Peggy Noonan's take on Senator Clinton's continued perserverence despite the lack of a path to a nomination is staggering (Wall Street Journal).  It's a great article, and it speaks to the petering out of her campaign.  It brings up a few points (my own, not Noonan's) worth noting that will ultimately end her pursuit of the nomination before the convention.  Here's the link.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html


Her money will run out.
Its hard to tell if she can continue to raise money.  With only 3 million at hand by the end of February, you have to wonder how much more she could raise in March - especially now that there are more endorsements for Obama, that her negative polling numbers are going up, that he has weathered the Wright storm, and that her surrogates are writing threatening letters.  

I've noticed that her campaign events now take on a much smaller feel.  They're not the bigger rallies we saw before, even as late as before the Ohio/Texas primaries.  Even if all her money wins her Pennsylvania, she has to win by 15 or more to make it worth while.  Then how much will she have for Indiana or North Carolina?

No matter how good her policies are or how staunch her supporters are, money is what is needed to fuel her comeback - and money is not what she has in abundance.

The media narrative will change soon.
The media has been fueling the race.  Lets face it, whichever side you are with, the media has favored the underdog.  Initially it was Obama.  Recently it was Clinton.  When the Obama negativity was riding high, they pivoted back to favoring Obama.  They love a tight fight, but only if they can keep a semblance of validity to their reporting.

The problem is that that validity is eroding.  In the face of the lack of a path to the nomination, the increasingly negative Clinton numbers, and the SDs starting to shift towards Obama, they can't necessarily argue that the race is still close.  While some will argue they are only seperated by 1.4% of the popular vote, 3.6% in RCP polling average, and 131 in delegates (after SDs figured in), this is after 85% of the nation has voted.  It would take a calamity this side of Spitzer to overcome that lead for Clinton.  The media knows this.  They also know that viewers will start to question the media bias if they continue to report a tight race, when there is none. 

(BTW, whoever was standing in for Olbermann yesterday did a horrible job.  Stalemate?  It's not by far.  More like she's got her King and Pawn and he's got his King, Knight, a Rook and 3 pawns headed her way.)

Also, we are starting to see more discussion, more than ever, of Clinton bowing out.  She is fielding questions daily now about whether or not she will bow out and when it will end.  Presumably, the media smell, see, taste the blood in the water.  On CNN, even Mark Halperin last night said that the media will quickly drive out a candidate the moment they sense that candidate won't make it:

I think if you look at reporters and their questions, not every reporter, but some reporters have written explicitly, some opinion columnists have written explicitly that she should get out of the race. She is asked now every day. Anytime anybody suggests it, it gets big headlines.

I think we're of two minds. We like this story; bigger than O.J. and Anna Nicole combined for people like you. But people more often are trying to drive her from the race. It's not really an anti-Clinton thing, although there's a lot of that. It's really reporters always want to drive people who lose out of the race. It's just what we do.

It happened to every candidate who is already out of this race. The minute there's blood in the water, the question they're asked everyday over and over is, when are you getting out of the race, why aren't you getting out of the race, shouldn't you get out of the race? So and so says you should get out.

Why do that if they want ratings?  It makes for a reportable story.   Clinton stays in the race despite this.  Clinton won't give up even though Senator so and so says this.  Once you get it in the head of people that she is fighting a losing battle, support and money start to erode.  Its happened to every candidate that's dropped out.  Its happening now.  The ending of the Clinton era is a story in itself, and the media will run with it.

Obama will pivot towards McCain.
This last point is predictive and based more upon my own wishes, than actual fact.  But it seems that he is pulling himself out of the kitchen sink battle.  Let's be clear on this - Clinton started the negative campaigning.  Somehow, I keep hearing people saying both are getting to negative.  That's interesting given the fact that when Obama was taking the high road, everyone said he wasn't a fighter.  When he started fighting, everyone says he being negative.  Granted, his campaign is not as clean as free of dirty politics as he wishes it to be.  But certainly, its not comparable to the scorched earth tactic Clinton has taken.

But this is where Obama can take advantage of the situation.  He needs to come out and say, "Look, we can fight all we want, but I need to start fighting with McCain if no one else will, if not for me, for the sake of the party in November."  At the same time, he needs to say, "This does not mean I presume to the nominee, far from it I will continue campaigning to win the hearts and votes of Democrats through the nation - its just that we need to keep or focus on what is important - keeping Bush III from the White House."  

When Obama starts down this road, the media will increasingly focus on McCain versus Obama.  Ultimately, with little cash in hand, with the media increasingly focusing on her demise, and the Obama vs. McCain title bout coming in to focus, there can be no way that Clinton can legitimately argue for her continued campaign.  It would be then be it, allowing us to pivot to healing the party.

You may or may not support him, but you have to at least recognize how impressive his campaign has been.  In this last week, we've seen him deal with issues that no other candidate in the history of Presidential Elections has had to deal with.  Think about these problems for a minute.

1.  On the Rev Wright Issue he had only half of the Democrats support.  While the Clinton camp didn't say anything initially (of course she says something now - since she can't help herself - we know how she truly feels on this), their supporters and Clinton herself didn't come out and support him while the Right Wing tried to publicly assassinate his character.  If he was the nominee, the whole party would have had his back.  But even without that support, he managed to turn it into something for the ages - a speech that will be remembered in American History. 

2.  He has to fight both Hillary and Bill Clinton.  This has never happened in Presidential Election history.  Bill Clinton is more than just a first spouse - he's a popular two term former President.  Whatever he says gets more weight and airtime than anything Michelle Obama says that isn't negative.  So not only does Obama's campaign have to deal with Hillary's amazingly brazen kitchen sink, they ahve to deal with Bill's legacy-busting deep thoughts.

3.  He has to fight a deep seated racism.  Ferraro is simply wrong.  Look at Pat Buchanan's recent comments.  NYTimes' Kristol, etc.  Its there and he has to overcome it.  Normally this would probably be his number one problem, but who would have thought a candidate had to deal with No. 1 and No. 2.

4.  He has to fight John McCain.  This is the easiest of the fights, but nonetheless he knows he needs to keep addressing it to keep the fight alive.  All the while, he's trying to still work hard for his own party's nomination.


My wife, a die hard Clinton supporter - now agrees.  What Obama has done in this election is special.  Its never been done - and the MSM's obsession with sensation has overshadowed his accomplishments.  You can hate him all you want - but he has perservered and shown leadership throught it all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

Damn those video cameras.  Who would of thought they would have followed her around?  I mean, it was sooo dangerous, the reporters should have been wearing bulletproof vests too right?
Now if only all the stations reported this and had all their pundits ponder out loud if Clinton lied a little or a lot.  And will she give a speech?  

Someone needs to make a YouTube of this.. please modify as necessary.

Clinton Supporter Robin Purnell Hourly Wage:  $14/hr

Groceries for the Iowa Caucus:  $95,000

Howard Wolfson's Monthly Salary:  $267,000

Mandy Grundwald's One Month Media Services Fee:  $2.3 Million

Mark Penn's One Month Polling Fee:  $4 Million



Lying about facing snipers when she was actually facing a 8 year old girl holding flowers?   Priceless

Objective:  Senator Hillary Clinton now leads 46-44% over Senator Barack Obama int the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows ongoing volatility in the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points (see recent daily results). While the national polls remain close, Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 78.1 contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68180;node_id = 7608 + "_" + 7058;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 21.9 contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68178;node_id = 7607 + "_" + 188;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); %.

Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close.

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

My Analysis
Based on my Levels of Evidence Rating System (Level I best rated polls like SUSA, Level II mildly well perfoorming polls like Zogby and the like, Level III Daily Tracking Polls), this is a Level III evidence poll.  Not the best, but better than speculation or opinion.

Here's where I lay out my level's of evidence:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obama-regains-lead-in-the-gall.php

Interestingly, whereas the Gallup polls were showing Clinton ahead most of last week, Rasmussen had Obama ahead, now for whatever reason, they reverse again.  Gallup has Obama ahead, while Rasmussen has Clinton ahead.

Whether or not this relates to the style of polling or time course of the polling, it seems that Rasmussen lags a little in terms of the reflection of the populace.  That may be good news to Obama folks.  The other explanation may be right as well, that there is no real bump to Obama's speech and Richardson's endorsement.  Time will tell.

Objective:  Obama now is ahead 48-45% in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)

My Analysis

It seems that Obama has weathered the harshest storm he has seen to date.  Not only did he stem the tide, the speech he gave and the Richardson endoresement likely puts him at an upswing as the week starts. 

While I hate to place any importance on polls, especially daily tracking polls, its all we got.  In medicine, we use Evidence Based Medicine.  Often our decisions are guided by rote learning, but when there is any studies published to guide our decision making, we refer to them.  The studies are graded Level I to Level III Evidence, with I being randomized, double blinded, controlled trials.  II being generally well done cohort retrospective of prospective randomized studies and III being published case studies or series without randomization.

Polls work the same way, I feel. 

Level I - large sample size, representative sample, well correlated to results in elections.

Level II - smaller sample size, represenstative sample, mildly correlated to results.

Level III - Daily tracking polls and the like.

To me, thsi is Level III evidence.  Its not somethign great, but its better than Pat Buchanan's opinion or any other person's opinion for that matter.

Taken as such, I think that Obama will gain greatly as more SD's come out for him and more endorsements come his way - not saying it will, but if it does.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but these days, I see the same pundits over and over and over again.  Many of them just write for papers, have a talk radio program, and analyze for TV.  Why do we listen to these people?

I'd like to hear from the historians - and how they view what's going on and give context.  Same thing with political scientists at academic institutions.  I guess I'm just tired of hearing the same pundits all the time who have really no formal training in it other than that they talk about it or write about it.  I'd rather hear what someone who studies this stuff and who can give us perspective has to say about it.

For example, does Obama's speech really hold up in comparison to other race speeches?  Or should we believe Tweety's hyperbole about it or the Right Wing's denunciation of it (excepting a few examples).  If it happens, how would a brokered convention hurt in comparison to other convention controversies in the past?

While I know that poli sci and history professors may not be the most TV friendly people, what's more important to me is their analysis of it.  It would be awesome to see some historians who are good at what they do on here at TPM.

Freedom is a funny thing.  Our concept of government is based upon it.  Our maturation into adults depends on our seeking it.  Our imagination derives from it.  We are Americans because we believe in it.  But it is increasingly clear, that freedom is becoming a tool - not an natural right.  

The Obama Passport problem brings up a host of numerous issues, but at its core, it deals with freedom, and the subtle shades of freedom's abuse.   In particular, we see its use as a political ploy, its violation by those in power, and its undermining by the excuse of vetting.

The Obama Passport controversy is starting to make its way across the internet and airwaves and it should be unsettling to most.  While we fret over its political implications, I'm more concerned with its underlying message.  While not obvious, it relates to the government's ability to monitor our private lives in ways we only think of, but don't really know exactly.  We trust that our government will protect something as valuable as our Passport (which carries with it our Social Security Number, our travels, our reasons for travel if a visa is needed) and that it will protect them from prying eyes.  But if anything, Obama's Passport problem is telling us we can't trust them.  It attacks the private nature of freedom.  Why we want to be free is to be away from forces telling us what to do, so we may do what we want.  On that level alone, its bad.  But on the level of a possible Presidential Nominee?  That is horrible. 

We are also seeing freedom abused as a political ploy.  At the heart of the 3AM ad, almost every Bush Fear Mongering speech, and the attacks on patriotism against Obama is the underlying message that if Obama is POTUS, our freedom will be compromised.  On so many levels, this can't be true - but because it threatens are very valuation of freedom, many Americans believe it.  But examination of the inalienable right of freedom reveals that it is not something that is that easily thrown away.  The foundation of our nation is built upon the resolute absoluteness of freedom.  It is not easily changed or taken away.  So the argument, that freedom is challenged by the nomination of one President is horrible on many levels, but philosophically is without merit.  But that's not what politicians will have you believe - they want us to internalize the thought that attacks by terrorists compromise our way of life.  It doesn't.  Freedom isn't that maleable, and using it for political gains in this manner should be an insult to any American.

The last abuse that I want to mention is how we excuse each candidate's freedom to associate and think as vetting.  As Americans, we love to say, "That's none of your business."  But conveniently, things not necessarily important to public service have come front and center, with claims that it speaks to the "character" and "judgement" of these public servants.  What we pass for vetting is really the stripping of the candidates' freedoms to satisfy our own argument.  Forget the excellent results that all the candidates' have (or they probably wouldn't have gotten this far), what we care about is only sensationalism.  In a way, we want to strip our President of his/her freedom before they get there to fully vet them.  It doesn't make sense - if they are to uphold everyone else's freedom, we should uphold theirs.  To this end, Senator Clinton's experiences during the Lewinsky problem is none of our business.  Senator Obama's pastor's words, really shouldn't matter to us.  Senator McCain's personal matters should not appeal to our civic duty.  They surely should have the freedom in these areas to be who they want.  Vetting them, then, is contrary to what we believe in.

I don't know what the political fallout of the Obama passport issue will be.  I actually do hope that no one accessed his records malignantly.  I really do hope that people have a higher mentality than that.  But at issue here is not necessarily the political implications, I think.  At issue, is the very nature of our citizenship being tested in the modern day roman coliseum of politics.  At issue, is our very freedom.

There is that often referenced quote from the movie The Untouchables:

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

The Republicans do it well.  Karl Rove, Fox News, Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio have learned how to coalesce behind their candidate and go after the Democrats, time and time again.  This loyalty and unity in fear-mongering is effective if not distasteful. 

This has happened time and time again.  Carter.  Dukakis.  Gore.  Kerry.  On and on.  Yet somehow, Democrats can't get their act together.  Instead of stubbornly refusing to let their mind games infiltrate Democratic planning - we openly welcome the doubts and innuendos they plant.  Instead of digging in and focusing our fire at them, we look at each other and say, "Maybe they got something figured out?"  Instead of fighting for one another, we act selfishly all the while dividing our party in two.

I've thought about it a lot and distilled it down to this.  There's three keys to Republican success.  (1)  Unity in offense.  (2)  Unity in defense.  (3) Divide and Conquer.  They implement it well - and we just sit bewildered by it.

Unity in Offense
This is fairly obvious.  From the Dukakis tank picture to the Kerry Swift Boat campaign to the now raging Obama Wright YouTube videos.  Almost all Republicans are forcing this down our throat.  Telling us that this is the only criteria for being a President.  From Fox News to Limbaugh Radio to Pat Buchanan to Joe Scarborough.  They toe the line with the same mantra - and its as forceful as "Yes We Can" if they all do it together.  The more they do it, the more their fellow Repulicans do it - and it seems to be working.

Unity in Defense
The McCain vs NY Times is the most obvious example of this.  How did McCain managed to wiggle out of this?  Everyone came to his side - all Republicans.  Just before this was out, they were splintered - with the Right questioning his conservatism.  After that, no one questioned him in his own party.  We can thank NY Times poor reporting for that one as well.

Divide and Conquer
This is them at their best.  Limbaugh urging voters to vote Hillary.  Baiting the white democratic members with race division.  This is much more subtle, but as we've seen - incredibly effective.  Its working.  And we just sit here.

What is incredible to me, is that the Democratic Party has not learned this.  They haven't figured it out.  They haven't even begun to attack this.  The best chance after the primaries started (I would argue that there was also a chance before this all began - when Clinton was the overall favorite - if she managed her campaign well and if the DNC leadership was bold enough to sit Obama down tell him that his time would come this would not have happened) was back in February (only 2 weeks ago) when Obama was way up and leading.  If he had won Texas and Ohio - this would have been a moot point.  But he didn't and here's how we've played into their hands.

Divided on Offense
There is none.  Period.  When Obama goes after McCain - Clinton discredits him by saying he's not capable of being CiC.  When Clinton goes after McCain, Obama says she's not experienced either.   And then we all just waste our energy on each other - forgetting the ultimate prize.  Its like your little brother coming up on you when you're arguing with you're dad and saying, "He wasn't at the library - he was at Nicole's house!"  Nice one - doesn't exactly help the cause.

Divided on Defense
The Obama/Wright fiasco is the most clear example of this.  When the Right Wing started its attack on Obama - who went out and supported him in the Democratic Elite?  In fact, I think McCain supported him more than any other Democratic politician publicly and on Fox.  No matter who you stand for, this attack by the Right should be an affront to any Democrat.  Clinton and her fans should have said, "We want to be the nominee, but what you're doing to a fellow Democrat is disgusting and we won't have it."  But of course, this didn't happen.  It goes both ways - Obama needs to better defend Clinton against McCain.  Defend.  Each.  Other.  Period.

Divide and Conquer
Instead of luring the moderate left leaning Republicans/Independents the Democratic way - they've been trying harder and harder to make McCain seem like not so bad of a guy.  Paint his ass red.  Make him Jerry Fallwell.  Make him Pat Robertson.  Find KKK quotes supporting him.  Everything you can do to make him seem like the most racist, evangelical, warmongering crazy this side of David Duke/Bush - will Divide their party.  Make them think again about voting for a crazy.

Ultimately, its sad what's happening.  As an Obama supporter, I am worried, depressed, and desolate about the whole Wright issue.  While I recognize his greatness, his intelligence, and the unique opportunity his candidacy affords our country to shine again, I fear most won't - they'll just see Rev Wright when they see him.  If this consumes the election like Swift Boats and Dukakis pictures of old - I fear that we may have another 4 years of BushCain.  Obama fans may not vote, being disillusioned if he is not the nominee.  Clinton fans might stay out of it as well, somehow agreeing with the Republican assessment of Obama.  This can't happen.  Repeat:  THIS CAN'T HAPPEN.  Our country's well being and soul may hurt for years to come after that.

In the end, who do I blame?  Republicans - thats too easy.  The MSM - well that's justified.  Democrats - yes I blame us the most.  We had an opportunity:  Hillary 08 (before Obama benefitted from inept Clinton campaign managing and inept DNC leadership) and Obama 08 (in February before the Wright fiasco and the 3AM ad) to unite and fight the Republicans in November. 

And who do we have to blame if we lose?  Ourselves.  Its that simple.  We have failed to help each other when attacked.  We have failed to attack the other together.  Instead of keeping internal dissonance internal - we've broadcast it, revealing our weaknesses to the opposition while they find creatively horrendous ways to manipulate it.

We've become the political version of the Lakers when they last had Kobe and Shaq together.  Each one of them superstars in their own right - each one of them would not back down.  They let their internal division spill out and over and it made them look silly when they needed to be perfect.  And now, whomever wins the nomination, they will lead a party weakened by strife, where the other nominee's supporters will leave with them.

Clintonistas, Obamabots (yes, I'm trying to unify by pointing out the retardness of our own labels) - our own dissonance may well be our downfall.  Watch that Untouchables scene again - repeat it.  Embrace it.  Lets stop focusing on each other - and fight the right fight, no matter who the DNC nominee is. 

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue"

The United Church of Christ, the parent organization to the Trinity United Church of Christ, released a press statement defending Rev. Wright.  Here's a quote:

"Trinity United Church of Christ is a great gift to our wider church family and to its own community in Chicago," says UCC General Minister and President John H. Thomas. "At a time when it is being subjected to caricature and attack in the media, it is critical that all of us express our gratitude and support to this remarkable congregation, to Jeremiah A. Wright for his leadership over 36 years, and to Pastor Otis Moss III, as he assumes leadership at Trinity."

Thomas says he has been saddened by news reports that "present such a caricature of a congregation that been such a great blessing."

"These attacks, many of them motivated by their own partisan agenda, cannot go unchallenged," Thomas emphasizes. "It's time for all of us to say 'No' to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends."

Link:
http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

And are these leaders of the UCC just a bunch of angry anti-white racists?  They don't look like it to me:
http://www.ucc.org/about-us/meet-our-officers.html

I'm spending entirely way too much time on TPM today.  But there seems to be some good articles out there that I've ran across, I thought might be interesting to TPM readers... well, most likely Obama supporters. 

To the point, Cilliza blogs about the Olbermann Special Comment on Clinton and Ferraro.  He describes the special comment and then provides a video link to it.  Some people have liked it, some think it was too forceful.  I myself, liked it.  But its interesting nonetheless to see if it will affect the campaigns either way.  I hope it tells both Obama and Clinton to tone it down a notch.

It also speaks to the rise of talk radio (Air America specifically) and people like Keith Olbermann who are countering the Coulter/Limbaugh/Savage type radio/tv programming that has rallied the Republican Right in the past.  I think it represents a direct response to the tepid comebacks of Democrats in the past elections.  For whatever reason, Democrats have not fought back hard enough, and these shows are starting to show that they will.

Anyways, Cilliza doesn't really pass much judgement on what Olbermann said, other than to say this:

But the tenor of his comments, coupled with the influence he wields among progressive activists, could well hurt Clinton's cammpaign as she seeks to make the case to the remaining states why she should be the nominee.

As Democrats learned in the 1990s, underestimate the power of Limbaugh at your own peril. Clinton's campaign would be wise to heed that lesson when it comes to Olbermann.

In a great post on HuffPo, Greg Mitchell does the research to find out what, if anything, Senator Clinton said about the Iraq War.  The answer?  Not much. 

Here's the link followed by the leading paragraph to this blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/as-war-neared-in-2003-_b_91747.html

Wherever you stand on the Obama/Clinton race, one thing nearly everyone agrees on is this: She voted for the war resolution in 2002, has not apologized for that vote since - but now says the resolution did not really authorize the war and calls the 2003 invasion a mistake. But what did she do in attempting to halt the war - which she felt she did not authorize -- in the two weeks before it began? Apparently, nothing.

I'm not sure if this will work or not.  But here's a youtube of John McCain essentially saying, "I do know Senator Obama, he does not share those views."  This is on Fox directly to Sean Hannity's face.

He goes on to say that there are a lot surrogates that say things on both campaigns that the candidates clearly don't agree with.  In fact, at one point he sighs as he seems annoyed that this is even an issue.

I have two thoughts on this.  One, McCain is trying the good cop/bad cop thing where the 527s will be the bad cop.  Two, he actually is annoyed that this is an issue - he himself has a problem with it as well.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQquSOnlxJ8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQquSOnlxJ8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

If that doesn't work, here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQquSOnlxJ8

First, it started with Sean Hannity on Fox news network last night.  He actually said that he wanted Obama to resign from the Senate and for him to leave the race.  They then treated him like someone on the witness stand on their interview with him - which is horrendous.  Today there's this article from the National Review saying that Barack is done: 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmE1M2U2NmQ3NzFlNDE1MmNlZDZkYjBjZjhiY2ZiYjQ=


In it he says:

"Instead, we have heard first “cherry-picking” and then that the reverend does not represent his own views, but not a hint of contrition for an association with such a demagogue and hate-monger. I think this will not go away, and ultimately damage Obama beyond repair, for it strikes at the heart of his very candidacy—that he was a healer who has transcended racial divides, and was introducing a new credo of transparent and painfully forthright politics. The Wright scandal and his reaction thus far belie both. This was precisely why Hillary stayed in the race, and mirabile dictu, perhaps what she imagined would eventually transpire."


I was initially sad last night that this all broke out.  I knew it was a damaging blow to the Obama campaign.  But then I got angry hearing Hannity and now the National Review take this position. 


Why should someone leave the campaign because someone else said something?  Its wrong what was said, I don't deny that.  But does this mean Obama should just quit?  Is this as damaging as it may initially seem?  And what about McCain using Cunningham as his intro speaker and the horribly race/religion baiting tirade he went into?  Ah, how quickly the media forgets.


The angrier I got, the more I wanted to take it to the Right Wing Nuts.  This whole Clinton/Obama thing has distracted us from the true goal of this election - to upend the horrendous right wing craziness that has defined the last 8 years, 16 if you count the 1992-2000 Congress.  While I don't support Clinton and her pseudo-Rove ways, I cannot support the right wing at all.  We must resolve to fight this through and support Obama in this trying of time.   I was wavering on even voting for Clinton prior to this ridiculousness, but now, seeing as how much vitriol the Right Wing spews towards one of the most inspiring presidential candidates we've had, I can't sit back and let them get the White House.


So to the Clinton supporters, I can't say I agree with her tactics, and I'm still an Obama man.  But I will vote for her and support her in the GE.  Will you join us in our defense of Obama? 


For the Obama supporters, lets stop bickering.  Let us support Clinton in the GE if she gets nominated.  Let us support Obama through this, his most challenging point of his campaign. 

This was in response to a previous blog about how the Obama campaign is being killed by blogs.  Its a good read.  But here's my response:

Its nice to hear a well reasoned argument from a Clinton supporter. Thanks for posting this - it seems that on both sides of the court, there's far too much name calling, derision, and absolutes thrown around in a horribly discouraging discourse.

As for your points, I disagree with them. I'm one of those Clinton to Obama voters that may or may not fall into your second group. The overall message of your blog I think is also at odds with mine. I think the blogosphere helps Obama. In light of recent events, its hard to keep the feeling of hope. I go to to the blogosphere and read support from fellow Obama supporters and it does alleviate my fears somewhat. Also, the blogs rarely are reflected by the MSM. There's no statistic to refer to, but my initial thoughts are that the blogs tend to stray toward Obama - which in recent days has not been the case in the MSM.

You said:

"However, my view is that most of the blogosphere backs Obama for reasons that have little to do with the man himself:

- he was initially propped by anti-war liberals

- he was further strengthened by Clinton-haters

- then some of the public bought into the politics of change "

I think he was initially propped by his books and his speech at the 2004 DNC, which in my mind, is one of the best speeches we've seen in a generation. At least thats where I got my initial favorable thoughts of him from (I was initially a Clinton supporter) - from that speech and also from reading his books which is a must read for any Democrat.

Your second point is true, he was strengthened by Clinton-haters, but that doesn't make moot support for Obama. It means that people got so tired of the Clinton way of politics, that they were looking for a different candidate who embodied a different style of politics. No matter what has happened so far, it cannot be denied that he has still run a different, very transparent campaign. This accounts not only for the Clinton to Obama voters like myself, but the new voters who were simply looking for a new voice.

I think your last point is the weakest. To say that people "bought" into Obama's voice of change is an accusation of ignorance. I can't agree with that. I'm as critical and skeptical as they come - I'm a surgeon. We need to be. And I don't simply buy into fads or phenomena without a healthy dose of research. There is a large group of successful and smart people who support Obama as well. I doubt that they simply just lost all reason and fell into his camp.

I think there are a lot of factors into why people support Obama. I could list them all, but here are some of mine:

-He inspires people to unite and do better for others and themselves. I haven't heard anything inspirational from Clinton or McCain other than a constant barrage of I'm going to do this for you and I'm going to do this for her and I'm going to do this for him... etc. Its not about we, its about her.

-He has shown consistent judgement that has followed my own beliefs on foreign policy. He is against the Iraq War. He voted against having Iran labelled as terrorists. He supported precision strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan, which Bush eventually voted for. Clinton voted for the war, and I can't ignore that.

-His economic policy is actually sound. He wants to create a National Reinvestment Bank to invest in fixing the infrastructure of the US to make it more palatable to business and commerce. Even Bloomberg applauded Obama on this. For those who care, Jim Cramer of Mad Money likes Obamas plans as well.

-On health care, I know a thing or two being a surgeon. His plans on health care are similar to my own thoughts on it. Of course we all want Universal health care - but delivering it is not easy. Making it a mandate is a bad position to start discussions with the Republicans from. Also, you have to reform health care without losing the excellence of care it can achieve - making it a mandate could render health care as delivered by the government as badly managed as social security. When you're dealing with people's lives, you don't want that.

-On family values and personal responsibility - Obama has spoken many times about how and why we need to look at ourselves to make the fundamental change. He talks often about turning off the TV, doing homework with your kids, etc. He loves his family, has a good family, and clearly relishes his time with them. He's the most family value friendly Democrat nominee we have had in a while.

-On Education. He is the only candidate to talk about how our country is failing our kids. He has laid out specific plans to jumpstart this. He wishes to reform No Child Left Behind. He wants to increase the wages of teachers. He wants to give college attendees a 4k college credit. He wants to emphasize Math and Science teaching. He wants to teach our kids by not focusing on teaching for a test. He wants to create scholarships for those getting degrees in teaching.

-On the environment. He maintains a strong lead on this as well. He wishes to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. He wants 25% of all energy to come from renewable sources. He plans to invest in developing training programs for skilled workers in the green technology field.

-Finally, his thoughts on ethics are some of the strongest I've seen from any candidates in recent years. In Chicago, he worked with the police to get them to be more transparent in their interrogations. This meant videotaping them. Initially resistant to this, Obama reasoned with them that it would reduce lawsuits and reinforce trust of the community in the police. He was right. The transparency produced by simply having a camera recording all interrogations as required by law has reduced interrogation based lawsuits for that department. Read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html. He also has released his tax returns, his earmarks, and does not take lobbyist money. He's worked on and helped pass several laws regarding this in his time as Senator.

Finally, you're last point:

"Disclaimer: I support Clinton because I think she will be a stronger president. I don't need to have an inspirational leader in the White House - I find role models in more appropriate places. I need someone who can fix the mess and who knows how the goverment (the largest employer in the US) works and how to make it do what you need."

First, you cannot assume that the government is like any other employer or company. They have some of the best benefits in the world, and it is hard to change personnel in a government run department. I work at a County Hospital - its damn near impossible to get change for the better by simply demanding it. People who work for the government are good people, they just need something to work for and to be reminded of the goal of their job - to make America a better place.

Second, running a campaign is a microcosm of running a government. Obama has run an incredible campaign. Think of what he had to overcome to get to this point:

-He is a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. Contrary to what Ferraro said, he is not lucky to be an African-American.

-He was relatively unknown until his 2004 speech

-He did not have access to the "top talent" in campaigning

-He was not even supported initially by his own race. He in fact was losing to Clinton among African-Americans at the start

-He required more secret service than any other candidate in recent memory. That's because he's had so many death threats against him - it just reinforces how silly Ferraro's argument is.

Think of what Clinton had to run with:

-Name recognition

-Support of the DLC

-Support of both Women and African Americans and Latinos

-A large fundraising base (that rolodex of hers)

-Access to the best campaign people in the Democratic Party

I could go on. But for Obama to overcome this and out fund raise her is simply amazing. It speaks to not only his ability to organize and motivate his supporters. It was his ability to manage the money and plan for the long run past February 5th that has put him in this position. He is still the underdog candidate in my book.

Again, I think you make good points. I just don't agree with them. I'm one of those Obama supporters who made a reasoned decision to support him. And this was hard for me - I voted for Bill Clinton, gave Clinton money initially, and supported both of them through the trying late 90s when everyone seemed to be out to get them. So it takes more than just fads and phenomena on blogs to get me to switch.

Thanks again for this post.. we need more like it. And.. I'm probably going to post this seperately in another blog now that I saw how long my response was.