A Positive Campaign

I and others have already pointed out what a milestone this election was, and how excited we are that our guy actually won. But there was another victory in this election. It was an extraordinarily positive campaign. Though Hillary Clinton went very strongly negative against Obama, he held out as long as possible, and then only went negative on policy, not with wild false allegations. His response to disagreeing with Clinton's policies could barely be called negative.

Then McCain attacked him in the general election. In case you've forgotten, Cindy McCain launched a barrage of false attacks on Michelle Obama's patriotism, John McCain attacked Obama while Obama was overseas, McCain made up attacks on Obama for being elitist and a celebrity, he pretended that Obama called Palin a pig, he accused Obama of socialism when Obama a decade ago suggested compensation for slavery, he pretended Obama was in bed with the PLO and terrorists, and falsly accused Obama of being a socialist.

To top it all off, after McCain said he was going to take the high road that Hillary never did, and said the Reverend Wright was off the table, McCain started to talk about bringing Wright up again. Three days before the campagin, a 527 felt they had the go-ahead and launched despicable racist ads, focused on Jeremiah Wright and Obama, in a multi-state ad buy worth millions, that eventually went national. Without exagerrating, if you were watching CNN in the few days before the election, you saw this ad three times an hour, every hour. McCain's response? A tepid rebuke and pulling of the ad in South Carolina, and then not a single response afterward. He let it go forward.

And Obama's response to all of this? Not a single negative ad, for months and months. Only immediate press releases showing why the McCain campaign's allegations were false. And then, after repeated barrages of negative ads by McCain, Obama began to go negative in some commercials, but always on policy, and not on false allegations or allusions. At one point, Obama had more negative commercials (on policy) than anyone else in history, because he was spending more money in ads than anyone else in history- but only a third of his ads were negative. At the same time, 100% of McCain's ads were negative. Obama consistently refused to get into the gutter with his opponents.

Much finger-pointing will now occur, as to why McCain lost the race. There are many reasons, including Palin, not truly being a maverick and following his heart, letting bad advisors run a campaign, the economy, and Iraq. But top up there is that McCain insisted on not only a negative campaign, but one filled with lies. And as amazing as it is, unlike Kerry, Obama defended himself, and yet didn't respond back with despicable allegations, lies, and innuendo. And he still won the Presidency. Now that's a man I want as President.

Let every vote count.

Lately, Hillary has been stating, many times, that she has won the popular vote. She makes this assertion by including Florida (where she campaigned against party rules but Obama didn't), including Michigan (where she was on the ballot but Obama wasn't), and not including four caucus states, where the popular vote was estimated but never officially reported. Hillary has even run ads in South Dakota making the specious claim that she won the popular vote- and from the most recent polls, has managed to fool the voters there as well.

That a candidate can win a caucus state with no official popular vote reported highlights the difficulty in trying to argue that the popular vote is important. Rather, in agreement with Hillary Clinton (of October, 2007), the popular vote doesn't matter- it's the delegates. When you have a caucus state, there's a range of individuals voting for delegates at the precinct level, and then a range of delegates at every level representing the next level up. It's the system we run by- a system not guaranteed in any way constitutionally. The Supreme Court has regularly upheld that primary and caucus votes are private party votes, and so there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, on that level.

There is a certain irony that, if Michigan and Florida had waited, considering the extended primary season, their vote would have mattered a good deal more, even ignoring being seated as full delegations. For that matter, Puerto Rico could have been more of a deciding factor if they had stuck with their original June 7th date, rounding off the primaries, in a cheaper caucus. There has been regularly a fear that states won't get their dues, so they act on that fear, and lose out on the reward they would otherwise have gained.

But still, I want my vote to count. If I'm in a state that followed the rules of the private party, that didn't try to jump ahead and steal the thunder of another state, I feel my vote ought to count.

But I'm in one of those four caucus states that Hillary would exclude in order to maintain that she won the primary vote. I'm in Washington. So I ask. How dare you, Ms. Clinton, try to strip me of my voting rights within the party? How dare you suggest that my vote doesn't matter? You tell the superdelegates that you have won the popular vote, only on the back of my disenfrachisement. My state didn't jump the gun. We obeyed party rules. And yet you have the audacity to suggest that how we voted, and the vast numbers of us who voted, don't matter? What makes you think we would even consider voting for you in 2016?

On why we want educated voters.

We've all heard the infamous lines from Hillary Clinton. Obama can't win support from "hard-working Americans, white Americans". I've already previously pointed out that Hillary's cries of "elitest" refer to Obama's education, and not his economic background, as he came from a vastly poorer background than nearly every other viable Presidential candidate. Hillary seemed to agree with me, saying, "the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me". So, the issue is actually education. Let's explore that for a moment.

Don't get me wrong. We should all be equal in America. We should all equally have a vote, regardless of education and intelligence (two very different items). But, don't we think there is some positive aspect to education? Isn't that why we strive for good schools and good teachers? Isn't that why we try to get women educated around the world- that educating women is the best proven method to raise societies and families out of poverty, and provide emancipation for women? I understand that there is a striving in post-modern society to say that any old belief is fine, and therefore education is looked down upon, but one can only go so far before you start denying antibiotic resistance from viral evolution and global warming and have killed every person on the planet in a mass extinction event.

For some mysterious reason, many voters who are uneducated are not voting for Obama. Both he and Hillary are equally educated, the only difference being that Obama has spent more time being poor, being with the poor and uneducated, than Hillary has. (Read his biography.) I don't know why they don't get that- other than Hillary has repeatedly claimed what is opposite of the truth in this matter, and if you say something enough times, no matter how false it is, it becomes truth.

But for some reason, those without college degrees are not voting for him. Okay. But why- why does Hillary seem actually proud of this fact? As if this is a good thing? If you have to choose, wouldn't you want the support of the educated voters? Yes, everyone has the right to vote- but that doesn't mean everyone has an equal ability to understand politics and life around them. This, after all, is why we educate our children- so they can better understand life and be prepared for it. If it's not, then we are lying to them, and ourselves. To claim that someone has the right to vote if they are uneducated, and therefore also has an equal ability to a graduate student to comprehend political issues, is as ridiculous as saying we have a right to believe any religious belief we want, therefore evolution and intelligent design should both be taught equally in the classroom.

Equal right does not mean equal abilities. And it seems our society has come to a point where we can no longer distinguish the two. If more uneducated people are voting for you than your opponent, the answer is not to crow in that fact. The answer is to help them get educated.

How Can She Fool Everyone?

Hillary has managed to convince, it seems, the entire nation. Again and again, working class whites are voting for her, because she's one of them. She speaks of not accepting money from large donors. And she has convinced the nation that Obama is an "elitist".

But this is a woman who regularly accepts money from lobbyists, unlike Obama, who everyone acknowledges is the first viable candidate in American history to accept money only from small donors, and never from lobbyists (except as individual contributions).

This is a woman who, with her husband, is worth 100 million. This is not to say Obama is poor- but being worth millions is different from being worth tens of millions. Indeed, Obama is the poorest of all the top Democrat and Republican candidates in the race to date, and got his millions only in the last few years. I'm not saying Obama is poor, or even close to it. But how does a woman who has 100 times the money get off saying the less wealthy guy is less in touch with the working class?

Perhaps it's their histories. Perhaps one of them grew up poorer, and that's how Hillary is able to say this.

From Wikipedia:

She was raised in a United Methodist family, first in Chicago, and then, from the age of three, in suburban Park Ridge, Illinois.[1] Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a child of Welsh and English immigrants who managed a successful small business in the textile industry.

Not a wealthy lifestyle, to be sure. Not poor either. More...middle class.

How about Obama?

Obama wrote his first book, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, before he was in politics. Lest you get confused, the inheritance he gets has nothing to do with wealth.

He states:

A few months after my twenty-first birthday...the apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn't work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.

Later Obama shares of growing up in Indonesia, where the family was not the poorest of the poor, for they had their own house- but certainly would be considered poor by American standards. He describes the people around him:

I didn't tell [Grandma] and Grandpa about the face of the man who had come to our door one day with a gaping hole where his nose should have been: the whistling sound he made as he asked my mother for food. Nor did I mention the time that one of my friends told me in the middle of recess that his baby brother had died the night before of an evil spirit brought in by the wind -- the terror that danced in my friend's eyes for the briefest of moments before he let out a strange laugh and punched my arm and broke off into a breathless run. There was the empty look on the faces of farmers the year the rains never came, the stoop in their shoulders as they wandered barefoot through their barren, cracked fields, bending over every so often to crumble earth between their fingers; and their desperation the following year when the rains lasted for over a month, swelling the river and fields until the streets gushed with water and swept as high as my waist and families scrambled to rescue their goats and their hens even as chunks of their huts washed away.

Obama's experiences are not that of a typical American, middle class or even working class. Perhaps some in New Orleans can relate, but for most of us, what he's experienced, what he's seen, is a level of poverty far lower than the poor of America. Obama may be out of touch, not because he is too elite, but because most Americans have experienced and seen less extreme poverty than he has!

And not to take delight in his relative poverty, but if Clinton is going to take out the measuring stick, does she have some sort of comparable experience in poverty when she was also nine years old? Or at any time growing up in suburban Illinois, is there something that would help her more greatly identify with the plight of the poor and working class?

I have no disagreement with the concept that Hillary did not grow up in the upper class. I affirm that she's solidly middle class in upbringing. And Obama is working class, in upbringing. Sadly, in this election, as in all others, we again and again hear about the needs of the middle class, and the working class, who do not vote in as large numbers, get ignored. And so Hillary can get off with saying she is in touch with voters and not elitist, because she grew up middle class.

What about his experiences makes Obama elitist? What could Hillary possibly be referring to?

One gets a sneaky, very disturbing feeling that it's because of where Obama went to school - Harvard (like Hillary's Yale). That's a fairly elitist school. But if so, then what she objects to is when those of the working class pull themselves out of their situation through hard work and education.

Long before this controversy came up, I liked Obama for many reasons. One was that, for the first time in a long time, I felt like here was a candidate who could identify with the situation of the lower class. I'm lower class, and proud to be so. I want a candidate who can understand it. I want a President who understands what it's like to try to make ends meet. I want a President who has a heart for the poor and the disenfranchised. I do not want a candidate who tries to put one over on the lower class, thinking we are all rubes, and will believe her when she says she's in touch with us because she grew up with more money than we're likely to have, and now has tens of millions more money than we'll ever have. I do not want a candidate who will call me elitist because, though I grew up in poverty, I went to a good school. Hillary Clinton, start speaking Truth.

I don't get it.

I was away from the internet and the news for the last few days, so I missed all of the hub-bub about Obama's remarks on the bitterness of the disenfranchised. I agree with the candidate- not the best choice of words, but fairly accurate for how the poor masses feel- he seems to have his finger on our collective pulse, so to speak.

So I was shocked and confused by Hillary's response- that Obama was "out of touch" with small-town America. Granted, it doesn't appear that most of the public is believing her on this one. But how could she even imagine that we would believe her? Obama grew up in poverty and overseas. He is the most committed Christian candidate we've had for this office since Carter. Or does Hillary think small-town America is the same as wealthy America, and therefore Obama is out of touch with the wealthy?

Let us compare this with a candidate who has little open display of her Christian beliefs- so much so that she said that if she'd heard what the Rev. Wright said from the pulpit, she would have long ago left that church, telling all of us who do attend churches that she's very unfamiliar with actually being part of a church, rather than just attending. For all of us have heard items from the pulpit that we strongly disagree with from time to time- its part of being part of a church, as opposed to a cult, where everyone agrees.

Let us compare this with a candidate who with her husband made 109 Million since leaving the White House. This is not to say Obama's hurting economically- he's made a couple million in book sales. But they aren't even in the same league. If we're asking who's more out of touch with the poor, the small-town resident, the average voter- is this even a contest? How could she not see she's shooting herself in the foot?

Perhaps this is why Obama appeared to be more angry than I've ever seen him before, in his response to Hillary's attacks. Oh, he wasn't frothing at the mouth, like some sort of John McCain. His anger is certainly understated, but also fully present. You can say a lot of things about Obama. But to accuse him of being "out of touch" with the poor and downtrodden is simply too ludicrous a proposition.

Feeling Useless for Obama

Today was the Legislative District Caucuses, the caucuses after the Precinct Caucuses, before the Congressional District Caucuses, before the State Caucus, before the National Caucus. I was an Alternate Delegate, which means basically if any true Delegate gets sick or dies (or doesn't show up), I'm on. It's like being the backup in a duel.

Our district was one of the top two in delegate count in the city, and the 2,500 delegates and alternates filled up Ballard High School Gymnasium. We were asked to show up as early as possible, since there were so many to credential, and the line wrapped around the block like an opportunity for Dead tickets. Then we finally entered the school, and the line ran into the cafeteria, and wrapped around the cafeteria. Then we finally left the cafeteria, and the line ran up the stairs, down the hall, a right turn, and down another hall.

Credentialing was a quick process, and after we went to sit on the hard benches designed for kids who's backs still work. We were given red stickers or green stickers. Green meant that we were an Alternate- lower caste. Red meant we were an actual Delegate, one of the cool kids that everyone liked.

At the beginning was a standing for the pledge of allegiance, and I stood out of respect, without pledging, as has been the practice throughout my life. Disbursed throughout the long proceedings were a number of speeches- including an introduction by Mayor Nichols, who I previously saw endorse Obama at the Rally of 20,000. We were also treated to a speech by Congressman McDermott, the Very Liberal congressman who is one of twenty who supports equal rights in the Middle East and justice for Arabs, and who I had the pleasure of thanking in person at the Precinct Caucuses.

Honestly, this wasn't nearly as fun as the Precinct Caucuses. I think in large part because it was less intimate, less relaxed, less democratic. The chair of the session had a hard task in front of her, dealing with 2,500 people, but she seemed focused on playing everything by the book and getting through the events one after the other with a minimum of fuss. Yes, it was hard to hear anything in that auditorium if people had other conversations, but she was a bit militant in insisting on her way.

There were a number of times of seating of delegates. As an alternate, we were told we could vote on issues, but that turned out to be untrue. As an alternate, we could do nothing- but sit and wait and hope that delegates from our precinct didn't show up. If there weren't enough delegates or alternates from a precinct, then that candidate, Obama or Clinton, would lose delegates. That's why we were important. And so we would wait.

A few times in the session they would call out names, and I sat there on tenterhooks, hoping and hoping to hear my name, like I was back at a high school debate tournament hoping to hear I'd won the tournament. I had the same trepidation and pounding heart. If picked, we would go into the adjoining room, and change out stickers and move up the ranks.

My precinct delegates sucked. They all showed up, and I wasn't needed. It was like not being chosen for dodgeball. A friend from church got to move up, but I did not. I just sat there while all the cool kids made fun of us. (Not really, but the thought came to mind.)

There were three speeches each for the two primary candidates, the first by Samwise Gamgee. I'm not lying. Sean Astin was there to share about how much he supported Clinton, though he spent the beginning of his speech talking about how much he'd support Obama if Obama's the nominee.

Here's a bit of his speech. This part was interesting.
The cynic might say that Astin's use of Obama's middle name, done by other Clinton supporters, was a way of reminding people that Obama has Arabic and Muslim names like the presumed enemy of America. The way he said it, he might however have been celebrating the international nature of Obama's name. It would be easier for me to believe this if other Clinton supporters hadn't played the game of using Obama's middle name. But you be the judge.

After all those speeches and credentialing, or somewhere in between, we had the voting of the issues. Alternates could participate in the voice vote, but if a voice vote was unclear, they switched to vote by blue cards, given only to Delegates. I voted against the overall charter of beliefs, for it supported the troops, abortion, and a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. Indeed, as they read the charter, there was this odd little bit of stopping in the middle to stand up and applaud uproariously all veterans and families of soldiers present.

Mostly, I felt useless. But there was one bit where I got to participate. Anyone could give one of the three pro or anti speeches for the six different resolutions. I found the resolution against suspending the writ of habeas corpus enticing, but wasn't able to get in the line quick enough. After that I learned to stand in the line early, and so was first in line for the similar resolution against the usurpation of congressional authority by President.

I had a minute to speak, so I shared about how since his time under Nixon Cheney had been working with others on the Unitary Presidential Theory, a strange idea that the President can basically do whatever he wants. I spoke of how signing statements (in which a President does not veto but rather signs a bill, but with a statement stating how it should be interpreted, often to the point of completely denying the point of the bill) were signed by previous Presidents, but George Bush has signed more than all previous Presidents combined. I mentioned that I'd lived in Morocco, and often told people there I appreciated the king, Hassan Tainy, more than the king from my own country. For George Bush operates as a king, and I am ashamed of this country, where I now see little difference between us and the worst dictatorships, where one man makes any decision he wants. I suggested that, to return this country to what the constitution intended, we should support this resolution.

I am not comfortable with unscripted speeches, and it was stressful to speak with 2,500 people staring down at you from the bleachers. By the end of my minute I quickly completed as my heart was thumping and my leg shaking. But I did get some roars of approval.

The final resolution was the most boring one. Do we support publicly funded elections in Seattle or not? We voted, and the chairman felt it was a tie, and therefore the resolution was declined. But some objected, so we voted with the blue cards. The chairman felt it was declined again. But some objected, requesting a line vote. This meant a thirty minute process in which every blue card was individually counted. It was about this time that the final delegates were seated, and I decided to leave. We ended up with 52 delegates to 15 Clinton delegates. With movement from the one Edwards delegate and the one Kucinich delegate and the 15 undecided delegates at the precinct level, we went from 1016 to 1038 Precinct Delegates, or from 51 to 52 Legislative Delegates. Due to some no-shows in certain precincts, Clinton lost some delegates in the 36th Legislative District (going from 319 to 286 Precinct Delegates). At the Congressional District Caucuses they'll determine how the nine delegates of the 9th Congressional District will be allotted to the State and National Conventions.

The Dark Night of the Political Soul

And so it begins: the long dark night. Six bloody weeks until the next primary. How fitting that the first half of the season should end with such an ironic twist: Mississippi.

Ironic, you say? Didn't Mississippi vote for Obama, just like most Southern states? Didn't he just win another Southern primary? Yes. But consider the far more interesting polls from Mississippi:

1. More Obama supporters said they would be happy with Clinton than Clinton supporters happy with Obama.
2. Independents and Republicans lean more towards Clinton than towards Obama.
3. Obama's lead among women is greater than his lead among men.

I kept on thinking someone had accidently transposed the candidates. In nearly every case in Mississippi, polling and exit-polling bucked the national and state-by-state trends in preference polls on these two candidates. What's going on in Mississippi?

That's what I'll be contemplating during this dry spell, as I go to nurse my sorrow over the lack of significant sporting events for the next six weeks...

Obama, the First Female President

I've been considering this after conversation with a friend at his blog. There was a great deal made 15 years ago about how Bill Clinton was the First Black President. He just seemed to fit in so well with African-Americans, they were by and large happy to claim him as one of their own. Bill Clinton did a great deal for the African-American community, and he is still remembered by them fondly. Indeed, until Bill introduced race into the Presidential race in S. Carolina, it was widely considered a dangerous situation for Obama, for it was feared that he wouldn't be able for him to get a significant portion of the African-American vote.

Now, here's a thought. Part of the attraction of having a woman in the highest office in the land, for me and others, is that a woman bring something to the office that a man doesn't. This isn't to say that all women think one way, and all men another. But we can say salvo reverentia, without outraging reverence, that there are some general trends. This is perhaps principally so in the approach towards conflict, and resolving conflict. It would seem that men tend to like conflict more, to want the adrenaline of the big fight, and women tend to value the relationship more, trying to find a way to work together. And after so many years of having men ruling the roost and doing conflict their way, some of us think that maybe it would be helpful to have a woman's approach this next time around.

Then along comes Hillary, the exception that proofs the rule. For time and time again in this campaign, she has gone for the jugular against Obama. She has insisted on being contentious, using the politics of fear in the Red Phone Ad, and now repeatedly comparing herself positively to McCain, so as to show Obama negatively. Sadly, this is nothing new. Eight years in the Whitehouse showed us the experience of both Clintons to be one of the most contentious periods in American politics. Certainly this isn't all do to Hillary. The Republicans have the lion's share of the blame during that time, and Bill has a healthy does of it too. But Hillary's experience in the Senate seems to have continued this trend, where she seems either unwilling or unable to resolve the divide between her and the Republicans. To be fair to her, she may perhaps not know how. So let us be honest. Obviously there's no denying that she's biologically feminine, but what is there about her approach to politics that makes me feel that I am electing a female President by voting for her? Other then breaking the ultimate glass ceiling, I see little in her that makes me feel the value in having a woman as President.

And yet, Obama seems to be the one who actually can fulfill George II's old promises, never kept. Obama's record in Illinois and the US Senate have been very clear that he is a uniter, and not a divider. He is so eager to negotiate and work with others, that some like Hillary accuse him of being unable to lead and deal with foreign governments because he's not antagonistic enough. Obama has repeatedly passed on possible openings for attack on Clinton, and instead rebuked members of his team who degrade Clinton. For Obama, its always about the high road and relationship.

And then it dawned on me- why we like Obama. His approach to conflict is decidedly classically feminine. He cares about the relationships, and he wants to resolve conflicts through mutual dialogue.

First Black President's already taken. Vote for Obama: Our First Female President.

How to be Racist and Run for President

Hillary and Obama had another debate tonight. There was a moment that was shocking. One of the moderators brought up Farrakhan's recent support of Obama, and asked for Obama's response. Obama didn't give the best response in the world, but he said that he doesn't deny anyone the right to support him, while clearly repudiating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic anti-Jewish beliefs. Then he unfortunately went on to mention how much he continues to support Israel.

I've said before, I was okay on Hillary, until she went Islamophobic and anti-Semitic in her first New York Senatorial campaign. I liked Obama a lot more, until he also went biased towards Israel- though not as much as others. Which still makes him more attractive than Hillary to me.

But I was shocked at Hillary's response. It was not only a repetition of her basic Islamophobic bias, but she acted like she was proud of it! She used it as a reason to actually vote for her! God preserve us if she ever gained some real power.

She reminded us how she had rejected a pro-Arab groups' support in New York, as if that were a good thing. I remember this moment in the NY campaign well. It was the moment when I decided I'd never support her for President. It wasn't an anti-Jewish group; it was an Arab group saying America should not support Israel; it was anti-Israeli. Hillary responded by apologizing for previously greeting the former Palestinian first lady in the traditional Arab manner. It was blatant anti-Semitic Islamophobia. But now she pretends that she was standing up against anti-Jewishness, and criticized Obama for not doing so. Yet she didn't even have the chutzpa to admit she was criticizing Obama.

Yes, Obama should reject Farrakhan's anti-Semitic anti-Jewish beliefs. But Obama needs to walk the tight-rope of also affirming Muslims, and continue to affirm that he will no longer practice the historic isolationist American bias for Israel only, but be an honest broker, treating Arabs and Israelis equally, and pursuing justice to end the Palestinian apartheid. His support in America comes in part because of his strong international support, particularly in the Arab world- and that will continue only as long as he is perceived to be an honest and just broker.

Being anti-Israeli is not the same as being anti-Jewish; being Muslim is not the same as being anti-Jewish; and we need to remember, that for all of Farrakhan's mistakes and anti-Semitism, he also has positive aspects too. For those reasons, his support shouldn't be rejected anymore than a pro-Zionist group's support should be rejected. The answer and even the question frankly smacked too much of the feeling that anything associated with Islam (particularly those dastardly Black Muslims) is inherently suspicious.

Let us move beyond the historic Islamophobic attitude of American culture and press. Why can't we say, "I want to be your President, and I reject some things this guy Farrakhan says, and I affirm other things he stands for. I reject Zionism, but support those who want a place for Israel to exist safely. And I affirm that not only are Christianity and Judaism reasonable religions, but so is Islam, and there is no reason at all that we should flee from even the image of it, just because of our own racism because of the actions of a minority of terrorists." (Most terrorists in US history were white males, not Arabs. I am a member of a very dangerous minority that should be profiled every time I enter the airport.)

Both candidates screwed up this question. Hillary did it worse, because she repeated her historic racism, and tried to spin that as a positive. At least we can count on Obama's past family history with Muslims to indicate that he will be more equitable and just than other candidates, and past Presidents.

Clinton's Dirty Tricks Campaign

Let's recap. Hillary accuses Obama of being in bed with a slumlord, and it turns out that he contributed to the Clintons as well. Bill falsely accuses Obama's unending non-support of the Iraq War as a fairy tale. Worst, he falsly claims that Obama brought race into the race (Presidential), something Obama would be incredibly stupid to do since the majority of Americans are white, and something Obama didn't do. But in a brilliant political move, the Clintons made the allegation, and it stuck (at least in the public), so immediately and forcefully Obama started rising in polls of African-Americans and dropping among Whites. This despite Obama's strong determination to run as the Democratic candidate, and not as the Black Candidate. By making the accusation of bringing race in, Clinton was actually able to bring race in. They probably realized that this would help Obama win South Carolina, but lose most states in the primaries. Then, today and yesterday, Hillary steps back and says we've gone too far, and lets start being more civil to each other.

There were a couple states recently who got no delegates, for they disobeyed DNC rules, which after all is the head of the Democratic organization. Hillary won Michigan because she was the only one on the ballot (but only by 55%)- a state with a large number of African-Americans, if we're going to bring race into it. A state that would have been great for Obama, next door to his home of Illinois, a place (Michigan) where some have heard of Obama even before he entered fame a couple years ago. But he and everyone else didn't campaign there, or in Florida, because the two states violated their party's rules, and the DNC, which all candidates need, asked the candidates not to campaign there.

Should Iowa and New Hampshire always get to go first? No. Should other states begin to go first too? Yes. Should Michigan and Florida's DNCs follow the national DNC? Yes. Should they suffer for not obeying HQ? Yes. Should the DNC have done something more like the RNC in stripping only half the delegates, and been more balanced in the punishment? Yes. But once the decision is made, it's made.

But, now, four days before the Florida primary, Hillary is stating that Florida's delegates get seated at the convention. Again, brilliant politically; disgusting ethically. She has violated her pledge to not campaign in Florida. She is clearly doing campaigning there. Stating that she is not physically in Florida when she makes this statement is a lie not worthy of the Internet Age. Now, with no time to campaign in Florida, Obama's campaign suffers, for Floridians will be enraptured by Hillary's commitment. Obama can't campaign there even if he had the time, because he also made a pledge, and he's an ethical candidate. And he is hamstrung in pointing all of this out because Clinton just seemingly extended an olive branch between the campaigns. Allegations on Obama's part makes him look the bad guy.

Consistently, polls show Clinton over everyone else in Michigan and Florida, and almost every state, because she gets name recognition. Where Obama actually campaigns, he starts to win or come in a close second. By DNC rules, the candidate with the most delegates gets to decide who's seated. Doesn't matter if they have the magic number of 2025 delegates- if they have the majority, they get to decide who's seated. Of course, on name recognition and being the only one on the ballot (in Michigan), Clinton will get the lion's share of Florida and Michigan.

The DNC won't punish it's standard bearer (Bill) for his statements, or the possible nominee for her statements. So Obama loses delegates for Michigan and Florida, Hillary gets the bump from a symbolic win in both states, and then comes into the convention without the 2025 delegates but close to it- and insists on seating the delegates of both states, based on how they voted. Ironically, the citizens of both states are disenfranchised, for they didn't get to really know the candidates because there was no campaign there, and so only know Hillary from name recognition.

If Hillary wins this way, she loses my vote in the General.

----------------------------------------------------------

Jan 27th Update:

Hillary is now campaigning openly in Florida, visiting the state two days before the primary to do "private" fund raisers, and getting off the plane with palm trees in the background to tell the press that it's "great to be in Florida". At least she's now being honest in her lack of integrity.

With Great Sadness

Well, this has not been a good day for our team. Obama didn't win the New Hampshire Bowl. But only by the slimmest of margins.

Sadly, no one's noticing that this is actually a big win for Obama. Hillary won by only less than 3%, resulting in a tie in delegate counts. This is a smaller difference delegate-wise and percentage-wise than Iowa, giving Obama more (non-super) delegates than Hillary currently. Plus, minus post-Iowa predictions, Obama did great, and came in where he was expected.

Pundits will be discussing for days how it is that the polls diverged from what happened. And truthfully, this is the reason for the great disappointment we now feel, for we had all of our expectations placed so high by those polls.

As for why, I think it was a variety of reasons. It's sexist, but I think that we, men and women, don't like to see a woman cry. Especially if there's something we can do about it. As one commentator said, we don't want to fire her (from a possible Presidency). When she expressed emotion the day before the primary (and I don't think that was false- I think it was genuine emotion, though perhaps a calculation to express it), voters realized she had emotions, and they didn't want her to cry. It seems a number connected with Clinton at that moment as a real human being, and as a woman. (Ironically, the woman who prompted the tears with her question- she ended up voting for Obama.)

Consider the opposite. (It's great when we have a control for a hypothesis!) Allegations were made against Presidential candidate Edmund Muskie and his wife, and he gave a speech defending her just before the New Hampshire primary in 1972. (It turned out after the election that the allegations were part of Nixon's "Dirty Tricks" campaign.) During the speech it appeared as if Muskie was crying, though he claimed it was snow melting on his face. Because of that event, he won New Hampshire, but by a smaller margin than originally predicted. Previously he was leading in the polls; after that, he fell behind and McGovern gained the momentum and eventually the nomination.

A man crying is bad (to voters), and they won't vote for him. A woman crying is a bad thing, and we (voters believe) have to step in to help her stop.

I think a second big reason New Hampshirans supported Hillary, from interviews with voters after the fact, is that some, especially women, liked all the candidates equally. When it came down to it, they thought, "Well, I should then vote for a woman."

Note that, though I think the wrong candidate won, I think both of these reasons are very legitimate reasons for voting.

Lastly, I believe that because all of the press indicated a big win for Obama, Independents thought, "Well, I don't need to vote for Obama then, and I like McCain too," and they went over for McCain.

A hard thing is Obama's increase in polls in S Carolina was from the Iowa bump, and the culinary union in Nevada was going to support him based on his winning New Hampshire. At least in the last few minutes the union has come out in support of him anyway- and they're the largest union and most organized Democratic organization in the state. Nevada's been overlooked, but it's key to showing that a candidate has strength in the West, particularly all-important California. Florida's an Exhibition Game, and let's face it, Hillary's kind of got New York locked. Nevada and S. Carolina, I'd imagine, as a mix will indicate strength in Texas, the last of the four big states.

So, tonight is a sad night for Obama fans. But there is still hope. After all, we've got Obama, and he has a whole lot of baraka.