The Yankee-Cowboy War Updated

I previously wrote about the Yankee-Cowboy War, The Yankee-Cowboy War Looks to Continue.  As I mentioned, this concept is a useful paradigm for viewing the shifting American power base from the old-line Northeastern old money boys (Yankees) to the West and Southwest with its economic base in natural resources and technology. Before moving on to this post, I'd like to clarify two things:

(1) I was wrong in my original post about Hillary being the nominee for the Democrats. Barack Obama, a Chicago Yankee educated in Yankee bastions of Columbia and Harvard universities, became the nominee and President, defeating Cowboy military-trained and Annapolis educated John McCain. This represents the first Yankee victory over a Cowboy since Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960. However, one could make the case that McCain's political sensibilities on issues like campaign finance and public health, though not on military matters,  actually made him closer to a Yankee than to a Cowboy.

(2) The 2012 political contest was between two Yankees - Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is a classic Yankee vs. Barack Obama. Again there seemed to be no significant difference of the Reagan-Carter example between the nominees. Interestingly however, various "invisible primary" frontrunners like Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and briefly Newt Gingrich in the actual primaries represented the Cowboy faction of the Republican party.

The Clash of the Alpha Females Comes Out of the Shadows (Part 3)

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally brought her subterannean campaign against U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton into the light today. In today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker Pelosi said "I will step in" if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, the two states that defied party rules by holding early primaries.

Speaker Pelosi's now frontal assualt on Senator Clinton is being waged in the name of "Democratic Party Unity," but is really rooted in her own ambition.After all, "There can be only one" Alpha Female in town, and Pelosi desperately wants to avoid her historical moment as first female U.S. House Speaker not to be upstaged by the first female U.S. President.

When the Speaker "steps in," it will be to attempt to bum rush the remaining uncommitted (cowardly) Superdelegates into supporting Barack Obama. It's no secret that her more ardent supporters support Senator Obama and the remanining uncommitted superdelegates who are U.S. House Democrats are afraid to endorse Senator Clinton out of fear of the Speaker.

Speaker Pelosi will also try to use her influence and statements to undermine the argument that sexism is the root of Senator Clinton's failure to win the Democratic Nomination. This would be false for two reasons: (1) managing to get elected by a majority of the 230+ House Democrats to the most powerful Constitutional position does not actually mean sexism doesn't exist, it just means Pelosi's a smart Pol (i.e., a female Speaker does not equal a lack of national sexism); (2) Just because a powerful female comes out and engineers things to benefit a man, does not mean that the man did not previously benefit from sexism.

Those are are just logical flaws in Pelosi's attempts to undermine the sexism argument. They don't even address her hidden agenda, which I discussed above and earlier (click on the Alpha Female tag below)

Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence and a Bad Haircut

Ok, so Barack Obama doesn't have a bad haircut. But the rest of the P.J. O'Rourke quote stands. She's been around and knows how to play the game even if she's down. He thinks you can have reasonable conversations with people whose main mission in life is to kill you and your friends.

She's gonna pull this off. If not, Obama will get crushed in November by the Republicans.

Clash of the Alpha Females, p.2: Hillary Strikes Back

The competition to be the Alpha Female is well under way. Speaker Pelosi is now under attack from the Clinton campaign for her repeated assertion that the remaining uncommitted automatic delegates should discard their right to vote for their first choice and instead vote for whomever has the largest number of elected delegates.
This position is such an irritant to Senator Clinton's Presidential aspirations that financial backers of Senator and former President Clinton sent a letter to the Speaker asking her to avoid further public pronouncements along these lines. Implied by the "shakedown letter," as it has become known, is that the donors will cut off fundraising for and donations to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of Speaker Pelosi's House Democrats.

The Speaker's position is inconvenient for the Senator because if heeded, it would serve to ensure that Barack Obama (see article inset below) becomes the nominee even if his delegate lead shrinks to an insignificant number. Despite the Speaker's constant since early February (find cite)her repeated public pronouncements of it

Pelosi's Delegate Stance Boosts Obama
By DAVID ESPO – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.

Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

More than 500 delegates remain to be picked in primaries beginning on April 22 in Pennsylvania, which has 158 at stake on April 22.

In addition, Democrats in Michigan and Florida are demanding to have their delegations seated, even though they moved up the dates of their primaries to January in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules.

Clinton said Saturday she supports an effort by Michigan Democratic leaders to hold a do-over primary in early June, but the Obama campaign has not yet said whether it will agree. A full delegation would give the state 128 pledged delegates, not counting superdelegates.

In Florida, a plan for a mail-in primary appears doomed, leaving two major possibilities if the state's Democrats are to participate in selecting a nominee.

One is for a full-scale primary.

The other is a negotiated agreement in which Obama and Clinton split the 185 pledged delegates that would have been awarded had the Jan. 29 primary counted.

One prominent official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there have been preliminary discussions among the state's House Democrats to see whether a compromise can be reached along those lines.

Clinton would have won 38 more delegates in the primary than Obama, had the primary results been used to award delegates, according to The Associated Press' calculations. Merely dividing the delegates evenly would leave Obama's delegate lead unchanged. Obama appeared to open the door to some sort of agreement earlier this week, when he spoke of a procedure "that doesn't advantage one candidate or another too much."

The Coming Clash of the Alpha Females (Pelosi & Clinton)

Speaker Pelosi has already made history as the first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives since our founding. Little wonder that rumors persist that Speaker Pelosi will endorse Obama as the Democratic Party's Presidential Nominee. After all, why would she want to have her historical moment eclipsed by the first female President of the United States? Even The Hill notes that the two women have virtually no relationship, and why should the Speaker seek one anyway?

If Senator Clinton does become the next President, we can expect a below the radar struggle between the two of them for dominance in the Capitol. The Presidency has the bully pulpit, but the Speaker is the most powerful Constitutional Officer in the United States. As the saying goes, "Congress proposes, the President disposes." Speaker Pelosi will be able to win any power struggle between the two of them simply by ignoring President Clinton's agenda or requests, or outright opposing it.

President Clinton will have to be careful not to alienate Speaker Pelosi. The last time Senator Clinton was in charge of a domestic policy initiative (Hillarycare), also with a Democratic Congress, she thought she could put a package together inside the White House and ignore the relavant Congressional leaders (Senate Finance Chairman Moynihan, House Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell and House Ways & Means Chairman Rostenkowski) and simply present Congress her own package for them to rubber stamp. Any return to that type of attitude will raise the hackles of the Speaker and her Chairman. And a Speaker is not to be trifled with - remember, Jimmy Carter's Presidency was destroyed by Speaker O'Neill, not by minority Republicans.

The Yankee-Cowboy War Looks to Continue

After Tsunami Tuesday, it looks like the Big Mo is with Senators Clinton and McCain, thus setting up another battle in the Yankee-Cowboy War. The Yankee-Cowboy War is a way of conceptually understanding that the Post-World War II period produced a shift in the source of American ruling-class (oligarchic) power from the Northeast to the Southwest/West fueled by shifts in the sources of economic wealth.

The Southern Rim drawn from a line South of North Carolina across the nation to San Francisco (Cowboys) with its oil, natural resources and technology based sources of economic power has risen to challenge the banking and industrial power of the Eastern Establishment based in Chicago, New York, Boston, and the industrial states (Yankees). The Eastern Establishment ruled the country more or less unchecked,from our founding until the oil, aviation and aerospace (and later technology) industries matured and the Southwest (and West) became a rival source of economic power, producing its own social elite. It has dominated Presidential elections since 1960 (see below).

The Yankee-Cowboy War is essentially a post-Marxist conception of ruling class infighting between rival factions. It's important to note that the war is actually fought by political donors, corporate executives etc., and the actual politicians are not necessarily conscious (beyong their own class interests) of this ongoing war. Whether you agree with the premise or not, a look at our Presidents and Presidential contests post-Eisenhower shows that the fundamental battles for political control have been fought between representatives of these two establishments.

1960 - JFK v. Nixon - Yankee (JFK) Won
1963 - Cowboy (LBJ) comes to power in a putative coup engineered by his supporters.
1964 - LBJ v. Goldwater - Cowboy v. Cowboy, though LBJ had deep ties to the Yankee faction.
1968 - Nixon v. Humphrey - Cowboy (Nixon) won
1972 - Nixon v. McGovern - Cowboy (Nixon) won
1974 - Yankee (Ford) comes to power in a putative coup engineered by his supporters.
1976 - Ford v. Carter - Cowboy (Carter) won
1980 - Carter v. Reagan - Cowboy (Reagan) won
1984 - Reagan v. Mondale - Cowboy (Reagan) won
1988 - Bush 41 v. Dukakis - Cowboy (Bush 41) won
1992 - Bush 41 v. B. Clinton - Cowboy v. Cowboy. Bush 41 and Clinton both had deep ties to the Yankee faction through educational background and professional ties. In this case however, Clinton represented the interests of the Yankee faction and Bush's deep financial ties to the Cowboy (oil) establishment align him with their interests.
1996 - B. Clinton v. Dole - Yankee (Clinton) won - Georgetown, Yale and McGovern Presidenial Campaign experience make Clinton more of a Yankee representative than a Cowboy one.
2000 - Gore v. Bush 43 - Cowboy (Bush 43) won - Gore, though putatively from Tennessee spent his life growing up within the Eastern Establishment, even attending Harvard, and thus represented the Yankee establishment
2004 - Bush 43 v. Kerry - Cowboy (Bush 43) won - Bush's time in the Northeast seems not to have influenced him as much as it did Clinton despite his being a Yale Alum and member of the elite Skull & Bones Society
2008 - McCain v. H. Clinton - a classic showdown during which the Yankee faction may finally claw its way back to power. Despite spending time in Arkansas, Senator Clinton has alway been a Yankee, from growing up in the Chicago suburbs to attending hte elite Wellesley and Yale universities.

It's worth noting that in the elections from 1960 to present, the Cowboy faction has been dominant, winning 9 of 12 contests. In the cases where two putative members of the Cowboy faction competed against each other, the one more closely tied to the Eastern Establishment at the time has lost. Bill Clinton is the only President to be elected from the Yankee faction during this time, and the other two Yankee Presidents came to power through the death or political destruction of their Cowboy predecessors.

Hillary Clinton is a Disgrace to Feminists

I can't believe that Hillary Clinton wants the world to think that whenever she gets into political trouble, she's going to have her husband come roaring about, breaking furniture, sucking up oxygen, spewing carbon dioxide. My impression is that she's strong enough to defend herself--she certainly showed that in the recent Democratic debate. But apparently she's not strong enough to control Mr. Bill...and if that's the case, any sane voter would have to think twice before enabling this sort of circus act in the White House.

Maureen Dowd

I'm not one to generally agree with Ms. Dowd, but in this case she's on to something. Hillary Clinton should be out defending herself and not sending her husband to do it for her. And the "all the other spouses do it" doesn't apply for two reasons: (1) no other spouse's megaphone is as big as a former President's; and (2) Hillary is a woman. Having a man step up to defend her just undermines her claim to be a feminist icon and sets the women's movement back decades, unless fish really do need bicycles.

Additionally, the more she attacks Republicans the more she loses the residual good will built up by working in a bi-partisan way with her Republican colleagues. She is setting things up for a re-run of hte 1990s and we really don't need that. Additionally, no one in the Republican Coalition will refrain from dredging up all of Clinton's mis-deeds and mis-judgements from his post-Presidency from pardonning big donors to his investments with the sketchy Ron Burkle. They also have no interest in helping further the Bill Clinton legacy and will do everything they can to hang him like an albatross around Hillary's neck.

Do the Old Civil Rights Guard Fear an Obama Presidency Will End Their Influence?

The seeming generational split among African American leaders between Obama and Clinton, raises a number of questions. The first among these is whether the older generation simply wants to "dance with the one that brung ya" by supporting those in the White Establishment who enabled their success. There is a very disrepectful term in the black community for African Americans of this ilk.

The second question is whether the older generation is so acclimated to perceived limits on their ability to achieve power beyond a certain level that they simply can't imagine one of their own ascending to the heights of power and are going with the safe bet? If so, this is cowardly.

The final question about those black leaders who support question is whether they're really concerned about preserving their own power. After all if Obama wins the Democratic Presidential Nomination, let alone the Presidency itself, wouldn't that effectively end the Civil Rights movement? All of a sudden there would be no need for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al. These people would have to stop talking about how racist our society is and how we collectively keep the black man down if a black man actually wins the Presidency.

The last seems like the most likely, despite its inherent venality.

She's Proved She Can Fake Sincerity, I Guess She Can Fake Anything

I realize this is a bit late to the Zeitgeist, but Hillary Clinton's "emotional breakdown" were a classic tactic learned from the master himself. Her husband. Funny how she was able to still launch right into her talking points even after being on the verge of tears.

A girl running for class president in my high school did the same thing in the 80s when she realized she was going to lose. It works like this: everyone feels sorry for the girl becuase she's so so distraught and figures that since the other guy has such a strong lead, their vote to demonstrate pity/moral support, won't detract from their first preference actually winning. I call it the "Niki Effect" after the girl for whom it worked.

Bill Clinton Undermining Hillary's Campaign

The continuing controversey around Bill Clinton's remarks about Senator Obama and the civil rights movement, as illustrated by the reaction of House Majority Whip and Civil Rights Leader Jame Clyburn, illustrate why he should shut the hell up and get out of his wife's way.

While I'm a Libertarian, I give credit where it's due. Bill Clinton was a much better President than Republicans gave him credit for, and Hillary Clinton was rated as one of the 100 best lawyers in America by Legal Times years before she became First Lady. She is smart, accomplished and completely able to run her own campaign and win without Bill's surrogate/public appearances and attendant media coverage. (Though she would be a fool not to take his advice behind closed doors as he is likely the greatest American politician since Lincoln).

Everytime Bill Clinton says or does anything on Hillary's behalf he becomes a news item. This detracts from news coverage of her and potentially damages her campaign. The lastest "fairy tale" quote being a perfect example. I believe his explanation and wathcing the video clip in its entirety validates it, though the statement itself was inartful and not the best example of Bill Clinton's exemplary speaking ability or rhetorical style. (I also believe what Senator Barack Obama said recently about not wanting to undercut John Kerry in 2004 by voicing an opinion on the Iraq War contrary to his own party's nominee - call me naive, but I like to take people at their word especially when they're not obviously dissembling - which doesn't mean to that I believed Bill Clinton in 1998 about Monica Lewinsky)

My point being that Bill Clinton's comments, miscontrued as they were, were broadcast widely and loudly throughout the media establishment. This sucked the oxygen out of the air for anything newsworthy Hillary did or wanted to do. Afterall, the media are only going to cover the Clinton's so much and it's either one or the other.

Additionally, Bill Clinton still evokes visceral hatred from Republicans and conservatives alike, which means that everytime he speaks on his wife's behalf conservative commentators have an opening to trash her more and the Republican base gets a bit more riled up against Hillary. She might have a fighting chance of getting some Republican votes if he'd shut up since most Republican opposition to her in the 90s was based on, to quote a friend, "the fact that no one elected her to do shit, and she was never confirmed by the Senate for anything." A lot of GOP angst about Hillary started to dissipate once she was elected to the Senate in her own right.

I have no doubt this is unconscious behavior. Professional women are often warned not to bring their husbands to business dinners because the husbands will subtley undercut them unconsciously. Bill Clinton is doing the same thing.

Hillary has showcased him enough. It's time for her campaign to ship him off to Antarctica where he won't be able to garner any media coverage. He is a distraction that hurts her whenever he opens his mouth.

Obama NH Campaign Victim of "David Duke Effect"

After his stunning upset in Iowa, the NH polls suddenly showed a giant uptick for Obama, which was not reflected in the outcome of tonight’s election. A large portion of this was undoubtedly due to the David Duke Effect. The David Duke Effect is named after a Senate candidate in Louisiana in the late 80s/early 90s named David Duke who was a Ku Klux Klan member. Polls of the race consistently showed him garnering the support of fewer than 10% of Louisianans. On Election Day he received substantially more votes than that. The general conclusion: racists didn’t want to admit they were supporting Duke and gave the “correct” answer.

Given my previous post, you likely know I believe the same thing happened in New Hampshire this year. People in NH didn’t want to admit they were not supporting Obama, but said they were anyway, because it was “the right answer” after his Iowa victory. The tragedy is that the Obama campaign believed the polls and discounted the David Duke Effect. Being ahead, especially after a hard fought victory like Iowa, his staff undoubtedly started believing their own press and unfortunately got complacent.

None of which to is to say that Hillary did anything untoward. The point is that while neither campaign knew it (and Hillary's almost imploded over it) Hillary Clinton was always ahead and winning, albeit narrowly. Therefore there really is no point in asking how she recovered. However, her near implosion and the Obama campaign's overrconfidence do betray a strong faith in America and our collective journey away from racism. That those at the heights of power believe this is both reassuring and comforting in some small way.

I wish them and their hardworking staffs the best of luck for the rest of the campaign season.

Clinton Administration Infighting Impacts IA Caucuses: Richardson Knifes Hillary (Field Report Four)

According to another campaign colleague, during the Iowa Caucuses, Richardson decided to ask his supporters to back Obama if he wasn’t “viable” in their precinct. In the Democratic Caucuses, a candidate must receive 15% of the vote on the first round in order to be eligible to win delegates. Supporters of candidates deemed “unviable” are cajoled, sweet talked, persuaded and threatened by their neighbors into supporting their 2nd preference. Richardson was always the only viable candidate among the 2nd tier under these rules and this actually explains why he didn’t come in with more than 2% of the vote.

Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).

Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.

Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.

To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”

Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).

Of Course Hillary Won't Pick Obama - She'll Pick Harold Ford, Jr. Instead

Robert Novak wrote last Saturday (8.18.07):

Against Clinton-Obama

Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her principal rival -- Sen. Barack Obama -- for vice president.

They maintain that Obama provides no general election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, Obama represents an ethnic group and a state already solidly in the Democratic column.

This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton's running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Novak is right that Obama brings nothing to the table, and it is debatable wheteher he really does share much of the African-American experience in the United States. (It doesn't matter what I think about this, but it does matter with African-American grassroots and grasstops members think). However, Novak is wrong in predicting Mark Warner as the leading Veep candidate.

The leading dark horse candidate should be, and I believe is, Harold Ford, Jr. Unlike Obama he hails from a red state in the South, has actually had to run competitively statewide (does anyone really think Obama gained a lot of solid campaign experience beating Alan Keyes?) and many Democrats believe (incorrectly or not) that he was robbed of the Senate seat due to blatant race-baiting which should increase Democratic turnout in Tennessee if he is on the ticket. This could be especially important if Fred Thompson upsets Giuliani to become the GOP 2008 Nominee.

Ford also is the current Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, formerly chaired by Bill Clinton during his days as Governor of Arkansas. Additionally, the Obama phenomenon and the decent results achieved by Bill Richardson have acculturated Democratic activists to the idea of a minority on the ticket (beyond a privileged white woman of course). However, picking Richardson or any hispanic politician would enrage the nation's black community who beleive their time for a more prominent place on the national stage/in the national debate, and who likely would view an hispanic pick as "skipping over" one of their own.

Additionally, while it's crass to say this, Harold does not look especially black, thus blunting nationally any latent racism. In fact, the emergence of narrowcasting means that his ethnicity would be more promoted in some regions of the nation and less in others, and the liberal media would do much to protect him this time around from a nationwide repeat of 2006. Additionally, while his family is from Tennessee political aristocracy, it is much harder to argue that he doesn't understand or hasn't shared in the African-American experience, or "isn't black enough."

Clinton-Ford '08. The ticket even sounds like the name of a reliable friend who'll help you out. It also subtley evokes fond memories of former President Ford, making him an even better choice and a familiar name in Michigan (a potential battleground state) even if he's not from there.

Hillary-Harold or H2 would be good campaign bumper stickers too.

I'm So Tired of The Hillary/Obama Discussion

Of course Hillary will beat Obama. She has the institution behind her, the political savvy gained from being one of the top 100 lawyers in the nation (so designated before Bill became President), serving on corporate boards and being First Counsel to a United States President. The Clinton's also have a knack for destroying their enemies. As their close friend and campaign manager James Carville puts it "When you're enemy is drowning, you don't just let him, you throw the sum bitch an anchor."

And there is no way in Hell the ticket will be Hillary-Obama. She will not pick her political rival and reward him for her attacks while she looks over her story. She will pick a minority though, and it won't be Bill Richardson either. That would just alienate the black vote completely and demonstrate to African-Americans that the Democrats take their votes for granted.

No, it will be Harold Ford, Jr. He is currently the head of the DLC, which will give Hillary cover after she runs far enough left to get the nomination. Harold Ford also has run a statewide campaign and knows its rigors. He also likely feels cheated by the race-baiting ad and therefore likely to work harder for the ticket since he has no other political office to fall back upon, unlike both Hillary and Obama.

Mr. Ford has the charm, savvy, political background and past positions to make him an ideal VP Nominee. And I predict he will be.

The Revolution Will Be Webcast

A Brave New World of Political Skulduggery? - washingtonpost.com

Finally, politics has embraced our post-modern condition with thr massive dissemination of the Hillary-Obama 1984 ad via (print, tv and web) media in addition to blog and email forwards. The ad is everything good about post-modernism - the mixing of media (video and text), the use of sampling (the reuse of the 1984 Macintosh commercial - aired during that year's superbowl incidentally), superbly crafted subtext(s) (which I go into here using only the video and not the audio) and the ability to spread itself virally. Oh Joy!

Gil Scott Heron was right in that the Revolution will not be televised. It will be brought about by thousands of free spirits creatively using the tools at their disposal to effect massive change. James Carville once made the point that the entire Renaissance was only 1500 people but they changed the world. This ad could herald something similar. I hope it really is the beginning of "citizen political ads" as the MSM has stated. And this WaPo article makes the point that the commercial was made very easily. While it "only" reached a few million of our 300 million citizens, those are the people paying attention early and who will be opinion and grassroots leaders in their communities.

This brings me to a point I haven't made on this blog yet. Namely, that political campaigns belong to the people, not the politicians. Abominations like McCain-Feingold give politicians too much control over the direction of political debate and cultural discourse by limiting who may participate and when they may participate. This is simply the political class's unique version of rent-seeking.

Ads like this show that the barrier to entry for political ads (now that YouTube and its rivals exist) is extremely low and relatively inexpensive. Normal citizens can now make their own advertisements (assuming the FEC doesn't freak out and ban them all) very cheaply and still have impact. What happens now is the question.

Deconstructing the Hillary-Obama 1984 Ad

The Hillary-Obama Ad is a great juxtaposition of the most famous commerical of all time (Apple's initial upstart assault on dominant Microsoft, in turn based on Orwell's 1984) with the dates of the a previous general election and the commercial's first airing (1984) and the next general election 2008. Scroll down to watch the ad.

What happened in the 1984 election? - the Democratic candidate annointed by primogeniture (as only Republicans do), Walter Mondale, had beaten off an insurgent campaign based on new ideas and charisma, Gary Hart, to lose in a disastrous landslide in the 1984 general election (to Ronald Reagan). The visual reference to the 1984 commercial also provides the undertones (subtexts) that Hillary:

(1) Is Big Brother, again enforcing orthodoxy
(2) Again advancing through primogeniture in a party which finds such a process alien to its political DNA and distateful to its (small d) democratic roots.
(3) Will lose disastrously because (1) will produce an result completely in sync with the American People

What could happen in the 2008 election? - The American people, tired of the same (type) of people running the government as those of the last 20 years will pick a new (type?) of politician. It could be Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Newt Gingrich, Al Gore and a few others.

The visual statement: "2008 won't be like 1984" provides the undertones (subtexts):

1) It won't be Hillary. She represents the continuity of the political past, not the break from it we're all yearning for.
2) The above-referenced yearning which didn't really exist in 1984 because people were relatively satisified with President Reagan
3) Poses a direct challenge to Hillary (from the Obama campaign based on the logo, but they have denied it).
4) Hillary as recipient of the "two-minute hate" against which true-believers can rebel.

The Comments Heard Around the World

Maureen Dowd's recent column has put Hillaryland and her campaign into a tizzy with her comments by David Geffen. While they've been covered extensively, here is a summary of what Hillaryland is upset about:

Mr. Geffen said the Clintons lie “with such ease, it’s troubling” and that the Clinton political operation “is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.” Mr. Geffen called Mr. Clinton a “reckless guy” who had not changed in the last six years, and suggested that Mrs. Clinton was too scripted.

The real panic in Hillaryland is that Geffen's defection will signal to other high dollar donors that it's ok to raise money for someone else. Their other fear is that Geffen was right: Clinton still has a zipper problem (just like John Boehner - Carl Hulse of the New York Times told me this about Boehner while we were waiting for last year's GOP leadership elections) and Clinton's problem WILL come out during the campaign and cost her some valuable media time. Additionally, talking about him and his pecadillos really doesn't help her much.

Her status as trailblazing first lady to become a Senator and presidential candidate puts her in the same category as Vice Presidents running to succeed predecessor. It's hard for her to tie herself to the successes of her husband's administration without being tarnished with his administration's failures. This proved awkward for Al Gore, and as the latest spat shows, will be even harder for her. Gore could separate himself from Clinton by picking Joe Lieberman, but Hillary can't do anything similar.

Here only real way to distance herself from her husband's failures is to try to intimidate the political class and punditocracy into not tying her to her husband. She even brought back the 90s meme of the "politics of personal destruction." Ironic for a woman who once boasted that her husband's election would give us "two for the price of one"

(Oh and then there are the reports that the whole Hillaryland reaction was actually due to Bill's furiousness about criticism regarding his pardon of multi-millionaire fugitive Marc Rich).

Unfortunately for her, the Clinton years, and Bill's ongoing affairs will be issues that will be embarassing and a challenge for her campaign to overcome. Good thing for her she has enough money to become the nominee anyway. Bad thing for the Democratic party.