Does Hillary Know How to Lose?

in

By PEGGY NOONAN

If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, "I concede" and go on vacation at a friend's house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait?

Is it possible she could be so normal? Politicians lose battles, it's part of what they do, win and lose. But she does not know how to lose. Can she lose with grace? But she does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance.

She often talks about how tough she is. She has fought "the Republican attack machine" that has tried to "stop" her, "end" her, and she knows "how to fight them." She is preoccupied to an unusual degree with toughness. A man so preoccupied would seem weak. But a woman obsessed with how tough she is just may be lethal.

Does her sense of toughness mean that every battle in which she engages must be fought tooth and claw, door to door? Can she recognize the line between burly combat and destructive, never-say-die warfare? I wonder if she is thinking: What will it mean if I win ugly? What if I lose ugly? What will be the implications for my future, the party's future? What will black America, having seen what we did in South Carolina, think forever of me and the party if I do low things to stop this guy on the way to victory? Can I stop, see the lay of the land, imitate grace, withdraw, wait, come back with a roar down the road? Life is long. I am not old. Or is that a reverie she could never have? What does it mean if she could never have it?

We know she is smart. Is she wise? If it comes to it, down the road, can she give a nice speech, thank her supporters, wish Barack Obama well, and vow to campaign for him?

It either gets very ugly now, or we will see unanticipated--and I suspect professionally saving--grace.

I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward. For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game.

The day she admitted she'd written herself a check for $5 million, Obama's people crowed they'd just raised $3 million. But then his staff is happy. They're all getting paid.

Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda. One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.

And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

Mr. Obama's achievement on Super Tuesday was solid and reinforced trend lines. The popular vote was a draw, the delegate count a rough draw, but he won 13 states, and when you look at the map he captured the middle of the country from Illinois straight across to Idaho, with a second band, in the northern Midwest, of Minnesota and North Dakota. He won Missouri and Connecticut, in Mrs. Clinton's backyard. He won the Democrats of the red states.

On the wires Wednesday her staff was all but conceding she is not going to win the next primaries. Her superdelegates are coming under pressure that is about to become unrelenting. It was easy for party hacks to cleave to Mrs Clinton when she was inevitable. Now Mr. Obama's people are reportedly calling them saying, Your state voted for me and so did your congressional district. Are you going to jeopardize your career and buck the wishes of the people back home?

Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

Article courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

Live Ticker of Obama Donations

in

With the news being released over night that Hillary Clinton had to donate 5 million of her own wealth to her campaign a few days before Super-Duper Tuesday due to financial crisis, the Obama campaign has responded with a donation campaign showing the total of donations made by supporters since the polls closed on Tuesday. The image below is a live ticket (updated every few minutes) showing the donation totals so far.

 

“Obama’s financial superiority is straining the Clinton campaign at this point. That’s reflected in how he spread the field on her in Super Tuesday.  His ability to advertise in more states than she did, to put more resources on the ground than she did,” gave Obama an edge, said Anthony Corrado, an expert on campaign finance at Colby College." - from The Politico.

"Source says they have “voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month” as part of Clinton cash crush against Obama moola factory." - Time Magazine online.

On this news this morning, I promptly made my first donation to the Obama campaign - my first donation ever to any politician - and added a donation campaign widget to the right-nav of this website. How about them apples.

Lawrence Lessig, Obama Endorser, releases video explaining why

in

Lawrence LessigI highly respect Lawrence Lessig & his opinion. If you like Lawrence Lessig here's another great reason to support Obama's campaign: They went directly to Lessig with their technology policy to get his feedback. This strongly suggests that in an Obama administration, Lessig or Lessig-minded people would be in charge of federal technology policy. Us "Internet Culture" people have been wandering in the wilderness this whole time, and in 2009 we could be *running* federal policy. Now that's something to hope for!

Don't know who Lessig is? See his bio here.

From his Wikipedia entry, "Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications."

Lessig also made an appearance in an episode of West Wing, not in person, but an actor played his character. He also got a mention in a XKCD comic.

Apple releases new iPhone & iPod touch with greater storage capacity

in

iphone16f28aAfter a brief downtime, the US Apple Store came back online this morning with updated, larger-capacity iPhone and iPod touch models. Engadget called this update about five hours before it hit the street.
The iPhone is now available with 8GB (at $399US) or 16GB (at $499US) of storage.The iPod touch is now available in three models; 8GB ($299US), 16GB($399US) and 32GB($499US). Note that the 16GB iPhone and the 32GB iPod touch are both $499, while there's a one hundred dollar difference between the 16GB iPhone and the 16GB iPod model.

I guess your hundred bucks either buys you a phone or double the storage space. I think they should have dropped the price of the 8GB to 299$ & had the 16GB at 399$. Anything larger than 399$ is too expensive IMHO. That being said, my qualms about such a low storage capacity are somewhat assuaged with this update to the iPhone. My having gotten used to having an 80GB iPod video has spoiled me.

shitr

in


In response to Microsoft’s hostile acquisition bid for Yahoo, many Flickr users are expressing concern for what might happen if Microsoft is successful. They have even created a Flickr Group to address this issue, Microsoft: Keep Your Evil Grubby Hands Off Of Our Flickr, complete with photo pool of MS/Flickr takeover images, including some that envision what a Flickr website re-design might look like with Microsoft at the controls.

 

Why I Want Barack Obama to Be the Democratic Nominee for President

in

I want to explain why I want Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for President. 

According to numerous polls, probably about 4-8% of the Democratic electorate, their decision to support someone is strongly motivated by a desire to prevent the nomination of Hillary Clinton.  I'm not part of that 4-8%..  Despite the histrionic claims one often sees in left Blogostan, she's not Republican-lite.  In fact, as a Senator, she's been quite liberal, probably more reliably liberal than her predecessor, Daniel Patrick Moynahan (who did, after all, serve in several posts in the Nixon administration).  Furthermore, I think that should she get the nomination and go on to win in November, she will be a more liberal and progressive President than was her husband.  And finally, if she is our nominee, she will almost certainly become our next president. 

But the type of president who succeeds George W. Bush will not be determined solely, or possibly even mostly by the experience, character and ideological perspective of the person who wins.  I think we are on the verge of a possibly transforming election akin to the 1932 election.  In 1930 Democrats posted big gains in the House and Senate, and eked out narrow majorities in both chambers for the first time in a generation.  In 1932, largely because of disgust with Herbert Hoover and the Republican party, the Democrats again scored huge gains, creating powerful governing majorities in both chambers of Congress.  And the presidency was won, of course, by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

Many readers have missed one of the main points, namely that FDR didn't entirely create the 1932 landslide, and that the President FDR eventually became was not foreseen by many observers of the 1932 election.  In fact, in important ways, the 1932 landslide helped FDR being a great President.  It was in part because he had a huge Democratic majority, and they had a powerful mandate from the American people, that they could embark on their bold crusade of fundamental change to ameliorate the devastation caused by the great depression.  But contrary to the beliefs of many today, Roosevelt did not campaign on or enter office with a detailed policy platform.  In fact, about the only concrete policy he espoused was to balance the federal budget, a policy he quickly jettisoned in favor of massive public spending and the accompanying debts to stimulate economic growth.  Public spending to stimulate an economy is now axiomatic, but Roosevelt's administration was possibly the first to adopt such a Keynesian economic policy, something that was not foreshadowed in Roosevelt's almost content-free campaign.

Roosevelt also didn't win that election by as much as most people believe.  In 1920 Democrat James Cox (with running mate FDR) got only 34% of the vote.  In 1924 John Davis received only 29% of the vote, and in 1928 Al Smith took less than 41%.  So the 57.41% Roosevelt received was a huge jump from previous Democratic performances.  But his percentage was roughly equal to Eisenhower's total in 1956, and less that what Johnson (1964), Nixon (1972) and Reagan (1984) garnered. 

What mattered in 1932, however, was the mandate from the voters, the 13 Senate seats and the 97 House seats that came along with Roosevelt's landslide.  Roosevelt was one of our two or three greatest presidents because he took advantage of the political opportunity of an electoral mandate, 60 seats in the Senate and 313 in the House. 

There's no way Democrats will gain the 73 seats it would need to get us to 313 in the House.  But it's not inconceivable that we could hit 60 seats in the Senate.  And even if we only pick up 20 or 30 seats in the House, with the much more cohesive House (where individual "mavericks" have less ability to gum up the works than they do in the Senate), Democrats could push through much more progressive legislation than the sclerotic majorities sustained by residual Dixiecrat influences that the Republicans finally swept out in 1994. 

This is maybe the most important difference between a ticket led by Barack Obama and one headed up by Hillary Clinton.  As I said above, I think Hillary Clinton will win if she's our nominee. But I believe Barack Obama could win in a landslide. 

The Super Bowl was last night, so allow me a football analogy.  For the last 30 years or so, we've been stuck in our own territory, and the other team has had the ball.  Occasionally, like in the Clinton years, we get slightly better field position.  But we've been on defense since the last days of the Carter administration.  It's time we throw downfield and get in the end zone. 

The American public wants change.  They hate George W. Bush.  They hate the political gridlock—AKA Republican obstructionism, even if they don’t realize that's the problem in Congress—and they want new leadership.  They will vote for Clinton.  But I believe many of them will embrace Obama.  And the difference between a Clinton win at 53% and an Obama win at 58% is probably 12-15 extra members of Congress, and maybe another 3-6 Democratic Senators. 

Having a bigger congress means the difference between a crappy national health care plan and something decent, maybe even something more progressive than a President Obama himself would even request.  It also means no more of the horrible "compromises" we've been forced to endure from the Senate.  In a Senate with 58 or more Democrats, centrist Democrats wouldn't be able to hide in the shadows and fail to support a decisive policy to end the war in Iraq.  We would pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which in tandem with a more progressive tax policy could reverse decades of growing wage and wealth inequality, which in turn has led to less democratic politics and policies by our government.  And a historic repudiation of the current Republican party could finally curtail the rise of the radical rightwing movement, which starting in 1964 and with great acceleration during the 1980's, took over the Republican party and has turned a conservative party in to a radical threat to the New Deal and the essential ideals of American democracy as first put forth by the Founding Fathers and as expounded upon by Abraham Lincoln, FDR and the New Deal Coalition, the Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement, and LBJ's Great Society. 

Of course this is not guaranteed.  Nothing in politics is.  But right now, there are almost no voters whose votes we could ever win who say they will unquestionably vote against Obama.  We all know many, many people who say they could never vote for Hillary Clinton.  Many of these people, forced to choose between Clinton and John McCain (or maybe Mitt Romney) will end up voting for Clinton.  But they will do it grudgingly, and she will probably not have the coattails that Obama appears poised to have.  There is some excitement about the possibility of a woman president.  But there is little excitement that that woman would be Hillary Clinton.

With Barack Obama, the excitement is electric.  Just about all of us have anecdotes.  I'll give you two.  I was at my parents' house the night of Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.  As it ended, my dad— walked in to the kitchen and said "who's that guy who just spoke, Osama or something?  I'd vote for him."  Despite getting most of his "news" from Fox, he's still open to supporting Obama.  And my mom, who voted for Bush in the last two elections, also commented that she really liked Obama's speech. Recently, during a discussion we both had, she opined that she would vote for Obama is he got the nomination but McCain is Hillary did..  People can scoff that those are dumb or frivolous ways to decide how to vote.  But the reality is that most voters don't arrive at their decision based upon long and measured consideration of the finer points of the candidates' policy platforms.  There has to be an emotional tug.  And with Obama, it's clear that many people feel that emotional tug. 

There are other reasons I prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton.  In most areas their policy platforms are similar.  But one area where I think Obama represents a clean and necessary break with the past is in foreign policy.  Obama isn't going to give away the farm.  The realities of American Empire are that we will continue to have a huge military exerting influence across the globe.  But Obama, through his statements, and through some of his key foreign policy advisors (like Zbignew Brzenzinski, Richard Clarke, Lawrence Korb, Robert Malley and Samantha Power) points to a more pragmatic and sustainable foreign and defense policy than does Clinton.  Most of Obama's advisors were opposed to the war in Iraq even prior to the invasion, while Clinton's team is heavy with people like Richard Holbrooke who got Iraq all wrong, and Michael O'Hanlon, who's probably in the running for most Google hits for his name, Atrios and the word "wanker."

Furthermore, it would help us immeasurably with the rest of the world to have as our president someone born to an African father and a globetrotting anthropologist mother, who spent formative years overseas (and not in a diplomatic or military compound), and who views himself and our country not as the center of the universe but as part of a larger global community. 

I realize Obama appeals to independents as a "post-partisan."  I'm a partisan, and as I've argued before, because the Republican party has become so radical, we can't wait for bipartisan solutions.  But I've seen little in Obama's record or his rhetoric to suggest that in substance he's not a solid liberal.  I find it hard to believe that he spent all those years representing an overwhelmingly Democratic legislative district, made up of African-Americans and highly educated and engaged liberal intellectuals, as some kind of moderate Manchurian Candidate, just waiting to become president so his Broderesque centrism could fully bloom. 

Furthermore, I think it's a virtue that he's become a bit of a Rorschach candidate, with people imbuing him with whatever of their beliefs they think he holds.  If people thinking he's "post-partisan" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) helps him be a progressive president, get us out of Iraq and pass a good national health care plan and fix our economy, that's fine with me. 

Bill Clinton triangulated ideologically.  Ronald Reagan triangulated rhetorically and symbolically.  For the most part, he governed far to the right of anyone in American politics since Roosevelt, but Reagan, through rhetoric and symbolism, was able to convince people they were more conservative than they really were.  Almost all polling shows that Americans are actually quite liberal, and are become more liberal.  Obama wouldn't have to convince them they're more liberal than they are, he would just has to make them feel that it was moderate or mainstream to get out of Iraq and pass national health care.  It would be great if he is perceived as moderate but governs from left-of-center great.  If he can make people realize that liberal views actually are the mainstream, that's even better.

I'm not sure who will be our nominee, although I've thought since early in 2007 that Obama had a better chance than Clinton.  I wondered during October and November, when Clinton erased Obama's financial advantage and ran a largely mistake-free campaign, whether Obama could pull it off.  But now, I think there's a decent chance that he will not only survive Super Tuesday, but could come out ahead.  I hope he does.  I don’t wish this for negative reasons, because I fear or detest the idea that Hillary Clinton would be our nominee.  I want Barack Obama to win because I want him as our nominee and I want him to become President. 

I know for the political cognoscenti like, Obama appears to be running a content-free campaign.  But he's not running his campaign like it was a debating-society contest about policy differences.  He's trying to appeal to voters, and he is succeeding. 

But he represents a profound change for the Democratic party.  He is a fresh face with a compelling story of unity and erasing acrimonious divisions in our communities, our country and our world.  It's not just a story that he conveys with brilliance and inspiration, it's a vision for America and the world that he embodies.  I think Americans really are ready to move past the political gridlock and nastiness 40 years.  I think they are ready to resume the progress of the New Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society.  They want to be inspired, and they want to get past the racism, the political cynicism and the sense that we can't be better.  They are ready to elect more and better Democrats to help him deliver on the voters' mandate for progress. And with a mandate and with more and better Democrats, President Obama will be able to break loose of the tactical battles of short-term gains and make the kind of bold advances that inspired people to elect and revere great Democrats like Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  I think Americans will willingly embrace and ratify that vision with Barack Obama as our candidate, and that's why I hope he will be our nominee.