March 4: Exit day one for Hillary

Even if Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination (which she won't), she wouldn't win the general election. Going into the campaign last year, she had every advantage, yet she demonstrated a lack of organizational skills and leadership abilities needed to win even half of the votes of those who held her in highest regard, Democratic voters. That being the case, she will never close the deal with independents and Republicans.

If Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, had won more votes in twice as many states, including 10-straight primaries by substantial margins, Democratic muckamucks would be calling for Obama to exit the stage. It's time for somebody to give that message to the Clintons. It's time for Hillary to begin working to unite the Democratic Party - but that's another act she seems incapable of performing. To the contrary, she gives every appearance of hanging onto false hope until the bitter end. As Bill said in South Carolina, "Run every race as if it's your last because if you don't, it could be."


The Clinton strategy through March 4 ... subject to change without notice

• Bill set the stage for March 4 by telling audiences last week, in his best Bubba drawl, "If you help Hillary win Texas and Ohio, most likely she'll be the nominee." That was another of his fabrications to manipulate expectations. Slim wins in either or both states would not put Hillary ahead in the delegate count, and barring a "Huckabee miracle," would do little to put her in the driver's seat to Denver.


• Hillary had trouble choosing her face for the Texas debate but, borrowing a few John Edwards lines, she donned the warm fuzzies persona long enough to make her accusations two days later seem like genuine outrage at wounds inflicted by a two-faced opponent.


• In Ohio, Hillary hit the stage with an orchestrated attack, minus the celestial choir - "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" - then spent the weekend mocking his supporters for their failure to see Obama as a political charlatan. As she demonstrated, Rove's playbook means confusing inattentive voters by being the first to accuse your opponent of doing what you're already guilty of doing.


• In Tuesday's Ohio debate, Hillary will skip the niceties. When the going gets tough, the tough head for the mud pit.


• Until polls (or the actual vote on March 4) prove whether or not the Cleveland maneuver has succeeded with voters, Hillary's supporters and the chattering class will cheer her attacks, something they've been wanting all along. They will marvel at how she's finally found her voice (again, at age 60), she's finally being herself (her true self this time), she's finally found a better way to compete, so never, ever count her out.


• If being Thatcheresque works in the slightest, i. e., the debate audience doesn't boo her off the stage, and Hillary follows up with a win or near-win in either Texas or Ohio next week, the Clinton machine will award her "the greatest comeback in the history of politics" (thank you, James Carville). That will be presented as reason enough to fight all the way to the convention floor or "till the last dog dies," whichever comes first.

Some strategy. After long months on the campaign trail, the establishment candidate is still losing ground. She has failed to grow into the national leader that party elites had expected. Contrary to her slogan, she's not ready to run a campaign on "day one," much less a government.

Hillary Clinton should do the right thing for herself, her party and the country: clean up her act this week in preparation for a graceful exit on March 4.

Democrats cannot unring the bell

"In the big picture of what really matters in the country, this is a very small blip. This is a fight among politicians." - Howard Dean, Oct. 10, 2007, Miami Herald

That statement by the DNC chairman symbolized the political wisdom of Democratic Party insiders and the liberal blogosphere back in the good old days of 2007, when Democrats were giddy at their prospects of wresting the White House from Republican hands. Florida lawmakers had jumped the gun by scheduling an early primary election, making the Florida voter an easy whipping boy for party bosses who showed no restraint with the big sticks and crack of whips. Little forethought was given to the unforeseen consequences of the party's draconian punishment. (Ignorance is rampant in Dems' firing circle)

Warnings of a possible party schism and calls for conciliation were roundly attacked - even by some Florida insiders. Not to worry, they insisted, our votes will too count; Florida delegates will be seated without a fight in Denver; we must support the failed party system as it exists today and fix it at some undetermined time in the future; this "very small blip" will soon be forgotten. Simple suggestions for a compromise, like cutting Florida's delegate count in half and encouraging candidates to campaign here, a la the Republican Party, were ruled out of order. The prevailing attitude was that Flori-duh can't be allowed to screw up another election for the rest of the country. Trust us, we know what we're doing.

So the political experts of the DNC got what they wanted. No leadership surfaced and none was sought to resolve the conflict. January 29 came and went.

Some party insiders who supported Florida's punishment, and that of Michigan, which had suffered a fate similar to Florida's, changed their minds on disenfranchising voters after primaries were held and their candidate "won." Following the February 5 primaries and the collapse of "the inevitable," party bigwigs at long last began to recognize the size of the blips they had created and exacerbated by their undue dependence on superdelegates and an overzealous enforcement of rules. Suddenly, rescue balloons were launched into the rarified atmosphere of the party elite, each caught in a crosswind of competing factions.

What's done is done, the bell is rung, and Democrats have fewer options now than a month ago. The direction they take will likely determine not only the party nominee but the party's fate in November.

Here are four of the paths open to Democrats in upcoming weeks:

(1) If, among pledged delegates, Obama takes a strong lead that Clinton cannot overtake, the majority of superdelegates will flow to him. At that point, something will be done to unite the party and return Florida and Michigan to a state of grace. This is my preference.

(2) If Clinton takes a strong lead among pledged delegates without the help of Florida and Michigan, the superdelegates will move in her direction, and delegates from both states will be seated. So far, however, her comeback efforts are falling short.

(3) If Clinton takes a lead that depends on superdelegates and regular delegates she claims from Florida and Michigan, Obama could be pressured to accept the VP position. Because that scenario would split the party irreparably, Democrats should restrain themselves from heading down that road. Obama, after playing by the rules and gaining the most pledged delegates, could not then be expected to play second fiddle for the sake of party unity. Under those deadlocked conditions, the party would be better served by uniting - as a last resort - around a man who won the popular vote for president eight years ago, Al Gore. Obama could more easily be persuaded to serve with Gore than with Clinton - and Hillary could accomplish more as Leader of the Senate or a Supreme Court justice than she could as VP for either Obama or Gore.

(4) And, if all the best efforts fail to return Florida and Michigan to the fold, we may as well have some fun - perhaps the last fun we'll have before Commander in Chief McCain's first term ends in 2013. My suggestion is that the party convention clear the slate by rejecting every designated delegate and superdelegate from Florida and Michigan, then select and seat an entirely new set of delegates - all unpledged to either candidate, and all selected by sortition:

Sortition, also known as allotment, is a fair method of selection by some form of lottery such as drawing coloured pebbles from a bag. It is used particularly to allot decision makers. In Ancient Athenian Democracy sortition was the primary method for appointing officials, a system that was thought to be one of the principal characteristics of democracy. It is today commonly used to select jurors in Anglo-Saxon based legal systems. - Wikipedia

Considering the Democratic Party's current state of mismanagement, could delegates chosen at random do worse?

Presidents' Day presidential predictions: Democrats

Yesterday I rated the Republican field of presidential wannabes. Today I'll look at Democrats.

Democrats Ranked by Nomination Probability

1. Al Gore
2. Barack Obama
3. Hillary Clinton
4. John Edwards
5. Bill Richardson
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Wesley Clark
8. Joe Biden
Others: Tom Vilsack, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, et al

Hillary Clinton is peeved by questions about her 2002 Iraq vote: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Clinton told an audience in Dover, N. H. (NYT, Feb. 18, 2007)

That answer includes a reminder she might want to avoid giving us. To write off a group of voters at this point in the campaign seems unthoughtful or overconfident at best. I woulda, coulda, been a Hillary supporter, but ... suddenly she's tougher on me than she was on Bush/Cheney when it would have counted. Her current rhetoric opposing Bush's belligerence toward Iran flows easily. Yet the senator apparently thinks it's just as important to show firmness toward her own party's members who were right in 2002. Frightened to death (again) of the name-calling gang that she - not we - enabled, she's making a bad mistake worse.

I hate to see a person with so much ability lock herself in a triangulation corner, but that was her choice when she not only signed Bush's blank check but gave him the keys to the vault. I don't expect an apology (but I can't speak for the families who paid the ultimate price). If Clinton remains unable to admit her mistake - even after seeing the consequences that many had predicted would ensue from her fateful decision - what does that say about her judgment then, or now? Has she learned nothing?

Barack Obama makes a good speech. The question is, where does he go from there? Although he was correct in voicing opposition to the Iraq invasion, that's one issue of many and in itself not enough to win an election. We have a year to see how he looks in his new "national figure" getup. So far, he's looking good, but can he overtake Hillary?

John Edwards has endured one national race already, but needs to break out in the early primaries if he is to compete nationally. Like Clinton, Edwards trusted Bush's Iraq policy but has at least acknowledged the error. For a man running a populist campaign for the second time in four years, he continues to show discomfort with gay and lesbian issues. That may not hurt him with the majority of voters, but his hesitation to embrace those among us still awaiting full citizenship raises questions about the depth of his understanding of the very principle upon which his candidacy is based: an even shake for all Americans. Perhaps he will get there yet.

Wesley Clark seems late to the game, again. Perhaps he will make it onto someone's ticket as VP. Christopher Dodd is earnest and organized and knows real movie stars. Joe Biden is articulate and clean and ... did I mention articulate? Vilsack and Gravel are tossups for ambassador to a third world country. Kucinich is right on lots of issues, but there's little reason to believe he can improve much on his previous run.

Let's assume for discussion that Clinton, Obama and Edwards divvy up most of the early support. Does the selection process then become a media-driven beauty contest, with the issues secondary, or will voters give the other candidates a closer look?

If they do, Bill Richardson has an impressive resume to consider: U. S. congressman, U. N. ambassador, Energy secretary and New Mexico governor. He is a skilled negotiator and has an Hispanic heritage. Like the others, Richardson has weaknesses, but voters may like his low-key demeanor. After eight years of craziness, people should be ready for a president who appears stable, rational and reasonable.

With so many qualified candidates, how does non-candidate Al Gore make the list? It is entirely possible that no one in the race will have built a commanding lead by fall - and we will be tired of everybody's campaign. That might open an enticing door for Al to walk through - especially if polls at the time give him an edge over other Democrats when each is matched against potential Republican nominees.

Following the 2000 election, I never wanted to see Gore run for office again. But, even with his sometimes irritating style, his god-awful choice of Leiberman as a running mate, and his lack of emphasis on the Clinton-Gore record, Gore did after all win the popular vote. His realistic view of the world is needed now more than ever. I can think of no one better qualified - and I can think of no ticket on the Republican side that beats a Gore-Obama, a Gore-Richardson, or a Gore-"anybody" team in 2008.

To say, as some do, that everyone in the presidential race has as much or more experience than George Bush had in 2000 may be true, but it misses the point. Bush's level of prior experience, his ideological mindset and his psychological makeup are hardly appropriate measures for his successor. "Better" leaves the bar too low. We must elect the best - and that means nominating the best each party has to offer.