NY Times Reader in Response to Krugman: "God how I wish Clinton had become president!"

The Democratic Party’s slow awakening to reality: they blew it when they selected neophyte Barack Obama over the clear-eyed, issues-oriented Hillary Clinton.

Wow! The commentariat really is finally catching on to the fact that President Obama is already way out of his depth. Amen to this reader of Paul Krugman’s column at the NY Times this morning:

March 06, 2009 6:20 am

I count on your articles and your thoughts. God how I wish Clinton had become president! She ( and Bill) would have listened to you and other brilliant economists because she is brilliant herself. It's really getting scary now.

— am5parker, los angeles

Recommended by 25 Readers

Krugman’s column is titled the Big Dither (emphasis mine):

Last month, in his big speech to Congress, President Obama argued for bold steps to fix America’s dysfunctional banks. “While the cost of action will be great,” he declared, “I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.”

Many analysts agree. But among people I talk to there’s a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern.

Here’s how the pattern works: first, administration officials, usually speaking off the record, float a plan for rescuing the banks in the press. This trial balloon is quickly shot down by informed commentators.

Then, a few weeks later, the administration floats a new plan. This plan is, however, just a thinly disguised version of the previous plan, a fact quickly realized by all concerned. And the cycle starts again.

Krugman goes on to say:

The truth is that the Bernanke-Geithner plan — the plan the administration keeps floating, in slightly different versions — isn’t going to fly.

Read more:

Breaking News: Obama Nominated by Acclamation as Moved by Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton arrived on the convention floor minutes ago and interrupting the roll call vote moved to suspend procedural rules and nominate Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

More later - I'm in the middle of making dinner for my son and his wife who will be here shortly.

Echoes of Jimmy Carter in Obama’s Stirring Rhetoric

I’ve been watching CNN’s coverage of the Democratic convention and so far only one or two members of the best political team on television have made abusive, derogatory comments about Hillary Clinton and her followers and just for good measure, Bill Clinton.

I turned the volume on the TV down, took a deep breath, and returned to my keyboard to post a link to Sean Wilentz’s piece published at Newsweek. Wilentz, a Princeton historian, effectively assesses Obama’s failed attempts to launch a convincing campaign in the general election:

“Senator Obama's efforts to reinterpret the Democratic legacy have thus far amounted chiefly to promising a dramatic break with the status quo. His rhetoric of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ has thrilled millions of Democrats and helped secure the party's nomination. Yet millions of other Democrats still find his appeals wispy and unconvincing, and the persistent coolness within the ranks worries some party veterans. Democratic governors have already urged him to be more explicit about how he intends to adjust the party's principles to meet today's challenges.”

Wilenz calls our attention to the convergence of Obama’s rhetoric with this quote by Jimmy Carter:

"'Against this backdrop, how has the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, proposed to revivify Democratic liberalism? There is a quotation that ought to give Democrats, and not just Democrats, pause: 'This year will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.’

“Delivered in Obama's exhortatory cadences, the words are uplifting. The trouble is, though they seem to fit, the passage is from Carter's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in 1976.”

Wilentz concludes by asking a few tough questions:

“Can Obama, who lost the large industrial states in the primaries, deal with a troubled economy and become the standard bearer for the working and middle classes—the historic core of the Democratic Party that the last two Democratic candidates lost? Can the inexperienced candidate persuasively outline a new foreign policy that addresses the quagmires left by the Bush administration and faces the challenges of terrorism and a resurgent Russia? Can the less-than-one-term senator become the master of the Congress and enact goals such as universal health care that have eluded Democratic presidents since Truman? On these fundamental questions may hang the fate of Obama's candidacy. In the absence of a compelling record, set speeches, even with the most stirring words, will not resolve these matters. And until he resolves them, Obama will remain the most unformed candidate in the modern history of presidential politics.”

And this is where the Democrats are this evening as they kick off their convention in Denver with the media as usual sliming the Clintons and dissing Hillary’s supporters, while party hacks busily try to stifle any form of dissent in an already failed attempt to present a false sense of unity – democratic procedures be damned.

Read more.

The Beijing/Denver Connection: Tinderbox Environment

PUMA Heads for Denver

The summer Olympics ended in Beijing today on Sunday, Aug. 24, 2008, the day before the Democratic convention is scheduled to begin in Denver and believe it or not, there may well be a connection between the two events.

The Christian Science Monitor reports on how China played its role as Olympic host:

“One prediction that did ring true was that China refused to allow protests, contrary to its past pledges. Domestic critics were silenced beforehand or snared by catch-22 rules on protest permits. Foreign activists seeking to publicize the cause of Tibet pulled off symbolic stunts that few spectators noticed.”

It appears that one of China’s goals was to present to the world a unified country, even at the cost of stifling any signs of dissent.

We Americans are grateful that we live in a country where we have freedom of speech, and dissent is recognized as an important element of living in a democracy.

Oops! I just saw this article by Lisa Wangsness in today’s Boston Globe:

“Democratic Party leaders have spent weeks preparing a national convention this week that will burst with symbols of unshakable unity behind Senator Barack Obama.

“But outside the convention arena in Denver, some of Hillary Clinton's supporters plan to air their grievances against Obama, the party's leadership, and the national media, whose coverage of the primary battle they considered sexist. Hundreds of disaffected Democrats from around the country plan to converge in the Mile High City to hold news conferences, protests, and vigils, threatening the party's ability to present a united front against Republican John McCain.

Wangsness continues:

‘“While many Clinton delegates say they will back Obama and do not intend to embarrass him, grass-roots activists planning protests outside the convention hope to disrupt the sense of unity party leaders are cultivating.‘This is a voter's revolt,’ said Darragh Murphy, who founded Puma PAC, a pro-Clinton political action committee whose acronym stands for People United Means Action.

“Polls suggest Obama's narrow national lead is all but disappearing amid attacks from a newly aggressive and disciplined McCain campaign. One reason for this appears to be that barely half of Clinton's supporters plan to vote for Obama, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week. With the last two presidential elections decided by a small number of voters in swing states, Obama needs a unified party to win in November.

‘“Puma PAC is among a multitude of pro-Clinton groups that formed online to protest a variety of issues, including perceived media bias and flaws in the primary process. In Denver, Murphy's group plans to show the premiere of an unfinished movie, ‘The Audacity of Democracy,’ and is cosponsoring a protest and candlelight salute to Clinton tomorrow. Another group, PUMA 08, will coordinate communication between its members and the press, and provide a home base for bloggers who support Clinton.”’

“A separate organization, 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise, is calling on Clinton supporters to join a march and gathering celebrating Clinton's achievements and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage on Tuesday.

“Democratic analysts downplay the significance of the demonstrators because Clinton's top aides and prominent supporters have shunned them. But analysts are aware they could be a distraction.”

Wangsness reports that Democratic strategist Chris Lehane made the Beijing/Denver connection:

‘“I think the vast majority of the Hillary folks did fall in love with Hillary - and now are certainly falling in line with Obama. Having said that, there's going to be the largest gathering of press outside of Beijing in Denver this week, with all of them on a hair-trigger for the slightest sign of dissonance and conflict. . . . It has all the elements of a tinderbox environment.’

True democracy is always kind of messy, Mr. Lehane, and you and your cohorts could have avoided the potential for “dissonance and conflict” had you seen fit to speak out against the misogynous attacks on Hillary Clinton by party leaders and media allies during the Democratic primary. And of course, some of those unpleasant distractions now building up in Denver might have been avoided had the DNC planned a convention offering a legitimate election instead of a media event designed to convey a false sense of unity.

To read the Lisa Wangsness article in its entirety go here.

NY Times’ Herbert Highlights Obama’s Lack of Fire, Passion, and Toughness

Bob Herbert at the New York Times this morning actually managed to criticize the campaign of his long-favored presidential pick, Barack Obama, without taking a cheap sexist shot at Hillary Clinton in passing; unfortunately, Herbert felt compelled to smear voters with charges of racism early on in his op-ed.

Upset over the One’s tepid campaign since the DNC and its media allies anointed him the party’s presumptive nominee on June 3, Herbert writes:

“Barack Obama was always a long shot to win the White House. It’s no secret that some portion of the electorate will never vote for him because of his color. But he has made the odds even longer by running a campaign that, since the primaries, has seemed directionless, uninspired and addicted to the empty calories of generalities.

“And the candidate himself has seemed flat. No fire. No passion.”

Well, Bob, it could have something to do with the candidate’s choosing to bodysurf in Hawaii all week while Russia attacked Georgia, and McCain took center stage in the presidential race.

Herbert confirms what we already knew:

“The last eight years have been calamitous. We’re struggling with two wars, one of which we never should have started. The economy has tanked big time. The housing market has collapsed and foreclosures have skyrocketed.

“Motorists are reeling from high gasoline prices. The financial-services sector is teetering like a skyscraper in an earthquake. Robust budget surpluses have morphed into deficits stretching to the horizon and beyond. And cash-strapped, debt-ridden working families are viewing the future with high anxiety, if not outright fear.”

Herbert again notes the obvious:

“Mr. Obama likes to say he’s skinny but tough. But with all due respect, he hasn’t yet demonstrated the degree of toughness needed to prevail in a presidential campaign. There is nothing genteel about these contests.”

To read Herbert’s op-ed in its entirety, go here.

Sen. Clinton’s Statement on Obama’s VP pick

Reminding voters of her stature and years of service to her country, Hillary Clinton has released a statement on Obama’s selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate:

"In naming my colleague and friend Senator Joe Biden to be the Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Obama has continued in the best traditions for the Vice Presidency by selecting an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant. Senator Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic Vice President who will help Senator Obama both win the Presidency and govern this great country."

As I’ve said on several previous occasions, the vice presidency in an Obama administration would have been a step down for Hillary Clinton. As the more mature, experienced, and knowledgeable member of the executive team, she would have been forced to suffer in silence throughout the next four years while Obama completes his on-the-job training.

Democrats in Trouble as Convention Approaches

The Democratic convention starts next Monday, Aug. 25, 2008, and it’s been a long time coming since Obama anointed himself as the presumptive nominee on June 3rd, and Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign four days later.

In the meantime, Obama of the soaring speeches read in oratorical grandiosity to thousands of eager, mostly youthful fans has flip-flopped his way ungracefully to the center on most issues and floundered lately in his exchanges with John McCain, his Republican adversary.

Not surprisingly, the One’s poll numbers have been sinking lately and as we might expect, the media is offering Obama all kinds of helpful advice. Take a look at these examples from the list of articles indexed at RealClearPolitics this morning:

Obama: In Need of a Game Changer - David Gergen, CNN
It's Up to Obama to Erase the Doubt - Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe
Where's Obama's Passion? - Joe Klein, Time
Obama's Not Over the Hill(ary) Yet - Margery Eagan, Boston Herald
Daley Says Shhh, Library Quiet on Obama - John Kass, Chicago Tribune
Obama Needs a Narrative - Steven Stark, Boston Phoenix
Woe Is Me, Said the Democrat - Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle

Since it was the latest Reuters/Zogby that reported McCain now leads Obama by five points, it’s appropriate that John Zogby, over at the Huffington Post, is asking: Do Obama's Sinking Poll Numbers -- Signal History Repeating for Democrats?

If the media can be taken seriously – doubtful after their performance during the Democratic primary – Democrats are in trouble in a year when the presidential contest was theirs to lose. But they have only themselves to blame; after all, they went along with their media allies who repeatedly trashed Hillary Clinton, the immensely better qualified candidate, while succumbing to the allure of a talented motivational speaker. Obama demonstrated once again last Saturday night at Saddleback that he is completely at a loss without a teleprompter.

The good news is that it’s not too late. All Democrats have to do is abide by their own rules and hold a legitimate roll call vote next week and elect Hillary Clinton as their official nominee.

Even in Hawaii, Obama Sees Clinton Clouds on the Horizon

Personally, I've been opposed to the idea of Hillary Clinton accepting the VP slot on the ticket with Obama since day one. It’s simple: she’d have to play second fiddle for four years to the less qualified presidential candidate, and I can’t think of a worse employment situation.

However, Richard Cohen’s column in today’s Washington Post titled Clinton Clouds on the Horizon so humorously and cleverly portrays Obama’s musings about a potential running mate that I feel compelled to link to it here. Cohen begins:

‘"It sure is nice to be back here in Hawaii, sitting on the beach with Michelle and the girls, just staring out at the ocean and up at the sky. Just look at those magnificent clouds. They look like what's on my mind. That one's shaped like Ohio. And that one looks like Virginia. Whoa! What's with that one? It looks like a woman in a pantsuit. God, it's getting so I see Hillary everywhere.

‘"Hillary and Bill and Bill and Hillary. Give 'em a place at the convention. Let 'em have a roll call vote. Let her speak. Let him speak. Pay off her debt. Why? It's her debt. If I had lost, would the Clintons be paying off mine? Fat chance. Uh-oh, that cloud's getting closer.

‘"The Gallup poll has me and McCain about tied. Tied! I should be killing him. But look at the recent numbers. Me up by a little and then he comes up and then it's me again. On a graph it looks like the brain scan of a dead man. I've got to do something. That cloud's coming right at me.

“"If there's a single demographic I should have but don't, it's white women. I beat McCain by almost 10 points with women in general, but he beats me with white women by six. Those are Hillary's people. She kept winning them in the primaries. Working-class white women love Hillary. I understand. They know what it's like to be kicked around by life. What's up with that cloud? It looks like it's getting bigger.”’

Read more.

Joint Statement from Clinton and Obama on Denver Ballot

Below is a joint statement from the press offices of Senators Clinton and Obama announcing that Hillary Clinton’s name will be on the ballot in Denver:

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver. To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton’s name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America

It’s a Done Deal: NY Times Reports Clinton’s Name Will Be on the Ballot

The Caucus (NY Times) is running a little behind with this news, but Jeff Zeleney has just reported what we posted earlier, it’s a done deal:

“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.

“The decision was reached this week, according to Democratic officials, and will be announced later today. It comes after long negotiations on both sides, with many backers of Mrs. Clinton vigorously pushing for her candidacy to be validated by giving her delegates the chance to support her through a roll call vote.

“For Democrats inside the convention center in Denver, as well as the television audience at home, it could create some interesting moments. After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.

“So how will Mrs. Clinton, who is a superdelegate herself, vote? Associates say she will throw her lot behind Mr. Obama and ask her supporters to follow suit. To see if it unfolds as the Obama campaign hopes – free of acrimony – tune in on Wednesday, Aug. 27."

Let’s Recount Those Delegates for Clinton and Obama

In her post this morning, Aug. 14, 2008, Riverdaughter reports the Democratic Party’s Credentials Committee has yet to act on Obama’s written request to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates.

Riverdaughter and company speculate that as few as 59 delegates may separate Obama and Clinton in the Democratic primary race. She suggests Obama’s slim lead as presumptive nominee is causing the Credentials Committee to stall in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates.

Read more.

Should Pollsters Include Hillary Clinton in Pre-Convention Surveys?

Hillary Clinton’s supporters have reportedly been emailing pollsters to suggest that since Obama has been faring so poorly in recent match ups with John McCain they should consider matching Clinton with the Republican presumptive nominee, as she just might prove to be the stronger candidate in the final days leading up to the Democratic convention.

The persistent Clintonites argue that since neither Obama nor Clinton has the minimum required delegate numbers, there is currently still no certified nominee, and it’s therefore not too late for the party to change its mind.

The just released Pew Poll confirms a major slip in Obama’s numbers compared to McCain’s. As reported by Brian Faler at Bloomberg:

“The U.S. presidential race is a tossup as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lost what was once an eight-point lead over Republican rival John McCain, according to a new poll.

“The Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said today that Obama now leads McCain 46 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, down from June when the Illinois senator enjoyed a 48 to 40 advantage. His lead narrowed to five points in July, the survey said.

“The nonpartisan group attributed the shift to McCain's progress winning over core Republican voters, including white evangelical Protestants along with white working class voters. By contrast, the poll said, Obama has made ``little progress'' expanding his support among Democrats over the past two months.

‘“Obama has made ‘no significant headway’ among Hillary Clinton's former supporters, with 72 percent of them saying they now back Obama. That's unchanged from last month and 3 percentage points higher than in June, Pew said.”’

Read more.

Why Shouldn’t Clinton’s Name Be on the Ballot in Denver?

Here’s a big surprise: Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director, provides helpful background information on prior Democratic conventions that doesn’t preclude having Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot in Denver.

Holland writes:

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If Sen. Hillary Clinton's name is placed in nomination in Denver, Colorado, this year, it wouldn't be the first time that a candidate was beaten in the primaries and still formally contested the nomination at the convention.


“Sen. Hillary Clinton can win votes from delegates at the convention even if her name isn't placed in nomination.

“But it would be the first time in the modern era of presidential primaries that a losing candidate has so visibly endorsed an opponent so many months before the convention, and then gone on to have his or her name placed in nomination.

“Clinton can still win votes from delegates at the Democratic National Convention even if her name is not placed in nomination. Delegates are free to vote for anyone they want to at the convention.

“At past conventions, delegates have even been known to vote for fictional characters (Archie Bunker) and dead people (George Orwell).

“It's likely that Clinton will pick up some votes unless Sen. Barack Obama is nominated by acclamation. Watch more on the Democrats' pursuit of unity »

“But the buzz is that Clinton may take it a step further and have her name formally placed before the convention, complete with nominating speeches, seconding speeches and all the hoopla they produce. Such a move hasn't happened at either party's convention since 1992, when former California Gov. Jerry Brown had his name placed in nomination after losing the race to Bill Clinton in the primaries.”
Read more.

Obama, the Unifier, Leads Fractured Democratic Party

Barack Obama gained the rabid support of the Democratic Party’s left wing by promising among other things to first unify the nation and then ride forth to bring peace and harmony to the entire world. He assured his followers that no experience was required to perform this miracle; he would accomplish the feat solely by virtue of his singular personality. As Oprah so eloquently introduced Obama at a rally in South Carolina during the Democratic primary, “He’s the one we’ve been waiting for.”

So far the presumptive nominee, also known as “the one,” has not been able to unify his own party ahead of its national convention this August in Denver – even though his coronation is slated to occur before 75,000 onlookers seated in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

In this Tuesday’s NY Observer, Jason Horowitz describes how Clinton supporters are determined to ensure that never again will a serious female candidate be subjected to the onslaught of sexism and misogyny that Hillary Clinton faced in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

Horowitz writes:

“Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild doesn’t look like a radical.

“Surrounded by bike paths, ponds and the Atlantic Ocean in her Martha’s Vineyard farmhouse, not far from where Bill and Hillary Clinton usually summer, the lifelong Democrat and Clinton fund-raiser opened a laptop to her “Together4Us” Web site, an online petition that features Hillary Clinton looking luminous above a series of demands made of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

“Ms. de Rothschild, 54, dressed in matching blue pants and sweater, blond hair tucked behind her ears, said she plans to send copies of the more than 6,000 signatures she has collected to superdelegates, Mr. Obama, his top officials, Howard Dean and officials at the Democratic National Committee, on Aug. 18—the Monday before the Democratic convention.

“And she’ll be there, at the convention, to help press those demands, she said, especially including a dramatic overhaul of the nominating process by which Mr. Obama won the primary. She said she was well aware of Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to get Mr. Obama elected, as well as the efforts of the Obama campaign staffers, whom she said she liked, to appease Mrs. Clinton’s supporters. Despite it all, Ms. de Rothschild does not plan to vote for him.

‘“I think it’s difficult for him to fix it because of the judgments he’s made in the past and his lack of experience,’ she said, adding that there was really nothing Mrs. Clinton could do about it. “If we are dissatisfied with Obama as a potential president, Hillary cannot be expected to change our minds.”’

“A phenomenon born from the debris of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has taken on a life of its own.

“The mostly female collection of activists who continue to rally around the cause of a decommissioned White House bid can’t exactly be described as an organized movement. There are the wealthy donors who work within official party channels and talk calmly about reforming the party’s nominating process or protecting against gender bias in future elections. Their level of hostility toward the Obama campaign varies. And then there are the outright rejectionists: the raucous bloggers and founders of groups like PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) who plan to disrupt the convention and have declared all-out war against Mr. Obama and his supporters, who they accuse of making death threats and leaving dead bunny rabbits on doorsteps in the middle of the night.

“What they share, without exception, is a profound disappointment at the way the primary turned out, and a revulsion at the way they perceive Mrs. Clinton to have been treated.

“That has been enough to establish a de facto echo chamber that has proven to be a headache for Mr. Obama as his campaign tries to project Democratic unity ahead of the convention during the last week of August.”

Read more.

Why Does Obama Fear an Open Convention?

Photo credits: AP

Rumor has it the Obama team is resisting attempts by Clinton supporters to have her name on the ballot with a roll call vote at the national convention in a couple of weeks. You have to wonder why Obama and company fear an open convention conducted according to democratic procedures. Carla Marinucci offers a few clues in her article in the San Francisco Chronicle today, Aug. 12, 2008 that begins:

“A determined crowd of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's delegates - preparing to head to the Democratic Party's national convention in Denver - have begun gathering signatures to ensure her name is placed into nomination, insisting their effort won't take spotlight off presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

“Many of those involved in the campaign, which they say is a matter of respect and acknowledgement of 18 million voters who backed Clinton, argue that the nomination of the New York senator is a matter of historic and political precedent at such party conventions. And they're chafing at reports that the campaign of the Illinois senator is resisting the efforts - and even hoping to avoid a roll-call vote.”

Marinucci spoke to several Clinton delegates who are prepared to vote for her in Denver:

‘“Since 1884, we've had a roll-call vote. ... It's a nominating convention, not a coronation,’ said Garry Mauro, the four-term Texas land commissioner and past gubernatorial candidate who ran against George W. Bush - and who will go to his 10th Democratic national convention this month as a Clinton delegate.’

“With less than two weeks until Aug. 25, when Democrats open their nominating convention in Denver, the sentiment is typical of many Clinton delegates who say the nomination of the New York senator from the floor of the convention doesn't endanger Obama's presidential campaign - and could serve his cause.

“The Obama campaign declined to comment on the story, but many supporters of the presumed Democratic nominee suggest that Clinton will get more than her share of high-profile face time and respect at the convention.

“She is scheduled to deliver a keynote address on Aug. 26 - reportedly to be introduced by her daughter, Chelsea - and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is delivering the prime-time address on the following night, when the vice presidential candidate is nominated.

“’Still, ‘I don't think there's any harm in nominating Sen. Clinton at the convention,’ said David Serrano Sewell of San Francisco, one of the delegates at the forefront of the signature-gathering movement. ‘It will acknowledge the success we had, and it will give an opportunity for people to express themselves and get behind Obama and win in November.’

“Already, he said, Clinton delegates have more than half of the 300 signatures needed to put Clinton's name into nomination - and they fully expect to get more than enough by the time the convention begins in Denver.”

Read more:

Obama Flip-flops Again: Seeks Voting Rights for Michigan and Florida

Barack Obama has a genius for pivoting on an issue as soon as he’s sure he’s got what he wanted. Or maybe he’s just now realized he might need the electoral votes of Michigan and Florida in November and doesn’t want to anger voters in the two states. Recall that his campaign adamantly refused to budge on allowing the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated when the DNC Rules Committee met last May. The Caucus (NY Times) reported minutes ago that the credentials committee has just received a letter from the One asking that the two states have full voting rights at the convention after all.

According to the Caucus:

“The request is likely to be granted since it comes from the all-but-certain nominee, who now controls the party apparatus.”

The Caucus also reported that later in the day, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had fought hard for every vote to count, contacted the committee to back up Obama’s request.

Read the Caucus’ full account here.

Shades of the Democratic Primary: Obama Plays the Race Card - Again!

photo credits: AP

Clinton supporters are still shaking their heads in disbelief when recalling the several occasions when the Obama campaign or its supporters accused Bill and/or Hillary Clinton of racism – two political leaders with a long record of fighting for equal rights for women and minority groups. Sean Wilentz, a Princeton historian, debunked these outrageous accusations by the Obama camp in an op-ed titled The Obama Team’s Strategic Use of the Race Card, published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Eventually, well after the damage was done, Obama publicly hung his head, apologized and admitted during a debate, “The Clintons are not racists.”

Lately, Obama has made several inflammatory remarks accusing the McCain campaign of racism. Jake Tapper in Political Punch at ABC News, has posted a piece titled Did Obama Accuse McCain of Running a Racist, Xenophobic Campaign? Tapper reports several incidents in which Obama has arguably played the race card in his campaign against John McCain.

Tapper begins by quoting Obama’s recent mention of race in his comments about his Republican opponent:

‘“John McCain right now, he's spending an awful lot of time talking about me,’ Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said today in Rolla, Mo. ‘You notice that? I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s gonna do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things. They know that you’re not real happy with them.’

“Obama continued: ‘And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name.”’

Read more here.

Rising Above the Fascism of America’s Extreme Left and Extreme Right

In the heat of the Democratic primary, the netroots were on the leading edge of the extreme left. Predominantly young, white, and male these kings of the internet could be accurately described as progressive in most ways other than their ugly sexism and misogyny, which they unleashed on Hillary Clinton, and their equally cruel and abusive ageism targeting John McCain.

I soon concluded there was little difference between the extreme left and the extreme right, as they obviously mirror each other in their fascist behavior.

Charles M. Blow’s op-ed in today’s NY Times concurs with my conclusion. He begins:

“Can you hear that? I can. It’s the sound of political action committees and party extremists sharpening their wedge issues and setting the timers on their bombshells. The fall’s battle is looming. It’s going to get ugly.”

Here’s the picture, Blow explains:

“Once again they’ll cast the opposition as binary caricatures to rally their bases, swing the independents and capture the defectors.

“The left will be reduced to fist-bumping blacks and intellectual elites with gun aversions and gay agendas. An amoral, tale-tucking lot that coddles criminals, raises taxes and has gone Chicken Little over global warming.

“The right will be lambasted as ultra-conservative cretins who want to conflate the Constitution and the Bible, are pro-life before birth and pro-death after trial and blindly follow war-hungry fear-mongers who obsess over “terrorists” like a Tootsie Roll commercial.

“And, never the twain shall meet. Left or right? That narrow view is just wrong. Americans are much more complex. Sadly, battle cries drown out nuance in campaigns.”

Blow guides us to a deeper understanding of the major issues our country is facing:

“So, in these relative calm days of summer, with Barack Obama on his way back from a rock-star tour of the other side of the pond and John McCain shadowboxing the media stateside, let’s pause and recognize that Americans overwhelmingly agree on many of the big issues and are changing their minds on others. It’s just that those shifting views, when taken as a whole, don’t neatly line up with either party’s platform.

“Here are a few examples, according to Gallup polls taken over the last eight years:

“• Six in 10 Americans believe that conservation should be emphasized to solve the energy problem, 7 in 10 favor the death penalty for murder and don’t want to ban the sale of handguns, and 8 in 10 believe in God but also believe that abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.

“• Nearly half now believe that we are unlikely to win the war in Iraq and that the war has made us less safe from terrorism.

“• An increasing number of people believe that religion as a whole is losing its influence on American life and an increasing number want it to have less influence.

“• While more bemoan the worsening state of moral values in the country, we are increasingly shifting our opinion on what is morally acceptable. Now most believe that getting divorced, engaging in premarital sex and having babies outside of marriage are morally acceptable. Nearly half also say that gay relationships are morally acceptable.”

In effect, as Blow explains, the middle ground is the higher ground to which we are called:

“Remember this when the attack ads start up and the divisive rhetoric starts to bore into our brains. Remember that campaigns are not just about the people on the placards but about parties and power, and that the wizards behind the curtains specialize in amplifying differences that stoke our fears. Remember, and resist.”

I suggest we do more than resist. It is especially important for Americans to stand up and let our political leaders and the media know that discrimination and hate mongering against any group of people - whether it’s based on religion, race, gender, age, sexual preference, or national origin – will no longer be tolerated.

P.S.
It’s past time for members of the netroots to grow up.

When Obama’s Not So Kewl Anymore, and the Kewl Kidz Jump Ship

Every so often I come across a reader’s comment out in the blogosphere that makes as much or more sense than the original article, or it is so to the point that I can’t resist posting it here at Katalusis.

“Crosspatchon” was responding to Obama’s Unforgivable Stumble in Germany by the Strata-Sphere's AJStrata, who was unhappy with Obama over his decision not to visit wounded American troops in Germany.

Crosspatchon (comment is in dark red) doesn’t zero in on AJStrata’s specific criticism; instead, he tackles the Obama phenomenon in general:

# crosspatchon 25 Jul 2008 at 7:30 pm

Supporting Obama is the fashion right now among the “hipsters”. Once it becomes socially “ok” to criticize him, his support will melt like a stick of butter in Gerlach on Labor Day.

He peaked too soon, by the time election day comes, he will be “so 5 minutes ago”. It’s just empty rhetoric by a politician whose only claim to fame in national politics is being a one-term US Senator.

I am already starting to hear the cracks appearing in talk from people in the San Francisco Bay area.

The song goes kinda like this: Obama runs for office. It becomes the “counter-culture” thing to do to support him. It means you are one of the Kewl Kidz. Then everyone else wants to be like the Kewl Kidz and jump on the bandwagon. Then it isn’t so Kewl anymore to be with the mainstream … so the Kewl Kidz jump ship and maybe support Hillary or if they want to be REALLY daring, find a way to rationalize how one can be for McCain since he isn’t really all that “Republican”. And that is the point where Obama’s artificial horizon indicator begins to read negative.

Crosspatchon has precisely summed up my own take on Obama’s candidacy since day one.

It’s Not Too Late for Democrats to Nominate the Better-Qualified Candidate

Photo credits: AP/Susan Walsh

Two of the three articles I’m linking to this morning are related to the current positions staked out on the war in Iraq by Barack Obama and John McCain. The third article highlights the closeness of the general election race that many would argue ought to be Obama’s to lose.

WaPo Criticizes Obama on Iraq War

An editorial in today’s Washington Post turns Barack Obama’s criticism of President Bush and John McCain for their rigidity on the Iraq War back onto Obama:

“BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Read more:

Obama's Web Site Deletes Surge References

Touching on the related matter of Obama’s initial opposition to the surge, Andrew Malcolm's post at Top of the Ticket (the LA Times) reports how the Obama campaign has lately deleted relevant references on its Web site:

“A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

“The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

“The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on “15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama's plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.

“When President Bush ordered the surge in January, 2007, Obama said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.

“Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of al-Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.

“But some might see the updating as part of Obama's skip to the political center now that he's secured the Democratic nomination. "Today," McCain said Tuesday, "we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the troop surge.

“An old quote of Obama's criticizing the "rash war," which helped him with the left wing of his party and helped differentiate his stand from that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, a primary opponent who voted for the use of force in Iraq, has been replaced on his site by one saying that ending the Iraq war will make America safer. That's more of a general election message.

“And hat tip to the folks over at the Wake Up America blog for their continuing trenchant analyses of the summer campaigns in general and, specifically, for highlighting the video below that contrasts Obama's pre-surge position with a more recent interview of David Axelrod, his chief campaign strategist, denying Obama's statements. A reminder of how carefully voters must listen during these last four campaign months.”

Watch the video here.

Are Obama and McCain Ebbing or Flowing?

Finally, Tom Edsall at the Huffington Post, wants to know if Obama and McCain are ebbing or flowing:

“About a week ago, Republican media specialist Alex Castellanos asked pollster Scott Rasmussen to add a question to one of his surveys: If the November election were between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who would you vote for? Obama crushed Bush 54-34.

‘“Noting that tracking polls generally show just a 2 to 4 point edge for Obama over John McCain, Castellanos said the most obvious conclusion is that "McCain is not Bush." But more importantly, Castellanos argued, ‘It means McCain is not running against the Obama who won Iowa, but [against] the more polarizing Democrat [who] Hillary Clinton was beating like a drum in Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc.’

‘“In the current political environment, according to Castellanos, ‘where the GOP is in disgrace, the President is unpopular, gasoline is 5 bucks a gallon, housing prices are sinking, and the economy is in the toilet,’ Obama's slim lead ‘means he is not an acceptable Democrat. . . . Obama is in big trouble.”’

Following the Rules in Denver

I would argue it’s the Democratic Party that’s in big trouble. But it still has a chance to set matters right in Denver with Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot and a roll call vote. Obama has not yet been duly elected as the party’s nominee even though the DNC has rented a football stadium for his “acceptance speech.” We can still hope for a last-minute upset by Sen. Clinton, who is easily the better-qualified candidate.

For more on keeping the Democratic Party's convention democratic, check out the Denver Group and Heidi Li's Potpourri.