Clinton, Going Down Flailing

I was ready to put this post up to deliver a good elbow to Clinton's side, given some recent talk from her campaign. Then I thought I would take a look at her site to see what she had up there on this last day of the primaries. As I did, I had in mind a post I'd read earlier about how Bill Clinton may still be seeing women on the side, and so I felt bad for her. With that in mind, if she had a realistic, humble front on her website I may have skipped this post.

Alas, she did not. Rather, she appears to have decided to go down flailing. While I still feel sad about the way Bill may be treating her (though it was not clear from what I read), I am nevertheless angry about a particular aspect of her recent politicking: her claim that she has a higher popular vote count than Obama. This is abhorrent to me, given: 1) the duplicitous way she comes up with the count, and 2) the way she is touting that contrived count before Americans, directly egging on the idea that Obama has not been chosen by the people.

First, with the count, she has herself around 200,000 votes in front of Obama. To reach (and yes, she reaches) for that magic (yes, it takes a little) number, she counts Michigan. She generously grants herself 328,309 from Michigan and Obama zero--yes, zero, out of the 238,168 that voted for what appeared with the name "uncommitted" on the ballot. He took his name off the ballot, as did four to five other Democrats in respect for the party rules that Michigan violated. She said Michigan did not count. The rules committee of the Democratic party said it did not count. Read more here. So not only is she manipulating the numbers, but she's throwing it out before voters with ads such as this--aired this week--and doubletalk such as this, on her website.

I'd love if there could be some substantive show of unity from her side, allowing her past lack of integrity (such as this) to be overlooked, but her over-ambition is simply too much to allow for that. This over-ambition is one reason I wrote about not wanting her as vice president and one reason I wrote back in February about how I thought she would be a Democratic devolutionist (she may yet deliver on this if her self-absorbed antics have their way and affect the willingness of voters to support Obama--scratch that, I think she has already affected the willingness of at least some to support Obama). If ever I got into the habit of thinking someone's a-okay because they wear the right party affiliation, she and Bill have throughly cured me of that. What are your thoughts on 'ol Clinton after this mess of a primary season?

Update: Following the final primaries tonight, Hillary kept flailing in her speech, with comments such as the following, which are nothing short of counterproductive in my view: "And I am just enormously grateful, because in the millions of quiet moments, in thousands of places, you asked yourself a simple question: Who will be the strongest candidate and the strongest president? Who will be ready to take back the White House and take charge as Commander-in-Chief and lead our country to better tomorrows? People in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories, all had a chance to make your voices heard and on Election Day after Election Day, you came out in record numbers to cast your ballots. Nearly eighteen million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history. Even when the pundits and the naysayers proclaimed week after week that this race was over, you kept on voting."

Die, Dream Team, Die, says Pelosi

Picture from this great Economist article on the subject.

What a misnomer, "dream team." Perhaps all those touting the miscalculated idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket are really GOP strategists in disguise. Either way, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--the highest ranking Democrat in the land right now--appeared to usher in the welcome demise of the idea last week on the PBS "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." Here's the question and answer from it:

JUDY WOODRUFF (with the NewsHour): Do you still believe that an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket is not likely?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I do. In all honesty, I do think it is not likely. They haven't asked me who I think should be their running mate. You have. And I don't think that would be the ticket that will win for us.

Let me say it another way: I don't think that's the ticket that is going to happen. If it is the ticket that happens, it will be the winning ticket, but I don't see it happening. (Read or watch the whole interview here.)

Hear, hear. The idea has been misguided from the start, particularly when you consider the baggage involved--namely the Clintons' matching husband-wife baggage. If the primary season has revealed anything, it's that the Clintons never had any lessons on playing second fiddle. A Vice President Billary Clinton (as Colby King of the Washington Post dubbed the duo here) would be a disaster in the making.

Most prominently perhaps, as my friend Cecilia pointed out to me recently, the alpha-alpha combination of Obama and Clinton (and Clinton) would be a nonstarter in terms of actual governance. How would the former President and First Lady (particularly this former President and First Lady) not try to continually overstep and outdo a President Obama? Also, as I detailed in this post on Hillary's potential devolution of the Democratic party, I believe her presence on the ticket with Obama would turn significant numbers of people off who would otherwise support him--she's just that divisive in my view, even if she hasn't earned all of those sentiments.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: If reports such as this are indicators of a push by Clinton for the VP spot, I worry that she will try to force the issue; boy I hope not, that is just more than she has the right to do--particularly given the negative factor I think she would represent on the ticket.

Update 2: I just came across a number of posts in my Google Reader (a great tool) on this very subject: here with Robert Reich, here at The Nation, and here from Harvard's Saguaro Seminar blog (a wonderful blog that reflects on issues of "social capital"). I especially appreciate the following thoughts from the last of those three pieces at the Saguaro Seminar:

"In choosing a vice presidential running mate, we hope that Barack will find someone other than Hillary Clinton who can help to reunify the Democratic base of working collar Americans and older Americans. Choosing Hillary only shackles Barack to the scorched earth politics of the past as we witnessed in great quantity from her during the primary season. Moreover, as we often write about in this column, trust is an extremely valuable commodity and hard to repair once breached. And with Hillary as his Vice President, President Barack Obama could scarcely take a business trip without fearing a palace coup during his departure. Whether one’s grist is Shakespearean tragedies or the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, it’s hard to build an effective team around fratricide." (emphasis mine)

I would (excitedly) add that I found out tonight that Obama actually participated in the Saguaro meetings at Harvard from 1996-2000, which were aimed at "developing recommendations for strategies that would help foster the growth of social capital and civic connectedness in America." He was among "33 accomplished thinkers and doers who serve as a catalyst in determining the kinds of changes and strategies necessary to increasingly connect Americans with their communities and community institutions."

Update 3: Here's O. himself talking about the possibility (along with other interesting issues), where he says he's a "big believer in making decisions well," adding the following: "I think it's not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton's interest, but in the Democrat Party's interest and the country's interest to make sure I make this decision well. And I will be deliberate and systematic about it, because this will be my final counselor when I'm making decisions in the White House and I want to make sure I get it right."

The Value, and Values, of Barack: Imperfect Messenger

I wish, at times, that I saw more lengthy excerpts from candidate speeches in newspapers, as opposed to brief quotes. I say this even though my tolerance for political speeches has, as with all of ours likely, begun to wain again recently--but then I listened to Obama's North Carolina victory speech from last week. Below are some extended excerpts that struck me as the most unique parts of it (the first portion of the speech felt a bit like his normal stumping). At one point, he calls himself an "imperfect messenger," highlighting a humility that I find both rare and endearing in a leader. Interestingly, it is less often spoken and more often demonstrated with Obama--demonstrated in the way he often slowly, deliberately chooses his words, in his self-deprecating humor, and in the way he continues to call citizens the most important part of his campaign.

Although I put portions of the speech below, I would encourage interested readers to watch the video at the bottom of this post; because, after all, if we only read speeches, there would be no need for people to give them. It does matter how they are given. Granted, the "how" matters less than the substance generally, but delivery is not unimportant when one considers the uncertainty we all feel about our politicians and their trustworthiness.

Here are the excerpts that especially stuck out to me from the speech:

"The people I've met in small towns and big cities across this country understand that government can't solve all our problems – and we don't expect it to. We believe in hard work. We believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance. But we also believe that we have a larger responsibility to one another as Americans – that America is a place – that America is the place – where you can make it if you try. That no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours if you're willing to reach for it and work for it. It's the idea that while there are few guarantees in life, you should be able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you need it; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential. That's the America
we believe in. That's the America I know.

This is the country that gave my grandfather a chance to go to college on the GI Bill when he came home from World War II; a country that gave him and my grandmother the chance to buy
their first home with a loan from the government.

This is the country that made it possible for my mother – a single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point – to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country on scholarships.

This is the country that allowed my father-in-law – a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant – to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis – who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation. It was a job that didn't just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn't just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it.

Somewhere along the way, between all the bickering and the influence-peddling and the game-
playing of the last few decades, Washington and Wall Street have lost touch with these values. And while I honor John McCain's service to his country, his ideas for America are out of touch with these values. His plans for the future are nothing more than the failed policies of the past. And his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.

Yes, we know what's coming. We've seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin
on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain – to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States; blue-collar and white-collar; white and black, and brown.

This is the race we expect, no matter if it's myself or Senator Clinton that is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they'll run, it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. Ya see, I didn't get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.

We will end it this time not because I'm perfect – I think we know at this phase of the campaign that I am not. We will end it not by duplicating the same tactics and the same strategies as the other side, because that will just lead us down the same path of polarization and gridlock.

We will end it by telling the truth. We will end it by telling the truth forcefully, repeatedly, confidently – and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change, even if it's coming from an imperfect messenger. Because that's how we've always changed this country, not from the top down, but from the bottom up. When you the American people decide that the stakes are too high and the challenges are too great.

The other side can label and name call all it wants, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda's leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness but wisdom to talk not just to our friends but to our enemies--like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did. I trust the Ameircan people to realize that while we don't need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators; a government who stands up for the middle-class by giving them a tax break; a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity, compassion and prosperity aren't liberal values or conservative values – they're American values, and that is what we are fighting for in this election..."

Here's the video:



Above photo credit: Obama's Flickr page, some rights reserved.

Update: Since I'm home sick from work today, I was able to catch up on Sunday's Washington Post, which I was too busy to read over the weekend; that phrase "imperfect messenger" from Obama's speech apparently stood out to Post writer David Ignatius as well, as he starts out this article on Obama's demeanor talking about it. Two other recent Post articles are also worth noting: the first is on the potential damage of Clinton's continued campaigning, where the author interestingly points out that "there is still a price to be paid for letting the nomination campaign drag on. At the most personal level, it denies Obama the rest he badly needs. His friends talk with real concern about the fatigue he constantly feels and often shows"; the second article offers a welcome human perspective on Clinton, while also suggesting that she only has the following options left: "To consolidate her gains while repairing the damage to her standing from a bitter contest, she will have to abandon efforts to block Obama's nomination. She can keep fighting, or she can become a powerful figure in the Democratic Party. She cannot do both...Any moves that risk further divisions in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton's comment last week about Obama's weakness among voters who are "hard-working" and "white" didn't help -- will aggravate a problem she wants to go away. So would an orchestrated campaign by Clinton supporters to push Obama hard to make her the vice presidential nominee. An aggressive 'Clinton for vice president' campaign would simply reopen fights that are just ending and offer Obama two bad choices: either to look weak by capitulating to pressure from the defeated wing of the party or to look spiteful by refusing to take Clinton on. "

Rev. Wright, Take Two: Maybe What Wright Needs is Some Empathy

Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, which I wrote about in my last post, was followed by a speech and in-depth question and answer session by Wright at the National Press Club yesterday. As I wrote in that last post of mine, Wright’s points in the Moyers interview seemed to be valid; Moyers also provided lengthy clips of Wright's sermons, offering a more complex view of some of his highly criticized comments. At the National Press Club however, mainly in the Q & A period, he talked a good deal more about the political side of things. I’ve been trying to sort through some of the videos of it all to make some sense of it, and while I may write more later, I have some more immediate thoughts here.

At first, after watching Wright's Q & A session and Obama's response (both of which I'll include video of below), I was a bit confused. Wright said a number of things that were slight digs against Obama, such as comments about how he (Obama) did not hear the hope in Wright's speeches, and did not go to church with great frequency. But the comment with the most potential for political damage was, appropriately, political in nature. Wright had mentioned on Moyers' show Friday night that, in distancing himself from Wright, Obama was "doing what politicians do," but left it at that. At the National Press Club however, he expressly said that Obama was doing what he had to do "to get elected."

That was, for me, plausible. As anyone whose candidate comes in the line of fire wants to think, my first reaction was that Wright's comments simply weren't true. But of course, thinking that doesn't make it so. So I asked myself whether the reasons Obama provided for distancing himself from Wright seemed valid to me, or not. My sense of the situation crystallized a bit when I looked back at part of the speech Obama gave when he first fully addressed the issue of Rev. Wright, along with the issue of race, in Pennsylvania last month.

Within that speech, Obama describes one of the key reasons he decided to distance himself from Wright:

"[T]he remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they professed a profoundly distorted view of this country. A view that sees white racism as endemic, that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America. A view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East primarily rooted in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong, but divisive. Divisive at a time when we need unity..." (These comments start around the seventh minute in this video.)

But to return to our question about Wright's claim, is Obama just saying what's necessary to be elected? To claim that implies that Obama is lying, or at least intentionally misleading. Certainly what Obama has said about Wright has helped assuage the worries of many potential supporters, but does that mean he was lying, or being misleading?

Well, I haven’t heard the comments Wright made concerning Israel, but in terms of his thoughts on white racism, I do indeed think that some of those thoughts gave the impression that white racism is "endemic," as Obama put it. I looked up a short clip on a sermon of Wright's where he talks some about Hillary Clinton, along with whites in general. In watching it, I did get the sense that he was painting whites in a pessimistic, fatalistic fashion. He makes a number of comments about African Americans that are undoubtedly true, noting that whites do not know what it’s like for a taxi to pass them by because of their color, or to be pulled over by the police because of the way they look.

These points are ones that I think Obama was making in similar fashions in his speech, but the difference is that Obama clearly attempted to see things from both the black and white perspective. As I mentioned in my first post on Obama’s “race speech,” he accurately speaks about the black and the white perspective on race, without demonizing either. The above sermon of Wright’s that I watched, available here, does not attempt to see things from both sides, in my view, and therefore comes across as demonizing in ways. I don’t think that means Wright hates whites, or anything that extreme, I think it simply means that he, in some ways, was not attempting to see things from both sides; Obama even pointed this out during his Pennsylvania speech, noting that he never saw Wright treat a white person unkindly, etc.

To wrap my thoughts up here, I would say that the whole issue here may come down to empathy. Both Obama and Wright are looking at problems, not of race, but of races--that is, problems that involve both blacks and whites. In order to do so fairly and progressively, both sides need to be considered. Do not hear me wrong though, these problems began, and to the extent that they still exist, have in many ways been perpetuated, at the hands of whites. But of course many whites do not accept these problems, passionately wanting, along with blacks and others, to see things change. It seems Obama is looking hopefully (to use "his" word) at this reality, acknowledging the problems at hands, and saying, “let’s move onto solutions.” Wright, on the other hand, in some ways at least, appears to be focusing more on the problems. There may be more to this puzzle, but those are some initial thoughts. The key videos from Wright yesterday, and Obama today, are below.

Wright at the National Press Club for Q&A, part 1 (again, he gave a speech that preceded the Q&A session, but from what I saw, he talked politics for the most part afterwards in response to questions):



Wright at the National Press Club for Q&A, part 2:



Wright at the National Press Club for Q&A, part 3:



Obama's response to Wright's National Press Club comments:



Above photo credit: Chip Somodevilla for Getty images, all rights reserved.

Video of Jeremiah Wright's First Interview Post-Controversy

Bill Moyers of PBS got the chance to interview Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright last night for the first time since the controversy broke out a few months ago. The interview's well worth watching, as it's an in-depth discussion of the African American church in general, and Wright's church specifically. The short video clips that started the controversy are shown in their full context as well, offering a more complicated picture of what was said. Both parts of the video are below, together lasting about 45 minutes; the first part deals more with the historical issues, with the interview comprising most of the second.

Part 1:



Part 2:



Update: Please see my more recent post on this subject to read about my thoughts following Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club: "Rev. Wright, Take Two: Maybe What Wright Needs is Some Empathy."

The Value, and Values, of Barack: Obama on...Parenting?

In this five minute piece on education, take a look at how Obama discusses it in some basic-level detail, but then also the second half where he gets into parenting--it's good. He wears a smile most of the way through as he talks about parenting, offering some honest thoughts with the good-hearted understanding of a parent. Here's an excerpt, with the video below:

“It doesn't matter how much money we put in, if parents don't parent. It’s not good enough for you to say to your child, ‘Do good in school,’ and then when that child comes home, you’ve got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don’t check their homework, there’s not a book in the house, you’ve got the video game playing. Am I right? So turn off the TV set. Put the video game away. Buy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table, watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give ‘em help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher. Make ‘em go to bed at a reasonable time! Keep ‘em off the streets! Give ‘em some breakfast! Come on! Can I get an amen here? You know I’m right, you know I'm right. And, I'm sorry, since I’m on a roll, if your child misbehaves in school, don’t cuss out the teacher! You know I’m right about that, you know I'm right about that. You know, don’t cuss out the teacher! Do something with your child! Alright, everybody settle down here, we're having too much fun here.”

Another Close to Clintons Endorses Obama

Add one more from Bill Clinton's former crew to Obama's list of endorsements: former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich (left). Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Energy (and former 2008 presidential candidate), Bill Richardson (below right), offered his endorsement of Obama about a month ago. Tony Lake (below left), the former National Security Adviser for Bill Clinton, has been a long supporter of Obama's, and serves as a senior policy adviser on his campaign; this is particularly significant, as National Security Advisers serve as the chief adviser to the president on national security issues. The movement of those who served closest with Bill Clinton to Obama's camp speaks volumes; I don't think it demonizes the Clintons, as people are generally not that black and white, but I do think the endorsements reveal thoughtful decisions by some who worked closely alongside Bill and Hillary. It should similarly allow the fears of O's inexperience to fall away all the more. Reich's endorsement yesterday, posted on his blog here, reveals a surprisingly logical decision, that notably is based on Obama's positions and demeanor, not, in large part, on Hillary's negative qualities (though there are certainly some that deserve consideration). Here's Reich's thoughts:

"The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly) limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world."