Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speech yesterday gave me a sinking feeling.  Electoral calculi logic are always a little odd to me – firstly, I or you or anyone can be comfortably out of step with the American public and psyche and that simply does not matter except with regards to Electoral politics.  The other thing is how much elections figure off on the fringes — the bulk of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are going to be voting for Obama, but nonetheless it is with Clinton’s support that McCain is going to drive around to try to shift out some supporters from her base of “women over 50 earning less than $50,000” believing Obama is running an “anti-woman cult”– insane as the idea of McCain getting this demographic that tends to be — for grabbing a nomination from what looked like it was rightfully Clinton’s.  What does it mean that Hillary Clinton continues her campaign?  How many of those Hillary Clinton voters does she “own” and is able to wave around and give to the other candidate?  (That last question would work the same way for Obama, or for that matter anyone else.)  Chin up, Democrats, from Harper’s Index for June 2008:

Portion of Barack Obama supporters who said in April they would not vote for Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee:  1/5.
Portion of Clinton supporters who said this about Obama:  1/4.
Percentage of John McCain supporters in March 2000 who said they would not vote for George W Bush: 51
Percentage who said this in October 2000:  39

If I could find this piece of writing on the logic of Hillary Clinton’s campaign over the past few weeks, I would lik to it.  Basically the idea was that Obama was not going to win was a rock solid factoid, and because of that even if you are hurting Obama’s chances, it does not matter because he can’t win anyway.  When he inevitibly loses, the niave Obama supporters will have learned that lesson.  And the Clintons, who have the only key the presidential election and who are sold on that election strategy and that one only, will be in the ascendary of the party again.  But this piece ended with Hillary Clinton going through the ritual at the end of the day of campaigning for Obama and gracefully stepping aside when Obama clinched the nomination.  Parcing through the electoral criticism of Barack Obama, which is that his narrow base in many ways looks like George McGovern’s base of support, Hillary Clinton’s in many ways looks like Walter Mondale’s.

Hillary Clinton cannot possibly be the vice-presidential pick.  It is easy to overthink these things, and I tend to think that thinking about vice-presidential possibilities is a pointless exercise — we are all out of the loop and have no control over the matter — but consider this :

We are at this ugly moment where Hillary Clinton is getting pillored with various sexist stereotypes and tropes, with a closed loop by her most media-sensationalistic supporters.   The problem with Hillary Clinton is — what sarcastically negative popular trope can I throw out that doesn’t play to this tendency?

Can Obama pick Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano or some woman unnamed, or has Hillary Clinton assuredly shut down any possibility for a female vice president?  Mind you, this is the surest route to having a viable female presidential possibility in this generation — otherwise, this rumor of how Hillary Clinton is brokering her power (and her power base) has just shut down that possibility.

And for all the problems Obama may or may not have with “hard working white people” of the lower-middle class, I suddenly have this thought that one of the logical picks — Jim Webb — is inoperable as well.  Something about past women in combat issues and book excerpts…

Not to come to John McCain’s defense too much and not that I want this to become a habit, but the gaffe about “electing me in January” strikes me as meaningless and understandable for any regular person and has nothing to do with age.  Actually it’s a little more understandable than the Barack Obama puzzle about visiting “57 states” (was that the number?), since I at know where McCain got the January date and I have not a clue where the number of states came from.  (Though, here I would have to defend Obama still — I want to say you run around for that long and without saying something bizarre.)

The even more meaningless tempest in a teapot was the mis-identification of “Auschwitz”, which frankly has come to be so much an archtype that mentioning Auschwitz is to Nazi Concentration Camps what Scotch is to clear adhesive tapes.

I suppose I may as well have to write down a rule sheet for what “gaffes” count as significant — it is a matter of maintaining intellectual integrity and avoiding double standards.  Basically in this contest, everything McCain has said about the Middle East is telling and worth mentioning and betrays any number of things, not least of which because the man has frequently defended himself for saying those things.

In gaffing terms, with regards to Obama’s “bitter” comment, I would like to point you to Dick Cheney’s latest joke and telling statement that he can say that because he’s not campaigning for anything anymore.  Kids say the darnedest thing?

One of the Clintonistas has finally come around to explaining to my satisfaction some of the rationalization — satisfaction as in I at least know the logical stream beyond the simple reality of “Situational Ethics” — behind the seemingly insane position of giving Clinton ALL of the Michigan delegates, never mind Obama followed the DNC rules and stripped his name off the ballot, and never mind “Uncommitted” won a sizable chunk of the vote against Clinton.  It is the question of the motivation for Obama (and Edwards).  He took his name off the ballot not so much for the sacred respect toward the DNC rules in ordering the primary calendar, but to court favor in Iowa and New Hampshire.  It puzzles me to the question of “Assuming yes, So what?”  Perhaps his electoral strategy might have been different on this score if this vote was not declared moot and meaningless before it was held.  Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, had the more duplicitous strategy which was to court Iowa and New Hampshire voters by declaring the meaninglessness of the Michigan vote while her name remained on that ballot, and while Governor Granholm came out in favor for Clinton.

Part two in arguing against the Michigan Compromise (such as it was) is the semi-sensible statement that you just cannot deign a motive in a vote, you have to count the “Uncommitted” as what it was, not just move it to Obama.  I suppose the correct answer would be to make these “Uncommitted” delegates functionally “Super-Delegates”.  Otherwise, this line would make some sense and be valid, if it weren’t for the simple fact that it follows the same logic of demanding the Following of the Rules that goes along the lines of “This vote matters not at all.”  That stripping the state of the delegates proved to be an impracticality means the search for a political solution was in bloom — hence Obama gets those Uncommitteds in this crazy half-vote scheme they had to have in penalizing Michigan.

In the end, Florida Republicans helped harm the Democrats’ chances in Florida in sowing this ill-will in bumping that primary up. (Yes, I understand, the minority Democrats were complicit in the process.)  They have a good excuse, though:  they are Republicans and want a Republican president.  What is Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm’s excuse?  Is she secretly a Canadian agent from the Conservative Canadian government?

Scott doesn’t sound like the man they all remembered.  In fact, he sounds like a left-wing blogger.  There is a reason for that:

I ghost-wrote the book.  Weren’t you wondering about those frequent typos?

Under the supervision of George Soros… not so coincidentally, the publisher also published one of his books, hm?

But we’re all bored with the thing now, to tell you the truth.

About a month ago I was walking to my bus-stop at just after 6 in the morning.  I looked down and saw two peculiar items.  One was a torn cover for the latest Lyndon Larouche pamphlet, something entitled “Doom” or something like that.  This was evidence that, yes indeed, the merry band of Larouchites had wandered in and through the city.  The other item was a glossy page of pornography showing one silicone enhanced woman licking the butt of another silicone enhanced woman.  I gather that the two items were once in the possession of the same person, and I wonder what the person who had them did with the two items, and which one amused him the most.

I suppose the DNC meeting this weekend will have a contigency of Larouchites leaching off the Hillary Clinton backing protesters.  Where this will get them, hard to say.  Compare the Homer Simpson quote:  “Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”  WITH an item from here:  “I’m not able to truly understand what they want to do,” Irons said. “Their weird evangelism is off-putting to me.”

The story is the reoccuring story of the past 30 years, though nothing much comes of them, as with:

Irons described the behavior of LaRouchites when they come to the county meetings: “Mostly, they’re pretty quiet in meetings—then they’ll ask a non-sequitor question,” she said.

But non-sequitor to whom?  This is what they believe they are doing:

On the League of Women Voters’ website, LaRouchite candidate Ian Overton has posted a “position paper,” written by Amelia Robinson, of the Schiller Institute, one of the institutions associated with the LaRouche organization. The paper is more of a letter of advice to the six LaRouche candidates: Overton, Jon Stuart (incumbent), Ben Deniston, John Craig, Ramiro Bravo and Oyang Teng.In part, it says: “Though this is a seriously messed-up world, with Lyn’s and Helga’s [Lyndon and Helga LaRouche] wisdom and experience you can’t go wrong. You are building the foundation for bigger and better positions (be sure you keep your mind and body clean), so don’t stop keeping your eyes on the prize (President). Above all, keep your hand in the Hand (God’s) of the man who troubles the waters. To get to the top, be kind, patient, and loving, as well as truthful.”

Interesting that Helga is being shuffled into these position papers, no? 

“First you say that Scott McClellan was lying, now you’re saying he’s telling the truth.  You can’t have it both ways.  Which is it?”

Looking around blogs, flicking past talk radio in brief snippets, I am absolutely astounded that there are people who say something like this.  If you say one thing at one time, and then later say something entirely different, it is not mutually exclusive to say that you are lying and then telling the truth… indeed, it is practically definitional that one is the truth and one is a lie.

The problem with Scott McClellan is a sort of obnoxiousness with his job, which is a job that is hard to take seriously to begin with — I am not sure how a news organization is supposed to handle the press gaggles — maybe send no reporters over there, plop a camera down, watch but mute the sound and study body language.

The one thing that Scott McClellan has just done is remind me that George W Bush is still president and still there.  That’s something I occasionally forget.

Over the weekend, I heard George W Bush thank the “Rolling Thunder” batch of bikers for standing up to Protesters who have been protesting the funerals of veterans.  Now, in this country when you hear “protesters” protesting veteran funerals, I picture a lot of people picturing — basically, flag-burning anti-war 60s style radical yippies.  For a bit of context, I feel the need to point out that the protesters “Rolling Thunder” stand in the way and of and offer a buffer area against are the followers and family members of Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” fame.

I heard the author of NixonLand on the Rachel Maddow show offering up an anecdote about Richard Nixon.  When he was in college he tried to join a fraternity, but was basically laughed away as uncool and uncouth.  So he started his own competing fraternity, from which he launched into student president.  His great political and sociological insight was that there are more nerds or squares than cool people, and the former holds some amount of bitterness at the latter, and that’s how he proceeded in his political career to his “Great, Silent Majority”.

I thought this was familiar, and I thought “I know that story”.  Except then it dawned on me that I did not.  That the story I was more familiar with was Lyndon Johnson’s story.  In college, there was this highly non-partisan non-factional and cordial student group (might have been the student government?).  He then took it over, and proceeded to sow high levels of discord, made and destroyed enemies, helped those who gave him the power, and generally practiced and refined the art of Practical Amoral Politics.  As soon as he graduated, this student group kind of looked around, asking “What the heck was that all about?”, and went back to their pre-Johnson business.

More evidence that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were, in fact, the same person.

Again with the presumptuousness of Entitlement.  Is what she is suggesting that most Established front-runners and picks of the “Party Machinery” end up with the nomination, but Hillary Clinton did not because she was a woman?  This is for a candidate who I have a lesser opinion of as we near the end of the electoral process as I had at the beginning. 

Yet the question remains: If not now, when? If not Hillary, who?

An interesting question, and the columnist Marie Cocco then proceeds to pooh-pooh the obvious possibilities out of the current female stateswomen and politicians.  I tend to agree, except my answer as to who would be the most likely female president would go, #1: Hillary Clinton.  Still.  One last chance in 2012 or 2016.  Particularly in Obama either decides he has to sidle with Clinton as running mate, or goes the “Dick Cheney” route in selecting a powerful vice-president with no presidential aspirations of his (her?  But probably his) own.  #2, or 1a:  Somebody not mentioned.  #3:  That cast she mentioned.  For example:

 Kathleen Sebelius.  Kansas governor, something of a hero to partisan Democrats for being the identifiably Democratic governor of the archetypical state of Kansas.  But she did botch her “State of the Union” response.  Her pooh-poohing of this possibility goes ala:

She heads a state with six electoral votes and limited fundraising potential.

Unlike Bill Clinton of — was it 9 electoral votes?– Arkansas.  Which I then shrug and shout out “Janet Napitaleno of Arizona!” and offer up a giant rhaspberry. 

Then there’s one pooh-poohing of an issue which is semi-concious and semi-unconcious:

Here, though, revulsion often is expressed at the prospect of the Bushes and Clintons trading the White House among one another. But the “dynasty” argument didn’t impede other American political families: not the Adamses, nor the Roosevelts nor the Kennedys. It sure didn’t keep George W. Bush from becoming president.

And we really don’t want to suggest W as an example.  She left off that great Presidential dynasty of William Henry and grandson Benjamin Harrison, and I mention them to suggest a point of order — even if any of these presidential dynasty had traded off to each other, the nation apparently wasn’t sick of them.  In the end, there was only one President Kennedy.  And the two Adamses were spaced out over a generation.  As the cousins Roosevelts.  Obama campaigned tapping into a desire to significantly “change” the political climate, which is as much a campaign against the Bushes as it is the Clintons.

The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation. This was the outcome of the 1984 Geraldine Ferraro experiment. After 24 years, Ferraro remains the only woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket. And she was selected, not elected, as a vice presidential candidate.

Geraldine Ferraro.  The cause of a Woman President might have been better off without her selection — though maybe not — who might have been that first female president for the past 24 years with or without her?  At any rate, she assured that the next vice presidential pick would be a white southern male.  (Or, Texan, which Texans hate being called Southerners.)

Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?

Or maybe it’s something about Obliterating Iran.

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: “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, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

Hm.  This is on the heels off of last week’s:

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee drew cringes Friday when he made a joke at the National Rifle Association convention about Barack Obama getting shot at.

 Huckabee […] was interrupted by a loud thump from backstage.

The quick-witted Southerner looked behind him and said to the Louisville, Ky., crowd: “That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair and someone pointed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

The audience fell silent […]

I guess we should not be too hard on Hillary Clinton or Mike Huckabee.  It is very difficult not to make jabs against the charismatic, and more properly assassinatibility, of Barack Obama, just — you know? — in passing.  You just trip over it.  Just sort of trip over it without realizing it.  The Ability for Barack Obama to be Assassinated is just the Giant White Elephant in the room for this campaign.  In the room that will just have to plague us for the rest of this campaign.  And through his four or eight years of his presidency, if it gets that far.  Unless that is truncated for some reason.  For… some… reason.  (Um… he abruptly retires after six years?)

Sigh.