It ends Saturday

From the NY Times:

"We pledged to support her to the end,” Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

Here's a clue: The end is when your opponent wins. That's the end. How hard is that to figure out? Many, many people have had to do this before Hillary Clinton, and pretty much all of them managed to do it gracefully.

This decision - how to end her campaign - is arguably the most important decision of her political career. And she's not handling it well. This is the woman who is supposed to be "ready on Day One?" She can't handle defeat? What is she waiting for? A few more dollars to trickle in through her Web site? Why do the rest of us have to wait for her? What's the difference between bowing out now and waiting until Saturday? Is she that desperate for just a couple more days of attention?

Quote of the day

"And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that 'We the people' is beginning to mean to all of us."

Condoleezza Rice, on the significance of Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination for president.

Hilary Rosen on Hillary Clinton

Hilary Rosen has an excellent post at HuffPost today about Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech last night:

Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. She didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been.

I am disappointed. As a long time Hillary Clinton supporter and more importantly, an admirer, I am sad that this historic effort has ended with such a narrow loss for her. There will be the appropriate "if onlys" for a long time to come.

. . .

I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

So the healing has begun. There are many "thank you's" in the comments thread, and I would like to add mine here. Thank you, Ms. Rosen, for putting the interests of the Democratic Party and the country as a whole ahead of your own personal political interests.

I can understand why Hillary Clinton supporters were so enthusiastic for her. I think I can understand some of their disappointment. It was inspiring to see the first woman running for president with a serious shot at it.

But I also don't think we are going to have to wait too much longer. Assuming Obama wins this year and in 2012, the next chance for a woman will be in 2016. A lot can happen in 8 years. 8 years ago, Barack Obama was an obscure state senator in Illinois. Somewhere out there is a Representative, or a mayor, or some woman with a lot of talent and a lot of drive. I think we will see a woman president sooner than many people think.

Obama wins

Barack Obama has clinched the nomination to be the Democratic candidate for President. Hallelujah, Amen. Wow.

I would describe this as a dream come true, except that I don't think I ever dreamed this. Until Obama actually started running, and I started supporting him, I never even considered the possibility of an African-American running for President, certainly not at this point in American history. I thot I had been through a transformative experience when Bill Clinton was elected, but that was nothing like what I have experienced so far with Obama, and the general election campaign has barely begun.

This is one of those very rare moments when you almost stop worrying about anything else and just let yourself enjoy history in the making. When pessimism is not allowed, when cynicism lets down its guard. For this moment, many things are right with the world.

I haven't had a chance to watch all of the speeches from the three candidates, but I watched part of each. One thing in particular impressed me about Obama. At the beginning of his speech, he says a few words, tightens his lips, and then just stands there, solid as a rock, letting the crowd go wild. Incredible self-control, and absolute mastery of the moment.

I caught the intro to Hillary's speech and skimmed the text. It sounded very much like a standard stump speech. Just a smidgen odd, that. And what was up with inviting people to log on to her Web site and give her suggestions? I think she's got it backwards. Listening to your supporters is usually a good idea, but this moment demands a decision that only you can make. Making those kinds of decisions is called leadership.

I also caught McCain's speech, and, more importantly, some of the reaction, which was universally bad. First of all, what's up with giving that speech before a wall, when Obama and Clinton are both surrounded by supporters? Whatever happened to that vaunted Republican stagecraft? I figured out what bothered me about McCain's speaking style: he looks like a guy giving a speech before a Rotary club in the 1950's. Very contrived. I started to zone out when he started reciting a laundry list of things that I can't even remember. Obama is going to wipe the floor with him, which is going to be sad. But he's the one who decided to run for President this time.

Getting close!

Obama is racking up the superdelegates today. Getting very close! Almost there!

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is totally confused and chaotic and can't figure out what message they want to be sending out.

And Hillary has said that she is "open" to being Obama's VP. A little late on that one, methinks. DHinMI at Daily Kos has the best response:

Clinton Open to Being Obama's Veep. I'm Open to Being the Detroit Tigers' Second Baseman.

Get ready to hear that overly large woman warbling.

"I draw a jackal-headed woman in the sand . . ."

Tomorrow is going to be an intense day, with the absolutely very last Democratic primaries for president (and some other primaries here in California). Whew!

I just can't wait for this to be over. I need a distraction. So, as Andrew Sullivan puts it, here is a Mental Health Break. This is Natalie Merchant, minus, as the host says, the other 9,999 Maniacs.

This is Verdi Cries.

sdrawkcab evol

This has nothing to do with politics, but is just quietly wonderful. To understand the title of this post, read it from right to left instead of left to right.




This is why I use the motto that I do.

hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.

What about Hillary's supporters?

It's starting to look like Hillary will drop out very soon. I and many other Obama supporters would be very happy about this. Many Hillary supporters will grudgingly acknowledge reality and start supporting Obama.

But there are a number of Hillary supporters who believe her arguments that she has won more of the popular vote, that she is a more experienced candidate, that sexism has poisoned this race, etc. What are these people going to do when Hillary drops out and declares her support for Obama? I think Hillary herself will be able to change direction on a moment's notice. She's very disciplined, she's had to have been thinking about this for the last few weeks, and she's a realist. She'll drop her talk about "winning more states" as fast as she dropped her demand for suspending the gas tax after the Indiana primary. Remember that idea? We didn't hear a word about it after Indiana, did we?

Many people have argued that she will say anything to win this election. More specifically, she will say whatever is in her best interests at a particular time. I have reluctantly come to that conclusion. I didn't use to think that, and I didn't want to think that, but I now agree that Hillary will say whatever is in her best interest at a particular point in time, truth be damned. In this respect, she is very much a regular politician, but she also seems to be more willing to engage in spin than even other politicians.

As soon as she drops out, the definition of what is in her best interest changes instantly. It is no longer in her best interest to say negative things about Barack Obama in order to enhance her own chances of winning the nomination. It is now in her best interest to sing Obama's praises.

But her supporters have a lot invested in her as their voice, as the best, most qualified candidate, etc. Many of them don't like Obama because she has been harshly critical of him. How are they going to deal with her change in tone? Are they going to accuse her of selling out? How are they going to express their frustration? If they're disappointed in her, are they going to listen to her, or are they going to take out their frustrations on her? I think Hillary has painted herself into a corner, and I don't think she realizes it. She is going to turn on a dime, and she is going to expect her supporters to do the same. And I think she is going to be in for a nasty surprise when they don't.

Then we're in a vicious circle: say some of her supporters express disappointment with her. How is she going to respond? She's probably going to argue that Obama won in a fair fight, which is what many Democratic elected officials are going to want her to say. Of course, it's also true. But that's contrary to what she has been arguing for the last few weeks, particularly regarding Michigan and Florida. So how are her supporters going to deal with her saying one thing one week and the opposite the next week? She'll make the argument that circumstances have changed, that's all water under the bridge, and that now the most important thing is that Democrats have to be unified.

The best approach for her supporters is to recognize that she's being gracious, and agree with her that the most important thing is for Democrats to be united. But many of them will feel like she is no longer speaking for them. Then what? How is she going to convince them that she is still speaking for them, despite losing?

I think one thing Hillary will do is point out how far women have come. She will point out that there are women alive today who were born before women could vote. Here's a factoid that most people have forgotten: when Hillary enrolled in Wellesley, many colleges and universities, including Yale, did not admit women. The military academies did not admit women until 1976, three years after Hillary graduated from Yale Law. Here's something to consider: John McCain graduated from Annapolis in 1958 and retired from the Navy in 1981. That was one year after the first women graduated from Annapolis. So John McCain went almost his entire naval career without knowing a single female graduate of Annapolis. David Petraeus graduated from West Point in 1974, two years before women were admitted. My guess is that many of the top generals and admirals in the military did the same - graduated from one of the military academies before women were admitted.

We now take women graduates of West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy for granted. The fact that we do is an indication of how far we have come.

I think the resolution of this swarm of contradictions is this: Hillary can encourage all women to take pride in her accomplishment of being the first woman to be seriously considered as a candidate for President. She can encourage them to take pride in their own accomplishments. She can say that she did not lose a race for the Democratic nomination, she won respect for all American women.

Taking this stance, that women can be proud of how far they have come, could be a first step in what I call reclaiming liberal pride in America. Conservatives claim that being proud of America requires unquestioning loyalty. But as liberals begin to get closer to victory in November, the dialogue will change. Liberals will start finding their own rationales for being proud of America. American feminists have, in 40 years, changed the status of women that has lasted for thousands of years. Such a dramatic change, so quickly, is nothing short of astonishing. Hillary is a product of that change, as well as an agent of it. If she takes this route, we may be only at the beginning of seeing Hillary in her role as a champion of women everywhere.

The endgame begins

Rumors are flying today that Hillary will end her campaign either tomorrow or the day after. Pressure is coming from her close and powerful supporters.

"It would be most beneficial if we resolved this nomination sooner rather than later," said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a high-profile superdelegate who backs Clinton.

. . .

"She'll do the right thing for America, and I don't think we're going to fight this at the convention," said Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a top Clinton supporter.

Another governor from a swing state chimes in as well:

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, one of Hillary Clinton's most ardent supporters, said Sunday it's time for Hillary Clinton to acknowledge she has lost her bid for the Democratic nomination.

At some point it's going to start getting embarassing for these people. They all know lots of prominent Obama supporters. The peer pressure has to be pretty intense right now.

HuffPost reports that the Clinton campaign is starting to shut down.

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

Of course, the fact that she's running out of money has to be a factor. What rationale could she possibly have to ask for money after Tuesday?

But wait! We have to endure yet more absurd arguments from Hillary herself!

“I’ve been closing very strongly since Feb. 20,” she said, referring to the day after Mr. Obama won Hawaii and Wisconsin. “I have won more votes and won more states than Senator Obama. All the independent analyses break in my direction. A lot of the key states that we have to win, I win those states.”

Kos rips this argument apart. One thing he doesn't mention is a sports analogy. This is like a basketball team arguing that it should win the game because it scored more points in the second half, even though it scored fewer total points than the other team overall. And her "popular vote" argument, apart from the fact that it's bogus, is like a football team arguing that it should win the game because it has more yardage, even if it scored fewer points.

Not only is her argument about winning the popular vote total specious at best, because you can spin the vote totals many different ways, but that is not the metric that matters. Obama won the most delegates. Period, end of story. If the metric had been the popular vote, both of their campaigns would have been very different.

Sex and the City

So I saw Sex and the City. I think my moviegoing experience was unique in at least a couple of respects. I think I was the only person in the theater who had never seen a single complete episode (I did see a couple of clips here and there). I think I was also just about the only straight man there who hadn't been brought there by a date. I went with three friends who were all very excited about it, two straight women and a gay man. I think I was also just about the only straight man there with a gay friend who knows more about fashion than the gay friend.

I had heard about the strategies that other straight guys were going to use to avoid seeing this movie: "Sorry, honey, I have to mow the law/walk the dog/work late/serve in Iraq." But, hey, Kristin Davis is gorgeous, Kim Catrall is seriously hot, Cynthia Nixon is beautiful in a geeky sort of way, and this was an HBO series with the occasional nudity, so, even if it's filled with gossipy women and girl talk, there should be at least some side benefits. Also, I understood that women were going to be dressing up for this movie, which they did. They didn't do that for the Indiana Jones movie. Another small benefit.

I am happy to report to the men of this world that it's actually quite a good movie, very enjoyable as a movie in and of itself. I had followed the series through other media, so I had heard of Mr. Big, Chris Noth, and I could even name all of the characters (Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha), but, having never watched an episode, I didn't know much of the background. Even approaching it as a sui generis phenomenon, however, I followed the plot without any problems. I now understand the appeal. I get it. Now I know why women are obsessed. It makes perfect sense to me that the opening weekend boxoffice - $55 million - blew away all projections.

The appeal is really very simple: it's just a good show. It's well-written, the characters are interesting and realistic, and there's just enough drama to keep everything going. The "realistic" part is particularly intriguing. It doesn't have the absurd characters and bizarre relations of a soap opera or the narrow confines of a sitcom. I could easily see myself knowing one of these women. Suspending disbelief is just about effortless.

Well, suspending disbelief is easy until Mr. Big drops a chunk of change to buy what must be a $10 million penthouse apartment for he and Carrie without blinking an eye. I bought that, but only because Chris Noth sold it really well. I guess that's why they call him Mr. Big.

But I also figured out why men are scared of this series/movie/phenomenon. Personally, I'm not a fan of Sarah Jessica Parker, although I like her more now that I have seen this movie. Apart from her acting, which is good, I now have a great deal of respect for her as a producer. As a movie star, on the other hand, she doesn't work for me. She seems to have an elevated sense of her own sex appeal, which, for me, dampens her sex appeal. There are aspects of this that clearly appeal to women far more than men: guys just don't talk about their relationships this much. They really, really don't talk about their relationships this much.

And then there's the question of the men in this movie. Are we going to be identifying with them? Most of the men, even the ones in relationships with the women, are somewhat in the background. That's a reversal of what we see in most male-oriented movies, where the women are usually underdeveloped. Personally, I have no problem with that. Most of the guys, even the ones who seemed to be drawn along fairly standard lines (the sensitive intellectual, the blond surfer dude) were real people. So no problem with reverse sexism.

No, what scares guys about this movie is this: the women will argue amongst themselves, even fight, but they always are there for each other somehow. But the drama is going to require a villain, and the villain is going to be a guy. The bad guy is going to be a guy. And he's not going to be a normal villain. He's going to be a normal guy. He's not going to be some serial murderer with bizarre accessories. He's not going to be some well-dressed Eurotrash with a thick accent and a sinister sneer. He's not going to be played by John Malkovich. He's not going to be coming after Carrie with a souped-up fighter jet and an evil plan to rule the world.

No, the villain is going to be an average guy about town, and instead of threatening nuclear annihilation, he's going to make some stupid mistake that just about any guy can make. He's going to piss off Samantha because he forgot her birthday. Or he's going to break up with Carrie because his ex-girlfriend just came back into his life. Or he's going to break Charlotte's heart yet again because he's an average guy with average guy fears and neuroses and he loves her and doesn't want to hurt her but he just doesn't have it all together.

Any guy watching this is going to see this and either remember the time he was a complete idiot and did something really stupid and really, really pissed off his girlfriend/fiancee/wife, or he can see himself doing something similar to what normal guy X just did that he shouldn't have done and is now going to have to spent six months apologizing for.

But the flip side of that fear on the part of average guys is that they might be able to watch it and learn a few things about women so they DON'T make that kind of mistake, or they might be able to watch it and think to themselves "Wow, that guy is a total idiot/wimp/loser, I would never do that to a woman," and thereby realize that their personal standards of behavior are somewhat better than those of this guy on the screen. So that's a good reason for a guy to see this movie: because they get a nice boost of self-esteem for realizing that they're one of the good guys.

The scene with Kim Catrall and the sushi isn't bad either.

Today is my sister's birthday, and she is a huge fan of the show, so this review is dedicated to her. Happy Birthday, Christina!