Polikicks - Original Political Analysis

If you will it, it is no dream

noreply@blogger.com (POLIKICKS) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:32:00 +0000

After being deeply disappointed by John the Toast McCain decision to select Palin and by their divisive campaign in which they followed Hillary's steps no less than they followed Rove's, and after alarming weeks in which the polls were too close to call and those that were not were discounted for a feared Bradley effect - after all these America proved that despite all the ugliness, negativity, and pushing the bar to the lowest common denominator, the positive forces of the new generation overcame it all with a historic decision that outshines every dark spot in our history. Perhaps America's common denominator is not that low after all.

In a short while the next African American President will be sworn on the steps of our national capital that was build by the blood and sweat of slaves. By the virtue of his election President elect Obama absolves the conscious of white America and unshackles the spiritual bondage of black America. Barack had moved the flagpole high and proclaimed to everyone, no matter where they came from, that they can. His call for personal responsibility and family values merged with the promise that everyone can succeed, tells all the weak and disenfranchised that change starts from the bottom, one must take responsibility into their own hands, not blaming anyone else.

It is not much different than Theodor Herzl's 18th century Zionist call "If you will it, it is no dream", which parallels Obama's "Yes you can". This phrase of hope moved Jews out of the bondage of a 2000 years diaspora among hostile gentiles and ended with the creation of the state of Israel. Once Jews realized that they have a responsibility to take matters into their own hands, the message of hope was stronger than the religious belief to wait for the messiah to bring them back to the promised land. In our times, Obama's personal responsibility, bottom-up change and hope combine to close the door on the mental shackles of slavery and finally liberate black America.

Obama who is familiar with the divisive militant spirit of the black Louis Farrakhan as well as the divisive militant white William Aires decided to take an entirely different approach and break from the past by conducting a decisively different type of campaign. He moved away from a militant spirited campaign, from taking advantage of old grievances, from leveraging vengeance, and from the mud slinging that tainted American Presidential politics right from the moment John Adams ran for office. This fresh air approach breaks yet another shackle of the past.

With hopes and expectations set so high, instinct and history warn us that the disappointment might loom larger. Yet the current economic crisis and the upcoming exacerbated recession courtesy of expected miserable holiday sales will give Obama an unprecedented opportunity to succeed. The mere aversion of an economic downfall and return to a stable economy would be considered success. By all signs Obama intends to do much more. For the sake of the US and the world, let's hope he succeeds.

Time for a break

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:40:00 +0000

We got a presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, we got one for the Libertarian Party. We finally got one for the Democratic Party (will someone tell Hillary?) There is no better time for this blog to take a break.

If you want to know when we are coming back, subscribe to receive email updates from this blog (no, we don't spam or sell email addresses).

Watch signs that Hillary does not really concede

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:23:00 +0000

By now everyone is well trained on Hillary's careful choice of words. On her non-concession speech on the night that was supposed to be Obama's she congratulated him for "his run", not for his victory. Now her campaign tells us that she will give a concession speech this Friday or Saturday. So what to watch for in her speech? What warning signs will tell us that she does not really concede?

The first sign, of course, is avoidance of the words "he won". Those hurtful words she could not bring herself to utter in the basement two floors below ground level of the Baruch College in Manhattan. Talk about bunker mentality.

Hillary may actually bring herself, perhaps after drinking some beer she saved from that Pennsylvania bar, to say that Obama won. Will she add that it was fair and square, say nothing about it, or find some scapegoat to tie to his win (Michigan, Florida, the media?) If it were not Hillary I could not have thought of that option, but with her you never know.

But even if she concedes gracefully in her speech, even if she urges her supporters to support Obama, even if she make the case to her supporters that Obama is tenfold better than McCain, it is her actions that would tell us if she stands by these words. Will she tell her super delegates to endorse Obama? Will she tell her supporters not to put her name in nomination at the convention? Will she campaign vigorously in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and tell her supporters that Obama "is one of us"?

Hillary has created such a reputation for herself that we just can't trust her words. In her case, actions or lack of them will tell us more.

The five things Hillary want

noreply@blogger.com (POLIKICKS) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:53:00 +0000

Let's go to the core question, the one Hillary herself raised in her non-concession speech on June 3 at Baruch College. Her exact quote was "What does Hillary want? What does she want?"

So while many try to analyze what she really want, why not taking her on her own word and looking at how she answered that question?

Here is the list of things she offered in response (exact quote from the released speech text):

"Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq.
I want to turn this economy around.
I want health care for every American.
I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential.
And I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible."

This is a pretty simple list. If one is a non-Hillary Democrat one might distrust this list and look for an hidden agenda. But such a voter should be happy with the Obama win and not be a problem unless Hillary becomes a running mate. It is the Hillary supporters that are of major concern to the Obama people. How to appease them?

Clearly, some would be so extreme and beyond appeasement. But some would be honest and should be satisfied by Obama accepting the short list of five requests. Those things that Hillary "really wants". Fortunately, all of them are in Obama's agenda.

So the challenge to Hillary's supporter is this: Are you for a honest candidate that just wants this five demands, those five requests that Obama is willing to accept, or are you for a dishonest candidate who actually says that she wants these five public-service honorable things but actually want something else speakable only behind closed doors?

If I were Obama, my next speech would be accepting these five things, quoting her verbatim, stating that Hillary had plenty opportunity to ask to be a VP but instead she took the honorable path of asking these five things on behalf of her voters, and that he, Obama, honors her wishes and the 18 million voters and will commit to these five requests. Quite easy. I would praise her for not asking anything for herself and freeing him to do his own choosing. Thank you Hillary for doing the honorable thing and going home.

Hillary Clingon and the the Enterprise

noreply@blogger.com (Hugh More) — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:47:00 +0000

Even though I have little interest in science fiction, let alone Star Trek, I heard of the Klingons. When Hillary seemed to cling on to the race beyond reality I had to find out what the Klingons are all about and if they are in any way related to the Clintons. From Wikipedia: "Klingons are a warrior race in the fictional Star Trek universe. They were recurring antagonists in Star Trek: The Original Series".

Just race forward (or backward - check your time machine settings) to 2008 where the Clintons appear (again) as a warrior race in the non-fictional Democratic Primary universe. They were recurring Republican antagonists in 1993 and 1997 and are fighting the Obamas in 2008 to lead their own universe as the super antagonists to the McCains.

While it is not clear that the Clintons are related to the Klingons, they do exhibit extraordinary clinging on characteristics as well as never-ending fighting drives. They appear quite human but seem to behave and perhaps feel as if they are above them. They claim that they have the right to rule over them, know what is better for them, what others want and need, and see themselves as morally superior.

The Clintons are plagued by technical difficulties. Their time machine has a major malfunction leading to their continuous engaging in recreating history and possible futures, all depending on their audiences. As a result of their habitual distortion of realities observers are no longer sure that the Clintons themselves have full awareness of reality, an infliction which they spread around to their vast following. They also suffer from a very inefficient and slow acting teleportation device which consumes large amounts of energy and may explain its infrequent use. The only known travel routes were from Arkansas to Cambridge in the UK at the time of the great Vietnam war, and then from Arkansas to New York where the Clintons claimed residency in a successful attempt by Hillary Clinton to create a beachhead in Washington.

The Clintons seem to need constant attention and strive to become the focus of the media. They constantly spread rumors that they are discriminated against, treated badly, suffer from unfair handling by every conceivable group and are subject to numerous conspiracies. These claims seem to backfire with the educated elites, but works quite well with the disgruntled majority on their planet.

It is extremely difficult to fight the Clintons for they have mastered the art of argumentation and are very skillful in exhibiting empathy to their impoverished audiences despite having amassed over $100 million over the last several years from undisclosed sources. Pundits have debated for years the existence of a secret philosophy or motto behind the Clintons drive to supremacy. Some claim they appropriated "to infinity and beyond" from another Galaxy while others argue that their wealth points to "live long and prosper". However, more modern pundits think that their infinite fighting abilities suggest that their motto is "resistance is futile". Whatever is the case, it is clear that the Clintons are out of this world.

Dear Senator Baroque O'bama

noreply@blogger.com (Hugh More) — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:55:00 +0000

Dear Senator Baroque O'bama,

I am writing to you because Joe at the Finley's bar said I should get it off my chest. I was thinking to talk to Father O'Malley but he always talks about forgiveness and sin and he just makes me feel guilty. I just can't vote for you because you want change and I want to go back to the good old days just like Hillary said.

After the factory closed and all the jobs went away and after Walmart came and the small stores closed there is not much to do here except going to the church, to good old Finley's and some odds and ends that needs fixin. I was always good at fixin things at the factory so I get by and bring home what's left after Joe gives me the break at Finley's. That keeps the woman happy like it should be. Anyway, I never thought I would be saying that, but I am going to vote for that tough woman who was with Clinton may he rest in peace. He was a good Democrat President and she was just besides him unless he locked her in the attic like I do when my woman gets on my nerves. But I trust Hillary because she was his woman and she drank beer like we do and she goes to church like I should if I was not annoyed with Father O'Malley. If she can drink beer like us she can take these commies in Iran that we are fighting in Baghdad.

But you Baroque, I can't see taking on our enemies. You are tall enough but you are too thin and a bit too tanned for my taste. Me, I just get red in the sun or at Finley's which is where I saw you on TV trying to bowl and got us all laughing for ten minutes. This ball is just too heavy for you. You are built just like Father Omaley who can talk fear in my heart but can't fix a thing in the church. Joe said your name says that you are part Irish but Joe is from Vermont so I can't trust this Canadian. I heard Hillary say that you are not able to pick up the phone at 3 in the morning because you go to this church with that anti-American commie pastor who curses us all. You should not have selected him to be vice President. Big mistake. No way. I like McCain, he served in Vietnam like my uncle who got crazy when he returned from there. But McCain is not crazy. I saw his wife on TV. Anyone who married such a patriotic model cannot be crazy.

As I said, you make me uneasy. All this change that you talk about. You see, I don't like change. Before all the change happened I was working at the factory. Then they moved it to China. Bad change. Then Walmart came. That was good until the stores closed. Very bad change. Now you want more change. I like Hillary. She will not bring any more change. Maybe even take us back. Your change and those kids who follow you - I saw them on TV. All with those music machine and phones with those small headphones that they sneak into them ears. I don't know what you transmit into their brains but I don't like these thin kids who don't even talk right English like we do here.

No sirree, I cannot vote for you. Your change scares me. I want to go back to the good old days where the Chinese were commies and enemies and did not take our jobs. I want the glory days when everybody knew them place and what jobs are appropriate for man and which are for women and what's good for foreigners. That world order, the traditions we like as it was written in the Bible. These things that made sure I had a job and respect and made us win all the wars. Because of the media we are still in Iraq fighting those Sueites and Shinies. I heard Dubya saying that we are winning but the media makes it sound like we are not. The same media that is conspiring against Hillary who already won the general election which I voted in April. I couldn't vote for you O'bama, you look like those anchors on TV and speak the same weird language and talk about change and never supported me like Hillary and Bill did. I heard them say they support me and are against NAFTA which Joe said is those guys who ship out jobs to China.

I know if I went to confession and told Father O'Malley all this he would start correcting me and tell me to come to Church more often. So I think Joe was smart to say that I send you this letter instead so that you forgive me that I didn't vote for you and instead voted for Hillary in April. My Sally will be happy too that I sent you this letter. That should count for something. I am going to tell her as soon as she comes back from Church.

Dear Voter, Help Me. Yours, Hillary

noreply@blogger.com (Hugh More) — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:00 +0000

Dear voter. This campaign has been totally unfair but I am not going to give up, never, ever, not today, not tomorrow, not until June 3rd, and not later. I am doing it all for you, not for me, because you need someone to fight for you. Yes, you! I am taking to you. The game has been rigged against me and you. We are in it together. Against the powerful and the rich. You and me.

Just look at my odds. Bill took my black constituents, those votes that where rightly mine. Then Obama stole away my college-educated voters. That's OK, what do they know. Then the young and restless succumbed to the cult of change and follow Barack as if what I did in Washington was not exclusively for their future. Then Geraldine Ferraro, sweetie Geraldine, scared away some men, and then Rachel Maddow undermined Geraldine's argument that I am a victim of misogyny. Isn't it obvious that I am both a victim of misogyny and the meshugeneh? Of course I am discriminated against. How else could I be behind a race that by right and tenure should be mine? What plausible explanation could there be for me to be where I am when I started so high in the polls before the race began? Clearly, that black guy had everything going for him.

Yes, this is totally unfair. I have been accommodating you and your fellow voters in any possible way and that is how you repay me? I was willing to change my message, mold my campaign, offer new promises -- all in the heroic attempt to address your conflicting needs. All, to no avail. As if you didn't get a fair warning about my intention to run. Yes you did. But with total disrespect to my plans you and your fellow voters in different states insisted on having uncoordinated needs forcing me to offer sometimes conflicting promises. Do you have no shame? Don't you realize the length of time I have been waiting in the shadows of Bill, suffering humiliating episodes one after another just so that I could have a chance to come back to the White House and finally clean that carpet?

What have I not done? Is there anything more you could ask me to do? I drank cheep beer in a Pennsylvania bar and pretended to like it. I had shots of Whiskey in the next bar and had to smile as if this is something I do every day after I come back from work. Not only that, just consider the humiliation of having to invite the TV press crew in advance so that they could capture this spontaneous disgrace in front of the world. Doesn't that deserve your vote even if you live far away from Pennsylvania? Do you really expect me to go on a bar tour in every town in the country? If I did, how could I be ready on day one? If this is not a clear case of misogyny then I don't know what misogyny is.

What did Obama had to do for all these unfair votes that he got in those states that do not matter? Go on a lousy bowling lane? Can you compare the two? He had to roll a ball while I had to intoxicate myself. This entire campaign has been unfair right from the start. He comes in like the new kid on the block without all the history of past votes or positions while I had to carry the bag of years of conflicting promises. Don't you realize how harder it becomes to craft ambivalent messages? Then he had the chutzpah to admit that he erred while I stood fast by my decision to vote for the war. Who gives him the right to admit mistakes? How dare he throw away years of political traditions and try to change things? The rules should apply to him as they do for me.

And the worst thing is this elitist streak in this guy. I worked hard at Yale way before he had his easy time at the elitist Harvard school. I had to earn all the money my husband made while he played basketball in poor neighborhoods supposedly organizing them. Is that even real work? What an elitist!

But even worse is his pretending that he is black. He is half at best, and besides Bill is the first black President and I am his better half, so I am more black than Obama is.

So now, before everything is lost I need you to fight for me as much as I did for you. Come on, visit my web site, donate as much as you can, and help me out of my debt. Remember, if you don't help me win, McCain will win, and you and I together will have to wait until 2012. I really don't want to tell you that I told you so.

Yours, only yours,
Hillary

Obama, McCain and What's Good for Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Per Spective) — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:38:00 +0000

In a Sunday, May 18th NY Times op-ed article that seem to be specifically written to Jewish Americans, Thomas Friedman wrote that "America today has — rightly — a bipartisan approach to Arab-Israeli peace that is not going to change no matter who becomes our next president." The article tries to counter an ongoing smear campaign against Obama that he secretly harbors anti-Israeli agenda.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories and secret agendas so I discard such claims quite easily. Top that with Friedman's convincing explanation on how American Presidents and American Jews first priority is and should be America, and the questions and doubts are easily put to rest. But there is an angle to the question of a President that is "good for Israel" that is not fully addressed by Thomas Friedman.

That question is "what is good for Israel". Since Israelis themselves have yet to come with a good political answer to that question, American Jews don't have a clear criteria to judge what is good for Israel, let alone who is good for Israel.

The Israeli Knesset is divided among what they call "right" and "left" parties with the leadership floating from one group to the other every few years. These right and left groups have diametrically opposed positions and freely accuse each other policies as "endangering" the country. When Israelis are unable to determine what is good for Israel, how could American Jews know what is good for Israel? The simple answer is that they don't. The few American Jews who follow Israeli politics closely follow suit and choose one of the diametrically opposed views. The silent majority of American Jews are satisfied with the general statement that politicians are eager to express - that they support Israel, whatever that means.

In truth, all candidates freely offer the general supportive statements because these are well within the interests of America. The survival of the Jewish state in a sea of hostile neighborhood is a staple of American policy regardless of party affiliation or specific President. Moreover, Presidents do not work in a vacuum - Congress is a major player in the support of Israel, again, whatever that may mean.

The vagueness of what is good for Israel is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. While I am not sure what is good for Israel, I do know that the spread of these theories is not good for American Jews. These conspiracy theories are of the very same type that historically turned against the Jews. Furthermore, they force candidates to overly repeat unnecessary statements in support of Israel and in doing so perpetuate a false perception that support of Israel is an interest of a small group rather than the general interest of the United States. That, can't possibly be good for Israel.

Hillary's Political Skill or Inability to Decide

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:02:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton vouches to continue until the last primary. However, it is not beyond belief that she will continue well into the convention running an insurgent, disinterested or Obama-supporting campaign.With Hillary you just can't tell. But given the realities, especially after Edwards endorsed Obama, are Hillary's actions or lack thereof telling us something about her Presidency should she somehow be elected?

While most pundits speculate about her motives, the reality is that she discounts all the parameters that counts. The total delegate count, the Obama superdelegate advantage, Obama's insurmountable money advantage, Edward's endorsement, and the damage to the party -- all these do not seem to matter to her. Indecision, the pundits tell us, keep her options open.

But there is another possibility. It is that in face of uncomfortable realities Hillary is simply incapable of making the hard decision to concede. The politician who kept pounding us with her messages that she is ready from 3am on day one to make the hard decisions, seem paralyzed and unable to make the hard decision. She marches on as if facts do not matter. Has she become like a shark who cannot stop swimming lest is stop breathing? Or perhaps she is like Bush who marches on in Iraq with total disregard to realities. He hopes that history will vindicate him. Is she hoping the same?

Hillary started her campaign as the front runner. Then she ran a terrible campaign, some say it was political malpractice, that brought her to where she is now. Was she unaware of the Obama's success? She certainly was, yet it took her months before she shook up her campaign. When she finally got it working it was too little too late. What took her so long to change? Was it once again an inability to make the hard decisions on time?

If these two are any signs of what her Presidency would look like, then we may all be spared a Carter-like administration. But yet again, with Hillary you just can't tell.

Hillary three winding roads to the Presidency

noreply@blogger.com (Per Spective) — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:32:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton still has open opportunities to become President, but these require moving along roads that are narrow, winding, unsafe, and each one carries different probabilities of success. Her continued campaign moves her on a path designed to keep her options open. Two of the roads collide with Obama's plans, the third may be aligned with his. Wisely, she will not take a turn prematurely, lest it brings her to a dead end. Conceding to Obama right now, she fears, will do just that.

The first road to the White House is one with diminishing chances of success. It is her original Plan A modified to account for Obama's overwhelming lead in every metric - elected delegates, super delegates, total delegates, won states, and popular votes. The narrow road is based on the slim chance that her victories and convictions, some say delusions, may convince the superdelegates to hand her the nomination. While campaigning in West Virginia she reminded everyone that Kennedy came to the convention without a delegate majority, hint, hint. While Obama is considered the likely nominee, her West Virginia victory and expected upcoming victories may only increase her appetite and persuasion that she deserves the nomination. To ensure that she will not be branded as the election spoiler she now needs to pursue her goal without hurting Obama chances in November. Indeed it is a very narrow road but Hillary is a master in choosing words, altering her message, and playing the survival game. Still, chances are that she will have to rely on her other options.

The second road to the White House is longer, no less winding, but definitely more traitorous. It is the famous "Plan B" - to concede the nomination to Obama, give him tacit support, let him run and fail, and then run again in 2012 when the country will finally get tired of Republican administrations. Expect Hillary to use her prominent Senate seat to derail McCain's Presidency. This road is fraught with risks, and Hillary must carefully act behind the scenes in ways that would not reveal her disinterest in Obama's success or interest in derailing McCain. The Plan B road is so traitorous that while recognized by media pundits, no prominent observer adopted it as their working theory.

The last road to the White House is perhaps the longest, but it yields interesting opportunities. This Plan C is called the Dream Ticket by many Democrats who wish the two strong candidates who share similar plans will come together. From Obama's point of view, the dream ticket brings Hillary out of the Senate where she can derail his plans and into the Naval Observatory where he can better control her. For Hillary, the Vice Presidency brings the tempting opportunity to become President should anything happen to Obama, and a second opportunity to run in 2016. This succession hope may align her interests with his, and she may campaign on his behalf more vigorously than otherwise. In his last term Hillary's self interest would be to help Obama succeed so that the country would be willing to vote for another Democrat. While this road is not the shortest, if all other options fail it may turn out to be the safest.

Hillary, the ever calculating politician, wants to keep her options open. She continues campaigning and walking the path that can lead her to any of these roads. She may not yet know which road she will take, but she certainly knows which destination she wants.

All you need - 11 million Dollars and a dream

noreply@blogger.com (Hugh More) — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:15:00 +0000

There are many things I learned from Hillary Clinton. Reality was not one of them. I never believed in the "all you need is a Dollar and a dream" slogan. I had a dream, I had a buck, and I never won the lottery. But then, I was not in the game either. Was this a necessary ingredient? Nobody told me. Hillary certainly has a dream, she put about $11 million into her campaign, and it seems that she is in the game even though the drawing was completed. Since I gave up playing the lottery a while ago, I wanted to understand her endurance secret. Maybe I can get in the game as well and win something.

The chance to win a million was enough to have me spend an hour on the question of Hillary's endurance. At first I thought it was all simple math. If I, against all odds, spent a Dollar to win a million, maybe she is spending eleven million to win $11,000,000,000,000. I know oil prices are going up and I know Bill needs the money, but Chelsea seem quite modest so I don't think that explains it. Besides, she already has $100,000,000 (doesn't that look more impressive than $100 million?), so what would she do with the rest? Fund a campaign to be the UN secretary? Maybe it is not such a bad idea...

But then I realized that I need to deploy the tactics of the best crime detectives to figure out why she keeps campaigning. After all, to the Democratic party her staying is a crime. What I need to use is the process of elimination. I don't mean eliminating those states that Hillary thinks ought not to be counted, I mean those unreasonable reasons for her staying in the race. Surely one reason would survive the process of elimination and voila! I will know why Hillary continues and why I should spend a buck to buy a lottery ticket.

The first scenario to eliminate is, of course, that she is selfish, likes to be in the center of everything, shameless, elitist, hypocritical, and doesn't know how to quit. That assumption is simply outrageous and I as well as Saturday Night Live who dared to imply the same - we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

Now that I had my moment of shame I have to admit that the shame and the ensuing self reflection actually helped me clear my mind and consider the second scenario -- that Hillary wants to keep her options open should something terrible happen to Obama. I immediately went to Amazon and ordered the Democratic Party Rule Book, a ten volume masterpiece still awaiting the Nobel prize literature commission to acknowledge it, and studied it thoroughly. Sorry, but there is nothing there to say that if a nominee is suddenly unable to fulfill his duties the party should just give up and let the Republicans or delusional independents win instead. On the contrary, the delegates can change their votes and pick someone else. So Hillary can wait in the corner even if she now concedes that Obama won. This is good! The process of elimination works, there must be another reason. I like this crime detective game!

Perhaps Hillary wants to force Obama to change his plans and adopt his to hers. For example, health insurance mandate seems the be missing in his national healthcare plan. But as much as I want to believe in Hillary, that damn rule book also said that the party platform is decided later at the convention, and at that point delegates from all states and all nominees are free to push anything they like. Besides, platforms are nice on web pages but have little enforcement power on an elected President, let alone Congress. I'm afraid the search for reason for her staying without reason must continue.

Maybe she doesn't want Obama to win now. If Obama loses to McCain then she can run again in 2012. By them Obama will be a lost cause, she will be the "I told you so" candidate, McCain will wish he never won and certainly would not run again, and the country will likely vote for a change, for a change. The trouble with that hypothesis is that it brings me back to my shame -- to thinking that Hillary is selfish, self-centered, doesn't know how to quit, and uses the party and the entire political process for her own good. That thought is just shameful. I obviously need more self reflection. And a dream.

Hillary's Exit with Grace Ruse

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:18:00 +0000

The writing is on the wall, the money is gone, superdelegate advantage vanished, and Hillary is marching on. "Let her win and exit with grace" some say. Is this a good advice or just more crack for the addicted?

True, many experts look at the facts and suggest that Hillary will finally come to grips with the reality and find a graceful exit right after West Virginia. But this is a dangerous advice. Hillary is poised to do well in West Virginia, and a win, no mater how small, would only bolster her position that the tide is shifting her way. Look at what happened in Indiana. She claimed victory and gave a victory speech stating that she is going all the way to the White House. Is there any reason to believe that after winning West Virginia she would behave any different? By reason, of course, I mean a reason that Hillary would accept, something that was not there after Indiana.

A West Virginia win would be like a small shot of liqueur to an alcoholic who has not reached the first step of admitting that there is a problem. What Hillary needs is a closed door. Either a significant move of superdelegates to Obama's side or a West Virginia defeat would do the trick.

The first of these is happening at snail's pace, too slow to have the desired effect on Hillary. To some extent it is indirectly Obama's doing. Some superdelegates know that the Clintons still yield political power and take revenge on those they consider as "betraying them". Because Hillary's future role is not completely settled those revenge-fearing superdelegates prefer to pledge only after Hillary concedes. So indirectly, Obama's giving Hillary unlimited time to consider her options is contributing to the slow pace of superdelegate endorsements. There is only one way to deal with the Clintons - signaling that unless she concedes within a short period of time, he will shut the door for supporting her in any future role. She claimed to be ready to make tough decisions from 3 am on day one, let's see how she decides in seven days.

Super delegates - the time to pick sides is now.

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:23:00 +0000

The vast majority of the super delegates are elected officials. While most of the uncommitted prefer to present a measured "what is good for the party" approach they are no less concerned about their own electability in the upcoming elections. However, after North Carolina and Indiana, continuing to stay on the fence is abdicating their responsibility to the party. They should choose whichever side the prefer and end the Obama-Clinton destruction before the damage to the party it is too large to repair.

The number one priority of super delegates is to ensure that the next President is a Democrat. Prolonging the fight is no longer beneficial, especially when the writing is so clear on the wall. The longer Hillary and Obama fight, the better McCain odds are. If undecided superdelgates will make their minds less delegates will remain in the play and chances are that a choice will finally emerge. In the unlikely event that a disaster strikes that choice, superdelegates are free to change their minds. Right now, whoever is the choice should be focusing on solidifying the party, convincing those who promise to vote McCain if their candidate is not chosen, select a vice President and fund raising for the upcoming campaign in November.

The claim, coming mostly from Clinton supporters, that voters in all states should have the chance to speak is a red state herring. The reality is that primaries can continue even if a candidate concedes. The symbolic act of voting can take its place. After all, that is likely to be the Florida and Michigan compromise - some form of delegate sharing across the Obama Clinton lines. Obama can be generous in the allocation process because he can afford to. He has a clear path to victory, she has not. He has leftover funds to compete with McCain, she can't even cover her loans to her own primary campaign. He has weathered the worse month in his campaign while all she managed to do is increase her negatives and erase her Pennsylvania lead and them some.

Super delegates - the time to pick sides is now.

Hillary's Insurmountable Challenge

noreply@blogger.com (POLIKICKS) — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:57:00 +0000

Much has been said of Hillary's insurmountable challenge to gain the nomination of the Democratic party. Fuzzy math, unlikely odds, and other titles were given to her tough predicament. Her dire situation is so bad that many have already declared her campaign dead in its tracks, and others seek some deeper understanding for the reasons she goes on.

There are several number games in play. First and foremost is the delegates counts. There are still 261 uncommitted superdelegates and 131 delegates in the remaining primaries so the total grab pot is 392 delegates (assuming that from now on no major defection will occur).

Of these 392 delegates Hillary needs 329, or a staggering 84%. Obama needs less than half of these. He can split the remaining pot of state and super delegates and have a clear path to the nomination. The statement that super delegates will decide is only true if they wait to the end, and in any event if they split among the candidates Obama still wins.

The second numbers game is the money game. Spending money competing among themselves reduces the remainder pot Obama has for the general elections. Hillary, on the other hand, is in a huge deficit and hopes to repay herself the more than $11 million she loaned her campaign. Some suspect that as soon as Obama agrees to take on her campaign debt she will concede. That would only work out if there is a way for her to save face and not be seen as bought out.

Last but not least in the numbers game is the continued drive to register new voters as Democrats. Obama and to a lesser degree Hillary have been recruiting supporters in a three-to-one ratio over the Republicans. There is hope that these new voters will become a major factor in the general election. Should the primaries effectively end now, many ask, would the presumptive nominee continue with their recruitment effort with the same vigor?

Hillary's Weird Math

noreply@blogger.com (POLIKICKS) — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:57:00 +0000

Delegates math - a picture is worth a one thousand six hundred and eighty six and a half words.

Yet she continues

noreply@blogger.com (Skip Tick) — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:57:00 +0000

Hillary's thin win in Indiana and major loss in North Carolina should have clinched the nomination for Obama. Mathematically it may have, but Hillary won't concede. Is it, as some say, part of her Plan-B, is it a personality flaw, or is it the money?

These are three distinct theories. They all rise from the difficult math Clinton faces - Obama erased whatever popular vote advantage Hillary had in Pennsylvania and increased his delegate lead. With smaller number of delegates in play she faces what seem to be an insurmountable mathematical obstacle. Why is she going on?

The first theory is the Plan-b theory. It essentially states that Hillary Clinton knew a while ago that she stands little chance of winning in 2008, but if she continued to pound Obama and give a subtle nod to McCain's experience strength, then Obama will lose to McCain and then she will have another shot in 2012. It is a delicate and subtle game which she can play as long as she can deny it. At some point she will come across and support Obama, but it will be too late and too noncommittal. No proof of that theory exists and one can only assess its validity by observing her actions. Unfortunately for those who seek firm evidence for Plan-B, Hillary's mastery of the double talk, her ability to reinterpret what she said, can both support and detract from this theory.

The second theory is that while on opposite sides of the isle, Hillary shares many characteristics with GW Bush, most importantly is the inability to admit defeat. Facing ever tougher realities she would not accept them and keep moving the target poll forward. What she does is what Bush does in Iraq. She is now in another "surge" and keep hoping that minute successes like Indiana are a sign that things will turn around. Exactly like Bush she won't accept defeat. She thinks that every battle is the Alamo and the continued fighting deserves applaud. Like Bush she will fight with total disregard to the effects on her party. One does not need to dig deep to discover that Republicans face an uphill battle in the upcoming elections and that Bush is the reason for that. Hillary's continued fight may well be the equalizer Republicans need - something that would equally take the Democrats down.

And then there is the third theory promoted by Tim Russert on MSNBC. The theory states that Hillary has lent her presidential campaign $6.4 million over the past month and that she wants her money back. She is presumably fighting until Obama will offer to take on her campaign debt, which while covering other obligations will also pay her back her own money. Unlike the other theories, this one could be discovered by simple evidence that will emerge pretty soon - when updated election funding reports will come in.

Ultimately no outside expert can tell what is in Hillary's mind. The best we can do is to offer an opinion on the effects of her actions. Right now, most think that she is not helping the Democratic party.

Big Day for McCain

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:52:00 +0000

Tuesday May 6th, another big Tuesday for the Democrats is turning out to be an even bigger day for McCain. To the dismay of many Democrats, Tuesday results are not resolving which candidate will win the Democratic nomination. Rather, they will perpetuate the party infighting and convince many that neither candidate can "close the deal". This closing issue is not just a super delegate issue.

Not being able to close the deal to the extent that only one candidate stays in the race is also a bad omen for the voters. Many voters may wonder whether a candidate who cannot conclude a primary will be able to bring to successful conclusion other issues in Washington. As repulsive it may sound to Obama supporters, it opens an opportunity to McCain to position himself as a "yes, I can" candidate.

The capitulation ritual that so many loosing candidates reluctantly perform on so many election evenings -- that consession speech admitting a loss -- has a real function in politics. It allows the victor to move ahead, turn a page, and address the real challenges of the future. Hillary's inability to swallow the bitter pill does not allow the Democrats to move forward. The Democratic party is concerned to the extent that the DNC found it necessary to launch a national TV ad campaign against McCain. The DNC realizes how much McCain is gaining in popularity and are concerned that the Clinton Obama fight is pushing many independents into the McCain camp.

Early polls indicate a Clinton victory in Indiana and a smaller than expected Obama win in North Carolina. Both campaigns forecast that they will continue well into June. Without spending a single penny, the lack of closure on this Tuesday may be McCain's biggest win.

Repulsed into voting Republican

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:02:00 +0000

Hillary's continued attacks on Obama may increase her chances to derail Obama in 2008 as well as increase her rerun chances in 2012. The fear of the Democratic party super delegates that many independent voters would be disgusted with the Democratic party is not her fear. A McCain win in 2008 will still leave open her chances in 2012 (McCain is unlikely to run again) but an Obama win will shut the door to her political aspirations for many years to come. As Charles Blow wrote in his op-ed page on May 3rd, many voters may be "repulsed into voting Republican".

As it is and despite Bush failing presidency, national polls show that McCain is doing quite well against Obama and Clinton. Other more granular polls that track each state separately and allocate electors accordingly, show that McCain has a fair chance of winning in November. True, polls can change and Democrats have only now begun to attack McCain, but no one doubts that to win in November either party needs the independent voters. The Democratic party leaders (perhaps with the exception of Clinton-see Hillary's Plan B) hope to capture the middle. Their best hope was and still is Obama who registered more independents than anyone else in recorded history. These voters are the ones more likely to be repulsed by Hillary's tactics whether she gets nominated or not. By the time she is done with her repositioning Obama as unworthy for the presidency many of these independents may find McCain's maverick tell-it-as-it-is image (justifiable or not) more appealing. If her Plan-B works, what may be bad for the Democratic party may not be that bad for Hillary.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for Jeremiah Wright

noreply@blogger.com (Skip Tick) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:19:00 +0000

Jeremiah Wright may look like a God sent gift to Hillary Clinton. His outbursts enrage many Democratic voters who may have considered Obama. Now Hillary tries to grab these voters, hinting right and left that she has always been patriotic, always stood for the weak, the middle class, and whoever feels the pain of the economy. In fact, any pain. But perhaps counter intuitively, the reality is that a vote for Clinton is a vote for Wright. How come?

As David Brooks wrote in the New York Times on April 29 on "Demography is King", the real voters demographic divide is between the more educated and the less educated, those who make more and those who make less. Poll after poll, survey after survey, show that Hillary appeals to those who are less educated, and Obama does well among the more educated. It is the education factor that also accounts for the age divide - as we go down in age groups we find that education level increases. But as Hillary politically senses, her constituents is also more likely to hold old concepts about race in America and to be more fearful of the liberation rhetoric that Wright expresses.

Except that America has changed. Those old voters ideas are not reflecting reality or the future more than Wright's outdated ideas are. Both Hillary and Wright use the old Roman tactic of divide and conquer. In a sense, they are both dependent on the divisions and hatred rhetoric - one on the white side, the other on the black side. They both prey on the fears and injustices of the past, not the promise of tomorrow.

Reverend Wright is slowly loosing his liberation theology crowd because the reality of the new generation is less race segregated and more economic segregated. It is true that African Americans are disproportionately poorer, but that reality masks the fact that the root of the problem is poverty and education rather than race. That Obama is running a successful campaign for the Presidency should have been a hint to Wright that America has changed, but Wright may be too old in his ways to realize that change. Paradoxically, Wright and his Liberation Theology may actually be standing in the way of African Americans wanting an integrated race-blind society for his ideology perpetuates rather than reconciles the race divide.

Skin shades and church affiliation aside, Obama and Wright could not be further apart. This is a case where generational gaps mean more than their own education achievements because that gap represents the historical changes that happened in America and are still happening all over the country. The reality that education and economic status trump race, a reality that the younger and more educated people are, the less they carry past bigotries, a reality that allows a proud African American run for the Presidency and have a good shot at it (perhaps a better one had Wright not undermined him so much).

Obama is the candidate that symbolizes change not only for whites, but for African Americans as well. He represents pride in his heritage, but also focuses on individual achievement. He represents the believe that what unite us can bring about progress. He is the opposite of the divisiveness of Hillary and Wright. A vote for Clinton is a vote for perpetuating the divisions, for maintaining the gaps, for taking advantage of the chasm, for living in the past and doing lip service for the future. Jeremiah Wright outbursts are similarly rooted in the past, evoking and exploiting grievances and do little to reconcile and build a better future. A vote for Obama is a vote for the future. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Jeremiah Wright.

Bill Clinton vs. Reverend Wright

noreply@blogger.com (Hugh More) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:33:00 +0000

I am deeply disappointed by Obama and Clinton. They used to entertain me. Arguments were new, statements seem fresh, and the race seemed real. But now everything seems to be repeated, recycled, and getting boring very fast. I am really concerned that a celebrity sex scandal or some good gruesome murder will quickly focus the media attention elsewhere and the greatest political show on Earth will soon be over. But do not despair, for I have a great new idea to keep the media frenzy going on.

What we need is a new debate. I like Hillary's challenge to Obama to debate "Mano a Mano" - no moderators. I am not sure Hillary qualifies as Mano, but that may finally explain Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, the idea of a no-rules, no-moderators debate may have some merits. Except that by now I want more entertaining characters than Hillary or Obama.

What I want are two out-of-control characters that would fight it out. Fortunately we do have such characters. Bill Clinton loses no opportunity to undermine Hillary's stand within the African American community, and Reverend Wright loses no opportunity to undermine Obama with white American voters. They may have agenda, but these must be well kept secrets for the pundits cannot figure them out. Perhaps Bill and Jeremiah don't know it either. I just pray that whatever drives them does not stop for I have great plans for them. The greatest pulpit in the world, the greatest media extravaganza ever -- an all networks debate about all the things that mattered twenty years ago and would matter little after November.

I don't think they will resist the offer. They have been doing just that in a disorganized manner with sporadic following. Unfortunately much of the time they desired to be on TV was stolen from them by Obama and Hillary. I suggest to put a stop to all that. They could take 100% of the media coverage. Even OJ Simpson would not distract the media away from them.

Don't think of it as a one-time debate. We could easily come up with a long list of subjects for them to debate. I don't think it matters much what the list is because they wouldn't be confined by any list or rules anyway. That's part of the excitement. Let them slug it on. The more insults, the better.

I even have a contingency plan if they insist on a moderator. Jerry Springer would be perfect. He could elicit the worst in both, and that should not be too difficult.

If this does not work out, I think I am going to tune out of this primaries very quickly. I may even decide not to vote in November. They said that the voting machines had been fixed, so voting became boring too.

Clinton-Obama: Closed Races Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Per Spective) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:32:00 +0000

Hillary's win in the closed races of Pennsylvania and Ohio underscores her strength among traditional democrats. Unfortunately for Hillary, that is not how Democrats will win in November -- super delegates main concern.

An important point may have been lost with all the discussion about the meaning of the Pennsylvania primaries results. The Pennsylvania Democratic primaries, like the Ohio primaries were closed primaries, namely they were only open for registered Democrats. While they may show an Obama weakness among registered white Democrats, they also underscore his advantage among independents. For all the spinning and the media interest in maintaining the excitement of the race, the reality of Presidential races are that they are decided by the independents. This is where Hillary has a weakness and Obama has a strength. This is a reality stronger than older white voters deciding to stay home if Obama become the nominee or black voters not voting in the unlikely event that Hillary is the nominee.

Hillary's problem is that super delegates look at November, not the primary convention. What is good for the party, in their eyes, may not be good for Hillary. Being the political animals that they are, they prefer her to leave on her own rather than publicly pushing her out. Don't be surprised if more behind the scenes pressure is put on Hillary to withdraw.

The biggest argument in trying to convince Hillary to quit - with all the 25% advantage of going in to Pennsylvania, with all the Reverend Wright problems, with all the bitter small town made up scandal issues, Hillary succeeded getting just ten to twelve more delegates in Pennsylvania than Obama did and now her future challenges are more mathematically unlikely than before. "You are better off leaving after a win than leaving after a humiliating loss" might be the advice she gets. Would she listen?

Hillary Clinton's Plan B

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:12:00 +0000

Ever wondered why Hillary is going after Obama in such vicious ways even if it helps McCain? While all pundits talk about her Plan A (the hope that something happen and Obama quits or the super delegates take the victory from him), Hillary is actually working on Plan B.

Just before Pennsylvania, commentators and political operatives on all sides were debating Hillary's tenacity in the face of delegate counts. Was she unaware of the close to insurmountable math facing her? Have the ever calculating politician and her seasoned ex-President lost any sense of reality? Is it likely that she could overcome the delegate deficit at this late point in the game?

With Pennsylvania not changing the basics by any appreciable measure, one has to wonder what is Hillary's plan and why has it not made public. Surely, if she had a publicly announced plan, she could get more super delegates on her side. The simple answer is that she may have not disclosed it to anyone but her husband - it is too sinister to be publicly announced. That is Plan B.

Plan A is simple - Something bad may happen to Obama on the way to the nomination and then she would become the default candidate. Obama may stumble and say something unforgivable, something worse than Reverend Wright may come up, or the voters may go crazy and from now on vote 90% in her favor. Plan A has small likelihood of success, it is the audacity of hope, and it make sense only because Hillary is working on Plan B.

Plan B is to take down Obama so much that McCain will win. Hillary must be calculating that if Obama wins, he may well have eight years of Presidency, and then the electorate may decide to swing back to the Republican side. Too late for the impatient Hillary. However, if McCain wins, given his age it is very unlikely that he will run again in four years. After an Obama loss, Obama would be finished, and she can still take another swing. So Plan B is for Hillary to run in 2012, and for that to happen, Obama must lose to McCain.

Plan B explains why Hillary attacks Obama in ways that would cripple Obama as a Presidential candidate and help McCain's credibility. In the beginning of her campaign and during the first debates she attacked Obama's programs. His health care was not universal, his plans are incomplete, she claimed. Now she focuses on his qualifications. He is not ready. He is not qualified. He could not be trusted at 3am. He should not be your President. She went so far as to say that McCain is more ready than Obama is, and have been using the same scare tactics that the Republicans use. When you look at it from Plan B point of view, it all makes sense.

Hillary may be McCain's best friend, and McCain may be Hillary's best friend. Politics make strange bedfellows.

President Hillary Clinton Inaugural Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Hugh More) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:24:00 +0000

Ever wondered what would Hillary's inaugural Speech would look like? Reliable source from a parallel universe fast forwarded this to us and asked that you do not go supernova while reading it.

President Hillary R. Clinton Inaugural Address
January 20, 2009

President Bush, some members of the Supreme Court, distinguished guests and my fellow real American villagers. Today we celebrate the peaceful transfer of authority which is so rare in history, yet common in our country. The greatest authority on Earth passed with a simple oath. I just want to mention that I always get to speak first.

As I begin, I want to thank Senator Obama. Would you like another pillow? We will remain the closest of friends, right? No? You should be ashamed of yourself!

And I thank President Bush for offering himself and his staff members to stay around and help in the first few days. Did you listen to anything I said? I'm ready from day one! Yes I am! You and Bill can go back to Texas and Arkansas. Please do. I want to toast your departure with a glass of beer. Cheers!

I am also honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow, I hope.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. A place in history. Some of us a larger place than others. I can only hope. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. To conquer but not to stay. To stay but not for long. For long but not too long. History will tell.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals and mostly by people who know better. Believe me, I know better and I know fallible and flawed people.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. That we are all in a village, and it takes.

Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course. And if necessary, we can always enact more laws. Trust me, I know how it works.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. They lost hope, they become bitter. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country. For those who cling to religion, I say do not despair. To those who like guns, do not lose hope, but most important, aim elsewhere. To everyone else - please do not despair - I am here to tell all that now that I am President I believe in hope.

We do not accept this injustices, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. We still have to work hard on providing the basic right of health to our citizens. So many amongst us who do not have health care. I will fight to change that because I believe in the future, but mostly I believe in the fight. Any fight.

How am I going to do all that? Though the sky will not open I still have a hope. Though angels will not come down singing I still believe. I will fight Congress and together we will embark on a new path. The angels will not sing, but members of Congress will. I am confident in principles that unite and lead us onward. Principles and fights bring people together.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives and before they become elected officials. We will immobilize all adults in this country so that no child will be left behind. We will emphasize mathematics so that our young generation, when they grow up, will be able to calculate and appreciate the deficit legacy we will leave behind.

We will reform Social Security and Medicare, and schools and the economy and the military and the emergency services and foreign policy and the infrastructure and be ready to face struggles we are powerless to prevent. These are not impossible goals. All it takes is hard work and a fight. Though we have done little in the past, we will continue to promise in the grand traditions of ours. After all, having elected a woman President is enough of a change.

America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. We will keep talking about these important moral issues. How can we be quiet?

Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. Let's not disturb the government with such great responsibilities. After all, it does take a village.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do and we can feel their pain and shed a tear.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with passion, to pursue the public interest with process, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live well, as well.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

The Democrats Dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (Per Spective) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:06:00 +0000

Democrats face a choice between two imperfect candidates. Despite primary campaign hype, neither candidates will be able to accomplish most of their promises.

During Presidential election primaries Democratic Presidential surrogates tell voters that this time around the voters have wonderful choices. Choice is the pinnacle of Democracy, so how could choice be bad? Besides, look at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - a woman and an African American - inherently representing a change. This change, many claim, is a sign that things will change in Washington as well. Surely the primary voters should be happy about that. Aside from heated competition that sometimes goes overboard and is doing McCain's job for him, everything is good under the sun and tomorrow promises to be even brighter.

Not so fast. Are these claims honest? Are the gender or race of the candidate enough of a change or merely a facade? If we are at a time where race does not matter, if at this juncture of the American history gender does not count, shouldn't we look at the candidates themselves to see what they truly stand for regardless of race and gender? Isn't the claim that a change is inherent in the choices Democrats have a rhetoric of the old style politics, the type that actually does not represent a change at all?

Given that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama plans are very similar Democrats have tough time discerning the real difference between the two. Attempts by either camp to find fault with their opponents plans seems like a dishonest splitting hair exercise. What is left for debate is the candidates character and experience, who is better suited to make the changes necessary to bring about the almost identical programs they tout.

Alas, character judgment is a fuzzy thing, inaccurate at best, subject to both inspirational speeches and negative attacks, to the influence of group identity (blacks, women, religion, etc.), a judgment that failed us before and may well betray us again.

The reality is that neither candidates are perfect, and neither honestly disclose the obstacles they will face in making any of the changes they promise.

Hillary is tied to the hip to the old ways of raising campaign money, and she had been so ever since she ran for office in New York. She is surrounded by advisers and politicians that have been similarly tied to big money, and so has her husband. Had he not been a past President, she would have had a much larger problems because of his connections. Thus, while she proclaims to cling to traditional Democratic issues, she is unlikely to move them forward in an effective ways. Whatever she will propose will be chipped away by different lobbying groups, loopholes will be safely attached to legislation, exceptions and exclusions that work for the special interests.

Barack Obama is not telling the whole story either. Yes, it is true that he built an independent Internet-based money raising machine that frees him from special interests. Yes, it is true that he will be free to pursue all the very same programs that Hillary will. Yes, it is true that he intends to give it an honest shot. But no, that does not mean that he will succeed any more than Hillary will. The Washington reality is that Congress is the place where legislature is made, and it is there where the lobbyists make their biggest mark. They fund Congressional district and senatorial campaigns and later influence legislature by fostering outright opposition to what they object. When they sense that a law will be passed they ensure that it has sufficient loopholes that protect their interests. Obama, with all his independence will not be able to free Congress, and therefore will not achieve much more than Hillary.

So Democrats have a dilemma that may not matter that much. Vote for a traditional candidate that will achieve modest results but disappoint few, or vote for an inspirational candidate that will achieve a little more, but will disappoint many more who believe in change. Whichever imperfect candidate will emerge, McCain will waiting in the corner, ready to fight. Paradoxically, if he wins, Obama's supporters will not be disillusioned, and Obama may have another shot at the Presidency in the future.

Hillary, Bitter, Party Splitter

noreply@blogger.com (P. DlTTER) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:26:00 +0000

When politicians run for office on the basis of honesty they expect to be hit by opponents and media discovering something inconsistent in their past. Something they said or wrote a while ago. In the political game it matters little if these things were expressed when circumstances were different. "Gotcha" is all that matters in the eyes of the media and hypocrite opponents. To the extend that voters fall prey to these tactics, they deserve what they get.

But the biggest danger, pundits will tell you, is being honest in the face of political correctness. Political correctness is by definition a lie, a facade, an inconvenient truth that might offend somebody. When an honest politician, or one with his guard down, removes the veil and tells the inconvenient truth, the real party begins. It is then when the media have their greatest moment, covering both the offending politician, the hypocrite opponents who think the same but are careful not so say it, and adding on top troops of pundits who love to share their wisdom for a moment of fame.

Last week Obama reflected on small town Pennsylvanians, victims of decades of economic pressures, as bitter and clinging to religion. That they have every right to be bitter nobody doubts. That they have suffered economic decline over many presidencies - Democrats and Republicans alike, nobody can deny. That they have their traditions, especially religion, to cling on, nobody criticizes. But in the manipulative description of the Clinton campaign and the scandal-attracted media, this is a great offense on "real Americans", on religion, and on everything you might hold deer to heart. It is suggested that voters should find a candidate who better understands what real Americans want, what they are, and where they come from. Suddenly Hillary jumps in to tell everyone that she learned how to shoot when she was young, how she likes beer and whiskey, and how she is "one of them". No more mention of her NRA voting record, of the Clintons one hundred million Dollar tax return, of them sending their daughter to private school, where they live, or anything else that puts them square in the middle of the elite.

The reality that obscures the pains of small town Pennsylvanians reflects one which repeats all over the United States. That is a reality in which both Republican and Democrat administrations, once elected to office, had not paid attention to real Americans. Rather, in their Washington realm, they cater to the lobbyists and large campaign contributors who care little for the middle class or rural America. This is exactly the Washington game Obama tries to break, and he is the only hope those "offended" Pennsylvanians have. He has correctly read the Washington political map, as he has correctly understood what happens in Pennsylvania. The real question is whether Pennsylvanians themselves understand their own predicament if they continue to chose politicians who appear once every four years, drink beer in a bar in front of TV cameras, talk about their love for guns and God, and criticize their opponents as elitists.

Media frenzy aside, one could not tell whether Hillary's expected victory in Pennsylvania would have been smaller without this debacle. One thing is assured - that Hillary will clearly paint her victory as a sign that Obama is out of touch and his candidacy is over. But when the dust settles, the numbers will still point to what they were pointing before Pennsylvania. Then, Hillary, more bitter than before, will have to decide whether she will emerge as the party splitter.