The Campaign Marches On

A short note to start the work week, concerning how I think things might play out in the Democratic nomination fight in the coming month or so.

First, my latest read on how things have developed in the last week or so suggests to me that, aside from Hillary Clinton's determined refusal to concede anything, seemingly in the near or distant future, I expect that since only 10 contests remain on the primary calendar, there will be no effort by influential Democratic Party figures to negotiate a resolution prior to the final contests on June 3 (SD and MT).

Setting aside the particularly gratuitous negative attacks of recent weeks, this election season has been a largely positive affair that has increased Democratic turnout and enthusiasm exponentially. Most states' voters don't really get to weigh in on presidential nominating contests, so now that we're at the point where most voters have had a real voice, it would be very dispiriting and disappointing from a democratic (small "d") standpoint to somehow not permit the remaining states a chance to express their preferences in a consequential election.

As such, barring an unexpected withdrawal from Hillary Clinton at some point before June 3, we'll have a competitive contest until that date. I believe that the last remaining, albeit remote, chance that she'll withdraw is if she somehow loses Pennsylvania on April 22. I believe that she will win there, but it will be a far narrower victory than current polls suggest. Nonetheless, I believe the chances of Obama winning PA are far greater than the infinitesimal chances Clinton has of actually ending up with the party's nomination.

Second, there have already been increasing signs that Obama may be maneuvering to finish the nominating season in a manner similar to that of John McCain--in practice if not in style or deliberate design. Influential endorsements by superdelegates, featuring but not limited to those last week's by NM Gov. Bill Richardson and U.S. Senator Bob Casey (PA), and today's by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN), suggest a movement towards a specific goal.

This may take a while, so bear with me. Obama would very much like to catch up to Hillary in the category of overall superdelegate support--he now trails by just over 30. However, the McCain analogy applies in the following context: It has been widely noted that superdelegates will be required for either candidate to clear the 2,024 overall delegate hurdle and claim the presumptive nomination. Political observers may recall that, in the GOP race, Gov. Mike Huckabee stayed in the race because, to paraphrase, the party does not have a nominee "until someone gets to 1,191" (the magic number for the GOP nomination).

Obama is likely working on obtaining the public commitments of enough superdelegates over the next month or so, such that he might be able to clear the 2,024 hurdle in projected delegates on one of the closing primaries' election nights--perhaps May 20 when OR and KY vote, or perhaps on June 3 when SD and MT vote. In any event, if he were to be declared a "presumptive nominee" during election night coverage, that public perception would be like a bell that one can't un-ring. Just ask Al Gore about when the networks projected FL for Bush in 2000 and declared him the next president, before taking it back a few hours later.

Will it play out this way for the Obama-Clinton race? Difficult to say for sure, but I believe that Obama is certainly trying to make it happen, and it would be quite an exclamation point on his nomination fight if he can pull it off.

Perhaps My Faith Will Be Restored

I posted yesterday on the distressing lack of media cajones when it came to actually calling the bald-faced lie that Hillary Clinton told repeatedly about her 1996 Bosnia trip a LIE, and not simply reporting that she "mis-spoke" or "mis-stated" something.

Well, I have subsequently noticed a distinct drumbeat of negative coverage in my subsequent reviews of media items on this topic, with many media reports and news analyses portraying this incident in a very harsh light, as is appropriate. Of particular note is the following online commentary by Dan Kennedy on a blog hosted at the British newspaper website of the Guardian:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_kennedy/2008/03/clinton_under_fire.html

Very cutting, but honest essay about Hillary Clinton and the issues of trustworthiness and credibility. Dan Kennedy is a journalism professor at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

Attention All Media

If facts are to be the purported stock in trade of journalism, then the rest of the mainstream media ought to emulate Washingtonpost.com, and should not be shirking its duty to report the truth that Hillary Clinton is a liar, and has been caught red handed by the videotape and by multiple witnesses to the events in question during a trip to Bosnia in 1996.

I would commend readers to view this link in its entirety, <http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/more_incoming_for_clinton.html>. Be sure to watch the videos, especially the last one in the post. Clinton's pathetically prevaricating and dissembling statement trying to explain away her lie is particularly good reading, in the same way that a movie car chase scene is particularly good theater when it ends in a wreck.

As U.S. Air Force journalist Don Jackson states: "Mrs. Clinton arrived to a flight line full of well-wishers, both military and civilian, accompanied by her staff as well as comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow who were there to entertain troops. To set the record straight, there was no enemy fire, and no imminent danger. If there had been any danger, "well-wishers" would not have been allowed on the tarmac, much less allowing me to stand above everyone else on the back of a truck. And Sinbad and Sheryl Crow would've been running for their lives instead of taking the time to be interviewed by yours truly, on the tarmac. Mrs. Clinton's [claim] is a lie, plain and simple."

Hillary Clinton has now claimed that she "misspoke" about her supposedly daring arrival, under fire, at an airbase in Bosnia. Setting aside the complete implausibility of her contention, the fact remains that she made a detailed statement about her actions that was materially untrue, and not for the first time. Even if her statement was not deliberately intended to mislead or deceive (which it demonstrably was), she still lied, by dictionary definition. And the press ought not to be reporting her claim of simple "misspeaking" as fact.

Mrs. Clinton's actions during this episode make me sick, because they reveal the most conclusive, but certainly not only, evidence of her utter contempt for the intelligence of the American people, and of her zeal to destructively pursue the presidency for her own ends and not for the betterment of the people at large.

Update at 11:44 AM

I just came across a great blog post at RealClearPolitics.com by Tom Bevan, deliciously titled "Pantsuit on Fire." Great item on how Hillary flat-out lied (thought he still doesn't use that word), and how it feeds into a negative narrative about her character and personality.

<http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/pantsuit_on_fire.html>

Inaugural Post for Politics Over Drinks

Introduction
Item 1: Democratic Presidential Nomination Endgame
Item 2: Thoughts on the politics of NY Governor Paterson's Disclosure of Infidelity

I welcome readers to this new blog, which was the brainchild of my wife. She has been tirelessly lobbying me to start this blog because she has a high opinion of both my writing skills and of my capacity to astutely interpret events in politics and in government. She also believes that conversations I have with her and some of my good friends on these topics are very informative, and would be of interest to a larger audience.

Setting aside the question of whether her views on such matters are accurate, I have decided finally give in to her lobbying efforts. I hope to make use of this forum to periodically offer my thoughts about various matters, as well as to make the case for why I believe certain political developments either will happen, or have happened. I expect that this blog will include additional authors as we move forward, likely including one or more of the friends I referenced above, as well as my wife, who has an intuitive behavioral understanding of people that often translates into remarkably accurate insights into political behavior.

Now, onto my first topics!

Democratic Nomination Battle

There has been much discussion in the media and elsewhere about how the Democratic Party is faced with a potential disaster of a nomination fight that could fracture its potential winning coalition in the general election. Senator Barack Obama has amassed a modest, solid lead in convention delegates that, due to the proportional-allocation rules of the DNC, is unlikely to be eclipsed by Senator Hillary Clinton at the conclusion of the nominating season--which, at present, would be the elections in South Dakota and Montana on June 3. Michigan officials have proposed a new primary for that date as well, but no final determinations have been made as to its feasibility or likelihood of occurrence; Florida officials have abandoned plans to schedule a new primary election. As the issue has been beaten to death elsewhere, I need not elaborate on why the two states are in their current predicament.

Senator Clinton, while having been outpaced in the nominating process by Senator Obama, has nonetheless secured significant victories and demonstrated strength among certain demographic groups that have convinced her to continue pursuing the nomination. These circumstantial grounds for continuing the contest combine with her obvious belief that she is the best candidate. Her campaign's personal attacks on Senator Obama's candidacy and competence have raised serious concern among some in the party establishment, but I'll get back to that in a bit. Senator Obama obviously believes he is the best candidate, and, as discussed above, he is nearly guaranteed to end up as the leader in delegates at the end of the primary season.

The dilemma, of course, is that neither Obama nor Clinton has anywhere close to a realistic chance of securing a nomination-clinching 2,024 delegates total on the strength of delegates won in state primaries and caucuses. Thus it falls to the "superdelegates," or those to whom the DNC grants an automatic convention vote as a consequence of an individual's particular position with the DNC or of an individual's status as the occupant of certain elected offices (Members of Congress, State Governors). Of these 794 superdelegates (of 796 original superdelegates), the CNN count has 237 declared for Clinton, and 207 declared for Obama.

Now that I've finally gotten through the somewhat tedious background, I offer my assessment of how these superdelegates will seek to ensure that the primary fight does not continue beyond the late spring.

The next primary is in Pennsylvania on April 22, and Senator Clinton is favored to win there by many observers. I believe that she does have the upper hand, but that Senator Obama will do better there than he did in Ohio. Two weeks later, on May 3, North Carolina and Indiana will hold primaries. If Senator Obama wins both states (and I expect that he will win in NC and win a much closer race in IN), it will serve as an affirmation of his performance thus far, and lead significant numbers of superdelegates to declare their support for him.

Perhaps they will wait until the May 13 WV primary (probable Clinton win) and the Mary 20 primaries (OR--Obama; KY--Clinton) have passed, but there will be a movement to push Obama's delegate total above the clinching threshold, since, a la Mike Huckabee of the recent Republican nomination race, that may be the only point at which Clinton would drop out.

NY Governor David Paterson

Today it was reported that new NY Governor David Paterson has publicly disclosed marital infidelities that occurred nearly ten years ago, of which his wife was already aware for many years. This disclosure comes less than a day after he was sworn in to replace Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in the wake of disclosures that he had been using the services of a high-end prostitution ring for some time.

I believe this disclosure, at this time, was remarkably astute from a political perspective. First, he demonstrates transparency and honesty with the people of New York up front, on an issue that would absolutely have come out sometime down the line. Second, the lesser informed and/or attentive among the populace would likely read only the headline of "NY governor admits affairs," and presume it had something to do with Eliot Spitzer, since it fits the narrative of his latest problems. Third, and most important, it allows the more learned observers of the situation to view Paterson's transgressions as far tamer than Spitzer's, and more easily dismissed as a private matter by a public that has been fed up with sexual witch-hunts since Bill Clinton's impeachment debacle.

Thanks for reading, and please feel free to leave any comments and/or questions you might have. I will not have a particular schedule for posts as I move forward, but I hope offer my thoughts as often as my work and leisure schedules permit.

Cheers!