Transition - Obama and the Progressives

For progressives who weren't sure yet, The New York Times spells it out:

President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

After eight years of the catastrophic combination of arrogance and incompetence that marked the Bush administration, I think most people are hoping Obama will be a pragmatic president.

It's disingenuous, however, for the New York Times to suggest that center-right Democrats are somehow free of ideology, as opposed to Democrats on the left. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) always had a clearly defined set of beliefs, ideas and goals that they adhered to strictly as they moved the party to the right: privatization, corporatization, globalization, reducing the size of government, ending welfare, hawkish defense policies, etc. One can agree or disagree with the ideology of the Democratic center-right, but it's naive- or, as I suspect in the case of the Times, intellectually dishonest - to pretend it doesn't exist.

(Conversely, one can be on the left or right and still be pragmatic. I would argue that Russ Feingold and the late Paul Wellstone have been examples of this on the left.)

So, what does it mean for Obama to govern from the center-right? Only time will tell.

Before I'm accused of being disillusioned, I would argue that disillusionment arises from a large gap between expectation and reality. The real cure, then, for disillusionment is to see things as clearly as possible. So what is Obama's starting point? Is he a progressive who's moving to the right? Or has he always been in the center-right of the party? Progressives who believe Obama is "one of them" are the ones who are going to become disillusioned when they feel like he's "shifted" to the right.

Personally, I think Obama has always been closer to the center-right of the party. As I wrote in May 2007, after reading The Audacity of Hope, "His style of politics may be fresh, but I don't think you're going to find much difference, in the end, between Barack and Hillary."

Reviewing the same book, Publishers Weekly called Obama's policy positions "tepid Clintonism." With the exception of the invasion of Iraq, there was very little to distinguish the two candidates. Yet many Democrats fought each other furiously during the primaries over who was more progressive, Obama or Hillary. The battle reached an absurd peak during the run-up to the Ohio primary, when both sides tried to claim the other was a nefarious supporter of NAFTA.

The problem for Obama is that he was elected in large part by a new mobilized army of progressives. In the primaries, he defeated Hillary Clinton - who initially had all the advantages of money, party establishment support and name recognition - because he captured the technological innovations, the new-found fundraising power, the organizing skills, and the youthful energy of progressive groups such as MoveOn, DailyKos, and ActBlue. These same groups, along with the old-left machine of labor unions, helped him in the general election out-organize and out-spend McCain across the board.

The last center-right Democrat, Bill Clinton, betrayed the labor unions, who also helped get him elected, by shoving NAFTA through Congress against their wishes and despite his promises. What happens this time if a center-right Obama winds up opposing them on important legislation? Already, the bailout of the automobile industry may put this relationship to a test. Will they remember what Clinton did? How will they react?

When Clinton was initially elected after 12 years of Reagan and Bush, there was a great sense of relief among Democrats. But as his administration began to implement more and more of their center-right agenda, people opposed to those policies - environmentalists, labor unions, anti-globalization critics, etc. - began pushing back. Tensions culminated (in the United States) in the Battle of Seattle, and, electorally, in the Nader campaign of 2000. Several important environmentalists supported Nader, including David Brower, founder of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, who would say that the Clinton-Gore record on the environment "is worse than the Reagan-Bush record." This internal war within the Democratic party subsided for the most part after the tragedy of 9/11, and after an effort to join forces against the Bush administration. But it's a civil war that's been dormant not dead.

The public has placed incredibly high expectations upon Barack Obama. Many of these people are young, energetic and well-organized progressives. If Obama is ineffective, or if he moves too far to the right and doesn't deliver a sense of change, if he disappoints in general, their disillusionment could be equally historic.

Obama may, by nature and temperament, be in the center-right of the party. But he needs to pay attention to everyone who worked hard to get him elected. There are no political advantages in ignoring progressives or taking them for granted. They need to be included in the public conversation about the future of the country.

For their part, progressives need to see Obama clearly and know that he will govern from the center-right. If the administration is pragmatic, however, and not driven by ideology, then progressives can have confidence that their voices will be heard if they make effective arguments. They paid money to attend this ball; they have every right to be allowed on the dance floor.

What they cannot do is be naive about Obama's starting point and get disillusioned because he's "moving to the right." They cannot be passive-aggressive, letting resentment build up because the Democrats in charge are, once again, ignoring the progressives.

What happens, for example, to the relationship between Obama and progressive groups if he appoints John Brennan to head the CIA? Would that be a decision based on pragmatism? Or center-right ideology?

Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald at Salon opined on Obama's recent appointees and the prospect of Brennan:

I'm both entirely unsurprised and basically undisturbed by the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed largely of standard Washington establishment figures and pro-Iraq-War hawks, and are devoid of people "on the Left". That is who Obama is -- he's an establishment politician who, with a few exceptions, is situated smack in the mainstream middle of the national Democratic Party. . . . As I've said many times, I intend to wait and judge Obama on the policies he pursues, not the administrators he appoints to carry out those policies.

But John Brennan is a different matter. To appoint someone as CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence who was one of George Tenet's closest aides when The Dark Side of the last eight years was conceived and implemented, and who, to this day, continues to defend and support policies such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition (to say nothing of telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping), is to cross multiple lines that no Obama supporter should sanction. Truly turning a page on the grotesque abuses of the last eight years requires both symbolism (closing Guantanamo) and substantive policy changes (compelling adherence to the Army Field Manual, ensuring due process rights for all detainees, ending rendition, restoring safeguards on surveillance powers). Appointing John Brennan to a position of high authority would be to affirm and embrace, not repudiate, the darkest aspects of the last eight years.

Greenwald may be okay with Hillary while Brennan bothers him; progressives with other agendas will be disturbed by other choices. What's happening, however, is a slow, steady realization on the part of many progressives that Obama's appointing a lot of center-right people and few if any progressives. How will they react?

The last major left upheaval in this country grew out of major disillusionment with the Democratic Party on the part of young people who were energized, organized, and represented a new generation with new technology. And they were first excited by a charismatic young president.

It will be interesting to see how this new generation of progressives - who are very different from the young radicals of the 1960s - responds to a center-right Obama presidency. Will they see him as pragmatic? Or will they see ideology in the guise of pragmatism? For the sake of the country, I hope it's the former and not the latter.

The Lieberman Dilemma

Get an early start on your Obama disillusionment.

From Political Wire:

Lieberman Likely Saved By Obama

"With President-elect Obama's fingerprints seemingly everywhere, momentum appears to be building among Senate Democrats to let Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee," according to Roll Call.

"However, Democrats still say they are exploring options for penalizing Lieberman in other ways for his disloyalty to the party during the 2008 election cycle. Those options might include stripping him of two plum subcommittee chairmanships, or taking away his membership on either the Armed Services or Environment and Public Works panels."

Though, personally, I think Obama, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin should take Joe Lieberman out back of the Capitol and kick his ass, I can understand (barely) letting the traitor stay in the Democratic caucus.

I can understand (barely) letting him keep his membership in Environment and Public Works.

But why would Barack Obama and the Democrats want this ass-clown to remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? He's been on the wrong end of every major policy decision concerning Iraq, the war on terror, FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, etc. His politics on these matters are indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush.

Is it because of this?

Christ, I haven't even finished reading Ryan Lizza's article in The New Yorker that everyone's talking about - on how Obama won.

Here's the case against Lieberman.

And here are the 19 Senators on the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee who determine committee chairs. Members include Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden and Reid. Contact them, especially the senators from your state, if you want real change in how we conduct Homeland Security and the war on terror.

UPDATE: Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, who's on the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, has come out publicly and said Lieberman should be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship.

"I am one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."

Fellow Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, also spoke out against Lieberman: "To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country," Sanders said in a statement. "Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.'"

The Red State Obama Couldn't Win

One of the most impressive aspects of Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential Election is that he won NINE "red states" that had gone for Bush in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

Obama won Virginia. Amazing.

Obama won North Carolina! Incredible.

Obama won INDIANA!!! Only two other Democrats have won Indiana in the last 96 years: FDR in 1932 and 1936, and LBJ in 1964.

But there was one "red state" Obama couldn't win. . . . One of the five boroughs of New York City: Staten Island.

Staten Island has always been the dirty little secret of "Liberal" New York City. For the last eight years, I have listened to liberal New Yorkers raging furiously against the dumb idiots in the Red States. They have joked about letting the Red States secede from the "real" U.S. They have sent around a map of this "real" U.S. made up only of "blue states." Never once have I heard a New Yorker even whisper that part of their own city was a "red state." (Unless an asshole like me brought it up.)

[Is Staten Island why "Liberal" New York City has had a Republican mayor for the last 15 years? Even Salt Lake City, Utah, can elect a Democrat for Mayor.]

Obama managed to win Nassau and Suffolk counties out on Long Island - not exactly hotbeds of radicalism. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

Obama won rural counties out in WEST TEXAS, for God's sake. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

Obama won rural counties in UTAH, a state that went 63% -34% for John McCain. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

Obama even won a rural county in bloody WYOMING, a state that went 65% -33% for John McCain. But he couldn't win part of New York City.

(By the way, that's Teton County, whose seat is Jackson. Better known as the home of Dick Cheney.)


In the end, Staten Island voted in this election by exactly the same percentages as the state of Georgia: 52% for McCain to 47% for Obama.

I've always thought the whole Red State-Blue State dichotomy was false and unhelpful. Grade-school-level political analysis that was actually disrespectful to people in more conservative states who worked their asses off to get progressives elected.

Kudos to all those people in the nine former "red states" who worked hard to show that the very concept of "red" and "blue" states is just not viable.

And instead of raging against the dumb idiots in the Red States, New Yorkers might want to consider getting in touch with the good folks out in Culberson County, West Texas, where Obama won 65%-34%, about helping them win back their own city.

The Obama Nomination

I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries. He wasn't even my second choice among the candidates. But I have to admit that I started getting a little choked up Tuesday night after he finally gained enough delegates to become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

It's been a strange campaign so far. On one hand, I've been appalled by the outright racism expressed by a number of Democratic voters. Watching news clips of scary-looking people saying they would never vote for a black man shouldn't have surprised me, I guess, but it did. And it saddened me deeply. This was supposed to be the party that cared about people of color. It didn't help that the Clinton campaign engaged in race-baiting once it became evident they had a battle on their hands, which certainly contributed to the openly racist remarks flowing so easily towards the end of the primaries in places like West Virginia and Kentucky (and in one frightening woman from New York City screeching nasty remarks about Obama at the DNC Committee vote on Florida and Michigan).

Then, suddenly, after a seemingly endless campaign, an African-American man was standing before me as the Democratic nominee for president. How extraordinary! It was one of those beautiful but rare moments when the America I believe in and long for was able to blossom forth.

His speech last Tuesday night was one of the best of the campaign. "America, this is our moment. This is our time." That was riveting. Here it is if you didn't see it earlier.



The General Election

Obama should be able to defeat McCain in November. But I'm concerned about the way he lost control of the media narrative in the last part of the primaries.

After running such an impressive and well-planned campaign through the end of February, Obama's team was out-campaigned by Hillary Clinton more often than not the rest of the way. The constant battering by the Clinton camp seemed to knock Obama out of his game plan. While his team certainly reacts more quickly to a single attack than Kerry did with the Swiftboaters in 2004, they seem to have trouble with a constant barrage of potentially damaging statements or issues and struggled to maintain momentum after Ohio and Texas.

On the other hand, left to himself, I don't think John McCain could campaign his way out of a paper bag, and his team doesn't seem half as talented or creative as the Clintons. One theory says that if Barack Obama can defeat the Clintons, who many people consider some of the most brilliant politicians of the last 40 years, then he can defeat McCain. I agree with that up to a point. But what if - and I'm thinking of the evidence we have from this campaign - the Clintons actually weren't as brilliant as we made them out to be for so long? Or that they were operating like a once-great heavyweight champion who's now just a flabby, arrogant prima donna long past his prime, and who says stupid things because he's been hit in the head too many times? Then, Obama struggling until the very last primary in June doesn't look so positive.

Luckily, it looks like McCain is going to approach Obama the same way Clinton did - with disdain and disbelief that this young kid thinks it's his turn to be president instead of me, me, me, me me. You'd think McCain and his advisers would've watched the Democratic primaries and realized the mistake in underestimating Barack Obama.

Mark Halperin, at The Page, lists the ways in which John McCain underestimates Obama:

1. The astonishing enthusiasm that Obama inspires in his supporters — and how much it contrasts with the respect, but not passion, McCain enjoys from his own backers. (And the size of Obama’s crowds…)

2. The “Major League vs Little League” difference between Obama’s infrastructure and his own.

3. The inherent difficulty/sensitivity of running against two figures at once. McCain will have to 1) explicitly criticize a sitting Republican president before Republican audiences and 2) prevent the historic event of electing the nation’s first African-American president that many in the country (and the media) desire.

4. The ever-present danger on the trail that he might evoke Bob Dole with a Bob Dole-like misstep (fall off a stage, sound like a Washington fossil, seem angry and out of touch).

5. How little most Americans care about foreign policy (beyond the Iraq War) when the economy is in the tank.

6. How many voters (even Republican stalwarts) dread the idea of a virtual third Bush term.

7. How many members of the media dread the idea of covering a virtual third Bush term (and how much they buy Obama’s argument that McCain is an extension of Bush-Cheney).

8. The extent to which McCain’s lack of an economic message could make Obama (who also is challenged in adequately addressing the economy) seem like Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton, and Lou Dobbs all rolled into one.

9. That many of his party’s wiseguys and wisegals see polling data suggesting his chances of winning are no more than 30% (and how much it infects their cable TV appearances).

10. That in modern America, perception is often reality and style often beats substance.

11. That age is only a number unless it’s a really high number — then it’s a liability.

12. How old he looks when he is acting “presidential” on the stump – and how incongruous it makes his message of change appear.

13. How powerful debates might be when the allegedly inexperienced Obama of allegedly questionable judgment goes toe-to-toe with McCain, even on national security, and is therefore deemed of sufficient strength and stature to be president by many.

14. How valuable Obama makes voters feel (”we are the change we have been waiting for”) – while McCain’s campaign instructs and lectures voters.

15. How forcefully Obama will now move to the center as a mainstream, optimistic candidate celebrating both change and America’s greatness.

(I would add another: 16. A winning smile like Obama's connects with voters more than McCain's snide, arrogant little laugh that sounds like Beavis from Beavis and Butthead.)

Running mates will probably be important for both sides, as each candidate tries to bring together various elements of their respective parties and win some of the crucial swing states.

But I'll take a look at those in the future.

What Went Wrong? The Clinton Campaign Dissects Itself

The process to choose a Democratic presidential nominee hasn't finished yet, though it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be the candidate.

I'll believe it's over when Obama actually has 2,025 delegates. Until then, I feel like I'm watching the last few minutes of a horror film, when the dumbass on the screen thinks he's killed the monster, whereas you know the beast is about to spring forth for one last attack.

Actually, observing a lot of Democrats, pundits, and bloggers (myself included), I'm reminded of another film analogy - the "Bring out your dead" routine in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Hillary: I'm not dead.
The Media: What?
The DNC: Nothing. Look, Edwards endorsed Obama.
Hillary: I'm not dead.
The Media: 'Ere, she says she's not dead.
DNC: Yes she is.
Hillary: I'm not.
The Media: She isn't.
The DNC: Well, she will be soon, she's very ill.
Hillary: I'm getting better. Look at West Virginia.
The DNC: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Media: Well, I can't take her like that. It's against regulations.
Hillary: I don't want to go on the cart.
The DNC: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Media: I can't take her.
Hillary: Obama won't get any white votes!
The DNC: Oh, do me a favor.
The Media: I can't.
The DNC: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? She won't be long.
The Media: I promised I'd cover McCain's campaign.
The DNC: Well, when's your next round?
The Media: May 20, the Kentucky and Oregon primaries.
Hillary: I think I'll go for a walk. I'm inevitable!
The DNC: [To Hillary] You're not fooling anyone, you know.
[To the Media] Isn't there anything you could do?
Hillary: I feel happy. I feel happy. I'm going all the way to the convention!
[The Media glances up and down the street furtively, then silences Hillary with a whack of his club]
The DNC: Ah, thank you very much.
The Media: Not at all. See you in the General.
The DNC: Right.

Evidently, though, several people in Hillary's own campaign know the end is near, and they've started dissecting the corpse of their losing effort before the breath has even left the body.

Michelle Cottle, at the New Republic has a fascinating article called (surprise) "What Went Wrong," which pulls together statements from more than a dozen members of Hillary's staff, "from high-level advisors to grunt-level assistants, from money men to on-the-ground organizers."

Here's a good chunk of the article - I suggest, however, reading the whole thing:

One respondent sent in a list of Top 25 screw ups, the first three being:

1. Patti
2. Solis
3. Doyle

Patti Solis Doyle

While from another corner came another list, reading:

1. Mark Penn
2. Mark Penn
3. Mark Penn

PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET

"Bottom line: I just don't think she was hungry enough for it in the beginning. It wasn't really until the ten-in-a-row loss that she started doing stuff like Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart. In the beginning, it was hard to get her to do those things. Early in the campaign, she spent much more time in the Senate than the campaign would have liked. It took the threat of a real loss to get her hungry enough for it. But time was lost. If you ask the Iowa folks, I'm sure they would tell you she wasn't there enough."

"Clearly [Obama] was a phenomenon. He was tapping something really different than anyone had ever seen before. ... Months and months before Iowa, he was getting record crowds. I just think they should have really gone after him back in the summer and in the fall. I know it would have been a difficult decision to make back then. She's the leader of the party, the standard bearer, the big dog. Everyone thinks she's gonna win and walk away with it. Why go picking on Barack Obama? But that's just something the campaign should have done sooner."

"We didn't lay a serious glove on him until the fall. We tried to a little bit, but we weren't successful. We did silly stuff, like talk about David Geffen. It wasn't the substantive contrast we needed to make."

"Devastating vulnerabilities such as Obama's associations with Wright and Ayers were not unearthed by the campaign's vaunted research team in time to be fully taken advantage of--despite being readily available in the public domain."

"Running as an incumbent, as the inevitable candidate, was probably our biggest mistake, particularly in a time when the country is really hungry for change."

"There was not any plan in place from beginning to end on how to win the nomination. It was, 'Win Iowa.' There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan to get to the magical delegate number. That to me is the number one thing. It's starting from that point that every subsequent decision resulted. The decision to spend x amount in Iowa versus be prepared for February 5 and beyond. Or how much money to spend in South Carolina--where it was highly unlikely we were going to win--versus the decision not to fund certain other states. ... It was not as simple as, 'Oh, that's a caucus state, we're not going to play there.' That suggests a more serious thought process. It suggests a meeting where we went through all that."

"Harold Ickes's encyclopedic understanding of the proportional delegate system was never operationalized into a field plan. The campaign inexplicably wrote off many states entirely, allowing Obama to create the lead of 100+ delegates that he has today. Most notably, we claimed the race would be over by February 5, but didn't devote any resources to the smaller states that day and in the weeks that followed, allowing Obama to easily run up margins and delegate counts on the cheap--the delegate margin he will win by."

PROBLEMS WITH THE PERSONNEL

"Hillary assembled a team thin on presidential campaign experience that confused discipline with insularity; they didn't know what they didn't know and were too arrogant to ask at a time early enough in the process when it could have made a difference, effectively shutting out even some long-time Hillaryland loyalists. Her innermost circle of [Patti Solis] Doyle, [Mark] Penn, [Mandy] Grunwald, [Neera] Tanden and [Howard] Wolfson formed a Board of Directors with no single Chairman or CEO; nobody was truly in charge, nobody held truly accountable."

"[Original campaign manager] Patti and [her deputy] Mike [Henry] sat up there in their offices and no one knew what they did all day. Patti's a nice person who was put in a job way over head. She was out of her element. Mike Henry was hired because he was the flavor of day, the catch everyone wanted. I'm sure he was really great, but presidential politics require a unique skill set and knowledge."

"[Policy Director] Tanden and [Communications Director] Wolfson, the HQ's most senior department heads, had no real presidential campaign experience, and no primary experience whatsoever. Notoriously bad managers, they filled key posts with newcomers loyal to them but unknown to and unfamiliar with the candidate, her style, her history, her preferences."

Mark Penn

"Probably our second biggest mistake was much more operational: Making our chief strategist our one and only pollster. It is impossible to disagree and have a counter view on message when the person creating the message is also the person testing the message."

"She never embraced the mantle from the beginning of being a different kind of candidate. Why did the campaign not do that? Because Mark Penn wanted to do it a different way. Read his book. He thought that you have a list of policy prescriptions. Voters are into that, and that's how you win. This came at the expense of--and it's a decision he really pushed for--saying to folks, 'Yes, she's a pretty inspiring figure herself.' ... There's no reason why she's not a change agent also. But once the CW is set, it just doesn't change."

"There were so many consultants, instead of full-time staff who would have spent their entire time focusing on this. . . . There were too many people that had too much else going on on the side."

"[Bill's] behavior that started off in Iowa, carried on in New Hampshire, and culminated in South Carolina really was the beginning of the end. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he just kind of imploded. I think, if I had to look back on it, it became more about him than about her. It really was destructive overall."

PROBLEMS WITH EXECUTION

"There were more themes in this campaign than anything I've ever seen."

"Our message in fact was working very well through September. What we failed to do is pivot when we needed to. We stuck on the same thing. ... We didn't say, 'OK, everybody gets that she can do this job.' We never pivoted to what kind of change she could bring. We repackaged the old message and sent it back out. Instead of 'Ready on Day One,' we changed to 'Solutions.' It was a very IBM approach."

"Keeping the same team in place [after New Hampshire] meant that pre-Iowa planning and strategic errors continued nearly unabated, were not corrected. ... Too much damage had been done by the time Maggie Williams took the helm."

"There were a number of people who advised the Clinton campaign back in the spring of '07 that this could easily become a longer battle--a war of attrition. She needed to build a broad base of supporters beyond the virtually limitless number of Clinton friends and supporters who they counted on to not only max out, but to use their not inconsiderable Rolodexes to help her. That would have been fine if this thing had ended Super Tuesday. It didn't, and she ran out of money."

"There was financial mismanagement bordering on fraud. A candidate who raised more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the years had to pump in millions more of her own money to stave off bankruptcy."

"If you have no cash because you totally mismanaged the budget, you have no money to go up on TV; you're getting crushed on TV and in direct mail because Obama has so much more money--that is a huge problem. Who was looking at the money? The financial situation was a disaster. That's the reason [Howard] Paster had to come in and clean shit up."

PROBLEMS WITH THE CANDIDATE

"If you look at this campaign as a 15- or 16-month gambit, the public turning point was the Philadelphia debate. Her non-answer on the driver's license issue. Again, it spoke to the character issue: The sense that she will say anything and do anything to get elected. It drove the Obama narrative of her home."

"The Senator is as loyal as she is smart. And I think that removing Patti is where those two things came into conflict. She knew the right thing to do. At same time, she was very loyal to Patti, who had been very loyal to her."

PROBLEMS IN IOWA

"We placed a huge financial bet on Iowa and raised its importance by sending senior staff there. And because we didn't plan for a national campaign, we couldn't point to an operation that could withstand an Iowa blow the way Obama could after New Hampshire."

"It was obvious talking to people on the ground there that they simply did not get the Iowa caucus from a field perspective. That's where the thing was lost. They didn't have a good idea of the horse-trading that makes caucuses work for you."

"Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald dismissed the possibility of youth turning out heavily in Iowa for Obama, saying on the record after the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, 'They don't look like caucus-goers.'"

"Penn was preoccupied with the national polls. We were up in the national polls, but Iowa was always a challenging thing for us. Early, early on, our internals showed us a significant number of points behind. ... In Iowa, Penn consistently would show polls that were of the eight-way. That was basically meaningless because it wasn't going to be an eight-way race. The candidates that were the second-tier candidates were not going to reach the threshold [of 15%]. The real race was the three-way. But he always focused on the eight-way when we'd start going over the numbers in Iowa. It was frustrating to the state staff and other people as well. It just showed a lack of understanding and a disconnect."

PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESS

"We ran a press operation that lost all credibility with the press through endless and pointless memos like, 'Where's the Bounce?' and polling memos that cherry-picked only positive polls when we were up and ignored polling when we were down."

AND, FINALLY...

"Her people spent all of 2008 making lists blaming each other (but never themselves) rather than lists of solutions."

Actually, I can tell you "what went wrong" with Hillary's campaign in one word - IRAQ.

She supported (and supported and supported) Bush, Cheney & Co. and their sickening war loooong after the vast majority of people in her own party had turned against it. I remember the absolute fury my liberal friends felt towards Clinton because of the war, and I wondered at the time how she was going to win in the primaries when die-hard Democrats were lumping her in the Axis of Evil with Bush and Cheney.

Important groups like MoveOn and CodePink weren't going to support her. Most of the increasingly powerful blogosphere, like DailyKos and Huffington Post, hated her. The grassroots of the Democratic Party, who had organized themselves protesting the war, abandoned her. (One of the reasons the Clintons had such a hard time at the field level and in caucuses.)

As David Halberstam discusses in The Best and the Brightest, the classic Democratic presidential campaign strategy is to run to the Left in the primaries and move to the Center in the general election.

But Hillary couldn't run to the Left, because she betrayed them.

So she ran to the Right - giving us race baiting and reactionaries in a completely Republican-style campaign.

"I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House," Hillary claimed. "I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. . . .

And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002."

Yeah, well . . . with all due respect, Mrs. Clinton, if you had made a similar speech in 2002, you'd be the nominee right now.

If you had done what was right, if you had done what was just, if you had stood up against a war that the majority of the people in the world and in your own party tried to stop, we'd have our first woman president of the United States in 2008.

And maybe we would've prevented that catastrophic invasion.

The Clintons vs MoveOn

More Democratic fratricide this week . . . .

Celeste Fremon at Huffington Post reports on remarks Hillary Clinton made recently about MoveOn.org during a closed-door fund-raiser:

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Eli Pariser, from MoveOn, responded:

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

Ironically, MoveOn got its start in 1998 by organizing support for President Clinton during the Impeachment process. They created an online petition called "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation."

A few months ago, at a MoveOn-sponsored forum, Hillary praised the organization:

I also want to thank you for being such lively participants in American democracy. You started from the very fundamental premise that in our democracy everyone should have a voice and that given the power of the internet, we now have millions of voices that are part of our debates. I personally welcome that because for nearly a decade you've been asking the tough questions, you've been demanding answers, you've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves and that you expect from us. I think you have helped to change the face of politics for the better, both online and in the corridors of power. So although some of your members may be a little surprised to hear me say this, I am grateful for your work. I remember when you started and how important it was and I look forward to continuing our dialogue in the years ahead on the important issues facing our country and the world.

Matthew Yglesias, at The Atlantic Monthly, sees a larger Clinton pattern at work:

[T]he bad dynamic between Clinton and MoveOn is a reminder of one of the fundamental problems with her candidacy. The Clintons, and many of their key supporters, come out of a school of political analysis which holds that the problem with the Democratic Party in the United States is that progressive institutions are too strong. Only by curbing the influence of these institutions, the theory goes, can Democratic Party politicians engage in the tactical repositioning necessary to win elections.

Whether or not that was true in 1988-92 or, indeed, whether or not it remains true today, this is clearly not a long-term strategy for progressive politics. This "crush the left, move to the right" theory of electoral political may or may not work for politicians in the short run, but to create big change you need to strengthen progressive institutions and move the entire spectrum to the left.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about MoveOn. But I don't see the ultimate good in attacking an energized and increasingly important group of activists within your own party.

My guess is that the Clintons are appealing again to reactionary Democrats, especially in Pennsylvania, by distancing themselves from those terrible "progressive" nuts. Once more, they're playing the Republican song, this time using a falsehood that Karl Rove already used a few months ago.

But even if bashing MoveOn were to help them in the Pennsylvania primary, wouldn't they need these same people in a general election? They assume that MoveOn will come around later. And given how loyal MoveOn is to the Democratic Party - and how nasty MoveOn and DailyKos are to any mention of third-party attempts - the Clintons are probably right about that. At least to a degree. The organizations might come around and help them raise money. But individual voters within the groups might defect.

In any case, it's one more example of the Democrats working hard to lose what should've been a winnable election.

The Two Bills (Clinton and Richardson)

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle report on Bill Clinton's "meltdown" at a private meeting with superdelegates during the California state convention last weekend. "Bill Clinton's tirade stunned some delegates":

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns.

When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened.

Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement.

In happier times? The two Bills watch the Super Bowl together on February 3, 2008.

Yesterday, just two days after Clinton's tirade, Bill Richardson published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, entitled "Loyalty to My Country":

My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation -- particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack -- driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.

I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

Olbermann on the Ferraro Mess and the Clinton Campaign

When Democrats Are Racists and Reactionaries

Another African-American male given preferential treatment. His very own Waiting Room!

I didn't think it would be possible to be surprised any more by the crap emanating from the Clinton campaign. But I was so angry after watching clips of Geraldine Ferraro's comments last night that I had a hard time getting to sleep.

Folks, this is not good. We are dealing with a level of racism on the part of the Clinton campaign that every Democrat, liberal, or simply intelligent human being should be ashamed of.

In fact, I'm calling you Clinton fans out. I want one of you to explain to me how it's possible for someone to belong to a party that espouses civil rights, justice, and fairness out of one side of its big mouth while trying to nominate a candidate who has consistently engaged in racism and fear-mongering in order to get elected.

And before you start blaming Barack Obama for bringing up race, tell me when Obama has ever mentioned the subject in his campaign when he wasn't responding to the bilge coming from one Clinton surrogate or another. Find a speech. Maybe there is one. But I think you're going to have a hard time.

Ferraro's comments are being directed at the kind of of angry white male (and, obviously, female) that I foolishly thought belonged mostly on the right-wing. But, evidently, the old racist Southern Democrat mentality still exists within other areas of the Democratic Party. In Pennsylvania, perhaps? Could it be that Ferraro and the Clintons know exactly who this kind of spiritual diarrhea appeals to? And that a good number of those people happen to be in the next primary state?

Yes, it could be.

In fact, that's the point. Piss-off people like me, so I'll react; create a big stir in the media, because so many are disgusted with an obvious race-baiting tactic; which lets loose the barely suppressed racist rage of angry white folks who will then blame the smooth-talking black guy for bringing up race. And he probably got into Harvard over some poor, lily white girl who was smarter.

And I fall for it, and the media falls for it, and the Clintons have accomplished their purpose. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong on the question. The only thing that matters is outrage and the inevitable reactionary response.

I know that voice Ferraro used, and I know exactly who she's talking to. I've heard their whispers and their open racist comments around me my whole life. From Texas to New York City to Long Island. They're the guys in Billie's Tavern who say, "Long Island is the last bastion of white people in America." They listen to Ferraro and know exactly where she's coming from. Poor, victimized white people. They're one or two drinks away from donning a white robe and going after one of the few blacks who live around here, or after the Mexican immigrants.

And if you want a Democratic Party that leans on racism and reactionaries, then heed Ferraro's words.

Otherwise, I suggest you contact some of the big-shots in the Democratic Party and tell them: ENOUGH!

Tell them that this is not what the Democratic Party stands for. The ongoing race-baiting and fear-mongering on the part of the Clintons is doing tremendous and probably long-term damage to the the party, not to mention to the country.

Here's info for some major Democrats not yet affiliated with either campaign. If anyone has Al Gore's contact page or email, let me know. And if you think of anyone else in the party who should be contacted, please chime in.

Howard Dean (DNC)

Nancy Pelosi: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

Bill Richardson

John Edwards: press@johnedwards.com

UPDATE: Liam found contact info for Al Gore (thanks):

Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620 Nashville, TN 37203
Fax: 615-327-1323
Phone: 615-327-2227
For press interview requests, email Al Gore’s spokesperson, Kalee Kreider at Kalee@carthagegroup.com

Gasp! More African-American men getting preferential treatment. His very own water fountain!

Meanwhile, I'll let Shark Fu (AngryBlackBitch) give you her take on Geraldine Ferraro.

As a side note, AngryBlackBitch was just named one of The World's 50 Most Powerful Blogs by The Guardian. Congratulations!

Dear Geraldine:

This is not an attack.

This is a response.

I woke up at 4 o’clock in the morning thinking about you, Geraldine.

I lay there listening to my sorta-beagles snore and wondered if you really think that Senator Obama is still in this race solely because he is a black man.

I don’t know you, Geraldine, and I don’t assume a person is decent simply because they hold a certain status in the Democratic Party and feminist history. This bitch has never met you, but I sure as shit know what it is like to have someone attribute my success to my being black.

It’s the freakiest mind fuck out there to have someone treat what has been the source of oppression like it is the “it” benefit of 2008.

But you know that, don’t you…Geraldine?

Let’s get real, Geraldine. You don’t give a flying shit whether you offend the hell out of some people as long as your message gets through to the right people. The kind of people who hear a quote like that and are thankful that someone said it…fucking cheer when they hear it then eagerly e-mail it to five friends…and can’t believe you’re catching hell for it.

Those people…

…who you need to fire up and are confident the tried and true fuel of 'gender trumps race' will get it done and bring in some money.

This trifling ass shit has left me unable to imagine a scenario where I cast the vote people risked their lives and died to achieve for me for a candidate who's campaign insults what I stand for and the principles I believe in.

And next time don’t bother with the “and if he was a woman (of any color)” pander, okay?

I haven’t been caught up in that unified sisterhood concept yet, honey...and your verbal malfunction didn’t help with that shit one bit.

I’m not attacking you because you are white.

This is coming at you because you’re wrong…

Still more preferential treatment for African-American males! Why do they get to play with the ropes while the poor white folks only get to watch the fun?!?!?

UPDATE: Geraldine Ferraro resigned from her position on Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

And she still doesn't get it.

Going out with the same lack of grace that got her into this mess to begin with, she once again blamed Obama for her own dumbass, bigoted remarks:

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."

Mexican American Democrats in Texas Endorse Obama

This from AP, via the Wichita Falls Times Record News:

Sen. Barack Obama has won the coveted endorsement of the Mexican American Democrats, the oldest Hispanic group among Texas Democrats.

In announcing its weekend decision, the Democratic group cited Obama's long-standing relationship with Hispanic community and commitment to improving the lives of Hispanics.

“The Mexican American community needs more that just Spanish-speaking candidates trying to get the Hispanic vote. We need candidates who are committed to improve the lives of Latino men, women and children whether citizens, legal residents or undocumented by writing polices that work for us,” said John Lopez, chairman of the group's endorsing committee.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been counting on the Hispanic vote in Texas, campaigning in predominantly Hispanic regions and playing up her work 36 years ago registering Hispanic voters in Texas.

And Ted Kennedy journeys to South Texas tomorrow to garner support from Latinos, as the Houston chronicle reports:

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Obama's most prominent congressional supporter, will be in the Lone Star State for Wednesday events in Corpus Christi, McAllen and Laredo. Kennedy will remain in Texas on Thursday, the day of the pivotal Clinton-Obama debate in Austin, but his schedule has not been announced.

To make things in the Texas prima-caucus a little more interesting, here are two recent polls:

CNN: Clinton 50% - Obama 48%
SurveyUSA: Clinton 50% - Obama 45%

Texas might not be the firewall Clinton hoped for. Especially when combined with yesterday's news about the Clinton campaign's questionable planning for the Lone Star State.

According to a Washington Post article yesterday, the Clinton crew was surprised this month to discover the complex nature of the Texas Prima-caucus and how it might adversely affect Hillary.

Part of the Daily Dish response:

Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they “discovered” that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).

While they were busy “discovering” the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose.

The New Republic chimes in one the same story:

You know, for a candidate who says she'll be ready on day one as president, her campaign is remarkably ill-prepared. . . .

So let me get this straight: The Clinton campaign basically decided to bank almost everything on Texas (along with Ohio), without bothering to do due diligence on the delegate apportionment procedures there? If she does wind up winning the White House, who's the lucky aide who gets to troop into the Oval Office and deliver the shocking news to her that we've got troops in Iraq.

Flaco Jimenez, from San Antonio, Texas
(Don't know who he's endorsed - just like his music.)

Y'all Come Back Now!

Obama the Campaigner

I had a sudden revelation this week: Barack Obama has out-campaigned the Clintons.

Think about that for a moment.

Whatever negative feelings some people have about Bill and Hillary Clinton, few would deny that they've been the best political animals the Democratic Party has produced since at least John F. Kennedy. You may not like their economic policies, Bill's bimbos, or Hillary's vote for the war, but they have been great at what they do.

And, up to this point in the 2008 election process, Barack Obama has outplayed them at the game in which they were considered champions.

1. He has raised more money.
2. He has out-organized them on the ground, winning almost all of the caucus states, most by huge margins.
3. He has used new technologies more effectively.
4. He has overcome a seemingly unbeatable political brand name.
5. He has done better at understanding the mood of the nation: "A Change You Can Believe In" tapping into what people want now more than "Ready from Day One."
6. He has generated more enthusiasm among his supporters and the media, despite going up against one of the most charismatic figures in Democratic poliitics in Bill Clinton.
7. He has out-gained them in elected delegates, number of states won, and the overall popular vote.

There's still a long way to go in the primaries, but what Obama has managed to do up to this point is impressive on several levels.

Like other people, I've been concerned about Obama's lack of experience, and harbored some doubt about how competent he might be as president. There's still a lot of The Unknown involved in imagining an Obama presidency, but I will say that I feel better today than I did a few months ago, or even at the start of the week. In particular, I'm impressed by his ability to organize and manage a complex campaign - and to do so successfully against highly skilled adversaries.

Mark Halperin touched upon the topic this week at his Time magazine blog, The Page. What made Halperin's observations even more interesting to me was knowing how much he respects Bill and Hillary Clinton as brilliant political players.

A few months ago, I read his book (with John Harris, of the Washington Post), The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008. He and Harris analyze the mistakes of the Gore and Kerry campaigns (and there were many). Then they show how Karl Rove and the Clintons have been so successful running political campaigns in the midst of "The Freak Show," the treacherous minefield of mainstream media, cable TV, talk radio, blogs, etc.

The entire last section of the book is dedicated to Hillary Clinton alone, not including the chapters on Bill and her together. Halperin says of Hillary, "No other figure in public life knows more of the Trade Secrets required to tame the Freak Show and limit its ability to destroy reputations." One of the chapters is entitled, "Mastering the Senate, and the Freak Show." He raves about her campaign for the Senate in 2000. After building her up over six chapters, Halperin concludes by saying, "[S]he will be a formidable candidate, with significant advantages over every other plausible Democratic candidate, and over every plausible Republican candidate, with the exception of John McCain."

He lists six assets at her disposal:

1. Fund-raising ability
2. Name recognition
3. Being the Only Woman in the Race
4. Having the Best Political Strategist in the Democratic Party (Bill)
5. Knowing the Trade Secrets of Bill and Karl Rove.
6. Being a Freak Show Veteran

That's why Halperin's column this week, Sixteen Underappreciated Obama Advantages, made such an impression:

Obama’s February momentum, favorable press coverage, surging delegate totals, immunity from “Obama Fatigue” (particularly when compared with the unexpected, intense levels of Clinton Fatigue and Clinton animus within the Democratic Party), and still-viable donors are getting a lot of attention, but what else does he have going for him (that campaign watchers are not appreciating to the fullest)?

1. A clear, consistent, constant message frame — change — that is patently inspirational and plays most favorably in the current media and electoral environments.

2. A strategic vision of how to win that hasn’t changed since day one – almost exactly a year ago.

3. The ability to arouse unqualified pride, excitement, and righteousness in his supporters (new voters, old voters, and superdelegates alike), who enjoy feeling fashionably forward-looking and passionate about politics.

4. A coalition no one has ever put together before in a Democratic nomination fight – the most loyal Democrats (blacks) and the least loyal ones (Volvo suburbanites).

5. A candidate with the skill to both write and deliver moving, eloquent, historic-feeling and momentum-inducing speeches at pivotal moments (victory speeches, major rallies, crucial battlegrounds).

6. A tight-knit staff that never fights with each other publicly and rarely in private – who respect and like each other.

7. No single, dominant strategic thinker who sets the campaign agenda, inspires eye-rolling and resentment among colleagues, and whose decisions are second-guessed.

8. A candidate who trusts his staff — and never wonders if they are working hard enough on his behalf, or questions their devotion.

9. A candidate with an uncanny natural sense — rare in someone so new to national politics — of timing, pacing, rhythm, and tone.

10. A candidate who generally has fun on the campaign trail — and shows it (even when he is tired).

11. Less bureaucracy.

12. The ability to control most leaks, and roll out endorsements and other announcements on the campaign’s own terms.

13. The ability to raise millions without requiring precious time from the candidate.

14. True grassroots organizing, often without direction from headquarters — both on the Internet and in real life (including canvassing and “visibility” activities).

15. A home base in Illinois–there are far fewer political distractions in Chicago than in Washington.

16. An electorate that seems oddly indifferent to conventional norms of preparedness for the job of commander-in-chief — and which appears even more indifferent to the existence (or absence) of detailed policy prescriptions despite the grave problems confronting the nation.

I don't know what's going to happen in Democratic primaries. Tuesday's vote in Wisconsin seems pivotal to me. If Obama Wins, I think he will be our next president. (Yeah, I know, a big prediction.) But if Hillary manges to win, and it's a very close race, Obama will lose most of his momentum, with two weeks of press coverage to remind everyone of that fact, before heading into Texas and Ohio, two states where he could not do that well. If Clinton wins Wisconsin, this could easily turn into a bloody battle all the way to the convention. And I fear the worst for the party should that be the case.

But whatever happens from here on out, I think Barack Obama has done something incredible. Anyone who can out-duel the Clintons has some pretty serious political chops. He's going to be a force for some time to come.

P.S. A Texan's style endorsement: The guy actually looks good in a cowboy hat. No small matter.

Texas Two Step

It's not easy trying to figure out Texas' complicated primary/caucus/thing-a-majig that's going to be held on March 4. Or how it might affect the Democratic race.

Mary Mapes, sounding at times like Molly Ivins or Ann Richards, has an excellent and fun introduction in "Texas Time," at Huffington Post. It's worth reading the whole thing. Here's a Texas-size pecan chew of an excerpt.

[I]n a campaign where voters are already defying some of the old demographic breakdowns, Texas promises to give the pundits and campaign planners a run for their money, beginning with the most basic characterizations.

Texas is not the South. It is not the West. It is not the Southwest.

Texas is all those things, a heady blend of magnolia blossoms and masa harina; a place big enough and complicated enough to treasure both the Alamo and the dreams of millions whose lives began in Mexico. It has memorials to Civil War heroes and civil rights legends, border towns without running water and the latest thing from Barney's.

Texas is home to both big oil and big hair; sometimes to big, oily hair.

It is a warm, fun-loving, forgiving state, the kind of place where the vice-president can shoot someone in the face and the victim apologizes.

Clearly, it isn't easy to embarrass Texas. But it appears George W. Bush has finally done it. In a stark change from the public's attitude here a few years ago, now there are bumper stickers on family cars in grocery store parking lots that proclaim "Bush wasn't born here" and "George W. Bush is a failure."

The rest of the country may figuratively turn disgraced politicians into piñatas, but in Texas, the transformation is literal. In fact, a party store in Austin will custom-make a George W. Bush piñata for you for only 23 dollars. Don't ask how I know this.

The Democratic race is going to be more complicated and more unpredictable because both candidates have huge built-in constituencies, good organizations and giddy support. Texas Democrats are almost hysterical at the heart-pounding possibility that the rest of the country will at long last pay attention to what they think. In addition to all that, no one knows how the hell the delegate count is actually going to work.

In typical Texas contrarian fashion, the primary rules read like a DNA chart. On the Democratic side, 228 delegates are up for grabs. But it's not that simple.

The state has both a primary and a caucus -- on the same day. And you can't caucus unless you voted in the primary. On primary night, 126 delegates will be determined based on voting results in each Senate district.

The number of delegates in each district is based on how many Democrats voted in the last two general elections in that district. Got that? Well, there's more.

The selection of another 67 delegates will begin at the caucuses that night and culminate at the state convention in June. The remaining 35 delegates are some kind of unique political life form that will evolve into actual delegates at the National Convention later that summer.

With rules like this, we may not know the division of Texas delegates until sometime after the new President is sworn in. Now that the state finally has its moment in the spotlight, it appears we will slowly drag our rear ends across the stage and reveal our delegate counts only when we are good and ready.

The candidates are already familiar faces. Barack Obama has been here raising money and making friends since long before he announced his candidacy. Hillary Clinton actually lived in Austin in 1972 while working for George McGovern. She knows the state and has racked up an impressive series of endorsements.

Hillary seems to be ahead in early polling. Texans, despite the state's conservative reputation, have never had any discomfort with women taking the reins. Texas women have been changing the world for a long time.

That creates a special challenge for Hillary Clinton.

Down here, she will have to live with the ghosts of Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Molly Ivins and Lady Bird Johnson. She will have to prove to voters that she has more in common with these iconic Texas political figures than with Ma Ferguson, the state's first female governor. Ferguson took over in 1925, several years after her husband was run out of office.

Actually, Hillary Clinton is nothing like Ma Ferguson. They have nothing but body parts in common. Still, by making that comparison, I get the chance to use a hilarious quote attributed to Ferguson during a debate on the use of Spanish in Texas public schools. She exhorted the state to require English, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it is good enough for the children of Texas."

Which brings up another point. Texans expect candidates to be entertaining. They can be funny like Ann Richards, a charming rogue like Charlie Wilson, or personable like George W. Bush used to be.

Obama has that -- and something more. For Texans old enough to remember, he recalls Barbara Jordan -- not because of race, but because of the power of the spoken word. Decades ago in her campaigns for Congress, in small towns and large cities, in front of crowds who gathered at courthouses and on street corners, she became a political legend by reminding people of why they loved their country. She led old men in sweat-stained cowboy hats to weep openly at the beauty of the Constitution, the power of the American people, the depth of our belief in our own inherent decency.

Texans are still like that. They still like good speeches. They still like to cry in public. And they will always love politics.

To win in Texas, Democrat or Republican, there is really only one rule. Don't be dull. We certainly won't.

Marc Ambider has some interesting thoughts in "Texas's Unique Primaucus," from his blog on The Atlantic web site.

The delegate-rich districts are the most heavily liberal state senate districts. According to this calculation, they're in Austin and in two of the most concentrated African American parts of the state. Advantage: Obama.

Clinton will get plenty of support from Latino voters, but they tend to be more spread out and thus will see their votes somewhat diluted in the 31 separate primaries. In order to "win" -- both enough delegates and statewide, you need to organize what amounts to caucus-like campaigns in each of these districts.

The white vote in Texas will probably split, with Obama taking men and Clinton taking women. Though Latinos make up a slightly larger share of the electorate than African Americans, they tend to vote in lower proportions.

Suffice it to say: whatever you call Texas's system -- a hybrid, a primacaucus, whatever -- do not assume that, because it's a big state and the media calls it a primary, the math favors Hillary Clinton.

Y'all Come Back Now!