Marbury

'whatever happens, we'll be fine...'

The Democratic candidates debated in Texas last night. This debate was generally seen as one of Clinton's final chances to change the dynamic of the race. Did she do so? Probably not. She put in a strong performance, but so did Obama. Once again, the debate was, for the most part, very civil and even-tempered. Clinton didn't go negative in a big way, against predictions, including mine - which is to her credit. But a tie at this stage means a win for the front-runner.

However, Clinton's final answer was the best answer of the night, and maybe her finest moment in the campaign so far (see above). It displayed humility, grace, and an almost-wistful tone that betrayed an unspoken recognition that this race might not end in her victory.

It will be interesting to see if this moment re-energises her support, or if it proves cathartic, allowing the Democrats to wave goodbye to her with affection (could that handshake be seen as a symbolic passing-on of the torch?).

Or, you know, neither.

marbury's law of reverse momentum confirmed

obama wins wisconsin, loses his national lead

if obama can't stop her in texas he could always try the supreme court

does the constitution actually allow for a female president? Just asking...

(Thanks: AW)

why liberals have a problem with mccain

The reliably brilliant Michael Kinsley affects outrage at the Republicans' choice of nominee:

There is a word for it when a political party chooses a presidential candidate with more appeal in the opposition party than in his own. That word is cheating. For heaven's sake, if the Republicans want to keep the White House that badly, why don't they just nominate Hillary Clinton and be done with it?

As a lifelong Democrat, I have wallowed in the luxury of voting against some of the most unappealing politicians in American history, starting with Richard Nixon and ending (so far) with George W. Bush. I am surely going to vote against McCain, but it is going to take work, and there will be moments of doubt. This will be no fun. Doubts are for independents.

with friends like this...

Painful and hilarious

degloving ii

These ominous paragraphs are from John Heilemann's excellent post-Wisconsin assessment of the state of play:

One way of looking at Wisconsin, where these (negative) messages failed to move the needle much, is that they fell flat. Another way to see things is that the Clintonites started hammering too late and too soft.

Trust me when I tell you that the latter is the view in Clintonland. That they have more arrows in their quiver to fire at Obama, charges they believe will cast doubt on the hopemonger, raising the specter (terrifying to many Democrats) that John McCain and the Republican machine will make mincemeat of him. Trust me when I tell you that you ain't seen nothing yet.

degloving

Ever since Obama won Iowa there have been excited predictions from the media that things are about to get really nasty, that Clinton will now take the gloves off. And there has been some strong stuff, particularly when Bill got involved. There's also been a lot of negative under-the-radar material (direct mail etc) from both sides in battleground states. But the truth is, Clinton largely resisted the urge to go negative in a big way.

I think that will change now. The scrap over Obama's 'plagiarism' may have been a turning point of sorts. The charge was pretty meaningless, but it gained a lot of coverage in the last twenty-four hours of the Wisconsin campaign, kept the focus on Obama's 'words', and raised a question about his authenticity. Of course, it didn't help her win Winsconsin. But, according to the exit polls there, she won amongst voters who made up their mind in the last twenty-four hours, which indicates a possible effect. Also, the Gallup national tracking poll showed Obama's national lead disappearing overnight, a development they suspect had something to do with the plagiarism accusations.

The plagiarism stuff itself will be forgotten about within a week if it hasn't been forgotten already. But the sense that Obama is vulnerable to hard-hitting attacks will stay with the Clinton campaign as they approach the do-or-die contests of March 4th.

the cheeseheads have spoken

from Michael Crowley at The New Republic:

Now, Hillary’s last hope may be that voters in Ohio and Texas will be in a contrarian mood. Perhaps, after hearing for the next week that it is now Barack Obama who is inevitable, and Hillary who is doomed, they will feel the same sympathy that New Hampshire did, and hand the Clintons one last reprieve. For old time’s sake.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

marbury's law of reverse momentum

Today is decision day in the Dairy State. Polls suggest it's close. Clinton would really like to win here, because she believes it will give her some strong momentum going into March 4 (Ohio and Texas). She may be right about that. But on the other hand, this race has shown the normal dynamics of political momentum don't apply. In fact they may work in reverse much of the time.

I'm aware this may sound crazy, but might it not be a good thing for Obama if he loses here? Yes, it would mean losing a difference of about fifteen delgates to Clinton. And it would give her campaign a psychological boost at a difficult time, without doubt.

But the history of this campaign season has shown that Clinton is at her most dangerous when she's down, and at her most vulnerable when perceived as dominant (or 'inevitable'). If Obama wins Wisconsin convincingly, the media, always eager to boost him, will hype up his chances of overturning Clinton's leads in Ohio and Texas. And the voters, like they did in California and New Hampshire, may decide not to play ball. They may decide to say, 'Not so fast, there, golden boy', and rally to the embattled warrior. Thus will Marbury's law of reverse momentum take effect.

So perhaps Obama should hope for a close defeat today, so that he can play the slight underdog to Clinton on March 4th.

UPDATE: Mickey Kaus at Slate reached exactly the same hypothesis a few hours after me...hmm.

sticks and stones

On the face of it, the Clinton campaign's attack on Obama's supposed plagiarism of part of his speech is absurd. Obama and the man whose words he borrowed, Deval Patrick, are close friends, and have exchanged each other's verbal riffs, with implicit or explicit permission, on more than one occasion in the past. Patrick has been quick to come out and say so. Obama professes bemusement that this should be a focus of attention. I've been bemused too. It seems like a pretty desparate move. But as I think about it, perhaps not a bad one. They've decided that the best line of attack on Obama is that he's all pretty words and no action. This is a bit of ju-jitsu - it turns Obama's biggest strength against him. The plagiarism attack, even if it lacks substance, has the effect of keeping this association with Obama and 'words' in the headlines. That video clip will be played again and again on TV and on the internet.

If I were advising Obama I'd suggest he cuts any and all passages like this from his speeches - ie, those passages where he is defending or celebrating the role of rhetoric. He should have done it some time ago.

still going strong

jfk's reputation has taken a battering these last twenty years. There have been revelations about his philandering, his reliance on drugs, his chronic health problems, and his dubious 1960 electoral victory. There have also been critiques of his record: the Bay of Pigs debacle, his lack of any significant domestic achievement. Despite all this, he's still standing. Obama is often compared by his supporters to Kennedy. And Americans have just voted him the ex-president they'd most like to see in the White House.

courting mr edwards

This photo was taken from an abc chopper sometime yesterday. It shows Barack Obama and John Edwards engaged in a rather awkward embrace (the more I look it at the stranger it gets...where is Obama's right arm?). Obama had just come from Wisconsin to meet quietly with Edwards at the Edwards home in North Chapel, North Carolina, presumably to seek his endorsement.

When Edwards dropped out of the race it was assumed an endorsement of Obama would follow. After all, he's spent most of the past twelve months attacking Clinton as a symbol of the Washington status quo, and his message of change seems more in tune with Obama's. But as I wrote at the time, Edwards is a highly calculating and ambitious man, and if he thinks Hillary can win this, then he may back her.

His associates have been hinting that he has been impressed by how assidiously Clinton has courted him since he conceded, and contrasted this with Obama's seemingly more casual approach to date. There is something childish and egotistical to all this, though it's understandable. Edwards lost, and lost decisively, a race that he's been running for four years (longer if you count last time around). That must hurt. He now wants to feel like a player, a big guy. And he wants to feel the last four years weren't wasted. And - lest I sound too cynical - I'm sure he wants to ensure his core issue of poverty is at the centre of the Democratic platform in 2008.

Is his endorsement as important as he'd like to think? Well, it may help with swinging some of his loyal supporters behind someone, and perhaps one or two unions. But probably his most important gift at this stage will be one of momentum. An Edwards endorsement will take up at least a couple of days' coverage at this critical stage of the race, and could make a difference in Ohio and Texas.

But it matters in different ways to different candidates. Clinton has the most to gain from it, hence the effort she's put into courting him. An Edwards endorsement could change the media narrative of - basically - 'She's screwed', to 'She's coming back again!'. Especially if combined with a stronger than expected performance in Wisconsin this week.

For Obama, not so much. An Edwards endorsement would be less of a story. It might even, in my view, have a negative effect: it would risk making Hillary look like the embattled woman up against two grinning boys - a dynamic that worked in her favour in New Hampshire. The best outcome for Obama would be no endorsement at all. That man-hug is focused on keeping Edwards out of Clinton's arms.

there he goes again

Obama, in a press conference today:

I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she is feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he said. "But I think these kinds of gamesmanship of are not what the American people are looking for.”

You know what women are like - when they get down they say silly things. They're emotional creatures, bless 'em.

Obama has an odd, almost compulsive habit of saying or doing things that come across as snarky put-downs, just at the moment when he's getting the better of his opponent and should be showing the grace of a confident winner. The 'You're likeable enough' comment in New Hampshire, the 'snub' on the floor of the Senate after South Carolina, and now this...there's no surer way of firing up Clinton's female supporters.

obama, lincoln, and woody allen

from the new yorker...rolf harris on speed

is barack obama the messiah?

This excellent blog is devoted to gathering the evidence...