Yes, that's right.  In anticipation of the wave of clutter sure to follow here after Barack's speech tonight, I thought I'd be the first to get in with my review.  I must confess, I haven't seen it yet, nor have I read the excerpts released a little while ago.  Indeed, it's still more than two hours away.  But why should that stand in the way?  The speech that has yet to occur was amazing.  Fantastic.  Inspiring.  A home run.  Hit all the themes he needed to and then some.  The energy was palpable.  The torch has been passed.  [Insert additional cliches below].  And how about that Bruce Springsteen performance that never occurred?  What a warmup!  Onward to victory in November.  I'm hung over already.      

There has been much ink spilled and breath consumed the past few days over the alleged rift between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Despite their many similarities as candidates, the Washington Post explains a profound estrangement arising not just from Bill's distress over charges that he had used racially coded language, but also from a generational divide.  To be sure, it is in both their interests for Bill Clinton to begin to heal the division (whether overhyped or not) with a rousing endorsement of Obama tonight.  Nothing less than his legacy and future influence in the Democratic Party is at stake as are the principles on which he has staked his political career.  

But there's another side to this issue that hasn't received a lot of attention and that's the Obama campaign's seeming reluctance to embrace Clinton's legacy, an eminently sensible step politically and one that would broaden his appeal considerably.  Of course, running against Hillary (and by extension Bill) in the primaries, Barack had to present himself as the candidate of change - which to a party fed up with leaders seen to have given Bush his way on the war and other depredations and suffering from Clinton/dynasty fatigue was a necessary and winning strategy.  He even went so far as to point to Ronald Reagan as the most transformative politician in recent history. 

The situation now is quite different.  With the economy emerging as perhaps the most significant figure, all Obama needs to do is point to the eight year run of prosperity enjoyed by the last Democratic administration, a shocking contrast to the mess the Republicans have made over the past eight.  Despite his personal failings, most Americans still believe Clinton to have been an outstanding executive.

Tying himself to the Clinton record would not only help to ease the rift but also helps alleviate the concerns (unwarranted in my view) among voters concerned that they "don't know what Obama stands for."  A large number of the undecideds profess unease with Obama's message of change (owing, it would seem, to unfair perceptions about his race, fair perceptions of his lack of executive governing experience or just plain sour grapes). With the primaries over, Obama should be doing everything he can to affiliate himself with the positive legacy of the most effective Democratic president of our lifetime.
 
I am not saying Bill Clinton is a Saint.  There are many valid reasons to be disappointed in him as a person and as a President.  But Democrats do themselves no favors by tearing down Bill, whose abilities were widely admired when he left office. By way of contrast, the Republicans have turned Reagan into a bona fide hero, a thought that sickens those of us who lived through his Presidency.  Our past two candidates have done their best to run away from Big Bad Bill.  Look where it got them.  If Barack can successfully embrace Bill without becoming smothered in the process, it will accomplish more to bring the bring the party together and take control of the torch than anything Clinton says tonight.    

Last night I fell asleep feeling generally pleased that Hillary Clinton had, with her rousing personal appeal and endorsement of Barack Obama, done her part to bring her wayward followers off the ledge.  And indeed, as I warily scanned the cable networks via remote's-eye-view I was pleasantly surprised to find even die-hard HRC cynics like Matthews and Olberman praising her speech, dropping for at least a night the shopworn negative narratives they seem eager to apply to the Clintons' every move ("it's all about her"... "setting herself up for 2012" ... "her sense of entitlement"... etc.)  Sure, there were the stories and interviews of the now infamous PUMAs, but they were portrayed with admirable restraint, not as representative of the convention, but closer to Japanese holdouts coaxed out of their island bunkers to be told the war is officially over.   

So it was in that spirit that I picked up the New York Times this morning, looking forward to some bland coverage of the speech and its reception.  What I got instead was something closer to the National Enquirer:  speculation from unnamed and unidentified "friends" and "aides" offering up dubious insights into the Clintons' purported feelings and motivations.  The upshot of these thinly (to be charitable) sourced innuendos?  You guessed it: "it's all about her"... "setting herself up for 2012" ... "still bitter" ... etc.  The coverage could just as easily have been written about Jen's next moves after Brad.  (Sources close to Jen say she remains bitter ....)

The examples speak for themselves: 

With her husband looking on tenderly and her supporters watching with tears in their eyes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingered.

Mrs. Clinton, who was once certain that she would win the Democratic nomination this year, also took steps on Tuesday — deliberate steps, aides said — to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency. She rallied supporters in her speech, and, at an earlier event with 3,000 women, described her passion about her own campaign. And her aides limited input on the speech from Obama advisers, while seeking advice from her former strategist, Mark Penn, a loathed figure in the Obama camp.

she betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels, friends say, and that has especially haunted her husband.

Mrs. Clinton is in the midst of a “catharsis,” friends say, Mr. Clinton remains angrier than people realize about the Obama campaign’s portrayal of his wife as deceitful and of his administration as middling and his political tactics as, at times, racially charged. Friends have been urging Mr. Clinton — who speaks on Wednesday night — to move on, and counseling the couple to focus their energy and emotions on Mr. McCain.

At one point in her speech, though, Mrs. Clinton herself paid homage to her husband’s successes — in one sense, making up for the absence of praise from Mr. Obama.

Far from giving a valedictory at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said she wanted the speech to reflect the leverage that she retains in the Democratic Party — that she, far more than Mr. Obama, has the influence to move her supporters to his side. (The Clinton camp did not even provide a final draft to the Obama campaign well in advance of delivery, working on it until the last minute.)

At the same time, advisers said, Mrs. Clinton wanted to ensure that her star turn at the convention could never be portrayed as insufficiently enthusiastic, should Mr. Obama lose the election in part because swaths of her supporters ultimately did not vote for him. Mrs. Clinton is almost certain to run for president in 2012 if Mr. Obama fails this time, several Clinton advisers said Tuesday, and any such plan could possibly founder if the Clintons’ negative feelings show through this year.

If it hasn't been obvious all along, the nefarious manipulations of the calculating Clintons are becoming apparent. You may have thought Clinton was out to submarine Obama, clearing the path for her own election in 2008 and to hell with the fate of the nation forced to endure four more years of Republican misrule.  No, the Clintons are far more shrewd than you gave them credit for.  The plan, revealed tonight, is to ensure Barack Obama's election, not for the good of the country, mind you, although that is an added benefit.  No, Obama's successful election and reelection in 2012 will pave the way for Hillary's grand scheme - 2016.  Rather than inherit a country further broken by Republican depredations, she takes over a more prosperous and peaceful land.  Then, she will secure her legacy by building on Obama's record of achievement, thinking not of the betterment of our country, of course, but for her own aggrandizement. 

Let's make Hillary's dream a reality and elect Barack Obama!

A few weeks ago after Barack Obama officially clinched the Democratic nomination, John Dickerson asked on Slate how, as the nominee, Obama would replace the Clintonian “triangulation” he ran against. 

Since Dickerson asked the question, Obama has (1) given a hawkish speech before AIPAC, (2) announced his support for the FISA “compromise” that looks awfully similar to previous versions he had opposed, and (3) expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court decision rejecting the death penalty in cases of child rape.    

Obama’s moves have sparked a lively discussion on these boards as his supporters try to reconcile these moves with their expectations of the candidate shaped during the nominating contest.  Is Obama turning right or is this where he stood all along?  Has he taken these positions out of conviction or expedience?  Is he a progressive or centrist?  Reformer or ‘typical pol’?

I believe there is an element of truth in all of these.  But the answer to Dickerson’s question seems pretty clear.  At least for now, triangulation is alive and well.  The promised transformation will have to wait.    

Ah, triangulation.  During the primary season, the term was tossed around haphazardly as an insult, shorthand for appeasement, spinelessness, selling out, the absence of principles, a stand-in for “everything we hate about the Clintons.”  As a candidate for the nomination, Obama criticized triangulation.  "We've had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics," he said on one occasion. "That's not what we need right now.”    

Lost amid the invective was the origin and meaning of the term.  Triangulation is a strategic choice, not a political philosophy.  The term was coined by the justly reviled Dick Morris during the 1996 election.  After the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, Clinton “triangulated” as a matter of survival, pre-empting wedge issues the Republicans had used to bludgeon the Democrats and addressing them through more progressive policies.  Morris described it as using your tools to fix their car, the most notable example being the issue of welfare reform, long a wedge issue exploited by Republicans.  Clinton took the issue from Republicans while promoting higher funding for child care and stronger financial support for working families.  An imperfect solution, to be sure, but far better than the alternatives.  Most important, Clinton was able to appropriate the terrain that Republicans had successfully controlled to that point. 

Despite his anti-triangulation rhetoric, his promises to transform politics as we know it, Obama’s campaign has adopted this tactic from the start.  On health care, Obama attacked the Clinton and Edwards plans from the right arguing against coverage mandates that “force every American to buy health care,” a talking point that could easily have come from a Republican playbook.  On Social Security, Obama repeated the mantra of the privatizers that the system is in “crisis” and urgent solutions are required.  Rather than laying the blame for many of the nation’s problems at the feet of the last eight years of Republican rule, Obama blamed the corrupt system, casting blame on both parties. 

Seen in this light, Obama’s recent positions should come as no surprise.  Lest anyone get any ideas about Obama’s sympathies, Obama’s speech to AIPAC placed him squarely within the mainstream of foreign policy thought.  Faced with an imperfect FISA “compromise,” Obama made a smart political choice, emphasizing that the need to provide tools for fighting terrorism over holding the telecoms accountable and the constitutional concerns with the bill, depriving the Republicans of an issue on which to hammer him this Fall.  Obama’s statement on the Supreme Court decision reminded voters of his crime fighting bona fides. 

Yes, Obama ran as a different kind of Democrat, one who would transcend partisanship and politics as usual, who would face hard truths honestly, who would assemble a new, bipartisan coalition. 

It’s easier to promise to end partisanship than to actually do so, however.  Governing an enormous and fractious country is rough business.  It requires compromises and choices among less than ideal alternatives.  I realize we are at an early stage, yet despite the soaring rhetoric, I fail to see how Obama’s politics rise above the triangulation he so forcefully denounced.  Maybe that’s not such a bad thing, but those who believed Obama would somehow rise above the fray are either naïve in the extreme or deluded. 

Even as all the shifting rationales the Bush administration has offered for the Iraq debacle have been debunked, I have still been skeptical of the claim that it was really all about oil.  This story makes me think twice.   

To summarize: After losing their oil concession to nationalization 36 years ago, four Western oil companies – Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP – are set to receive no bid contracts to develop Iraq’s oil fields.  The companies prevailed over other offers by more than 40 companies, including companies from Russia, China and India.  They were awarded by the “sovereign” government of Iraq’s oil ministry, which is still being advised by Americans.  The oil ministry said the contracts were awarded to the companies because they had been assisting the ministry without charge for two years.  However, a total of 46 companies had memorandums of understanding with the ministry yet were not awarded contracts.  In one instance, the Russian company Lukoil had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but the contract was awarded to a consortium of Chevron and Total.  Although the contracts are relatively brief, they give the companies a huge leg up when development rights are handed out later.    

Is this the vision of Iraq as a showpiece for democracy that would transform the Middle East?  The Iraq envisioned by Bush and McCain looks more like a dystopian nightmare.  A country segregated into semi-feudal ethnic cantons each with its own militia, riven by low level sectarian violence the lid of which is precariously kept on by American troops hunkered down in gigantic mega-bases being fed by Burger King and supplied by Halliburton, while American companies extract the oil that feeds our economy and destroys our environment operating under the protection of contractors hired by Blackwater and the like who are unaccountable to both the military and the Iraqi government.

Who said Hillary Clinton doesn't study the blogs?

6:24 pm: Armchair Guerilla posts concession and endorsement of Obama to widespread acclaim (well, it seems a dozen people thought so).  Armchair hopes that "after reading this, Hillary will see the writing on the wall
and recognize that her quixotic quest for the Presidency must end."  He expresses confidence that "she will soon make her own concession and will actively
support Obama in the general election."

6:56 pm:  Talkingpointsmemo reports that Clinton will concede and that her announcement will come Saturday. 

Sadly, my prediction is that Hillary will continue to be a lightning rod topic on these boards for some time to come.  I hope that my predictive abilities are not as keen on this one. 

I know the vast majority of the readers out there (if there actually are enough readers of this blog from which to cull a “vast majority”) are waiting for Hillary Clinton to concede, but for now you will have to make due with Armchair Guerilla's less-anticipated, but perhaps more heartfelt, concession.  In the spirit of grand delusions, I am hoping that after reading this, Hillary will see the writing on the wall and recognize that her quixotic quest for the Presidency must end. 

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.  He represents our best chance at ending the war in Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible; restoring this country’s power, leadership and prestige in the world; delivering medical coverage to all citizens and reforming our wasteful healthcare system, appointing Supreme Court justices who will protect a woman’s right to choose, respect the separation of powers, protect our civil rights and ensure greater fairness in the judicial system; reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; finally implementing policies to address global warming and dependence on fossil fuels; protecting and shoring up social security and medicare; preventing further erosion of the safety net; restoring competence to government; helping to bridge, rather than exploit, divisions based upon racial, class, ethnicity and sexual orientation; and many other things I'm sure I left out. 

It’s quite an agenda.  But judging by what I’ve seen, Obama has the intelligence, dedication and political skills to pull it off.  He has run a nearly flawless campaign, rarely straying from his message of change and articulating his positions with eloquence and conviction.  He has also conducted himself with dignity, staying largely above the partisan fray and remaining gracious during this extraordinarily taxing and heated primary.  The one thing that has always impressed me most about him is his ability to express his often-nuanced positions simply but without condescension or artifice.  For the first time, I saw a Presidential candidate who answered questions the way I might (if I were a bit more eloquent, that is).  And yes, we should not underestimate the very significant symbolic significance of a person of color finally achieving the highest office in the land.  Barack Obama is a unique talent.  He will be tested this Summer and Fall but if he executes as well as he has thus far, he should be able to defeat McCain and spearhead Democratic gains in Congress and the Senate.    

Because this is Obama’s day, I don’t want to dwell on my former candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton.  Lord knows, there’s plenty of folks around here to take care of that.  I will say that I supported her because I thought she had better chance than Obama of defeating the Republicans in the Fall and doing the work of President.  My belief was based upon her extensive preparation for the office and her command of issues and process.  I frequently came to her defense (sometimes obnoxiously so, I admit) because I felt she was being unfairly pilloried.  Those wounds remain.  I do not, however, believe the result was unfair or that the nomination was stolen from her.  I am confident that she will soon make her own concession and will actively support Obama in the general election.  I am disappointed that she has not done so already.  Perhaps she is trying to negotiate something for herself or Bill in recognition of the enormous turnout she inspired.  That is her right.  However, the longer she waits the more she confirms the worst suspicions people have about her.  On that, I will agree. 

Of course, without Hillary to kick around, I wonder what we’ll have left to fight over here at TPM.  Any suggestions are welcome. 

The past few days have seen a proliferation of agita over the implications of Hillary Clinton’s continuing campaign.  Like that creature from the horror movie who refuses to die, Hillary soldiers on through crisis and scandal, repeating her mantra of electability and popular vote victory.  While apparently doing little to improve her chance of winning the nomination, her persistence has inspired countless commenters on these boards to assert their God-given right to profess their hatred of all things Clinton.  They are countered by a handful of bedraggled Clintonista holdouts still hoping for a miracle.  Here and there, a few voices in the wilderness plead for party unity.  Some have even asked what Obama can offer Clinton to win over her supporters, even floating the idea of an Obama/Clinton “unity” ticket.  Most of these pleas, some heartfelt, some less so (i.e., we’ll have unity if only Hillary would just shut up), have predictably devolved into raucous mudslinging as the partisans once again air their deeply felt grievances. 

 
Drawing on my extensive background studying non-traditional warfare from the comfort of my living room, I’d say these pleas for unity only perpetuate the problem.  The issue is not what Obama can do to bring Hillary and her supporters back into the fold.  To take a phrase from our reviled leader, that's called appeasement.  The better question is what they can do to get back into the Obama camp’s good graces.  The handwriting is on the wall.  Victory is near.  Who cares if you’re close to 50% or 15%.  Do you want to be left in the cold when the new folks take over Washington?  More important, do you want to end once and for all the anti-Hillary posts at TPM?   

With that in mind, I propose a reasonable settlement under
which Hillary and her supporters will be permitted to rejoin the fold with
honor rather than face the prospect of eight long years in the Blue
Ridge Mountains.   

(1)    HRC and her supporters must immediately stop doing anything that can be construed as trying to win the nomination.  HRC can no longer even suggest she is the better nominee.  Do not even mention the words Hillary Clinton and nominee in the same sentence.  Henceforth, the Clinton campaign must be geared toward proving that Obama is the superior candidate and a better person.     

(2)    Along those lines, the following terms shall henceforth be banned from the discussion:  popular vote, swing state, working class, rural, older and, of course, white.  HRC and her supporters must immediately stop denigrating the hearty souls in caucus states who spent hours in high-school gymnasiums standing in groups and debating the issues the way they used to do way back when before politics was overrun by the unwashed primary masses.

(3)     HRC must issue a public apology acknowledging her intentional, premeditated  attempts to divide the Democratic Party along racial lines and destroy the chances of the eventual nominee.  This will be done in prime time and will include an unequivocal assertion that Barack Obama is not, in fact, a muslim. 

(4)    HRC must agree to undergo a period of intensive counseling to deal with her many personality disorders including her persistent delusions that she could win the nomination, her apparent willingness to do or say anything to get elected and her divisiveness. 

(5)    Then there is the matter of Bill.  Bill must reject and denounce his infamous statement that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.  Instead, Bill must confirm that Obama is in fact the superior candidate, that he has kicked Hillary’s ass all over the country, and that he, Bill, knew it at the time.  Bill will no longer be permitted to wag is finger and turn red in the face.  Preventive measures will be implemented if this proves impossible. 

(6)    Paul Krugman will no longer be permitted to write a column for the New York Times.  Other Clinton shills will be dealt with accordingly.

(7)    The Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated, with the delegates being apportioned according to the results of the states that caucused between Super Tuesday and the Ohio primary.   

(8)     HRC must return Markg88’s watch, which she definitely stole from him while he was in the gym. 

 Clintonistas, the choice is yours.  The new brand of politics is here.  You can either join the fight against the Republican War Machine this Fall or face eight long years in the mountains of Kentucky and West Virginia.   

In his comments before the Knesset, President Bush compared "those who believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals" to the "false hope" of "appeasers" before the Nazi advance in Europe.  Bush's remarks were seconded by John McCain  who compared would-be negotiatiors to Neville Chamberlain. 

McCain's example of someone who stood fast in his refusal to negotiate is a curious one.  McCain cited Ronald Reagan, who refused to negotiate to end the Iranian Hostage Crisis, instead insisting to bring the hostages home.  Has McCain forgotten the Iran Contra affair?  True, Reagan didn't sit down to negotatiate with the Iranians to bring the hostages home.  He tried to sell them weapons instead.  Is McCain suggesting that instead of diplomacy we should send over a few missiles? 

The absurdity doesn't end there.  As has been pointed out, McCain's comments were hypocritical given his assertion about Hamas that "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another ... but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Moreove, according to Bush and McCain, several of the appeasers are in fact Republican foreign policy experts, including Bush's own Secretary of Defense.  Just the other day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke out in favor of engaging Iran:  "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too."

But it's not just Gates.  James Baker (to whom Bush might be said to owe his Presidency), head of the Iraq Study Group, favors direct talks with Iran and Syria:

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.

“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

So too have Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage. 
 
Feel free to add names to this list.  

It seems the Republicans have a number of appeasers in their midst. 

    

This
originated as a comment to Billy Glad’s recent post (currently residing on the
recommended list).  At the suggestion of
another commenter and Billy himself I have retooled it slightly and am posting it here for all to ignore. 

The
question Billy asks (as mythical spokesperson for the Clinton campaign (would that their actual spokespeople did as good a job as he) is how can
Obama win the race without the support of working class voters.  By framing the issue in a race-neutral
manner, Billy, I believe, tries to avoid the fury of those in the Obama camp who have
accused the Clinton campaign
of exploiting racial divisions.  Bob Herbert in todays NYT charges the
Clintons with “deliberately” trying to “wreck” the presidential prospects” of
the nominee in such a way that has the potential to “undermine the substantial
racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.”  Serious charges indeed.      

So while Billy’s effort to reframe the issue is admirable, it  beggars the real problem.  There are deep divisions in the Democratic Party, including class and education, but it blinks reality not to put race at the top of the list – as this primary season has exposed.  It's no secret that during the past several primaries, Obama has overwhelmingly carried the African American vote while Clinton has won whites by fairly substantial margins. It's also no secret that Clinton has done well among the so-called "working class whites." Thus follows the ballyhooed made-for-tv confrontation between Donna Brazile (who needs those white blue-collar voters and hispanics anyway?) and Paul Begala (you can't win with African Americans and eggheads).

You can't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without some commentator talking about Obama's difficulty connecting with working class whites.  Some may quibble with the extent of this phenomenon, citing polls that show Obama’s support among whites, but I’d say it’s hard to deny its existence altogether.  Others have said that Obama can redraw the electoral map of the past several elections that have turned, to significant extent, on these so-called swing voters, a/k/a Reagan Democrats.  I'd be very wary of this strategy.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan are all critical if the Democrats are to win in November.     

Seen in this light, Hillary’s apparent success reaching out to these voters cannot be ignored.  Her strength among these groups may have made her a stronger candidate in the general election.  Unfortunately for her, she didn’t persuade enough primary voters/caucus-goers to her side. At this point, the only scenarios under which she could win the nomination would leave her so damaged it's hard to imagine her winning the general.  

I am not one to casually accuse the Clintons, who have done much to improve race relations in this country, of deliberately plying a “southern strategy.”  But I also must concede that in hyping this strength, particularly her recent clumsy (to be charitable) pronouncements tend to widen the divide.   

But Obama’s troubles broadening his base can’t be laid entirely at the feet of Clinton’s purported racial politics.  The question now becomes how can Obama fulfill his promise of attracting support across the spectrum.  How can he bridge the racial and class divisions that the primary laid bare?  In my view, there is no question he will need to do so to have any chance of defeating McCain in November. 

After all these observations, I don't have much in the way of solutions. A few are borrowed from Krugman.  A few I’ve thought up on my own. 

1. Let's start by not claiming that Clinton supporters are motivated by racism.  That’s just not a good way to win friends and influence people.   

2. On a similar note, it's not helpful to constantly heap scorn upon HRC - the media does a good enough job of that as it is. It also undermines Obama's post-partisan message.

3. Rather than race, I think Obama’s difficulty in reaching out to swing voters/working class whites has been that his message of reform doesn't connect.  For some, politics is about competing interest groups and the question of what are you going to deliver is paramount.  For this reason, I think Obama needs to focus on his economic message.  The economy looks to be the biggest issue of the election and potentially the greatest benefit to the Dems. Although in the primary, Obama talked about the economy under Clinton and Bush in the same breath, he needs to draw the distinction between the Democratic and Republican records.

4. Obama needs to reach out to Hillary - yes, that's right, the devil herself - and she must actively support his campaign to reassure voters who are anxious about the relative newcomer.   His choice of VP who brings solidity and experience, someone who can "deliver," may go a long way here. 

Finally, let me add that I believe Obama has a better chance of attracting the so-called white working class vote than either Kerry or Gore because he conveys an authenticity they seemed to lack (as campaigners, I'm not talking about them personally) and because the Republicans are just so damned unpopular right now. Despite all the division, it's still the Dems' race to lose.

Disclaimer:  I have not spoken with a single working class white voter in the preparation of this entry. 

With Obama having all but sewn up the Dem nomination, speculation now turns toward who will get the nod for the second spot. Having little left to argue over, this is sure to become the next hot topic of the day. Should it be Hillary? Hegel? Richardson? Sebelius? Edwards II? Traditionally, when looking for a Veep, candidates have sought to balance the ticket, making up for some perceived deficit in their own support or hoping the selection helps deliver a state or region where the nominee appears weak. Bill Clinton upended that reasoning with his selection of Gore, another moderate southern Democrat, although one with experience in the federal government he lacked. On the other hand, Kerry’s pick of Lieberman, a closet Republican, didn’t help all that much. Bearing all this in mind, I have come up with a modest list of the criteria Obama should use to make this critical decision. In the interest of balancing the ticket, the VP nominee should be:
 
**  White
**  Foul mouthed
**  Old
**  Female
**  High School Grad
**  Blue Collar
**  Catholic (or maybe Jewish?)
**  With distinguished military experience
**  Southern or Southwestern
**  Fiercely partisan
**  Supported the war (preferably without apology)
 **  Willing to say or do anything to win

Please feel free to add to this list or make suggestions based on these criteria.

Only a small portion of my post appeared.  Here's another shot.  
 
I am saddened and dismayed by two recent posts (here and here) greeted by what appears to be near unanimous agreement on these boards that the Clinton campaign has engaged in race baiting.  The argument posits that Clinton has predicated her campaign on a pitch to white voters’ prejudice.  Her apparent success among  blue collar, less-educated whites, the creation of a near monolithic “white vote” in favor of Hillary, is seen as confirmation of this strategy. 

I am saddened and dismayed by two recent posts (here and here) greeted by what appears to be near unanimous agreement on these boards that the Clinton campaign has engaged in race baiting.  The argument posits that Clinton has predicated her campaign on a pitch to white voters’ prejudice.  Her apparent success among  blue collar, less-educated whites, the creation of a near monolithic “white vote” in favor of Hillary, is seen as confirmation of this strategy. 

The blogosphere has been rife with speculation that HRC was behind the disastrous Reverend Wright presser the other day. More generally, many have sought to connect the fervor over the Reverend to the Clinton campaign’s purported plan to tear down Obama by injecting sinister racist overtones into the contest.
 

This conspiracy theory begs the question of why HRC waited until March, after the race was as good as lost, to spring this on the national news media, even though Reverend Wright had been flagged as a potential liability, and the videos of his sermons had been kicking around for even longer before that.

So, for you conspiracy theorists out there, how about trying a new one on for size? Could the Obama campaign be responsible for Reverend Wright’s sudden reemergence? The theory goes like this: Obama’s speech on race did not kill his Wright problem. Obama needed to repudiate the Reverend more forcefully in order to get his flagging campaign back on track. Enter Reverend Wright stage left, spouting more of the same inanity that landed Obama in hot water in the first place. Only this time, BHO was ready with a forceful denunciation that not only landed him on the front page of the New York Times (together with a favorable editorial), but quelled the anxieties of the “white working class” voter whose support has eluded him thus far. BHO created his own Sister Souljah moment.

Of course, this is pure nonsense. No less nonsensical, however, than the claims that the controversy over Reverend Wright (misguided in my view) is the product of HRC’s race-baiting strategy, claims that do more to undermine party unity more than anything coming from the Clinton campaign.