Oooh, nuance!

I just don't understand this argument I'm hearing from Obama and his supporters.

How is Barack Obama going to get Independent and Republican votes that Hillary Clinton can't...in the general election?

Sure, there are people out there that hate Hillary Clinton with a passion, thanks to the 16 years of lies and smears she's had to endure from the media. But if they've got McCain to vote for - who is, as we know, the most McMavericky, most Independent and Straight-Shooterish and Moderate Candidate Evah, according to the MCM - won't Independent and Republic voters go for him instead of Obama?

Even Obama supporters should be able to admit that the Senator from Illinois has gotten nothing but a honeymoon from the traditional media. Unfortunately, there will be a quick divorce if/when he becomes the Democratic nominee. Are people seriously, truly thinking that after months of "Barack Hussein Osama" + the "Rezko scandal," not to mention the innate racism of most Americans, McCain won't peel off a lot of those votes?

Of course he will. That's why the Republicans nominated him, and that's why he's running almost even with both Obama and Clinton in the polls right now. If Obama were so incredibly strong with Independent and Republican voters, wouldn't he be crushing McCain easily in national polling?

It was one thing to be low in the polls when name recognition made Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani front-runners. Not many people had heard of Barack Obama. But that was before all the debates and the media love and Party endorsements. So how do those poll results support his argument, which is a central tenet of his "kumbaya" campaign?

It is quite obvious that they do not. The person who would have decimated McCain was John Edwards, as the polls reflected at the time. The reason? People who won't vote for a woman named Clinton or a man named Obama would vote for him. You know - white males, who are disproportionately...Republics and Independents.

Clearly, if we wanted to bring Republics and Independents to our side, we should have nominated the safe, handsome, white, Southern male. But we didn't; and it's a mistake, and one not supported by any evidence, to think that Obama will automatically get his supporters. I was one, and I'm voting for Hillary.

So what would the winning strategy be?

Well, for one, it would be nice if Obama and his supporters stopped believing in fairy tales, and opened their eyes to the reality that he and Hillary are deadlocked in delegates (and that's only because Michigan and Florida were shut out). This hardly translates into a giant wave of momentum for Obama. If Hillary loses Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, then she should drop out and let Obama take the frontrunner position, in my opinion. But so far, the polls are showing that as usual, Hillary is stronger in the larger states.

I just can't help thinking that the winning strategy for Democrats is still a combined ticket for Clinton and Obama. They have both proven their strength in various demographics, and they could each bring a great deal to the other's campaign. Moreover, the excitement and participation of Democratic voters this year is palpable, and the turnout is absolutely breathtaking in the primaries. I wouldn't want the Party to lose either of these candidates and the sense of empowerment they bring to their supporters.

I don't think the theoretical gain of a few Republics and Independents should outweigh the almost certain reality of 16 years of Democratic Dominance in the White House. But then...

maybe it's just me.

If we implemented the madamab election strategy, the only people who would select our candidates...would be We The People. Not the media. Not delegates, Seated, Unseated or Super. And most certainly not the Electoral College.

Just sayin'.

Waaaaay before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared their Presidential ambitions for 2008, there was a lot of speculation that they were running despite their denials. I thought at the time, "Hillary - Barack - don't do it!"

I didn't think either one of them would make a bad President - in fact, I've usually liked what Hillary has done as my Senator, and I didn't have much of an opinion about Barack except that he gave a kick-ass speech - but I just felt that the country was not ready for a black or female President. As is often the case, I feel I was right AND wrong at the same time.

What the country was not ready for was a black President, a female President...and eight more years of the Clintons.

We can all see how ugly this campaign has become. I do think a lot of it has been fueled by the traditional media, whose antipathy to the Clintons is psychopathic in nature; but let's face it, this country is very far from healing the self-inflicted racial wounds of slavery. Barack's overabundance of melanin has not passed unnoticed by the press, and I would need a database bigger than the NSA to document all the misogynistic labels the punditry has slapped on Senator Clinton.

A lot of the problems, however, have come directly from Bill Clinton himself. His role in his wife's campaign has surely been (kindly stated) a mixed bag. He is such a giant figure in Democratic history; beloved both by most Americans and party faithful, he was one of the most popular presidents in recent history. Sadly, we remember the bad things as well; the constant innuendos and sexual scandals; the far-too-friendly corporate policies; and the definition of "is." Had Hillary waited one more term in office, she could possibly have run for President in 2012 or even 2016, when another Democratic President would served as a buffer between the somewhat unappetizing dynastic idea of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton. Perhaps Chelsea could run against Jeb in 2016! [shudder]

I understand that right now, due to the presence of SuperDelegates, it may be impossible to determine who the nominee will be until after the Democratic convention. I wonder if it's possible that John Edwards could be nominated even if he doesn't win a single primary?

If Bill Clinton continues to have a strong and negative effect on his wife's campaign, and if America is not ready to vote for an extra-tan Senator whose biggest assets are his speech-making abilities and Oprah Winfrey, I believe it could indeed happen.

It was too soon.

It's official. Not only do I not like Barack Obama's campaign style - I actually don't like him.

Until last night, I was planning to vote for any of the top three Democrats. Despite my problems with Senator Obama's right-wing approach, I didn't even consider withholding my vote from him. This election is too important.

But that was before last night.

The brilliant Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake got there first - with video. I won't elaborate too much, but this is what got me permanently angry with the Senator:

OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

I don't know, could she? One thing Obama says is that due to her high negatives, he can get votes Hillary can't. Both he and Edwards are using this type of argument. I think it's kind of a stupid one, considering polls show that she can beat any Republic in the general...and that's without the Republic having to campaign for several months against her. That part doesn't bother me.

But as for Obama's supporters not voting for Hillary, that's an incredible - and offensive - statement. Hillary has, in effect, already asked her supporters to vote for Obama or Edwards if she is not the nominee. In fact, she's done that many times during the campaign - including in her concession speech in Iowa. Edwards also appeared on Olbermann that night, and said that without a doubt, he would also encourage his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was.

Barack Obama's words are in stark contrast to those of his fellow candidates. They reflect a man who is so in love with himself that he puts himself over both party AND country.

I've got news for Mr. Obama. I would happily vote for Hillary or Edwards without blinking an eye, but as of last night, this is one vote you will NEVER GET. I hope like hell you are not the nominee, but if you are, I will write in Al Gore.

What. An. Ass.

I am desperately trying to stay out of the back-and-forth between the top three Democratic candidates for President. Let's face it, if I had to campaign for 17 thousand years and do a billion debates and interviews, I'm sure I could be very easily discredited for something I said - or even something I didn't say!

But you know, it is meaningful that Obama brought up Reagan in any kind of admiring way. I have repeatedly noted how much Obama is reaching out to Republicans and self-declared Independents, and attacking Clinton and Edwards from the right, not the left. It's his campaign strategy, and who knows, it may work. My nervousness comes from what he would do after being elected President, and how he will deal with the Fascists in the House and Senate that are sure to make his life completely miserable. Since I don't have a long record of votes and public service to refer to, I have to take him at his word that he will govern to the right of the other two candidates. Needless to say, I'm not comfortable with that.

The other thing that makes me uncomfortable is what Paul Krugman talks about this morning. Progressive Democrats have to say, "Reagonomics (deregulation of corporations and union-busting) does not work. It leads to recession and poverty. We need to go back to the economics of the New Deal to revitalize American society."

John Edwards, of course, is essentially saying that when he calls poverty "the great moral issue of our time" and proposes to end it by 2036. And yet, he has consistently been treated as Mr. Cellophane by the traditional media.

Or perhaps, there is no "and yet." In an Edwards administration, the corporate owners of the traditional media outlets would suddenly have to deal with diversification and regulation. And those hogs don't want to share their feed with the little people, do they?

it's Hackabee and Obama! Hillary and Edwards are deadlocked at second place.

Hackabee, in a straw poll, whomped Romney and all the other candidates by a large margin. The general consensus seems to be that Obama, and perhaps Edwards, benefited from "second choice" recommendations, since the top three Democrats all received 30% or more.

In any case, the race is far from over. The Republico-punditry seems desperate to claim that McCain and Giuliani still have a chance to win, despite their extremely poor showing in Iowa. (Ron Paul, this year's Ross Perot, got much higher numbers than either of those "major" candidates, but shockingly, Chris Matthews doesn't seem to think he has a manly enough scent to be discussed.) The Democratic folks (especially Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC) are ecstatic about the strength of the candidates; the amazing turnout, which ended up being double that of the Republics; and the undeniably exciting and historic nature of Obama's win.

Considering the complete lack of discussion in the media about Edwards, his showing was quite strong. I'm disappointed that Edwards didn't come in first, but I still think he will end up being the Democratic nominee.

On to the next, and the next....

Wow. I am really flattered that The Krug has been reading my blog and taking it to heart!

Okay, now that I'm down from the clouds of FantasyLand, I'd really like to highlight the excellent interview Mr. Krugman gave to TPM's Election Central on his growing feud with Barack Obama. Here are some key quotes that made me yell "Thank you!" at my monitor. (Yes, I'm working at home right now. And no, the monitor doesn't talk back. Onward.)

EC: But should his conciliatory tone really be the basis to this extent of our evaluation of him? Some, including Matthew Yglesias, have argued that this focus on Obama's conciliatory rhetoric obscures the fact that Obama would still more likely prove a genuinely progressive president than Hillary would be.

PK: What evidence is there that she would be especially bad for the progressive movement? For what it's worth, Hillary's actual policy proposals are more aggressive than Obama's.

You mean, someone's actually reading her policy proposals and comparing them to Obama's? What is this, fact-based journamalism or something?

EC: What about on foreign policy? You could argue that Hillary is less willing to challenge old rhetorical frames on foreign policy, and that with her rhetoric and stuff like her Kyl-Lieberman vote, she's ceding turf at the outset on foreign policy the same way Obama is on health care.

PK: I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question.

This one is more of a mixed bag for me. I think that all of the "top three" Democrats are indistinguishable on foreign policy. Just because Obama spoke out against the invasion of Iraq before he was in the Senate does not mean that he would have done so while in the Senate. After all, he voted "present" 130 times as a State Senator - and as for the Kyl-Lieberman vote, he was not even there! Not exactly a courageous stance, now, is it? As for John Edwards, like Hillary, he also voted for the AUMF, and is even more aggressive in his anti-Iran rhetoric than Senator Clinton.

Given all of that, I hope Krugman is right and that all the Democrats would bring our troops home from Iraqnam and Afghanistan. Certainly the American people - and Congress - will be pushing for that result; after all, if the Republics did not have filibuster and veto power, the war would be over by now.

Now for the piece de resistance:

EC: But surely there's something to the argument that the skills to build coalitions, to win over moderates on the other side, aren't without any importance. Should we really take tone and rhetorical skills out of the equation entirely?

PK: No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side. And as far as sounding moderate goes, the reality is that if the Democrats nominated Joe Lieberman, a month into the general election Republicans would be portraying him as Josef Stalin. Obama's actually been positioning himself to the right of both Clinton and Edwards on domestic policy and has been attacking them from the right. [emphasis added]

The Democratic nominee is still going to be running on a platform that is substantially to the left of how Bill Clinton governed, and the Republican is going to nominate someone to the right of Attila the Hun. You want the Dem who's going to make that difference clear and not say things that will be used by Republicans to say, "Well, even their candidate says..."

And after the election, if you come in after having opposed mandates and having said Social Security is in a crisis, then you're going to have some problems fending off Republican attacks on health care and The Washington Post's demands that you make Social Security a top priority. Mostly it's a question of what happens after the election.

Damn, freaking, 100% right, and points I've made on this blog many times.

I am absolutely astonished that anyone sees Obama as some sort of liberal standard-bearer or agent for change, but in case anyone disagrees with Paul Krugman (and me of course!), check out the latest news: Apparently Obama would have no problem naming specific Republicans to be in his cabinet. (To be fair, John Edwards "the populist" made a more general remark about doing the same thing.) And Hillary, who many feel is the most centrist and corporate of the top three? Why lookee there - so far, no promises to include Republics in HER cabinet. Apparently, experience DOES count for something!

Need I say more?

Paul Krugman agrees with me.

I admit, he didn't use the words "ICK factor," and he wasn't talking about Oprah. This is more along the lines of Obama's kumbaya attitude, and how he would drive a progressive agenda using that approach. Take it away, Mr. Krugman!

O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. [emphasis added]

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

Bingo! That is exactly the problem with Senator Obama's "new kind of politics." The corporations have a stranglehold on our government, Barack, and they're not giving it up for the sake of your smile, as charming as it is.

Although Edwards is not my favorite candidate, he has been the one (among the Big Three tied in Iowa) that has consistently fought the Man throughout his career. As a lawyer, he was extremely successful representing "little guy" clients that had been harmed by corporate negligence or malfeasance.

If the nominee is going to be one of the Big Three, at least let it be Edwards or Hillary, who both have demonstrated their tenacity in the face of unflagging enmity from right wing/conservative interests. I fear that Obama has too much right-wing sympathy - and not enough down-and-dirty fight - to effect real change in this country.

And I must be right, because Paul Krugman feels the same way.

Personal moment: My mother passed away 11 years ago from breast cancer. Believe me, I can sympathize with what Elizabeth Edwards and her family are going through. I have nothing but hope for Mrs. Edwards that she can vanquish her illness, and nothing but admiration for her courage in the face of a terrifying disease.

But really - does she think she's helping her husband in his battle for the White House by sniping at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

"The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them," she explained, "I should think the president has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves."

I'm sorry, but what? You don't know what drives them, but you're assuming they're heartless, selfish and power-hungry, with no vision for the country?

Okay, fine. What if I said this to Mrs. Edwards? "I don't know what drives you, Mrs. Edwards, but I'm assuming that you don't care what you say, as long as your husband becomes President." That seems just as fair a conclusion to draw.

Unfortunately, there's more.

Mrs. Edwards praised her husband for apologizing for his vote in favor of the Iraq War, and questioned Senator Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., for not doing the same.

"She even, in the New Hampshire debate said, 'I made a mistake.' People are looking for a mea culpa from her. And when she buried a line like that –- I give her credit for saying that –- but when she buries that line... we're electing a leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader," Edwards contended.

And while Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., was in the Illinois state legislature and not the Senate in 2003, Mrs. Edwards equally questioned his motives.

"Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district," Edwards said, "and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way."

Oh. You mean that apologizing for voting for the AUMF makes it okay? I'm sorry, but to me, an apology for a policy vote doesn't work the way an apology for a personal decision does. The policy is still in place, and it's still one of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history. And as far as Obama, isn't she being a little holier-than-thou herself by holding up Mr. Edwards as some kind of pure leader with only the good of the country at heart?

I agree with what Hillary Clinton said at the AFL-CIO debate. The Democrats should be united against the Republicans and the right wing, not attacking each other. You can point out differences between yourself and your opponent with more respect than this. And whether it's fair or not, it seems like John Edwards is sending out his wife, who is viewed as an unassailable target due to her illness, to do his dirty work. That's not the action of an incorruptible leader, is it?