Hillary Clinton's Unpaid Bills

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Disclosure reports show Clinton still deeply in debt « - Blogs from CNN.com


A commenter on this article said what I was thinking as I read it...

"Hillary cannot even deal with her own debt and she thinks she can run a country? And now her supporters are blaming her inability to clear her debt on Obama?"

Open Thread. Let' er rip.

Post Mortem Thoughts

Abe, commenting on 3 A.M. For Feminism by Michelle Goldberg

"All this belies the fact that--as you point out--almost none of this actually has to do with anything Obama did other than BEATING HILLARY. What we're really seeing is what happens when the entitlement of feminist identity politics gets into a conflict with the facts: That somebody has to win, and that somebody is the person who has the most delegates. As soon as feminism hits facts, either we have to scrap feminism or we have to scrap reality. Clinton's diehards chose to scrap the latter. What amazes me is the latent racism inherent in all the assumptions made by Clinton supporters. Countless times I've heard Clinton supporters proclaim Obama to be lazy, shiftless, and unworthy while Hillary was "hardworking" and "brilliant". I'll start kissing Clintonian rear end as soon as Clinton supporters get off this sexist-racist "Hillary is so much smarter" meme and start acknowledging that the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and a man who managed to ascend so quickly from state politics all the way to being the nominee of the Democratic Party is someone who is clearly nothing short of a genius. Start giving my guy some credit and I'll stop harping on the now-proven incompetence of your own candidate."

Posted by Kathleen Duffy

"Seriously, it's not that she is a woman. It's that she is Hillary Clinton. I'm a feminist, age 56. I wanted to vote for her. She kept stabbing me in the heart by campaigning like a republican, talking down to me, and pandering with the gas tax holiday. As for the pundits, I agree that some of the coverage was HORRENDOUSLY sexist. But if she had run a better campaign, she would have won handily in spite of some bad coverage. The people are fairer than the pundits."

Clinton Concedes

Hillary Clinton regained a measure of my respect today in conceding the nomination battle and pledging her support for Barack Obama's candidacy. While it did not stir me as Al Gore's concession speech did in 2000, it was complete in its terms. Her speech was conciliatory, emphatic and clear.

It was obvious that it cost her something personally. At several points in the speech, her voice appeared to catch and she was clearly fighting mightily not to cry. I appreciate that she did it, that it was emotional and I'm sure infinitely hard for her to stand down. With today's speech, she brings this nomination battle to a close and cedes the election spotlight to the democratic nominee - Barack Obama.

I do not think it is an overreach to say that because of Hillary Clinton, there will be a woman president in the country's near term future. She has without a doubt set a precedent and blazed a trail that will make the path for a future woman candidate so much easier because of the pioneering work that Clinton has done. She will be to the first woman president what Jesse is to Barack, an important precursor that sets the stage. I think its safe to say that she blazed the trail for women a bit further. For her accomplishments, the Season applauds her. Well fought, Senator.

Hillary's End Game and a Comment on the Bitter Taylor Marsh Crowd

Last night, Obama clinched the democratic nomination. With the superdelegates flocking to him in great numbers, several abandoning their support of Clinton in the process, and the party leadership openly acknowledging him as the presumptive nominee, Obama spoke to the nation.

But one voice notably absent in recognizing Obama as the presumptive nominee was that of his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. In her speech last night, she neither conceded the nomination nor suspended her campaign. Hours before, after several rounds of campaign message anarchy, she leaked to the media her supposed willingness to serve as Obama's vice president. However, in her speech last night, she said she was making no decisions and would confer with party leaders. And today, at AIPAC, in a speech she delivered immediately following Obama, she did not acknowledge him as the nominee and delivered remarks very much as though she remainded an active candidate.

Sophia Nelson, editor in chief of Political Intersection, observes:

"I am at a profound loss as to why it is the Senator Clinton has now made two public appearances since last night and she has YET to 1.) concede the democratic primary to Senator Obama, 2.) to acknowledge the history and historic nature of his becoming the presumptive democratic nominee (as he did acknowledge her last night for her historic candidacy and breaking down barriers for women) and 3. to give her resounding support for Senator Obama against John McCain in the fall.
.....I have no idea what Hillary is thinking and why she is not being more cautious and respectful of someone who is likely our next President of the United States."

Indeed, this is the question on the minds of many. The answer is manifest. Hillary is still running and she is gaming not for the VP spot, but the top spot. Were this not so, she would have acknowledged Obama as the nominee, pledged to support him and begun taking affirmative steps to unify the party. She is doing exactly the opposite, engaging in active psyops with seemingly conciliatory statements , while refusing to concede the nomination. She intends to maintain strategic ambiguity for as long as she is permitted to do so and hold open an option to challenge Obama in Denver based on her popular vote metric.

This is a massive show of disrespect to the party's presumptive nominee, one which grows more egregious the longer she carries it out, even as Obama has extended every grace to her, as I suspect he will continue to publicly do, as he did during his AIPAC speech.

Sophia's commentary continues: "Hillary will be Obama's first test of strength and resolve. If he cannot stand up to her, how can he stand up to the tyrants and villains of the world?"

This is absolutely correct. As irksome as I find it, Obama will have to use a great deal of political deftness in finishing off Hillary in order to prevent the party from fracturing irretrievably and deeply eroding Hillary's demographics. How the party responds now will be key. How long will they tolerate her continuing to undercut the nominee with tactics designed to supplant him even now with an end run at the convention or at a minimum preserve her leverage for a fall back VP spot?

I believe Obama has demonstrated he is up to the task. He beat her at the outside game and demonstrated that his inside game is equally strong against even this most consummate of insiders with his clearly favorable outcome at the Rules & Bylaws committee meeting. So I believe he and Michelle are more than capable of facing down this continuing challenge from Hillary and Bill. They are America's new political powerhouse couple. Thus far Team Obama has beaten Team Clinton and I believe they have done so without engaging in the wholesale tactics of smear and fear or displaying open and complete disrespect.

Speaking of open disrespect, I've kept an open eye on the Taylor Marsh blog through the primary campaign because I like to read viewpoints that challenge my own view of things. Other perspectives help to assess whats going on. But as this primary fight has worn on, I have increasingly found myself losing respect for the level of commentary coming out of this blog and basically now ascribe her to the dedicated Obama haters camp of people who have lost the ability to be fair in anyway to Obama. I suppose she might read my blog and conclude that I am equally as biased towards her candidate. Unfortunately for her, I'm right and she's wrong.

I was very curious to see how this crowd would handle defeat at the hands of Obama and this post is a clear indication of what the dominant response will be: BITTER BILE & SOUR GRAPES complaints that the process was unfair and undemocratic. While the democratic primary process clearly has its own share of perverseness, Taylor Marsh nor the crowd she represents would be making any of these vociferous complaints if Hillary had wrapped this thing on Super Tuesday. When they were not being beaten in the race for delegates, the rules were fine. When they began losing, when it became clear that they had tragically miscalculated in relying on a Super Tuesday strategy to win and took a beating in caucus states, losing the chance to make up the delegate lead, THEN they wanted to change the rules. They want the metric to be the popular vote, because they couldn't get the delegates. Simple as that. No matter how much they want to deny it or cover it up, the basic fact is that if Hillary can't win playing by the rules, then its okay to win by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

As a prime example of the most virulent of Obama haters (critics is inaccurate, as an honest critic would demonstrate a higher level of fairness and credibility) Taylor Marsh has engaged in a nasty level of vitriol and encouraged the Obama haters in race baiting in my view (Note: I am NOT and do NOT accuse her of being a racist). They have continually posted the most demeaning and hatefully toned ranting against Obama I have seen anywhere, alongside and often copiously more prevalent than any relevant, honest criticism. She has considered every tactic and action by Clinton as a fair game attack. She was profiled in the Washington Post, and the story observes her watching Obama's speech on clinching the nomination:

"On the TV screen, Obama paused from his talk of moving toward victory to praise Hillary Clinton’s "courage, her commitment and her perseverance."

"He better do this," Marshall said. "He better do a lot of this."

When Phleger spoke of a sense of entitlement in his pandering disparagement of Hillary Clinton, he was appropriately rebuked by Obama and others for the manner in which he rendered his comments, which were inappropriate in tone, phrasing, timing and place. However, Harriet Christian and in my view, Taylor Marsh, in the above comment, certainly display the type of entitlement attitude which does in fact exist and which Phleger so inappropriately referred to.

Obama has rendered gracious comment after gracious comment of late, but Hillary Clinton has returned all of that thus far with disrespect. Taylor Marsh and her comrade in arms Harriet Christian I'm sure, both feel that Obama should essentially genuflect, bow and scrape before Hillary and by extension, them, the Clinton demographic. He must extend her every courtesy, while she kicks dirt in his face. They demand respect, nay fealty even, while giving none in return. That is entitlement, and Taylor Marsh is guilty of it.

Message Delivered

North Carolina Black Vote
Obama - 91%
Clinton - 6%

Indiana Black Vote
Obama - 92%
Clinton - 8%


The Clinton campaign has persistently argued that Obama is not electable because he cannot win with blue collar white voters. Consistently and deliberately ignored in this discussion amongst the pundits, many bloggers and the Taylor Marsh Obama Haters faction is a simple fact: Democrats don't win national elections without the black vote. Period. Full Stop. Everyone has been focusing on the Wright distraction and how Obama supposedly can't get white voter support, while explicitly avoiding a serious discussion of the reverse problem for Clinton, who is losing the black vote by increasingly larger margins. Even tonight, the talking heads are still avoiding a serious discussion of the implication of this fact for Clinton and for the Democratic Party. Clinton supporters and surrogates and the Obama haters like Taylor Marsh are wont to say that Obama has a question mark with the democratic party's base of white lunchbucket voters, as though black voters are not one of THE most critical and reliable elements of the democratic base. As though our participation is incidental, inconsequential in comparison to the lunch bucket white voter, and it is not. Unlike these blue collar white voters, who might abandon the party for McCain if they are discomfited by the racialized attack themes against Obama, black voters have loyally voted with the democratic party at a high percentage. Mishandling such a loyal voting bloc would be a fatal mistake.

Tonight, black voters delivered a very clear message to the Democratic Party about Hillary Clinton's electability and the electability of democratic candidates around the country potentially sharing a ticket with her. She can't win in November without the black vote and she doesn't have it. I blogged earlier today about Black America's nuclear option, the withholding of our vote. The black vote performance for Obama in Indiana and North Carolina put that deterrent on full display for the super delegates. They ignore it at their peril.

Black America's Nuclear Option

The Clinton campaign has signaled that they intend to use the so-called nuclear option:

"With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party’s 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could — when the committee meets at the end of this month — try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives"

This would fall into the category of activity that charlatan Sharpton effectively labeled "stacking the deck" during the SOBU. If they are successful in winning Indiana, they will no doubt feel emboldened to forge ahead with this contentious move.

The Clinton campaign's MAD strategy to win the nomination has relied on attack themes fueled by racial innuendo and stereotyping for their potency and a triangulation tactic that positions her politically between McCain and Obama, enabling her to attack Obama as the republicans would. Given that Clinton's standing with black voters has plummeted and remains in free fall since South Carolina, where they successfully tagged Obama as the "black candidate" in the minds of the electorate, the logic behind this approach is crystal clear. They will racially swiftboat Obama, and push to seat Florida and Michigan. The working assumption is that they will restore their standing with black voters in time for the general election, despite his lead in every primary metric.

In our view, the Clintons have used racial themes to power their effort to destroy Obama's electability. Their methodology, born of desperation as they struggled to beat back Obama's challenge is now clearly revealed; appeal to the so-called Reagan Democrats. The demographic of that voting bloc are blue collar white voters. The democratic party coalition has for years tenuously held together a coalition that included these lunch bucket democrats and minorities, a demographic coalition within which economic competition creates an ongoing tension, which Hillary has clearly pivoted to exploit. As the Nation noted in a recent article,

"In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. "

If Clinton is permitted to secure the nomination in this manner by the superdelegates and the party leadership, Black America must be prepared to use its own nuclear option, namely the withholding of the black vote in the general election from Hillary Clinton. The rationale for doing so is compelling and simple; a price must be paid for using race baiting tactics in order to derail a viable black candidate; if not, any future democratic black candidates can expect to have the same tactics trained on them from within the democratic party, a party, and pointedly, a candidate, that has received the consistent and overwhelming support of black voters. Democrats do not win national elections without the support of the black vote. Period. Full Stop. To reward the Clintons or any democratic candidate with our general election votes after such cynical exploitation of racial bias and prejudice is to reveal ourselves as a voting bloc of fools who's sensibilities need not be respected nor deferred to.

Get Your Obama On!

The Field Blog contributes and we adapt the following from their Boot Camp for Chicken Littles

There is the psychology of the winner and the syndrome of the loser. Rules for engaging in political struggle.

1. Any time you cite a “national tracking poll” as supposed evidence of your candidate’s chances of victory disappearing, you must make 25 get-out-the-vote phone calls on that candidate’s behalf. (Don’t ask me how to do that: consult the web page of your candidate for instructions!)

2. Any time you fret aloud about your candidate losing an upcoming primary or caucus, and worry about alleged grave consequences (in the face of the facts that all remaining candidates have lost some contests and yet they march on), you must make 50 calls to voters in every state you mention.

3. Any time you complain aloud about what your candidate’s campaign or staff is not doing you must give at least $10 to that candidate, to make it possible for them to do more.

4. Any time you ask me what you ought to be doing you must give $10 to support the work of The Political Season.

5. If I take the time to provide you with an answer, you must raise $100 from your friends and neighbors to support this blog!

The Betrayal of Black America by Jeremiah Wright

I observed with anger and sadness the spectacle of Jeremiah Wrights comments in the question and answer session at the National Press Club and the subsequent repudiation of those comments by Obama in a press conference that clearly marked the end of a 20 year relationship between these two men.

I was angered by the reckless, flippant and self indulgent manner in which Wright responded to questions at the National Press Club. He treated the opportunity to speak on the world stage as though he were in the pulpit before a friendly crowd of Christian congregants who would understand his antics. After weeks of being vilified as a racist, small minded preacher trapped in the past, Wright proceeds to confirm the hyperbole with his comments. He was the perfect illustration of the adage, better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. I heard one commentator describe his performance as vaudevillian. Throwing up the Q sign, tossing out nonsensical opinionated quips like the government creating AIDs in the black community and in general making an ass of himself. It was a very self indulgent performance and now we learn that he has a book coming out later this summer in which no doubt he will liberally bash Obama with unflattering stories from their 20 year association. It promises to be a traitorous hit job. I'm angered by a man of God who now stoops to vapid self aggrandizement in order to wreak what history will regard as a small revenge on the senator for the vilification he endured for Obama's sake, though not at Obama's hand. Black America will not reward him for his actions. Indeed even his own former church members are expressing disappointment at his antics. As I seek to put Wright into some perspective, to understand the basis of his behavior at the Press Club, I can't help but think he suffered from a deficiency of vision. Had he only been able to endure, to hold his peace, come November he might have looked up and found himself the friend of the leader of the free world.

Watching Barack's press conference to respond to Wright, I felt sadness to be witness to what was clearly the end of a 20 year friendship. I was sad for Barack that once again he was being forced, pushed and compelled not only by events but by Wright himself to create distance, to disown this time not only his comments but indeed the man himself. It is a measure of Barack Obama the man that he did not disown Wright initially and even now, has been measured in his response. He did not vilify Wright as others have done. He was specific in singling out Wrights comments and how they were not consonant with his views. Even as he separated from Wright, he did so with grace and with restraint, remarking that perhaps he did not know Rev. Wright as well as he thought, that the man who performed at the Press Club was not the man he met 20 years ago. I imagine that as he watched the replay of the Press Club comments, he may very well have thought to himself that he was watching a stranger, this supposed friend of his now knowingly savaging his campaign without any regard. It was evident that he didn't want to cast his friend away, but also equally evident that Wright had already thrown Obama overboard.

On the eve of the South Carolina primary, we predicted that the destruction of Obama's campaign had begun by the purposeful tagging of him in the mind of the white electorate by the Clintons as the black candidate. The judgment of history, certainly of black history, will regard Wright as the primary enabler of Obama's defeat. With his ill considered remarks and reckless antics, he has provided an easy excuse and rationale to the white working class electorate to withhold their support from Obama. A once sympathetic black America will not reward Wright for his role in that.

Indiana Poll Results Likely to Mislead in Run-up to Tuesday Vote

In contrast to North Carolina, Indiana does not permit, by law, the use of automated polling calls. Polling organizations are finding, in particular in this primary race where the racial overtone has been so powerful, that people will not tell the truth about their voting intentions when asked by a human being.

Automated polls however, are eliciting very accurate results as people are apparently more comfortable giving a very honest answer about their voting preference to a recorded human voice powered by computer. This difference in accuracy between polls administered by phone rooms of human pollsters and automated poll results accounts for some of the terrible misses by news organizations during this primary season. CNN for example was 10 points off in Iowa, largely attributable to using the less accurate human administered poll.

The interesting side note here is that apparently several polling operations don't know this, as several have used automated polling calls already in the state, and the attorney general is actively considering taking legal action against them.

Momentum is Bull%#$: Part II

With less than 24 hours to go, Political Season updates our Feb. 15th Texas & Ohio prediction as follows:

Texas & Ohio - Political Season predicts Obama loses the popular vote in both contests. He has closed the gap in Texas, but I don't think he gets all the way there, and Clinton is showing a 2 day upwards trend that should it hold through tomorrow nights voting, may permit her to edge Obama out . Best case scenario, he splits them with her. Again, the demographics seem favor her in Ohio and the hispanic vote may be breaking large for her in Texas, though it remains to be seen if the so-called "brown wave" of latino voters in Texas will materialize for Clinton. Count on these wins to reinvigorate her call for seating Michigan and Florida (and open warfare on this score from Obamacons). These wins, coupled with Rhode Island will give her 3 to 1 victories on this round of primaries, and keep her alive for the PA primary.

Furthermore, Political Season says this does not get better. Frontrunner status means that Obama is under more scrutiny from the press and the Obama campaign may increasingly be off message as the heat turns up. We predict that the comments to the Canadian government issue, the soon starting Rezko trial, incoming fire from Clinton, McCain and President Bush, and what appear to be buyer's remorse among the democratic electorate on Obama will all combine to blunt his campaign's forward motion, leaving him appearing as though he cannot quite close the deal and administer the kill shot to the Clinton campaign. In this environment, the close in tactical infighting skills of the Clinton's will be brought to bear on delegate schemes and to capitalize on the greater criticism that is now coming Obama's way. With the defeats in Texas and Ohio, even if he manages to split them with Clinton, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Obama run.

God Speed Obama

Today is Super Tuesday. 24 states across the nation will go to the polls to cast their votes for the nominee they want to represent the respective parties in the general election. Among the candidates contending for that vote is Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, the state of my birth, a black man vying to become President of the United States and in so doing, make American history.

I listened last night to Harold Ford Jr. the current DNC chairman, on the Charlie Rose show arguing the merits of today's vote producing a clear winner and talking the merits of both candidates out of one side of his mouth while slyly slanting his commentary in Hillary's favor out the other. He was one of the early Obama critics, publicly stating that an Obama win of the nomination would mean the party's defeat in the general. He has been among a group of critics such as Tavis Smiley, damning Obama with faint praise. Or those of the black democratic establishment, like Andrew Young, who have told Obama "wait your turn boy'.

All these haters that Barack has had to contend with. And look at him now. Barack has run a damn effective campaign, raised $132 million, won 2 primaries and been competitive in all, and is now poised to potentially win an insurgent victory in today's Super Tuesday contests. He has accomplished this against the entrenched political machine of the most accomplished political duo in democratic history who have dominated democratic politics for over a decade.

Its easy to forget dear reader that a scant 45 days ago, Hillary's victory was all but assured. It was a coronation ceremony, not a nomination contest. The Iowa caucus earthquake was January 5th people! Now Obama is surging, victory nearly within his grasp.

I've made the case here and elsewhere that African Americans should support Obama's run, win or lose, because he is qualified, credible and bonus, he's black. There is no down side to giving him our support. What he has done, what he is doing, lifts up Black America. His run, his example, his history, his family, his identity, his leadership.....is a credit to us. He has done us proud. We've supported and are supporting so many buffoons and charlatans. In Detroit, they are retaining a black mayor who's behavior is shameful and egregious. Contrast that to Obama. In New Orleans, a congressional representative who banks his bribes in the freezer still has a job. Contrast that to Obama. If Obama is an embarrassment, it is an embarrassment of riches. He, and the woman by his side, Michelle Obama, an accomplished woman in her own right, are giving us every day an example of excellence and accomplishment in motion. Michelle epitomizes class, intelligence, judgment, and commitment. She grounds his achievement, leavens his ambition and inspires him to his highest self, and she is doing that for us as well. You could not ask for a more distinctive First Lady.

So today as the Super Tuesday battle looms large and even as I write these words, millions of voters across the country are casting their votes. In this pivotal moment, as potentially another step towards history is made, I want to pause and say well done Barack. You are a credit to us. You have gone farther than your predecessors and you may go further still. I applaud your success and your commitment. I cheer you because you are not doing it alone, you are bringing us with you. I commend you because you are setting a standard that will guide those who come after you, doing both a service to our present and our future, no matter the outcome. I wish you victory on every electoral battlefield this day.

Gaming Obama's Chances on Super Tuesday

Jay Cost of the RealClearPolitics Horse Race blog tries to divine with demography Obama's chances on Super Tuesday.

"This is what we do know. Clinton has done well among Hispanics. Obama has done well among African Americans. Depending on where and when, white voters vary their support. How will that play out on Super Tuesday?....white voters make up a majority of the Super Tuesday population - but African Americans and Hispanics are important minorities. And remember that it is probable that in most states the electorate will oversample from African Americans and Hispanics, both of which tend to be Democrats.

And so, it seems to me that the key to Super Tuesday rests upon three questions:

First, will white voters follow the pattern they followed in Iowa and New Hampshire, in Nevada, or in South Carolina? And remember that viability, favorability, and vote can go go hand-in-hand. The current polling that shows Clinton with a large lead among whites could change in as a consequence of Obama's win. Remember that after Obama's victory in Iowa, Clinton's margin among white voters shrunk to just +8%, according to ABC News/WaPo.

Second, will African Americans "out perform" Hispanics? This is an interesting question. The exit poll found that African Americans and Hispanics each comprised 15% of the total electorate. But Nevada as a whole is 6.6% African American, and 19.7% Hispanic. If Super Tuesday African Americans "out perform" Hispanics as they did in Nevada - then Obama will be in a better position than what the above table suggests.

Third, what happens to Edwards' voters? It is unclear to me who they will go to if Edwards drops out. More importantly, it is unclear to me whether Edwards can sustain the level of support he has received to date. Voters can be brutal with their evaluations of viability. If they see Edwards as hopeless, it is quite possible that they will abandon his candidacy. If they do, where do they go?

Another Clinton Surrogate Levels Harsh Attack at Obama

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel picks up the action as the designated "black attack dog" for Sen. Clinton where Bob Johnson left off, calling Obama "stupid" for suggesting that Dr. King could have signed the civil rights act;

“But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Doctor King, alone, passed the legislation and signed it into law." He tortures a comment on Obama's book to again associate Obama with drugs;

"I assume that the book was not written for political purposes. It was honest….It was a big mistake for him to have done it [used drugs.] For him to be honest enough to write about it, I guess he thought it might sell books."

Rangel is a little Johnnie come lately to the party on this one, considering Hillary had already seconded Obama's call to ramp down the racial pyrotechnics in the campaign. His comments are completely dishonest.

His attack only further demonstrates the length the Black Democratic Establishment (BDE) is willing to go to help the Clintons win and restart the gravy train of patronage. Even as Hillary retreats from commenting on Obama's drug use as a youth, her black surrogates are taking every opportunity to raise it in order to smear and damage Obama in the minds of voters. Its the politics of personal destruction at its very best and I find it despicable and disgusting that African American politicians and elites are willing to engage in lowdown tactics of this sort, gleefully doing Hillary's dirty work to curry favors. It is vile behavior and those who engage in it are bereft of integrity.

Hillary joined Obama's call to ratchet it down, but with every sycophant eruption, one can only draw the conclusion that either the Clinton campaign is terribly undisciplined and can't keep their surrogates on message, or in fact this is the message.

Race Sniping A Deadly Trap for Democratic Frontrunners

Hillary Clinton's campaign has drawn fire for statements she or her surrogates have made that have been poorly received by african american voters. Her comment regarding Lyndon Johnson and MLK seems to have drawn the most ire, suggesting that it was Johnson's presidential powers rather than the commitment and life risking political resistance of MLK and the movement that brought about the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Sen. Clinton is accusing the Obama camp of stirring the pot. Sen. Obama has called her remarks ill-advised, an accurate comment to say the least.

There is a deadly trap in this increasingly vitriolic confrontation for both candidates. For Clinton, she runs the risk of alienating in droves black voters and driving them right into the arms of Obama to lose the nomination. Or, she could win the nomination and lose the election because blacks vote republican or stay home in the general out of anger for the hardball tactics. For Obama, the focus on race could make that the dominant focus of his run, despite his best efforts to prevent race from becoming the sole prism by which his run is evaluated, with the result that non black voters are turned off, draining necessary vitality from his nomination run and his chances in the general.

The race issue carries within it the seeds of destruction for both campaigns. If they are not careful, they will reap what they sow.

Stop Whining and Stand Tall - Like Obama. This is Political Warfare

As I noted in my New Hampshire primary predictions, I decided to drink the kool-aid and predict a landslide Obama victory in the NH primary. I was not alone in this. Pundits, the media, news anchors, bloggers, all were swept up in irrational exuberance over the prospect of an inspiring, historical moment. Swept away with the idea that America would nominate a black man to run for president and were he to win, give America a shining moment to believe that as a nation we have come far enough to deliver on Martin Luther King's dream, that we judged Obama by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

I, like many other black people I'm sure, was captivated by the idea that I might actually see a black man become President of the United States in my lifetime. Something I never thought possible. Something I thought my children might see, but not me. As Obama says on his website "I'm asking you to believe". So I did.

Hillary cried, Bill lied. And then, after all of the hype and exuberance and high expectations, came the NH numbers and Obama narrowly lost to Clinton, by a mere 3%. Pundits, media, bloggers and Obama supporters were all befuddled, asking themselves "WTH happened"? The postmortems of the primary result have come fast and thick. Where did Obama come up short? With women primarily. The polling stopped 3 days before the voting, and didn't catch the movement that might have signaled the tightening of the race. The black blogosphere has been full of its own theories and one that has made its appearance repeatedly is the "Bradley Effect" theory. Across the Afrosphere, blogs like the field negro, Jack and Jill Politics, Electronic Village, Pam's House Blend and many others have opined that the Bradley Effect, a phenomenon where white voters give inaccurate responses to polling questions about support for a non-white candidate out of a fear that they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced, was to blame for the NH result. In other words, white voters were not going to vote for Obama because of his race, even if they said they were.

With much respect to these and other bloggers, ENOUGH. Obama is competing for the job of leader of the free world. This is political warfare of the highest order. You don't play for stakes higher than this and in addition, his life and the lives of his family are literally on the line. If he wins the nomination and ultimately the election, he ascends to a position that makes him arguably the single most powerful man on the planet. His opposition are the highly capable and well financed leaders of the one of the most formidable political machines ever seen in democratic politics. The road to the nomination is going to be a dogfight, there will be blood and lots of it. There will be victories and as in NH, defeats in this war for the nomination.

Do not cheapen the significance of his effort, win or lose, by naming racism and prejudice as the cause when he is unsuccessful or suffers a setback. Racism and prejudice are a fact of life. Colin Powell once said "you must outperform racism". The same way the market factors political instability in the Middle East into the price of oil, African Americans must factor prejudice and racism into our calculations and plans, and so must Obama. He must outperform prejudice where it is in evidence and more importantly he must outperform his opponents. He fought the good fight in NH and he lost. He congratulated his opponent, declared and demonstrated that he was unbowed and forged on to the battles in Nevada, South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. No mention of racism or prejudice. None. He got beat. It ain't over.

We should follow his leadership. Barack did not give any credence in defeat to the idea that racism had held him back. Neither should we.

CNN Puts Media Hit on Ron Paul

The CNN website is running a story on Ron Paul highlighting a series of newsletters authored under his name in the 90's that include prejudiced and insulting statements about blacks and gays. Bloggers and their readers have of course known about them for quite some time. This story is far from new, its been out there for quite a while. This clearly represents the MSM deciding that its time for Ron Paul to make his exit and they look to speed him on his way with a racist character assassination job. However, it will have little effect on Ron Paul's campaign. His die hard supporters won't be swayed and in fact may be in complete agreement with the sentiments in the newsletters and since he is already such a fringe figure, there's not much there.

The Oprah Effect Revisited

In light of Obama's victory in Iowa and his strong showing in New Hampshire, its worth quickly revisiting Oprah's involvement for a moment. The MSM is so simple that they often miss the boat on whats really going on. In the case of Oprah's endorsement, people, including Dr. Laura, are also missing the boat.

The Obama campaign was very smart in obtaining Oprah's support and they were genius in how they used her. They went on a three state tour, before the IA caucus and NH and SC primaries and used her celebrity to the get the names, phone numbers and email of 60,000 potential voters. You had to give up your info for tickets, you got better seats if you volunteered, it was genius. They have been working those 60,000 voters ever since, and turned them into victory in IA, a very strong performance in NH and potentially a victory in South Carolina. Oprah was the sizzle and they provided the steak. She made the pitch and they moved in to close the sale. Very smart. It was not about a celebrity endorsement, it was about getting a shot at 60,000 voters and they totally succeeded.

That success is an intriguing predicate to a discussion about what else is possible in impacting public policy if the black elite and the political class joined forces to press for change on other public policy issues facing black America.

Dr. Laura Comes to Hillary's Defense

I'm a faithful listener to Dr. Laura's radio show which I enjoy immensely. My jaw almost hit the floor about 5 minutes ago when she came to Hillary's defense on the crying thing. In the course of a quick micro rant on the paucity of real, substantive thinking going on in the primary process by the candidates and presumably the voters as well, she criticized people going ape over Clinton's emotional moment yesterday, pointing out that the woman was talking about her passion and that she was exhausted. I was thoroughly surprised which is one of the reasons why I continue to listen to her show because every time I think I have her pegged down and I know what she'll say, she surprises me, which in my book is evidence of authenticity.

She also said she didn't think that any one of the candidates, Democrat or Republican was competent to assume the office. I'm not sure what planet she's living on there.

How Clinton Could Make a Comeback

From RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog

There are two features of the Democratic nomination process that could help Hillary.

First, Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates proportionally. Candidates win "pledged" delegates based not on whether they win a state - but on how many voters support them. So, for instance, even though Clinton and Edwards lost Iowa, they still won a few delegates.

Second, about 20% of all delegates to the Democratic convention are "super" or "unpledged" delegates. This quirky provision - which does not have a corollary on the Republican side - has its origins in Chicago, 1968. In the wake of that disastrous convention, the DNC formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission to recommend improvements for the nomination process. McGovern-Fraser suggested that the process be opened to rank-and-file Democrats on the principle of "one Democrat, one vote." The reforms contributed to George McGovern (the same McGovern from the commission) winning the nomination in 1972. The party establishment did not like this. So, it added the super delegate provision to serve as a check on the party rank-and-file.

This year, according to the indispensable Green Papers, there will be 798 super delegates at the convention in Denver. They include all elected members of the Democratic National Committee, all current Democratic members of Congress (including non-voting delegates), all sitting Democratic governors, and past party luminaries (e.g. former presidents). Unlike pledged delegates, who are bound to particular candidates, super delegates are free to vote their consciences.

Here is how these rules could help Clinton.

Suppose that Clinton stumbles early, but rebounds later. By the end of the nomination period - she draws even with Obama in the primaries. She wins 45% of the aggregate vote. He wins 45%. Edwards, who in this scenario dropped out some time before the end of the season, wins 10%. That could yield the following count among pledged delegates:

Obama: 1,464 delegates
Clinton: 1,464 delegates
Edwards: 325 delegates

This leaves the 798 super delegates, who can support whomever they choose. Let us suppose, in this scenario, they divvy up the way the Hill reports declared members of Congress have so far split their support between the three major candidates: 62% for Clinton, 25% for Obama, and 13% for Edwards. That would change the delegate count to:

Clinton: 1,967 Delegates
Obama: 1,664 Delegates
Edwards: 420 Delegates

A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the nomination. In this scenario, Clinton goes from being tied for first to having a solid lead, and just 58 delegates short of the nomination. If she could persuade about three-fifths of the Edwards' super delegates to back her, she would win.

Now, this is not a prediction about what will happen. It is simply meant to illustrate that the rules of the nomination process give Clinton two advantages.

First, the proportional allocation rule buys Clinton time to get her campaign back on track. This is critically important. Most people assume that February 5th will be the end of the nominating season. Not necessarily. Remember that 44% of all pledged delegates will not be allocated until after Super Tuesday. Clinton could use the proportional allocation rules to keep the delegate count close through February 5th - and then draw even with Obama toward the end of the season. Perhaps as the press starts to examine him with the scrutiny that they give to frontrunners, Democrats will come back to "old rough and ready" Clinton.

Political Season's New Hampshire Primary Prediction

All right. After some deliberation and thought, here are Political Seasons' prediction for the New Hampshire primary.

Democrats:

Political Season has decided to drink the Obama kool-aid for the NH primary. Based on the poll data at Realclearpolitics.org, and Obama's gaffe free debate performance last night, we predict he will win the NH primary and that he will do so running away. Political Season projects Obama to be the winner with a margin of victory as big or bigger than Iowa. We predict Hillary will take second place and Edwards will come in third with a vote performance weaker than in Iowa.

Republicans:

Political Season is predicting that John McCain will be the winner of the New Hampshire primary and may win it walking away in terms of the margin of victory. Romney appears to be fading and trending downwards in the polls. Although post debate focus groups in New Hampshire seemed to respond well to his performance, we do not think it will be enough to turn the tide for him in the time remaining against McCain. Huckabee will make a third place showing. While he appears to be achieving some upward movement, we believe his identification as an evangelical in the minds of NH voters will cap the extent of upward movement and that he will not benefit from an Iowa bump anywhere near what his democratic counterpart, Obama, has experienced from his Iowa win.