The Blame Game Begins with an Assist from Halperin

Last night's AC360 had a group of panelists discussing how Democrats are "flummoxed, off-balance" and "flatfooted" by the Palin pick:




Notice Mark Halperin's closing remarks (around 4:15 in the video clip)and I thought, "here we go. The first rehabilitation effort of Hillary & Bill for the 2012 campaign."

Transcript:

AC: Mark Halperin, you were talking about Hillary...it would be fascinating to know what Hillary Clinton is thinking right now.

MH: Yeah, can I share this with you? I bought this a few weeks ago in Denver. As they say on TV, "can you see this?" It says, "Hillary Clinton, the most formidable and phenomenal women of 2008." That's two weeks ago and it was true. It's not true anymore. Sarah Palin is now more of a phenom and she's very formidable.

I think Hillary Clinton is saying - I don't know this - I think she's saying, the beginning of the "I told you so." She said the reason Obama would be a dangerous nominee is that he would be rattled by the Republicans when they came at him, that he would be inexperienced and that he would be flustered by all of this. And we're seeing it now. I'm not saying he's collapsed but, boy, are they off their game."

Seriously, he's innoculating the Clintons against any charges they may be held responsible for an Obama loss. The media is helping create the quadrennial Democratic circular firing squad already - despite the fact the calendar shows Election Day more than 50 days away - and the Democrat ahead in the Electoral College!

Moving Goalposts Arrive in Denver

I realize now that those shifting goalposts from the primary season may have been much more media-created than I previously understood.

Last night I was impressed by Hillary's speech after having been firmly ensconced in the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp throughout the primaries. This morning, I found myself amazed, enraged and ashamed by how the media is pushing the PUMA-driven "Clintonistas are bitter" storyline so aggressively.

I'm exhausted by the media's relentless handwringing (and schizophrenic) chorus.

First, they told us, "Michelle must define herself and allow voters to become comfortable with her family"
initial reviews: CHECK
"Good job. But where was the red meat?" Is there any rational human (other than those who receive the RNC's daily talking points email) who believes the image of an angry, on-the-attack Mrs. Obama would have endeared her to undecided voters?

Next they turned their obsession to Hillary's Herculean task. "How can Hillary pivot and transfer the support of her 18-million strong army to become part of Barack's Battalion? Will she look genuine? Or will she come off as readying her 2012 bid?"
initial reviews: missions accomplished!
Well, she was good - maybe her best speech ever, in fact. But, wait, come to think of it, you know she forgot to mention whether or not she now feels Obama is ready to receive that 3 AM call. And, look, here's an angry white woman who still seems dissatisfied that the system robbed Hillary. Cleary, she left some work undone.

Where are all the critiques of the Bush/Cheney administration? Why haven't they hung that 24% approval rating around McCain's neck? They're missing their opportunity! Is this Kerry '04 redux? When will the Democrats learn politics is a contact sport? All the time they're saying this, speaker after speaker is on the podium denouncing Bush, McCain and failed Republican policies.

The media opts to air more of themselves bloviating about the real issue before voters: Bill Clinton feels dissed by the upstart and aloof Barack Obama.

So, today we're treated to "What will Bill say? And, what will he look like while he's saying it? Will he look like he's passing a kidney stone? Will he wag his finger? Even more importantly, what will he be thinking when he says it?

Thankfully, we have Dr. Maureen Dowd to help us with that analysis.

Oh, and by the way, Obama speaking in front of 75,000 people - that just reinforces this celebrity thing dontcha think? Politicians should be serious and not really popular. American leaders should be plodding and boring - not inspirational. Maybe if he had spent time in a POW camp, he would understand how unwise it is to make the most important speech of his lifetime in such a public venue.

The inevitable result is an unwinnable situation where Democrats are confronted by an endgame with bogus goalposts, impossible Catch-22s created by morning after psychologists and manufactured drama driven by a minority who are desperate for their fifteen seconds of fame (yes, in the youtube era, Warhol's prediction has been truncated into nothing more than a sound bite).

I've taken to watching the convention on CSPAN, where there is no bloviating media telling me what to think. I'm hoping Barack and Plouffe have made a similar decision.

UPDATE 3:26, 8/26/08: The Boston Globe's editors share my affinity for CSPAN's convention coverage.

Political Junkies Anonymous?

The wind-down to the most competitive nominating contest in American history has me transfixed - and a little worried. Does anyone know of a post-primary 12-step program for political junkies? How will I replace my addiction to polls, 24-hour talking heads and my new gay-man crush on Rachel Maddow?

Personally, today the emotion is one of "delayed relief." While I'm delighted the moment has finally arrived, it's a tad bit anticlimactic. Anyone with the ability to do simple mathematics knew the outcome of this contest in late February.

I've been angry at the Clintons at many moments during this campaign, perhaps never moreso than watching Harold Ickes' hypocritical and nasty performance at the RBC meeting on Saturday. However, it has completely evaporated over the past 24 hours, replaced by a surprisingly bittersweet sympathy. I am relieved the Democrats have finally removed the "burden" of Bill and Hillary by rejecting and renouncing her coronation march. My party has proven we are America's small "D" democrats, the true defenders of the Jeffersonian ideal. No single person - or family - is more important than the party, or the country.

As I write this, MSNBC is reporting Hillary is letting it be known she would accept an invite to be the Veep. I hope Barack resists this temptation. I believe he is smart enough to understand the danger of bringing Bill's baggage to the Democratic ticket. My sincere desire is that this last dance between the two candidates to be graceful. Hillary can have a great future in the Democratic party. The Senate will be in desperate need of a powerful Democratic voice.

Now, my nerves are redirected to the general election and a climatic November moment ... anxiously anticipating a Democratic victory. Will Democrats find a way to snatch defeat despite overwhelming macrotrends pointing toward a Democratic sweep?

Maybe I don't need that 12-step program yet, after all.

With Friends Like These...

Karl Rove's take on the decisive Basketball Primaries (from the RCP Blog):

Fox News's "Fox and Friends"
Karl Rove on Obama's win in North Carolina: "He had a big victory last night. ... On the other hand, he won because of the dynamics of the state. There's a state that has 35 percent African American population, probably closer to 40 percent in terms of those that voted. And his vote among [blue collar], working-class people is terrible. He basically got a quarter and a third in the two states. ... It's a very big problem for him. The industrial Midwest -- from Pennsylvania through Wisconsin -- becomes in play if he's the nominee."

Is it just me, or is Rove sounding a lot like Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis?

I hope Republicans buy into this analysis and build their general election strategy along the same lines as Hillary's. Obama will shake his head and shrug, "this again? can't they come up with something original?"

On the other hand, Rove did acknowledge the Clinton-Obama extended tussle has been good for Obama (again, from RCP):

On the downside to Clinton staying in the race: "I'm not certain there's a downside if she remains in, and he has a tone that he had last night. ... They continue the dialogue, they continue to dominate, and he gets to be a better candidate. Part of this process is to make yourself a better candidate, and he has become a better candidate than he was at the beginning."

KeithO: The Magical Moving Goalposts

Olberman determines which voter counts:

Is Anyone Welcome Aboard HMS Hillary?

One of TeamHillary's primary themes developed during this interminable nomination battle (alongside the concurrent Magical Moving Goalposts strategy) has been the shrinking number of people who matter.

The campaign's willingness to toss overboard key constituencies from the HMS Hillary is counterintuitive to any campaign whose only remaining argument is based on ELECTABILITY.

Despite arguing she wants every Democrat in all fifty states to have a chance to vote, Senator Clinton continues her march into oblivion by dismissing every voter (or voting bloc) who votes for "her opponent." By the way, does it annoy anyone else out there that Mrs. Clinton can't seem to remember Barack Obama's name unless he happens to be in the room? It has that "nails across the chalkboard" effect on me similar to when Republicans use their juvenile "Democrat Party" label.

TeamHillary's laundry list of Those Who Do Not Matter has grown with each passing contest.

First, she dismissed caucus state voters.

Then, it was African-Americans.

Next, we learned that small-state voters don't count, either.

Activists were next forced to walk the plank from the HMS Hillary when they proved mutinous to the Clinton Party restoration.

Red State Democrats, who began to believe they may actually play a role in a rejuvenated national party, were told they weren't welcome.

College educated, middle and upper income liberals soon joined the ranks of the "to-be-disenfranchised."

Now, after her ridiculous GOP gas tax holiday proposal, economists and policy experts who have universally criticized her for shameless, if not dangerous, political pandering, we can add policy wonks to the list of Those Who Do Not Matter.

How ironic that the renowned policy wonk herself has tossed aside the experts? More ominously, doesn't this seem frighteningly similar to the current Oval Office occupant's behavior vis-a-vis military and foreign policy?

Listen Up, Folks!

Hillary was on Nightline last night discussing Super Delegate Joe Andrew's decision to switch his support from her to Obama. Predictably, she dismissed the impact of his choiced and disagreed with his assessment that the prolonged campaign is now damaging Democrats' chances in November. "Anyone who believes that this is bad for the party, I just don't think is paying attention," she said.

Today, Gallup released a poll showing over 60% of Democrats believe this nomination fight is "doing more harm than good." While three out of four Obama supporters feel this way, a full 43% of Clinton supporters agree.

Let's review.

After telling us activists don't matter, caucus states don't matter, African Americans don't matter, college educated voters don't matter and young voters don't matter, Mrs. Clinton is now lecturing us that a majority of the Democratic Party doesn't matter.

Who's the elitist candidate?

AWOL: Democratic leadership

Democrats have a long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. CQ Politics warns the ongoing Hillary-Barack battle could not only damage hopes of recapturing the White House, but also divide the party deeply enough to negatively affect Democrats down ballot. In fact, it may be providing the Republicans their ONLY hope in 2008:

The party and its presumed presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, are carrying the triple-headed albatross of a protracted war in Iraq, a sinking economy and the most unpopular GOP presidential incumbent in modern history. Two of the three, Iraq and President Bush, were the central elements of the soured political atmosphere that existed in November 2006, when the Democrats overturned Republican majorities on both sides of the Capitol. The economy, still in a long period of growth back then, has now gone into a downturn, if not an outright recession, and economic dissatisfaction almost always redounds against the party that holds the White House.

So the Republicans — pining against the odds for a return to power this fall, and aspiring a bit more realistically to minimize a deeper decline toward powerlessness — are hinging those hopes on letting Democrats be Democrats. Their calculation is that, if the Clinton vs. Obama contest drags on for months more, with each senator working to damage the other in search of an advantage, both will end up bloodied and bruised no matter which one is awarded the nomination. And at that point, Republicans hope, the loser's embittered constituency will do what other disaffected Democratic factions have done so often in the past and simply walk away from politics this fall — taking with them the money, the organizational muscle and, most important, the votes that could make the difference in dozens of close congressional races. (emphasis mine)

Yet, we have Democratic Super Delegates who still think it's wise to remain silent and uncommitted in the presidential race.

By sitting on the sidelines these elected officials are reinforcing the image of Democrats as spineless, poll-driven politicians. If the party is asking the American voter to entrust them with the keys to both the White House and Congress, doesn't it behoove them to show some leadership?

Clinton Triangulating May “Starve the Beast?”

The historically high price of gasoline – and political pressure to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT – has drawn a distinct difference between the Democratic challengers while blurring the difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

This afternoon MSNBC played a couple of dueling sound bites:

Clinton is shown on the campaign trail trumpeting a populist message. "At the heart of my approach is a simple belief. Middle class families are paying too much and oil companies aren't paying their fair share to help us solve the problems at the pump."

Barack responds, "We're arguing over a gimmick to save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something. Well, let me tell you something: This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer. It's an idea designed to get them to an election." (emphasis mine)

Once again, we've got someone speaking the truth – even though it isn't a political winner in the short-term. His opponent, on the other hand, has chosen one of the golden oldies of presidential politics, "the Populist Pander." In doing so, Hillary has embraced an ill-advised, Republican-inspired proposal and sacrificed bedrock Democratic ideals all for the sake of Hoosier and Tar Heel votes.

Never mind that her plan echoes much of McCain's "gas tax holiday." It may never come to fruition because it requires the unlikely passage of a new tax on oil company windfall profits (try getting that through the 60 seat cloture vote, Hils). Also ignore the fact it represents a complete reversal of the fundamental New Deal philosophy that public works spending jumpstarts a sputtering economy (the plan could put hundreds of thousands of highway workers out of work). None of that is Hillary's cardinal sin.

Well then, what is?

In her analysis of Clinton's proposal, Republican pollster Kellyann Conway provides the answer

"In fact, some her words today sounded exactly like John McCain's gas tax holiday proposal from just a couple of weeks ago. So, I think right now they're playing to two different audiences. Perhaps Senator Clinton is feeling quite bold given all of her new poll numbers and the fact that this has become a tightened race. But I think what is really key in the whole discussion about a tax gas holiday is this: that, instead of just talking about the oil companies, instead of just talking about the price of gas, people will become that much more aware across this country that the federal government benefits tremendously from taxes on gasoline. And that's meant to go to repair our roads and our bridges. And everybody knows that our bridge and road repair are, they are in disrepair. So, I think it's important that we starve the beast – the federal, state and local governments – who rely upon taxes at the pump while people are trying to fill up the tank just to get around to their jobs and schools."

Way, to go, Hills. You've provided the Republican spinmeisters an opportunity to promote neoconservative Grover Norquist's governing philosophy goal to "shrink government to a size you can drown in the bathtub." No wonder the Republicans are so delighted to see your candidacy continue.

Triangulation Triumphant? Is that what a Clinton restoration will mean?

But, thankfully, we have a candidate who refuses to pander. Listen to him, folks:



UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal discusses how the Clinton/McCain "holiday" would actually raise prices by increasing demand. It's time we elected politicians who talk honestly about the difficult times ahead.

McCain's Blurry Vision

This isn't about whether or not the septegenarian needs bifocals (although how would we know since he hasn't fully released his medical records?) Rather, we've got some striking news from Gallup.

Only one third (33%) of Americans believe John McCain has a clear plan to solve America's problems. That's a nine point drop since mid-March. Yup, it seems that despite his month-long free pass to define himself to the American voter as the Democrats continue their deathmatch nomination battle, McCain has presented himself and Americans simply aren't impressed.

But, the good news for Democrats (particularly Hillary Clinton) doesn't stop there. Gallup measured eight "character" ratings for the three leading presidential candidates. McCain's image among Americans slipped in seven. While Obama's numbers also softened, it was McCain who experienced the steepest decline. Considering the ongoing Democratic intramural fighting, it is surprising Hillary Clinton saw her image actually increase in response to most questions. There is a huge red flag for her, however. More than 6 out of ten don't view Clinton as trustworthy.

Overall, Obama has a significant lead (4 points or larger) over his rivals on three questions. McCain leads on two while Clinton, despite her improving numbers does not lead both her rivals on any question.

Comparing the two Democratic rivals, Obama holds leads over Clinton on four questions. The most striking is the "trust gap" of 23 points. Clinton has cut into Obama's lead on empathy (cares about people like you) and pride (proud to have as president). She holds on three questions, (has a plan, leadership and management) manifestation of the "experience" mantle she has worked to claim throughout the nomination battle.

In head-to-head matchups, McCain now trails both Democrats on three questions. He trails Obama on two more (values and pride). Clinton's "trust gap" with McCain is even larger (28 points). Conversely, McCain trails Clinton as the problem solver in the race by double digits (15) and is viewed as being unaware of the average American's problems (10 points).

	Clinton	McCain	Obama
Cares about the needs of people like you.	57 (+3)	52 (-2)	62 (-4)
Is a strong and decisive leader.	62 (+1)	66 (-3)	55 (-1)
Is honest and trustworthy.	37 (-7)	65 (-2)	60 (-3)
Shares your values.	46 (+1)	47 (+1)	51 (NC)
Has a clear plan for solving the country's problems.	47 (-2)	33 (-9)	40 (-1)
Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives.	60 (+2)	50 (-5)	63 (-4)
Is someone you would be proud to have as president.	48 (+1)	51 (-4)	55 (-2)
Can manage the govt effectively.	54 (+3)	55 (-5)	48 (NC)
MoE = +/- 3%.

Who's Got the Teflon Armor?

The juxtaposition of two Gallup polls today provides an interesting snapshot of the American electorate in the midst of one of the most unpredictable presidential contests.

They contain promising news regarding the "macroclimate" for Democrats in the about-to-begin general election campaign but some troubling signals regarding presumptive GOP nominee John McCain's early strength.

The first shows Bush hitting historic lows. He's at 28% approval - the worst rating in the 70-year history of Gallup's presidential polling. Makes me wonder what McCain's strategists are thinking by continuing to embrace a failed presidency. What's the point of "shoring up the base" when they're abandoning their standard-bearer in record numbers? Or, can McCain escape (and perhaps reverse) the downward spiral of the Republican brand?

The second poll also contains good news for Barack Obama. It hints that Obama may indeed be the 21st century's first teflon candidate. Despite the media's pitbull tenacity about the "bitterly clinging" comments, today's poll shows only 26% of voters view Obama as "looking down on them." More (32%) view Hillary Clinton as the elitist in the nomination contest.

But before Democrats get too overconfident, there's another candidate for the Teflon Candidate. Fewer voters (only 22%) view McCain as less out of touch:

Is this more evidence the Democratic infighting is hurting Clinton and Obama while elevating McCain? It's also an early and worrisome signal that McCain may not have the Bush legacy as an albatross around his neck.

It's time for Democrats to end the intramural death match and move on to target McCain.

This is just a start from the DNC:

Gallup: Dems Leading in Battleground States

This is big, especially considering the fretting the punditocracy (and the blogosphere) is doing about how this interminable Democratic nomination battle could be hurting our general election chances. According to Gallup's April polling, both Democrats are winning the purple states (NH, PA, OH, MI, WI, MN, IA, FL, CO, NV, NM and OR) where the margin separating Kerry & Bush in 2004 was less than 6 points. Obama and Clinton both beat McCain in these critical battleground states by a 47-43 margin.

OBAMA More Competitive in Red States: It's in the Red States where Obama outperforms Clinton against McCain. Obama trails McCain by eight points (49-41) in these states while Clinton trails by ten (51-41). Gallup doesn't break out these numbers by state, but it seems Obama may be able to make a state or two competitive and force the Republican candidate to play defense on his home turf more than Clinton.

In Blue States, Obama also outpaces Clinton. Obama beats McCain by thirteen (52-39) while Clinton only leads by nine (50-41). This belies the New York Senators claim that she has demonstrated she can win the "Big Democratic" states that are critical to a Democrat's chances in November. Obama is going to be able to win these more handily than Clinton, if these numbers are to be believed.

Obama's Numbers:

Clinton's Numbers:

The pollsters at Gallup include this analysis:

It's likely that the 2008 election will be fought in the battleground states, just as in prior elections. Gallup's election polling to date suggests that the presidential election could be very close, because neither McCain nor his Democratic rivals have maintained much of a lead in recent weeks.

The analysis of competitive states adds insight into how the candidates are doing beyond the overall vote figures. A candidate must do reasonably well in those states to have a chance at winning. For example, McCain could open up a significant lead in the national vote based on a very strong performance in the red states, but that would not mean he was better positioned to win than if he were not doing as well in the red states but doing better in the more competitive states.

As of now, Obama and Clinton have an advantage over McCain among voters in the competitive states. Given that more states fall into the Republican column than into the Democratic column, the Democratic nominee probably needs to maintain that advantage in order to prevail in enough purple states to gain the electoral vote advantage in November.

I Got Another HillGram from Ann Today

Early in this presidential campaign I signed up for email updates from each of the Democratic presidential campaigns, (and even a couple of the Republicans) because I was curious as to how each would utilize the Internet as a communication tool. From the beginning, I've been impressed by Obama, as I was with Edwards. Hillary, however, has been a different story.

For some reason, the Clinton campaign thinks I'm a female. For months now, I've been receiving regular emails from senior advisor Ann Lewis under the "Women for Hillary" banner. Not sure how or why the campaign performed this gender reassignment, but it has provided an interesting insight into how TeamHillary has used her gender to cling to the one constituency - white women - that has stuck by her throughout this campaign season. At times, Ann's emails have been amusing. Others, the reliance on identity politics has been frustrating.

Today's email was irritating. It relies on one of the tried and true strategies needed for identity politics to succeed - claiming victimhood and bonding around the shared injustice as a group. TeamHillary takes a very real issue - the wage gap between men and women - and embraces it has her cause. Quite ironic when she and Bill are sitting on a pile of 109 million greenbacks.

I'm annoyed when Ann urges me to let all the women I know what's at stake in this election, implying Hillary is the only candidate concerned about addressing the wage gap. Do they seriously think I (and the women I know) will buy their argument that a Clinton restoration is the only hope for women?

From Ann:

Dear Friend,

Today, we are launching the “Make Change Count” campaign to highlight the wage gap that persists for women across the country. This year, Equal Pay Day -- the day on which women's wages catch up to men's wages for the prior year -- falls on April 22.

Check out YOUR wage gap by using our calculator at: ww.hillaryclinton.com/women!
Although it has been more than 40 years since the Equal Pay Act became law,
full-time working women make just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. And
it's even worse for women of color.

Tell your friends about the Wage Gap calculator and Hillary's work by sending them an email – sample text here!

Hillary has long been a champion for equal pay for women. Her legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would help close the wage gap for women across the country, ultimately putting more money in the pockets of America's families.

Hillary has also worked in the Senate not only to ensure women earn the same amount as men for equal work but also to expand the earned income tax credit,
provide health care for children, raise the minimum wage, and stand up for
female-owned small businesses.

Write a letter to the editor about Hillary's commitment to closing the wage gap – sample text here!

As president, Hillary would bring to the White House a long record of fighting for women and children -- and she will lead a government dedicated to improving the lives for all our families.

Please share this important tool with the women you know and let them know what is at stake in this election.

Sincerely,
Ann

Is TeamHillary really this tone-deaf?

The campaign still doesn't understand the dynamics of the American Electorate, Version 2008. After years of being "sliced and diced" into competing interest groups (thanks Mark Penn & Karl Rove), people want to come together to solve our common problems. The voters are responding to a positive message that strives to remind us there is more that unites us than divides us.

Despite this, Hillary continues campaigning from her outdated playbook.

When Bitter Becomes Sweet

This guy is brilliant. Obama's actually laughing at Hillary Clinton's "bitter" attacks.

The image of Hillary spending her Sunday afternoons out in duckblind has to be one of the silliest American political images since Dukakis driving that tank.

The Sunday Muse

Random thoughts on a Sunday morning in April...

An Inconvenient Truth: The Mother Jones has an expose on former Secret Service agents spying on Greenpeace and other environmental groups - including perusing donor lists, financial records and staff Social Security numbers. Another example of the Bush/Cheney anti-green and pro-oil agenda? Nope. This was going on during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Green Citizen of the Year Award: Royal Dutch Shell tells the EU - take your planet and shove it.

Deliver Us From Evil: When President Bush starts a sentence with, "Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people..." you just know the result can't be good.

Show Us the Money: The Center for Reponsive Politics reports a record-breaking year for K Street lobbying.

The (Greek) Gods Must Be Crazy: Nathan Gonzalez over at the Rothenberg Political Report ponders how political campaigns will compete with (and be shaped by) the Beijing Olympics in a 24/7 news environment this August.

Will She Stand By Her Man? One of the signature accomplishments of the Clinton presidency - NAFTA - is widely blamed for job losses in midwestern Rust Belt cities. This sentiment caused Hillary Clinton to distance herself from her earlier support as the Democratic nomination battle wound it's way through Wisconsin, Ohio and now Pennsylvania. Friday's New York Times observes the economic downturn could cause voters to re-examine 1996's welfare reform creating another awkward situation for candidate Clinton.

Pat & Hillary, Sitting in A Tree, KAY, EYE, ESS, ESS, EYE, AND GEE

I'm spewing my no foam, low fat latte across the computer screen this morning.

Pundits are swarming like hungry sharks, accusing Barack of elitist condescension toward small town America. I'm watching conservative populist Pat Buchanan on MSNBC trumpeting the same -crap- talking points Hillary Clinton is using in her newly revised stump speech. Does anyone in Hillaryland see ANYTHING WRONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN cozying up to Pitchfork Pat, for chrissakes???

Small town America has suffered for decades with few answers coming from our leaders in Washington. The Free Trade agreements pushed by the Clinton and Bush Administrations (Hillary may hear "Ka-Ching," but small-town Americans hear Perot's infamous "sucking sound") have accelerated the Heartland's economic decline.

As The Boss sings, "these jobs are going, boys and they ain't coming back..."



This latest media feeding frenzy over our presidential contest is diminishing BOTH Democratic candidates and threatens to result in a fratricidal outcome. The "chum" this weekend (full quote included, bolded section is the sound-bite focused on by Clinton, McCain and the "media"):

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Senator Obama's use of the word "bitter" may have been a miscue. But for Clinton to seize upon a word and divert attention from the real debate about lost jobs, economic dislocation and healthcare only aids McCain's general election chances.

It's clear Clinton and McCain don't understand the realities of 2008: When over 80% of respondents say they believe this country is "ON THE WRONG TRACK" most Americans are bitter about what has happened to this country.

And, I've got news for you: it's not just about lost jobs.

It's about shredding the Constitution. It's about warrantless wiretaps and granting the telecoms retroactive immunity. It's about an ill-advised war with no end in sight. It's about $4.00/gallon gasoline when oil companies make record profits. It's rampant foreclosures and a bailout of Wall Street while Main Street continues to suffer.

This is why Americans - in small towns and big cities - are angry.

I shudder to think what may happen to this nation if you take away the one thing we have left:

HOPE.

The Incredible, Shrinking Ex-President

In the closing months of his presidency, the subject of Bill Clinton's "Legacy" and the paramount concern he supposedly placed on how history would regard him was a common media talking point.

He had survived a scathing partisan battle and left the White House with a higher approval rating than he had at the start of his second term. Despite an all-encompassing impeachment and a few minor mini-scandals (last minute pardons of a wealthy fugitive and the "plundering" of the White House come to mind), the Clinton brand was strong and durable enough to propel his wife to victory in the race for RFK's New York Senate seat and positioned the president as a powerful and influential force on the world stage.

The Clinton Brand isn't what it once was.

At the end of March 2008, a majority of Americans viewed the former president unfavorably. His wife's presidential campaign has brought out the worst in the former president. As her chief surrogate (and attack dog) he has left many wondering, "What happened to the sharpest political mind the Democratic party has seen in a generation?" Was it all an illusion built by a sophisticated political marketing machine?

Today, Ambinder pronounces:

"The debate about his political legacy is effectively over, and no one but a handful of prominent Democrats will argue that his presidency was salutary for the Democratic party."

On David Gregory's new MSNBC Show, the panelists discussed (video below) the fallout from Bill's latest misstep - resurrecting the Tuzla story and blaming the media's unfair treatment for his wife's floundering campaign. But, Chuck Todd disagrees and points the finger right back at Bill:

"Every time you see him. (Don't) forget - elections are never about the past. They're always about the future. And every time you see him, you never think about the future. And I think that's the fundamental sort of message problem that the Clinton campaign has because Obama seems like the future...and Bill Clinton's - just - aura says, "The Past."

- snip -

"That's been the issue that the Clinton campaign hasn't really grasped that well. It's this. How much credibility damage that Bill Clinton did to the Clinton Brand over that long period of time between 1998 and the end of his presidency."

Todd (and Newt's former toady, Tony Blankley) believe Clinton may not have survived if there had been a 24/7 news cycle in 1992. The YouTube Age has rewritten political campaigning. Anything and everything can come back to haunt you. Just ask George Allen.

But, I'm still wondering, "Was he ever the sharp political practioner of the Clintonista iconographers?"

Her Last Prayer

Much has been written over the past month about how Hillary Clinton's coronation coalition has shrunk with each primary contest. First, it was African-Americans, the young and highly educated "latte liberals." They were followed by blue collar union members, white men, low-income households and voters in their thirties and forties. Most recently, her support among her "demographic firewalls" - Hispanics and low-income women has softened considerably.

But, have no fear, TeamHillary. It appears you've managed to hold onto a *key* Democratic constituency. Gallup reveals today the New York Senator retains an advantage among highly religious white Democrats.

Bottom Line: MSM Wants Hillary to Hang On

Barack Obama has now won ten straight contests in the Democratic nomination campaign. He is not just winning - he's blowing his formerly inevitable opponent out of the water. He's expanded beyond his base and proved he's got the tactical ground game to back up his rhetorical brilliance. He has enticed the elusive American youth to vote in unprecedented numbers, tapped into America's deep desire for change and ignited a hope-based movement, attracting independents and Republicans to his campaign.

In a normal year, party elders would be urging the vanquished candidate to see the handwriting on the wall. Understanding the political damage likely to result from a long and divisive battle these superdelegates would be demanding an end to the contest "for the good of the party." The punditocracy would be observing "These lopsided losses are simply too much to overcome" and asking "When will she step aside?"

Instead, we have an ongoing narrative on the cable networks dominated by observations like "Never count the Clinton machine out." "Can victories in Texas and Ohio halt Obama's momentum and provide Hillary an opening?" "The campaign sees a viable path toward the nomination and may hold on through the August Denver convention." "The Clintons may go negative to derail Obama."

While there are scattered comments from the talking heads implying the Fat Lady is approaching the mic it is undeniable the dominant meme remains. Instead of being on a campaign death watch, the media is on the lookout for a "Clinton Comeback." Does anyone out there think if Obama was on a ten state losing streak the entire media-political establishment would not have already raised a deafening chorus demanding he step aside?

I believe there are two factors contributing to this strange, suspended reality. The fact Hillary and Bill are formidable politicians with a vast network and are proven Lazarus-like survivors is secondary to the MSM's profit motive. The nomination battles have helped feed the insatiable appetite of the 24/7 cable news channels. The seemingly "unpredictable" twists and turns of January and February provided fodder for the endless ego-filled television talkfest. When the spectre of this campaign coming to an end is raised on air, you can see the talking heads visibly disappointed. If Hillary throws in the towel, these politicos will see their airtime and public profiles diminished.

A few weeks ago there were stories about how Britney's tragedy feeds tens of millions of dollars into the economy, primarily into big media. This morning, I find myself wondering how much the Hillary & Bill drama pumps into the cable networks coffers?

"Brakeing:" Bill Is Running

Satire is most powerful when it strikes a chord and encapsulates the striking absurdity we know as reality. This week's The Onion scores with the headline "Bill Clinton: Screw It, I'm Running for President."

Since the Iowa caucuses and Bill Clinton's raised public profile in his wife's campaign it has become more obvious to this observer that the Hillary for President campaign is, at its core, a Clinton Restoration effort. We may as well throw all pretense aside and call it for what it is: A third term for Bill Clinton. As The Onion brilliantly "quotes" the former president,

"For too long has this nation been deprived of a Bill Clinton presidency, and for too long have I been deprived of being president. Now I get to experience all these wonderful things again myself."