters of state.

2.  She could revel in the awesome power of the office and lose her sense of obligation to the average American.

Do we now know enough to make an informed decision?

In keeping with the newly proposed rules, I just want to say first that there was no animosity intended in the title toward Hillary or any of her supporters. And according to some of the exit polls, there should be a sizable number of her supporters that actually agree with it. 
But to the point, an enormous amount of money has been donated and spent on a campaign that most everyone agrees can only have one logical outcome. After all of the smears and fears, Obama is still solidly positioned to win in every important category - delegates, popular vote, number of states, and money raised. The best Hillary can do, considering the most favorable scenario possible for her, is a close second. 
I've always tried to see facts as they were and to face reality early. I'm not one to exert a great deal of energy into something that has a near-zero chance of success. There's a certain principle known as the point of diminishing returns that any good businessperson understands. And despite the benefits of "toughening up Obama for the general," I think we are well past that point. 
Though I'm sure this is all very difficult for her supporters to accept, it is what it is. Her continued fight in this campaign will burn up precious financial resources and further exasperate the recent rift in the party only to prove that yes she can finish in a close second. 

I’m really having trouble understanding this fixation on the “Florida and Michigan problem.” Hillary said last night on Larry King, “"I'm going until we get Florida and Michigan resolved." As a Florida resident who took part in the object of this fiasco, I’m under the impression that it had been resolved before it started.

The DNC made it clear to the Florida legislature that their delegates would not be seated if the primary date was moved up. This policy supported a valid democratic principle that candidates should start their campaigns in small states allowing for the electorate to get to know lesser known candidates with less financial ability. As their recognition and strength grew, they would be better equipped to challenge more established candidates in the larger states later. That should appear to every Democrat the fair and American thing to do.

Each of the candidates in the race at the time signed off on a pledge not to campaign in the two states if they chose to defy this DNC policy.  The Republican legislature in Florida, with some Democratic participation, proceeded to hold an early primary anyway, putting into effect the signed pledges.

I was under no illusion that my vote for Edwards would have any more effect than an informal popularity contest. This fact should have been well known throughout the state. The vast majority of the voter turnout was for a referendum on a controversial property tax amendment. I imagine there was a significantly low turnout from those who are not property owners.

But now an irrational emotion has been brought to a boil behind the idea that these voters are being disenfranchised. How often does every state in the union get to play a part in the presidential primary process? It is true that the entire debacle should have never happened. But it certainly was not the fault of the DNC or any particular candidate.

What is troubling is the fact that Clinton is intent on retracting her written pledge upon the reason that it would benefit her ailing position. What type of character or crisis management style does this demonstrate? Would she be this quick to go back on campaign pledges or international treaties at the first moment they became unfavorable in any way to her current status quo.  It becomes even more absurd when you look at the delegate math and realize that even Florida and Michigan would still not solve her problem.

If the debate did anything the other night, it highlighted what is really happening in our political process. Instead of examining the policy positions of candidates, we judge their ability at manufacturing petty controversy that will push just the right emotional button on a certain demographic. Or we rate a candidate’s skill at defending himself against such an attack. The principle stands that if you can blanket the airwaves with enough nonsense, but cleverly edited nonsense, so that the right biases are enflamed in the uninformed, then you just may have a chance of defeating your opponent, honorably or not.

And the practice of this principle, as we saw Wednesday night, is not just found in desperate and unscrupulous political campaigns. The Fourth Estate has also embraced it. Or should I say the Corporate Estate? And it too has a campaign to win.

Why should ABC spend two hours of prime time focusing on issues that are detrimental to the interests of its major advertisers or its own conglomerate greed. The mainstream media, instead of acting as the unbiased observer, has a dog in this fight no different from the unemployed factory worker in rural Pennsylvania. Just the odds are a bit off balance.

But it’s probably best to let a wiser and more eloquent writer explain it:

“As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

 -Abraham Lincoln

As most of us know, Hillary Clinton is one of the sharpest tacks in the box. I'm sure more than a few of us have marveled at her command of the issues and her ability to speak  extemporaneously and concisely on a wide range of topics (not unlike her husband). The two of them have weathered just about every kind of political storm and no doubt devoured demographical analysis from every corner of every state in the union. So when you step back and look at her decision to break out with the "elitist" strategy, it's difficult not to think she knew exactly what she was doing. And for those who have held great respect for her and her husband and who are truly looking for real progress in this crucial election year, that thought is an unbelievably sad one. And in more ways than one.
Her political objective at the time was obviously to stop the bleeding of support away from her and towards Obama. In just about every demographic, Obama was slowly eating way at her PA stronghold. She was basically unable to win many new supporters, so the only strategy available was to shore up what support she had and stop any further losses. The young, the highly educated, blacks, urban white, even women were all moving toward Obama in varying degrees. Rural white was the only group Obama was having difficulty reaching. And in his explanation why, with a good ole Rovian twist, she found just the wedge she needed to help hold on to her diminishing lead. 
To say again that the Clintons are politically astute is not only redundant but a gross understatement. They not only knew what effect this strategy was going to have, but certainly knew all the possible ramifications. She knew she would be criticized for underhanded tactics against a fellow Democrat in a primary campaign. She knew she would be assailed for aiding and abetting the Republican party. She knew she would forever be losing the support of many of the young, the highly-educated, the black, the urban white, and the women that had already made the move to Obama. And most of all, she knew very well that Obama's words were accurate and that her characterization of them would be a gross distortion of our political process. 

Hillary is a sharp tack. She knew all of this. Yet she chose to do it. She chose to cut off an arm to stop the bleeding in the hand. And in the near term, it appears to have worked. The erosion to Obama has either slowed or stopped. But the bigger problem with this is, is that the arm she cut off belongs to us. 

It was reported today that Bill Clinton went off on a tirade at a meeting with California superdelegates this weekend when one expressed her disappointment with James Carville's Judas barb toward Richardson. Turning red and shaking his finger, it was stated, Clinton passionately condemned Richardson's change of allegiance in somewhat equivalent terms.  

If the Clinton Duo's fall from grace had not already appeared to be leaving the station, I might have been surprised and saddened. Wait. On second thought, I was, and still am, saddened. I used to marvel at Bill's command of political issues and his love for the governmental process set forth in our Constitution. And I withheld no less admiration for Hillary as she stepped out of the role of First Lady and was finally able to apply her well-honed talent.  

But what is this distorted sense of loyalty Bill is desperately clinging to, and no doubt, has Hillary's tacit approval? Has our representative democracy suddenly devolved into a network of feudal obedience with kingpins calling in past favors? Now, I'm certainly not so naive to think this isn't the norm for mediocre politicians and many unfortunately powerful ones. But I guess I just expected more from the Clintons who have built a legacy on setting high ideals for the Democratic Party.

An elected representative's loyalty should be, first and foremost, to his country and the people he represents. It should not be to those in high position with the ability to dish out coveted appointments.  

Bill needs to chill out. He also needs to take some time off and perhaps revisit some of the basics. Maybe a good place to start would be James Madison's Federalist #10 where he warns against political factions.   

I am tired of phony patriotism. Real patriots speak out when their country’s government betrays its founding values. Too many people today play at patriotism as if it were a sport and they are merely the adoring masses. It matters not that the coach might be fixing the games or the players using illegal drugs, it is a cardinal sin to take the name of the Home Team in vain.  It’s as if ritual means more than virtue.

Real Patriots use real words to call out their country’s faults. Our Founders used fiery words and much more when faced with injustice. Many of their fellow countrymen, complacent in the status quo and fearful of change, also tried to shame them for their disloyalty. Yet they persevered.  And today, we all owe such a great debt of gratitude to their Obnoxious Belligerence.