Tonight we saw a brilliant performance from Barack Obama. It was Obama at his best, using his command of the English language to inspire and connect on a grand stage as only few politicians can. For sceptics like myself, he surprised. For his base, he reaffirmed. For his adversaries he reached out with an open hand but with the credible threat of a clenched fist.  Obama delivered the goods.

And judging from the initial reactions of the American public, I am not alone in this assessment.

• Polls saw a monster jump of 14% in support for his plan.
• The progressives gave him a B.
• Andrew Sullivan called the speech masterful.
• FiveThirtyEight gave it a stand-up triple rating.
• James Fallows called it a first-rate speech.

More reactions here via Andrew Sullivan.

Look, I have said I see this in stark terms. No other advanced society would permit tens of millions of its citizens to live without insurance against a basic 21st century need, which healthcare clearly is.  No other advanced society sees thousands of its workers bankrupted due to health issues. Forget about the politics and posturing. This issue goes to the very core of who we are as a nation and our values as a society.

That was also the message Obama delivered.

Here are some of the basic points the President covered:

1. Obama wants an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. The present basic healthcare system will remain. For the majority of Americans, this means there will be no change of doctor or insurance provider.
2. He is strongly in favour of a public option to promote competition and reduce cost.
3. Obama is advocating coverage mandates for everyone like for car insurance.
4. He wants to ban pre-existing condition dropped coverage.
5. The President wants to ban yearly and lifetime spend caps.

A few other thoughts:

• From my perspective, the most important thing Obama did was stay true to his conciliatory self while still somehow projecting the willingness to show the iron fist. He said “I will not waste time” with those playing political games. Misrepresent and we will call you out. My favourite line was when he called Sarah Palin out, saying “it is a lie plain and simple.” Apparently, Obama has learned when to talk tough.
• Obama did an excellent job of throwing enough red meat to progressives while covering all the bases on fiscal responsibility to make it difficult to criticize the outline he gave. He gave lip service to his change agent status by quipping “I will not accept the status quo.”  I suspect the only potentially effective points of attack will be on the lack of specifics or on the feasibility of cost cuts.
• Obama’s line about illegal immigrants caused a bit of an uproar. I don’t have a view here, but it was one of the more negatively received lines – there were boos to the reaction.  See the CNN coverage here.
• Obama threw a bone regarding malpractice insurance into the fray. Smart move.  This was more of a political ploy than a plan to actually do anything, in my opinion. But, it did cover that flank, if just.
• The Republicans overreached.  Sensing a populist backlash against Obama, they really miscalculated in the school lunch speech brouhaha. These missteps were furthered during the speech.  The lack of civility by members of Congress was cringe-worthy. They often refused to stand and clap and one even heckled. This will cost the Republicans politically.  See the picture on Andrew Sullivan’s site.
• The choice of venue was important.  It certainly worked well for Obama, lending him a statesman-like aura and putting him in a large speaking venue where he excels.  It was like a state of the union address with Congress rising to its feet and clapping in orchestrated approval. The contrast to the Republican rebuttal, done from some non-descript room, was enormous.
• The Republican rebuttal was flat. Charles Boustany spoke mostly about costs and the evils of government-run healthcare. It rang hollow because the President’s speech covered those bases fairly well. Boustany was at his best when he gave his four specific proposals on what to do to reform healthcare. He was at his worst in trying to label the President’s plan as government-run healthcare, a claim that seemed at odds with the facts. Yes, he was at a huge disadvantage because of venue. But I’m sorry, he was just not a good public speaker.
• There was some ‘class warfare’ rhetoric which I found distasteful and it also sounds like the plan will be paid for in part through taxes on the wealthy. Moreover, I am no liberal and the big defense of liberalism and big government at the end was a turn-off for me personally. Others will like him for taking a stand. It will certainly help brand him as far left of center.
• The Ted Kennedy story he told was a clear political prop that I felt was somewhat risky. But, it was generally well done.  I liked the ” character of our country” phrase.
• The speech did go on for maybe 5 or 10 minutes too long.

Fallows sums it best:

There will come a time when Barack Obama cannot pull himself out of pinch with a big speech. And obviously we don’t know how this debate will turn out yet. But he hasn’t fallen short on the big-speech front yet. More tomorrow.

Let’s see what kind of legislation comes of this.  If I get video, I will post.  Feel free to comment.

Full text of speech here.

Here is the video:

Related posts:

• What real comprehensive healthcare reform looks like
• The purpose of health care reform
• Insurance companies’ secret files on your house
• Palin: Asia speech re-casts her as Libertarian and slams Obama on China
• Obama and health care: Wasting political capital

Senator Ted Kennedy died last night after a year’s battle with cancer. However one might feel about his politics, one must admit that Ted Kennedy had a remarkable life, one that is celebrated in the video clip below.

No related posts.

The bailouts, deficit spending, and debate over health care are having a very nasty negative effect on the electoral fortunes of the Democratic party. Charlie Cook, a well-known and respected election pundit, writes (emphasis added):

…President Obama’s job approval rating in both their August 16-18 and August 17-19 averages was just 51 percent, the lowest level of his presidency. The latter sampling showed his disapproval up to 42 percent, matching his all-time low hit in the August 15-17 tracking poll…

These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low.

Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats. A new Gallup poll that shows Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents should provide little solace to Democrats. In the same poll, Congressional approval among independents is at 22 percent, with 31 percent approving overall, and 62 percent disapproving.

That all of this is happening against a backdrop of an economy that appears to be rebounding and a resurgent stock market underscores how much the President’s and his party’s legislative agenda have contributed to these poor poll numbers.

We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess.

If you are losing support even while the economic situation and stock market are improving, you are obviously doing something wrong.

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Polls: George W. Bush at new low
• US: Democrats looking at a filibuster proof Senate majority
• Patrick Buchanan throws in the towel
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag

This is a bombshell from the political world. I believe that means Al Franken will make Obama filibuster-proof. Obviously, this is very bad news for Republicans. I suspect that the deal is that Rendell and Casey will pull out ALL the stops to get Specter re-elected too.

Confirmed that Sen Specter will become a Democrat (but he is still against EFCA as noted in his statement).

The GOP is dead in the the blue states for the foreseeable future.

I am with Kos, I see the Maine senators potentially switching now as well. They will have no legislative power anymore, so why stay with the GOP in a state where it will be easier to get elected as a Dem?

More from Daily Kos here.

Related posts:

• US: Democrats looking at a filibuster proof Senate majority
• Pledged Delegate Fiasco
• Congress does need to act on the Economic Patriot Act
• Sotomayor looks unassailable right now
• The 3 a.m. moment – McCain blows it

If you are wondering why the stock market has been declining, you only need to flip your TV to C-SPAN and see Hank Paulson explaining why he has abandoned his original plan to save America from depression.  Basically, Paulson has done a complete 180 and now refuses to invest a dime of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) in buying the troubled assets for which the program was named.  The result:  those assets have cratered, pulling down many shares with them.

Multiple stories are flying about that demonstrate how Paulson’s statements have affected asset prices.  Business Week has a particularly good one.

When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson first pitched the bailout in September, it sounded like a plumbing job. The “troubled assets” on lenders’ books were clogging the financial system, he said, and the government needed to buy up the bad debt to get credit flowing again. But in the six weeks since the $700 billion plan passed, Paulson hasn’t spent a dime on asset purchases, and on Nov. 12 he scrapped the idea altogether.

What happens to the toxic investments now? They will probably sit right where they are.

Buyers and sellers have been at an impasse for weeks. Fearful of being undercut, potential investors wanted to see what the U.S. would pay for securities backed by subprime mortgages and other troubled loans before jumping in with any offers. Financial firms were reluctant to unload holdings at fire-sale prices, hoping they could get more from Uncle Sam.

The standoff could intensify now that Paulson has changed course. The fundamental problem remains: Buyers are worried that the assets will continue to fall in value as the economy weakens, and sellers don’t want to cut their asking prices, further battering their balance sheets. “There’s a stalemate,” says a 16-year market veteran at a major money manager.

Meanwhile the government’s hasty retreat has only made the assets more poisonous. Some top-rated securities backed by home equity loans are valued at 40¢ on the dollar, vs. 67¢ when the rescue plan was announced two months ago, according to data provider Markit. Even those quotes, though, are somewhat questionable, since the market for housing-related securities is all but dead. “They’re not being traded,” says Christian Menegatti of research firm RGE Monitor. “The value of [some] securities might be close to zero.”

While I thought Paulson’s original prescription was terrible, it still seems counterproductive for the U.S. Government to undermine asset prices this way. The increase in volatility due to doubts about U.S. Government intentions is also increasing risk spreads in other more liquid markets like the corporate bond market.  The Financial Times reports on this.

Average yields on U.S. junk bonds have topped 20 per cent for the first time amid rising concerns about a protracted recession and a wave of corporate defaults.

The spike in yields could have a dramatic impact on economic activity, making new debt prohibitively expensive for companies with credit ratings below investment grade. Such junk-bond issuers account for 17 per cent of the S&P 500 and nearly half the corporate bond market, according to Standard & Poor’s.

“This is really off the charts in terms of anything we have ever seen,” said Martin Fridson, chief executive of Fridson Investment Advisors, an investment management firm specialising in non-investment grade debt.

The yield on the benchmark Merrill Lynch U.S. High-Yield index hit 20.81 on Wednesday after climbing to 20.27 per cent on Tuesday. Before Tuesday, the previous high for the index was 18.66 per cent in January 1991. The risk premium, or spread over comparable Treasury securities, is close to double what it was in 1991, when Treasuries were yielding more than 8 per cent.

Risk premiums on bonds with ratings below investment grade have hit new highs repeatedly in recent months as the credit crunch has grown worse.

To be sure, there are many other reasons these assets are decreasing like increasing unemployment, weak retail sales, a deep recession and the risk of deflation. However, Paulson’s statements have really spooked the market. Every company is now under suspicion and investors sooner sell than ask questions. This has been the case with Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway as Bloomberg reports.

The cost of protecting against default by Warren Buffett’s AAA rated Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has almost tripled in two months, a sign of just how skittish investors have become amid the global financial crisis.

The cost to protect against Berkshire being unable to meet its debt payments, based on credit-default swaps, is more than four times that of rival insurer Travelers Cos. At those levels, the swaps are typical of companies rated Baa3 by Moody’s Investors Service, one level above junk. The price may have risen on concern that the billionaire’s firm could lose a $37 billion bet on world stock market values more than a decade from now.

“That’s just so stupid,” said Mohnish Pabrai, head of Pabrai Investment Funds and a Berkshire shareholder. The swap buyers are projecting “present circumstances into infinity” and concluding Buffett’s bet will cost the company $40 billion, Pabrai said. “It will never happen,” he said.

And Buffet’s shares are way down as well. The operative word in all of these events is volatility. There is a whipsawing occurring in markets that makes it difficult for even the most agile of traders. Hank Paulson is amplifying that volatility tremendously.

With investors rightfully skittish, it would serve everyone better if the U.S. Treasury Secretary had something to say that did not add to market uncertainty.

Sources
Mortgage-Backed Securities Remain Toxic – Business Week
Junk bond yields spike – FT
Berkshire’s Credit Risk Soars on $37 Billion Bet – Bloomberg
Buffett’s Berkshire Falls Most in at Least 23 Years – Bloomberg

Related posts:

• Should foreign companies get TARP funds?
• Paulson and Bernanke got it wrong on Lehman
• Will banks exiting TARP take back their toxic waste now?
• The Paulson plan is not going to make it
• Quote of the day: The Paulson Bailout Plan

Why not? Everyone else is getting something.

Aegon, a Dutch company, is trying the same maneuver that Genworth Financial and Hartford, two American companies, are trying — it’s buying a small depositary institution. This will give it access to the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Forget about foreclosures, the TARP is now about recapitalizing financial institutions. But, does that mean domestic and foreign institutions?

Aegon NV said it may buy a small U.S. thrift company to qualify for potentially more than $1 billion in U.S. government support, sending its shares down more than 8 percent.

“This is part of our strategy to ensure Aegon has the strongest capital position possible,” said Aegon spokesman Greg Tucker.

The range was between 1 percent and 3 percent of its $125 billion in U.S. assets, he said, and the application was for the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which the U.S. government has used to help banks hit by the credit crisis.

In a statement issued later on Tuesday, Aegon said while it may be eligible for TARP funding, it had no need for additional capital beyond the 3 billion euros ($3.8 billion) injection agreed with the Dutch government last month.

Aegon shares initially fell as much as 8.5 percent, but trimmed losses after a positive opening to Wall Street. The shares closed up 2 percent at 3.53 euros. The DJ European insurance index was up 0.7 percent.

“I think Aegon has bigger problems than we realize. They have invested precisely there where the problems are: the United States,” said asset manager Fred Huibers of Dutch Haags Effectenkantoor, which does not own Aegon shares.

Aegon, which owns U.S. life insurer Transamerica and gets three-quarters of its operating profit from the United States, may buy a thrift company — possibly Maryland-based Suburban Federal Savings Bank — to be eligible for the support, Tucker said.

Nice. Get in line because the gravy train is pulling into the station.

Source
Aegon may buy thrift company, tap U.S. government funds – Reuters

Related posts
Barney Frank rips Hank Paulson’s bait and switch
Paulson is handing out free money like candy to a baby
Bailout Nation

Related posts:

• Bush Administration turns the TARP over to Obama
• TARP dividends are killing bank profits
• TARP was sold to Americans under false pretenses
• GE Capital is a bank, but Genworth will be too
• Will banks exiting TARP take back their toxic waste now?

I am listening to the Congressional hearings with Sheila Bair, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke recounting what they have done to restore the economy with the $700 billion that Congress gave the Bush Administration. The hearing is pretty interesting because Chairman Barney Frank is absolutely hammering Paulson for sidestepping the specific language in the TARP inserted indicating that the TARP must be used to aid in reducing foreclosures.

In essence, Frank is saying that Congress specifically inserted language into the TARP bill in order to make sure home foreclosures could be reduced. The bill would not have passed otherwise. Yet, from his perspective nothing has been done on that lines with the TARP funds. Paulson has not disbursed the funds as he indicated he would. Barney Frank is accusing Paulson of a bait and switch. Other Democrats like Maxine Waters are now piling on as well – she said she advocated for this bill in the Congressional Black Caucus, further suggesting she has lost face due to Paulson’s actions.

UPDATE 930 AM ET: Another Congressman said he was irate that PNC, which did receive bailout funds under the TARP, was allowed to takeover National City, which he indicated was a well-capitalized institution. The Congressman said that he did not want government to pick “winners and losers.” This is similar to Citigroup planning a takeover of Chevy Chase Bank, about which I wrote.

I agree that Paulson has been very slippery. But, on some level, Congress did give him a blank check to use the funds at his discretion. Congress should have made their own bailout bill if they wanted to get a workable solution. I warned it would come to this back in September and I blame Congress.

At the risk of sounding partisan, I would add that this is exactly what the Bush Administration did when Congress gave them authorization to invade Iraq. I see a pattern here.

When I get a news story on these events I will post the link as a source.

Here is one:
Frank Irritation Over Paulson Stance on Foreclosures – WSJ

Related post
The $700 billion Paulson Plan is dead on arrival
Paulson is handing out free money like candy to a baby

Related posts:

• Should foreign companies get TARP funds?
• Paulson is handing out free money like candy to a baby
• Bush Administration turns the TARP over to Obama
• Congress does need to act on the Economic Patriot Act
• The Paulson plan is not going to make it

This has to be one of the most anticipated U.S. Vice Presidential debates in the last quarter century. It is as big as Bush – Ferraro and Gore – Quayle – Stockdale. I certainly will be watching.

Partial as I am to Barack Obama, I was not anticipating Joe Biden as his running mate. However, I sense that it was a good choice and the two make a good team.

John McCain surprised everyone in picking Sarah Palin for his running mate, and, despite a left-wing freakout, I thought she deserved the benefit of the doubt. Recently, it has become obvious even to me that she is not well-prepared and knowledgeable about many issues of substance on the national agenda. That is disappointing.

But, for what it’s worth, here are two CBS Evening News clips of Katie Couric asking both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to explain their views.

Enjoy tonight’s debate.

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Katie Couric: What newspapers do YOU read?
• Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP
• The SNL version of the Palin-Biden debate

The NY Times has a story on how yesterday’s bailout deal failed. This is an insider’s tale with blow by blow detail. It is a fascinating view into how the U.S. conducts government policy. Below is a snippet from the post and a link to the full story.

One interesting facet in the matter was the contention by Democrats that House Republicans did not want the Democrats to jam through a proposal in which Senator McCain would not have a prominent role.

The saga continues.

The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.

“If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,” President Bush declared Thursday as he watched the $700 billion bailout package fall apart before his eyes, according to one person in the room.

It was an implosion that spilled out from behind closed doors into public view in a way rarely seen in Washington.

By 10:30 p.m., after another round of talks, Congressional negotiators gave up for the night and said they would try again on Friday. Left uncertain was the fate of the bailout, which the White House says is urgently needed to fix broken financial and credit markets, as well as whether the first presidential debate would go forward as planned Friday night in Mississippi.

When Congressional leaders and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the two major party presidential candidates, trooped to the White House on Thursday afternoon, most signs pointed toward a bipartisan agreement on a grand compromise that could be accepted by all sides and signed into law by the weekend. It was intended to pump billions of dollars into the financial system, restoring liquidity and keeping credit flowing to businesses and consumers.

“We’re in a serious economic crisis,” Mr. Bush told reporters as the meeting began shortly before 4 p.m. in the Cabinet Room, adding, “My hope is we can reach an agreement very shortly.”

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

The talks broke up in angry recriminations, according to accounts provided by a participant and others who were briefed on the session, and were followed by dueling news conferences and interviews rife with partisan finger-pointing.

Friday morning, on CBS’s “The Early Show,” Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said the bailout had been derailed by internal Republican politics.

“I didn’t know I was going to be the referee for an internal G.O.P. ideological civil war,” Mr. Frank said, according to The A.P.Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”

Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”

It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid, with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee, denounced the session as “a rescue plan for John McCain,” and proclaimed it a waste of precious hours that could have been spent negotiating.

But a top aide to Mr. Boehner said it was Democrats who had done the political posturing. The aide, Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.

Source
Talks Implode During a Day of Chaos; Fate of Bailout Plan Remains Unresolved – NY Times

Related posts:

• Congress passes the bailout bill
• US Senate passes Economic Patriot Act 74-25
• McCain repackages bailout proposal and labels it his own
• The Paulson plan is not going to make it
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character

This is from an interview with Katie Couric in December 2007 for the CBS Evening News.

John Edwards seemed to feel the strongest about fidelity as an indicator of presidential worthiness, calling it “fundamental” and about “whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them.” Excerpts below:

COURIC: Harry Truman said, “A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other.” Some people don’t feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

EDWARDS: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans– including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it’s– it’s fundamental to– how you judge people and human character– whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that– you love– your spouse, and you’ll stay with them.

COURIC: Do you think– what– what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts…who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character when it comes to infidelity…I guess is what I’m getting at.

EDWARDS: Yes.

COURIC: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

EDWARDS: I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness– sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And– and certainly that goes to a part of that. It’s not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

COURIC: So you think it’s– an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

EDWARDS: Yeah. But I don’t think it’s controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the– to the stories we’ve all heard– that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don’t think it controls the issue. But I think it’s certain– something reasonable for people to consider.

-The Huffington Post, 19 Dec 2007

Related posts:

• Obama turned off Edwards
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• John McCain: candidate profile
• How do the Presidents rank?
• Tonight’s US Presidential debate

Taylor Marsh has warned of the destructive impact an anti-Obama vote among supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) could have for Sen. Barack Obama. While it remains to be seen whether obnoxious Obama supporters caused this problem or whether Clinton herself is to blame for the divided party, the fact remains, this could get John McCain elected in November.

I am of the opinion that HRC went out of her way to divide the party and destroy Obama’s chances of victory out of petty pride. Despite her apparent support for Obama now, I believe HRC was only brought into line because party insiders warned her that her previous tactics would destroy her legacy and she would be penalized by Democratic insiders accordingly.

Don’t be fooled: the Democratic party is not a united one.

This is the most dangerous threat to Obama in November. It’s what I’ve been talking about and wrote about today. That Clinton supporters are going to ignore McCain’s record, because their anti-Obama feelings are stronger than what a McCain presidency would bring. …and so it begins. But this one comes from a delegate to the Democratic convention.

So why is anyone surprised that when Clinton delegate Debra Bartoshevich announced she had joined “Citizens for McCain” she was quickly made an example?

Debra Bartoshevich, a nurse from Waterford who was selected earlier this year as a Hillary Clinton delegate to this summer’s Democratic National Convention, announced this week that, “I will not be voting for Obama. I will cast my vote for John McCain.” For her part, Bartoshevich has joined “Citizens for McCain,” the group organized by Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate who now sits in the Senate as an Independent Democrat, to get Democrats and independents to support the Republican candidate. That has not gone over well with Bartoshevich’s fellow Wisconsin Democrats. State Party chair Joe Wineke, an Edwards backer who is now enthusiastically for Obama, asked Friday night’s opening session of the state party convention to suspend party rules and begin an immediate process of stripping Bartoshevich of her national convention delegate status… …Two of Wisconsin’s most prominent Clinton backers, Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton and U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, delivered addresses hailing Obama… Debate over McCain backer spices up Dem convention

The two Clinton backers obviously are aware of what’s at stake… for Hillary, as well as themselves.

It’s only one delegate vote, but trust me, there’s a lot more where this one comes from, on the local level. The trouble is that this could end up hurting Hillary too. But no one seems to care about that repurcussion, or that Hillary will be working against a McCain presidency. They should, because big time political party payback can be a bitch, as Bartoshevich is quickly finding out. It would be worse for Clinton, because if anything but an all out effort for Obama isn’t made the blowback would be devastating, as it would if the candidates were reversed and Clinton were the nominee.

Bartoshevich has one choice if she doesn’t want to support Obama: register independent, which would cause her to lose her Democratic convention delegate status too, and rightly so. This reminds me of an exchange I had with a Clinton fundraiser yesterday. Lori Kreloff went off on me in an email exchange that had a subject heading, “wow…your audacity,” for deleting cheerleading McCain troll comments of hers, then proceded to chastise me for not “goog(ling) her” first, while bragging about her importance to the DNC and the Clintons, and that she was making sure “Hillary’s brother” and everyone else up the Democratic food chain knew “how awful” I was. I encouraged her to “yell it from the rafters.” My Irish-Scots attitude precedes any proclamation she can provide. After name dropping anyone she could, she then called me the “elitist.” She went on to say she’s joining up with “former supporters of mine,” also imparting that she’s now an independent and will work with them against Barack Obama. This email back and forth went on and on. Oh, and she’s also going to tell Donna Brazile on me! What ever will I do?

I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary would disavow Bartoshevich’s actions, as well as any other Clintonite who tries to sabotage Hillary’s own power inside the Democratic Party. All that will happen from this is blowback against Clinton. That these party people don’t know this boggles the mind.

However, all this is playing out at the party level. At the average voter level there isn’t a payback system. That’s the level Obama and his team should be worried about.

Update: Wisconsin Democrat now publicly supports McCain

Related posts:

• The Selfish Gene
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag
• What motivates Hillary? Part 3

The title comes from a post on the Carpetbagger Report by Steve Benen. He argues that, with the primary season over, anyone pro-choice has got to dislike John McCain’s stances on the issue. However, he quotes quasi-Libertarian Froma Harrop as saying:

“A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain’s position on reproductive rights. Clinton’s backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably “no.” While McCain has positioned himself as “pro-life” during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.”
-The Carpetbagger Report, 10 Jun 2008

Uh… not exactly. The guy’s voting record and statements about the Supreme Court say exactly the opposite. This line of reasoning is going to leave people like her extremely disappointed with a McCain presidency. I suspect she is more driven by anti-Obama bias than pro-McCain fervour. Here is a quote from her from Dec. 2006:

Obama does seem to have an impressive resume and polish. And it’s not his fault that a mania for some new political face intrudes on every presidential election season. But one does wish, for the sake of democracy, that we could skip the crush and give less glamorous contenders who actually say something more of a hearing.
-Froma Harrop, 26 Dec 2006

With pro-Hillary supporters willing to cut off their left arm to spite Obama, the man has a lot of work to do to seal this election. At least Taylor Marsh has been reasonable and pulled in behind her candidate.

Related posts:

• Is Bill Clinton’s legacy tarnished?
• What motivates Hillary? Part 2
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama
• Clinton is softening her tone

Eighteen million votes: $212 million. Some 1,926 delegates: $109,823 a pop. Blowing the biggest head start in presidential history: priceless.

From anointed to also-ran, Hillary Clinton spent more money to lose a primary election than any candidate in Democratic Party history.

-New York Daily News, 9 Jun 2008

Related posts:

• Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character
• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Mike Gravel switches parties
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race

In the UK, I get called ‘darling’ and ’sweetheart’ all the time. I find it a bit strange (but endearing) and I’m a guy. But calling a woman you don’t know Sweetie in a professional context? That is a problem.

No related posts.

A map I caught at Time Magazine shows that the Clinton-Obama divide has much less to do with ‘white working class people’ and MUCH more to do with regional preferences. If you look at this map, what you see is that the margin of Obama victory is greatest in Democratic leaning areas and the margin is greatest for Clinton victories in Republican-leaning states.

The whole argument about working-class voters is a sham. That’s why the working class in Oregon and Wisconsin went for Obama and those in Ohio and West Virginia went for Clinton.

That’s something to remember for the general election.

Related posts:

• Clinton is softening her tone
• Discount All Caucus Wins
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Taylor Marsh warns of anti-Obama vote

I’m sorry, but this video is too funny not to post. Thanks, Carol.

Related posts:

• John McCain as Dr. Frankenstein?
• Wilting Over Waffles
• Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run
• Hillary Clinton lied about NAFTA
• Hillary Clinton’s Michigan and Florida argument

As I predicted a few weeks ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton has abandoned the race for the President of the United States today. I was right by sheer luck more than skill, but there it is.

Here’s the story:

Hillary Clinton will abandon her White House bid at the end of the week and throw her support to rival Barack Obama, her campaign said Wednesday after she bid an emotional farewell to her loyal staff.

The announcement came a day after Barack Obama secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and as the party coalesced behind the Illinois senator to take the fight to Republican John McCain.

Clinton had refused to concede Tuesday and said she would deliberate in the coming days, but the brief message from her team had an air of finality about her doomed bid to become the first woman president.

-AFP, 4 Jun 2008

Now, it’s on to the general election.

Related posts:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton

I have been reading Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biography by Carl Bernstein entitled “A Woman in Charge.” The book has been very effective in terms of allowing me a more nuanced view of HRC after I started to become disappointed with her campaign tactics. As a result, I tend to ascribe largely positive motives to HRC’s actions. However, I cannot discount ulterior motives which are more self-interested and disturbing.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in the race without a prayer of winning for some time now. There are multiple reasons why this could be. Let me outline three alternate scenarios as to why.

Scenario One: Positive Unifier
Quite frankly, HRC has always held firm in the belief that she is the better candidate for President. She believes steadfastly that she is more qualified and has a better resume. She was more of the decision-maker in the Clinton White House and Governor’s mansion than was Clinton himself.

Nevertheless, she realized she was going to lose. However, if she lost, she was going to go out swinging, fighting, as is her way. In the meantime, she would toughen up Barack Obama along the way. She would serve notice to him that he needed to up his game if he wanted in the White House. And if he crumbled and fell, then she would be there to win as she deserved.

As for the VP spot, she believes that she deserves to be President, but would very much appreciate the courtesy of being asked onto the ticket.

This is the scenario I largely believe HRC thinks about.

Scenario Two: Sore Loser
HRC certainly believes she deserves to win the nomination for Presidency for many of the reasons outlined above. But, she also has come to believe she’s entitled to the nomination. She is the inevitable nominee. This is her time, not Obama’s. How dare he intrude and ruin what is rightfully hers.

She realized at some point, his intrusion was going to cost her the nomination. So, she turned mean and ugly. She was spiteful and incredulous. If she wasn’t going to win, she was going to lay into Obama, not because she actually wanted him to lose, but rather because she was angry that he had not waited his turn. She wanted to hurt him as he had hurt her. If her kitchen sink strategy worked and he crumbled, then she would again be there to win as she was entitled.

As for the VP slot, she’s earned it.

Call it sour grapes; This scenario is more selfish, but understandable. I could see a little of this going through HRC’s mind. After all, it’s tough to lose when you’ve worked that hard.

Scenario Three: Who cares about the party; stick the knife in if necessary
HRC felt she was the better candidate, the inevitable candidate and she felt entitled to the nomination. Then along comes this style over substance neophyte and people actually buy his drivel. That made her angry. But, HRC is a thinking woman’s woman and when she get’s angry, she gets even.

First, she threw the kitchen sink at him, impugned his qualifications, rallied women to her side as the victim and did anything, absolutely anything she could to win. If this destroys the party, so be it. If I can’t win, she thought, nobody else should. Oh and if he does win, maybe I should be VP. You know what happened to JFK. Lyndon Johnson was a great president. The man who implemented civil rights. That could be me.

And if he doesn’t want to give me the VP slot that I deserve, I’ll make sure my voters stay home in November.

This scenario is a bit stomach-churning and I’m sure it is in her subconscious. But, politicians who still have some ethics cannot possibly choose this scenario as their raison d’etre.

Or could they?

Related posts:

• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Hillary was angling for the VP spot
• The assassination gaffe: VP is next in line
• Polls: Is Barack Obama Poised To Lose North Carolina Democratic Primary?
• What motivates Hillary? Part 1

My god, it just occurred to me: Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to be Vice-President just in case. Now, I get it. It just clicked in when I was reading the blog “The Moderate Voice.” In the post entitled Short-Circuiting Clinton? Pelosi, Reid, Dean Give Superdelegates Friday Decision Deadline, it says:

“While newspapers around the world run photos of Obama on their front pages and note the United States’ historical moment fu, the big behind-the-scenes political story is a reported full-press effort by prominent Clinton supporters on several fronts to pressure Obama to take Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate. And some reports suggest her in effect continuing her campaign and not stepping out as most politicos would do when the numbers were totally against her is a hard-ball poplitical bargaining chip: You better pick me or this will continue in some form or another until Denver.”

I thought to myself, “what’s in it for HRC being VP?” I mean it’s not like she’s guaranteed a Dick Cheney role. Why does she wan to be offered the VP slot so badly? That’s when it clicked:

The Vice-President is next in line for the Presidency.

Related posts:

• Hillary was angling for the VP spot
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Hillary as Vice-President
• Geraldine Ferraro: what is she really saying?

Up until Hillary was forced to re-calibrate because of Obama’s phenomenal success and to start denigrating the Senator from Illinois, she had run a good campaign. In my estimation, Clinton did a much better job than she is given credit for. I was turned off by her negative campaign style after Obama pulled off his miraculous string of victories. But, prior to that point, the Clinton campaign was quite formidable. She just ran into an amazing campaigner in Barack Obama, who upstaged her at every turn. Lincoln Mitchell has a post on the Huffington Post, which sums it up quite nicely.

Had Obama failed to raise more money than Hillary Clinton, not won in Iowa, not surprised many by consolidating African American support early in the campaign, not proven to be the most exciting Democratic candidate in at least a generation, encountered a major crisis earlier, or not responded to the first major crisis faced by his campaign with an extraordinary speech, Clinton would have likely won the nomination. Clinton’s campaign was prepared for everything; everything except Barack Obama and a campaign that exploited her least defended vulnerabilities, while engaging and mobilizing primary voters beyond what anybody expected.

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• The New York Times is down on Clinton

When Hilary Rodham Clinton is finally forced off the campaign trail after her last ditch attempts to become President of the United States, the question is what awaits her. Will it be Senate Majority leader, eventual New York Governor, Supreme Court Justice?

Well, according to a very sobering article from Time Magazine, what awaits her as a Senator is much less glamorous and much more pedestrian.

Many have speculated that Clinton, as a sort of consolation prize on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, might make a good Majority Leader. But those doing the speculating clearly don’t understand the way the Senate works. Not only is majority leader actually a tedious, behind-the-scenes managerial position, but the current holder of that position, Harry Reid of Nevada, is a lot more popular in his party than outsiders realize, and his chief deputies, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer, have their own ambitions. Senators want a leader they can call at any hour with complaints — in other words they want a referee, not a superstar. “The Senate needs to work on an hourly basis, a lot of labor-intensive work, and it’s a major shift when you’ve been operating at a certain altitude to come back and get involved in the nuts and bolts of the Senate literally 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that’s what [being Majority Leader] involves,” said Senator Chris Dodd, who himself recently returned from the presidential field and is one of the 17 who endorsed Barack Obama.
-Can Hillary Readjust to the Senate?, Time Magazine, 28 May 2008

The article is quite a story. It reminds of words about the losers of the general election from an article in the Guardian newspaper a few months back. This is something for Hillary to think about because she is going home to DC soon.

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Hillary was angling for the VP spot

This comes from the Huffington Post:

Posted May 24, 2008 | 10:31 AM (EST) at The Huffington Post

Related posts:

• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight
• Proof that the American Dream is alive and well
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s behavior has hit a new low of ethical and moral standards among American national political figures. Her recent comments about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination were not just tasteless and wrong-headed, they unmask her as a person willing to do anything for her own personal gain.

In the past, she has made comments or suggestions that verge on the inappropriate, but one couldn’t put one’s finger on exactly what was most disturbing about the comments. She could always claim she was saving the party or being a fighter or that she was the victim of sexism. And all of these excuses are grounded in reality. It is this reality which let her get away with the most cynical and self-interested posturing in her pursuit of her national ambitions.

But, her latest comments leave me speechless.

Asked by South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper about calls for her to drop out of the race, Clinton (D-N.Y.) said: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it.”
-Boston Herald, 24 May 2008

There is no place in America for this kind of rhetoric — not when Barack Obama has received death threats, not when Robert Kennedy’s brother has received a fatal prognosis, not in an America where assassination attempts have caused great trauma ever since Lincoln’s death. Her comments are horrible and completely unjustified. I continue to be astounded at the lengths to which she will go to suit her own personal ambitions.

Keih Olbermann has an editorial comment regarding these comments that I suggest you watch. But, I have read two articles which give voice to the horror I feel about Senator Clinton’s comments. I recommend reading both. The first article is from Gerard Baker at the Times of London. In his article, appropriately titled, “Voters just don’t trust Hillary,” he says the following:

Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world’s labour market been destroyed – as in the end we’re told all women’s efforts inevitably are destroyed – by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?

To the cynics this U.S. presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton’s collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.

Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton’s manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She’s Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.

And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I’ve no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other – good – reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?

In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can’t really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman – this woman – should become the most powerful person on the planet.

The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don’t trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.

As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama’s grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality.

And Baker was only referencing her comparison of the Michigan and Florida delegate debacle to Al Gore’s loss in 2000 and, ludicrously, to Zimbabwe’s recent rigged election. Gerard wrote his article before the Kennedy assassination gaffe. (As an aside, I wonder what RFK’s children supporting Clinton think of her comments.)

The second article was from Mark Daniels at The Moderate Voice. He says:

I, for one, don’t believe that Clinton meant to draw an analogy between Senator Barrack Obama and Bobby Kennedy, insinuating that because the Illinois senator evokes the same sort of passion as Kennedy, he may be an assassin’s target, thereby presumably giving the New York senator reason for staying in the race for this year’s Democratic nomination. There was nothing to be gained by Clinton in making such a connection, especially among Democratic superdelegates, many of whom venerate Kennedy and his older brother, President John F. Kennedy, and, like most Americans, have just been saddened by the news that Senator Edward Kennedy is suffering from cancer. Clinton, in spite of what her many opponents may say, is not evil incarnate. She’s not stupid either.
-The Moderate Voice, 24 May 2008

Like Daniels, I give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. So, I especially like his point regarding the comments inaccuracy:

But comparing, June, 1968 to June, 2008, is not so much comparing apples to oranges as it is apples to King Kong.

One big difference is that the entire primary season in ‘68 began with New Hampshire’s primary, not on January 3, the date for the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses this year, but on March 12. That’s fully two months and nine days deeper into the calendar than this year.

The California primary, the last of a grand total of thirteen primaries held in 1968, was held on June 5.

Kennedy didn’t even declare his candidacy for President until March 16, 1968, four days after President Lyndon Johnson narrowly defeated anti-Vietnam War senator, Eugene McCarthy, in New Hampshire.

Kennedy therefore, on the night of the California primary, was still a candidate for president little more than three months into his campaign and just three months after the first contest. By contrast, Senator Clinton announced her candidacy on January 22. 2007!

The date of the California primary in 1968 would, if put in an analogous position on this year’s election calendar, fall on April 3, a date that’s already two-and-a-half months past.
-The Moderate Voice, 24 May 2008

So, not only was her point tasteless, it was an inaccurate, bad analogy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a desperate politician who lacks a moral compass. There is nothing gender-specific about this. I feel the same way about her husband. These two politicians will do and say just about anything to get elected.

Related posts:

• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Hillary is White
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• New York magazine exposes Clinton in private
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?

I said a month ago that Hillary Clinton’s calculus might have been designed specifically to capture a VP spot on a joint ticket, if she could not win the nomination. Here is what I said on April 23rd:

Ultimately, David Gergen, a very prescient political analyst on CNN, may be right. He said it may be her calculation that by running until the end in a negative campaign, the party will be so divided that the VP slot MUST be filled by the losing candidate. The logic makes sense. So what if the party’s divided now. Obama needs Hillary and Hillary needs Obama. Hillary can at least be assured of a VP slot now.

If this is Clinton’s calculus, it is in her interest to stay in the campaign as long as possible. She cannot afford to have healing begin without her because this would obviate the need for her as a VP if Obama wins the nomination. She must carry on, attcking Obama for as long as possible if she wants to secure the VP slot.

Hey, it may not be pretty but it works.

Later, on May 9th as it became clear that Obama was likely to win the nomination, I recanted saying:

Hillary Clinton still has the ability to turn her supporters against an Obama candidacy and split the party. There are those who believe she is holding out for a VP nod. After all, Dick Cheney has shown hat a strong VP can do. And with Bill and she together, the Vice-Presidency might be a strong card for Hillary. I tend to doubt she wants it. After all, she is a woman who likes power and control and the VP slot gives her neither. Moreover, it seals her fate as a Presidential candidate because she won’t be able to run in 2012 and she will be 69 in 2016, as old as the oldest persons ever elected President (William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan). This is Hillary’s last shot and she knows it. Hence, the desperation.

I did say on May 19:

going on beyond June 4th would be entirely self-interested. Obama will certainly hit the magic 2025 by June 3rd, so going beyond the primary season could only be seen as a strategy to extract maximum personal gain in terms of a VP slot, to maximize leverage for her agenda and people, or to kneecap Obama in hopes of running in 2012. I look at a post-June 4th strategy as quite sinister and cynical.

But, I had finished with thinking Hillary wanted to be VP. Well, I was right the first time. Al Giordano, at “The Field” wrote:

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.
-The Field, The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead, 22 May 2008

“The Field” blames Bill Clinton for this debacle. I blame Hillary Rodhan Clinton This politician is truly incredible. I thought she had some sense of decency and honesty. Maybe I went soft on her while reading her Biography recently. But, it is apparent now that she will really do just about anything to get what she wants.

Related posts:

• Hillary as Vice-President
• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign

The Jed Report has a video with the facts regarding what the Clinton campaign said and when regarding Florida and Michigan. She is being quite disingenuous on this issue and is further undermining her credibility as an honest person. Watch the video.

Related posts:

• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Young Hillary Clinton
• Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton
• Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run
• Hillary Clinton lied about NAFTA