Political Slogans, Clinton's Chances, NAFTA's Success, Texas' Absence

Here are my most recent political posts up at Donklephant:

On the debasement of language in politics here.

On Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning here.

On Texas and protectionism here.

On how the primary campaign ignored most Texas-specific issues here.

McCain's Class, Buckley's Death, Clinton's Support & Texas' Craziness

If you haven't been checking Donklephant, I have four posts up over there since yesterday. Here are the links.

On McCain here.

Briefly on William F. Buckley Jr. here.

On Clinton's waning support here.

On the screwy Texas primary here.

Still Endorsing Obama -- UPDATED

Yeah, I'm a John McCain guy, but I did endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination and I stand by that. Want to know why? This nasty Hillary Clinton trick is a good example. We don't need her type or the type with whom she surrounds herself. I really don't care what policies she has, I don't want the Clintons' style of politics around anymore.

I may just go vote for Obama in the primary, since McCain will win the nomination regardless of the Texas results. Clinton's resort to fear-mongering has left me that disgusted. I'll let you know what I decide.

h/t: Captain Ed

UPDATE: There's debate as to whether this photo really was distributed by the Clinton campaign. They deny they did it. I think it fits their pattern but what proof do I have? None. Kids, this is why you should never link to Drudge. Facts are elusive there.

Clinton Helped Make Her Own Raw Deal

I’m no Hillary Clinton fan, but I’ve started to question if she’s gotten a raw deal from the media. An excellent article in the most recent edition of The New Yorker makes the case that she has, but that it’s as much due to Clinton’s messaging mistakes as it is to media bias. She reveled too much and too long in her tough image and insider experience while Barack Obama easily positioned himself as likable and fresh.

The implications of Obama’s and Clinton’s respective meta-narratives for their press coverage have been profound. For Clinton, the inability to change the story line meant that any vaguely negative maneuver was interpreted in the darkest possible light, for it reinforced a preexisting supposition. For Obama, however, any criticism could be fended off as a manifestation of grubby old politics. And any act he committed that could be perceived as nefarious created cognitive dissonance

Name recognition is generally a boon for a candidate. But Clinton has much more than name recognition. She has character recognition, and that’s not so beneficial. Public figures do better when they hide their inner workings, but Clinton seems to have no hood, the mechanizations of her ambition and the faulty wirings of her insecurities clearly visible. Combine this with a lingering sexism that demands powerful women be masculine and then makes fun of them when they are, and it’s surprising we ever bought into the idea that she was a “sure thing” for the nomination.

She may yet win this race but there is no doubt that the campaign has gone very poorly. Her failure to close that hood or at least add some more horsepower to the old inner workings made it all too easy for the media and many voters to see her exactly as they’ve always seen her. The major media shouldn’t be so lazy but it’s unsurprising that they are. The voters are, I think, far more blameless. Clinton and her campaign have certainly done enough to warrant scorn and Barack Obama has presented a compelling enough case for himself.

So, it really comes down to a very odd situation: Yes, Clinton has gotten a raw deal, but it’s her fault for not seeing this coming and doing more early on to prevent it.

Obama Set Up for Quite a Fright?

Is it just me or are expectations running overly high for Obama?

Clinton’s a horror-movie villain. Each time she looks dead, she suddenly crashes onto the screen with a machete and maniacal snarl. The overhype of Obama leading in to today’s primaries means if Clinton wins even one, she’ll look like the winner. Really, is there anyone better at managing expectations than the Clintons?

It's Over Between the Clintons and I

Jonathan Chait says a whole cadre of liberals have soured on the Clintons due to the disreputable tactics they’ve used in campaigning against Barack Obama. If liberals are feeling queasy, imagine what the multitude of independent voters who supported Bill Clinton are feeling.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and, while I was a true-blue Democrat at the time, I have not regretted those votes even after I made a rightward leap and became an independent. I’ve continued to hold Clinton in high regard – out of admiration for the calm and prosperous times he presided over and out of defiance towards those who’ve used immoral means to smear the Clinton legacy.

In a matter of a few weeks, all the respect I held is gone. I can still admire what Clinton achieved as president (Bosnia, NAFTA, welfare reform, deficit reduction, liberalizing the military’s policy on gays), but his recent deplorable behavior has severed whatever affection I had for Clinton the man.

Sure, I was outraged at his conduct during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But I successfully deceived myself into believing that he was just a great man cursed with great flaws – human frailty far more universal than it was insidious. Boy was I a chump.

Clearly (far too clearly now), he is not possessed of common failings, he’s possessed of uncommon perfidy. He is the snake and too many of us have eaten the apple.

And Hillary? We can only assume she is the same – all amoral ambition and little regard for those who get in the way. If liberals are now waking up to that fact and feeling a little unclean, us independents are waking up screaming. Can we really give these people the keys to the nation again? No. If I have to hold my nose and vote for Romney (an idea that seemed outrageous just a few weeks ago), I’ll do so.

It’s over between the Clintons and I. And I’m willing to bet I’m not the only one feeling that way.

Race Should Not Be The Storyline

Dick Morris has a nasty take on the Democratic primaries. He opines:

If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama's ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight…
[I]f blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Wow. I don’t know what upsets me more: that Morris would so brazenly declare that white Democrats are racist or that he might be right.

If Hillary wins the nomination, we’ll likely never know exactly how much race played into the voters’ decision. There are plenty of reasons to support Clinton over Obama without race ever entering the debate. But if Clinton should win, there will be those like Morris who declare it a result of racism. Those same people will likely use that claim to try to drive a wedge into the Democrats or at least make the Clintons look more ruthless and conniving than they already appear.

This all sits very poorly with me. Intellectually, I know race relations and race politics are still a major part of the American political system just as racism is still very much with us. But in my heart I hope the vast majority of voters can judge a man, as Dr. King dreamed, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

I hope Morris’ nasty little analysis does not become a dominant storyline. I foresee nothing but ugliness in that.

Clinton's Iraq Strategy: First Lie and Then Deflect Responsibility

Writing for the San Francisco Chronicle, Debra Saunders takes a look at Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s record on Iraq. The two have sniped at each other over who is the most intensely against the war. But forget the details for a moment (I’ll get to those) and just read Saunders line of attack against Clinton:

Hold it against Obama if his rhetoric flagged, [Clinton] suggested, but don't hold it against her if she voted for a war resolution thinking it was something else.

I thought Clinton did the right thing voting for the war resolution, but then I was foolish enough to think that, having done so, she would do right by the troops who were tasked with carrying out the will of Washington.

Instead, she turned her back on the mission when the polls showed Americans had soured on the war. Cold to the plight of those who put their lives on the line, she proclaimed in February, "This is George W. Bush's war" -- as if she could toss it like a hot potato. She opposed the surge, which reduced U.S. casualties. She was too busy trying to win the White House to work to win the war.

You see, Clinton voted for the war resolution but now claims she believed the vote would merely lead to further inspections rather than all-out war. That’s clear bullshit. But it gets worse. Not only is she blatantly dissembling she’s abdicating responsibility for one of the most important decisions of her short political career.

John Edwards has apologized ad nauseam for his pro-war vote. Obama wasn’t in the Senate at the time of the vote but clearly opposed the war, even if his oppositional intensity has fluctuated over the years. And Clinton? She has taken a very Clintonian track – first lie and then deflect responsibility.

Does it really matter how competent Clinton is or how many good ideas she has when, at the end of the day, we know she’s going to dodge, weave and refuse responsibility whenever it’s politically expedient? Haven’t we had enough with presidents who treat us like we’re too stupid to know fact from fiction? Haven’t we had enough of presidents who view responsibility as nothing more than a minor annoyance? Haven’t we had enough of the politics of obfuscation and personal destruction?

The Democrats would do the nation a favor by picking Obama or Edwards and ensuring there will be no more continuation of the Bush/Clinton years.

UPDATE: The Clinton “lie then deflect responsibility” storyline must be in the zeitgeist today. Amba writes about it in the context of Hillary’s phony claim she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. And Donklephant identifies the same pattern in one of Clinton’s closest supporters.

Hillary the Machine

Forget the theories that Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire because she shed a few tears or because she out-debated Obama. The best explanation is the simplest one: she mobilized the traditional Democratic base.

The Clintons have a political machine. Hillary turned that thing on full speed yesterday and got the right people to the polls. The pundits will want to make this a story about Hillary’s changing strategy. The numbers seem to show nothing has changed at all– the machine simply worked for a primary where it failed for a caucus.

Obama isn’t up against a new Hillary. He’s facing the same powerful political engine that’s been here all along.

Now It's a Race

So, after one of the most intriguing (and bloated) primary-season lead-ups in the history of humankind, the first results are in. Huckabee and Obama get the win in Iowa. Clinton and Romney get the “struggling campaign” tag. The rest of us get a real election.

A few weeks ago I openly hoped for an exciting election season. Some found my remarks overly flippant. But I stand by them. Unexpected results keep the candidates on their toes, make them go off script and fight for real votes rather than just fighting for war chest dollars. Plus, an exciting race is good entertainment, which keeps all of us more attentive to what the candidates are really saying and doing.

What do the Iowa results mean? They mean the evangelical wing of the Republican party is very strong in Iowa. They mean fundraising ability isn’t the most accurate predictor of victory. They mean Obama’s appeal really can be widespread, at least among Democrats.

The finish line is still a long way away, but here’s what I think: Huckabee just secured himself the nod for Vice President. Clinton’s campaign will fight hard (and turn nastier) but her third-place finish gives the Clinton-haters all the ammunition they need to paint her as unelectable. If she can’t take New Hampshire, the Democratic nomination will flow smoothly to Obama. If she does win Tuesday, all bets are off.

On the Republican side, there is a serious fight ahead that will last at least until Super Tuesday and quite possibly into March. Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani are all still viable and Ron Paul will continue to shake things up.

Time for political junkies to strap on their hats. This could get bumpy.

Clinton's Iraq Problem

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq was "not a vote for a pre-emptive war," but instead a show of support for further United Nations weapons inspections.

-- as reported on UnionLeader.com

And so continues Senator Clinton’s slow tiptoe away from her vote authorizing the Iraq War. Rather than taking a page from John Edwards and just flat out admitting she was wrong to vote yea, Clinton has spent the early part of the 2008 campaign rationalizing why her vote was right. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “was” is.

Part of me appreciates the fact that Clinton admits that the Iraq situation was and continues to be incredibly complicated. She has shown political maturity in her willingness to talk both about the grave mistakes made and the serious responsibilities that still remain. But, at the same time, she seems to be ever so slowly giving in to the Democrats’ left flank – only a few rhetorical steps away from denouncing any previous or continued involvement in Iraq.

How Clinton navigates these difficult waters will very likely determine whether she can sail cleanly to the nomination or whether she’ll be sunk by the less-equivocal voices to her left. It’s easy to be steadfastly pro-war or unwaveringly anti-war. It’s much harder to be pro-reality and acknowledge that a solution to Iraq rests neither in blind optimism or wholesale retreat.