Not Quite Ready For Prime Time

It's still the honeymoon period between Obama and the press right now. They continue to happily report about Obama's charisma and the huge crowds at his rallies. The narrative they're holding onto still is "golden boy versus evil witch." It's a good story to sell. Everybody likes battles of good versus evil.

But when the "evil witch" Clinton is gone, and I suspect that will happen in March, the press is going to have to find a new narrative to sell the news. My best guess is that one of the story lines is going to be "golden boy isn't quite what he's cracked up to be." They've already run McCain and Clinton through the ringer. Eventually, it's going to be Obama's turn.

The question I have is simple. How well can Obama stand a hit from the press? This may or may not be a critical issue. Charismatic candidates can often be very difficult to criticize. That said, Obama cannot rely on a strategy that requires him to be Teflon coated. When the press attacks, he's going to have to defend himself as best as he can.

If Obama isn't Teflon coated, he might be in trouble because even this far along in the campaign he can't seem to get his facts right. He swings and misses a lot.

Over the last week, Obama launched a number of flat-footed attacks. One was an assault on Clinton's concerning NAFTA and health care. He distorted her record. Eventually, he had to stop attacking and use a "stop whining, this is just ordinary politics" defense about this misstep. That's the kind of defense that undermines his integrity.

What was even stranger about this attack was that it coincided with Obama's blaming Ohio's ills on NAFTA. Sorry. That's not right either. Ohio would be in trouble economically regardless because most of the jobs it has lost have nothing to do with NAFTA. They are the result of jobs going to Asia. Last I checked, China was not in North America.

Yesterday, Obama launched an attack on McCain. Supposedly McCain and Bush are responsible for our nation's economic problems. He said much the same thing last week. This is fanciful thinking. The collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the spillover into the overall credit markets aren't Republican problems, sorry. They are the result of policies that have been championed by both Democrats and Republicans.

A few days ago, Obama attacked McCain's integrity saying he was in the pocket of lobbyists. Sorry. That one doesn't work either. McCain's record with lobbyists is one of the cleanest in the Senate. Try again.

In a honeymoon period, you can get away with such missteps. But eventually, if Obama keeps twisting facts, pandering, and slamming opponents without basis he is going to be cast in a negative light by the press.

Right now, Obama's is simply a gifted sloganeer. When it comes to facts, though, he still isn't quite ready for prime time. Obama has yet to show that he is a knowledgeable candidate; alternatively, he knows the facts, but conveniently ignores them. Either way, he just might find himself in trouble come the day when he is subject to serious scrutiny.

It's Not Because She's a Woman

I watched most of the debate the other day between Clinton and Obama. Both of them looked thoroughly tired and worn out by the campaign. It was like watching the 15th round of an epic battle where both fighters can barely reach back and swing. I felt bad for both of them. Their faces both said the same thing: this just might not be worth it. We need to have a more sane election process.

Maybe because she was tired, maybe because she was desperate, Clinton showed her true self for most of the debate the other night. Gone was the pasted on smile. Up went the cadence of her speech patterns. She wasn't sugar coating. She wasn't trying to act dumber than she is. What the public saw was a very smart, very ambitious, steely, determined woman with a mean streak.

I'm sure the public didn't like what they saw. It was an ugly, unpleasant evening. The friction between Clinton and the media questioners was right there out in the open. The press doesn't like her. She doesn't like the press. Clinton was petulant most of the night. My barometer as to whether a candidate won a debate is to ask the question, "Would you want to go out and have a beer with this person?" After the last debate, no one was going to want to have a beer with Clinton. Absolutely no one. Except maybe me.

I like people like Clinton. Smart. Ambitious. Steely. I liked Richard Nixon too for the same reasons. Neither are "likable." I could care less. They know their facts, work hard and aren't shy about being the smartest, most prepared person in the room. And the more I watched the debate last night, the more I realized that Clinton was the closest thing to Richard Nixon we've had in politics in the last 30 years.

Like Nixon, Clinton cannot cut a break with the press. There is just something about her that brings out the worst in a journalist. And at the last debate, it was clear to me that they were just kicking her even when she was down. Tim Russert acted as if Clinton was a vampire and the only way he was finally going to be able to kill her was to drive a wooden stake through her heart. It wasn't journalism going on the other night. It was character assassination.

There has been a lot of talk that the press hates Clinton because she's a woman. But I don't think that's 80 percent of the story. The reason the press hates her is almost entirely for the same reason that they hated Nixon well before Watergate. She doesn't have the kind of personality that plays well before the media. If you're a reporter it's hard work to cover a politician like this, someone who doesn't naturally give good copy. You grow to resent the job. And you end up hating the candidate.

At the end of the debate, I was half hoping that Clinton would throw in the towel. Like Nixon, Clinton is a much maligned candidate simply because the media chemistry isn't right with her. It never will be. I flashed forward in my head to a month from now when Clinton is out of the race and an image entered my head. It was a picture of Richard Nixon walking off an airplane in about 1962 after he lost the election for California's governor. The words he said to the press then will apply to Hillary Clinton in just a short while. Come March, you won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore.

The Forty Questions Presidential Debate

There have been tens of debates this election season. And where has the Forty Questions blog been during these debates? Sadly we've been on the sidelines. But not any more. It's time to hold the first Forty Questions blog presidential debate!

The host for this presidential debate is my musical alter ego, Stuart Rosh. The contestants, whoops, candidates are John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The studio where this is all being held is located in our Nation's 51st state, the State of Confusion.

Rosh: Here in Confusion we've lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. What can be done to reinvigorate our state with good paying jobs with benefits.

Obama: Well, it's all the fault of Naptha. I never wanted Naptha. But my opponent Miss Hillary pushed and pushed. She singlehandedly took away every one of those jobs from this wonderful state. But of course I have a solution. If we all hold hands and click our heels and say "change we can believe in" three times very fast, all of those jobs will come back. It's part of my movement. I call it Project Wishful Thinking. You can read all about it on my website.

Clinton: That's so, so, so not true Senator Osama, I mean Obama. You are so mean to me! And Naptha is a laundry soap. Not that I've ever done laundry mind you. And I don't bake cookies either. It's NAFTA you buffoon. And I have a 23 point program to change it. You only have a 12 step, I mean 12 point program so mine must be better, right?

McCain: Those jobs aren't ever coming back, pilgrims. Get used to it. And what's more, I promise to continue all of Bush's fat cat tax breaks so that income disparity will increase. It's part of my Whatever W. Did I'm Gonna Do plan. You can read about it on this mimeo machine handout. Sorry about the typos, but my Underwood is kind of sticky, you know. And what does NAFTA stand for anyhow? I used to know, but at my age, memory isn't what it used to be.

Clinton: North American Free Trade Agreement. That's what it stands for Senator McCain.

Rosh, Obama, and McCain in unison: Thank you, Miss Knowitall.

Rosh: Tens of thousands of people have lost their homes in Confusion as a result of the housing market crash. What are the solutions?

Clinton: You know, I was talking to a woman the other day and it was so sad. I mean she'd lost her house. And then she said her husband ran off with an office intern. What is it with men and interns nowadays anyhow? *Tears well up and she fights them back.* People say I'm a bitch. It's not true! It's so not true! *A stream of tears pour out and Obama pulls out a handkerchief with the words "Yes, We Can" embroidered delicately in pink and gives it to her.*

Obama: You'll always be my friend, Hillary.

Clinton: It's a privilege to be on stage with you Baracka Hussein Osama. You're the finest Muslim extremist this country has ever known. *Mopping up the tears with a thin little smile on her face.*

McCain: You two namby, pamby liberals make me sick. You're crying over a philandering husband? I was in the Hanoi Hilton being waterboarded and hung by my toenails for five years and didn't shed are tear. Not a single one! Of course, my tear ducts were removed by a Vietnamese horse veterinarian, but that's not the point. I'm tough. I may be 2137 years old but I can beat up both of you with one hand tied behind my back. And that pink embroidery thing? What kind of man are you anyhow? And what the hell kind of name is Barack? You must be a communist. I don't like commies you know. Never have. Never will.

Rosh: The question was about housing.

McCain: *Red faced and foaming at the mouth.* Dummy, can't you see we're avoiding the question?

Obama: We're not avoiding it, Stuart. You have to have hope. Hope is hard. But if you hope hard enough, Stuart, a light will shine down from above and you'll vote for me.

Clinton: I know the question is about housing. And I'll be ready for that house, the White House, on day one. I know every nook and cranny of that house and have a 218 point decorating plan. You can read about it on my web site. You can't just dream about decorating and think it will happen by magic. It's hard work. And my lord what the Bush's have done to the Lincoln Bedroom. It's a travesty.

Rosh: This one comes from the audience. Would Jesus endorse you?

Obama: I am the second coming, the Prince of Peace, Jesus, come to heal this world. Of course, I endorse myself.

Clinton: I don't know if he would. But I do know it's going to take a miracle for me to win. *Gets down on her knees and places her hands in supplication.* Jesus, Mary, and Joseph please, please, please make me President. I'll do anything, really, anything, even have sex with my revolting pig of a husband.

McCain: Senator Obama, I was born in Bethlehem. Jesus and I used to play in that sandbox they call the Negev Desert together. I knew Jesus. Jesus was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jesus of Nazareth.

And on that note, I'm afraid we've run out of time. Sigh. Look for the Obama vs McCain grand finale sometime in October.

Welcome To the New Politics, Same as the Old Politics

Damn, this election material doesn't seem to be quite dying yet. But it's coming to a close for me until the primaries are over, honest.

Over the last few days, Obama and Clinton have been going at each other over NAFTA. In what has been a misstep on the part of Obama, instead of running out the clock in a game where he is ahead, the Obama team decided to send out some stupid fliers distorting Clinton's position on NAFTA and health care. Why they chose to do this I don't know. And why Obama continues to bash Clinton on NAFTA I don't know. It's a battle of much ado about nothing.

Whenever these candidates try to distinguish themselves on the basis of issues, they end up in the muck. It's pointless for either of them to try because when it comes to issues they are essentially the same candidate. They both want virtually the same things. They are both bland as anything centrist Democrats when it comes to policy.

NAFTA is a case in point. They both want to modify free trade agreements to give more advantages to the US. These two candidates are exactly the same on this topic. It isn't an issue worth discussing. But somehow Obama can't seem to shut up. He says he doesn't like NAFTA and never did. But yes he wants free trade. Except he doesn't want NAFTA. What does he want? Well, um, it sounds like NAFTA II is what he wants.

This is why I have a very hard time supporting Obama so far. When he starts to get to specifics, he just doesn't know what he is saying. He doesn't do his homework. And then when all is said and done, he has to go back to sloganeering. Maybe that's all he can do. I sure hope not.

Let's go back in time. I want to look at the source of my problem with Obama. A few months ago, I was undecided about whom to support for president. Then I picked up my most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, read an article by Obama and my mind was made up instantly.

I like to follow foreign policy very closely and Foreign Affairs is the premier foreign policy journal in this country. Academics, think tank experts, military brass and politicians publish in this journal regularly. They use the opportunity to show off their expertise and brain power and to try to promote ideas. Many ideas that you see on foreign policy that make it to the news and are spouted and used by politicians have their origin in some article from Foreign Affairs a couple of years previous.

Anyhow, every election cycle, presidential candidates get to espouse their views on foreign policy in Foreign Affairs. It's their chance to shine and show the audience of foreign policy experts and general foreign policy bugs like me that they know their stuff. Obama got his chance to do just that. You can find his article here. Read it for yourself. It's drivel, the kind of material a freshman college student would write and get a B+. It was easily the least sophisticated foreign policy statement in Foreign Affairs by a presidential candidate this side of Mike Huckabee.

There was no way I could vote for a foreign policy ignoramus in the primaries. Obama was off my list.

Now maybe since the time he wrote that college freshman level essay Obama has found some better advice and acquired some expertise. I hope he has. But it's also true since that time he has run the kind of campaign that just plain sticks in my craw. The rhetoric is high school class president kind of stuff mixed with Baptist minister-style hoopla. Obama says he is promoting a movement of change. You'd think he was promoting something truly amazing. But then when you look at Obama's proposals, you find nothing at all out of the ordinary. It's a revolution without content cloaked in holier than thou rhetoric.

In truth, I don't care that Obama is phony. That's how almost all politicians are. It's the nature of the beast. But I've always had a problem with slimy people who try to act as if they are honorable. It's a thing of mine. My view is that if you're a crook, don't tell me you are a saint. I can deal with the fact that you are slimy no problem. Let's just keep it in the open and everything will be fine.

And that's my problem with Obama. He's running as if he is a saint and what's worse is that there are people stupid enough to hang on his every word. They are even applauding his sneezes. It's ridiculous stuff. Note to Obama cultists: when someone sneezes you say "G-d bless" and leave it at that. I have no interest in a candidate who is abusing his leadership ability to create a cult of personality.

Obama has said that he will win the presidency partly because he can get the Hillary vote. He will have mine it's true. But he doesn't have my enthusiasm for his candidacy. And I'm not so sure that he can get as much of the Hillary vote as he thinks he can. I've talked to Hillary supporters and they are often, like me, distinctly turned off by all of the hoopla and rock star aspect of the Obama candidacy. They want real content. They want someone who minds the details.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. However, it's going to be a very tight election. There are still a lot of people who won't vote for a black man (or a white woman). I don't know how well he will succeed if he can only attract at best wan support from the Clinton wing. With every rock concert chant of "yes we can" the potential for support from those who aren't Obama cultists just might be getting dimmer and dimmer.

And what is Obama doing right now? He's sounding like Mr. Populist now that he's in the Midwest, all for the common man. I'm sorry, but a man who lives in a million and a half dollar house that he owns partly because of a land deal with a fat cat rich guy about to go to trial for multiple felonies and has spent over 115 million dollars on his campaign doesn't hold much credibility as a populist.*

He's calling Clinton a neocon and saying that McCain is in the pocket of lobbyists; really now, demagoguery is so passe. And he's going around to Jewish groups in Ohio trying to make excuses for his whacky, race-centric church's praise for Louis Farrakhan and for the presence of Zbigniew Brzezinski on his foreign policy team (Obama says Brzezinski was there just for one lunch in Iowa, honest). All of this doesn't bother me much. Except for one thing. He's claiming that somehow he stands for something new.

The new politics of Obama somehow look a lot like the old politics of everyone else. He might lose his cult in the process, but I would respect Obama a lot more if he would give up the charade.

OK, I have maybe one more political posting to make and then I swear I'm going to give this thing a rest.

*Yes, I know that Clinton has equally meager credibility when it comes to being a populist.

Is The Media Biased?

Barack Obama has run a brilliant campaign. I think it's a dishonest one as well, but politics aren't about honesty. The brilliance comes from the idea that you can play the old political game of throwing mud and making promises you can't possibly keep, but if you give it a patina of grand optimistic vision people will buy it.

The irony with Obama is that George Bush ran the same type of campaign in 2000 that Obama is running right now. Bush avoided specifics. He attacked, but professed to be running a campaign that was about uniting not dividing. He found some dopey meaningless phrase that sounded optimistic, compassionate conservatism, and kept on message every day.

The press loved it. They liked Bush's winning personality and optimism. And at face value, you could have said that Bush was getting favorable media bias. But that isn't quite right. I don't think he was. What he was doing was providing the media with a compelling narrative. It was a good story to sell this "uniter not a divider" and "compassionate conservatism" thing. The press needs good stories, little vignettes that aren't complicated. Good simple stories that appeal to people's emotions attract an audience. Complicated messy ones that appeal to people's brains don't. There's a quid pro quo that often goes on between the press and the politicians: give me a good story and I'll give you positive press. And Bush, while not the campaigner that Obama is, rode that positive press into the White House with the help of the Supreme Court.

It helps in all of this quid pro quo between the press and the politician to find some meaningless phrase that sounds optimistic and keep on that message every day. And that's what Obama has done. It's "change we can believe in" every day 24/7. It's a cute phrase, very optimistic and he delivers it with gusto. Add all of the crowds that come to his new age, yes we can, pep rallies, and the press has a great story to sell. It's exciting. It's positive. What Obama is doing is controlling the press narrative by giving them something they can use. That's not media bias. That's simply having talent to manipulate the media.

On the other hand, Clinton has been unsuccessful at providing the media with a consistent narrative. First her story was "I'm invincible." And that story did work up until Iowa. But after the Iowa caucuses she wasn't invincible anymore was she? She had to come up with a new narrative. Unfortunately, she chose the narrative "I'm for change too plus I know more than my opponent." Now that was not a good choice. It meant she was simply parroting Obama and people and the press don't care about details anyway. It was a lousy story to sell the public: "Obama is for change and so is Hillary the wonk." Snooze. So the press came up with it's own narrative in this contest that was more emotionally compelling. They went to a lazy shorthand: "charismatic, optimistic near-god-like figure runs against whiny bitch."

That's been the narrative ever since Iowa with a pause thrown in when Hillary cried in New Hampshire. And yes, it isn't fair. And yes, it's misogynistic. Worse, it makes Clinton unable to attack Obama because when she does so she can only reinforce that narrative.

This sounds harsh, but to a large degree it's Clinton's fault that she didn't work to change that narrative early on. She needed to come up with a consistent story to tell the press that was unique and compelling. There were a number of ways to do that. And she tried. After the "I'm for change too" line, she came up with "I have more experience and am ready from day one," but this narrative could and was easily debunked. I think she eventually did come up with a good narrative when she started to say she was for real solutions not pipe dreams, but by then the narrative of "rock god versus whiny bitch" had already hardened.

All along Hillary tried in her spiel to the press and the public to fight the image that she was a whiny bitch. She tried so hard to be nice and show her softer side. But that only seemed to work in New Hampshire. Essentially, she was type cast by the press and there was nothing she could do to find another role. My own view is that she should have simply said right from the get go, "You know, I like to get things done. I'm a doer. If that makes you think I'm a bitch then call me one, I don't care. I am who I am. And this guy who's telling you pipe dreams of 'change you can believe in,' of uniting blue and red states when there is a real cultural war going on in this country, is full of more shit than a Christmas goose."

The narrative could have been, "the dreamy optimist versus the bitch realist." I like her chances a lot better with that one.

Is the media biased against Clinton? Well certainly there are misogynists who are reporters. But overall I think not. The Clinton campaign simply did not play the press game well. After Iowa, it could not come up with a compelling story that the press could sell to its audience. In the absence of them being fed something good, the press made up something on the fly.

Ever since Iowa, Obama has controlled the press. Ever since Iowa, the press has controlled Clinton. And when the press controls you, it's never a good thing. I know this all sounds very cynical. It assumes that both the press and the public are easily manipulated and that political campaigns involve mostly shell games about image. That is indeed what I believe. There are thoughtful reporters and informed voters, sure, but most are lazy s.o.b.s. They just want a take home message to report or digest. If this weren't true to at least some degree, you wouldn't have seen 230 million dollars (and counting) being spent by both campaigns combined to try to manipulate the press and public with catchy take home messages. Politically, Clinton and Obama are identical so issues don't really matter in this race. It's about image and selling the most compelling image you can.

I'll end this by noting that while there are strong similarities in approach, there is one big difference between the Obama and Bush 2000 campaigns. Obama is a lot better at pushing the optimism button than Bush. He's a lot more charismatic. The crowds are huge. The crowds applaud even when he sneezes (literally). The press loves the story Obama is generating and repeats it every day. And that may be a problem with Obama over the long haul.

It may be that like some hit song on the radio that gets overplayed or an actor that starts showing up everywhere, that Obama may have gotten too hot. He may be getting too much exposure right now. And if that's the case, the media and the public just might get completely bored with Obama come crunch time in the election. It may be come fall that the public's reaction to Obama is "been there, done that."

I don't think the Obama campaign understands this. They seem to be quite happy pumping up his public exposure and portraying him as a rock god. They don't comprehend that they may have too much of a good thing. Obama could turn into the political equivalent of the hoola hoop or bell bottom pants. Being a fad has secured him the Democratic nomination. However it may not be enough to get him into the White House. My view is that Obama is eventually going to have to change his shtick and find content to run on. Otherwise, he may find that between now and November, he'll be viewed by the press and public as an empty suit.

I think that Obama can find content. He hasn't chosen to do so because running on hot air has been so successful. But when the press gets bored with that hot air, he needs to be ready to switch to something new in a hurry. Because otherwise the press will call the shots. And my guess is that the new narrative the press invents will be, "straight-talking war hero runs against arrogant, egotistical anti-Patriot." He doesn't want to go there.

Another Point of View

For those of you who want an alternative view as to why Hillary Clinton lost, you can find it in Frank Rich's column in the NY Times here. I include it for completeness. In a nutshell, Frank Rich is convinced that Hillary Clinton is satan. Why the New York Times has allowed Mr. Rich to turn its op-ed page into his personal playpen of hate is a mystery to me. I do note that Bill Keller has served to dumb down the paper during his editorship. But being dumb and being venomous are two different things.

One of the funnier lines in Mr. Rich's op-ed is his calling the Obama campaign a "lean and mean political machine." The Obama campaign is many things. And the Obama team has run a brilliant campaign. However, it's worth noting that Obama has spent (110 million dollars and counting) more money than any political candidate in primary history. It has been mean at times. But it isn't lean.

How Clinton Lost

Oh yes, I know the Democratic presidential race is still on technically. But it's over and done. As I noted a couple of posts ago, the fat lady has sung.*

There has been a lot of finger pointing going on in the Clinton camp about what went wrong with her campaign. The conventional wisdom is that this was her race to lose. She had the money, the organization, and the name recognition. But I'm not so sure that this conventional wisdom is correct. And overall, I think she did run a pretty good campaign, far better than most national Democratic campaigns I've worked on.

The simple answer is that she lost because the other person just was a better campaigner. He was telegenic. He was charismatic. Clinton was who she was. She was actually far better at campaigning and shmoozing than the press gave her credit for. But she was no match for Obama who is just a natural at it.

Going beyond the simple answer though there are specifics that can be examined. Ultimately, she could have won this race if she ran the perfect campaign. But mistakes were made as they always are. And I'd like to talk about those mistakes a bit.

First off, it's obvious that Clinton was not an ideal candidate. She isn't a natural speaker. And most importantly, there are a lot of people who simply dislike her. The source of this dislike ranges from misogyny to the messy nature of her husband's presidency. The hatred is visceral. And I think that's why the early campaign strategy - which has been much maligned as of late - of presenting her as the inevitable nominee was a good one. It was I thought a decent way of combating those in the Democratic Party who hate her. Her campaign was essentially saying, "Well we know you don't like her, but she is going to be the candidate and you're a Democrat, so we need you to get behind her."

But if you're going to use that strategy, you need to get out of the gate fast. It was clear early on that Iowa was not going to be the place for Clinton to do that. The "hate factor" for whatever reason was just too strong to overcome in Iowa. Plus, Clinton's base constituency, women of a certain age, just do not perform well in caucuses.

Here's what would happen in the caucuses. A bunch of enthusiastic kid Obama supporters would be beaming mixed with male Hilary haters. On the other side, you'd have soft spoken middle age women who wanted Clinton. The kids would get up and gush about Obama. The men would get up and say, "I just don't like her." Why? They wouldn't say. There was just something about her. The Clinton women were too polite to challenge the men on their misogyny because the men didn't overtly attack Clinton or use the "bitch" word. And it was a classic case of dad and the kids versus the mom. Clinton could not possibly win caucuses anywhere because of this. Add in Midwestern conservative values and her husband's history with loose zippers, and it was all over for her in Iowa.

Certain higher ups in Clinton's campaign urged her to skip Iowa altogether for this reason. They were right. Instead she spent 20 million in Iowa and still lost. And pop there went the balloon that she was the invincible, inevitable candidate. She should have started in New Hampshire. It would have been the classic strategy of picking the fights you can win.

Then came the misstep in South Carolina. The campaign had a notion that because the Clintons were historically popular with blacks that they could win a significant share of the black vote. But the Clinton camp was delusional about this issue. After Obama won Iowa, the equation changed completely. Initially, blacks were holding back about Obama because they rightly didn't think that Obama could win in Iowa. Now they were energized. If Obama could win whitey Iowa, he could win anywhere. It was another fight the Clintons could not possibly win. And the more they fought for the black vote in South Carolina, using Bill as the heavy, the worse they looked. Pick the fights you can win. Had they simply said, OK Obama you get the black vote, the Clinton campaign would have been far better off financially and politically on Super Tuesday. They lost a lot of goodwill capital fighting for the black vote.

The final reason Clinton has lost this election is one I don't have an answer for. But sometime after Super Tuesday, Clinton lost the sisterhood vote. I don't know why. Clinton could win without Iowa, she could win without the black vote, but in order to win the nomination, female voters needed to be solidly behind her. And for the most part they were devoted followers all the way through Super Tuesday. Then they abandoned her. In Virginia. In Maryland. In Wisconsin. She lost her base.

For whatever reason, come February the more women saw of Obama, the more they liked him. When Clinton's core constituency drifted away, she was cooked. Had they stayed, she would be on top right now and poised for victory.

Every aspect of Clinton's campaign was geared toward the female voter. Every call that was made by a volunteer was targeted to Clinton's core constituency, women over 45 who were registered Democrats. And that group just wouldn't hold together for her over the long run. I don't know why.

It may be that identity politics work better on the basis of race or ethnic group than they do on the basis of gender. Gender politics are certainly trickier and more nuanced. You can't just be a female and automatically get a lion's share of the female vote. For example, many women disliked Clinton to begin with. It was personal and it was about her husband. Why did she stick with him? As time wore on and especially after South Carolina, Clinton became even less attractive to them. And maybe they started to rethink their position. Sure, they wanted a female president one day, but not someone like her, someone so entwined with a creep of a husband.

If I think about why Hillary Clinton lost, I can't remove Bill from the equation. It's probably true that she lost her core constituency because of him. And that may be a lesson for future female candidates. Your spouse is going to have to be someone females can admire. Bill Clinton brought Hillary Clinton into prominence. But his presence also made it difficult if not impossible for her to close the deal.

Then there is the issue of how Clinton made mistakes in her jousting with Obama. I'll probably talk about that next time and then leave the world of politics behind for awhile. I need a political break.

*For those international readers who seem to be reading my blog, that's a baseball expression that means the game has been lost. I promise to keep those obscure American metaphors to a minimum in the future.

Frank, a devoted Christian and family man from Dublin, lives a miserable life. He works hard every day to provide for his family at his little shop and yet can barely put enough food on the table. The landlord is always screaming at him for back rent.

But what vexes Frank most is that his neighbor Joe, who runs a little whore house, lives so well despite the fact that he beats his children and wife, and plays with his whores.

One day Frank can't take it anymore. He closes up his shop and goes to church on a Monday morning. The church is empty. And Frank gets on his knees and asks G-d why. Why does Joe who sins regularly and never goes to church have everything and why do I, who leads a good honest life have nothing?

All of a sudden, Frank hears thunder above the church ceiling. A cloud forms high above inside the church and he sees an angry face in the cloud, the angry face of G-d. "Why? Why? Why?" G-d says. "Isn't it obvious Frank? It's because I fuckin' hate ya!"

The Right-Wing Hate Machine

One of the unintended consequences of the Reagan victories in the 1980s was the emergence of a good number of media and political nut jobs who viewed Reagan as an icon. For me, Reagan wasn't so bad. After the incompetence of Carter, just about anything was an improvement. Plus Reagan was such a happy warrior spreading good cheer. It's what has followed after that has been the true disaster. Reagan's disciples aren't happy warriors in the least. Rather they are angry and deranged. It just might be that Reagan, their hero, is turning over in his grave over their antics.

Rush Limbaugh went national in the late 1980s. Newt Gingrich rose to national prominence about that time. Fox's Republican Channel masquerading as news came on board in 1996. Before them, the conservative movement was sane and somewhat erudite. Its media beacons were in print, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal. Their media faces were people of education like William F. Buckley who would insult liberals during the day but have a drink with them at night.

In the late 1980s, everything seemed to change. With the emergence of talk/hate radio, the dialogue became much cruder and coarser. Instead of informed discourse, the conservative movement simply started to foam at the mouth. Rush Limbaugh raged every day on the radio. Newt Gingrich, an unsuccessful academic turned slash and burn politician, raged every day in Congress. These people weren't going to have a drink with any liberal. They were fueled by hatred.

This hate machine has been operating for two decades now. But it learned its chops on its first test case, Bill Clinton. When Clinton was elected, it was like putting a human body in a tank full of starved piranhas. The right-wing hate machine detested everything about Clinton from the beginning. I never understood just why they hated Clinton with such vehemence. But they did.

The right-wing hate machine threw everything they could at Clinton. For years they paraded around a purported real estate swindle, Whitewater, as testimony to Clinton's corruption. There was only one problem: the purported swindle was a complete hoax. Finally after years of work, the hate machine got what it wanted, a juicy piece of gossip involving a White House intern and a stained blue dress. They rode that piece of gossip for all it was worth.

One of the reasons, the chief reason, that Hillary Clinton has been unsuccessful as a candidate and will lose the Democratic nomination is not so much that her husband was found out publicly as a cheater. Rather, the left blame her and her husband for not only the public shame they brought to the White House, but also the hate these two generated. The left are in essence blaming the victim. It's irrational and isn't fair. But you can't change human psychology.

I've heard so many people say to me something to the effect that, "I just don't want to revisit the icky times that were the Clintons." What they are also saying to me I think is that they just don't want to see the hate machine in full force again. They don't want to be hated and they don't want their candidate to suffer the wrath that the Clintons did. It makes them feel uncomfortable.

One of the reasons, the chief reason, that Obama has been successful as a candidate and will win the Democratic nomination is because he has made the claim that we will not see the hate-machine again should he take office. Somehow - and he hasn't said exactly how - he will bring the left and right together.

No one has challenged Obama on this assertion. No one has asked him just how he expects to keep the lunatics of the right at bay. And somehow the left has taken these assertions as truth. Obama has created a voting block of wishful thinkers who are simply tired of being hated.

But the hate machine that was created in the late 1980s will not simply close up shop because Obama is charismatic. And those people on the left who, like Frank in the Irish joke above, are so tired of being treated unfairly need to understand just why they are subject to slander and slime by the right wing media. Why? Why? Why? The answer is obvious. Because they fuckin' hate ya. They hate you. They still hate the Clintons. And guess what. They fuckin' hate Obama, too.

De-electifying

It's been a great election primary for political junkies. I can't remember a better one in terms of drama on the campaign trail. But in my mind, the primaries are over. Oh sure, the press will try to make the race still seem alive to maintain an audience, but we have our two candidates, Obama and McCain. Stick the primaries with a fork; they are done.

And now I'm de-electifying. I'm not looking at the CNN website anymore. I'm not obsessing about the latest word said from candidate x, y or z. I'm not watching McNeil-Lehrer or whatever they call that PBS news show nowadays now that one of them - I don't even know which one - left or died and went to heaven. I'm done worried about the election until the conventions.

Plus I need some time to get used to the idea of volunteering for Obama. He isn't my kind of candidate. There's too much sizzle and not enough steak. They say that seeing Obama is like going to a rock concert. Fine. The last time I paid for a rock concert ticket was over thirty years ago. I don't like them. Yes, I'm a curmudgeon. It isn't anything new. I was one when I was 12, too.

For me, Obama is lousy on details. He doesn't do his homework and when he makes specific statements is often off base. He's like one of those lazy real bright kids I used to teach in college. He gets by on smarts and bullshit. I dislike candidates like that. But despite my reservations about Obama, he's likely going to be a better president than what the Republicans are offering. So I'll volunteer for him. I'll suck it up and do it.

I'll have to deal with those loony glazed-eyed, hero worshipping Obamies, too. Obama is something new under the sun. He's America's first candidate as pop culture star. There was none of that in the Clinton campaign that's for sure. But I'm a grown man. I can handle it.

Come next January, I worry that Obama will be like Carter, a nice guy who screws up because he's too naive and ends up doing a lousy job. The hard right is not going to suddenly embrace this guy simply because he's nice. It's been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign that somehow - although he has no track record of doing so - he can build bridges across the left-right political divide and we'll all be one big happy family. Baloney.

Instead it's certain to be almost like Bill Clinton all over again. Fox News and all the right wing loonies will savage Obama every friggen day in the press. One good thing is that there is no longer an Office of Independent Council to stir the pot; the Republicans abused that post to such a degree with Kenneth Starr that it was disbanded by Congress. Another thing that has changed for the better is that unlike when the right wing media attack machine was fresh, people have become very suspicious of the truthfulness of its message.

Whenever Obama is attacked, I've noticed he has this deer in the headlights look. He looks personally hurt, as if no one has ever insulted him before. I don't think he has the cajones to stand up to the inevitable daily right wing siege once he's in office.

I hope that I'm wrong and that he actually will be an effective president.

I used to think that Carter was the worst president of my lifetime. Until George W. Bush came along, I thought that a Republican who knows how to get things done as president was probably better than a Democrat that I agreed with politically but was incompetent. But now that we've had Bush, I've rethought that completely. Carter was incompetent, sure. He couldn't get Congress to do anything. But Bush has been able to move Congress quite effectively (the one area of competence he's shown); and the result has been much, much worse than the problems caused by Carter's complete incompetence.

I'm sticking with my Democrats this election. Obama may or may not be much, but we have nowhere to go but up.

On Wisconsin

Here's a story from a little over 20 years ago in my home state of Wisconsin. It takes place in Green Bay, a town where football means everything. A player, future Hall of Famer James Lofton , is walking down the street. He gets closer and closer to a dad and his son who are looking at him carefully. "See that, son," the dad says. James Lofton smiles, thinking, "Hey, they recognize me." But the smile disappears when he hears the next words from the dad's mouth, "That's a nigger."

Now I'm not picking on my home state. That could have happened in a lot of places twenty years ago. But it's not happening anymore in Green Bay. It's a whole different and better world.

Yesterday, a black man, Barack Obama, walloped Hillary Clinton in an election in my home state. He took every segment of the electorate except for the elderly, Catholics and women, but even with the latter two groups he was close. I know Wisconsin like the back of my hand. Essentially the exit polls suggest that without those Polish Catholic women on the South Side of Milwaukee, Obama would have almost cleared the table.

If Clinton gets walloped in my home state, she doesn't have a chance in Ohio or Pennsylvania. I don't care what the polls say in those other states. She can't win. Because Wisconsin is about as good as it gets for her in terms of demographics. It's blue collar, not wealthy, and has a negligible black population. Yesterday's election indicated that Clinton has almost completely lost her base of support. Obama is not just the candidate for blacks and the latte set anymore. He's also the candidate for all of those guys who hang out in those neighborhood bars with Pabst Blue Ribbon signs hanging outside. He is virtually every group's first choice.

It's all over folks. I'm sure that Clinton will run all the way through March 4th. But come that time, I'm sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that she will have to fold her tent. Obama has said he can't win on points. He has to knock Clinton out. Come March 4th, Clinton is going down. I don't see how it can be otherwise.

I've been a Clinton supporter for many months now. I think she has run a pretty good campaign. People will carp about how she should have worked the caucuses harder, yada, yada, yada. They will point fingers. But Clinton's base of support, white women of a certain age, is not the kind that can work caucuses well. These people are too low key, in general. They burn with passion on the inside, not on the outside. And the basic problem has not been how Clinton has run her own campaign. She simply has run into a better campaign, one with a more energetic and larger volunteer base with a charismatic candidate.

In Wisconsin, Clinton threw everything at Obama. She said he was all words and no action. She said he was a coward for avoiding a debate. She said he was a plagiarist. None of the mud stuck. Like many charismatic candidates before him, Obama appears to be Teflon coated. People simply like him. They aren't concerned about the details.

There are a lot of fat ladies in Wisconsin. It comes with the cold weather, bratwurst, beer and brandy (Wisconsin, tiny though it may be, consumes 25% of the country's brandy). And yesterday those fat ladies sang, "Good night Hillary."

All of those people who talked about a brokered convention and a Democratic meltdown can shut up now. The Democrats have their candidate. His name is Barack Obama. And I'd bet a good sum of money that he will be the next president of the United States.

Liberals Crazy in Love

For most of the last 20 years, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been muzzled. There's a reason for this. Liberal candidates, particularly at the senatorial and presidential levels, lose. Why on Earth would the Democratic Party want to lose? In response, candidates and the party have moved to the center. Oh sure, people like Dennis Kucinich can run for president. But they don't stand a chance of getting a nomination. It's the centrists that end up in the lead.

So it comes as no surprise that the two candidates left standing are very much in the center politically. As an example of that, all you have to do is look at how both Obama and Clinton responded to the campus murders at Northern Illinois University a few days ago. In a nutshell, they both said the same thing, "O gee isn't this awful, we should do something, but...er...um...people need guns." A liberal, like me, would have said something entirely different. Both candidates are military hawks in comparison to liberals; Obama wants to increase troop strength in our military to the tune of 92,000 soldiers. They both have knee jerk tough on terror messages and you can forget about either even questioning the wisdom of our "war on terror" or lamenting our loss of civil liberties.

What's odd about this election is that even though the candidates are nearly identical politically, the liberal wing has fallen crazy in love with one of them, Obama. Despite being named by the National Journal as the most liberal person in the Senate (it's the same designation they gave to Kerry in 2003 in an effort to slime him as a presidential candidate), Obama is far from a liberal. So why are liberals so excited about him? Why is Teddy Kennedy saying Obama is the greatest thing since slice bread? Why is Hollywood going so gaga? Why are those uber-liberals Ben and Jerry naming ice cream after Obama?*

I think it comes down to a few basic factors. One of course, is that Obama publicly opposed the Iraq War. Never mind that he has said he might have had a different opinion had he been in the Senate at the time the war started and has voted for Iraqi War appropriations. He did say no when virtually everyone said yes. That counts for a lot.

Then there is the bad blood between liberals and the Clintons. When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, liberals had high hopes that he would be a Kennedy-like figure. They assumed that all kinds of social programs would be established. It didn't happen. Clinton did try with health care and other issues. But for the first two years, he was essentially a raw hick who didn't understand what the presidency was about and by the time he did figure out how to be president, the Democrats had lost their hold on Congress. Faced with potential defeat in 2006, Clinton abandoned whatever pretense of a partial liberal agenda he had. Liberals never forgave him for it. They felt betrayed. Obama scores points simply by not being a Clinton.

Personally, I didn't like Clinton much back in 1992. He reminded me of those slimy people in my high school who ran for class office. I'm a liberal, sure, but I thought, like Obama today, that Clinton was simply too inexperienced to do much while in office; he'd fumble the ball in the beginning. I was right about that; it does happen, you know. When the liberal community screamed betrayal, Clinton actually started to grow on me. He started to understand how to govern and be president. I always thought the dreams of the liberal wing were unrealistic in 1992.

Getting back to why liberals love Obama, there's the black factor. Liberals get to expiate this country's past and present racism by supporting a black candidate.

But there's a fourth factor as to why liberals love Obama that I think is very interesting. It's his message that we can change the way politics are run in this country. We don't have to fight anymore. And liberals are tired of fighting. I hear it all of the time. They don't have the fire in their belly to go after the Christian right anymore. They are suffering from fatigue.

Plus liberals are lousy fighters to begin with. I'll insult my brethren with generalities. These latte drinkers are the ones who came up with soccer games for their children where everybody wins a trophy. They pay retail because they are squeamish about haggling. They tend to believe all that "all you need is love" stuff they grew up with in the sixties. So when someone comes along with charisma and says trust me we can all get along, they are desperate to believe the message no matter how far fetched it may be. And I know this sounds ridiculously harsh, but they come up with phrases like "Obama appeals to our better angels" to obscure just how desperate they are.

How far fetched is Obama's we can all get along message? I might talk about that next time. I do note that a couple of days ago I saw Obama give five minutes of his stump speech. I was dumbfounded. I didn't see why people were so riveted. He talked about "hope" and how "hope is hard." It wasn't a political speech; it sounded like a sermon. Sure people got excited, but for me, it was like someone was asking me to put my brain on the shelf. I'm not Obama material. I'm not joining the "Obamination" any time soon. But as I noted above, I didn't think much of Bill Clinton either when he started. I warmed up to him after a couple of years. Perhaps if Obama becomes president, I'll warm up to him as well, probably about the same time my fellow liberals cry "betrayal."

*The ice cream flavor is called Cherries for Change.

Dems Want Jimmy Stewart, Reps Want John Wayne

Many moons ago, I sat in an open air theater in a small town in Israel and watched the greatest Western ever made, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. It was right before the 1973 Yom Kippur War, back when Israel was always the "good guy." The movie is wonderful in so many ways. The music, the direction, the stars, the plot, it all works so beautifully. Even a song that didn't make the final cut of the movie was a big pop hit.

In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, Jimmy Stewart plays a lawyer in a Western town right before the region becomes an official state in the Union. It's still very much a rugged place where God made man and Samuel Colt made them equal. But Jimmy Stewart won't wear a gun. He's a walking metaphor for civilization, for the goodness of man.

John Wayne is a rancher who thinks that Jimmy Stewart is a fool. They both, of course, vie for the hand of a beautiful woman, Vera Miles. A bad man comes to town, Lee Marvin. Words won't vanquish him. He, like John Wayne, is a vestige of the old wild West. And when he is shot (in a wonderful twist of plot where John Wayne does the shooting from the shadows), not only is Lee Marvin vanquished, but so is the entire rowdiness of the West. Now the region is ready for statehood. The law of words can replace the law of the gun.

As I watched the movie that night, I wondered if my Israeli cousins understood that what they were seeing wasn't just a Western. It was a metaphor for the entire history of the US. I asked them after. They said no. They thought the movie was pretty boring, actually. So much for movies that transcend culture.

When I think of that movie now, I think it not only encapsulates the history of the US, but also how we vote. Republicans vote for the guy that most acts like John Wayne. They want someone virile with a swagger and a gun, someone with a square jaw who isn't about learning, but about doing. Democrats vote for the guy that most acts like Jimmy Stewart. They want someone who understands books, is well spoken, good hearted and earnest.

We've been voting this way for decades. It's a vote between the values of the rugged individual, John Wayne, versus the civilized man of words, Jimmy Stewart. If you want to update the actors, it's Clint Eastwood versus Tom Hanks. But it's the same vote.

Look at who the Republicans have come up with as candidates in my lifetime, Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. It mostly follows the John Wayne model. There are war heroes and football players, men of action and few words. They tend to have a swagger. Our current president does, that's for sure. He walks like John Wayne, but unfortunately thinks like Elmer Fudd. Oops, I went off message again.

On the Democratic side, we've had Stevenson, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. They mostly follow the Jimmy Stewart model. They are on the bookish side, use three words when one will do, and all care deeply about their fellow human beings. When Democrats lose, by the way, they tend to come up short on the Jimmy Stewart model by putting forth candidates who just seem like effete wimps. Jimmy Stewart was not effete. Gore and Kerry both are and it's no wonder that the Democrats lost the past two elections.

This year, it looks like we are following that pattern again. The Republicans have come up with a war hero from the West with a swagger, John McCain. The Democrats have their Jimmy Stewart types, highly educated people of many words, Obama and Clinton. The good news for the Democrats is that neither Obama or Clinton are wimps. The bad news is that Jimmy Stewart was not black or female. And I'm guessing that this piece of bad news means that whether it be Obama and Clinton, the Democrats are going to have to have a big lead on paper going into November to overcome those who won't vote for a black or a woman, but tell pollsters that they will.

Like the movie Liberty Valence, our John Waynes and Jimmy Stewarts vie for a prize, except in this case it's the presidency not Vera Miles. In the movie, Jimmy Stewart, because civilization trumps the wild West, wins the girl. But in US elections it goes back and forth. Sometimes the public longs for the nostalgia of the rugged individual and goes for John Wayne. Other times they want a government that works for the people and goes for Jimmy Stewart. This year I'd bet 10K easy in Vegas that it's Jimmy Stewart's turn.

"Do not grieve, my friend, my dearest friend. I am ready to go. And John, it will not be long." Last words of Abigail Adams

Enduring Love

OK, I'm a day late on this because I was a bit distracted by a speech by Obama, but I've been reading letters between Abigail and John Adams over the time period of the Revolutionary War. These letters are such testaments to the power of love that anyone who has doubts about how love and marriage can nourish both a soul and mind should read them. This is powerful stuff.

For most of the early years of their marriage John and Abigail Adams were separated while he pursued his public duty. It was a time that lasted far longer than I'm sure he anticipated, taking him to Philadelphia, New York and Paris. He seemed to come home only long enough to manage to produce another offspring. And while he longed to leave the public life for home, there was a profound desire he had to serve this country - one that his wife fully understood and supported - that kept him going.

There's a telling letter of John to his wife expressing condolences after his mother-in-law dies. He compliments his mother-in-law on all of the little things she did for her family and friends. But then he says to his wife, that although she was a wonderful woman, her life is not what he would use as an example for his own children. He asks his wife to make sure that his children understand that they need to reach out to the public world, that they have a responsibility to more than just their family and friends.

On the one hand, the letter reads a bit cold. When your mother-in-law dies, my guess is that it would be best to simply comfort your wife and not provide parenting instructions. But when your passion for civic duty burns so bright, I'm also guessing that you can't help yourself.

The love between John and Abigail is total and complete throughout these letters. They are best friends. They bare their souls, although at times John holds back because as he notes, his letters could be intercepted by the British and used for propaganda (some were). Every two weeks or so they would receive correspondence from each other. And there is no whining or doubts expressed about their commitment. They both know they are meant to be together forever.

You can learn a lot from letters like this. John and Abigail both lead very hard, complicated and difficult lives during the Revolutionary War. They both have immense responsibilities and have to deal with illness and deprivation. But they don't complain very much, although there is of course a whiny note here and there. They just do. They don't question their circumstance. When faced with a problem they simply try to solve it. These are both very intelligent and resilient people. They have a bond that's not just romantic. They share the same values through and through.

Through a trying time and despite distance, you can feel just how much their love sustains them. The emotions in these letters are inspiring. It's love that's pure. And it's my view that anyone can be lucky enough to have a love like that.

Now it's time for me to get personal. While reading these letters, the thought has come to my mind more than once: Is my love for my sweetie one of those things that, like John and Abigail Adams, can be a shining example of just what love can do? I don't know, but I think it's pretty damn good.

I do know that when my mom was ill and after, when I was shuttling back and forth between North Carolina and Milwaukee, either helping care for my mom or running my family business while trying to hold things down in North Carolina, that my love for my sweetie sustained me. I remember laying in bed in a crappy little basement apartment in Milwaukee one night after about a year and a half of shuttling back and forth thinking I couldn't do this without her. It was such an emotional time with so much work to do. I sat in my bed and I thought how the hell am I getting the energy to do this? And I thought about my sweetie and her family and how they were supporting me and I knew. That's what love can do. It can give you strength you don't even know you have.

“At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” Barack Obama

The Obama Cult

Yesterday in the NY Times, Paul Krugman was blasted in several letters from Obama supporters for an op-ed piece suggesting that Obama was "dangerously close" to creating a cult of personality. Krugman's op-ed was where I borrowed the phrase "cult of personality" in a posting of a couple of days ago. But I didn't put any qualifiers on that phrase. There is no need to add the qualifier "dangerously close" and those letters were protesting too much. I'm sure no one likes being called a cultist. But it looks like a cult. It acts like a cult. And it is a cult.

Sure, most supporters of Obama aren't glazed-eyed cultists. Many understand his flaws and believe that despite them he is the best candidate for the job of president. But now that I've actually talked to a few Obama supporters I've seen the creepy kind of "Obamie" as well. And it is a bit glazed eyed.

What is worse is that Obama is purposely pumping up this cult of hero worship. The above quote was made by Barack Obama at a stump speech in South Carolina. It's downright crazy. Politics aren't about epiphanies and lights shining down on you. That's the stuff of religion. If a light is indeed shining on you and you suddenly feel the urge to vote for Obama or any candidate for that matter, you need some medication.

There have been other cults of personality that have developed around presidents in my lifetime. The principal cult I've seen was built around Ronald Reagan. It too was creepy. Reagan used his cult status to create the modern conservative movement warts and all. People stopped thinking critically because of Reagan. They blindly followed and the result was an economic mess. Without Reagan, we wouldn't have had the massive deficits caused by "supply side economics." Without him, we wouldn't have the income disparity we see today.

Reagan is still revered by conservatives and it still is a very creepy level of hero worship. Last month, Republicans were asked in a debate, "Would Reagan endorse your nomination?" What the hell kind of question is that? Sorry, Reagan like Elvis, has really left the building. He is gone. He isn't coming out of the grave to endorse anyone. The Republicans are still stuck on this guy like crazy glue. And they slapped his name on all kinds of buildings in their hero worship even when he was still alive. They even renamed a DC airport for Reagan that was named after George Washington. Now that's tacky. There was even talk of adding his likeness to Mt. Rushmore.

Cults of personality have developed around other major presidents as well. Roosevelt comes to mind. Whether you think that they are beneficial to society or not (or neutral) probably depends on your personal history. For me, my points of reference for cults of personality are Reagan, Stalin and Hitler. You can imagine where I stand on cults of personality that have developed over political figures.

What is strange about the cult of personality around Obama is that unlike Reagan, there is no unique or new political philosophy that is being touted. Obama is a political centrist. He talks about "change" but his voting record, even on Iraq where he has voted to continue to fund the war effort, is right down the pike centrism. What is happening is that people are seeing things that aren't there. Obama's political philosophy, like Clinton's, is pure oatmeal, nutritious and bland.

Yesterday, Obama abandoned the mind numbing chants of "yes we can" and "change we can believe in" in his stump speech and talked about the economy. Like most times when he talks about details, he got it wrong. According to Obama yesterday, Iraq was to blame for our current economic woes. That's a convenient idea, but no economist that I know of any repute has said this. And who else is to blame? Acccording to Obama:

"The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington....It's a Washington where politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should've never been authorized and never been waged."

Obama seems to have amnesia about statements he made in 2004 that had he been in the Senate and had the same information as other senators back in 2002 and 2003, he might have seen the war differently. And blaming McCain and Clinton for the war and in his twisted view of the economy for today's economic recession is demagoguery. This is what cult status allows you to do. You can be stupid in your statements and be a demagogue and your minions will simply nod their heads. If you are going to gin up a cult of personality about you, there ought to be a law that says, like drinking, you do it responsibly.

It may be that Obama is simply is a one trick pony with some charisma. He has the anti-war thing going, never mind what he has said in the past and how he has voted. He certainly doesn't do his homework.

What has actually caused our economic woes? It isn't Iraq, sorry. No I don't like the Iraq war. Yes, I protested against it in the streets of San Francisco and on The Mall in DC. But the war isn't to blame for everything under the sun. As opposed to the convenient scapegoating of Obama, you can find a very excellent description of the cause and a partial solution in an op-ed written by one of the smartest people I've ever seen, Robert Reich, here. Reich has been a strong supporter of Obama's centrist political philosophy by the way. Where he stands on Obama's cult of personality, I have no idea.

OK, I've written enough about Obama for awhile. I need a change of subject after this.

The Holy Roller and the Holier Than Thou'er

A while back, I wrote that Huckabee and Obama had grabbed the "authenticity" banner for each party. I thought they'd stick around to the end and might even win their parties' nominations precisely because they were viewed as "authentic," whatever that means.

I've written a lot since then, some of which undoubtedly looks foolish in hindsight, but those statements still hold. We're down to four candidates including those two. In a nutshell we have a war hero, a president's wife, a holy roller and a holier than thou'er.

Mathematically, Huckabee the holy roller's chances look bleak, but as he says he didn't major in math, he majored in miracles. He's been doing great as of late. The evangelicals are coming out in big numbers and the conservative elite seems to not find McCain appealing.

I don't quite understand this. McCain looks like a conservative to me. But then again, I've noticed that conservatives can't see the political differences on the Democratic side any more than I can tell the differences on the Republican side. So I'll defer to the conservative elite to make the Republican distinctions. If they don't think McCain is a "true conservative" I'll take them at their word. But please, don't call him liberal. He isn't that. Honest.

The math is much better for Obama the holier than thou'er. Blacks are coming out in huge numbers and the latte set of white liberals have pinned their hopes on him. At face value, I look like a latte liberal. But I don't do the latte thing. I hate Starbucks. And I'm not a latte drinker. I'm a tea and machiato drinker. Apparently, Obama doesn't attract machiato drinkers. At least he hasn't attracted me.

Obama says it best when he talks about the possibility of him winning the nomination. "It's like a prize fight," he says. "Clinton is the champ. You don't beat the champ on points. You have to knock them out." He's right. He has to knock Clinton out in the key states of Ohio and Texas.

It has been a great prizefight to watch. Both Clinton and Obama have been wonderful fighters. Both have been resilient. They aren't easy to knock down. Right now, the champ is - to drive a metaphor to death - against the ropes. We're in the twelfth round or thereabouts. For most of the early rounds Clinton was ahead on points, but the tide has turned as of late. Still, if she manages to win those late rounds in Ohio and Texas, the exact number of points won't matter. Clinton is the champ. Close matches always go to the champ.

But if she loses either of those two states, if she goes down in either of those rounds, it's all over. I won't bet against her. However, Obama the holier than thou'er is no chump. He's floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. People say that Obama reminds them of Kennedy. For me, he's more like Mohammed Ali. He's cocky. He talks trash. And he has the gift of gab.

And to drive this metaphor even further into the ground, Clinton reminds me of a former great white hope, George Chuvalo. She looks kind of clumsy, but she gets the job done. Boxing buffs will note that Chivalo was never knocked down over his 24 year career. Ali beat him twice, but said, "He's the toughest guy I ever fought." OK, enough about boxing.

As for Huckabee the holy roller, I don't believe in miracles. If he wins, though, I'll not only believe in them, I swear I'll ask Huckabee to baptize me. I promise to give my soul to Jesus should Huckabee be the Republican nominee. Honest. But I'm guessing my rabbi isn't worried.

Barack The Vague

I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. I will volunteer time. I will donate money. At the beginning of this drawn out election, I could have flipped a coin about who to support. I liked Clinton and Obama more or less equally. But has time has gone on and I've watched just how Obama has campaigned I've liked him less and less. There's something inherently distasteful about all of this hero worship taking place on the part of Obama supporters. And there's something even more distasteful watching Obama respond to that hero worship. I'll still support him should he become the nominee, but...

The other day, I watched Obama at a press conference in Seattle. He said something substantive about policy, something I have rarely seen him do. He announced a proposed program to reduce carbon consumption by 80 percent. That this is a ridiculous goal isn't so bad. Lots of candidates make statements with ridiculous goals. But then he went on. How would he achieve such a goal? He stated he would fund a 20 billion dollar effort focused on biofuels. Someone raised their hand noting a recent study that showed that biofuels were a net loss in terms of carbon use. This isn't actually new news. It's been known all along while we have been pushing ethanol.

In response to this point of information from the press, Obama stammered. He backtracked. That's something we'll have to consider, he said. And there went his major policy statement of the day up in smoke.

He was then asked about nuclear power. Was he in favor of its use? He talked about how his state uses a considerable amount of nuclear power. But then he stated that no nuclear power wasn't a good future energy source. There were problems with safety and storage of waste. What were the safety problems with new designs? No one asked. And what about storage? I've heard Obama say in that past that proposed storage of waste was "bad science." Sorry, but I know about the science. The science is actually quite good. What is bad is the politics. So much for honesty.

And if nuclear power wasn't a good future energy source, what would America do to replace the 20 percent of our electrical power that it provides? Obama hasn't said.

Obama has so far run a very vague campaign. Specifics and issues are rarely discussed. The vagueness runs across the spectrum of issues. Some specifics we do know about. We know for instance, that he wants the US to leave Iraq quickly. Other aspects of foreign policy just might surprise all of those liberals who so ardently support Obama. He has stated in the magazine Foreign Affairs:

"We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines."

How we are supposed to add 92,000 soldiers to a military already strapped to find recruits is unknown. Why we should add them is left unsaid. Generating the tens billions of dollars necessary for these troops is also left unsaid. And look at this piece of wishful thinking from the same article:

"I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups."

How exactly will he "insist?"

Mr. Obama has his strengths. He is a gifted orator. He is telegenic. He comes across as a nice guy. But when he discusses issues, he tends to come up empty handed.

For example, a cornerstone of his policy, his health program, will, if independent analyses are to be believed, leave about 10 million people uninsured. In response to these analyses, the Obama camp can't come up with a substantive rebuttal. No wonder Obama prefers to be vague.

When I talk to Obama supporters, I often hear complaints about Clinton sleaze and how their candidate has integrity. These statements leave me dumbfounded. Here's a description from the Chicago Sun Times of a land deal that Obama made with a well known seedy Chicago character, Tony Rezco:

"In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day. Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land. The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald."

Life's about the company you keep. Obama admits this transaction was a mistake that he regrets. What other regrets he may have we don't know. But he is not immune to sleaze. What other sleaze left to be uncovered? To his credit, his time in the Illinois legislature will be difficult to examine for untoward behavior because he has burned his records from that time. So much for openness.

Mr. Obama has so far run a skillful campaign in terms of public relations. He plays the race card in some places and then talks of color blindness in others. His message is essentially two fold: I'm optimistic and I'm not Hillary. He taps into the misogyny others have toward Hillary Clinton by referencing her "polarizing character" without being personally misogynistic. It's a clever attack. When pressed about her unlike-ability (read, she's a bitch), he has stated oh so generously, "She's likable enough."

This misogyny card is one that his supporters use as well. Every time Obama or one of his spokespeople talk about her “high negatives” or that she is a “polarizing figure” the fact that much of the source of this negativity is that she is a woman is left unsaid. It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Obama's supporters won't discuss issues in conversation. But they will talk gleefully bash Hillary Clinton as polarizing. I called one of his supporters on this bashing. I said to her, “Well a large part of that is because Clinton is a woman. Are you saying I shouldn’t vote for Clinton because she’s a female like you?” She said, “I didn’t say that.” I asked, “Why do you think Clinton is so polarizing?” She said, “I’m not going to speculate.” I said, “I’m sure you have your opinions. Tell me.” That was the end of the discussion. The last time I had a conversation like this where someone was so protective of their leader was many years ago. I was talking to a Moonie.

If Obama really wants to take the high road, he would lay off the coded misogyny and tell his spokespeople to do the same. That isn't going to happen. There's an election to be won. And first and foremost, Obama, like Clinton, is a politician.

Mr. Obama has attracted a following that can be best described as a cult of personality. He talks in vague terms about making positive change for America. But his track record for being an "change agent" as either a senator or a state legislator is not particularly praiseworthy. He is essentially an empty vessel at this point in time. His gift is that he has the kind of personality that makes it easy for many to envision whatever they want to see inside that empty vessel.

There have been other charismatic candidates over my time with this ability. For example, people saw all kinds of things in Ronald Reagan - who unlike Obama did have a track record prior to becoming president - that didn't exist. There is also a tendency to forgive and gloss over the failings of charismatic leaders. Reagan, for example, seemed to be Teflon coated over his entire presidency. No scandal seemed to be able to stick.

My guess is that Obama will be faced with a hostile, dirt seeking Republican minority if he becomes president. He is a nice guy. He is intelligent. He will do his best. And I hope that he is as Teflon coated as was Reagan. I don't buy into the cult of personality that has developed around Obama. I don't understand it either. But I do hope that it serves to allow him to be president without all of the smears and backstabbing that occurred during the last time a Democrat was in office.

That all said, how many more months can Obama continue to run without substance? Eventually, the press is going to be bored with simply reporting on the charismatic appeal of Obama and the thousands in the stadiums. All of the Moonie-like chants of "yes we can" and "change we can believe in" are going to get stale sooner or later. And then Obama is going to have to run on real issues. From my perspective, it would be best if he started talking issues now instead of later. If he does become the Democratic nominee, I don't want to see him try to learn how to run a real campaign instead of the Messianic holier than thou shtick he is currently using when the Republicans have him fully in their sights.

When asked about how he is going to weather the Republican storm in the campaign ahead, a storm that he fully agrees will take place, he responds repeatedly with two statements. One is that he is "tough enough." The second is that he has already been tested by the "Clinton machine." As to what "tough enough" means, I have no idea. But if he thinks that the Clinton machine has been tough on him, he is dreaming. Should he be the Democratic nominee, he's going to find out what real political dirty tricks mean in a hurry. He better be ready. If he thinks he can beat the storm back with chants of "change we can believe in" and "yes we can" he and the Democratic Party will be in trouble.

Old/New Mashups

I didn't vote for the Grammys this year. I should have. By the time, I decided to log in and vote, the balloting had closed. But I did watch last night. It was one strange evening of performances. For some reason, the decision was made - in honor of the 50th year of the Grammys - to meld the old with the new with live performances.

Many of these mashups - which started with Alicia Keys singing a duet with a film version Frank Sinatra - were shaky at best. Ms. Keys sang over and around Sinatra instead of with him; she needed some lessons in taste. Kid Rock was funny, but not convincing, trying to do a Louis Prima imitation while singing Black Magic with a very much alive Keely Smith. Beyonce made everyone realize that Tina Turner was too old to be shaking it to Proud Mary.

Most of the performances, even the ones that weren't mashups, were just too overdone. For me, the highlight of the evening was Feist singing 1-2-3-4 with her guitar simply and plaintively. Halfway through the song, a brass sextet started to back her up tastefully. I don't really like that song, but I did like how it was done last night. In contrast, the low point was a very poorly rehearsed orchestra and two pianos destroying Rhapsody in Blue. Herbie Hancock, who was playing one of the pianos, looked in a state of distress listening to the orchestra; he knew they were crashing and burning.

And the strangest performance was that of poor Amy Winehouse singing live from London. She looked stiff and uncertain. If you've ever seen a newly sober alcoholic, you know the frail, frightened, disoriented and lost look they have. It's as if they are rediscovering their bodies and minds and don't quite know what to do with all of the information their senses are receiving. Some never quite lose that look even after years of being sober.

Winehouse hugged her mom when she heard she won the award for best song. I don't like watching personal turmoil on public display, but I couldn't help but hope Ms. Winehouse would somehow find a way to live a more normal life.

The winners were generally like the nominations, a strange brew that reflected the collective bad taste of the Grammy membership. It's rarely about the music; people win and are nominated for reasons that generally are driven by sentiment or sales.* This year, best album surprisingly went to Herbie Hancock. The album isn't very good - an odd assemblage of Joni Mitchell songs, some top notch jazz musicians and a mix of vocalists designed to sell a few CDs - but still it was nice to see a jazz album win a major award.

Overall, the mood of the awards was very subdued. The energy level was low. The music industry is in a tailspin and my guess is that it's hard to get excited as a performer when your sales are tanking.

There's a lot of tremendous music being made every year. Unfortunately, it doesn't win awards and isn't ever seen on the Grammys. As I watched last night, I kept thinking wouldn't it be great if someone actually put together an awards show that reflected not the crap put out by the major labels designed for sex starved 15 year olds, but the good stuff that most people don't even know exists.

*It's worth noting that the big winner this year, Ms. Winehouse, clearly won on the basis of a song or two that celebrated her self destructiveness and the tabloid news that followed detailing her train wreck of a life. Grammy members apparently found such descent cool enough to be worthy of a vote. That's hardly a good message to send to fans of music and the public.

Birds of a Feather

The conservatives have their share of nut jobs. From Pat Robertson to Rush Limbaugh, there are a group of deranged people who suffer from visions and delusions about what conservatism actually means. These are scary people. But it should come to no surprise that the Democrats also have their fair share of nuts, some of them in prominent positions. Today, the world had the misfortune to see one of our nut jobs in full display, Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times.

Back in 2000, Frank Rich's dyspepsia about Al Gore might have cost the Democrats a few hundred votes in the New York-retiree laden condos of Florida's Dade and Broward counties. With friends like Frank Rich, the Democratic Party doesn't need any enemies.

Through the succeeding Bush years, Mr. Rich has turned his attention to the Republican Party. Rich's tirades about Republicans have been so off the charts that I can't read them. Sure, I don't like what Bush and the Republicans have done, either. But Bush isn't evil. He is truly doing what he thinks is best for the country. I just don't agree with it.

In Rich's world, however, everything is some dark soap opera. He isn't a columnist so much as he is a creator of political melodrama that bears no relation to what actually is happening in the real world. Frank Rich is the left's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. He is a first rate nut job. He even looks more than a bit like Rush. That's coincidence I know, but it is funny. Look at the photos above and tell me they don't look like they were separated at birth.

Like Democrats who listen to Limbaugh to find quotes to demonize the right, there are plenty of Republicans who read Rich just to find a quote or two to show just how deranged Mr. Rich is, and by extension try to claim that all Democrats must be deranged. Um. No. Yes, Wall Street Journal readers, Frank Rich is a nut. You have yours. We have ours.

Today, Mr. Rich set his sights on Hillary Clinton. Maybe Mr. Rich, a former drama critic, has seen Macbeth too many times. Maybe it has affected his brain. Because in this column Mr. Rich has demonized Ms. Clinton to such a degree that I was wondering if he was going to attribute to her the quote, "Out damn spot."

Hillary hating has been going on for a long time. As Obama has noted, hating of the Clintons has been a "cottage industry" with the Republicans. But there is no way even Rush Limbaugh himself could have come up with the delusionary display of Mr. Rich in his recent column. Perhaps it was drug-induced fantasy. Maybe he shares Limbaugh's love of OxyContin. I don't know. Whatever its source, the column was not far away from the rants of the Unabomber.

Mr Rich says Hillary is a "synthetic product leeched of most human qualities." He accuses the Clinton campaign of being bigots and racists and drops the following stink bomb:

"The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little."

What world does Frank Rich live in? Wherever he may reside, it's clearly nowhere on planet Earth. Hillary Clinton is not a racist. She has not run a racist campaign. She is not a bigot. Her campaign is not raising racial friction to "gin up" Hispanic support. The campaign has been tough. But someone who criticizes Obama is no more a racist than someone who criticizes Clinton is a misogynist.

Mr. Rich ends his tirade with the following nut job scenario:

"A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment."

This will not happen. The Democratic contest is politics not overheated, racist theater. Mr. Rich must think he is still watching plays on Broadway. I note that Hillary Clinton's health care plan includes mental health coverage. I'm sure the New York Times' health insurance also has such a benefit. Mr. Rich should stop writing for awhile and get some mental health care. He needs help.

Adventures in False Precision Part III, Those Funny Polls

A while back I talked about how scientists try to make precise quantitative predictions that just aren't theoretically possible. They do it because of public need. The public needs forecasts. It doesn't really matter if they are accurate or not. It comforts the public to see those numbers there.

The need for the public to possess forecasts no matter how bogus runs across the social and scientific sphere. From hurricane landfall predictions to earthquakes to Federal budget deficit predictions, very educated people produce forecasts that have no real scientific basis. In a world where people routinely consult horoscopes, I guess it isn't so surprising that we demand and get scientists and economists to try and do the impossible.

So it goes with political polling. The public wants to know if a certain candidate is going to win. They want to know the bottom line in advance. And in fact, obtaining that bottom line isn't at all possible. But we hire pollsters to try and do it anyway.

Pollsters will contact a few hundred to a thousand people and ask them who they will vote for in an upcoming election. They do it by phone. Many of the people making these calls for the pollsters are not particularly well trained to ask questions. The calls they make are on land lines only and many people refuse to answer. So we have some significant problems from the get go. There is some inherent bias.

The pollster isn't actually sampling a full set of the population. Rather it's those willing to listen to a droning, halting voice of some pimple faced kid working for minimum wage and answer his questions. How many people are willing to do this? The pollster can only reach those with a land line (forget about the cell phone generation) and those polite or docile enough to answer his or her questions. I know for instance that I never answer these questions. I just hang up.

Then there is another problem that's fundamental. A person is asked who they will vote for. But they are nowhere near a polling booth. There is time and distance between when they utter "I'm going to vote for Sid Caesar" and if and when they actually go to the polls. What they are often really saying when they answer the question is "I think I'm going to vote for Sid Caesar" or "I would like to vote for Sid Caesar" or "I'm too embarrassed to say that I don't like Sid Caesar because he has a big nose so I'll say I'll vote for him anyway." A good percentage of people who say they will vote for someone when called by phone undoubtedly vote for someone else or don't vote at all.

The inability to randomly sample people and the difference between what people say they are going to do and what they actually do in a voting booth introduce large errors in predictions. But if a pollster actually included those errors, their answers to "who is going to win" would be too vague. The bottom line is that most elections are decided by less than a 10 percentage difference between two candidates. The pollster knows this intuitively. The pollster also knows he or she can't simply open up and state the facts. For instance if the pollster said the following, no more jobs would be forthcoming:

"Sid Caesar is ahead by eight points in our poll, but my error in forecasting is so large that he could actually lose. I can't really say who is going to win or lose, sorry."

Faced with such a potential problem in credibility, the pollster - maybe unconsciously, maybe on purpose - systemically and significantly underreports errors in the forecasts. Typically, they will state errors of at most two percentage points. This systematic underreporting of errors comforts the public and gives the forecasts an air of legitimacy. The news services report these results as if they bear some relation to reality. The polls become news. We watch the trends unfold and get excited as one person moves ahead or behind in the polls. But in fact, all of this movement is simply noise. The trends are nonsense and the forecasts are nonsense.

How much error is there actually in these election forecasts? A lot more than the pollsters indicate. For example, let's look at the recent primary election in New Hampshire. Polls had Obama surging to a 10 to 12 point lead prior to the election. In fact he lost by 2 points. This was not an isolated or unusual occurrence. A month later much the same thing happened in California. Polls had Obama up slightly prior to the election. In fact he lost by 10 points.

For those who might think that the polls are just wrong when it comes to forecasting Obama victories, I note that they indicated that Huckabee would finish third in Georgia with 28 percent of the vote. In fact he won with 34 percent.

The proof is in the pudding. Errors in polls by as much as 14 percent are not unusual. Since most elections are won by amounts far smaller than this number, most polls are in fact worthless for prediction. They can predict the obvious case when a candidate is ahead by a wide margin. But if the election is tight, a candidate is ahead by 55 to 45 or less, they can't do the job.

Why do we listen to forecasts from pollsters when in hindsight they can't make the predictions they say they can? My guess is that it's a psychological thing. It gives us comfort to think we know the unknowable. Like when we consult an astrologer, we fool ourselves into thinking these pollsters actually know what they are doing. Plus it's good water cooler gossip to watch a candidate rise and fall in the polls. Ultimately, though, the pollsters are providing not facts but carnival, PT Barnum style entertainment.

This Is Not A Morality Play

It's official now. The Obama camp has made its projections of how they'll do in future elections and their best guess is that neither Obama or Clinton will have enough votes to win the nomination before the Democratic Convention. They just might be right. But in making these projections they have admitted that the Obama surge is over. The electorate is hardening.

Obama had a great run over the last six weeks. He raised somewhere around 40 million dollars, an astounding sum. What's perhaps more incredible is that he has found a way to spend it all so quickly. On Super Tuesday he threw everything he could possible throw in terms of resources and endorsements into the campaign. He had great press, huge crowds filling basketball arenas, Hollywood stars, and lofty rhetoric. It doesn't get any better. And when the dust settled Wednesday morning, he found out that the best he could do was battle Clinton to a draw.

Obama has his base of support. Clinton has hers. They are mutually exclusive bases and this is, despite all of the rhetoric, an election based on identity politics. If you are young, rich or black, you are an Obama supporter. If you are old, poor or female, you are a Clinton supporter. It just so happens that these bases are both large and essentially equal in number.

I have no idea who will win. But I do know that the Clinton volunteer base is deceptively effective. It is dominated by females "of a certain age." They are not overtly enthusiastic. They are quiet and decorous. You can be lulled into thinking that this campaign is a snooze and there is no way that Clinton can win with such ostensibly wan support. But these volunteers and staffers are smart, dedicated and know very much what they are doing. They don't hoot and holler. It's not their style. But they are burning on the inside. I wouldn't bet against them. It would be like betting against your mom.

There is a tendency in the press and with quite a few Obama supporters to try to cast this battle as a morality play. The story line is this. Clinton is corrupt, narcissistic, and paranoid. Obama is honorable and open. Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, a long time Bill and Hillary Clinton hater, has recently tried to make the claim that it's battle between dark evil and saintly sunshine. This is all overheated nonsense.

Let's review the facts. A decade and a half of Clinton hate on the part of mostly the extreme right has produced the following hard evidence of their corruption: a sleazy handling of gifts given to them while they were in the White House and a number of questionable pardons shortly before they left office. There was a whole lot of effort to tar and feather Clintons with a real estate scandal; it came to naught. Oh I forgot: Bill has screwed a few babes on the side. Yes, that is a sin according to Moses. But it is a sin that is so commonplace that it's the stuff of country music. It's called "cheatin'." Why should anyone care?

In the end, the Clintons are just ordinary sinners. And so is Barack Obama. He's just an ordinary sinner like me or you. He has had financial ties with a man under indictment for numerous felonies. Obama is not by any stretch a prince of light as some would have you believe.

For those that would have you believe that Hillary Clinton is to be admonished for her narcissism and paranoia, oh my, this too is silly. Narcissism comes with the territory. If you aren't a narcissist of the first order, you have no business running for president. Why would anyone who isn't put themselves through the pain and trouble? Clinton, Obama and I should add every candidate on the Republican side have unhealthy doses of narcissism. It's one of the reasons they all want to be president.

Then there is the paranoia charge. Listen to Obama rant about the evil Clinton machine trying to find dirt on him and you will soon disabuse yourself of the notion that Clinton's concerns about what other people are doing are unique.

No, the battle between Clinton and Obama is not a morality play. Rather it's about two politicians who are both very smart and very capable with almost identical political philosophies going at each other. Whatever the outcome - and again I have no idea who is going to win - there is, fortunately, one bottom line that they are both aware of. If they both play nice in this battle - which is something both have mostly managed to do as of late - there is no doubt that whomever wins the Democratic nomination will also become this country's next president.

It's worth mentioning that whomever the victor will be, their opposition in the final election won't be much. John McCain is a tired cranky old senator that the hard right doesn't think is conservative enough. The Republicans had essentially the same candidate back in 1996. For all intents and purposes, John McCain is Bob Dole II. Look for John McCain on your TV come February. He won't be in the White House then. Rather it's a good bet he, like Bob Dole before him, will be pitching Viagra.

And it's worth mentioning that this is the greatest and most fascinating primary election of my lifetime. As I was watching election returns the other night, my sweetie said, "It's like it's November, the excitement level is so high." If you're a Democrat, it's a great time to be a voter and volunteer.