Polikicks - Original Political Analysis

If you will it, it is no dream

2008-11-05T14:32:00.003-05:00

After being deeply disappointed by John the Toast McCain decision to select Palin and by their divisive campaign in which they followed Hillary's steps no less than they followed Rove's, and after alarming weeks in which the polls were too close to call and those that were not were discounted for a feared Bradley effect - after all these America proved that despite all the ugliness, negativity, and pushing the bar to the lowest common denominator, the positive forces of the new generation overcame it all with a historic decision that outshines every dark spot in our history. Perhaps America's common denominator is not that low after all.

In a short while the next African American President will be sworn on the steps of our national capital that was build by the blood and sweat of slaves. By the virtue of his election President elect Obama absolves the conscious of white America and unshackles the spiritual bondage of black America. Barack had moved the flagpole high and proclaimed to everyone, no matter where they came from, that they can. His call for personal responsibility and family values merged with the promise that everyone can succeed, tells all the weak and disenfranchised that change starts from the bottom, one must take responsibility into their own hands, not blaming anyone else.

It is not much different than Theodor Herzl's 18th century Zionist call "If you will it, it is no dream", which parallels Obama's "Yes you can". This phrase of hope moved Jews out of the bondage of a 2000 years diaspora among hostile gentiles and ended with the creation of the state of Israel. Once Jews realized that they have a responsibility to take matters into their own hands, the message of hope was stronger than the religious belief to wait for the messiah to bring them back to the promised land. In our times, Obama's personal responsibility, bottom-up change and hope combine to close the door on the mental shackles of slavery and finally liberate black America.

Obama who is familiar with the divisive militant spirit of the black Louis Farrakhan as well as the divisive militant white William Aires decided to take an entirely different approach and break from the past by conducting a decisively different type of campaign. He moved away from a militant spirited campaign, from taking advantage of old grievances, from leveraging vengeance, and from the mud slinging that tainted American Presidential politics right from the moment John Adams ran for office. This fresh air approach breaks yet another shackle of the past.

With hopes and expectations set so high, instinct and history warn us that the disappointment might loom larger. Yet the current economic crisis and the upcoming exacerbated recession courtesy of expected miserable holiday sales will give Obama an unprecedented opportunity to succeed. The mere aversion of an economic downfall and return to a stable economy would be considered success. By all signs Obama intends to do much more. For the sake of the US and the world, let's hope he succeeds.

Time for a break

2008-06-11T06:40:00.001-04:00

We got a presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, we got one for the Libertarian Party. We finally got one for the Democratic Party (will someone tell Hillary?) There is no better time for this blog to take a break.

If you want to know when we are coming back, subscribe to receive email updates from this blog (no, we don't spam or sell email addresses).

Watch signs that Hillary does not really concede

2008-06-05T11:23:00.001-04:00

By now everyone is well trained on Hillary's careful choice of words. On her non-concession speech on the night that was supposed to be Obama's she congratulated him for "his run", not for his victory. Now her campaign tells us that she will give a concession speech this Friday or Saturday. So what to watch for in her speech? What warning signs will tell us that she does not really concede?

The first sign, of course, is avoidance of the words "he won". Those hurtful words she could not bring herself to utter in the basement two floors below ground level of the Baruch College in Manhattan. Talk about bunker mentality.

Hillary may actually bring herself, perhaps after drinking some beer she saved from that Pennsylvania bar, to say that Obama won. Will she add that it was fair and square, say nothing about it, or find some scapegoat to tie to his win (Michigan, Florida, the media?) If it were not Hillary I could not have thought of that option, but with her you never know.

But even if she concedes gracefully in her speech, even if she urges her supporters to support Obama, even if she make the case to her supporters that Obama is tenfold better than McCain, it is her actions that would tell us if she stands by these words. Will she tell her super delegates to endorse Obama? Will she tell her supporters not to put her name in nomination at the convention? Will she campaign vigorously in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and tell her supporters that Obama "is one of us"?

Hillary has created such a reputation for herself that we just can't trust her words. In her case, actions or lack of them will tell us more.

The five things Hillary want

2008-06-04T11:53:00.009-04:00

Let's go to the core question, the one Hillary herself raised in her non-concession speech on June 3 at Baruch College. Her exact quote was "What does Hillary want? What does she want?"

So while many try to analyze what she really want, why not taking her on her own word and looking at how she answered that question?

Here is the list of things she offered in response (exact quote from the released speech text):

"Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq.
I want to turn this economy around.
I want health care for every American.
I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential.
And I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible."

This is a pretty simple list. If one is a non-Hillary Democrat one might distrust this list and look for an hidden agenda. But such a voter should be happy with the Obama win and not be a problem unless Hillary becomes a running mate. It is the Hillary supporters that are of major concern to the Obama people. How to appease them?

Clearly, some would be so extreme and beyond appeasement. But some would be honest and should be satisfied by Obama accepting the short list of five requests. Those things that Hillary "really wants". Fortunately, all of them are in Obama's agenda.

So the challenge to Hillary's supporter is this: Are you for a honest candidate that just wants this five demands, those five requests that Obama is willing to accept, or are you for a dishonest candidate who actually says that she wants these five public-service honorable things but actually want something else speakable only behind closed doors?

If I were Obama, my next speech would be accepting these five things, quoting her verbatim, stating that Hillary had plenty opportunity to ask to be a VP but instead she took the honorable path of asking these five things on behalf of her voters, and that he, Obama, honors her wishes and the 18 million voters and will commit to these five requests. Quite easy. I would praise her for not asking anything for herself and freeing him to do his own choosing. Thank you Hillary for doing the honorable thing and going home.

Hillary Clingon and the the Enterprise

2008-05-30T07:47:00.000-04:00

Even though I have little interest in science fiction, let alone Star Trek, I heard of the Klingons. When Hillary seemed to cling on to the race beyond reality I had to find out what the Klingons are all about and if they are in any way related to the Clintons. From Wikipedia: "Klingons are a warrior race in the fictional Star Trek universe. They were recurring antagonists in Star Trek: The Original Series".

Just race forward (or backward - check your time machine settings) to 2008 where the Clintons appear (again) as a warrior race in the non-fictional Democratic Primary universe. They were recurring Republican antagonists in 1993 and 1997 and are fighting the Obamas in 2008 to lead their own universe as the super antagonists to the McCains.

While it is not clear that the Clintons are related to the Klingons, they do exhibit extraordinary clinging on characteristics as well as never-ending fighting drives. They appear quite human but seem to behave and perhaps feel as if they are above them. They claim that they have the right to rule over them, know what is better for them, what others want and need, and see themselves as morally superior.

The Clintons are plagued by technical difficulties. Their time machine has a major malfunction leading to their continuous engaging in recreating history and possible futures, all depending on their audiences. As a result of their habitual distortion of realities observers are no longer sure that the Clintons themselves have full awareness of reality, an infliction which they spread around to their vast following. They also suffer from a very inefficient and slow acting teleportation device which consumes large amounts of energy and may explain its infrequent use. The only known travel routes were from Arkansas to Cambridge in the UK at the time of the great Vietnam war, and then from Arkansas to New York where the Clintons claimed residency in a successful attempt by Hillary Clinton to create a beachhead in Washington.

The Clintons seem to need constant attention and strive to become the focus of the media. They constantly spread rumors that they are discriminated against, treated badly, suffer from unfair handling by every conceivable group and are subject to numerous conspiracies. These claims seem to backfire with the educated elites, but works quite well with the disgruntled majority on their planet.

It is extremely difficult to fight the Clintons for they have mastered the art of argumentation and are very skillful in exhibiting empathy to their impoverished audiences despite having amassed over $100 million over the last several years from undisclosed sources. Pundits have debated for years the existence of a secret philosophy or motto behind the Clintons drive to supremacy. Some claim they appropriated "to infinity and beyond" from another Galaxy while others argue that their wealth points to "live long and prosper". However, more modern pundits think that their infinite fighting abilities suggest that their motto is "resistance is futile". Whatever is the case, it is clear that the Clintons are out of this world.

Dear Senator Baroque O'bama

2008-05-28T11:55:00.009-04:00

Dear Senator Baroque O'bama,

I am writing to you because Joe at the Finley's bar said I should get it off my chest. I was thinking to talk to Father O'Malley but he always talks about forgiveness and sin and he just makes me feel guilty. I just can't vote for you because you want change and I want to go back to the good old days just like Hillary said.

After the factory closed and all the jobs went away and after Walmart came and the small stores closed there is not much to do here except going to the church, to good old Finley's and some odds and ends that needs fixin. I was always good at fixin things at the factory so I get by and bring home what's left after Joe gives me the break at Finley's. That keeps the woman happy like it should be. Anyway, I never thought I would be saying that, but I am going to vote for that tough woman who was with Clinton may he rest in peace. He was a good Democrat President and she was just besides him unless he locked her in the attic like I do when my woman gets on my nerves. But I trust Hillary because she was his woman and she drank beer like we do and she goes to church like I should if I was not annoyed with Father O'Malley. If she can drink beer like us she can take these commies in Iran that we are fighting in Baghdad.

But you Baroque, I can't see taking on our enemies. You are tall enough but you are too thin and a bit too tanned for my taste. Me, I just get red in the sun or at Finley's which is where I saw you on TV trying to bowl and got us all laughing for ten minutes. This ball is just too heavy for you. You are built just like Father Omaley who can talk fear in my heart but can't fix a thing in the church. Joe said your name says that you are part Irish but Joe is from Vermont so I can't trust this Canadian. I heard Hillary say that you are not able to pick up the phone at 3 in the morning because you go to this church with that anti-American commie pastor who curses us all. You should not have selected him to be vice President. Big mistake. No way. I like McCain, he served in Vietnam like my uncle who got crazy when he returned from there. But McCain is not crazy. I saw his wife on TV. Anyone who married such a patriotic model cannot be crazy.

As I said, you make me uneasy. All this change that you talk about. You see, I don't like change. Before all the change happened I was working at the factory. Then they moved it to China. Bad change. Then Walmart came. That was good until the stores closed. Very bad change. Now you want more change. I like Hillary. She will not bring any more change. Maybe even take us back. Your change and those kids who follow you - I saw them on TV. All with those music machine and phones with those small headphones that they sneak into them ears. I don't know what you transmit into their brains but I don't like these thin kids who don't even talk right English like we do here.

No sirree, I cannot vote for you. Your change scares me. I want to go back to the good old days where the Chinese were commies and enemies and did not take our jobs. I want the glory days when everybody knew them place and what jobs are appropriate for man and which are for women and what's good for foreigners. That world order, the traditions we like as it was written in the Bible. These things that made sure I had a job and respect and made us win all the wars. Because of the media we are still in Iraq fighting those Sueites and Shinies. I heard Dubya saying that we are winning but the media makes it sound like we are not. The same media that is conspiring against Hillary who already won the general election which I voted in April. I couldn't vote for you O'bama, you look like those anchors on TV and speak the same weird language and talk about change and never supported me like Hillary and Bill did. I heard them say they support me and are against NAFTA which Joe said is those guys who ship out jobs to China.

I know if I went to confession and told Father O'Malley all this he would start correcting me and tell me to come to Church more often. So I think Joe was smart to say that I send you this letter instead so that you forgive me that I didn't vote for you and instead voted for Hillary in April. My Sally will be happy too that I sent you this letter. That should count for something. I am going to tell her as soon as she comes back from Church.

Dear Voter, Help Me. Yours, Hillary

2008-05-21T13:29:00.013-04:00

Dear voter. This campaign has been totally unfair but I am not going to give up, never, ever, not today, not tomorrow, not until June 3rd, and not later. I am doing it all for you, not for me, because you need someone to fight for you. Yes, you! I am taking to you. The game has been rigged against me and you. We are in it together. Against the powerful and the rich. You and me.

Just look at my odds. Bill took my black constituents, those votes that where rightly mine. Then Obama stole away my college-educated voters. That's OK, what do they know. Then the young and restless succumbed to the cult of change and follow Barack as if what I did in Washington was not exclusively for their future. Then Geraldine Ferraro, sweetie Geraldine, scared away some men, and then Rachel Maddow undermined Geraldine's argument that I am a victim of misogyny. Isn't it obvious that I am both a victim of misogyny and the meshugeneh? Of course I am discriminated against. How else could I be behind a race that by right and tenure should be mine? What plausible explanation could there be for me to be where I am when I started so high in the polls before the race began? Clearly, that black guy had everything going for him.

Yes, this is totally unfair. I have been accommodating you and your fellow voters in any possible way and that is how you repay me? I was willing to change my message, mold my campaign, offer new promises -- all in the heroic attempt to address your conflicting needs. All, to no avail. As if you didn't get a fair warning about my intention to run. Yes you did. But with total disrespect to my plans you and your fellow voters in different states insisted on having uncoordinated needs forcing me to offer sometimes conflicting promises. Do you have no shame? Don't you realize the length of time I have been waiting in the shadows of Bill, suffering humiliating episodes one after another just so that I could have a chance to come back to the White House and finally clean that carpet?

What have I not done? Is there anything more you could ask me to do? I drank cheep beer in a Pennsylvania bar and pretended to like it. I had shots of Whiskey in the next bar and had to smile as if this is something I do every day after I come back from work. Not only that, just consider the humiliation of having to invite the TV press crew in advance so that they could capture this spontaneous disgrace in front of the world. Doesn't that deserve your vote even if you live far away from Pennsylvania? Do you really expect me to go on a bar tour in every town in the country? If I did, how could I be ready on day one? If this is not a clear case of misogyny then I don't know what misogyny is.

What did Obama had to do for all these unfair votes that he got in those states that do not matter? Go on a lousy bowling lane? Can you compare the two? He had to roll a ball while I had to intoxicate myself. This entire campaign has been unfair right from the start. He comes in like the new kid on the block without all the history of past votes or positions while I had to carry the bag of years of conflicting promises. Don't you realize how harder it becomes to craft ambivalent messages? Then he had the chutzpah to admit that he erred while I stood fast by my decision to vote for the war. Who gives him the right to admit mistakes? How dare he throw away years of political traditions and try to change things? The rules should apply to him as they do for me.

And the worst thing is this elitist streak in this guy. I worked hard at Yale way before he had his easy time at the elitist Harvard school. I had to earn all the money my husband made while he played basketball in poor neighborhoods supposedly organizing them. Is that even real work? What an elitist!

But even worse is his pretending that he is black. He is half at best, and besides Bill is the first black President and I am his better half, so I am more black than Obama is.

So now, before everything is lost I need you to fight for me as much as I did for you. Come on, visit my web site, donate as much as you can, and help me out of my debt. Remember, if you don't help me win, McCain will win, and you and I together will have to wait until 2012. I really don't want to tell you that I told you so.

Yours, only yours,
Hillary

Obama, McCain and What's Good for Israel

2008-05-19T11:38:00.006-04:00

In a Sunday, May 18th NY Times op-ed article that seem to be specifically written to Jewish Americans, Thomas Friedman wrote that "America today has — rightly — a bipartisan approach to Arab-Israeli peace that is not going to change no matter who becomes our next president." The article tries to counter an ongoing smear campaign against Obama that he secretly harbors anti-Israeli agenda.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories and secret agendas so I discard such claims quite easily. Top that with Friedman's convincing explanation on how American Presidents and American Jews first priority is and should be America, and the questions and doubts are easily put to rest. But there is an angle to the question of a President that is "good for Israel" that is not fully addressed by Thomas Friedman.

That question is "what is good for Israel". Since Israelis themselves have yet to come with a good political answer to that question, American Jews don't have a clear criteria to judge what is good for Israel, let alone who is good for Israel.

The Israeli Knesset is divided among what they call "right" and "left" parties with the leadership floating from one group to the other every few years. These right and left groups have diametrically opposed positions and freely accuse each other policies as "endangering" the country. When Israelis are unable to determine what is good for Israel, how could American Jews know what is good for Israel? The simple answer is that they don't. The few American Jews who follow Israeli politics closely follow suit and choose one of the diametrically opposed views. The silent majority of American Jews are satisfied with the general statement that politicians are eager to express - that they support Israel, whatever that means.

In truth, all candidates freely offer the general supportive statements because these are well within the interests of America. The survival of the Jewish state in a sea of hostile neighborhood is a staple of American policy regardless of party affiliation or specific President. Moreover, Presidents do not work in a vacuum - Congress is a major player in the support of Israel, again, whatever that may mean.

The vagueness of what is good for Israel is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. While I am not sure what is good for Israel, I do know that the spread of these theories is not good for American Jews. These conspiracy theories are of the very same type that historically turned against the Jews. Furthermore, they force candidates to overly repeat unnecessary statements in support of Israel and in doing so perpetuate a false perception that support of Israel is an interest of a small group rather than the general interest of the United States. That, can't possibly be good for Israel.

Hillary's Political Skill or Inability to Decide

2008-05-15T12:02:00.002-04:00

Hillary Clinton vouches to continue until the last primary. However, it is not beyond belief that she will continue well into the convention running an insurgent, disinterested or Obama-supporting campaign.With Hillary you just can't tell. But given the realities, especially after Edwards endorsed Obama, are Hillary's actions or lack thereof telling us something about her Presidency should she somehow be elected?

While most pundits speculate about her motives, the reality is that she discounts all the parameters that counts. The total delegate count, the Obama superdelegate advantage, Obama's insurmountable money advantage, Edward's endorsement, and the damage to the party -- all these do not seem to matter to her. Indecision, the pundits tell us, keep her options open.

But there is another possibility. It is that in face of uncomfortable realities Hillary is simply incapable of making the hard decision to concede. The politician who kept pounding us with her messages that she is ready from 3am on day one to make the hard decisions, seem paralyzed and unable to make the hard decision. She marches on as if facts do not matter. Has she become like a shark who cannot stop swimming lest is stop breathing? Or perhaps she is like Bush who marches on in Iraq with total disregard to realities. He hopes that history will vindicate him. Is she hoping the same?

Hillary started her campaign as the front runner. Then she ran a terrible campaign, some say it was political malpractice, that brought her to where she is now. Was she unaware of the Obama's success? She certainly was, yet it took her months before she shook up her campaign. When she finally got it working it was too little too late. What took her so long to change? Was it once again an inability to make the hard decisions on time?

If these two are any signs of what her Presidency would look like, then we may all be spared a Carter-like administration. But yet again, with Hillary you just can't tell.

Hillary three winding roads to the Presidency

2008-05-13T15:32:00.010-04:00

Hillary Clinton still has open opportunities to become President, but these require moving along roads that are narrow, winding, unsafe, and each one carries different probabilities of success. Her continued campaign moves her on a path designed to keep her options open. Two of the roads collide with Obama's plans, the third may be aligned with his. Wisely, she will not take a turn prematurely, lest it brings her to a dead end. Conceding to Obama right now, she fears, will do just that.

The first road to the White House is one with diminishing chances of success. It is her original Plan A modified to account for Obama's overwhelming lead in every metric - elected delegates, super delegates, total delegates, won states, and popular votes. The narrow road is based on the slim chance that her victories and convictions, some say delusions, may convince the superdelegates to hand her the nomination. While campaigning in West Virginia she reminded everyone that Kennedy came to the convention without a delegate majority, hint, hint. While Obama is considered the likely nominee, her West Virginia victory and expected upcoming victories may only increase her appetite and persuasion that she deserves the nomination. To ensure that she will not be branded as the election spoiler she now needs to pursue her goal without hurting Obama chances in November. Indeed it is a very narrow road but Hillary is a master in choosing words, altering her message, and playing the survival game. Still, chances are that she will have to rely on her other options.

The second road to the White House is longer, no less winding, but definitely more traitorous. It is the famous "Plan B" - to concede the nomination to Obama, give him tacit support, let him run and fail, and then run again in 2012 when the country will finally get tired of Republican administrations. Expect Hillary to use her prominent Senate seat to derail McCain's Presidency. This road is fraught with risks, and Hillary must carefully act behind the scenes in ways that would not reveal her disinterest in Obama's success or interest in derailing McCain. The Plan B road is so traitorous that while recognized by media pundits, no prominent observer adopted it as their working theory.

The last road to the White House is perhaps the longest, but it yields interesting opportunities. This Plan C is called the Dream Ticket by many Democrats who wish the two strong candidates who share similar plans will come together. From Obama's point of view, the dream ticket brings Hillary out of the Senate where she can derail his plans and into the Naval Observatory where he can better control her. For Hillary, the Vice Presidency brings the tempting opportunity to become President should anything happen to Obama, and a second opportunity to run in 2016. This succession hope may align her interests with his, and she may campaign on his behalf more vigorously than otherwise. In his last term Hillary's self interest would be to help Obama succeed so that the country would be willing to vote for another Democrat. While this road is not the shortest, if all other options fail it may turn out to be the safest.

Hillary, the ever calculating politician, wants to keep her options open. She continues campaigning and walking the path that can lead her to any of these roads. She may not yet know which road she will take, but she certainly knows which destination she wants.

All you need - 11 million Dollars and a dream

2008-05-12T11:15:00.017-04:00

There are many things I learned from Hillary Clinton. Reality was not one of them. I never believed in the "all you need is a Dollar and a dream" slogan. I had a dream, I had a buck, and I never won the lottery. But then, I was not in the game either. Was this a necessary ingredient? Nobody told me. Hillary certainly has a dream, she put about $11 million into her campaign, and it seems that she is in the game even though the drawing was completed. Since I gave up playing the lottery a while ago, I wanted to understand her endurance secret. Maybe I can get in the game as well and win something.

The chance to win a million was enough to have me spend an hour on the question of Hillary's endurance. At first I thought it was all simple math. If I, against all odds, spent a Dollar to win a million, maybe she is spending eleven million to win $11,000,000,000,000. I know oil prices are going up and I know Bill needs the money, but Chelsea seem quite modest so I don't think that explains it. Besides, she already has $100,000,000 (doesn't that look more impressive than $100 million?), so what would she do with the rest? Fund a campaign to be the UN secretary? Maybe it is not such a bad idea...

But then I realized that I need to deploy the tactics of the best crime detectives to figure out why she keeps campaigning. After all, to the Democratic party her staying is a crime. What I need to use is the process of elimination. I don't mean eliminating those states that Hillary thinks ought not to be counted, I mean those unreasonable reasons for her staying in the race. Surely one reason would survive the process of elimination and voila! I will know why Hillary continues and why I should spend a buck to buy a lottery ticket.

The first scenario to eliminate is, of course, that she is selfish, likes to be in the center of everything, shameless, elitist, hypocritical, and doesn't know how to quit. That assumption is simply outrageous and I as well as Saturday Night Live who dared to imply the same - we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

Now that I had my moment of shame I have to admit that the shame and the ensuing self reflection actually helped me clear my mind and consider the second scenario -- that Hillary wants to keep her options open should something terrible happen to Obama. I immediately went to Amazon and ordered the Democratic Party Rule Book, a ten volume masterpiece still awaiting the Nobel prize literature commission to acknowledge it, and studied it thoroughly. Sorry, but there is nothing there to say that if a nominee is suddenly unable to fulfill his duties the party should just give up and let the Republicans or delusional independents win instead. On the contrary, the delegates can change their votes and pick someone else. So Hillary can wait in the corner even if she now concedes that Obama won. This is good! The process of elimination works, there must be another reason. I like this crime detective game!

Perhaps Hillary wants to force Obama to change his plans and adopt his to hers. For example, health insurance mandate seems the be missing in his national healthcare plan. But as much as I want to believe in Hillary, that damn rule book also said that the party platform is decided later at the convention, and at that point delegates from all states and all nominees are free to push anything they like. Besides, platforms are nice on web pages but have little enforcement power on an elected President, let alone Congress. I'm afraid the search for reason for her staying without reason must continue.

Maybe she doesn't want Obama to win now. If Obama loses to McCain then she can run again in 2012. By them Obama will be a lost cause, she will be the "I told you so" candidate, McCain will wish he never won and certainly would not run again, and the country will likely vote for a change, for a change. The trouble with that hypothesis is that it brings me back to my shame -- to thinking that Hillary is selfish, self-centered, doesn't know how to quit, and uses the party and the entire political process for her own good. That thought is just shameful. I obviously need more self reflection. And a dream.

Hillary's Exit with Grace Ruse

2008-05-10T09:18:00.002-04:00

The writing is on the wall, the money is gone, superdelegate advantage vanished, and Hillary is marching on. "Let her win and exit with grace" some say. Is this a good advice or just more crack for the addicted?

True, many experts look at the facts and suggest that Hillary will finally come to grips with the reality and find a graceful exit right after West Virginia. But this is a dangerous advice. Hillary is poised to do well in West Virginia, and a win, no mater how small, would only bolster her position that the tide is shifting her way. Look at what happened in Indiana. She claimed victory and gave a victory speech stating that she is going all the way to the White House. Is there any reason to believe that after winning West Virginia she would behave any different? By reason, of course, I mean a reason that Hillary would accept, something that was not there after Indiana.

A West Virginia win would be like a small shot of liqueur to an alcoholic who has not reached the first step of admitting that there is a problem. What Hillary needs is a closed door. Either a significant move of superdelegates to Obama's side or a West Virginia defeat would do the trick.

The first of these is happening at snail's pace, too slow to have the desired effect on Hillary. To some extent it is indirectly Obama's doing. Some superdelegates know that the Clintons still yield political power and take revenge on those they consider as "betraying them". Because Hillary's future role is not completely settled those revenge-fearing superdelegates prefer to pledge only after Hillary concedes. So indirectly, Obama's giving Hillary unlimited time to consider her options is contributing to the slow pace of superdelegate endorsements. There is only one way to deal with the Clintons - signaling that unless she concedes within a short period of time, he will shut the door for supporting her in any future role. She claimed to be ready to make tough decisions from 3 am on day one, let's see how she decides in seven days.

Super delegates - the time to pick sides is now.

2008-05-09T07:23:00.001-04:00

The vast majority of the super delegates are elected officials. While most of the uncommitted prefer to present a measured "what is good for the party" approach they are no less concerned about their own electability in the upcoming elections. However, after North Carolina and Indiana, continuing to stay on the fence is abdicating their responsibility to the party. They should choose whichever side the prefer and end the Obama-Clinton destruction before the damage to the party it is too large to repair.

The number one priority of super delegates is to ensure that the next President is a Democrat. Prolonging the fight is no longer beneficial, especially when the writing is so clear on the wall. The longer Hillary and Obama fight, the better McCain odds are. If undecided superdelgates will make their minds less delegates will remain in the play and chances are that a choice will finally emerge. In the unlikely event that a disaster strikes that choice, superdelegates are free to change their minds. Right now, whoever is the choice should be focusing on solidifying the party, convincing those who promise to vote McCain if their candidate is not chosen, select a vice President and fund raising for the upcoming campaign in November.

The claim, coming mostly from Clinton supporters, that voters in all states should have the chance to speak is a red state herring. The reality is that primaries can continue even if a candidate concedes. The symbolic act of voting can take its place. After all, that is likely to be the Florida and Michigan compromise - some form of delegate sharing across the Obama Clinton lines. Obama can be generous in the allocation process because he can afford to. He has a clear path to victory, she has not. He has leftover funds to compete with McCain, she can't even cover her loans to her own primary campaign. He has weathered the worse month in his campaign while all she managed to do is increase her negatives and erase her Pennsylvania lead and them some.

Super delegates - the time to pick sides is now.

Hillary's Insurmountable Challenge

2008-05-08T12:57:00.005-04:00

Much has been said of Hillary's insurmountable challenge to gain the nomination of the Democratic party. Fuzzy math, unlikely odds, and other titles were given to her tough predicament. Her dire situation is so bad that many have already declared her campaign dead in its tracks, and others seek some deeper understanding for the reasons she goes on.

There are several number games in play. First and foremost is the delegates counts. There are still 261 uncommitted superdelegates and 131 delegates in the remaining primaries so the total grab pot is 392 delegates (assuming that from now on no major defection will occur).

Of these 392 delegates Hillary needs 329, or a staggering 84%. Obama needs less than half of these. He can split the remaining pot of state and super delegates and have a clear path to the nomination. The statement that super delegates will decide is only true if they wait to the end, and in any event if they split among the candidates Obama still wins.

The second numbers game is the money game. Spending money competing among themselves reduces the remainder pot Obama has for the general elections. Hillary, on the other hand, is in a huge deficit and hopes to repay herself the more than $11 million she loaned her campaign. Some suspect that as soon as Obama agrees to take on her campaign debt she will concede. That would only work out if there is a way for her to save face and not be seen as bought out.

Last but not least in the numbers game is the continued drive to register new voters as Democrats. Obama and to a lesser degree Hillary have been recruiting supporters in a three-to-one ratio over the Republicans. There is hope that these new voters will become a major factor in the general election. Should the primaries effectively end now, many ask, would the presumptive nominee continue with their recruitment effort with the same vigor?

Hillary's Weird Math

2008-05-08T07:57:00.003-04:00

Delegates math - a picture is worth a one thousand six hundred and eighty six and a half words.

Yet she continues

2008-05-07T09:57:00.002-04:00

Hillary's thin win in Indiana and major loss in North Carolina should have clinched the nomination for Obama. Mathematically it may have, but Hillary won't concede. Is it, as some say, part of her Plan-B, is it a personality flaw, or is it the money?

These are three distinct theories. They all rise from the difficult math Clinton faces - Obama erased whatever popular vote advantage Hillary had in Pennsylvania and increased his delegate lead. With smaller number of delegates in play she faces what seem to be an insurmountable mathematical obstacle. Why is she going on?

The first theory is the Plan-b theory. It essentially states that Hillary Clinton knew a while ago that she stands little chance of winning in 2008, but if she continued to pound Obama and give a subtle nod to McCain's experience strength, then Obama will lose to McCain and then she will have another shot in 2012. It is a delicate and subtle game which she can play as long as she can deny it. At some point she will come across and support Obama, but it will be too late and too noncommittal. No proof of that theory exists and one can only assess its validity by observing her actions. Unfortunately for those who seek firm evidence for Plan-B, Hillary's mastery of the double talk, her ability to reinterpret what she said, can both support and detract from this theory.

The second theory is that while on opposite sides of the isle, Hillary shares many characteristics with GW Bush, most importantly is the inability to admit defeat. Facing ever tougher realities she would not accept them and keep moving the target poll forward. What she does is what Bush does in Iraq. She is now in another "surge" and keep hoping that minute successes like Indiana are a sign that things will turn around. Exactly like Bush she won't accept defeat. She thinks that every battle is the Alamo and the continued fighting deserves applaud. Like Bush she will fight with total disregard to the effects on her party. One does not need to dig deep to discover that Republicans face an uphill battle in the upcoming elections and that Bush is the reason for that. Hillary's continued fight may well be the equalizer Republicans need - something that would equally take the Democrats down.

And then there is the third theory promoted by Tim Russert on MSNBC. The theory states that Hillary has lent her presidential campaign $6.4 million over the past month and that she wants her money back. She is presumably fighting until Obama will offer to take on her campaign debt, which while covering other obligations will also pay her back her own money. Unlike the other theories, this one could be discovered by simple evidence that will emerge pretty soon - when updated election funding reports will come in.

Ultimately no outside expert can tell what is in Hillary's mind. The best we can do is to offer an opinion on the effects of her actions. Right now, most think that she is not helping the Democratic party.

Big Day for McCain

2008-05-06T10:52:00.003-04:00

Tuesday May 6th, another big Tuesday for the Democrats is turning out to be an even bigger day for McCain. To the dismay of many Democrats, Tuesday results are not resolving which candidate will win the Democratic nomination. Rather, they will perpetuate the party infighting and convince many that neither candidate can "close the deal". This closing issue is not just a super delegate issue.

Not being able to close the deal to the extent that only one candidate stays in the race is also a bad omen for the voters. Many voters may wonder whether a candidate who cannot conclude a primary will be able to bring to successful conclusion other issues in Washington. As repulsive it may sound to Obama supporters, it opens an opportunity to McCain to position himself as a "yes, I can" candidate.

The capitulation ritual that so many loosing candidates reluctantly perform on so many election evenings -- that consession speech admitting a loss -- has a real function in politics. It allows the victor to move ahead, turn a page, and address the real challenges of the future. Hillary's inability to swallow the bitter pill does not allow the Democrats to move forward. The Democratic party is concerned to the extent that the DNC found it necessary to launch a national TV ad campaign against McCain. The DNC realizes how much McCain is gaining in popularity and are concerned that the Clinton Obama fight is pushing many independents into the McCain camp.

Early polls indicate a Clinton victory in Indiana and a smaller than expected Obama win in North Carolina. Both campaigns forecast that they will continue well into June. Without spending a single penny, the lack of closure on this Tuesday may be McCain's biggest win.

Repulsed into voting Republican

2008-05-03T13:02:00.000-04:00

Hillary's continued attacks on Obama may increase her chances to derail Obama in 2008 as well as increase her rerun chances in 2012. The fear of the Democratic party super delegates that many independent voters would be disgusted with the Democratic party is not her fear. A McCain win in 2008 will still leave open her chances in 2012 (McCain is unlikely to run again) but an Obama win will shut the door to her political aspirations for many years to come. As Charles Blow wrote in his op-ed page on May 3rd, many voters may be "repulsed into voting Republican".

As it is and despite Bush failing presidency, national polls show that McCain is doing quite well against Obama and Clinton. Other more granular polls that track each state separately and allocate electors accordingly, show that McCain has a fair chance of winning in November. True, polls can change and Democrats have only now begun to attack McCain, but no one doubts that to win in November either party needs the independent voters. The Democratic party leaders (perhaps with the exception of Clinton-see Hillary's Plan B) hope to capture the middle. Their best hope was and still is Obama who registered more independents than anyone else in recorded history. These voters are the ones more likely to be repulsed by Hillary's tactics whether she gets nominated or not. By the time she is done with her repositioning Obama as unworthy for the presidency many of these independents may find McCain's maverick tell-it-as-it-is image (justifiable or not) more appealing. If her Plan-B works, what may be bad for the Democratic party may not be that bad for Hillary.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for Jeremiah Wright

2008-04-30T15:19:00.009-04:00

Jeremiah Wright may look like a God sent gift to Hillary Clinton. His outbursts enrage many Democratic voters who may have considered Obama. Now Hillary tries to grab these voters, hinting right and left that she has always been patriotic, always stood for the weak, the middle class, and whoever feels the pain of the economy. In fact, any pain. But perhaps counter intuitively, the reality is that a vote for Clinton is a vote for Wright. How come?

As David Brooks wrote in the New York Times on April 29 on "Demography is King", the real voters demographic divide is between the more educated and the less educated, those who make more and those who make less. Poll after poll, survey after survey, show that Hillary appeals to those who are less educated, and Obama does well among the more educated. It is the education factor that also accounts for the age divide - as we go down in age groups we find that education level increases. But as Hillary politically senses, her constituents is also more likely to hold old concepts about race in America and to be more fearful of the liberation rhetoric that Wright expresses.

Except that America has changed. Those old voters ideas are not reflecting reality or the future more than Wright's outdated ideas are. Both Hillary and Wright use the old Roman tactic of divide and conquer. In a sense, they are both dependent on the divisions and hatred rhetoric - one on the white side, the other on the black side. They both prey on the fears and injustices of the past, not the promise of tomorrow.

Reverend Wright is slowly loosing his liberation theology crowd because the reality of the new generation is less race segregated and more economic segregated. It is true that African Americans are disproportionately poorer, but that reality masks the fact that the root of the problem is poverty and education rather than race. That Obama is running a successful campaign for the Presidency should have been a hint to Wright that America has changed, but Wright may be too old in his ways to realize that change. Paradoxically, Wright and his Liberation Theology may actually be standing in the way of African Americans wanting an integrated race-blind society for his ideology perpetuates rather than reconciles the race divide.

Skin shades and church affiliation aside, Obama and Wright could not be further apart. This is a case where generational gaps mean more than their own education achievements because that gap represents the historical changes that happened in America and are still happening all over the country. The reality that education and economic status trump race, a reality that the younger and more educated people are, the less they carry past bigotries, a reality that allows a proud African American run for the Presidency and have a good shot at it (perhaps a better one had Wright not undermined him so much).

Obama is the candidate that symbolizes change not only for whites, but for African Americans as well. He represents pride in his heritage, but also focuses on individual achievement. He represents the believe that what unite us can bring about progress. He is the opposite of the divisiveness of Hillary and Wright. A vote for Clinton is a vote for perpetuating the divisions, for maintaining the gaps, for taking advantage of the chasm, for living in the past and doing lip service for the future. Jeremiah Wright outbursts are similarly rooted in the past, evoking and exploiting grievances and do little to reconcile and build a better future. A vote for Obama is a vote for the future. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Jeremiah Wright.

Bill Clinton vs. Reverend Wright

2008-04-28T14:33:00.012-04:00

I am deeply disappointed by Obama and Clinton. They used to entertain me. Arguments were new, statements seem fresh, and the race seemed real. But now everything seems to be repeated, recycled, and getting boring very fast. I am really concerned that a celebrity sex scandal or some good gruesome murder will quickly focus the media attention elsewhere and the greatest political show on Earth will soon be over. But do not despair, for I have a great new idea to keep the media frenzy going on.

What we need is a new debate. I like Hillary's challenge to Obama to debate "Mano a Mano" - no moderators. I am not sure Hillary qualifies as Mano, but that may finally explain Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, the idea of a no-rules, no-moderators debate may have some merits. Except that by now I want more entertaining characters than Hillary or Obama.

What I want are two out-of-control characters that would fight it out. Fortunately we do have such characters. Bill Clinton loses no opportunity to undermine Hillary's stand within the African American community, and Reverend Wright loses no opportunity to undermine Obama with white American voters. They may have agenda, but these must be well kept secrets for the pundits cannot figure them out. Perhaps Bill and Jeremiah don't know it either. I just pray that whatever drives them does not stop for I have great plans for them. The greatest pulpit in the world, the greatest media extravaganza ever -- an all networks debate about all the things that mattered twenty years ago and would matter little after November.

I don't think they will resist the offer. They have been doing just that in a disorganized manner with sporadic following. Unfortunately much of the time they desired to be on TV was stolen from them by Obama and Hillary. I suggest to put a stop to all that. They could take 100% of the media coverage. Even OJ Simpson would not distract the media away from them.

Don't think of it as a one-time debate. We could easily come up with a long list of subjects for them to debate. I don't think it matters much what the list is because they wouldn't be confined by any list or rules anyway. That's part of the excitement. Let them slug it on. The more insults, the better.

I even have a contingency plan if they insist on a moderator. Jerry Springer would be perfect. He could elicit the worst in both, and that should not be too difficult.

If this does not work out, I think I am going to tune out of this primaries very quickly. I may even decide not to vote in November. They said that the voting machines had been fixed, so voting became boring too.

Clinton-Obama: Closed Races Analysis

2008-04-26T17:32:00.004-04:00

Hillary's win in the closed races of Pennsylvania and Ohio underscores her strength among traditional democrats. Unfortunately for Hillary, that is not how Democrats will win in November -- super delegates main concern.

An important point may have been lost with all the discussion about the meaning of the Pennsylvania primaries results. The Pennsylvania Democratic primaries, like the Ohio primaries were closed primaries, namely they were only open for registered Democrats. While they may show an Obama weakness among registered white Democrats, they also underscore his advantage among independents. For all the spinning and the media interest in maintaining the excitement of the race, the reality of Presidential races are that they are decided by the independents. This is where Hillary has a weakness and Obama has a strength. This is a reality stronger than older white voters deciding to stay home if Obama become the nominee or black voters not voting in the unlikely event that Hillary is the nominee.

Hillary's problem is that super delegates look at November, not the primary convention. What is good for the party, in their eyes, may not be good for Hillary. Being the political animals that they are, they prefer her to leave on her own rather than publicly pushing her out. Don't be surprised if more behind the scenes pressure is put on Hillary to withdraw.

The biggest argument in trying to convince Hillary to quit - with all the 25% advantage of going in to Pennsylvania, with all the Reverend Wright problems, with all the bitter small town made up scandal issues, Hillary succeeded getting just ten to twelve more delegates in Pennsylvania than Obama did and now her future challenges are more mathematically unlikely than before. "You are better off leaving after a win than leaving after a humiliating loss" might be the advice she gets. Would she listen?

Hillary Clinton's Plan B

2008-04-23T09:12:00.013-04:00

Ever wondered why Hillary is going after Obama in such vicious ways even if it helps McCain? While all pundits talk about her Plan A (the hope that something happen and Obama quits or the super delegates take the victory from him), Hillary is actually working on Plan B.

Just before Pennsylvania, commentators and political operatives on all sides were debating Hillary's tenacity in the face of delegate counts. Was she unaware of the close to insurmountable math facing her? Have the ever calculating politician and her seasoned ex-President lost any sense of reality? Is it likely that she could overcome the delegate deficit at this late point in the game?

With Pennsylvania not changing the basics by any appreciable measure, one has to wonder what is Hillary's plan and why has it not made public. Surely, if she had a publicly announced plan, she could get more super delegates on her side. The simple answer is that she may have not disclosed it to anyone but her husband - it is too sinister to be publicly announced. That is Plan B.

Plan A is simple - Something bad may happen to Obama on the way to the nomination and then she would become the default candidate. Obama may stumble and say something unforgivable, something worse than Reverend Wright may come up, or the voters may go crazy and from now on vote 90% in her favor. Plan A has small likelihood of success, it is the audacity of hope, and it make sense only because Hillary is working on Plan B.

Plan B is to take down Obama so much that McCain will win. Hillary must be calculating that if Obama wins, he may well have eight years of Presidency, and then the electorate may decide to swing back to the Republican side. Too late for the impatient Hillary. However, if McCain wins, given his age it is very unlikely that he will run again in four years. After an Obama loss, Obama would be finished, and she can still take another swing. So Plan B is for Hillary to run in 2012, and for that to happen, Obama must lose to McCain.

Plan B explains why Hillary attacks Obama in ways that would cripple Obama as a Presidential candidate and help McCain's credibility. In the beginning of her campaign and during the first debates she attacked Obama's programs. His health care was not universal, his plans are incomplete, she claimed. Now she focuses on his qualifications. He is not ready. He is not qualified. He could not be trusted at 3am. He should not be your President. She went so far as to say that McCain is more ready than Obama is, and have been using the same scare tactics that the Republicans use. When you look at it from Plan B point of view, it all makes sense.

Hillary may be McCain's best friend, and McCain may be Hillary's best friend. Politics make strange bedfellows.

President Hillary Clinton Inaugural Speech

2008-04-19T12:24:00.008-04:00

Ever wondered what would Hillary's inaugural Speech would look like? Reliable source from a parallel universe fast forwarded this to us and asked that you do not go supernova while reading it.

President Hillary R. Clinton Inaugural Address
January 20, 2009

President Bush, some members of the Supreme Court, distinguished guests and my fellow real American villagers. Today we celebrate the peaceful transfer of authority which is so rare in history, yet common in our country. The greatest authority on Earth passed with a simple oath. I just want to mention that I always get to speak first.

As I begin, I want to thank Senator Obama. Would you like another pillow? We will remain the closest of friends, right? No? You should be ashamed of yourself!

And I thank President Bush for offering himself and his staff members to stay around and help in the first few days. Did you listen to anything I said? I'm ready from day one! Yes I am! You and Bill can go back to Texas and Arkansas. Please do. I want to toast your departure with a glass of beer. Cheers!

I am also honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow, I hope.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. A place in history. Some of us a larger place than others. I can only hope. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. To conquer but not to stay. To stay but not for long. For long but not too long. History will tell.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals and mostly by people who know better. Believe me, I know better and I know fallible and flawed people.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. That we are all in a village, and it takes.

Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course. And if necessary, we can always enact more laws. Trust me, I know how it works.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. They lost hope, they become bitter. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country. For those who cling to religion, I say do not despair. To those who like guns, do not lose hope, but most important, aim elsewhere. To everyone else - please do not despair - I am here to tell all that now that I am President I believe in hope.

We do not accept this injustices, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. We still have to work hard on providing the basic right of health to our citizens. So many amongst us who do not have health care. I will fight to change that because I believe in the future, but mostly I believe in the fight. Any fight.

How am I going to do all that? Though the sky will not open I still have a hope. Though angels will not come down singing I still believe. I will fight Congress and together we will embark on a new path. The angels will not sing, but members of Congress will. I am confident in principles that unite and lead us onward. Principles and fights bring people together.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives and before they become elected officials. We will immobilize all adults in this country so that no child will be left behind. We will emphasize mathematics so that our young generation, when they grow up, will be able to calculate and appreciate the deficit legacy we will leave behind.

We will reform Social Security and Medicare, and schools and the economy and the military and the emergency services and foreign policy and the infrastructure and be ready to face struggles we are powerless to prevent. These are not impossible goals. All it takes is hard work and a fight. Though we have done little in the past, we will continue to promise in the grand traditions of ours. After all, having elected a woman President is enough of a change.

America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. We will keep talking about these important moral issues. How can we be quiet?

Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. Let's not disturb the government with such great responsibilities. After all, it does take a village.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do and we can feel their pain and shed a tear.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with passion, to pursue the public interest with process, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live well, as well.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

The Democrats Dilemma

2008-04-17T17:06:00.003-04:00

Democrats face a choice between two imperfect candidates. Despite primary campaign hype, neither candidates will be able to accomplish most of their promises.

During Presidential election primaries Democratic Presidential surrogates tell voters that this time around the voters have wonderful choices. Choice is the pinnacle of Democracy, so how could choice be bad? Besides, look at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - a woman and an African American - inherently representing a change. This change, many claim, is a sign that things will change in Washington as well. Surely the primary voters should be happy about that. Aside from heated competition that sometimes goes overboard and is doing McCain's job for him, everything is good under the sun and tomorrow promises to be even brighter.

Not so fast. Are these claims honest? Are the gender or race of the candidate enough of a change or merely a facade? If we are at a time where race does not matter, if at this juncture of the American history gender does not count, shouldn't we look at the candidates themselves to see what they truly stand for regardless of race and gender? Isn't the claim that a change is inherent in the choices Democrats have a rhetoric of the old style politics, the type that actually does not represent a change at all?

Given that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama plans are very similar Democrats have tough time discerning the real difference between the two. Attempts by either camp to find fault with their opponents plans seems like a dishonest splitting hair exercise. What is left for debate is the candidates character and experience, who is better suited to make the changes necessary to bring about the almost identical programs they tout.

Alas, character judgment is a fuzzy thing, inaccurate at best, subject to both inspirational speeches and negative attacks, to the influence of group identity (blacks, women, religion, etc.), a judgment that failed us before and may well betray us again.

The reality is that neither candidates are perfect, and neither honestly disclose the obstacles they will face in making any of the changes they promise.

Hillary is tied to the hip to the old ways of raising campaign money, and she had been so ever since she ran for office in New York. She is surrounded by advisers and politicians that have been similarly tied to big money, and so has her husband. Had he not been a past President, she would have had a much larger problems because of his connections. Thus, while she proclaims to cling to traditional Democratic issues, she is unlikely to move them forward in an effective ways. Whatever she will propose will be chipped away by different lobbying groups, loopholes will be safely attached to legislation, exceptions and exclusions that work for the special interests.

Barack Obama is not telling the whole story either. Yes, it is true that he built an independent Internet-based money raising machine that frees him from special interests. Yes, it is true that he will be free to pursue all the very same programs that Hillary will. Yes, it is true that he intends to give it an honest shot. But no, that does not mean that he will succeed any more than Hillary will. The Washington reality is that Congress is the place where legislature is made, and it is there where the lobbyists make their biggest mark. They fund Congressional district and senatorial campaigns and later influence legislature by fostering outright opposition to what they object. When they sense that a law will be passed they ensure that it has sufficient loopholes that protect their interests. Obama, with all his independence will not be able to free Congress, and therefore will not achieve much more than Hillary.

So Democrats have a dilemma that may not matter that much. Vote for a traditional candidate that will achieve modest results but disappoint few, or vote for an inspirational candidate that will achieve a little more, but will disappoint many more who believe in change. Whichever imperfect candidate will emerge, McCain will waiting in the corner, ready to fight. Paradoxically, if he wins, Obama's supporters will not be disillusioned, and Obama may have another shot at the Presidency in the future.

Hillary, Bitter, Party Splitter

2008-04-15T11:26:00.005-04:00

When politicians run for office on the basis of honesty they expect to be hit by opponents and media discovering something inconsistent in their past. Something they said or wrote a while ago. In the political game it matters little if these things were expressed when circumstances were different. "Gotcha" is all that matters in the eyes of the media and hypocrite opponents. To the extend that voters fall prey to these tactics, they deserve what they get.

But the biggest danger, pundits will tell you, is being honest in the face of political correctness. Political correctness is by definition a lie, a facade, an inconvenient truth that might offend somebody. When an honest politician, or one with his guard down, removes the veil and tells the inconvenient truth, the real party begins. It is then when the media have their greatest moment, covering both the offending politician, the hypocrite opponents who think the same but are careful not so say it, and adding on top troops of pundits who love to share their wisdom for a moment of fame.

Last week Obama reflected on small town Pennsylvanians, victims of decades of economic pressures, as bitter and clinging to religion. That they have every right to be bitter nobody doubts. That they have suffered economic decline over many presidencies - Democrats and Republicans alike, nobody can deny. That they have their traditions, especially religion, to cling on, nobody criticizes. But in the manipulative description of the Clinton campaign and the scandal-attracted media, this is a great offense on "real Americans", on religion, and on everything you might hold deer to heart. It is suggested that voters should find a candidate who better understands what real Americans want, what they are, and where they come from. Suddenly Hillary jumps in to tell everyone that she learned how to shoot when she was young, how she likes beer and whiskey, and how she is "one of them". No more mention of her NRA voting record, of the Clintons one hundred million Dollar tax return, of them sending their daughter to private school, where they live, or anything else that puts them square in the middle of the elite.

The reality that obscures the pains of small town Pennsylvanians reflects one which repeats all over the United States. That is a reality in which both Republican and Democrat administrations, once elected to office, had not paid attention to real Americans. Rather, in their Washington realm, they cater to the lobbyists and large campaign contributors who care little for the middle class or rural America. This is exactly the Washington game Obama tries to break, and he is the only hope those "offended" Pennsylvanians have. He has correctly read the Washington political map, as he has correctly understood what happens in Pennsylvania. The real question is whether Pennsylvanians themselves understand their own predicament if they continue to chose politicians who appear once every four years, drink beer in a bar in front of TV cameras, talk about their love for guns and God, and criticize their opponents as elitists.

Media frenzy aside, one could not tell whether Hillary's expected victory in Pennsylvania would have been smaller without this debacle. One thing is assured - that Hillary will clearly paint her victory as a sign that Obama is out of touch and his candidacy is over. But when the dust settles, the numbers will still point to what they were pointing before Pennsylvania. Then, Hillary, more bitter than before, will have to decide whether she will emerge as the party splitter.

Are Obama and McCain so similar? (re: Is Hillary the next Bush?)

2008-04-13T10:23:00.016-04:00

We could not expect Obama and McCain to be further apart. The generational gap, the backgrounds, the political beliefs, all suggest two very different personalities.

Why I wrote this article?

A while ago I posted an article titled "Is Hillary Clinton the Next Bush" which became popular in DIGG. In that article I claimed that despite policy differences Hillary and GW Bush share many personality characteristics that are bound to make her presidency, should she be elected, as successful as Bush's. That article left the other two candidates, McCain and Obama to an open question - who can they be compared to? While I was contemplating the question, a colleague posted another article (Political Vision and Ability to Execute) revealing similarities between Obama and McCain in their ability to compromise. It is then when decided to create a follow up that attempts to reveal all the similarities between McCain and Obama.

One is an aging politician the other is up and coming. One takes his repeated but last shot at the presidency, the other takes his first and perhaps not last shot at it. One is a third generation traditional military background veteran, the other is from broken a family. One is an outstanding speaker, the other is the opposite. One is a long time Republican, the other a Democrat. One is as white as one gets, the other is a mixed white African American. One became an American hero after his capture and imprisonment in North Vietnam on 1967, the other was only six years old at the time. At the time McCain was in captivity and demonstrated an unyielding believe in American patriotism, Obama was not even sure he was American -- his teacher at the time told the Chicago Tribune about an assay in which he expressed the desire to be president but she was not sure what country he wanted to become president of. World apart both in age and upbringing, and yet they have more in common than one might expect.

Though through very different circumstances, McCain and Obama grew up with diverse world exposure. McCain, following his father to naval postings around the world attended close to 20 schools. Obama, following his mother and then his grandmother also attended many schools in different countries. These are not insignificant numbers and venues - such exposures have formative impact on a child. In fact, one may speculate that these are the root causes for the compromising stands that both politicians are known to take.

McCain is a war hero who demonstrated long term survivor skills. His refusal to cooperate with the North Vietnamese gained him years of torture including two years in solitary confinement. Obama experienced nothing like that, but as a child he had to endure repeated family breakups and change in environments that for a child can be quite traumatic. While the hardships are quite different, Obama may have developed his own survivor skills and the knowledge that with patience and endurance things can turn for the better.

But these are merely the backstage to the similarities that would show up later in their political lives.

Obama's national exposure started in 2004 when he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Very few remember that McCain, while previously famous for his war-hero status, became a national political figure following a well-received speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention.

Both candidates appeal to the young and built significant student following. Both have made the negative influence of lobbying a centerpiece of their political agenda, and both expressed dismay at big government and big business getting in bed together.

McCain is known as a Maverick who often take independent positions that allow him to work with Democrats to bring forward legislature that would otherwise not happen. Obama often speak of the same - the ability to compromise and reach to the other side to break the stalemate and get things done. They are both realists, see the need to compromise, understand the difference between the desired and doable, and are willing to work towards the achievable. Both have shown, for better and worse, their true character. They seem to follow less the advice of their political handlers or to select those who let their personalities express themselves. This had led to some mistakes, but had also created a public sense that these two are more genuine than the alternative.

While voters in general, and those in the middle in particular, rarely can explain what truly move them to vote one way or another, the similarities may explain why both candidates appeal to the independent and undecided. But these similarities may also mean that as Presidents either would be more effective than Clinton, for their ability to compromise and reach across the isle may finally break the stalemate in Congress. It may be good news for independent voters, but not such good news for staunch Republicans or hardcore Democrats.

Author's Note: This article is preceded by a similar analysis done on Hillary Clinton and GB Bush in which I show how surprisingly similar they are. See Is Hillary the next Bush on this blog.

Energy Crisis-We Need Government Regulation

2008-04-11T14:06:00.002-04:00

After the eight years of disregard to the energy crisis by the Bush administration the country seem ready for a change. But Bush and the neocons may leave us with a legacy that won't be easy to change. No, it is not just the Iraq war, no, it is not the huge deficits, no it is not the trade imbalances. It is something more profound and often overlooked. It is the mindset that anything the government does is bad and that the less regulated we are, the better.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of energy policy. We have long been accustomed to government regulated agencies like the FCC. Recently the FCC auctioned some airwaves frequencies to the highest bidders, a transaction that brought in billions to the empty government coffers. The rationale for having the FCC? Frequencies are a limited resource that need careful control over their use. There is also a recognition that standards set for a limited resource can and will fuel the economy. Just imagine what would happen if each wireless company would use frequencies they just grab without permission and embellish that thought with the notion that different standards would not allow cell phone users using a specific phone on one network to call users on other phones or networks. Clearly it is beneficial, one might say essential, to regulate the airwaves and their use. When industry standards do not emerge, the consumers through the government can intervene to regulate.

But the same could be said of energy. It is a limited national resource, and standards to facilitate its use are clearly needed. Could you imagine gasoline formulated differently in different states to the extent that you could not use your New York purchased car in Connecticut?

Hybrid cars are the start of a market move towards electricity-based transportation. But while the technology saves on fuel use, the savings are limited. Significant savings require electric cars, and for the conversion to this new technology we need the government to set standards on size, shape and other characteristics of interchangeable car batteries. The government would also have to regulate new cars to ensure that they meet the new standards. And finally, we also need regulation that would provide for battery-exchange stations so that going to a station to change a battery would take no more time than it takes to refuel a car.

Why would charging batteries in refueling stations be better than individual recharging at home? The simple answer is that the energy resources required to recharge the batteries could be very different than the one we use at home. Battery exchange stations can use other energy sources (i.e. solar, wind, water) and can have economy of scale not realistic in a private home. Eventually, when we have more efficient energy sources these could be directed towards the exchange stations - a much cheaper and targeted approach than dealing with every single home in the country.

The reality is that the transition is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Hybrids designed to use the same standard batteries as the envisioned electric cars will create a market whereby slowly, as gas prices go up, more and more drivers would opt for battery exchange instead of filling the tank. Consumers would react to supply and demand prices by deciding how to refill in their automobile energy source - gasoline or recharged batteries.

This is not that hard, can be done today, but requires a government that is willing to seriously take upon that task. Unfortunately, the fear instilled by the neocons against government activity in general and regulation in particular requires a candidate who will dare to swim against the stream.

It is not hard to tell which one of the current three potential presidential candidates is free of obligations to industry lobbies or has the character to take a hard stand on this issue. It is much harder to tell whether this candidate will win and whether something will actually be done about it.

Waiting for Godot for the Endgame in Iraq

2008-04-09T13:06:00.002-04:00

If you are familiar with Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot and Endgame plays you may notice this post reappropriation of the plays' lines and situations to Bush administration's current policies in Iraq.

For a long time President Bush seemed to be blind to realities on the ground in Iraq. Lately he may have traded short term failure for future vindication - "History will judge me differently". Perhaps there is a sense that while he is the master of the Iraq policies, he is really enslaved to the circumstanced he created. He won't admit mistakes and the events of yesterday control his actions of the day. When he went in against world opinion the outside world was of little concern, and so it is now when he alone remains grounded or perhaps buried in his stance. The Iraqi government, seemingly independent, dreads the day we leave. They are dependent on us, but with the current policies it seems that we are no less dependent on them. In political realities it is not clear who is the master, or if there really is a master of the events. The Democrats, background players who have been voicing opposition to the war, never failed to support its funding. Even Republicans are unsure whether this leads them to victory or drags them down to defeat. Either way, most of them cannot bring themselves to craft an endgame policy. It is as if they know it is time it ended and yet they hesitate to end it.

The administration interpretation of events in Iraq are both comic and tragic. When violence reemerges, it is sign that insurgency is on its last legs. When, Iraqi forces finally engaged armed militias, albeit unsuccessful, it is a sign that the Iraqi forces are finally active. If they are crying they are living, if they are losing they are active.

The public is getting restless, the election season is upon us, and questions about Iraq are on everybody's mind. For the administration these are the old questions and they give us the old answers. There's nothing like them.

Listen to McCain and there is real fear that the next President is going to find himself struggling to remove this boot, but there is nothing that can be done about it. Maybe in a hundred years we will be able to remove it, but then when we look inside it we may find that it was empty. Perhaps it was empty all along. Maybe our hats are empty too, maybe even when we wear them. Did the President think it through? Do we have an endgame? Are we waiting for some event to arrive and signal the end of the war? Will we recognize it when we see it? Is McCain listening to anyone telling him there is nothing to wait for and that we are in the wrong place? Perhaps, like President Bush, he will decide to do nothing, for on the surface, it seems safer.

General Petraeus appears every six months before Congress to report on the situation. His standard report tells us that though there is progress, conditions are not yet sufficient to leave, but good things will surely happen. No, Godot will not arrive today, no he had not arrived yesterday, but the general will be happy to report at the end of the next act.

With unrealistic goals, blindness to reality and ongoing commitment to past proclamations, there is no endgame in Iraq. We indeed may have to stay there a hundred years. Nothing is funnier than unhappiness, nothing is more winning than continuing, for leaving is admitting a mistake, and that takes guts.

Learned Behavior and Natural Instincts

2008-04-08T08:27:00.004-04:00

So many pundits claim that there is little difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that I am inclined to think that they must be wrong. The more they stick to the claim, the more I am convinced that they are wrong. Not only because they have been wrong before, but because the media, especially television, repeats this mantra.

Even if the two had identical platforms, which I must admit are pretty similar, I doubt the words mean the same when coming from Hillary or Barack. Obama is a relatively new politician whose meteoric rise to the legislature did not come through years of friction and campaigning that teaches so many politicians what to say and how to double talk. With Obama, more of what you see is genuine reflection of the person at hand. Time and again, when interviewed on TV, rather than rejecting accusations or fudging the truth, he manages to admit, accept, embrace, and turn political inconveniences into assets. He brings into the discussion subjects other politicians try to keep a very large distance from. When he discussed race, he brought up the resentment some whites feel against affirmative action and empathized with their feelings. When asked about not participating in Senate hearings, he admitted it plain and simple. When debating Hillary on national TV and told by Hillary that renouncing Farrakhan is not the same as denouncing it, rather than fighting her he embraced that by saying that while he can't see the difference he is happy to both renounce and denounce. He does not claim perfection, sole authority on what is right or wrong, he only claims to be honest.

Hillary, exactly as she claims, has years of experience. She is a seasoned politician who learned what needs to be said to be elected, how to craft sentences that the eager listener can hear what they want to, how to find new meanings to words to the point that words do not mean anything - precisely as she proclaims in her campaign. She represents the professional politician who knows how to get elected. If she had only coupled that skill with management ability her campaign would be doing much better and she would have already been the Democratic candidate.

President Lincoln said, "It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time." Voters sense that Hillary's talk is a learned behavior and in an election season when they have a fresh alternative, they flock to it. This is a problem Hillary cannot solve. She can't change herself. She simply has too much experience.

Political Vision and Ability to Execute

2008-04-07T11:27:00.008-04:00

Hillary Clinton, more than anyone else in this campaign season, brings up experience as the critical reason she is fit for the highest post in the nation. She points to years of experience, a criteria John McCain is obviously happy to embrace. Barack Obama, the youngest of the three, is presumably more vulnerable in this area. Hillary went even further, dismissing Obama's oratory skills as mere words. Listen to her and you learn that words do not mean much, hard work does. Vision is not her forte - in fact she mocked Obama by talking about a vision of angels coming out of clouds dancing to Obama's tunes.

Hillary's contrasting vision with action is not just a campaign ploy. She indeed believes in rolling up her sleeves and getting involved with everything as opposed to delegating and trusting others. That is how she tried to push a national health care agenda when she was the First Lady. Unfortunately for Hillary, her second character trait, stubbornness, alienated everyone in Congress and she got nothing done. McCain and Obama are quite the opposite - they seem to share an understanding of what is doable and what is not. That they do not have a monopoly on what is right, and that compromises are necessary to move forward. In fact, while sitting on opposing sides of the political spectrum, Obama is more similar to McCain than he is to Hillary Clinton.

Great Presidents have a prudent balance between their vision and what is possible in the political reality. To be able to deliver on their vision they need to reach out to political opponents and forge alliances that end up with compromises. They are not purists who would rather have nothing than their absolutist positions. With the checks and balances etched into our constitution, the ability to execute a political vision is therefore tightly related to the ability to compromise.

With that in mind, it is interesting to chart where the three contenders stand. McCain is not strong on vision. He does not raise the flag of change. But he does bring in years of cooperating with the Democrats - the kind of compromises necessary to get things done. He clearly rates high on ability to execute.

Hillary may have more vision than McCain, but her character traits shows little ability to execute. Obama, on the other hand is the visionary politician who reaches out and thus has better ability to execute. He and McCain can get things done. Not to the satisfaction of right of left purists, but they can both take us out of the congressional stalemate we have had in the last years. Of course, Obama's better standing in this analysis does not mean much for Republicans. In fact, for them, if a Democrat is elected President, they are better off with Hillary, for she won't be able to do much.

Not all pork is not Kosher

2008-04-06T10:28:00.007-04:00

The media loves controversial issues and aside from sex scandals nothing bests Washington corruption in an election year. A group who goes by the acronym CAGW who apparently believed that spelled out words are tremendous waste published last week a book called a "The Congressional Pig Book" reporting on what they call government waste through legislation. CAGW stands for Citizens Against Government Waste. I was not interested at all to learn who are these citizens but I was interested to learn what qualifies as waste for those who like acronyms, so I took the trouble, went to their web site and LQAL (learned quite a lot).

The site indicates that to qualify as pork, a project must meet any one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition.

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.

Upon reading these I immediately realized that it is very easy for a legislation item to qualify as pork for in addition to some reasonable qualifications there are some questionable ones. Why would a legislation that is supported by only one of the two houses qualify as pork is beyond me. Do we require that Senators and Representatives must always agree? Or who said that the President must be the source of all budget items? Does the President has all the wisdom and whatever "not requested by the President" is bad? I know I am radical, but allow me to cast doubt that President Bush has all the wisdom.

But the one qualification that irked me the most is the last one - "Serves only a local or special interest." Last I checked it is the constitutional duty of our Senators and Representatives to represent their constituents and out of the sometimes conflicting interests a common wisdom emerges. This is not an efficient process, but it is part of our great compromise and I wouldn't change it for anything else. I happen to live in a region of the country where the sum total of all Federal taxes collected from our area is less than what we take in all budgeted items (pork or otherwise). I accept that as part of the price for being part of a greater union. Am I mistaken? Should I cry foul that other states take more and that I subsidize them?

Obviously, I am not advocating building bridges to nowhere in every state. That didn't really serve the state of Alaska, and I hope Alaskans will recognize that and kick those who pushed for it out of office. They certainly could have been served better by other projects. Similarly ,I am also sure that New Yorkers could find better use of the close to two million Dollars pushed by Representative Charles Rangel who earmarked it for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. Does anyone anymore have any doubts that Charles like to look in the mirror?

But everyones eyes are now focused on McCain, Clinton and Obama, so let's see what the flawed report says about them. In the Senate Clinton ranked 13th at $296.2 millions, Obama 70th at $97.4 millions and McCain at the bottom with zero along with four other senators (Coburn,DeMint,Finegold,McCaskill). Sounds pretty good for McCain if you believe that zero means no waste. But there is no way to know which of the items counted as pork really are, so it is hard to tell what is really going on. Is McCain abdicating his responsibility to the state of Arizona by getting nothing for his state? Is he trying to pull Arizona backwards? Or perhaps he can afford keeping his hands off these items because the other Senator and Representatives from Arizona covered for his duties for his state? After all, Arizona is ranked 51st in the report, right after New York and ahead of 49 other less fortunate states.

So what have I learned from this? That CAGW likes acronyms, that not everything they call pork is not kosher, and that by exaggerating what is waste they make it very hard to focus on the real waste and who is corrupt. What a waste!

Is Hillary Clinton the next Bush?

2008-03-29T07:49:00.014-04:00

Author's Note

This article is followed by an analysis of Obama and McCain which shows how suprisingly similar they are.
See Are Obama and McCain so Similar on this blog.

One would expect a real contrast between Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush. One is a lame duck failing Republican President, the other is an aspiring Democratic presidential candidate. One is as right wing Republican as they get, the other is on the left wing on the Democratic party. So how could one claim that they are similar?

The simple answer is distraction. The public and the media are so focused on the contrasting policies of Hillary and Bush that little is said about their character. Bush is for as little government intervention as possible and belongs to the part of the party that reiterates that whatever the government does the private sector does better.

His failures are so large that some see a devious attempt to make the government fail to prove his point. Conspiracy theories aside, the fact is that his performance failed to achieve Republican goals. Launching a war on false pretense, having it stretched beyond our worse predictions, failing to equip our soldiers, treat them well when they return home -- these are merely few of Bush's administration failures. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, believes in government intervention more than other Democrats. Whereas Bill Clinton pulled the party to the center and enacted policies that limited government aid, Hillary believes in strong government role both in health care and in her recently announced plan to bail our home owners who cannot support their mortgage. In glaring contrast to GW, Hillary is articulate and has a good public presence.

But Bush political failings are not describing his character or the root cause of his failures. They are merely the results. What better describes Bush are his tenacity, unwillingness to compromise, to reach out, to listen to contrarian opinions, to admit a mistake, to change the course. Bush is unchangeable and will pursue his goals against all odds with total disregard to the costs he puts on anyone around him.

If the current Democratic primaries taught us anything, it is that Hillary Clinton is similarly tenacious, unwilling to compromise, to admit mistakes, to give up when odds of winning are so slim as to become unrealistic. She seems to pursue her own interests with total disregard to the damage she inflicts on the Democratic party.

So the question is, if against all odds Hillary Clinton becomes our next President, will we have four more Bush years?

Author's Note: See Are Obama and McCain so Similar on this blog for a follow up analysis that shows how Obama and McCain are similar.

The Iraq Dilemma

2008-03-28T17:45:00.009-04:00

There is a large consensus that we got into the war in Iraq for the wrong reasons. Faulty Intelligence, faulty foreign policy, or a deceiving President are the most common cited reasons. Obviously, Democrats do not support the war and by now very few Republicans reiterate the original reasons we went in. Whatever the reasons, right or wrong, the reality is that we did.

Had the war been swift as promised or already won, the discussion would have been mostly forgotten. But Bush's administration had not been successful in Iraq more than it had been in many of its other endeavors, and herein lies the rub. So many Americans have grown to despise President Bush and his failing Iraq policies that a majority wants to resolve the problem as quickly as possible. Get out and turn a new page. But as inconvenient as it may be, the question to ask now is who are we punishing by rushing out of Iraq? Do we punish Bush who will be relaxing in Crawford not expecting to be vindicated within his lifetime, or do we punish ourselves?

The unfortunate reality is that leaving Iraq entirely or prematurely will likely result in major harm to American interests. This unstable region of the world is home to the world's largest oil reserves. Until such time when we reduce our dependency on foreign oil, an unproven desire at best, America has major interest in stabilizing the region and reducing pressures that raise oil prices to the detriment of our economy. Staying in Iraq at current levels is also taking an unacceptable toll on the economy. America faces a strategic dilemma.

Staying in Iraq does not necessarily mean staying the course laid by President Bush. Bush had set idealistic and unrealistic goals - to democratize the Middle East, to create a government that fully controls Iraq and lives in peace with its neighbors who also happens to be our enemies. These unrealistic goals stretch the mission without an end in sight - a prospect that the US cannot afford. A new Iraq strategy that cares less about the form of government Iraq shapes itself into may well require less American resources. As much as we hate to be witnesses to a civil war, it is more up to the Iraqis to decide that they don't want one than for us to stay in the middle and be hated by all sides.

Elections have the tendency to polarize opinions and push candidates to simple sharp and distinct options. But reality is more complex. The real question is not whether we stay or get out of Iraq. The real question is how much involvement should we have in Iraq. That question has a much broader set of solutions, one which will offer our next President the greatest flexibility in protecting our interests -- the smart balance between keeping our national costs in blood and currency down and keeping oil prices down as well.

Which Candidate Will You Feed?

2008-03-28T15:17:00.002-04:00

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said,

“My son, the battle is between two “wolves” inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,

“Which wolf wins?”

The old Cherokee simply replied,

“The one you feed.”

The Democrats have two candidates to choose from and then the entire country will have another choice. The candidates may not be all that we hoped for - they are neither all good nor all evil. As human beings they share many of the characteristics, good and bad, the old Cherokee mentioned. When we vote, which wolf will we be feeding?

The Greatest Show on Earth

2008-03-24T13:36:00.018-04:00

The Political Scandal Poem

Joe said something really bad
we, the media, are so very glad
we can spin a new wonderful show
nurture a story and make it grow.

If a candidate is connected to Joe
this will be a big political blow
so let's find how to connect the two
there is a big scandal to brew.

Now Joe, the candidate must renounce
if he wants his polls numbers to bounce
keep his distance from words gone bad
for voters can be really really mad.

We will ask voters what they think
would the candidate simply sink
was denouncing good enough
or just more of the usual bluff.

Next the experts we will interview
with our best on TV analysts crew
those large egos we always flaunt
tell us - what voters really want.

We'll send our experts to do a poll
try to dig into the voters soul
what did this grand fiasco mean
did the candidate come out clean.

And get the pundit once again
superficially dig his brain
pretend this is the real thing
after all, we are the media king.

Nothing else is left to debate
the economy or real estate
not foreign affairs or the Iraq war
or how health care costs are going to soar.

We dictate what's the real news
no wonder it is so hard to choose
on candidates we put all the blame
aren't elections a wonderful game?

Stanley Fish in his New York Times Op-Ed piece of March 23rd may be on to something. He claims that the media has been shrewdly creating crisis and distracting us from what's important.
That's not such a revolutionary claim - we have all seen how little news is reported in the news hour at main TV channels. Sometimes one can learn more of what's going on by tuning in to Jon Stewart's Daily Show at Comedy Central than on CNN.

What is interesting in Stanley's piece is that he seems to uncover the actual tactic of this type of media distraction.

The recipe is quite simple. Step One: Find something objectionable said or written by someone related to the candidate. How far related is not that important. Step two is obvious - Ask the candidate to renounce and denounce what was said. The candidate, especially during a campaign, finds himself trapped and forced to renounce, denounce, repudiate -- anything to distance him from objectionable words. But that will be of no avail, because here comes step three. The media then polls voters and ask them whether the candidate went far enough in denouncing. Obviously, some will say yes, some will say no. That's wonderful. That is a new subject of discussion. Pundits can analyze the voters opinions, the renunciation, the new polls reacting to the punditry, and so forth.

All the meanwhile, of course, there is little news being reported, little discussion of important matters. But there is great show on TV - the greatest show on earth. The appearance of real debate, the facade of real discussion. No talk about the war, no debate about the economy, no discussion about health care, no dialog about foreign policy. Nothing. These are not important. Because the show must go on.

Politics of Exclusion vs. Politics of Inclusion

2008-03-23T11:05:00.006-04:00

If Barack Obama's candidacy is centered on change and inclusion, Bill Clinton campaigning for Hillary wife is revealing that her campaign is quite the opposite. The latest flap created by Bill is one in a long string of subtle attacks that reveal a sinister streak in her campaign - sending subliminal messages that can be interpreted both ways, allow the Clintons pretend nothing bad was ever intended, but still wound their opponent. Friday night in North Carolina Bill referred to Hillary and McCain, to the exclusion of Obama, as "it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”, clearly implying that Barack does not love this country.

This is not the first time this tactic has been used. The Clinton campaign has been trying hard to focus this campaign on race because they believe that their main audience - white lower class Americans and older white women are less likely to trust a black candidate. When Hillary was asked about the smear campaign claiming that Obama is a closet Muslim she qualified her response that he is not so with "as far as I know".

In all of these, the Clintons approach is offensive to their own voters for the strategy implies that they don't believe their voters are smart enough to see through the double talk. But in pursuing these tactics the Clintons are a actually signaling that they are not representing a change from the past. They represent themselves. And it is not a nice picture.

Obama's campaign is focused on the politics of inclusion. He claims that he can bring people together and that is a major part for why he can bring about a change in Washington, a break from the past Congressional stalemate. One may or may not believe this claim, but Obama is showing all the signs that he is intent on following this mantra, even at the detriment of his campaign.

This week when interviewed on Larry King Live and answering the question "Would you, in your administration, make use of Bill Clinton?" Obama gave an surprisingly gracious answer: "Absolutely. I think that, you know, Bill Clinton is a brilliant statesman and politician, and I think that any president would want to use his skills and his relationships around the world. By the way, I would reach out to the first George Bush. You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesn't get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us 20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful. I think there were a lot of very wise people. So I want a bipartisan team that can help to provide me good advice and counsel when I'm president of the United States." Clearly there was no need for him to praise Bush's father, or Bill Clinton that hits him so hard.

What a contrast between Obama's politics of inclusion and Clinton's tactics of Divide et Impera. Loosely translated as divide and conquer, the Roman strategy more accurately means divide and rule. Only time will tell if the politics of the very past will win or if Clinton's strategy of division will actually deprive them from the rule they so desperately try to reach.

Hillary Clinton's Strategy Book Poem

2008-03-21T09:04:00.017-04:00

Distraction and deflection
voters - pay no attention
to what's real and important
when scandals are abundant

Hillary has some experience
as much as she has grievance
let's not forget the filegate
or the joys of travelgate

So let throw the kitchen sink
perhaps his lead would really shrink
maybe this time he will blink
or else I must find another link

Glue him to pastor Wright
show him what's a real fight
and if Wright does not work
something else will surely lurk

Maybe use the race card
let's hit him real hard
for anything he deflects
past mistakes he so corrects

Perhaps he is not black enough
maybe his winnings just a bluff
I won Texas, yes I did
forget it's caucuses, God forbid

My last fight, I so declare
is Super Tuesday, not Delaware
No its Texas, no, Pennsylvania,
Sorry - let it be Indiana or Montana

Après moi, les deluges
my opponents are so huge
but I am ready from day one
ever since my life begun

Super Delegates, my only true friends,
please await your dividends
stay with me till the last night
at the convention, the glorious fight

When I win or the party breaks
its my turn, I know what it takes
not some new guy on the block
who ignores my political clock

Is Barack Obama Putting Race to Rest?

2008-03-19T19:45:00.008-04:00

Barack Obama's race speech of March 18 was touted by his campaign as a major speech and compared by supporters to one of Martin Luther King's memorable speeches. Indeed it was eloquently delivered and may have helped Obama mitigate some of the fallout from his pastor's inflammatory diatribes. Obama is trying to push race aside, a smart political move for in his upcoming primaries he badly needs the votes of lower middle class whites who traditionally do not vote for a black candidate. Hillary's success in focusing these primaries on race are inversely related to Obama's prospects of winning them.

We can never tell what is really going in Obama's mind. Is he truly trying to turn a new page in this nation's troubled race relations history, or is he merely masterfully responding to a political challenge. If we were to take Obama on his word, by the same token which he reflected on the constitution that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage", his own words in an eloquent speech are not enough to deliver this nation from the bondage of race history. Much more is needed, and Obama himself acknowledged that much. To move beyond race, to put race behind us, to march forward together, to put anger aside - all these require to grapple with the race issues rather than take the convenient and politically tested approach of avoiding them.

Obama's acknowledgment of black anger is understood and expected. Where Obama showed his genius is in his recognition and understanding of white anger. When he said that "Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch." and added that for them "opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense." he addressed head on the insecurity of white middle class Americans. He then went to point out the problems with affirmative action without using that term "when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time."

Touching the subject is courageous. But merely touching it does not address the problem. To put race behind us, to ensure that the new generation of white and brown Americans don't build resentment over reverse discrimination, to feel that color blindness means just that, Obama needs to take one extra step which he has yet to take. All the special help and benefits that are intended to overcome economic and educational disadvantages and are race biased -- those very issues that are so core to the Democratic party -- all these need to be re-based on socioeconomic factors, not race. For as long as affirmative action and other programs continue to be race-based rather than need-based, anger would continue, resentments would fester on, and race relations problems would carry over to the next generation.

On first sight it may not seem the politically convenient approach to take, but it may not be suicidal either. Most blacks who have the need for special support would not lose anything. The few that would not meet the socioeconomic help threshold won't need special help anyway. Whites, however, would feel that the system is fairer, that when in need they stand the same chance, and when an African American succeeds, it is because of merit, not race. In one sweeping step Obama could reach the Regan Democrats, outmaneuvering Clinton and really close the dark race chapter in America's history. But aside from the political implication, it would be the right thing to do. Without it, Obama's speech would be relegated to a tactical political maneuver designed to tackle an aggressive opponent. With it, Obama will make history and will deserve to win in November.

The luckiest man in the world

2008-03-18T20:25:00.004-04:00

Newly sworn in New York Governor David Paterson is the luckiest man in the world. He may not know it, but he is. Triple lucky, quadruple lucky and beyond.

Yes, I know. You probably think that I consider him lucky because Eliot Spitzer, his predecessor, got entangled in a sex scandal and had to resign. No I am not talking about that kind of luck. That's actually the kind of luck Hillary Clinton hopes for, may she excuse my linking her to hope. It appears that she hopes that by virtue of some miracle Barack Obama would make a terrible mistake or his uncle would or through some other unforeseen on uncovered event the sky would open, the angles will dance, a miracle would occur and Obama would become candidatae non grata. Talk about the audacity of hope.

No. I actually am talking about a Geraldine Ferraro kind of luck. She taught me that Obama was lucky to be black and by the same token I believe that Governor Paterson is the luckiest man around. First, the last I checked he is black by virtue of his two parents - twice the luck Obama has. Then, he is also legally blind, scoring more points on the Ferraro luck scale. We also learned that both he and his wife had extra-marital affairs - the kind of scarring crisis that should count for something on the luck scale even though they apparently and unfortunately reconciled later. Well, one cannot be lucky all the time.

Spitzer, revenge, and government power

2008-03-14T17:58:00.002-04:00

The New York Governor sex scandal attracted media attention like a magnet. The story overwhelmed any other news subject as if there is nothing more important happening in the world. Politicians provided moral observations, pundits provided obvious comments, and legal experts rushed to explain what charges could possibly be brought against the resigning governor. Amidst all this frenzy there is an emerging sense that many are happy to see Mr. Clean tainted by unwashable stains, and how the harsh and sometimes extreme prosecutorial powers can now be directed towards the governor who made his political career by abusing the very same powers.

What exactly are prosecutorial powers and abuses and why should we care? This important question that goes to the core of our constitutional Republic is totally lost in the media coverage. The sex scandal is amusing but of no public consequence. The protections citizens have against the overwhelming powers of the government is.

Governor Eliot Spitzer used every known trick in the book to bring about convictions, and more often settlements simply because he was able to use the overwhelming power of the state or merely threaten to use it. What made him more successful than others is a combination of personal take-no-prisoners attitude (where he actually did take prisoners) and a gradual increase in prosecutorial powers over the years.

The gradual increase in government powers is a direct result from politics of the moment. Politicians jump on the opportunity to create a crime-fighter image and pass laws that seem reasonable at the moment without giving much thought about the longer term effects. Thus, slowly but surely we have passed laws that are supposed to fight organized crime (RICO act) but have in recent years been used against many others. Similarly, laws to prevent money laundering may be used by tough prosecutors against any installment payment transactions. Some legal experts claim that because Spitzer paid for his services in several installments, he could be prosecuted for money laundering. Other legal experts found that because he arranged for his paid-sex DC randevu in New York he had violated some obscure Federal law regarding prostitution.

I have little respect for Governor Spitzer and a part of me wants revenge and is happy to see him entangled in the same trap he was so happy to spring upon others. But that it merely a shortsighted revenge. In the long run, more successful prosecutions using obscure legal interpretations merely increase the government's power and provides it with more tools to go after its citizens. The larger question is why do we have laws that can be interpreted in such ways that almost all of us could possibly be entrapped by overzealous prosecutors?

The founding fathers were very concerned about the government's overwhelming power and tried to give citizens protections against these. I am afraid that over the years we have witnessed a slow but continuous reduction in the protections and ever increasing government powers and intrusions. When laws are written to solve an immediate problem at the expense of long term rights, the citizens will always loose. It is in the human nature of government officials to try to use laws written for one purpose and apply them whenever they can. The current discussion in Congress about wiretapping is a case in point.

At some level we may question the Federal government involvement with prostitution laws. I can envision the legislature taking high morel ground to "protect us" from "moral vice" and spending time and effort on matters that matter little instead of real issues. Apparently we do have such Federal laws on the book, and they could well be put into action. Frankly, I wish the Federal government would deal with other more pressing matters, and I would not object if someone took the time to rid ourselves from many outdated laws. The overabundance of laws that give government officials overwhelming power starts with these simple cases, like prostitution, where upon initial and intuitive reaction most of us may all feel that "the government should do something about it".

Let's imagine a parallel universe where Spitzer never reached his political position through successful prosecutions built upon prosecutorial abuses, and let's imagine also that there were no laws about prostitution (where consenting adults are involved) and let's further imagine that no laws (like money laundering) could be twisted to apply to this Spitzer affair. In this universe Spitzer would not have violated the law and the entire affair might be reduced to a public disgrace and a sad personal marital crisis. We would still have the media frenzy, tabloids would have their silly headlines, the governor may or may not have to resign, but most importantly, politicians and the government will have less power against their peers but also against us. You know what - I'd rather have this parallel universe.

Barrack Attack Test

2008-03-06T16:49:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton, the candidate that downplays change brought us a game-changing event on the mini super Tuesday primaries. Her success in Texas and Ohio shifted tactics but also changed the strategy. Notwithstanding her campaign's calling the kitchen sink a strategy, it is merely a tactic in a larger strategy. A strategy to shift the discussion from change into qualifications. A strategy that changes the discussion from the future to the past and the present.

The past is clear - experience vs. lack thereof. But the present is something else. It is a discussion on who is better qualified to fight McCain and who is better to be the commander-in-chief. Hillary figured out that in that discussion, until and if she gets the nominations, she has McCain on her side. Both she and McCain can attack Barack on the same subject, and they do. The discussion about the present is aimed at both the voters and the super-delegates. The voters gets to see whether Obama can mount an attack on Clinton or reveals himself to be a defenseless and weak candidate. The super-delegates use the same test to decide who will withstand the Republicans attack machine.

So Barack has no choice. To show that he can be the kind of President Americans want to lead and defend America, he has to show his teeth. The time to compromise and reach across the isle is later - if and when he is elected.

Judging from the results on Tuesday, the Obama campaign did not prepare well for the Clinton kitchen-sink strategy even though they knew it was coming. They have very little time to take the initiative, for if they won't, Clinton would succeed in demonstrating that Obama is not worthy of leading the party against McCain, let alone lead the country against whomever the future brings.

Double Celebration at the McCain Headquarters

2008-03-05T09:59:00.002-05:00

McCain has two reasons to celebrate. The first and obvious and are his recent wins that finally brings to a successful closure his Republican party nomination to the Presidency. The second and somewhat less obvious is the lack of closure within the Democratic party.

Hillary's comeback in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island may not have changed much in terms of delegate counts, but has done two things to the Democratic party. First, she has demonstrated how negative campaigns still work in 2008. In that she ensured that the 2008 Presidential elections will once again be stained and discourage many voters from coming to the polls. Secondly, she had stopped Obama's momentum and ensured a long fight among the Democrats until the convention. What that fight means is that each Democratic candidates is going to spend in the range of $30 million a month over the fight on Pennsylvania and beyond, all the while McCain will be fundraising, organizing, and attacking both.

Neither Obama nor Hillary will concede, and each has a compelling narrative for the super delegates. Obama can point to winning 27 contests against Hillary's 14, to winning more delegates than Hillary, and to bringing in new and center votes the party so needs to win the general election. Hillary can point to winning the necessary big states without which the Democrats stand no chance in November, to winning more super delegates, to being able to recover from tough situations, and to being able to mount a more aggressive campaign which will be necessary against the Republicans.

These two compelling narratives could not make McCain happier simply because in terms of the electorate base these two narratives are mutually exclusive. If Obama will loose the nomination, many of the newly enrolled young and black voters may see their hopes squashed and decide to stay home. McCain also stands a good chance of making inroads into the independent voters who seem to prefer Obama over Clinton. Similarly, if Obama wins, many of the over-50 low income white women who seem to favor Hillary may decide to stay home or perhaps go over to McCain. Hispanic voters who preferred Hillary over Obama may also jump to McCain.

Either scenario is good for McCain, and this is his second cause for celebration.

Healthcare and NAFTA

2008-03-03T18:59:00.005-05:00

Most Americans are covered by their place of work with the bulk of the premium costs paid by the employer. Clinton and Obama's health care proposals do not propose to change that. McCain also plans to retain the existing system so practically no politician of major standing in the race is talking about changing this arrangement. And that is a problem.

American's companies competitiveness in the world is hampered by many factors, and health insurance premiums is a major one amongst them. For example, GE pays health insurance premium for its US-based employees, but Toyota in Japan does not - their health care premiums are covered by taxes. Trade agreements like NAFTA are designed to open the borders to competition but health insurance premiums paid by American corporations tie the hands behind their backs. If such premiums would have been paid by taxes instead, part of the American companies competitiveness would be restored.

Of course taxes have to come from somewhere, so the unpopular question is whether these would come from Joe public or corporate taxes. But if it is indeed corporate taxes, let's be honest and recognize that like health insurance premiums, they make American corporations less competitive. Don't cry foul about NAFTA or other trade agreements and then go ahead and give American corporations more incentive to outsource.

Constitutional Crisis - No More Presidents

2008-02-28T07:32:00.001-05:00

Several recent articles discussed the potential problem McCain may have should he become the Republican party nominee. Apparently McCain was born on a US base in Panama where his parents were stationed. McCain is not the first to face such a question -- Lowell Weicker, George Romney, and more recently Barry Goldwater preceded him. The issue is apparently not fully resolved by the Supreme Court simply because it never reached it.

So while most Americans, whether they are for or against McCain, think that he should be qualified, legal scholars are not so sure. It all stems from a small paragraph in the constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

I have seen enough contrived Supreme Court decisions to feel qualified to my own set of contrived interpretations. If some of these would look Talmudic, I achieved my goal. The more absurd, the better. Here I go.

Based on the written words, it is my learned legal opinion that the founding fathers were against Caesarian section procedures. The requirement for being naturally-born Citizens preclude anyone born through c-section operations. This may cast a doubt on the eligibility of several past Presidents, but I think that it would make matters more interesting.

I also see a problem with the timing requirement. Please take a note to the phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". It is a matter of how one reads the sentence, but since the founding fathers elected to put a comma rather than a period (unless it is a spec of dirt attached to the intended period-somebody should check that), only persons who were citizens at the time of the signing could become Presidents. I checked around and I believe that all such persons died long ago, and we are out of luck in our attempt to find eligible Presidents. Clearly the clauses regrading the age of thirty-five or residency of fourteen years are immaterial now that all eligible candidates passed away.

In fact, I now realize that we have been in a constitutional crisis long ago. Several past Presidents were not valid, and I believe that their laws and vetoes should be annulled as well. This may not be so bad. April is right around the corner and I am no longer sure I have to pay income tax.

Hillary vs. Barack Style Clash

2008-02-27T09:43:00.002-05:00

More than anything else Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represent two different styles. It is not old vs. new, gender vs. race, experience vs. hope. It is really two personality styles that have all these manifestations and more.

The debate in Cleveland Ohio demonstrated these differences more than any previous debate. Being the last debate in this election season, both candidates were under tremendous pressure to perform well,to drive more points, but mostly not to fail. Hillary may have been under more pressure since she needed a debate victory to try to offset her past string of losses. It was to be her last stand before the remaining last stands (the media keep stating that the next event is her last stand - eventually the media will get it right).

Hillary positioned herself as a fighter on behalf of the middle and working class. For them, she will fight. This is not posturing, not a campaign stand. She is indeed a fighter. This is the reason she continues, against odds, to fight in this primary. The way she campaigns is the way she will lead.

Obama, on the other hand, acknowledges that to change things one has to work hard, but rather than fighting he sees achievement through a thought out strategy. The first step in this strategy is to align voters support behind him, the second is to reach out and build a legislative majority that would support change. His inspirational speeches are not only a campaign asset, they are the first step in his strategy of change, one which he says he will continue if elected President. Reaching out across the isle is merely a continuation of his reaching out to independent and Republican voters. The way he campaigns is also the way he plans to lead.

Hillary, in a TV interview seemed baffled at the support Obama gets. The hung it on unclear reasons and immediately moved to state that all the years of negative attacks during her husband's presidency stuck to her and she is now paying the price. She doesn't get the Obama phenomena, and apparently her campaign doesn't either. Yet,she promises to fight on.

So the question stands, which of these two candidates and approaches have a better chance to actually change some of the things in Washington? Who can deliver more on their almost identical promises?

If history is a lesson, Hillary is up to yet another failure. Her world view as us against them, a view that sees everything as a fight, was exemplified in her past attempt to establish a national health care system. She did not build a supporting legislative coalition, did not reach across to supporters or opponents, and tried to push her agenda against all resistance as if it is a fight. She may well be doing the same in this primary at this very moment. Against all odds she still fights Obama.

We don't know if Obama will be elected and if elected whether his approach would work. We do know that Hilary's doesn't.

Hillary is focused on the fight, Obama is focused on results. No wonder polls shows Hillary has so many negatives and Obama has so many followers.

Thus, the primary campaigns seem to reflect their personality and world views quite well. Soon the remaining voters will speak, and one of them will face McCain. For the Democrats, the sooner the better.

Unattainable Goals

2008-02-21T16:31:00.008-05:00

I feel uncomfortable. In fact, I feel like leaving a crowd. A crowd of believers. The crowd doesn't know me. Neither of us are wearing orange Harri Krishna robes, but it still feels like I am leaving a cult. Nobody will know that I am leaving, but I still feel disconnecting.

The hesitations come not because of the cult sensation I get when I see the Obama-mania. Yes, it makes me uncomfortable, but that is not it. What makes it hard is the way Obama has etched hope with his change campaign. As if opposing Obama amounts to rejecting hope. Am I against hope? Of course not. But while I believe in hope, I also am starting to think that the substance of what Obama plans for us is unrealistic, and rightly so.

I am for hope, but I am not out to change America upside down (or as he says, downside up). There are things I want to change, but not everything. For example, I am for more civility in Congress, but I am even more for checks and balances. In fact, after seeing the current administration abuses and incompetences, I want more checks and balances.

I am for hope, but not only do I not want to change America entirely, I certainly don't want to change the world. I had enough of one President wanting to change the Middle East - look where it has gotten us. Imagine the audacity to change the world.

I am for hope, but I don't want to totally shut down the lobbyists. Sure, I do want to curtail their power, have more transparency, ensure that elected officials links to power groups are in the open. But I am not for restricting free speech. Some of these lobbying groups may actually speak for me.

I am for hope and I am for campaign reform but I am not for throwing away everything. I am enthusiastic about a candidate being able to obtain campaign funds through the Internet without having to answer to power groups. But I am also concerned about a President who does not have to answer to any political party because he has his own private funding.

I could go on and on, but basically while I want change, I fear uncontrolled change. The Obama tidal wave scares me. His agenda to change everything in America and the world frightens me. His insinuation that everything in Washington in broken makes me tremble. With the almost free reign the current Congress has given the President to ignore the Constitution, I am even more frightened whether the future Congress will have the guts to perform its obligation to check and balance a President elected on a mandate to change Washington and the entire world.

If I feel uncomfortable stating that I have second doubts, would Congress with its political calculations be comfortable to stop such an unusual President? I am not sure I can trust Congress with that.

I am for hope and I am for change. But I am more comfortable with measured change than a revolution. It is too early to decide what I will do, but for now I am undecided again. I have a doubt.

Hillary's last stand

2008-02-20T22:40:00.002-05:00

With all the attention on Barack Obama some pundits claim that Obama is getting unfair favorable media attention. The reality is that Obama is indeed a phenomena deserving media coverage, but the question to ask is whether Hillary is not getting a unique free ride no other candidate would have had at this stage of the game.

Let's just think what would have happened if all the primaries won by Obama would have been won by Hillary and conversely all those won by Hillary would have been won by Obama. Had that been the case, I am sure, Obama would have been written off very early in the campaign. Hillary, in contrast, is given endless additional chances by the media and the pundits. Every new primary is declared upfront as "Hillary's last stand" and right after Obama wins it, the next one becomes her last stand. Regardless of delegates tally and remaining slim chances (she now needs to win 65% of the votes in all remaining states), she is given by the media yet another chance.

Part of it is the media's desire to keep the thrill around - the media thrives on confrontation (real or not). But while this is the case, the media would not have been able to do that had Obama been the loosing candidate. So as long the media still gives Hillary a chance for yet another "last stand" Obama is not really given a free media ride.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, hillary clinton, politics

Chief Executive Experience-Lessons from the Primary Campaigns

2008-02-18T13:21:00.003-05:00

Clinton, Obama and McCain make claims on presidential experience. Whether they tout change as their primary slogan the jour or not, experience and success is the only verifiable record voters can go by. After all, all of them make promises, and on the Democratic side their programs are practically identical. Even Obama's unique claim - that he can reach across and bring people together should also be reflected in his past record. With all the talk about change and personality, we have to look at experience and past records as the only available guide to the future.

All three candidates have legislative records. Unfortunately these can tell us a bit about their political leaning and perhaps some miscalculation (i.e. the war in Iraq), but it does not tell us much about executive experience. Legislating and running an effective organization are quite different. Fortunately, we do have more recent history to inspect - the primary campaigns. Running successful national campaigns is one of the toughest most complicated organization and process we have in this country. It requires leadership to motivate activists and voters, strategic thinking, selection of good executives and ensuring they perform as expected, managing finances, reacting fast to events out of one's control, getting support from political leaders across the country, reacting to world events, understanding electoral sensitivities - in short everything a good President should have.

Focusing on the campaigns reveal surprising results. Hillary ran a "bet the farm on shock and awe" campaign. She spent all her efforts in the first primaries, behaving like a candidate who "deserves" to be elected, and counting on old fashion political machine to raise her to the top. A huge gamble -- almost as big as Giuliani's. In retrospect it appears that she has not build a strong enough grass root organization, not built a modern Internet-based funding mechanism, not selected good managers and operators, and worse - squandered her campaign money to the point that she needed to loan her campaign $5 million out of her own fortune. She may turn out to be the comeback kid, but somehow in the campaign season all her claimed 35 years of experience seemed to have evaporated. Not a very good predictor for her Presidential abilities.

McCain has had his own share of campaign problems. He too squandered his campaign money and has had to change the people he selected to run his campaign. Of all the candidates, he was supposed to have more campaigning experience than anyone else. Yet, while he has practically secured the nomination, he has shown fiscal irresponsibility at a time where the economy is on voters minds, and his message to the voters seem rooted in the past while change is in the air. Like Clinton, these are not good signs.

Obama, the candidate allegedly having the least experience, is the campaign surprise. In every aspect related to the ability to execute he has excelled. He created the best grass root national organization. He leveraged the Internet as a way to finance his campaign better than anyone else. He then turned this source of funding into a political asset by rejecting lobbyists money and making a point of it. He selected a strong group of executives to run his campaign. He connected to voters in unprecedented ways. He managed to get politicians to come to his side faster than anyone else. He inspired activists and voters and made it clear that if elected, he expects that support to continue well into his Presidency as a lever to achieve policy changes. His campaign is cleaner than others, and he responds to attack ads right from the podium turning every attack to his favor. Those are not only signs of leadership, those are signs of a successful chief executive.

When the elections are over we may all be surprised by the results. We may be surprised by a President that will prove that none of our current predictions came true. But as of now, based on the way the campaigns are managed, Obama has the edge on experience.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, hillary clinton, john mccain, politics

Primary candidates substance nobody cares about

2008-02-14T20:06:00.004-05:00

The media and some candidates are now starting to ask "where is the beef"? For those candidates who lack charm this is supposedly a call for substance. Hard facts rather than talk. While engaging in talk they shamelessly say that talk is cheap.

So what about the details of the various candidates plans? They all have web sites with very detailed plans. Detailed enough for the contenders to point to their opponent plans weaknesses while they attack each other during debates and other public appearances.

Clearly, the politicians and their minions read carefully the detailed plans in attempt to find their opponent weaknesses. But does the public spend any appreciable time on these web site, and If they do, do they go deep enough into the details plans, "the substance"?

It is a small gamble to state that the public does not and we cannot put the blame on Mr. and Mrs. Lazy. No -- the public is experienced enough to know that in our democratic system of checks and balances the details would have to be worked out later. Specific details won't matter now because they are unlikely to survive the final form of legislature. Rather, the public tests the candidate characters and the general vision of their plans. It is the candidate personality and convictions that triggers the final decision of the voters.

This is the precise reason Obama is riding high at this moment. It is the same reason so many independents and some Republicans are voting for him. They sense a personality and a set of convictions that they are comfortable with. After all, in terms of specifics, Obama and Hillary are very close. Whatever differences they may have would be immaterial when the great compromises between the President and Congress are cast in stone.

Hillary's call for details is a smart ploy designed to turn an inspirational candidate into a boring bureaucrat. If he falls into the trap, Hillary will outshine Obama. She remembers every little detail in every little plan. She may not be able to push these plans through Congress, but she will know every little detail of what she failed to accomplish. Obama, by his own admission has a cluttered desk and need aids to find his papers. He may not know what every paragraph contains, but he knows what the paper is supposed to accomplish and is more likely to make it happen. Theoretically Hillary and Gore, both detail oriented people, would be terrific aids to Obama. The reverse could not be farther from the truth.

So on the Democratic side the voters have two different personalities to choose from. It would be interesting to see which would soon emerge as the final nominee.

Clinton and Obama authenticity

2008-02-12T06:39:00.003-05:00

We all know about Obama's message of change and hope. During his speeches he spends much time explaining how change is possible if people pull together to achieve a goal. The skeptics he counters with explaining what hope means. He asks the voters to believe in their ability to change. That belief seems to energize the crowd, pull them together, and then achieve something. For now it is to cast a vote for Obama. "Yes we can" is part of the change and the hope. Whether one believes in this message or not, one has to admit that Obama more than anyone else owns it.

Clinton too talks about change and hope, but it is a copied message. Everyone knows whose message it is, and it merely reduces her credibility to repeat Obama. If she cannot come with a new authentic message of her own, she concedes the agenda to Obama and also proves that she and her assistants lack imagination. A candidate without imagination is one without inspiration. Indeed, Hillary relies on the supporter base and the political machine she and her husband built over many years. She can still win, but it would be a hard win - one which would disappoint many new voters whose hopes were raised by Obama.

Obama and McCain hope and faith

2008-02-11T09:51:00.000-05:00

As long as Huckabee is in the run McCain has an ultra conservative wing problem. Huckabee forces him to prove that he is holier than the pope. He proclaims faith and faithfulness right and further right, and in doing so he distances himself from the center.

No Presidential candidate even won without the center, so Huckabee is actually decreasing McCain's chances to win against the Democrats. Instead of talking about hope he talks about faith. Instead of talking about the future, he talks about faithfulness - essentially the past.

There is a major difference between faith and hope, one which Obama leverages very well. In the extreme, faith surrenders hope to God. Consciously or not, it expects God to solve our problems. If there is a hardship, one must pray harder. Hope, in the way Obama explains in his speeches, is putting emphasis and believes on one's actions. "Yes we can" is quite different than "In God we trust". It is a message that proclaims that results come from people coming together to achieve a goal.

Obama's message is not atheistic, but it leaves God to each individual as a personal matter. As if policy and God should not intermix. He may have read the constitution.

Huckabee proclaims openly that everything comes from his religious believes. That is the foundation of everything he stands for, does, and will do if elected. Huckabee reflects the common thinking of the right wing of the Republican party. While Obama touts hope and energizes many to work towards a better future, McCain is wasting his efforts to appease Huckabee's voters.

McCain Hillary and Obama's shopping list

2008-02-10T11:29:00.000-05:00

I hate the supermarket. They mapped the entire human genome and haven't figured that one yet, but I'm sure the answer is somewhere on the Y chromosome. My wife is so good at it, and me and my fellow men just can't get it right.

There is this short shopping list. By short I don't mean that it doesn't span two sides on the paper. I mean that the words are short. I mean that they are absent of meaning. At least for men. As I walk the isles I see hordes of men making short phone calls. "Honey, I can't find Chex", "Honey, the cereal boxes are not placed alphabetically", "Honey, the package says lean, not non-fat". These are on the first five isles. When I reach isle six and beyond, the calls don't start with "Honey" any more. I think the supermarket is the only place you can find more men than women on the phone.

Remember when Bush the father went down to mingle in a supermarket with the masses? He was videotaped walking by the register line and being confused about the scanner. A big public affair disaster. Not so with the current slew of Presidential candidates. McCain, Clinton and Obama are down to earth. They have been talking to people, and I am sure they have seen the encrypted narrow long shopping lists men get from their wifes. I am convinced of it, for how else to explain the long shopping list they give us in campaign speeches? Lists of things they will buy for us, but without the necessary details to know what's in that cereal box, and how much we will have to pay at the counter.

As I have heard so many times in isle five -- "Honey, I need specifics".

Hillary - it's the internet, Stupid!

2008-02-08T12:54:00.001-05:00

There is a fund raising war going among the Presidential contenders, and it reflects in many ways the difference between old and new politics. Following Romney's capitulation, the Republicans are slowly and perhaps grudgingly regrouping around McCain. The candidate will suddenly have all his campaign financial difficulties solved as Republican donors channel most of their money into their single viable candidate. McCain may even forgo donors taking a life insurance policy on him, something he had to accept before Super Tuesday.

The Democratic side is more interesting, at least if and until a clear winner emerges. Hillary, an old style politician, followed the same method she and her husband used during previous campaigns - rely on big donors. Notwithstanding whether these donors expect something in return if she get elected, these donors pose a financial problem - they maxed out on the amounts of money they are allowed to contribute. In arrogance, her campaign did not expect to have to fight that hard past New Hampshire, and by the end of Super Tuesday she simply ran out of money. Lending herself $5 million and announcing it after Super Tuesday gave her campaign a quick boost. Her campaign was quickly to announce that in the seven days since February first her campaign collected $7.5 million online. Looks impressive until one compares the numbers with the Obama campaign who managed to collect the same amount in 36 hours. It is more or less the same ratio by which he outpaced her in January where she collected $13.5 million while he received $32 million.

The way the money was raised is perhaps more interesting than the amounts. Obama relies heavily on small donations. The $32 million in January were raised from 275,000 people. Given that he is not taking money from high rollers and lobbyists, that represents a pool of donors who contributed small amounts, and who can help again.

Obama is leveraging the Internet in unprecedented ways. Dean's campaign several years ago may have shown the way, but Obama is the real benefactor of this method and technology. Dean went on to be part of the party establishment, while Obama has liberated himself from the shackles of high level donors and lobbyists. Through the support of the masses he is actually becoming independent from individuals or lobbyists. That freedom allows him to make promises about reforming Washington that Hillary can't. That freedom allows him to speak of hope. That independence allows him to contemplate a cross party dialog, in his words "bring people together".

The emergence of the web has given voice to the masses in ways they never did. The younger and more educated the population, the more they take advantage of it. Obama, representing this new social class and generation, is tapping into that phenomena.

Hillary authored a book titled "It takes a village", yet her campaign financing relied too much on the village heads. Obama, in contrast, is tapping to the much larger village population. Hey, Hillary, "It's the internet, Stupid!"

A new smart and wise President

2008-02-04T22:34:00.000-05:00

It is possible that we may never know the single most significant factor for the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are those who put the blame on systemic flaws of the communist system. Others hang it on collapse caused by the war in Afghanistan, and yet others give President Regan credit for outspending the Soviet Union in an arms race that led to their total economic collapse. It is the latter that is often evoked by the Regan cult created by Republicans who emphasize national security at every occasion in a successful attempt relegate Democrats to a less patriotic role. What is intriguing in this position is the claim that Regan, in his unlimited wisdom, knew that arms buildup would lead to economic burdens of such proportions that would trigger the collapse of the evil empire.

I personally do not buy this claim that looks more like Monday morning quarterback analysis than an objective attempt to analyze historic events. However, for the sake of a deeper analysis I will temporary accept the argument and try to see how such an approach help us understand more current events.

Forgive me such sacrilege, but all we need to do is substitute Regan for Bin Laden and Bush for Brezhnev. Can we say that Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 just because he wanted us to spend huge amounts on security (I don't mean border security which so many years after the attack are still not secure) in order to lead to our economic collapse? Could we say that when our economy recovered he launched a few more symbolic attacks just to ensure that we keep on spending? Could we say that his involvement with the Taliban was meant to draw us in so that we would fail the way the Soviets did? Last but not least, could we similarly claim that Bush has an Iraq fixation the same way Brezhnev was fixated on Afghanistan, and that having failed in Afghanistan, Bin Laden is trying to make Iraq the same failure ground that Afghanistan was for Brezhnev?

Of course we could say all that, and it would mostly be baseless. Contrary to common beliefs, history does not repeat itself, it merely resembles itself. The United States is not in economic collapse, and current worsening of the economy cannot fully be hung on the war on terror in Iraq and elsewhere. However, it is disconcerting that one could even hypothesize that Bin Laden had a grand plan to cause our economic collapse through his actions. The hypothesis gives Bin Laden undue credit. Yet, regardless of Bin Laden's intentions, Bush with the help of many in Congress had willingly put us in the very same bad spot.

The difference between a smart politician and a wise one is that the smart one can get out of a situation a wise politician would avoid in the first place. President Bush proved to be neither. We need a President which is both. Smart enough to get us out of this mess, wise enough to avoid similar traps in the future.

The change President we really need

2008-01-26T11:56:00.001-05:00

Change is in the air. By now we are not quite sure who started it. Maybe it was Obama, maybe some other obscure candidate. Right now every candidate right and left touts change, whether their actual program suggests one or not.

It behooved me to try to find out what change the country really needs. There are many who proudly promote Hillary as the first woman President. That would be a significant change, they claim. But Hillary herself convinced me that she would not really represent a change. Listening to her campaign messages and debate responses I came out convinced that she has experience and had practically ran the White House. Bill may have been the front man, but she was pulling the strings. She has one point for experience, but zero for change. I think I have to look elsewhere.

Barack would be the first Black President if it were not for Bill Clinton who claimed the title and won't let go. Barack is young, though older than both Bill and JFK when they were elected. So Barack looses on youth and blackness. Maybe he is black enough, but Bill convinced me that he is not black first.

I realized that I have to look at matters in a different way. Even if Bill were not around, and even if Hillary did not ran the White House, would Barack or Hillary represent a significant change? I am no longer sure. So much time passed since the suffrage and civil rights movements. By now the country is so ready for a woman or black candidate that electing either would not be enough of a change. No. I want real change. I want to elect a President that belongs to a group that has yet to have a rights movement. If we can find one and elect him or her, that would be a change. It would really symbolize that the country will accept anybody without having prior rights fight. It may be the dream that MLK or some Biblical prophet had -- I am quite confused by now.

With that thought I went to sleep three days ago. Needless to say, I couldn't. The challenge of finding a change President was daunting. This morning, exhausted after three sleepless nights I found myself scratching my head and then it hit me. The almighty was trying to tell me something by making my hand move to my head. I have been doing it for three days and didn't get the hint. Its the Hair Stupid!

That's it. We need a bald President. I know, you think that after three sleepless nights I lost my mind. Not so. Just try to think of the recent Presidents. All had significant hair. At least since the first televised debate. Look at JFK. Oh, I wish I had his hair. Johnson is troubling, but he still had some hair left, and he often campaigned with his Texan hat on. Take Bill Clinton, for example. Please take him. He had as much hair as he was out of control. Our current President, may the almighty protect us, has as many bad hair days as he has bad days.

If you are not convinced, look at the current Presidential Candidates. Mitt Romney's hair qualifies him for a Hollywood role, and the polls promptly reflect that. Giuliani stand in the polls slips as fast as I sky downhill. Need I remind you how much hair he has? Fred Thompson who has even less hair already dropped out. You think all of these are coincidences? I think not. Edwards is a puzzle. With his hair he should be doing much better. Maybe southern drawl neutralized good hair?

So you see that the underrepresented group for which we have no rights movement is the baldies. A bald President would be the real change. I don't see why we can't have a bald President. If we had the Wigs we can have the Balds!

This message was not endorsed by Rogaine or any other such program. A true baldy would neither try to change party affiliation and joins the Wigs nor use chemicals to change his/her looks.

Whitewash Slick Willy

2008-01-26T06:17:00.000-05:00

When Bill Clinton ran for President he had to defend himself against "Slick Willy" attacks. At the time it seemed that he is as Teflon coated at Regan was, although after he was elected some of the mud stuck and contributed to his impeachment hearings.

Democrats knew that some of the criticisms were right, but looked at his other qualities as redeeming factor. In retrospect his presidency was much more than his sex life or slick deals, especially when compared to the current President Bush. One of his legacies was his contribution to the African American community for which he is often referred to as "the first Black President".

But his recent attacks against Obama during the South Carolina campaign may tarnish that legacy. He has been going around telling everybody that they should vote for Hillary not because she is white and Barack is black, but because she is better for the country. He never fails to mention Barack "blackness" in a state with long history of bigotry. If Bush had repeatedly campaigned against Gore by saying that Cheney is better than Lieberman not because Lieberman is Jewish but because Cheney is experienced, we would all cry foul. Yet Clinton is doing the same around the Martin Luther King day, and nobody cries foul.

When MLK and the civil right movement started their boycott of businesses they did not count on white businesses to open their doors to Blacks because of moral convictions. They were using economic forces to coerce these businesses to open their doors to Blacks. When such a business would open its doors, its owners were not considered leaders of the civil rights movement. They were simply selling their ideology (as bigoted as it was) for money. They deserved no respect. The dream that MLK had was that some time in the future the changed reality would also change minds and that businesses would open their doors to blacks not out of coercion, but as a matter of normal conduct. To behave otherwise would be immoral. To mention race would mean to see race, and that was not his dream.

So with Bill Clinton raising Obama's race at every occasion (even in the context of "we shouldn't look at color"), one has to wonder whether his past support for Black causes were out of moral convictions or political expediency. For if he has moral convictions about the matter, he should know better than attempting to wake up old dormant anti-Black feelings in South Carolina, even if it may help his wife get elected.

Hillary and Bill pile on Barack

2008-01-24T09:56:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama is facing stiff competition. While Hillary pretends to be the weak woman fighting the two male opponents, in reality it is Obama who is fighting Bill and Hillary at the same time. While Bill Clinton throws punches below the belt, Hillary attacks him "by the rules". Unless Barack clones himself or find another supporter of Bill's caliber, neither of which is realistic, he will continue to face a difficult problem.

This is not merely a problem of style - it is also a problem of geography. Bill and Hillary campaign simultaneously in two different locations, quite often in different states. When Obama puts an effort he seems to get enough delegates to either win or loose respectably. But he can't be at two places at the same time, and that may be his doing on Super Tuesday. Moreover, Bill presents another problem - he forces Obama to defend false allegations and innuendos, an effort that even if successful, it further distracts him from his message.

So despite claims to the contrary, Obama is the underdog. Not because he is Black, not because he is young, not because he is for change, and not even because his plans may be inferior. Rather, it is because he is fighting an impossible campaign - one against two.

Democrats Slug Fest

2008-01-23T09:56:00.000-05:00

Have you seen the South Carolina Democratic debate? Hillary and Obama showing their teeth, neither giving an inch, attacking each other like there is no tomorrow. If they continue this way, there will be no tomorrow for the Democrats. Edwards who occasionally joined in the fray has no pray to be the victor, but he can be the spoiler for either of the main candidates. McCain, on the other side of the isle could not be happier.

The stock market is doing bad, the fed jumps in with a .75 rate cut, and yet the Democratic candidates demonstrate an inability to to change the way they conduct elections. It is the very thing that voters fear - that nothing has changed, and that nothing will. If voters come to that conclusion they may decide to choose based on personality rather than party affiliation. That is something Democrats do not want want to happen.

It is as if politicians believe that The road to Heaven is paved with bad intentions. They act as if they think that dirty campaigning and mud slinging will let them win and once they are in office they could move forward with a more positive agenda. That is not how human nature works. By the time the campaign is over, even the most honest candidate will have blood on his/her hands not to mention impaired moral judgment. The effects on the less honest politicians are not pronounced that much - they have always been dishonest.

Obama Nevada Win-Loss-Toss

2008-01-20T09:56:00.000-05:00

The Tuesday night debate in Las Vegas among Obama, Clinton and Edwards was quite revealing in what was said, what was not, and who was out. First and foremost, the viewers and attendees saw a significantly smaller cast of contenders - just the three leading candidates. The smaller cadre of candidates allowed for a round table format, a novelty in these primaries. Suddenly the contenders were much closer, almost facing each other. The format and the aftermath of the temporary truth between the Clinton and Obama's campaigns made the debate more civilized, and allowed the keen observer an opportunity to watch the contenders when their guards were much lower.

Clearly, different observers would notice different characteristics and come to different conclusions about the potential presidents the candidates would be, assuming they win. But as David Broder from the Washington Post noted after the debate, the three candidates revealed three different personalities when asked about their vision of their roles as presidents.

Obama, true to his vision campaign, came across as an executive who sets goals, builds a team of managers to carry out these goals, and motivate people to work towards these goals. He is not a detail oriented person. Clinton, on the other hand, emphasized procedures and good governance in ways that reminded many of Al Gore's agenda to fix the government agencies. Edwards was going to fight everybody in sight in Washington because there is evil everywhere.

Edwards may be seen more of a Don Quixote than a crusader. Anybody who knows anything about Washington knows that to accomplish anything in Washington one needs to work with different groups rather than start a big fight. The voters of Nevada who gave Edwards a meager 5% of their votes may have sensed that. If Bush taught us anything, it is to beware f zealots.

Obama may be more fun and inspiring to work for, and may depend more on the team he will eventually assemble. Clinton on the other hand, may be a more intimidating manager, likely to go over the details of every little policy paper and breathe down the necks of subordinates who may hate to work for her. Some still remember how her failed attempt at health care stemmed from her tendency for secrecy and lack of cooperation with others in Washington. With him we may accomplish more of less, namely more areas of policies, but less in each. With her we may get less of more – few more radical choices before enough people in Washington had enough of her.

The voters in Nevada may have chosen Hillary, but Obama took more delegates. It seems that aside from casting a large cloud on Edward’s campaign, Nevada did not teach us much. From Obama’s point of view a worrisome trend may have emerged – that he may be suffering from the Bradley Effect – putting aside the Iowa caucuses, he seems to get less votes than polls indicate. That may mean that his slim lead in South Carolina may not be enough to win the state. As I wrote after New Hampshire, if Hillary wins we may get a less inspiring president.

That may be a bigger if than before. McCain’s victory in South Carolina where he took just a third of the conservative votes but won on the votes of independents and centrists is significant. To win the presidency one needs to win the center and so McCain may be the toughest Republican challenger Democrats may face in November. In such circumstances Hillary’s negatives may just give McCain the edge he needs to win.

Use it or lose it - Quasi Illegal Immigrants

2008-01-16T17:33:00.000-05:00

Many Americans complain about illegal immigrants. The election season and the downturn in the economy are not going to shrink the number of complaints. There is a real voter revolt about this issue, mostly in the Republican base. Democrats are also threading the matter very carefully. Both parties fear that Hispanic voters will use immigration reform as a litmus test.

In this environment most politicians won't address the issue seriously. Take for example the matter of border controls, also known as the fence issue. Clearly, a country has the right to protect its borders. But what happens when it fails to do so for a long time? Is there really a will in Washington to close the borders? Perhaps not. Perhaps, despite claims on both sides of the isle, there are powerful interests that take advantage of the "open" borders. Even McCain, who after voter revolt now claims to have learned the lesson and wants to close the borders before implementing any immigration reform -- even he leaves it to state governors to "certify to the Federal government that they have closed the border". Talk about an escape clause. He clearly does not want to do it himself, and he wants to be able to pass the blame of open borders onto state governors.

Whether the American public likes it or not, our elected officials left our borders open for years. Neither have they implemented a reliable system to enforce existing labor laws. Implicitly and tacitly these inactions encouraged the flow of illegal immigrants. Sure, they never changed the laws to make them legal, but they looked the other way when the laws were broken.

So now we have millions who came in, technically braking the law. They come from countries where laws are meant to be broken and Washington signaled in their inaction that we are not much different. Every so often we legislate new ways to legalize the illegals, further signaling that these laws are not to be taken seriously. Knowing all of that, the question that need to be asked is whether we as a nation share some responsibility in the current situation? From a moral point of view, and perhaps under some legal doctrines as well, we have a responsibility too. When one has some rights and one does not assert them even when alerted repeatedly, one may lose some of them.

So to call the illegal immigrants by that term is disingenuous. From a moral standpoint they are quasi illegal -- neither legal nor totally illegal. They live amongst us and most of them will sooner or later become citizens. But even if one does not accept the legal or moral arguments, the pragmatic argument leads to the same conclusion. As a nation we would be better of if we embrace them, take them in as Americans and give them the hope of prosperity rather than criminalize them, create an alien nation, one which will only lead to social havoc. At the same time, we should really decide whether we want an open border or not. Perpetuating the current sham is eroding our laws and tearing the fabric of what we are - a nation of immigrants.

What else haven't they told us?

2008-01-14T14:53:00.001-05:00

This question should not only be asked by voters. I hope the President asks the secretary of defense the same question and that he in turn asks the chief of staff. Apparently the incident in the Strait of Hormuz, where U.S. Navy ships almost opened fire on Iranian boats may have been trigerred by a well known prankster known as the "Filipino Monkey". If he is so well known for his activities in the gulf, how is it that the command chain was unaware of this?

Something is broken in the lines of communications. It takes a week to learn that we almost started a major incident with the Iranians because of a false alarm. It takes few years to learn that our intelligence information indicates they have stopped their program to enrich Uranium. It took months to learn that Saddam did not have WMDs. What's wrong with this administration? Even if one supports all their policies, these gross mistakes clearly indicates that information at the bottom does not trickle up to the top.

It is often said of dictators that the fear they instill in their subordinates ultimately dooms them as it prevents bad news or opposing views to be objectively assessed and analyzed. Decision making become faultier as information becomes more biased and scarcer. But this is said of dictatorships, not a democracy. Why are we so incompetent?

Unfortunately, there are times where a nation may have to call upon its citizens to sacrifice for a better future. Let us hope nothing of the kind happens during the remaining term of this administration that had lost all credibility.

Hillary and Barack Surrogate fighting

2008-01-13T20:09:00.000-05:00

Will Hillary Clinton drag down Obama’s relatively clean campaign into the mud? Is this the hidden tactic of her campaign ever increasing insinuations and offenses against Obama? If so, Obama may face a real dilemma. Respond in kind and be as dirty and old-style politician like Hillary, or resist the temptation and risk that some of the smear thrown his way would stick.

This is not a new dilemma for candidates who start on a new campaign and promise to keep it clean. It is much easier to start a clean campaign that to finish it that way and still end as a winner. Past elections are filled with stories of unelected candidates victimized by dirty tricks. Is the electorate using tough campaigning as a yardstick for future successful politicians? Is there really any correlation between dirty campaigning and future greatness in the white house? These are questions not easy to answer. Whatever the case may be, voters seem quite comfortable to proclaim displeasure with negative campaigning while rewarding those who engage in it.

Now that Hillary and Obama are at the center of a fight over black votes in South Carolina, the fight becomes dirtier. It matters not that Hillary may have started it through her surrogate, Bob Johnson, president of Black Entertainment Television and a major supporter. Obama’s campaign could not let Johnson’s remarks stay -- there is too much at stake. For voters these nuances matter little. As far as they are concerned, both campaigns are engaged in dirty fighting and Barack finds himself involved with the kind of fight that belongs to old politics rather than the politics of hope. Can he do it without being tainted? Time will tell if the black voters of South Carolina, the trophy of the current fight, vote for hope or be susceptible to the old tricks.

New Hampshire voter galore

2008-01-10T10:07:00.000-05:00

The voters kept surprising, saying clearly that they are in control. The pollsters wonder whether voters where honest in their answers, or whether they changed their minds in the last hours. Did Hillary's emotional outburst change some minds, did her self proclamation as a change agent successfully neutralized Obama, or are the voters falling back to old habits that made them susceptible to old politic tricks that they so proclaim to hate?

Hillary's win may turn out to be her turning point leading to her winning the primary. On the other hand, it may reduce her incentive to rethink Iowa and what Barack really means. For Barack, New Hampshire presents a deep dilemma. Without a copyright, his change and hope message is loosing its uniqueness. His forte seems to be his pep talk in town hall meetings where he can deliver an electrifying speech that energize activists and swing doubters to his camp. He is less impressive in debates where answers are short and limited, leaving less opportunity to inspire. His speeches develop a convincing theme over several minutes. His answers in debates are short extracts that fail to encompass the message into the permissible sound bytes. In these aspect, where the number of debates grew exponentially, Hillary performs better than Obama. We may get a better debater, but a less inspiring President. Considering the challenges that America faces, the voters may hand themselves a raw deal.

Hillarack Clintama

2008-01-08T08:39:00.000-05:00

What has happened in Iowa? Are the voters crazy? Don't they know what they are supposed to vote? Have they been absent while the pundits explained how they should be thinking? Are they reading the polls?

Perhaps the conversations in the Clinton's war room are cast in different terms, perhaps they are less sarcastic, but quite possibly they reflect the same underlying thinking. In Iowa the voters have turned the tables on the Clintons, and Barack is riding on a wave of an entirely different message. Change is in the air, and that voters seem to be saying is that Hillary is not a change. What a chutzpah! Isn't being a woman change enough?

Whatever they were saying or thinking in that war room, Hillary spent no time changing her campaign message. She can adapt fast to the polls – those years alongside Bill really paid well. Or have they? If voters want change, then that's what she is going to say. "For 35 years I have been for change" she proclaimed in the debate following the Iowa uprising. But that quick change of message, that proclamation of thirty five years of change merely undermines Clinton as it confirms voters sense that she will say anything to get elected, morph herself into Hillarack Clintama if necessary, just "elect me". Her campaign spread the rumor that Barack is not black enough for African Americans. Hillary in effect white washed Barack so that if she can’t be black, Barack won’t be one either.

She tried to play the experience card, but voters do not seem to think that being the betrayed wife of a president gives her many qualifications. Is Bill Gate’s wife, who worked for Microsoft as a project manager qualified to run the company? Touring the world and handshaking dignitaries puts Hillary ahead of Bush who hasn’t made it to Canada before becoming a president, but that’s not a high bar to cross. So gone is the experience message, welcome change.

Are her campaign advisers missing the point here? Don't they see that all these message massaging doesn't work? Are they so arrogant as to give no credit to the voters who had enough of dirty campaigning, false promises, and face-saving announcements? Are they so detached from the common voters that they no longer realize that Americans have learned how to read between the lines and reinterpret all the nuances of political statements and see through them? Do they really think that "It all depends what the meaning of is is?" works any more?

Barack is to Hillary what Bill was to GW the first. New versus old. Fresh blood versus entrenched Washington politics. New hope versus despair. Clean versus corrupt-by-association. In short, the guy voters think will most likely lead to the change they so seek in Washington.

Barack may just be what the Democratic Party needs, whether they know it or not. Ever since they lost vast amounts of voters to Reagan, Democrats have struggled to enlarge their voting base. Thanks to the anomaly of Ross Perot Bill got elected without enlarging the base. Now, for the first time in years a new candidate seems to be expanding the voter base. Barack brings in hordes of new young voters and independents that where either not in the game or voting republicans. He is the great black hope despite the fact that he is wisely not playing the race card. He represents a new generation of black politicians that understand that they do not have to wear a special pin to promote the interests of their constituents. On the contrary, by promoting an all-inclusive agenda he is both showing the way forward for Black Americans and enlists a greater crowd to the widely more expansive Democratic Party agenda.

Critics may point out that Barack's message of change and empowerment in essence does not reveal much about his future plans. American voters seem not to see this as a deficiency since they have discounted Hillary's plans and promises as not trustworthy, much as they have done to all politicians. Now on equal level, namely without specific plans, they judge the two on the basis of personality and credibility. Under these circumstances, the recent primaries results are not surprising.

Who can Barack pick as a winning running mate? There is no special test a running mate must pass, not even a spelling test. So while presidential candidates often pick surprising running mates, they sometimes surprise us by not surprising us. On sheer speculation only, the combination of Barack and Edwards seem like a compatible and unbeatable team. Both young, advocating change, and complement each other in the voting map. One is a Southerner, one from Illinois. One white, one is not. Neither are identified with Washington, both raise the flag of breaking lobby powers, dealing with health care, and making real change. The Republicans would have hard time coming with a stronger pair.