James Carville and some unexpected nausea

As you may know, James Carville recently called New Mexico governor Richardson "Judas", adding that given that Mr. Richardson held positions in the Clinton administration, the endorsement constituted an “act of betrayal.

Reality check: Hillary Clinton is not Jesus.

Further reality check: The Presidency of the United States is not something that should be sold, traded for, or obtained via cashing in personal favors. It is not owed to anybody. It must be earned.

Carville's comments fed both anger and disappointment. But the true import of the kind of scorched earth politics, the do anything to get the nomination approach, the willingness in fact to equate Bill Richardson's endorsement of the likely Democratic Nominee over Hillary Clinton to a betrayal of Jesus -- well, that impact hit home for me today.

I have given money in the past to the DSCC. I get their emal solicitations almost every day. I had planned to give again during this cycle. Yet when an email from James Carville appeared in my inbox this morning, I had a shocking reaction. I was revolted that the DSCC should use such a divisive spokesman -- somebody willing to throw fellow democrats under the bus in order to further the political goals of his own personal Jesus -- in order to raise money. Doesn't the DSCC know that Carville now stands for, speaks for, only a small part of the party? A part of the party that favors division over victory?

I promptly unsubscribed from their email list, and called the DSCC and let them know why. I also told them that this cycle's donation will still be made for Democratic Party causes, just not through them.

They should apologize for this big error -- or they should fold up shop. The DSCC should bring us all together to build 60 vote Senate majority -- not remind us of how this Clinton surrogate is ripping us apart.

Clinton's 3 am phone call on the campaign trail was Michigan/Florida. And she failed.

Hillary Clinton said in a March 20 press release that "It is unacceptable to disenfranchise the voters who participated in January and if Senator Obama allows that to happen, there will be implications for Democrats in the general election." On May 12, she said "The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that’s wrong." Her belief (now) about the importance of enforcing the right of voters in Michigan and Florida to have their votes counted: "That is why generations of brave men and women marched and protested, risked and gave their lives for this right."

Obviously, this threat to a fundamental right, this violation of the very right that our fellow citizens have fought and died for, at the very minimum counts as a "3 am phone call". And when that phone rang, what strong, decisive and well reasoned way did she show her good judgment? By agreeing to void this fundamental right in order to ingratiate herself to the very Superdelegates who decided to void this "fundamental right" and to the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa.

September 1, 2007 is when that red phone rang. When Hillary Clinton answered it, she agreed to void those votes. Her statement strongly defending this fundamental right: "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar." Whoops. Guess fundamental rights take a back seat to political expediency.

As a practical matter, there are many arguments as to why Michigan and Florida should not count -- not the least of which is that we can look forward to Iowa caucuses in the summer of 2011 if they are counted. A commentator I rarely agree with sums it up well, saying "what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?"

But whether Florida and Michigan's votes should be counted is not the point. The point is that Hillary Clinton says counting those votes is a matter fundamental to the functioning and validity of our democracy. And when that phone rang back in September, when the voice on the other end of the line said "Hillary, your own party is ready to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan," what was her response? "Go for it." So is Hillary Clinton "tested and ready to lead?" Tested, yes. Ready to lead? Hardly.

More on race and primary voters

It is fairly widely reported that Obama's showing among black voters has increased from the low 70% range (in early voting states) to 92% in Mississippi. Looking at exit polls for various primaries, here is the breakdown of Obama's support from black voters:

33% 10/07 polling
59% 01/08 polling
72% 01/03/08 Iowa
??? 01/08/08 New Hampshire (not a statistically significant sample size)
78% 01/19/08 South Carolina
78% 02/05/08 California
92% 03/11/08 Mississippi

Whoops! What happened between early polling and Super-Tuesday? Between Super-Tuesday and Mississippi? Clinton (and right wing talk radio) have refocused the race on, well, race.

As a sociology major (granted, decades ago), this creates a fascinating polling situation. If you make the assumption that the election of Hillary Clinton is a historical step toward the end of sexism, and the election of Barack Obama is a historical step toward the end of racism, we are presented with this amazing question: What condition is more important to work toward ending?
The only group in America that directly suffers the brunt of both conditions is black women. And they are breaking almost entirely for Barack Obama.

Looking at the same exit polls (excluding Iowa and New Hampshire, which did not gather data specifically from black women), Obama's support among black women is as follows:

78% 01/19/08 South Carolina (80% among black men)
75% 02/05/08 California (81% among black men)
90% 03/11/08 Mississippi (94%)


Now this may simply be because sexism is so structurally integrated into American life that black women accept it. Or worse yet, they have internalized sexism so much that they prefer to improve the lot of black men more than they prefer to improve their own lot. Or any one of a dozen other explanations. But often times, the simplest explanation is right. And the simplest explanation is this: For the cohort that suffers both racism and sexism, racism is worse. And any chance to diminish the force of racism in this nation takes priority over the reduction of sexism.

I do need to disclaim all of the above to some extent. It is speculation, of course. I am a white male, so I can hardly do more than look through a window at the experience of women and African Americans in the United States. There may be (surely are, actually) feelings and experiences that are influencing this voting behavior that I cannot get my hands around. And sociology is, well, lots of guesswork. But still, this primary presents a fascinating window into the interplay of sexism and racism.

There is also one enormous polling result that may upend all of this analysis: What if (gasp!) Obama simply has positions that appeal to African American voters? What if those positions are so appealing that they would vote for him over even another African American candidate? If those things were true, you would have his 92% win over Alan Keyes among African American voters in his 2002 Senate race. Hmmm. Exactly his polling percentage in Mississippi. Just saying.

POSTSCRIPT: After I published this blog entry, I found a Washington Post article that addresses just this question.

Bill Clinton: "We did not play the race card"

CNN reports that Bill Clinton told them "the notion that he went negative toward Barack Obama 'is a total myth and a mugging'", and that they didn't play the "race card". (Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/17/bill-clinton-we-did-not-play-race-card/).

After all, some of his best friends are black, right? Right, and here is the proof, Bill Clinton quoted as saying: "Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in unequivocal terms in South Carolina that no one in our campaign played any race card."

Bill Clinton was famously dubbed the "first black President" by author Toni Morrison. Wait a minute, she's African American, right? So why not seek cover by saying she's supporting Hillary? Oh, wait. Because she endorsed Obama.

The fact is that Bill Clinton is way too smart to be loose with his words. This is the man capable of parsing so precisely that things depend on what the meaning of "is" is. So his Jesse Jackson comments, the "fairy tale" comments, the measured and slow response to out of control surrogates (Ferraro, anyone?) are hardly accidents. Own it, Bill. You either played the race card or did not care that your actions invoked race. Either way it is below what I would expect of a man who was once my hero.

As a postscript, consider this: Hillary Clinton several days ago launched a massive "apology to black voters" campaign. However, given that she was apologizing for "belittling Obama's success" in South Carolina by linking Obama's success to Jesse Jackson's, isn't it a little strange that her apology concluded with "We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama"?

Obama the open-minded

Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein wrote a terrific article in the Chicago Sun-Times on March 16. The take-away: "niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him."

Well, its about time. Clinton's position on health care, for example, is about as likely to succeed as her 1993 effort. By contrast, "Obama's health-care plan places a premium on cutting costs and making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities." Put another way, Obama managed to tweak his plan so that it could actually pass. I mean, Clinton might as well be proposing a giant army of robotic doctors who would provide free health care -- that is as likely to become reality as a full-scale mandate plan.

In fact, even on those items where Clinton's positions are identical to Obama's, Clinton's take-no-prisoners, make no friends approach makes translation of those positions into signed legislation far more unlikely with her in the White House.

By contrast, Obama's approach is one of inclusiveness and reduction of partisanship -- possibly the only formula for obtaining real change domestically. McClatchy had an article on March 7 that emphasized the efficacy of this approach for international affairs, quoting an international law professor to make the point that he is "unburdened by rigid ideology": "It seems to me he's really receptive to good ideas no matter where they come from, including his opponent," said Michael Glennon, a professor of international law at Tufts University's Fletcher School.

Post-partisanship, anybody?

Opening blog entry...

Obama is genuine, reasonable, articulate, and smart. But he is also the target of an increasingly strange alliance between the "vast right wing conspiracy" and the Clintons. For the past few months, I have sent article after article after article about Obama to my friends, trying to provide them the information they need to see the difference between the Clinton/Republican lies and the real Barack Obama. Since I know it is unlikely that my friends will stay friends if I pummel their inboxes many times a day, I created this blog.