Well, the rest of Day 2 proved to be much less confrontational than the first 4 hours, though that may be mostly due to the fact that I avoided the SD delegation for most of the day.

I spent my afternoon at the Hispanic Insitute’s forum entitled “Culture Wars: The role of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and values in the fall campaign” (say that ten times fast). I’m so glad I went to this discussion. It was moderated by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams and other panelists included

-Gov. Bill Richardson
-Harold Ford, Jr. (DLC Chairman and frequent MSNBC guest)
-Tucker Carlson (MSNBC)
-Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
-Richard Wolffe (Newsweek)
-Faye Wattleton (Director of the Center for Women’s Advancement)
-Dee Dee Myers (worked with the Clinton Administration, sister to Betsy Myers who came to Midd this Spring)
-Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
-Markos Moulisas (Founder of Daily Kos)

The panel, unfortunatly, did not address most of the issues proposed in its title, but there was certainly no lack of intelligent discussion and food for though. I won’t go into some of the issues now because I could discuss them all day but I did come away with these few conclusions. A) That race was more a positive to Obama than gender was to Hillary, B) That current issues voters have with Obama are more about class than race and finally C) That the idea of “values” has switched from what’s right for one to do personally to what’s right for one to do for their children. I would also add to this that, McCain’s recent use of Hillary in campaign adds will likely do the Democratic Party a favor because there are countless Hillary supporters who, when actually paired with McCain, will realized the absurdity of it all.

After the panel, I headed over to the Pepsi Center on my own just to get the lay of the land. I found South Dakota’s crap seats (which are actually almost directly behind Vermont’s) and just sat for a while and took it all in. I did actually get a chance to see Kucinich speak, which is always an interesting affair.

For dinner, I went with my mom and a few others from the delegation to dinner with a client of my dad’s and his colleagues. Dinner was nearly four courses and was fabulous. And, if finished just in time for Jack Billion and I to get his driver to take us back to the Pepsi Center for Hillary’s big speech. We almost didn’t get in, which would have been a bummer, because the Fire Marhsall closed the Convention Floor down. Jack, all angelic like, just stood in front of access control and managed to convince some old guy that we were important delegates and had seats waiting for us (which was more or less true). However, we were nowhere near the SD delegation so we had to hop a few rows, which is always a good idea in high heels.

“Throughout his career, Bill Clinton has justified acts of extraordinary selfishness in the name of idealism—he’s always in it for the people, the plain folks who tell pollsters they trust him to look out for their interests, even if they don’t trust him.”

Here is the Vanity Fair article by Todd Purdum everyone is freaking out about. It certainly casts a slightly different light on the former president, however, perhaps one that, given recent events, no one is surprised to hear. It is strange though, to make that mental shift from viewing him as the president everyone identified with to a jet-setting socialite. Maybe he should grow a beard. Worked for Al Gore.

In case you don’t completley believe the article, read the Clintons’ almost equally long response.

As the Democratic Primary race winds down (that’s a figure of speech of course, for this race is sure to continue for decades, eons even) there is more and more speculation about an Obama/McCain matchup or a Hillary/McCain matchup. A major component of these speculations is about which states will be “in play.” While it remains somewhat ambiguous as to what “in play” means, I think the essence of the idea is that the pundits are stumped as to which state the candidates will screw up in next and lose all of the votes. In that vein, everyone’s favorite conservative loving terrorist hating Argus Leader Editorial Board put South Dakota  “in play” yesterday by forcing Hillary to say this (transcript at the bottom):

To be honest, I don’t know what any of this means or what the RFK remark has to do with anything. However, it does accomplish one thing: her incredulous tone about the need for party unity starts openning doors for her to take this fight to the primary. Whether or not she will actually do that remains highly uncertain, and, in the words of Peter Whathisface on MSNBC this morning, “an armegeddon scenario.” While I don’t find this remark particularly offensive to anyone (granted, I’m not a Kennedy or someone who was around when the assassination happened) I find it interesting the big deal everyone is making out of these words like they did Rev. Wright’s comments. Maybe there isn’t such a double standard after all. I also find it incredibly frightening that there is now public acknowledgement of security concerns for Barack. (Did anyone else notice the bullet proof glass and overprotective security guards at the Des Moines Speech on Tuesday?)

Anyway, here are a few links to interesting followups to the South Dakota fall out: The Financial Times, Wonkette, Andrew Sullivan, Rolling Stone, Gawker, BBC

Excerpt of Argus Leader Editorial Board Interview with Hillary Clinton:

EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

CLINTON: I don’t because, again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don’t understand it and there’s lot of speculation about why it is, but . . .

EB: What’s your speculation?

CLINTON: You know, I don’t know, I find it curious and I don’t want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don’t really know, but it’s a historical curiosity to me.

EB: Does it have anything to do with gender?

CLINTON: I don’t know that either.

Michael Moore wrote a blog post today endorsing none other than the Barack Obama. In it, he spews out all of his frustrations against Clinton in a way only Michael Moore could spew, and he pleads for voters in PA to vote for Obama since he couldn’t. (He lives in MI and has been disenfranchised. Uh oh. I smell another one. “Disenfranchisement of Michael Moore: A Pentagon Conspiracy.”) While I (as well as many other people) could care less who Moore endorses much less want to hear too much more of his banter, he makes one extremely valid point that proves I’m not completely off my rocker (I’ll explain later). He says:

“I haven’t spoken publicly ’til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don’t give a rat’s ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there’s a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word “Democratic” next to the candidate’s name.”

As president of Dems here at Middlebury, I’ve actually been asked several times (by students, adults, strangers, etc.) if I think all of us crazy Obama supporters whose rooms are plastered with “Yes We Can” signs will have the same energy to go out and campaign if he loses to Clinton in August. Here’s my answer: Yes and no. And here’s why Michael Moore helps make my point.

I think, *if* Hillary beats Obama for the Democratic Nomination for President, there are some very strong Obama supporters who you will not run into on the (presidential) campaign trail anymore. Obama supporters fight and they fight hard and it would be hard to switch allegiances so quickly. However, that does not mean we will be voting for McCain. Obama has given students such as myself a reason to join the Democratic Party, has created an attraction and allegiance to the Democratic party. Thus, we will by all means still vote for Hillary. However, perhaps unfortunately, we just won’t campaign as hard. (It’s worth pointing out that attention will likely be switched to important Senate/House races. Once a campaigner, always a campaigner.)

The upside to all of this is that the slight decrease in campaign volunteers you might think will happen because of an Obama loss will, and I’m almost 100% positive on this, be countered by a surge in another group of people: those who truly believe in the Democratic Party. These are people who want to see the Bush Administration end, who want more than anything to see a Democratic in Office. Thus, they are waiting until everyone else chooses the nominee. They are hedging their bets and avoiding an early loss by hoping for a long run win. I can’t tell you how many students I’ve met who have said they would take next semester off to work for whoever is the Democratic nominee. Next semester. Not now. Not during the primaries. But in the General, when it all really matters.

I’ll be frank here and admit that I have a little bit of an out on this one: I’m going to be abroad next fall and therefore will be missing everything that is campaigning. But I feel like my own case illustrates my point exactly. It didn’t take me long to realize that, if Obama is the nominee, it will be difficult for me to be abroad (difficult here being extremely relative since I do still really want to be in Italy). However, if Clinton wins, I won’t have as difficult of a time. That’s kind of a scary reality actually, one that could call into question my own party allegiance. However, I don’t think it does that because I have no intention of voting for a Republican at all. I have just put a little too much sweat and blood and time that could have been better used for school into the Obama campaign and I’m not sure I could switch all my energies to Clinton at the last minute like that. I realize the slight hypocrisy of this all however I think it points out just how different of a candidate Obama is from Clinton, how different of a politician he is. There is clearly some magnetism, some sort of draw he has for young people in the Democratic Party (who are, by the way, the future of this party) that Clinton does not have.

In the end, yes, an Obama loss will cause a loss in some supporters and hard core campaigners. However, the Democratic overall will not lose at all. In fact, I feel like no matter who the nominee is, the race between Obama and Hillary has created more legitimate attention and excitement for the Democratic Party than we’ve had in awhile. We’re just not going to see this support until the primary is over because, let’s face it, some Democrats are just sick of losing man. And, with two strong candidates, who really wants to take a risk on one of them now? Those who do make that decision must be crazy.

Off-peak: Primary Season

I think like many people, I’m suffering from what can only be called a Primary Lull. For four weeks (and another two on the way), there have been no CNN primary parties, no Dems Watch parties and, surprisingly, no elections. It’s kind of weird, actually, not to have this constant reminder of just how nail-biting the race is, just how black Obama is, just how much jewelry Hillary wear, how inaccurate polls can really be and how ridiculous the majority of the pundits really are. It’s also kind of weird to adjust to the kind of issues this little primary hiatus has exposed–real campaign issues.

First, there was the Reverend Wright “scandal” that had several people outraged about his ties to Barack and many more people saying “Hey wait, I’ve said those same things before. I hope no one was listening.” Because of the timing of this scandal, pundits were able to spend days on it and actually really discuss the issue of race, as well as Obama’s momentous speech on the subject in America. If there had been a primary around that time, the media would have had an hour to cover it and Obama’s sudden drop in the polls would have had more of an effect on the dynamics of this race. However, since there was no primary, I don’t think people, especially politicians, are going to talk about race in the same way again.

Then there was the economy. Though no government employer (who’s more likely than not a conservative) or an economist (who makes no claims without data-which lags behind by six months), will tell you we’re in a recession–we’re in a recession. The lack of primaries gave all candidates time to roll out new Economic Stimulus packages and begin to show what they’re made of policy wise. (It’s important to note that, while both Clinton and Obama came up with decent ‘stimulus’ packages, Obama’s is the only one that touches the heart of the issue: politicians can do nothing about the problem other than rebuild confidence. The recession was caused by the Fed and banks (both completely independent entities) and can only be fixed by the Fed and banks. Thus Obama can gain even further by showing he is actually strong on foreign relations.)

And now, there is Mark Penn. (Well, there’s always been Mark Penn but this time he’s a legit problem.) He’s in hot water this week for being hired by the Columbian government to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US that Hillary opposes. Not only does this demonstrate that Hillary only hired people who saw her campaign as a personal business investment and didn’t have the best interests of the American people at heart, but it also shows how little Hillary has attempted to surround herself with people who actually support her own positions. Since we have two more weeks before a primary, I think now would be a good time not only for Obama to get back at Hillary for her revelation of his negotiations with Canada but also to point out that Hillary’s completely anti-free trade stance is actually bad for Americans. He needs to take this time to point out the bigger picture (as he is so good at doing) and set and agenda for America’s role in trade. He doesn’t even have to argue for free trade. He can be in favor of fair trade (which any economist, and I actually include myself in this, will tell you is really just a step in the direction of free trade).

My, it’s amazing what petty things come up when the media doesn’t have anything to create a football stadium-esque commentary around.

Daily Narcissism Pt. 2: What about me?

“What about me?” is probably one of the most self-centered questions I have ever asked, and it’s not necessarily a question I’m comfortable asking because it draws more attention to me than I like. But it’s a question I want to ask everyone who says, “I’m voting for Hillary because she’s a woman.”

People who use this line of thinking are generally women of Hillary’s generation, women like many of my mother’s friends, for whom Hillary’s bid for the presidency represents everything they fought against, everything that was held against them. Now, many of these women are my role-models, women I looked up to as I grew up and I’m uncomfortable asking them to reevaluate their ideas. But I think they have mistaken Hillary as they “change they’ve been waiting for.” I am that change.

I am that change because I look at Hillary and her campaign and say, “She’s a woman, so what?” It means nothing to me that a woman is running for president because I have never known a time when women didn’t have as many opportunities as men. I am bright and successful and have been given a fair chance at everything I wanted to do. My gender has never been an issue. I got into an elite school without it mattering. I have been able to assume leadership roles where experience was what mattered, not gender. I am a member of a generation in which more females and attending and graduating from college. We may not have equal pay all the time, but we have equal job opportunities.

I am eternally grateful to all those women who spent their lives silently and diligently fighting for equal opportunities for women. Think of everything I have been able to accomplish because what they did. Hence, I want to ask some of Hillary’s most ardent supporters to take a step back, to evaluate their logic and ask just really is the fruits of their labor (no pun intended). Hillary’s bid for presidency has certainly accomplished something important. Think of any five year old who watches TV now and sees a black man and a woman standing on stage next to each other. Now, they know no different. Think of how much they’ll be able to achieve when they grow up. So yes, there is overlap. Yes, women have finally broken into the system and certainly accomplished something with Hillary, but who represents that it has really changed? Clinton or me? Clinton or their daughters? I know it’s difficult to wait any longer, but all I ask is let my generation mature let us enter and get entrenched in the work force. That’s when we’ll really see progress.

On that note, Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone!

-Em

Hey, guess where I am now?

Answer: In my own little personal Obama office. It’s pretty sweet – lonely (Come make phone calls!) – but pretty sweet.

I was hired yesterday (randomly and suddenly) to be the head of GOtV for Middlebury (town and school) along with another girl from Dems. Is this a conflict of interest, you say? Probably, but whatever. It’s all good.

OK, I’m not supposed to talk about the campaign, so moving on. How about last night? For several reasons I missed the debate, but it doesn’t seem like I missed much, other than Clinton’s “Xerox” comment and her final comment. I also get the impression that people are getting really sick of this whole plagiarism thing. Thoughts?

Some people are saying that Hillary’s final comment was either a sign that she’s coming back strong or that she’s going to lose gracefully. It’s the lose gracefully argument that intrigues me. I went to this lecture on the Primaries and Caucuses the other night by a former poli-sci professor at Midd. He explained the whole primary system (why the Dems have proportional representation, how awesome George McGovern is, yada yada yada) and how much Hillary needs to win by in order to stay in the race. Basically, nothing new. He concluded, however, by saying that Hillary was just like him. A wonk. A political wonk. He praised her years at Wellesley, her law career, her efforts as First Lady, and her time in the Senate. However, he still called her a political wonk. She lacks the charisma and the ability to inspire (save for the whole “first woman president” thing). He made the argument that she would make a great Supreme Court Justice. (At which point, everyone in the room was like “whoa – what a good idea.” I mean seriously people, she would be a fantastic Supreme Court Justice. Now that’s change we can believe in.) He said that wonks just aren’t meant to be president. That seems fair enough to me.

He also mentioned however that the Democratic Party right now is Hillary’s to ruin. She can fight out the whole delegate thing with Michigan and Florida and all the others until the end and potentially win them over – thereby winning the nomination. However, it’s almost a foregone conclusion (at this point in time) that Obama will win the popular vote. Therefore, the professor argued, the amount of time that it will take for Obama supporters to recover from the hurt of their loss, will not be enough time to kill the Republicans. This is where Hillary’s final comments in the debate last night become interesting. Maybe it really was a campaign ploy, but maybe it also means she won’t be ridiculously selfish and screw us all over. Who knows.

- Em

?!?!

Is it just me, or does this title/slogan strike you as…odd?

“Clinton ad: ‘She’s worked the night shift, too.’”

CNN is running a story right now about Bill Clinton’s new list, “80 attacks on Hillary” by Barack Obama.

Getting past the complete absurdity and pettiness of even keeping a running list, I want to point out a few things. First of all, since Hillary’s self proclaimed comeback last Tuesday, CNN has officially converted to the Clinton News Network. The story in and of itself is a veiled reporting of Hillary’s own attacks on Obama. If you read the article (here) you can see that the topics of the paragraphs alternate strangely. One will comment on an anti-Obama remark made by Robert Johnson on Sunday (while he was at church with Hillary) and the next will be a criticism of the Obama campaign’s criticism of Hillary. Anyone else confused yet? The story also washes over Hillary’s comments over the weekend about how it took a president to get the job done (when talking about Dr. King and the civil rights movement-a story the NY Times reported on fully), reminds readers in a less cryptic manner than Johnson’s of Obama’s drug use, and Obama’s supposedly wishy-washy Iraq voting record. In the story, Bill gets to say, “She didn’t complain about [Obama's attacks]…She just said, ‘I disagree’ and went on.”Hillary gets to say, “I’m so proud of Obama.” And all Obama gets to say is “rewriting.” Reading in between the lines, what CNN is trying to say: Obama is a black pothead who will be able to spark a movement in the US but one that will need to be finished by a president like Hillary. (Did someone fail to respond to Hillary when she made her MLK Jr. remark that it was a white male president she was talking about?)

Secondly, the article completely forgets that it started talking about Bill’s listed of 80 attacks by Obama. Talk about insecure. If I went home everyday and made a list of comments people made against me (that’s assuming that people say anything negative about me at all), my friends would send me straight to a therapist. It’s a presidential race; attacks on opponents are going to be made. And seriously, only 80 attacks in one year? That’s about 1.538 per week. That’s not bad. Especially since in that list, comments that really were made by Obama in defense to attacks from Hillary (such as his “rewritting history” comment) are included. In my opinion, the fact that Bill just mentioned this list (but doesn’t mention everything on it) at all, means that he just made 80 attacks against Obama and the CNN article made a good 20 more.  Who’s negative now?

And finally, what happened to Bill? I remember there was a time when we all (yes, you too) labeled ourselves Clinton Democrats. We identified with him. We prospered under him. We pined for him. Yes, he was divisive. But he was charismatic. Yes was a liar, but he was loved. What happened to that Bill? When did he become catty and the type that made hit-lists? He was president of the US during one of the most prosperous decades in recent history; he has no reason to be insecure. So does this mean that Hillary has finally cracked the whip? Did she go to him last Monday, hold him by the nuts and say, “You cheated on me, remember? You humiliated me in front of the entire world. And yet I stayed married to you. Don’t you ever forget that. Now, go out there and do the same thing to Obama and help me win this damn thing”? Granted, that is a highly possible scenario and one that any woman with any sort of back bone would say to a cheating husband. However, it really is low campaign strategy. I think when Hillary entered the race, even those of us who weren’t her most ardent supporters hoped that she might become some mirror of Bill, that, even if her presidency would not be as full of change and new hope as Obama’s, it would still be as glorious as Bill’s. What none of us wanted was Bill to become a mirror of Hillary.

I’m not critizing Hillary for being a woman, for being sentimental, even for being an occasional bitch. I’m accusing her campaign, and CNN I suppose, of violating that double-standard that they keep calling for Obama to be held to.  I think now what this is going to turn into is the classic Bush/Martha Stewart scenario. Every time something bad came out about Bush three years ago, we heard something bad about Martha Stewart instead. Only this time, when something good comes out about Obama’s own list (his growing list of major endorsements that include Kerry, Tim Johnson and SEIU Nevada), Hillary’s campaign is going to pull out Bill’s 80. Oh boy, are we in for some fun times.

Ciao tutti,

-Em