Now I’m not saying that Obama’s the nominee (though everyone else is), but this article is a truly fascinating look at the “new delegate math” that comes with an Obama/McCain matchup. It’s ungodly early to be considering this stuff, and a lifetime of things can happen, but I think it lays out where the battleground states may be.

After her last hopes for winning the nomination were crushed on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton declared her intention to remain in the race. In south Dakota on Friday, she decried Obama’s weakening support among “hard-working white Americans.” Even if Obama’s support among whites was weakening (it’s not, he did better among whites in Pennsylvania than in Ohio and better still in Indiana) Hillary’s remarks can have no constructive consequences for her own candidacy or for the democratic party.

Excluding the possibility that she’s totally delusional, Hillary must have some sense that it’s over, so why is she sticking it out until the bitter end? She’s not a Kucinich candidate. She has no radical agenda, no interest in using the presidential race to shift the dialog. Does she honestly believe, as her campaigning might suggest, that she has to stay in the race to represent the disenfranchised minority that is white working class voters. Hillary’s rhetoric, and her campaign as a symbol, now serve no purpose but to deepen the racial divide. The results of the rest of the race are predictable. She’ll win overwhelming majorities in Kentucky and West Virginia, lose Oregon and fall far short of the 68% of all remaining delegates she has to win in order to gain the nomination. By proving that Barack Obama is not the candidate of white working class voters, she will accomplish one thing, stabbing the democratic party in the back.

Hillary is clearly not willing to give up, so it’s up .to the superdelegates and the party elders. Al Gore and John Edwards should endorse Obama and lead the rest of the superdelegates to rally behind him. If Hillary succeeds in killing Obama’s candidacy, the lesson would be profoundly depressing: in America, race makes progress impossible. It is possible to end this now. It’s all up to Howard, Al and John.

I’ve heard many declarations of it’s over, it’s done, it’s all over the media, the blogs, even our own Clinton supporters here at garnet donkey seem to think that this is over. I just don’t get it. Nothing that happened on Tuesday was unexpected, Obama won a state with a large African American population, and Clinton won (though barely) another blue collar state. Nothing new came out of this. I think her chances are only slightly less than they were before Tuesday (To be fair, they were already pretty slim). I think that sometimes the media cannot look at a calendar. Everyone declaring this over should read this article. I’m not saying that Clinton has a nice clean path to the nomination, it would be improbable, drawn out and ugly. She’ll have to get Michigan and Florida back in play, but is it really that impossible that she win (by big margins) West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico? Maybe, but I refuse to count her out. Anyone else, fine, but not a Clinton.

Well, it’s over.  I hate to say it, because I was feeling optimistic after Pennsylvania, but it is over.  The nomination will be decided by early June.  Obama will get the nomination.  But he’s not that bad, I always supported him, just not as much as Hillary.  Now it’s time to focus on beating McCain in November.  

To aid in that, and because she deserves it, and because she’s the best candidate for the job, here’s hoping that Hillary gets the VP spot.

I know many of you think this would be a bad move, not just for the campaign but for the presidency.

But, for this rift to be healed, we need both of these people on a ticket.  There are people on both sides who have been so vehemently attached to their candidate, a large number of people in fact.  I remember hearing one Obama supporter say that if Hillary got the nomination, he wouldn’t vote for her.  And that was two months ago!  Either way, Hillary needs to be one of Barack’s biggest and most vocal supporters, as I’m sure she will.  But I think it’ll go even farther if she is the VP.

The only concern is what I call the “Edwards” effect.  Edwards never fully cooperated with Kerry after the latter won the nomination (they still used two slogans for god’s sake).  If Hillary goes out there and continues to run her own campaign as VP, it would damage Barack.  They need a unified message, and this is the only cause of hesitance I have.  But there are plenty of great picks out there, Evan Bayh, anyone?

In other news, check out this new Oliver Stone movie about G-Dub.  Hopefully it’s scathing.

Dubya

I know its a bit early for NC and IN predictions, but I wanted to toss this out there now: Hillary Clinton will win Indiana and North Carolina.

NC: Clinton +2
IN:+10.

But the real question is WHY? A month ago, I would have told you, “It would take some miracle (or a mega-gigantic Obama gaffe) to get Clinton the nomination.” And, well, there’s been no gaffe of that nature, really. I mean, Rev. Wright, sort of, but nothing of the nature that would show this kind of change in North Carolina. No, two things that I didn’t think would happen, have happened: Obama has become an elitist, a radical, and… well, boring. His speeches aren’t as inspired, they’re tired, rehashed. Also, and more surprising, have you seen Hillary lately? She owns! She’s become the working-class hero. But how? Well, some shameless thievery from both Edwards and Obama (Edwards must be so fucking pissed that he dropped out. He would have pwned the both of them in OH, TX and PA) But more so, she’s refreshing, the wonk is gone! “I’m in this race to fight for you.” She’s stopped being micromanaged, she talks from the heart, and guess what, voters have noticed. She radiates with energy as Obama did in February. And Obama looks like John Kerry. And goodness she makes a damn good underdog. She’s not so flashy, but pugnacious, she’s making it hard to be a Obamanite. Shit, this thing’s going to the convention.

This’ll be the funkiest Presidency ever!

The “Talk of the Town” section in this week’s New Yorker paints a very complicated portrait of the former President, his role in his wife’s campaign, and his feelings on the likely heir to his throne. The piece, by Ryan Lizza, is even-handed and well worth a read. It outlines the standard media portrayal of President Clinton as a man with a short fuse.

When Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign was launched, in January, 2007, her supporters feared that Bill would overshadow her, as he had when they both spoke at the funeral of Coretta Scott King, a year earlier. Now the constant fear is that he will embarrass her. When he makes news, it is rarely a good day for his spouse.

Lizza points out that with the current media portrayal, it’s easy to overlook or forget that President Clinton “still connects better with voters than his wife or Obama.” However, with his every word recorded by embedded reporters and the off-message outbursts becoming YouTube sensations, Lizza, like most Americans, wonders if the President’s legacy has been permanently diminished.

“(Bill Clinton) doesn’t like Obama,” South Carolina Representative James Clyburn told Lizza. Clyburn, the House Majority Whip, said that after Obama won the South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton called Clyburn to rail at him for fifty minutes. I don’t think I could rant about Martin Brodeur for fifty minutes, and I basically consider him the worst person in the world. It’s not hard to see why President Clinton doesn’t like Barack. A big portion of the Obama campaign has been to portray the gains of the Clinton presidency as inadequate at best; hollow at worst. Fairly or no, behavior like this raises real questions about why Clinton refuses to back down, and as a pledged-delegate victory becomes mathematically impossible, the question will only get louder.

What will the ultimate effect of this campaign be to President Clinton’s legacy? That ball is solely in President Clinton’s court. Even Hillary’s most fervent supporters must admit that her potential paths to the nomination are few and ugly. How will Bill handle being a loser for the first time in his political life? Will he play the sore loser and cry foul, or will he take the mantle of party elder and take nominee Obama golfing with him? I, and I’m sure most of the Democratic base, hope greatly for the latter. After all, President Clinton’s legacy rests in our hands (the right will always see him as the Devil). If we feel that he has acted in a matter demanding an apology, will we forgive him? Will he give us the chance?

After the mythical Northwest Passage between Alaska and Greenland was opened for the first time in recorded history late last summer, it became clear as day that an ice-free summer in the Arctic Circle was only a matter of time. Still, few were prepared for that monumental change to happen this year. That’s exactly what may happen, according to several arctic scientists:

“The set-up for this summer is disturbing,” says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season…

Arctic ice at its maximum in March, but that maximum is declining by 44,000 km2 per year on average, the NSIDC has calculated (see graph, top right). That corresponds to an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey.

What is more, the extent of the ice is only half the picture. Satellite images show that most of the Arctic ice at the moment is thin, young ice that has only been around since last autumn (see picture, right). Thin ice is far more vulnerable than thick ice that has piled up over several years.

“There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” says Serreze. “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

I’m going to miss winter. Anyone care to go in with me for some property in Newfoundland?

For a new type of politician, Barack Obama has been just about every politician imaginable. He was JFK, he was the left’s Reagan, he was Abraham Lincoln! (though only to the very delusional, aka, the blogosphere) Now that he’s “fallen to earth”, as David Brooks put it, he’s every Democratic loser: John Kerry, Mondale, Adlai Stevenson, even the dreaded D word (Being compared to that particular Swat Alum is a fate worse than death).

It’s not just Obama (though his list is longest). John McCain, for his part, has been McBush, McReagan, McEisenhower, McBob Dole. And like Obama, we use these labels to say if we think they’re losers (Bush, Dole) or winners (Eisenhower, Reagan)

Clinton is the most interesting to me. Barring a brief encounter with LBJ (not really one an anti-war candidate covets) she has gone without a lot of labels beyond “Washington insider”. And this is because she’s already chosen her model: Bill. She’s sort of stuck with him, his centrist, triangulating, spineless form of politics. This is the guy who ignored the Rwandan genocide because of public opinion polls, who squandered his presidency on his sloppiness, his infidelities, his… you know what? I really hate Bill Clinton. I wish Hillary had left him, because he’s a big reason I have trouble supporting her. He’s a joke, and will go down as at best a mediocre president who missed one of the great opportunities for real lasting peace in the post coldwar era. Hillary wouldn’t have, I know it. She would have had the chutzpah to do things that weren’t “popular according to polls”. I doubt a Bill-free Hillary keeps around a microtrend Penn. She’s a passionate fighter for her causes, and yet she surrounds herself with worms because of her vast overvaluing of loyalty over competence. Her fatal flaw, in my book. Clinton loyalists will guffaw and say “How dare you, she worked with Republicans on veteran’s affairs”. Yes, what a big, divisive issue, helping veterans. What’s next, the great puppies are adorable bill? On the important stuff, and let’s face it, she’s had one important task in her entire political career, and that was the health care initiative of the nineties. I think all should read this article as an example of the cold shoulder she turns toward even allies who disagree even slightly. And we saw how well that went.

This is a lot of talk for me to present who I think is the best model for Hillary Clinton: Nixon. THIS IS NOT MEANT AS AN INSULT OR ATTACK! Nixon is perhaps the most unappreciated president of all. The guy passed the clean air act, established the EPA. He was likely one of the smartest people to occupy the office of the president, and also one of the least “warm and fuzzy” and let’s face it, Hillary fits both of those claims. I’m not saying Clinton would have a Watergate, but I am saying she shares Nixon’s flaw of valuing loyalty and secrecy. What is up with the tax returns? And the files from being first lady? It was silly and looked dishonest, like she was hiding something.

Now that I’ve compared Clinton to Nixon, I’m willing to admit something: I really like Hillary Clinton. I’d support her in the fall, but here’s what I need her to say for me to really give it my all (Obama should say this too.) There has been too much pandering, too much pettiness, hell, too much lying in this campaign, and lord knows I have my share of the blame. I apologize for that, the American people deserve more than that. No more. First, NAFTA has benefited the United States greatly, and we will not be pulling out of it anytime soon. Even if we did, manufacturing jobs that were here are not coming back any time soon. Trade has become a scapegoat; in most cases trade is beneficial to all involved. What we can do for those who have lost their jobs is provide education and technologies in areas of the future, green technologies, nuclear technologies, fields that will help eliminate our dependence on oil, but frankly, that will not be enough. Solving our dependence on oil, and combatting global warming will require a sacrifice from the American people, including stringent gas mileage laws, a higher gas tax, and other incentives to lower consumption. I am fully confident that our citizens are up to the task. One thing that will help is the money we will get when we withdraw from Iraq, a country we never should have invaded. I apologize for my vote, my lack of courage at the time. I will not fail you on that in the future. Withdrawal from Iraq should not been a withdrawal from the world stage. The United States, as a beacon of freedom and liberty, has waited far too long to act in the Sudan, and when I am president, one of my first acts will be to fight for funds and troops to be sent into the region. It is this type of action that will stabilize the region, and prevent it from becoming an incubator for terrorists. It will also be a large step toward regaining our reputation in the world, much of which was lost during the last seven years. These are far greater threats than anything of our jingoistic posturing toward Iran. As for healthcare, I have been steadfast my entire life on this issue, it is our moral imperative to provide at least a baseline of healthcare to every citizen, and I believe firmly that a mandate is the best and most comprehensive way to achieve this. However, if a mandate does not have political will, I will not stubbornly draw a line in the sand. It is too important to place principle in front of results. I make no promises on any of these issues, as a lot of what happens will be dependent on whom you vote in as Congress, but I do promise that I will seek out these goals with every fiber of my being. Thank you, God bless.

It was a ton of work.  I was contacted the Tuesday before (less than 48 hours) and Wednesday morning had to start the machinery.  Here are a few articles that talk about the event:

http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2008/04/18/chelsea-clinton-visits-swarthmore/

http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2008/04/18/chelsea-clinton-at-swarthmore/