Stockholm Syndrome aka HRC's Race for the White House '08

I'm glad that some progressive outlets are finally just doing the basic math and concluding what most people with a calculator have. Hillary can't win. Even her own advisers think she's got a 10% chance of getting the nomination.

Politico put up a story today saying this, and now it's a matter of time before everyone stops sniffing the Clinton snuff and following suit. Hopefully it will be at least 3 weeks before PA, so we can get the holdouts to come out of their caves and realize the truth.

The 5th Horseman

I think the fifth horseman just rounded the bend -- I actually found myself cheering on Tucker Carlson and his little bow-tie. He just interviewed the journalist who quoted Samantha Powers on the" monster" comment. He nailed her. Dude, she tried the smarmy, US press is acquiescent, then he came back with the not wanting to get lectured by someone from a system with such low standards like those in the UK press, he scolded her for burning her source and she came back saying that in the UK off-the-record is negotiated up front and that someone shouldn't be given a pass on a comment because they didn't mean to say it, taking that ball, Tucker asked her why he didn't ask Ms. Powers what she meant by "monster". And stumped. Dang. If I could type faster I would transcribe the thing. Crazy stuff this campaign season.

HAFTA SHAFT YA ON NAFTA

Sorry for the terrible pun, but I came across a link to this article in a comment on HuffPo, and thought I'd like to it here.

Apparently some paper in Winnipeg is reporting that the Chief of Staff for Canada's PM, Ian Brodie, was the first drop in the leaking of the NAFTA memo -- and it claims he was referring to a conversation he'd had with someone from HILLARY'S campaign. We'll see what turns this takes, but, as with anything involving election year politics, I'm sure there's more here than meets the eye.

The World is Watching, Hillary

I'm listening to Barack Obama's speech on MSNBC from Austin, Texas. Once again, he has found the nugget and put it out there.

The world is watching what we do here.

I think that is a shot across the bow to Hillary to let her and her advisers know that her dirty tricks and tactics are not going to make her popular around the world.

"Experience"

The irony that Hillary Clinton criticizes Barack Obama's Iraq war speech as "talk when he didn't have responsibility" is clearly pinpointed here:

When asked to point to a national security test that Senator Clinton had faced, the campaign responded that it was a "moment of test" when she stood up in China and said "women's rights are human rights."

This is from the MoJo Blog, admittedly a heavily biased site, so take the framing with a grain of salt, but the quote is from a conference call with Mark Penn, Clinton's campaign strategist. I hope those Clinton-backers are really paying attention to their candidate's words. I don't plan to vote for her in the fall if she gets the nomination and I'd really like to back a Democrat. I've done a lot of soul-searching on this, but the thought of four to eight more years of socially conservative policies that encourage soft bigotry makes me ill.

Do Spouse's Share Copyright?

I guess you can't plagiarize your own spouse.... A funny youtube posted in the comments section on about the new '3 AM' spot Hillary rolled out in Texas.



Thank you Sarge1.

** UPDATED** Game Changing

**UPDATED**
I am no computer whiz. I screwed up the html at the bottom of the post and cut myself off.
**UPDATED**

Clinton's campaign is threatening to challenge the Texas Democratic Party on the way they run their dual primary-caucus this March 4th. This, despite the fact that Bill Clinton helped to develop those rules, those rules have been in place since at least the early 90s, and Texas is very happy with them.

From the AP via Yahoo:

Aides to Clinton said earlier this week they were alarmed at the lack of clarity about many of the caucus rules and expressed their concerns on a conference call with Obama's staff and state party officials. Texas has a two-step voting process, with a
primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.

Specifically, Clinton aides questioned a provision allowing caucus attendees to vote to move the location if they choose to do so, and whether people who had cast so-called "provisional ballots" in the primary would have their votes counted in the caucus.

They also expressed concern about the automated phone system precinct chairs would use to call in the results of each caucus, saying the party hadn't yet trained anyone to use the system properly.

Clinton political director Guy Cecil said he asked party officials to spell out the rules in memo form and to send them to both campaigns.

"We want to see the results in writing, and we reserve the right to challenge something if we don't believe it reflects something that was discussed on the call," he said, insisting that if there were clear problems with how the caucuses were being run, "you are allowed to say something about it."

I get frustrated by all the yammering from this campaign. Instead of strategizing, they run against obstacles and not only want to change the rules of the game, they want to change the game itself -- in this case, it's no longer about who can build the better campaign apparatus, who has the stronger message, the best track record, is the most inspiring, or looks better on paper, now it's about who is best at wrecking havoc on the alliance of the various Democratic state parties and intimidating them into falling in line.

I hope voters of Texas and Ohio walk away from this campaign and all its rhetoric of fear. Hillary Clinton has never made me feel safer and tactics like this buttress the argument that she doesn't know what the hell she's doing and is copying someone else's homework (Karl Rove, anyone?). Come up with your own campaign slogans, stop market-testing your policies, and PLAY BY THE RULES. Might do something to convince folks you recognize what the RULE OF LAW means and have REJECTED your husband's own fast-and-loose truth-telling that ushered in GWB and the "compassionate conservates" all over the country.

Style Points

One thing that annoys the hell out of me is hearing Tucker Carlson say Obama is winning because he's cool. Let's face it, the man has two Ivy League degrees, has held public office for a decade or so, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional Law at one of the most prestigious schools in the world and knows the proper use of denounce versus reject. Unless I'm missing something and smart is the new cool, WTF????

Money Talks

Everyone is reporting the same thing -- Hillary Clinton lent her campaign $5 million last month, senior staffers and campaign managers are going without pay this month and she's tapped out her major donors. Aside from the fact that this story in no way impacts the nomination, afterall, it's all free press and a non-story story way for her to stay on the news without having to run campaign ads, can we talk about the fact that Bill Clinton, just last month, criticized the way the campaign finance system favors wealthy individuals who are capable of self-financing?

From Politico:

And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy. “For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.

Two of his top aides (Carville and the other guy whose name I can't remember right now) went so far as to propose a hard ceiling on the amount of money that could be spent campaigning and proposed a campaign finance "tax" from which candidates could run. Clearly this was in preparation for a Bloomberg run which ended up not materializing (or, at least, it hasn't yet).

So, what's the story? Apparently money talks. I don't see how the DNC can ignore the fact that there is a groundswell of support for the Senator from Illinois. The types of donations he's received over the last few weeks, the fact that a substantial number of them are coming from atypical donors, and that he's attracted entirely new voters to the polls, should tell senior leadership they have lightening in a bottle and they shouldn't let it be squandered with a messy race for delegates, and under no circumstances should this race be decided by Super Delegates.

At this point, I don't think it's clear if Hillary's supporters are loyal and will stay the course with her, or if Obama's momentum is real and will continue to grow, but I do know that for the sake of the party, whoever is at the helm better look out for Icebergs. We can't afford another dispirited fall with people confused about who to support and why and either not voting or voting for the other guy.

CLINTON

I know I may get some nasty comments for this post, but, whatever, bring it on....

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton.

I'm actually undecided, but the one thing I know for certain is that I will not be supporting the Clintons. This has nothing to do with Hillary's policy choices (I agree with most of them) but with her diplomacy. I don't think the field is especially diverse this year outside of race and gender. No, if you are a democrat this is a bumper crop. Our party listened to complaints and has started leaning left again, not all the way left, not as left as it needs to in order for things to turn completely around, but left enough that the Green Party doesn't make as much since as it has 'lo these many years.

The reason I'm not supporting Hillary is because of the divisive strategies she and her husband and all of the Clintonites are using to divide the party along the lines of race and gender. Back in the day it was called the "Southern Strategy" and had as its primary tool white fear of black men. The invocation of "states rights" as code for segregation has now been replaced by Hillary's infamous LBJ comment, but the underlying sentiment is still there -- it takes White patronage to enact Black aspirations.

I've heard the arguments that she didn't "mean" it that way, that Black people are "overly sensitive" to implications of racial insensitivity, all of that just reinforces my desire to NOT vote for her. She's made much of having attended King's I HAVE A DREAM speech, but she doesn't talk about being a Goldwater Girl the following year and supporting a candidate who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act. She talks about her husband being called "the first black president" and how she is in an "interracial marriage" -- that moniker was given him by a prominent author who was pointing out NOT that Clinton represented Black people politically, or was our advocate, but rather that many racial stereotypes of black people are more appropriately descriptive of poor people all across the US ("Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas" is the actual quote, you can check it out on Wikipedia, I'm trying to find the original source now).  This nickname was picked up on by the Clintons and found itself co-signed by the black community partially because of Bill Clinton's philandering ways.

As for Mr. Clinton, he has repeatedly engaged in "code" talking, employing terms and drawing analogies calculated to remind rural white voters that Mr. Obama is a black candidate, and implying that he isn't experienced enough to put together a government.  I don't buy that the Clintons are politically, socially or culturally too naive to understand the negative impact his statements (and her implicit complicity).  And I certainly hope that if those comments were in fact made in a space of racial ignorance, then I don't want her representing my country in this volatile foreign policy environment.

I don't believe in rewarding entitlement.  I don't believe in identity politics.  As a woman, I'm ashamed that Hillary is letting her husband play the big bad hubby defending her honor.  I'm ashamed that she is allowing her campaign to characterize her opponent as a young up-start rather than acknowledging and respecting the fact that Obama's struggle upwards has been as harrowing in its way as hers has been.  I don't believe in winning at all costs.  As she lays waste to her opponents in her pursuit of the nomination, she's losing the war at home.

I think Bill Clinton did a great job economically while he was in office, however, his stance on social issues was ridiculous (Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Welfare Reform that saw thousands of elderly African American women forced back to work in order to care for grandchildren) and helped to solidify the intrusion of socially conservative religious issues in Presidential politics.  I have no interest in seeing him, or his influence, back in the White House.  

I'm tired of this politics of fear.  Making a decision to base a campaign on race, gender or age smacks of fear.  

And I wish that John Edwards could find a bigger voice in this struggle.

Hill Plays the Dozens

CNN is blogging about Hillary's snap on a black blogger/journalist from Florida. Apparently he either asked her if she supported socialized medicine or she inferred it when he compared her plan to that of Canada's and Britain's:

"I have never advocated socialized medicine and I want all the journalists to hear that loudly and clearly. That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years," Clinton said, adding that her staff would provide the questioner information, "if you're interested in being educated instead of being rhetorical."

I'm not a fan, but, whatoutnow! Hillary better have come loaded for bear if she is going to start playing the dozens with black folks. She's got too many areas of vulnerability to really get down.

HOPE the New Black

I thought Obama was the new Black, but then I read this article. Even though I'm morally opposed to Harvard Business School, this list of Breakthrough Ideas for 2006 was pretty informative. Here's one that struck me in particular:

5. The Leader from Hope

What is hope? Something more than wishful thinking but short of expectation. A rejection of cynicism and dispiritedness. And a state, we believe, quite central to the work of a leader.

Most business leaders, we’ve discovered in our three years’ worth of interviews on the subject, shy away from the word. Perhaps talk of hope comes uncomfortably close to faith and spirituality—or perhaps declaring that one’s organization needs hope feels defeatist. “If I set out to instill hope,” one might wonder, “am I admitting that our situation is next to hopeless?”

Most business leaders shy away from the notion of hope, perhaps because declaring that one’s organization needs hope feels defeatist.

Yet work connected to the positive-psychology movement has made hope discussable in new ways. Hope has been shown to be the key ingredient of resilience in survivors of traumas ranging from prison camps to natural disasters. Many studies have shown that people who score higher on measures of hope also cope better with injuries, diseases, and physical pain; perform better in school; and prove more competitive in sports. Our contribution has been to outline the elements of hope—possibility, agency, worth, openness, and connection—in a way that guides efforts to nurture it in the workplace. The first two are central to the definition of hope: People must see that change is possible and how they can engage personally in that change. The remaining elements have to do with how hope is cultivated in organizations: Hopeful work groups are most often composed of individuals whose worth to the organization has been affirmed, who perceive an openness on the part of management, and who enjoy an authentic sense of connection with their colleagues and with the organization’s mission. Even so briefly described, these elements suggest why hope can be an energetic force for positive change to a degree that, say, optimism alone could never be.

Our study of effective executives has uncovered many ways in which their decisions, words, and actions make the people they lead more hopeful. Collectively, these practices are the basis of a leadership tool kit for building and sustaining hope. But the most important change comes when a leader is simply more mindful of this vital part of her or his mission. Much can be accomplished in a reflective pause to ask, “Is what I am about to do or say likely to be destructive or accretive of hope?” It is useful to notice how people express a sense that things might change for the better: They often say of some key actor, “He gives me hope” or “She gives me hope.” If you are an executive trying to lead an organization through change, know that hope can be a potent force in your favor. And it’s yours to give.

Harry Hutson (harry@puttinghopetowork.com), a business adviser and executive coach, and Barbara Perry (barbara@puttinghopetowork.com), a cultural anthropologist and management consultant, are the authors of Putting Hope to Work: Five Principles to Activate Your Organization’s Most Powerful Resource (Praeger, 2006) (emphasis mine)

And if there was ever something that was needed for 2007 it's hope.

No Senate Runs for Me

I realize that my inability to stop making fun of George Bush has probably permanently barred from ever running for political office. Not that I have that on my To-Do Sheet or anything, but, after this next link, I've pretty much assured that I'll never have credibility in the MSM.