Endgame

I don't begrudge HRC wanting to fight out the last few primaries. Hell, she's made it this far. In fact, I can even mentally envision certain circumstances in which it could be a positive, party-building campaign invigorated by big ideas rather than policy nit-picking. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen.

And perhaps more tragically, I don't think the seeming desperation of the HRC campaign will necessarily damage the Democratic Party so much as it will be the ignominious tailspin of someone who should return to the Senate and - freed from the constraints of presidential ambition - lead the legislative charge to enact at least some progressive policy reforms. She deserves a better legacy than what this campaign will bequeath her.

At any rate, to my friends back home, enjoy your turn as the last stand.

Dip me in cowshit and roll me around in grass blades

Huh.

So, what's our takeaway from two completely non-representative state electoral contests? On the D side, both Obama and Clinton can run formidable campaigns, and most pundits (including yours truly, although I don't think I exactly qualify as a pundit, per se - just as a know-nothing loudmouth) are full of shit. I have no idea where this heads down the road, and the time lag between now and the next few contests (and the big February 5 electoral burrito supreme) makes a magic 8-ball more reliable than any prognosticator. I do think it's a two person race now - Edwards will stay in (and I hope he stays in through February 5, just to keep the social democracy rhetoric in play), but he's got no chance and will be under pressure to bow out.

On the R side, Mittens' star is fading fast. After getting walloped after dumping buckets of money into Iowa, and then getting creamed in a state where he practically lived (oh, and winning Wyoming... whatever the hell that means...), he's going to have the sickly gangrene stench of loserdom following him from here on out. I don't necessarily think it bodes well for McCain, I think outside of its theocon wing, the GOP is terrified of Huckabee, and Giuliani hasn't begun to seriously invoke 9/11 to win yet. Who the fuck knows?

Me? I'll be taking advantage of this apparent lapse in the orderly succession of leadership to smuggle massive amounts of hallucinogens to 7th grade midwesterners. Or drink more booze, as has been the case this evening.

All bets are off

After watching the Democratic debate tonight, I hereby rescind any predictions I made about how things are going to shake out. Edwards isn't done by any stretch of the imagination, although I am somewhat skeptical about how his gambit trying to shift the frame from a Clinton v. not-Clinton to a "which version of change do you want" will work. Hillary will be hammered tomorrow for aggressively defending her record - unfairly, I think, because she's a woman. It'll be characterized as "bitchiness." We'd be fools to discount her public service record (which on many issues is very good, on others, not so). Hillary has a lot working against her right now, and I don't know that tonight did her any favors in the face of those obstacles. The debate didn't change my mind about my preferences (Edwards said what I wanted to hear), but it certainly muddied the waters as to how I think the average voter is going to respond.

On the other side, I think Romney sealed his fate in New Hampshire tonight. He looked like the flamingest asshole on a stage filled with flaming assholes, a congenial theocrat, and a crazy man. It's all downhill for Mittens from here on out.

What now?

First things first: my political prognostications aren't worth shit. Now what do we draw from this completely unrepresentative, first-in-the-nation presidential wine-tasting?

On the D side: Iowa was a must-win for Edwards. I don't think there's any way for him to rebound. From what I understand, his field operation in NH is a shadow of what he invested in Iowa, and he's already far enough behind Obama and Clinton in NH that I don't think he'll be able to staunch the bleeding. Obama probably rides the big mo to a win in NH. But beyond that? Clearly, Edwards message resonates, and it's going to be interesting how his supporters shake out and who tries to make a play for them. Like Dave and a lot of others, I find Obama's "unity" message to be a little disconcerting, especially when accompanied by his recent policy sniping from the right. Likewise, I'm not enamored with Hillary and the whole idea of Clinton II. I'd gladly take either over anyone the Rs would have to offer up, though. Obama's clearly the "change" candidate, but his vision of change seems out-of-sync with the times.

Color me flummoxed as to how my own vote shakes out, but for now I'll say that Obama is my second choice after Edwards. After NH, we've got ourselves a Battle Royale on our hands.

On the R side: One thing I'm sure of: you can stick a fork in Mitt. He got shellacked by an underfunded, Bible-bangin' hillbilly, and now the GOP money guys are going to abandon him in droves. I had figured that McCain would get a third place nod that would give him some momentum going into NH to nip Romney there. But Grandpa Fred in third?

So NH looks like a mess to me on on the R side. McCain is ahead in the polls, but will be competing with Obama for independent voters in an open primary, and Obama clearly has more going on for him. Huckabee has been hanging around 10% in the polls and might get a little bounce, but doesn't have the fundamentalist core he needs so desperately. Mitt is going to hemorrhage supporters, but the question becomes how many. I think enough of Mitt's support goes to McCain to put him over the top in NH. Mitt might go on for awhile after that, but will diminish in significance. And South Carolina will be a hideously nasty affair as the GOP big boys try to stamp out Huckabee like they did McCain in 2000 (oh sweet irony). We'll be hearing whispers about Huckabee fucking goats any day now.

And somewhere out there, we have Rudy 9/11 waiting to use his "big state" strategy. I think Rudy fails miserably in this - his support is already cratering given his, erm... out and out douchebagginess, and being out of the media narrative for the first few states while others build momentum will only seal the deal.

But really, what the fuck do I know? Onward to New Hampshire!

Score one for Hillary

The late-night talkies are once again heating up as an electoral battleground, especially amid the charged environment of the writers' strike. And while one douchebag professed support for the strikers and then immediately turned around to cross their picket line, Hillary pulled off an absolutely fucking brilliant tactical coup:

David Letterman officially made his return to late-night television just after 4:30 on Wednesday afternoon, when he opened the taping of Wednesday night’s show by passing through a chorus line of long-legged showgirls clad in white tie and bearing placards that read, “Writers Guild of America on Strike.”

After the taping was concluded, the show’s producers inserted a one-line joke to precede the host’s entrance — delivered not by Mr. Letterman but by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, via satellite from Iowa, on the eve of the state’s presidential caucuses.

“Dave has been off the air for eight long weeks due to the writers’ strike,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Tonight he’s back. Oh well. All good things come to an end.”

A modest one liner to lead off the return of Dave, head of the only production company decent enough to negotiate and settle with his writers, and maybe more importantly, the only late-night gabber returning to the airwaves with the benefit of his formidable writing staff (Leno already isn't funny, and I can't imagine how unfunny he'd be without his writers). The hour looks to be a pretty blistering scornfest for the AMPTP, as Letterman has always been very pro-writer (he's a WGA member himself). Hopefully, his late-night megaphone can help re-build momentum that seems to have been lagging of late for the WGA to win a settlement.

And back to Hillary - well played ma'am. A low-key quip at the top of the anticipated return of one of currently only two union talk shows (the other being the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, also produced by Letterman's production company) is an astonishingly clever move.

Daring to dream

Bill Richardson sets goals where angels fear to tread:

Yet the challenge for Mr. Richardson is whether he can break out of the “also ran” status as the fourth-ranked candidate on the Democratic side and knock off one of the top three, with his aim, according to his campaign staff, squarely on the person in the No. 3 spot: Mr. Edwards, who has been losing ground lately as the Clinton and Obama campaigns devote more resources here.

That's right, baby. The governor of New Mexico has his sights set on being Number Three. I'll no longer tolerate all this talk about Hillary being the candidate driven by blind ambition when it's clear that Richardson's all-consuming drive for the show spot eclipses her settling on just the presidency.

Flotsam and jetsam: presidential edition

I've been avoiding talking about politics for awhile now, not for any reason, per se, other than the fact that plenty of other people do it, and for the most part I don't really have anything to add, other than a little snark. But all this hoopla surrounding the potential Fred Thompson candidacy (not to be confused with the already declared and mortally wounded Tommy Thompson candidacy) has gotten me hot under the collar, and pattyjoe has been fanning the flames playing Fantasy Ticket '08. I'll see his EmRom-Thompson v. Obama-Edwards, and will state unequivocally that the best "political theater" match-up will be Thompson-EmRom v. Gore-Obama.

Is anyone else more than a little intrigued that for the second time in thirty years, the GOP may have an actor at the top of its slate?

The NYT is currently running a pretty bland is he is or is he ain't piece on Thompson. What's missing from the article, you ask? Any mention of Iraq.

I'm announcing a new caucus, the "We can do better than Hillary" caucus. I know many of you have professed some strong Anyone but Hillary inclinations, and I can hardly blame you. She's been wrong on some pretty important issues, and I can say that I'll do my share of the lifting to see that we elect a good alternative - and for once, we do have some very palatable alternatives in the top tier of presidential contenders. However, if the Hillary Juggernaut does happen to steamroll the competition (a distinct possibility), I know damn well that she is better on my issues six way 'til Sunday than anyone the GOP might beat out of the Bushes, and I know damn well that another GOP presidency - with a narrowly divided Senate hanging in the balance - would be disastrous for this country: for women's rights, for civil rights, for Iraq, for unions... do I need to go on? Hillary will never be ideal. Indeed, we're fortunate right now, because we know we can do better. But let's stay real and act accordingly.

The problem with Hillary (updated)

The emerging mainstream narrative about Senator Hillary Clinton is that she refuses to admit she made an error in 2002 when she (and 76 other senators, including all of the Democratic senators with presidential aspirations who were in office at the time) voted to give President Bush a blank check for Iraq. The idea, of course, is that voters want to be assured that she learned something from the experience, that she'll work to prevent similar abrogations of the public trust in the future.

Bob Somerby has been railing against this meme for the past several weeks (a task whose futility is akin to spitting into a gale), pointing out that all the way back in 2004, Clinton stated there never would have been a vote on Iraq if only they had known then what they know now. While I think it's disingenuous for any candidate to pretend they didn't foresee the trainwreck that Iraq has become (I certainly did, and I'm a lowly nobody from the provinces with zero-access to classified intelligence reports), I'm satisfied that she has indeed learned as much as any other senator who has repudiated from that particular mistake (although, like Somerby, I'm perplexed by her campaign's refusal to call the vote a "mistake") [updated on 2/20/07 at 1:45 PM].

That this meme won't die is indicative of the contempt with which many on the left hold Hillary. Right now that contempt is being pegged on her Iraq stance - particularly on the whole contrived she-won't-say-she's-sorry-even-though-she's-owned-up-to-her-mistake bit. Some folks think she'll do anything to win (like any other top-tier presidential nominee - c'mon folks, politicians pander!). Others are miffed about her inexplicable stances used to prove her patriotic bona fides (such as her stance on flag-burning).

For me, the problem with Hillary is that she reeks of entrenched power. From the air of inevitability her campaign is striving to create, to her longstanding membership on the Democratic Leadership Council, to her locking up of the big corporate donors, right on down to her husband, who I hear is somewhat well-connected, Senator Clinton is the embodiment of the Establishment candidate.

Now, I'm not so naïve as to believe that anyone making a serious bid doesn't need to do some cozying up to the fat cats; I don't like it, but I know that's how the game is played. However, the aggressiveness with which she's locked up the big backers (and the enthusiasm with which her backers are supporting her) makes my spidey-sense tingle. In order to solve the myriad problems facing this country and the world, it's going to be necessary to stand up to the big-money interests which set much of the political agenda. Given the dense number of connections that Senator Clinton has with these same interests, I'm not convinced that she'd be willing or able to face them down when push came to shove. And that's a huge problem, way bigger than her inability to utter the word "mistake" at a campaign event.

[updated on 2/20/07 at 1:59 PM]: Pericles at dKos has a good take on MistakeGate that I think pretty much sums up the problem with Hillary.

Worst. Marx-inspired quote. Ever.

A specter was haunting Hillary Clinton as she campaigned in New Hampshire this weekend: the specter of Ed Muskie.

Ugh.

So now that you've got my attention

I'm with pattyjoe here: John Edwards is saying the things I want to hear right now, especially his emphasis on movement building (which seems to be ripped right out of the Dean playbook). To that end, his appearances over the last few months have been geared to building such a movement; he's already sewn up the loyalties of a good chunk of rump-Big Labor and has been working some churches in a manner befitting of the civil rights activists of the 60s. The recanting of his Iraq vote does count for something with me (being the forgiving sort). Also, from what I hear, he's been staffing up from the ranks of organizations that have been working to rebuild the social movements of the Left for the last decade.

I'm also intrigued by the historical lens of which digby writes, with Obama/JFK and Edwards/RFK both offering intriguing possibilities. Of course, I'm left wondering where Hillary Clinton fits into this analogy. Hubert Humphrey?

Stand by your man

I'm not a big fan of Hillary! as a politician, but I do like hearing her say this:

In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration’s response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill.

>snip<

In her remarks, Senator Clinton also suggested that Bill Clinton’s animated defense of his own national security record as president, delivered only a few days earlier, provided a powerful example for Democrats, whom Republicans have sought to portray in recent national elections as too weak to lead the country in such perilous times.

An example, indeed. We don't have to take the GOP's bullshit.