The Long Campaign Continues

It's been nearly a month since I last wrote, and at the end, nothing has changed.

Yes, we've had the revelation that Sen. Obama's spiritual guide, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright apparently asks God to damn America.

And yes, we've had Sen. Clinton's Bosnia fairytale (as Times columnist Frank Rich dubs it)—you know the one where she swears she (and Sinbad and Sheryl Crow) was under sniper-fire while visiting troops in Bosnia during her tenure as first lady. While this had been debunked months ago, the former first lady and former presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency continued to spew such fibs. It took the CBS Evening News to go back to the pool video and show that Sen. Clinton indeed had a safe landing. She arrived in Bosnia with Chelsea. That CBS Evening News clip was promulgated by Drudge linking to the YouTube video of it. It got more views than Wright's fiery sermons.

It fit the narrative: Clinton's a liar. And isn't that a narrative that fits so well with that family that we're all too familiar with? It's her "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." It harkens back to the narrative that the Bush campaign pinged on Vice-President Gore back in 2000: Al Gore swore he invented the internet.

And everyone's talking about Bosnia and the Clinton campaign is saying that she misspoke and that it's all due to sleep deprivation…this coming from the candidate who said that she's the most prepared to answer that red phone at, yes, 3 in the morning.

And everyone's forgotten about Wright and about the watershed speech that Obama delivered concerning race. That speech, one of the greatest political speeches in a generation, will be only remembered by simple sound bites: "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas" and "I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

That's what happens when you schedule an important and long overdue speech on race in America, in the morning. Rookie mistake.

March wasn't a good month for either Democratic Candidate or the Democratic Party itself. It was full of gaffes and indecision.

***

But where do we go from here?

Clinton has said that she's not going to pull-out. Obviously. She's said that she was going to wait until the people have spoken. Yes, how noble of her. She was going to wait for Pennsylvania…and Puerto Rico to vote. June 3^rd is the last election. DNC Chairman Howard Dean wants this rapped up by July 1^st. But…Clinton spoke to the Washington Post today and said that she wasn't going to rest until Michigan and Florida are counted (where was she when the DNC disenfranchised millions of voters last fall?) and that if it had to come to it, well, that's what the Credentials Committee at the Convention is for. The Credentials Committee! She's going to see this through the very end and take the Democratic National Convention in Denver hostage. She will not give up. She will not surrender. Even if they count Florida and Michigan and even if she wins Pennsylvania, which she's likely to do, it doesn't add up. The delegate count just doesn't add up. It's not going to put her over the top. It's not going to change anything. She'll make the argument that she wins the big states and that she's won more recently—this even though today's revelation that because of the Texas "prima-caucus," Obama actually won there.

And that's the big problem. Bill Maher on Friday's show asked what the big deal was for Clinton to stay in and to allow the process to naturally unfold—to let the voters decide, to make every vote count. The process never unfolds naturally. No one likes a split convention. A couple of years ago I wrote an essay in which I compared the 1968 presidential election to every presidential we've had since. This paragraph is pertinent as to why the Democrats need a nominee by Convention time:

In the battle between perception and reality, it is also important to note the changes and evolutions in nominating conventions. Where 1952 was seen as the first televised convention, 1968 was the first dramatic one. Image-makers not only had to deal with a candidate's image, but also, with the image of the convention itself. Whereas in 1968 at Miami Beach, the Republicans presented a convention of unity and order, the convention at Chicago was anything but. Theodore White stated that "At Chicago, for the first time, the most delicate process of American politics was ruptured by violence, the selection of Presidents stained with blood." Americans were appalled at what was occurring on the streets in Chicago, and what was occurring inside the convention hall. Those watching Walter Cronkite's coverage on the CBS Television Network saw a young Dan Rather being punched on the floor of the Convention Hall and taken down by Convention security, "Cronkite then delivered one of those sound bites that get aired again and again for years to come: 'I think we've got a bunch of thugs in there, Dan'." Then and there, the Democrats' hope for a victory in 1968 ended. The Convention was in such a state of chaos that President Johnson—officially leader of the Democratic Party—did not attend the convention. In 1980, coupled with the important and salient background events which were occurring, there was discontent inside Madison Square Garden where the Democratic National Convention was held, after the sitting President, Jimmy Carter, was challenged by Sen. Edward Kennedy for the presidency, and at the end, we saw the famous image captured by television cameras which displayed the delicate waltz which took place by which Carter and Kennedy never shook hands on the convention stage. This event was seized by the pundits on television and re-played over-and-over again as a sign of disunity in the party. In 1992, it was the Republican's turn to seem extreme and not united. At the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, what was supposed to be a rousing night for Ronald Reagan's last speech at the Convention was split, with Reagan's speech being pushed to 11:00 p.m. and Pat Buchanan taking the 10:00 p.m. primetime hour. This push to a 10:00 p.m. slot made by the networks, especially NBC, cost Bush and his convention the image that they wanted to portray. NBC's executive producer, Bill Wheatley recalls that, "On two separate instances we saw them hold the convention waiting for us to come on the air…We were still in our opening when they introduced [Quayle]. There was this tremendous roar, and Tom [Brokaw] just picked it up." The one that really hurt Bush was Buchanan's speech which "after its opening applause lines for the nominee, went on to summon not only Buchanan's own following but the entire Republican Party to a 'religious war' against gays, inner-city toughs and the likes of Hillary Clinton." That same year at Madison Square Garden, the 1992 Democratic National Convention was perfectly orchestrated, went off without any serious gaffes, and was up-lifting and optimistic. The Republicans came back in 2000 and at Philadelphia, gave key-note speech slots to the likes of Colin Powell, John McCain, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr., and Condoleezza Rice. This created the image of a new, moderate Republican Party going along the theme of "Compassionate Conservatism" which Bush wanted to create. On the other hand, at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, there were undercurrents which pointed towards disunity in the party, when Bill Clinton was pushed to a Monday night speech, and then ignored for the rest of the convention. This went in line with the Gore Campaign wanting to distance themselves from Clinton for the General Election, and which many consider might have hurt Gore in his quest for the presidency.

Now I'm not saying that the Democratic Convention in Denver in 2008 will be just like the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. I don't expect violence but I do expect political blood being spilt if Hillary Rodham Clinton takes this to the Credentials Committee and more so, if the Super-Delegates go contrary to whom the pledged Delegates chose. It would be a nomination stolen. If the Super-Delegates indeed overturn the voice of the people, if they overturn the people's choice, then what we will have will be the disenfranchisement anew of Democrats and a party uncontrollable. They'll be yelling bloody murder in the streets of Denver. They denied the first viable Black man the nomination for president of the United States. Obama's leading in the delegate count, most states won, and most votes cast. The Super-Delegates will have no choice but to re-affirm the pledged delegates, which then calls into question the reasoning for the Super-Delegates: if it's just to rubber-stamp and to be redundant…what's the point of their existence?

If Democrat's can't run their own convention, can't control their own people, what gives the American people the confidence that they can run a country?

And I echo David Brooks' belief (another Times columnist) who says that the reason that Hillary Clinton needs to get out is not because she's weak, but because she's strong. And yes, it's a little nonsequitor. Put aside the fact that in today's Gallup tracking poll Obama's lead over Clinton is now at 10-points, with her winning Pennsylvania and a handful of others, she'll continue to make the case that there's momentum for her now, that people want her in it, and that she'll be there for the people. There won't be any stopping her. She'll think that she's it, that she can turn this ship around, that she can salvage this ship who hit the iceberg long ago. It's delusional. She'll take this to the Convention and the whole world will watch what a split convention is. Can you just picture it? There might be walk-outs! Supporters of the losing candidate leaving the hall and the image replayed ad-nauseum on TV for everyone to see. Juxtapose that with McCain's convention. It'll be neat. It'll be orderly. It'll be just like the 2000 Republican love-fest in Philadelphia.

 

This was supposed to be the year of the Democratic Restoration. The economy is going south, the war has hit the 4,000^th American casualty, and the sitting Republican president remains unpopular. This was supposed to be the year of the Democratic Restoration.

It's amazing but the Democrats found a way to blow it again.

The Audacity of Change

I’ve seen this show before.

A person is anointed and crowned. The Leader of the Free World is Chosen. It always happens this way. No matter what. New Hampshire did not make Bill Clinton the “Comeback Kid.” George W. Bush was never The Outsider. John Kerry was never going to be the President.

No matter the parlor games that are played inside the Beltway or in a studio or newsroom in Midtown Manhattan, people always know who is going to win, who will be president. Without a doubt, in 1992, George Herbert Walker Bush was not going to be re-elected to the presidency. Bill Clinton saw his meteoritic rise from the 1988 Democratic Convention where he was the keynote speaker to the 1992 Democratic Convention where he accepted his party’s nomination for president. He was unstoppable. He was never down and out. No scandal would stick. He was Teflon. He was Bulletproof. And he was going to dispose of Bob Dole in 1996 without breaking a sweat and speaking about building the bridge towards the 21st century. But people wanted others to believe that we had a real honest to God race out there. We didn’t.

In 2000, after eight years in exile, the Republicans crowned the heir apparent, the Governor of Texas, the son of the defeated ex-president. And no matter the insurgency that McCain would mount in New Hampshire, everyone knew that George W. Bush was going to be his party’s nominee. And going into election night, everyone knew that he was going to win, no matter how close the polls said the race was. During the post-election meltdown, everyone knew that no matter what the courts deliberated, they would always rule in his favor. Brokaw said on election night “George W. Bush is the president-elect.” And nothing was going to change that.

The same thing happens to those who don’t win the big prize. In September 2003, Time Magazine ran an article exulting Gov. Dean’s lead in Iowa. The Republicans kept on spinning knowing full well that there was no way in Hell that he was going to win this one. John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts was dying a merciless death in the wheat fields. The Democrats were waiting for Gore to come back and challenge the presidential pretender. In January Dean howled and Kerry triumphed. And that was it, the end of the primary. The Bush camp dumped an immediate Ad War against Kerry framing him in the eyes of the voters: flip-flopping Liberal New England elite who married into money. And there was no doubt that no matter what, George W. Bush would accomplish the one thing that had eluded his father: re-election.

I’ve seen this show before.

***

The good old days never were.

The floor fights at the conventions never transpired. Lyndon Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek nor would accept his party’s nomination for president. A month before the sitting president was defeated in New Hampshire by Sen. McCarthy who was running on an anti-war campaign. With Johnson out the establishment gave it to Humphrey, the sitting vice-president. Humphrey battled McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. History of course has a way of being cyclical. With Kennedy’s assassination in June, the stage was set for Humphrey’s coronation amidst the police riot in Chicago, in one of the most nauseating episodes in American political history. There was no doubt that Humphrey was going to win even though we didn’t wish for that. We wanted Bobby. We wanted what was taken away from us. He would bring us together. He would give us the audacity of change. Ted White and Kennedy myth-creator Arthur Schlesinger Jr., always argued that Bobby would’ve won it in Chicago and that the protests and Daly-terrorism would never have happened. The politics though would’ve given it to the establishment. Humphrey had the delegates and McCarthy was never going to quit. Kennedy would never have won a majority to break the stalemate, and the delegates would propel Humphrey to the top. When Bobby died in Los Angeles, Humphrey already had 150 more delegate votes than Bobby, and 300 more than McCarthy. Bobby wasn’t going to be president, assassins’ bullet or not.

In Miami Beach the Republican Party was coming around to the idea that the Southern Strategy would guarantee victory—Bill Clinton remains the only Democratic president re-elected since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. And there was a faux split that was being presented but was never actually there. The Liberal wing of the Republican Party headed by a Governor of New York and a Mayor of New York City—both running for president—battled California’s favorite sons, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, for the direction of the party. This was a victory for the conscience of the Conservative. And no matter what happened Nixon was going to win. And he was going to win the presidency.

There’s no point anymore in thinking about counter-factuals. Even when we try to romanticize the what-ifs, the possibility of changes in history, we come back to the facts. Nothing was going to change it.

The good old days never were.

***

We now have the courage to pursue the audacity of change.

And that’s the real reason why this presidential race is so fluid. Take me for example, by this time in every presidential election cycle I already know who the winner is going to be. At this time during the 1992 campaign I wasn’t yet interested in politics, but by this time in 1996, I knew that Clinton was going to win re-election. Even though there have only been three presidential elections that I have followed and have correctly prognosticated who has won—this track record of mine is going strong now for a dozen years. And I’m at a loss right now. I just don’t know. Something tells me that Giuliani is going to emerge past Huckabee and Romney and confront the Clinton war-machine and win. Something tells me that this is what is supposed to happen and that it indeed will. The re-run in my head tells me that this is it, that it is indeed, déjà vu all over again.

This same show tells me that no matter how many Stadiums Oprah and Barack fill, the HRC Campaign will take it all and take it big. Don’t pay attention to the polls in Iowa, Hillary will win there. She’ll take New Hampshire strong and South Carolina and it’s on to Super Tuesday and she’ll win there. No matter what. Obama would make a good veep, but she’ll give it to Richardson. And it’ll be Clinton-Richardson (who were the not-ready-for-primetime players in the 90’s) against Giuliani-Huckabee.

On Sunday night when I attended the Univision debate held at UM I thought that for sure I was going to come out of there knowing who had won. I don’t know if anyone did. Ron Paul’s honesty and apathy towards pandering is refreshing. Huckabee spoke well. Giuliani and Romney didn’t do anything to take it out of the ballpark and McCain spoke truthfully and with his hand on his heart, but no one listened and no one will ever let him in.

A War Election? A Change Election?

I guess we’re coming to the conclusion that it really doesn’t matter who the president is. That no matter what they’ll follow the same long-term strategic goals and conduct business as usual. We placed our faith in the Bush Administration as being the first MBA Presidency. We placed our faith in this team as the self-anointed “Dream Team” of American Foreign Policy: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice. They were the grown-ups compared to Clinton’s kids who were running around the White House without knowing what to do next. And the Grown-Ups let us down. Those kids from the Clinton White House have come of age and are now the self-anointed Dream Team of politicos and policy-wonks. But I don’t think they’ve learned much since their first tour of duty during the 1990’s. At the end no one has the experience. No one has the courage to be a leader. It’s business as usual in America, and we lose sight of our dreams and aspirations in return for economic and social comfort. And no matter which party controls the White House after next year’s election, we may be a little better off than we are now…or we may not…this is the future status-quo.

But it needn’t be a fait accompli. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Barack Hussein Obama became president of the United States? People from all over the world would see that the United States of America is not represented by another Old White Man. So what if he’s not experienced? So what if he hasn’t fulfilled his sentence in Washington? This man is our Bobby:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. (Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention.)


He’s young, he’s charismatic. And we project what we want to see in us onto him. He is our tabula rasa. He’s Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in one. He’s change. He’s unlike anything we’ve ever had before. He’s presidential. He’s ready.


As a Republican, I support Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.

As a Republican, I will most probably support Rudy Giuliani, the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States.



“All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen.”

Unless we have the courage to pursue the audacity of change.

The Evitable Inevitable

This past week's Saturday Night Live's opening captures the political drama that unfolded following last Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia. (What MSNBC dubbed, "The Battle of Philadelphia.") For the first time in an otherwise sophisticated, rapid-fire, disciplined campaign, the front-runner fumbled. Amidst the on-slaught from her rivals, and the tough questioning from the moderators--NBC's Brian Williams and Tim Russert--Hillary Clinton had the worst performance of her primary campaign. Her campaign staff knew it. The morning after the debate, on a conference call, a staff member said that Tim Russert "should be shot," shortly thereafter taking it quickly back.

Hillary Clinton is the evitable inevitable. Just when we all thought that this was business as usual, that Hillary was going to storm through her primaries and be the de facto nominee by February, things quickly changed. Obama, Edwards, and even Dodd knew that it's either stop her now, or she'll be unstoppable. And they piled on her. The Clinton campaign released a video last Wednesday entitled the "Politics of Piling On," in which they try to portray Clinton as being unnecessarily picked on by the rest of her Democratic rivals. The message that they were trying to convey was that amidst the on-slaught from her rivals, she remained cool, that she stood her ground. The subtle message that did come through was as simple of this: the mean old white guys are picking on the only girl. The day after the debate she visited Wellesley, her Alma Mater, and said that her time at Wellesley prepared her to be able to be the only viable female presidential candidate. That Wellesley prepared her to break through the ultimate glass ceiling.

This is now Hillary Woman, hear her roar. Her campaign has seen the demographics and the polling data, and like George Wil mentioned yesterday, they're ready to tap into an extremely populated group of voters that can, if carefully nourished and played, be what the Evangelicals were for the Republicans. These are Hillary's foot soldiers. And these are women. For the first time ever, there are as many single women voters as there are married women voters. Single women are the treasure drove of the Democratic Party. They vote close to 60% Democrat and they're a huge portion of the electorate. They actually come out to vote. And while Hillary thought that the way to win was to act testosterone-strong, Thatcherite even, following Tuesday's performance, she's going back to her feminist roots. Will it work? I don't think so. She can't have it both ways. Will these women actually vote for Hillary? It's a possibility. But as Sen. Dodd mentioned, a Pew poll that came out stated that no matter what, close to 50% of the electorate will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.

Signs that this new strategy isn't working can be seen in today's Politico where a report states that she's backing off this notion of being picked on by men, following a split in the Feminist camp of the Democratic party. The Politico, by the way has some of the best reporting out there on the debate, with key quotes. Roger Simon, their editor, summed it up quite nicely: "We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night." And it was just a great night for Obama and Edwards. We'll see how it plays out in Iowa, where Hillary--not running a national primary like Giuliani--must win to prove her inevitablity which translates to voters as electability. In Iowa, Clinton is leading Obama and Edwards, 29-27-20. Obama and Clinton are statistically tied due to being within the margin of error. And Edwards is looking to come back from behind and he'll be taking big shots at Hillary: “Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity? Not Hillary." Edwards has been doing this the strongest for a couple of months, even deploying his wife to go after her. Obama, trying to be Eugene McCarthy has taken on a more adversarial role too...even though HRC hit him back with it saying that he's now practicing what he preached against when he announced his candidacy. This is the problem with coming off as being holier-than-thou from the onset of the campaign.

In college I wrote a paper entitled, "1968: The Inaguration of Modern Presidential Elections." There I argued the following: "In many ways, the Election of 1968 is the permanent campaign. In Presidential Election Politics consciously or sub-consciously, we keep re-living 1968, in the sense that from it we received the inauguration of strategies and outcomes which have shaped how presidential elections are run and won. In 1968 we saw important background issues that became salient political concerns which influenced the outcome of that presidential election. While background issues are not enough to overwhelmingly dictate an outcome, when coupled with new political strategies and tactics, along with media influences which changed the way that campaigns were covered, 1968 has created a template by which presidential campaigns are made viable." And looking back at 1968, which was an amazing year in terms of Presidential Politics, I could've made the point that George Wil made yesterday--even the personalities are the same. Barack Obama as Eugene McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy. Hillary Clinton as Hubert Humphrey. And Humphrey won the Democratic Primary. And Rudy Giuliani as Richard Nixon. And Nixon won the Presidential Election. I'm thinking of elaborating on that essay, and really explore how we still remain in 1968.

Today's quick political updates:

• Edwards is going to keep up his attack on Clinton today in Iowa, going after her double-talk: "Votes like a Hawk in Washington, Talks like a Dove in Iowa and New Hampshire."


• Hillary Clinton is going to increase air time in Iowa as she's playing defense now against the Obama and Edwards campaigns. I think she's about to begin to circle the wagons in preparation for the Caucus. She needs to emerge fairly unscathed.


• Fred Thompson was on Meet the Press yesterday, and can I say that I was fairly impressed. This lackadaisical, ill-informed, narrative that the media has been running with concerning Thompson's campaign should have been dispelled by his appearance yesterday on the Church of Russert. He handled every question quite well, and seemed ready, eager and prepared.


• Giuliani: Mixed results. Today there are reports that he's picking up momentum in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In South Carolina, Giuliani is now in a statistical tie with fellow front-runners Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Remember that Giuliani was going to lose the first primaries and he was banking on Tsunami Tuesday which is 92 days away. But with some in-roads that he's been making, he's assuming a clear position to be the leader in the early primaries. In Iowa and New Hampshire he's pouring in $5 Million dollars for direct-mail outreach and radio ads. I don't know if it'll work in Iowa though where if current tracking holds, Huckabee will come in 2nd place in Iowa after Romney. Rudy needs a close third, or a tie for second. In New Hampshire, he's right behind Romney. But like I said, they're still going after Florida and Tsunami Tuesday. Picking up on the mixed results for Rudy, today's Washington Post has an article on the fluidity of the Republican Nomination. Republicans have always been the most disciplined when it comes to presidential nominees. Some even said that the party used to "Crown" the nominee, that there always was an Heir-apparent. In national polls among Republicans, Giuliani is leading with 33% of the vote. By comparison, Hillary Clinton is leading the Democrats in national polls garnering 49% of the Democratic vote.
• If the election was held today: Clinton 50 - Giuliani 46; Clinton 52 - McCain 43; Clinton 56 - Thompson 40; Clinton 57 - Romney 39. This all may change when the new polls are taken this week, and when we can finally see how inevitable is HRC.