The Political Fiend

I think it might be about time to have one of those mother-daughter talks.

Last week at Butler University, Chelsea Clinton was asked by a student, a Hillary supporter, whether the Lewinsky scandal injured the then First Lady politically. Chelsea rebuffed the question with something along the lines of “It’s none of your business”. Fair enough; she’d never been asked the question before, and it seemed harmless to dismiss it; her response garnered cheers from the audience, who apparently agreed. One week later, at North Carolina State University the question again reared its ugly head, only to have it lopped off by Chelsea, who responded in the same manner as before.

It’s a real shame too; Chelsea is in the unique position to field questions that no self respecting journalist would ask Hillary herself. She could have taken the question and delivered a well spun answer about her mother’s personal integrity and resolve, while giving a nod to Bill for working toward patching things up. Instead, Chelsea’s defensive responses are going to keep the issue alive. The first time the question popped up, it came without explanation. The second time, the poser said he was asking because it was a public matter involving a then currently serving president; though I’m not sure that I agree, it would seem that an opportunity has been squandered here. Now that Chelsea has refused to furnish an answer, the question becomes that much more tempting, ensuring that it stays at the tips of people’s tongues, and at the media’s fore — exactly where Obama and McCain want it to be.

Photo by Anand M. Dhingra used under a Creative Commons license.

This morning Obama delivered his much anticipated speech on race relations in the U.S. He couldn’t have timed it better than he did. Throughout the primary season there had been murmurs that Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, could become some kind of political liability; that exact thing happened when Wright was caught saying, essentially, that America asked for the 9/11 attacks, as a consequence of our international misdeeds. Smooth. Wright’s statements combined with Hillary’s recent victories and her comments on Obama’s national security credentials created an atmosphere of anxiety surrounding Obama’s next offering.

The speech was a long one, running just over forty minutes, and it’s tone was decidedly different than his usually rally fare. There was no sea of supporters at his back; he cracked no jokes, and rarely smiled. This was Obama on the defensive, aiming to rack up points by addressing with due gravity what he presented as a grave issue. His treatment of the issue of race in America was both delicate and urgent. He took great care to note that the economy above all else has served to equalize blacks and poorer whites, placing them side by side in unemployment and welfare lines. He made pleas to all races to give credence to the concerns of all Americans, regardless of their background. He observed that until the realities of race were dealt with, they would continue to serve as a ‘distraction’ from greater issues.

He also said a little something about religion. Or rather, he didn’t. In addressing his relationship with his inflammatory pastor, he tried to illustrate their familial relationship, likening it to that shared by many Americans and their pastors, priests, or rabbis. He notably left out the relationship shared by Americans and their “imams”, subtly admitting that the accusations that he is a Muslim are still too new and volatile to be explained away effectively.

In all, Obama’s speech was not only highly effective at dealing with the media’s reaction to the Jeremiah Wright debacle, but it had a transcendent feel about it; it dealt with far more than one candidate’s political woes by advancing the public discourse on race relations in a realistic and honest, albeit totally non-controversial way.

Public domain Photo used under a Creative Commons license.

It’s time that this stopped. Hillary Clinton has lost sight of the goals of the Democratic Party and has ventured off onto her own hubris filled path of destruction. This is the stuff epic poems are made of; the warrior so obsessed with with his own destiny that he falls into madness, destroying those around him in the course of a lustful pursuit of the end prize. Hillary Clinton, brilliant and capable as she may be, is essentially killing the Democratic Party’s chances of defeating John McCain come November. I’ll list my beeves:

1). Clinton has implied that McCain surpasses Obama with regard to national security know how; Nancy Pelosi has since pointed to Clinton’s statements on this issue as being the most telling sign of the unfeasibility of a joint-ticket.

2). Clinton made race an issue in the early states by claming LBJ was responsible for the Civil Rights legislation of the ’60s, essentially forcing an Obama response on the issue in an attempt to brand him as the ‘black candidate’.

3). Clinton has done little if anything to correct the statements of Geraldine Ferraro, who stated that Obama’s success is largely a function of his race. Though there is certainly an element of truth to this, Ferraro sounds more and more like a Republican as this thing grinds forward; her statements essentially dismissed all of Obama’s qualifications, making him out to be an affirmative action charity case arising from white liberal guilt.

4). Clinton has pushed for a redo of the primary elections in both Michigan and Florida after having campaigned there in spite of the DNC’s censure of both states for moving up their primary dates.

5). In a radio interview with NPR on March 13, 2008, Clinton did not outrightly support the notion that super delegates should pledge their votes to the candidate who garnered the most support throughout the primary season. When asked whether she’d be okay with the super delegates acting contrary to the primary results, she totally dodged the question.

HRC will no doubt hang on for dear life until the convention. It’s bad enough that this is costing Clinton and Obama tens of millions of dollars; does Clinton really have to cost the Democrats the presidency? Does she not see the fallacy of her ways; with so few states remaining, the likely result is an Obama nomination; after that then what? Will she make half hearted attempts to back him as the most qualified man for the job? Will anyone believe her if she does? Where is Al Gore, and when will he give Clinton a tap on the shoulder?

Photo by Barbara Kinney used under a Creative Commons license.

Now we’ve really got our hands full. Between the superdelegates and the situation in Michigan and Florida this is gonna be one for the history books–and maybe future constitutional law textbooks. Hillary’s big wins on Tuesday night did two things; 1) they complicated the superdelegate situation by giving her a credible argument for why the superdelegates should line up behind her, and 2) they reignited the arguments over what the DNC should do with the votes cast in Florida and Michigan.

The superdelegate problem always boils down to the same basic question. Should they side with the candidate that has won the greatest number of votes, or should they support the one who will likely have the greatest momentum going into November? Some would even argue that the role of the superdelegate is not a confirmatory one, but rather that of a steering committee, and that they should pledge to the candidate that they believe to be best for the party, regardless of what voters think. The safest bet would be to go with whoever’s leading the popular vote, anything else and we might have riots on our hands come convention time.

Onward. There’s no way in hell those Florida and Michigan votes are going to be counted. Not without major lawsuits being filed anyhow. Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates as punishment by the DNC for moving up their primaries. Now the DNC is paying for it. In punishing both states, the DNC managed to disenfranchise anyone who actually bothered showing up at the primaries, and now that Clinton has a shot at making a comeback she’s pushing for the votes cast in each state to count. Problem is that Obama and Edwards played by the rules, and in respecting the DNC’s decision, they pledged not to campaign in either state. Clinton did, and managed to win decisive majorities. So what are the DNC’s options, and with what results?

Option 1: Keep the status quo and don’t honor the votes cast in Florida and Michigan.

Option 2: Hold a re-do election, and allow the votes to count toward delegates.

Option 3: Try to translate the votes already cast in each state’s primaries into a delegate count.

Results: A flood of Equal Protection lawsuits based on systemic disenfranchisement a la Bush v. Gore, a whole lot of kicking and screaming from the Obama camp, and a whole lot of grins and high fives on the Republican side. If the DNC doesn’t drastically retool its procedures after this mishap, I’m moving to Canada.

Yesterday HRC lashed out at Barack Obama for distributing a leaflet that attacked her proposed health care program. If you missed the video of her reaction I’ll summarize it for you. She was mad, and she compared Obama’s tactics to those of Karl Rove. Yeah, that Karl Rove. Overboard? A little. Good strategy? Maybe. Irresponsible? 100%, straight up.

The other day Obama came out and said what we all pretty much figured. He said that if he’d lost the popular vote in as many states has Hillary has, he’d likely face intense pressure from the DNC to end his bid for the nomination. He’s probably right; Hillary’s got the seniority, so even though her campaign is sagging worse than your grandma’s jowls the DNC probably won’t start giving her the courtesy nudge until after Texas and Ohio are decided. Until then, she’s gonna have to self regulate.

This campaign is running long. Hillary’s bleeding money, and Obama’s going to have to save his dough for the General Race. Now that the primary season is nearing a wrap, Hillary better start making nice. Assuming that Obama goes on to win the nomination, Hillary’s recent antics might hinder his ability to take the White House. She’s already managed to make race an issue, criticized Obama’s “inexperience”, highlighted his borrowing of language, and is in the process of potentially alienating weak Democrats and independents by hunting for super delegates and Obama’s pledged delegates.

To make matters worse, everyone’s favorite election spoiler, Ralph Nader looks poised to toss his hat into the ring, to the likely detriment of the Democratic nominee. He’s got an interview with Tim Russert this weekend, so this might be the real deal. HRC had better reign it in; she’s got a legacy to protect, and the way I figure it, her core constituents aren’t gonna be too pleased if she blows a cloud of negativity around Obama, especially if it doesn’t dissipate by November.

Photo by Marc Nozell used under a Creative Commons license.