Bill Clinton's ego is monolithic, and he managed to put it aside for fifteen minutes and to speak the truth that the party--and the nation--needed to hear.
It would have been great if he could have done this, oh, I don't know, two months ago?
So let's just read the writing on the wall--the Clintons have hijacked the convention.
For all the talk about how great Hillary's speech was, about how she was willing to put the differences aside, we have to face the fact that the first two--and now three--days of this convention belong to the Clintons, and the rampant speculation about what they and their supporters are going to say.
There have been some great moments--Ted Kennedy's speech, Michelle's speech, and so forth, but the Clintons and their supporters have had a lot of camera time, resulting in a convention so far that has been one long, emotional, weepy discourse about the importance of unifying against the Republicans, although with very little concrete action about the Republicans or John McCain.
In short, the DNC 2008 has basically been everything the Republicans could have hoped for.
Tonight, Joe Biden takes the stage, but if the last two days have been any indication, all eyes will be on old Bubba. What will he say? Will he come right on out and say that Obama is ready for the Oval Office? Is he really going to skip Obama's speech tomorrow?
Meanwhile, folks will talk about Biden, folks will talk about Obama, but I guarantee you--tune into any major network tonight during prime time, and you'll be hearing Clinton, Clinton, Clinton--three times as much as you'll be hearing Obama's name.
Is this Bill and Hillary's fault? Well--no--it's the media's. Always striving for that blockbuster narrative, the mainstream media is licking its chops over the battle of "The Three Clans." The Kennedys, The Clintons, and now The Obamas.
News flash: The Obamas are not a clan. That's why Barack was chosen. He is not an long-time political insider.
But the media is so hungry for a feud that we have heard very little about the actual democratic platform--certainly not much more than the same old broad, sweeping strokes that the party has been painting for months now.
So with Bill sure to take the spotlight tonight, there is precisely one day left for Obama to deliver the platform. It puts him in an awfully tight spot. He is going to have to accomplish a lot of things in that one speech to make up for three days of this nonsense.
Did Bill and Hillary anticipate that this was how the convention would go down? I don't know, but if any two people know how the media machine works in this country, it's those two.
So Bubba, on the off chance that you're sulking in your hotel room right now, reading this blog--set that ego aside tonight. Talk about Barack. Let people know you're with him. This party has business to attend to. Then, tomorrow, attend his address, stand up, and cheer like the rest of us.
So HRC can swallow her pride and get along with Obama. Does that mean he (read: his supporters) should forgive her debts? She should be paid for her cooperation with larger party goals? Should future candidates be encouraged to spend recklessly knowing that at least their opponent might pay for their mismanaged campaigns?
It's all the evidence I need that our system is broken. I speak for a lot of Obama supporters when I say that I didn't pledge much, but it was what I could, and now to see potentially $10 million handed over to old-school Clinton loyalist media groups, well, that's upsetting.
Is it too much to ask that my $50 will be spent promoting Barack Obama?
At least Bubba is out of the country, back to his foundation work. So he can go from heaping criticism and lewd remarks toward Obama on a daily basis, and then shift rhetoric to talking about global poverty. Very ex-presidential. Witness Clinton returning to his assumed role as this sort of hyper-powerful global CEO with no accountability. I think he could probably raise that $10 million himself with just a few speaking engagements.
These outbursts are becoming alarmingly frequent. I especially like the SFGate reportage on this one: "It was as if someone had pulled the pin from a grenade."
Superdelegate: "...one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended."
Congratulations to those volunteers in Wyoming who helped the Obama campaign to a 20 point victory Saturday!
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton echoed his wife's calls for a joint ticket Saturday, saying that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be "almost unstoppable." Quite the change of tune from just a couple weeks ago when the Clintons were saying that Obama should be ashamed of himself.
Why are the Clinton's suddenly making such a big fuss about a joint ticket after their wins in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday? If those two wins were so big, wouldn't they be more fervent than ever about attacking Obama? Not quite.
After Tuesdays results, and especially after today's Obama win in Wyoming, it is painfully clear to the Clinton campaign that a pledged delegate lead is next to impossible. At this point, the best they can hope for is a mass exodus of super-delegates from the Obama side to the Clinton side. They are hoping to encourage such change of hearts by harping about what a great joint ticket Clinton-Obama would be. Their hope is that if we end up with a brokered convention, then the powers-that-be will see the "wisdom" in having Clinton on the top of the ticket.
What they fail to see is that votes for Obama are votes against the same old politics that the Clintons represent. A Clinton-Obama ticket would disenfranchise the millions of voters who have been participating in the Obama campaign precisely because it represents a new direction in American politics. Likewise, if Obama were to choose Clinton as his running mate, it would undermine his calls for change.
The joint ticket conversation is a last ditch effort on the part of the Clintons to wheel and deal their way into the White House. Fortunately, pledged delegates and super delegates are already making their choice, and in record numbers: In 2008, change is the name of the game.
In one of the most heated exchanges in Monday night's debate, Hillary Clinton railed against Barack Obama, exclaiming that while "I was fighting against those [Ronald Reagan's] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."
Obama clarified that it was only five hours of legal work done, not on behalf of Rezko, but for a community organization he was representing.
Now, a photograph has surfaced showing the smiling Clintons with developer Tony Rezko. Clinton told the NBC Today show this morning: "I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door."
Sounds like the Clinton mudslinging has backfired. As they say, if you play with dirt, you're going to get dirty.
--Bill Clinton, January 22nd, 2008
I don't have any particular beef with Bill Clinton. In fact, I've seen him speak and read his memoir with great interest. I became somewhat disappointed with his close affiliation with George W. Bush, wondering why he would choose to align himself so closely with a man who might very well go down in history as the worst U.S. president.
I figured it was all part of the good ol' boy ex-president fraternity. Except, of course, for the fact that George W. Bush is no ex-president. In recent weeks, though, it's become clearer and clearer to me, as I watch Bill Clinton relentlessly attack Barack Obama, that former president Clinton is, at his core, a man who lusts for power. He has never quite gotten over all the attention he received in the White House, and he is determined to get back, if only as first spouse.
Bill Clinton took the opportunity today to catch up on some sleep during a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (This video may take a while to load. If it doesn't load on this page, click here. It's worth watching.)
It was the Las Vegas strip that put the Clintons ahead.
With 85 percent of precincts reporting as of 2:17 p.m. EST Saturday afternoon, it appears that the Clintons will win Nevada by less than 600 votes.
Statewide, Barack Obama finished first in 11 counties and second in 6. The Clintons finished first in 6 counties and second in 11. Yet they managed to capture more of the Sin City vote, pulling ahead in Clark County. (Click here for Clark County demographic data.)
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Clinton captured about half of the white vote and two-thirds of the Hispanic vote. Obama walked with 80 percent of the black vote, a number that bodes well for next week's South Carolina primary.
The Review-Journal also reported that large numbers of the Culinary Workers Union went against the endorsement of their organization to cast votes for the Clintons who won that demographic 45 to 44 percent.
One must wonder how the Clinton campaign managed such a coup. Why would large numbers of union workers go against the recommendation of their union in a setting where their votes are made in plain view of their peers?
Ben Smith of Politico.com offers a potential answer: A robo-call made to Barack Obama supporters that trashes the candidate, harping on his middle name. "You just can't take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama," the call said. While the call is not directly linked to the Clinton campaign, it does echo President Clinton's comments last week when he questioned whether American should "roll the dice" on Barack Obama. (Click here for the full audio of the robo-call.)
Looking forward, Nevada's delegates will be split roughly evenly between Clinton and Obama in this increasingly tight race. Moreover, Obama's landslide victory among black voters should resonate among South Carolina voters next week.
While the big picture will likely remain unclear until Super Tuesday on February 5th, one thing is clear: The Clintons have dedicated themselves to dragging Barack Obama through the mud on every turn, even if that means using his middle name to prey on the xenophobic fears of the average American voter. Reminds me of the fear-mongering politics of the Bush administration if you ask me.
