Hillary in the Middle East

Hillary Clinton just toured the Middle East. I have to say that I was somewhat impressed. I think she and Obama are taking the right steps. Talking to Syria is a big deal, even if it's been done before. She proposed a conference on Afghanistan, and mentioned possibly inviting Iran. Which would make sense, since they are neighbors. She brought some aid to the Palestinians, which can't hurt.


I call this the Great Potential Thaw. One good thing about coming after the Bush administration is that there are a lot of things the Obama administration can do to just repair relations and ease tensions. Talking to Syria may lead to a breakthrough on the Golan Heights, which would bolster America's credibility in the region. Syria is closely tied to Iran, and will put Iranian interests ahead of American concerns. The Iranians may try to sabotage American-Syrian relations. But if America talks to Iran as well, that makes talking to Syria easier.


Speaking of Iran, Russia may be somewhat helpful here. The Russians hate the missile defense system in Eastern (or Central) Europe, because they believe that it is aimed at them. Which they have every reason to believe. Obama, during the campaign, supported the missile defense system. Initially, I was disappointed by that, because I think missile defense is a stupid idea, but then I realized that Obama will treat it as a bargaining chip with Russia. Which is exactly what he is doing. Obama is offering to engage in diplomacy about missile defense if Russia puts pressure on Iran. Good call linking those two.


All in all, a great deal of progress has been made very quickly. Opening up to Syria could help with both the Palestinian and Iranian problems; opening up to Russia on missile defense helps on Iran; opening up with Iran has its own benefits, as well as possibly helping with Afghanistan. The fact that oil prices are low helps all the way around, because many of these countries have lost a great deal of their leverage, particularly Iran.


Two unanswered questions so far are Hamas in Gaza and Egypt. If Obama can loosen the blockade, that would be immensely helpful.

What's just insanely refreshing is being able to look at this tangled web, all of these forces pulling in different directions, and start to understand it because you know that the President of the United States actually is making the same effort.

Welcome back, Samantha Power!

Absolutely unsurprising. Samantha Power has a new job in the Obama administration, as director of multilateral relations or affairs or something at the National Security Council. She will have to be working with Hillary Clinton, who she once called a "monster." Of course, Hillary has been called many things, and she has managed to survive. I always that this was seriously overblown. Now it's over, and life for the brilliant Harvard professor is back to normal. Or as normal as life can be on the NSC these days.

16-1: Foreign Relations Committee backs Clinton

Hillary Clinton's nomination to be Secretary of State sailed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16-1. Great news for Hillary.

I'm very happy for her and for us. I caught a few seconds of her testimony on CNN, and it was a little exciting. It was nice to be reminded that she's one of the smartest people in Washington. I was about to write that she is one of the smartest women, but changed that to read that she is one of the smartest people, not just one of the smartest women. I feel like I can relax just a little bit. We are one step closer to the Obama administration; one step closer to regaining our moral status in the world; one step closer to solving so many problems that we know can be solved.

It's also worth noting that the Hillary is the fourth consecutive non-white male Secretary of State (Albright, Powell and Rice were her predecessors). Anybody remember Warren Christopher? He's the last white male to be Secretary of State.

I'm looking forward to the next white guy who is nominated to be Secretary of State making jokes about being representing diversity.

Leon Panetta at the CIA

Well this is interesting. Leon Panetta is apparently Obama's choice to be head of the CIA. Didn't see that one coming. I don't think of him as a foreign policy geek or a military man (although he did serve in the Army in Vietnam).

My first reaction is that it's a great choice. Andrew Sullivan, who is beyond righteous in his continual condemnation of the use of torture under the Bush-Cheney regime, quoted Panetta at length on not using torture and had this comment:

This is a good day for America's soul.

High praise from a skeptic is a good sign.

It took me a minute to see the logic of this choice, but it's not hard to figure out. First, it strengthens the hand of Congressional Democrats, because many of them know him, particularly the ones from California (which would include Nancy Pelosi). Second, he's known as a great manager, someone who can clean up a bureaucratic mess. After taking on the federal budget and the Clinton White House, the CIA might almost be easy. He obviously knows Hillary, and she might have even been pushing for him for this job, so that's good.

Most important, perhaps, he's a tough but fair Democrat. I've always had a strong impression of him as an honest broker. I think he will have the respect of serious people from both sides of the aisle. The wackjobs will find something to complain about, but that's true for every appointment.

I'm impressed. This is a better choice than I was expecting. Great move by Obama. Sort of like Rahmbo - Obama found a tough Democrat for a tough job.

2008 - The best, and the worst

This morning, I was reading washingtonpost.com and happened to notice the date: 1/1/09/. Just seeing those numbers, I felt a mild sense of relief. 2008 is gone, it's history, it's all in the past. Whew. What a year.

To steal from Dickens, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Sometimes the best and the worst were embodied by the same person. John McCain represented the best of straight white American male traditions - the honorable war hero who speaks his mind. But then he was also the worst of straight white American male traditions - the man willing to do almost anything to advance his own career, the freewheeling ne'er-do-well who lives by his own rules, ignoring the concerns of others, a man at once burdened by a great personal heritage, and yet who feels entitled by virtue of that same heritage. The man committed for years to a noble cause, but one who makes the most important decision of his career - his choice of vice-president - on the careless and reckless basis of gut instinct.

Sarah Palin contained multitudes of contradictions. The first woman VP candidate for the GOP, a working mom, a fresh face from outside the political establishment, she broke new ground in lots of ways. But she was also one who - you betcha - had many of the same disastrous qualities of those within that establishment. A petty, vindictive, mean-spiritied liar, with an ego inflated way out of proportion to her accomplishments. It takes extraordinary hubris to decide to run for national office, but Palin's sense of her personal potential was way out of whack even by the ridiculous standards of American politics. A woman who invented her own terminology for being down-to-earth - the "hockey mom" - broke new ground for being a diva.

Tina Fey started out the year doing well - star and producer of her own TV sitcom, accomplished writer, star of a movie with her good friend Amy Poehler, Baby Mama. And then, with only a few minutes of TV time over a couple of months, she went from rising star to cultural icon. No good roles for women? Hold on, sister; women created great new roles for other women.

One of those women who created new roles for women was, of course, Hillary Clinton. She went on a roller coaster few other people - men or women - have ever experienced. On Jan. 1, 2008, she was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Two days later, on January 3, came the Iowa caucuses, won by Barack Obama. Hillary placed third, behind John Edwards. Then she won New Hampshire, but never really gained momentum. She endured her share of vitriol and abuse - some of it, I admit, from me - but then gave the speech of her life when she conceded to Obama. For a few months they were opponents, but never enemies. Now they are allies. All in one year.

Remember all the Republican nominees? Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, the Thompsons, Tommy and Fred? Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee? Some of them had parts that were attractive to large swaths of the American population, but none had the complete package. If a mad scientist had been able somehow to combine Huckabee's folksy charm and common sense, Mitt Romney's money and basic competence, and John McCain's war hero status (and his late, lamented independence from the right wing), they might have had a chance to win this year. Except, of course, the one thing no Republican could have changed was the legacy of George W. Bush.

I'm not going to explore the contradictions of Bush. That would require a book, not part of a blog post.

On the grand scale, we elected our first African-American president, decades before almost anyone thot it would be possible. It turns out that old white guys aren't the dominant, all powerful demographic in this country anymore. And about those white guys: they inflicted incredible damage on themselves, as the contradictions of conservative ideology came crashing down around them. It turns out that "smaller government" and "less regulation" also means "freedom without accountability," which can also turn into "greed without restraint." Which is a recipe for corruption.

I am very much looking forward to 2009.

Caroline Kennedy? Huh?

Caroline Kennedy is now openly campaigning for the Senate seat that Hillary will vacate if she becomes Secretary of State. I find this bizarre. At first, I wasn't sure why she would want it. But it should be obvious: her good friend Barack Obama is about to become president, so serving in public office would be fun in a way that it hasn't been for a long time. Okay, I get that.

But it strikes me as rather arrogant and egotistical to think that you can just jump into being Senator. Caroline Kennedy strikes me as a very nice woman. I'm sure she's smart, I'm sure she has good political instincts, and I'm sure she knows a lot about politics. But after a week, I'm still not sure what her qualifications are. Hillary herself, of course, benefited from her famous name. But she also had a record of holding responsible jobs in public service, and she campaigned for the position, and won. She may have been a carpetbagger, but she did win the election, and reelection. Obama, of course, was accused of having a thin resume, but at least he had held elected office.

Nicholas Kristof thinks this is disrespectful to the other women in New York who have put in the time in elected office. I agree. It's not just disrespectful to those women; it's disrespectful to the people of New York. Who know something about respect and disrespect. There is a real question of whether or not Caroline Kennedy can actually do the job. Electing any governmental representative is not just a question of voters judging them on their policies and beliefs. They are also judged on their qualifications. Being a United States Senator requires a particular set of skills. It also requires that the person not merely have those skills, but have them at a very high level. It's not enough to be smart and a good networker. There's a reason just about every senator holds some other office before being elected to the Senate.

I saw Caroline Kennedy when Michelle Obama came to UCLA during the campaign. I liked her, but I don't remember thinking "Wow, SHE should run for office!" If she's so passionate about public service, where has she been all these years?

It's not personally relevant to me, since I don't live in NY any more, but if I were David Patterson, I would tell Ms. Kennedy thanks, but no thanks.

Hillary as Secretary of State - the rationale

Any day now, we should hear confirmation that Hillary Clinton has accepted Barack Obama's offer to be his Secretary of State. Unless she decides against it, which is looking pretty doubtful at this point.

This raises the simple question of why would she give up her Senate seat, which she could easily hold on to for another 20 or 30 years, for a position which she will probably give up in 4 years, if not sooner? If she's still interested in running for president in eight years, she would go from having merely a very good resume to having an incredible one, even better than George H. W. Bush's.

But I don't think she's going to be running for President in 2016. She would be 69, and it would be her 4th presidential campaign. I also think she'll have plenty of competition from younger candidates by that time. She can retire, spend time with Chelsea and Bill, sit on panels, give speeches, and change the world at a leisurely (and lucrative) pace. Hillary does not need to be in the Senate to change the world.

I think Hillary will accept Obama's offer because she can have a profound impact on the world in a relatively short period of time. There are 100 Senators, but there is only one Secretary of State. This is a dangerous time on the world stage, but it is also a time of incredible opportunity. The challenges are many, not least of which is rebuilding America's relationship with the rest of the world. In the Senate, she represents the people of New York in an American legislative body; the scope of her purview is between Buffalo and Montauk. As Secretary of State, she represents the United States of America to the entire world; her purview is between the North and South Poles.

That's why I think Hillary will accept: repairing America's relationship with the rest of the world is a massive challenge. And Hillary, just like Bill, loves a challenge.

Update: It occurs to me that an additional rationale for Hillary to take this job is that she performs a weird sort of political alchemy when she does so. For just about anyone else, becoming Secretary of State would be a promotion; it certainly was for the current occupant. For Hillary, it's almost a lateral move. She enhances the prestige of the position just by the fact of her taking it, if that's possible for a job first held by Thomas Jefferson.

For Obama, appointing Hillary does a couple of things. First, he gets a potentially great Secretary of State. Second, he takes advantage of Bill Clinton's expertise and contacts, but he does so in a way that is not directly tied into domestic politics. Obama gets "two for one," and the Clintons used to describe themselves. Second, he demonstrates that he has the strength to trust people he has not only had disagreements with, but has strenuously competed with. He has demonstrated that he is willing to be challenged by people in his cabinet, which is, of course, a powerful contrast to the last eight years.

Hillary for Sec of State - looking like a done deal

Intrade is offering a contract for Hillary to be offered the Secretary of State position. As of this writing, it's at 96.5%. Looks like a lock. I wasn't a fan of this idea, but I think she could do a great job. Andrew Sullivan likes it, and god knows he's not a Hillary fan.

Hillary as Secretary of State?

I've been dismissing the rumors that Hillary might be named Secretary of State as more Hillary fans fantasizing about seeing her come just a smidgen closer to president. But apparently there might be a bit of fire behind the smoke.

There are pros and cons to Hillary as SoS. The cons are obvious: she's still a polarizing figure in the country at large. As chief diplomat, that might not matter all that much, because she will be spending a lot of time outside of the country, and her decisions won't have much of a clear, direct impact on the lives of people in this country. Also, many of her critics are on the right, and one of the Clinton administration's signature foreign policy accomplishments is Nafta, which many Republicans would be in favor of. In many respects, she's not a classic liberal on foreign policy - she did vote for the Iraq war. That would be a pro and a con; the left still isn't happy about that, but the right would see it as a positive. All in all, this is probably the least-polarizing job she could have in an Obama administration. It would certainly be less polarizing than putting her in charge of health care.

On the plus side, she's highly qualified. She certainly has met more foreign leaders than almost anyone else who is even in the running, possibly even more than Bill Richardson, who was ambassador to the UN. Even her most vocal critics respect her work ethic. Apart from policy issues, I think we can assume that she would do a good job. Given how she ran her campaign, I am not as much of a fan of her management abilities as I once was, but I'm sure she could actually manage Foggy Bottom.

The big question is, of course, the Big Dog, but I think Bill brings slightly more positives than negatives. Slightly. He already spends a huge amount of time traveling the world, so this would mesh well with his personal agenda. As to his personal personal agenda, there's always the risk of an "international incident." He is a private citizen these days, but his presence would also make many people nervous. Including me.

In the grandest sense, there are two issues. One, how well would she actually work with Obama? Would she be a good soldier, taking orders from someone much younger than her, or is there a risk of freelancing? She would clearly bring many of her own people, so State could be her own power base. That's a real risk, but, at the same time, as SoS, she ties her fate to Obama's. That one's hard to call. I don't think she is seriously thinking about running in 2016; it's possible, but she would be 77 at the end of a second term, and I think at some point she's going to be happy with what she has accomplished so far in life.

I think she would be a good soldier. I think Bill could be put to good use; he understands how closely tied his fate is with Obama's. And I think both Clintons are starting to respect Obama. I think they realize that they were beat by a great opponent. That may be wishful thinking on my part, but as great game players themselves, they recognize talent. Of course, it helps that Obama has been recruiting many Clinton people, so he has been paying them a certain degree of respect. It also helps that Obama is, in some respects, a better politician than Bill. He's just as smart as Bill, but more disciplined. I think Bill and Hillary enjoy the simple fact that Obama and his people like policy discussions. They can have geek fun in an Obama administration.

The second defining issue is that it would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that Obama is taking foreign policy very seriously, that he wants a strong presence representing him on the world stage. She would command attention, which could be useful in and of itself when visiting other countries.

At the end of the day, I come down against giving Hillary the post of Secretary of State. Apart from the baggage that she brings, and the potential for her own agenda, she does not represent change. Obama has hired many old Clinton hands, which is understandable simply because they tend to be the most experienced. The other names being considered are Sam Nunn, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson. Nunn would be a good choice, not least because he brings some geographic diversity, and he's eminently qualified, but he is somewhat conservative. John Kerry would be a safe choice, but not an inspired one. I'm leaning towards Richardson. He's extraordinarly qualified, he would bring some diversity, and he clearly has a passion for diplomacy. And he doesn't have a lot of baggage. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't like drama within his circle of advisors. Choosing Hillary as Secretary of State would be a serious challenge to that most excellent principle of governance.

A woman friend reacts to Sarah Palin

A woman friend of mine in NY watched the VP debate last week and WAS NOT IMPRESSED with Gov. Palin. Sometimes it's really helpful to hear a straight opinion from a real New Yorker.

I freely admit to having violent thoughts last night. I admit that I would SO LOVE to smack the perpetual smirk off of that woman-creature's face. . . . [My husband] had to keep pausing the tv because I had to keep shouting at Miss Sarah: "Get that smirk off your face, b***h!", "I don't think so, Missy!", " YOU did NOT just say that!!", "WHAT??!!", "Oh look I can wink too!" Fun times!

. . .
On a positive note, I am totally in love with Joe Biden now. . . . I can't tell you how many times I shouted, "Thank you, Joe! Damn right!" after his rebuttals.

. . .
Sarah Palin avoided answering questions and was little more than patronizing and snide. Also, she might need to see a doctor; she may have Tourette's. Along with her facial ticks and uncontrolable blinking eyes there were almost robotic outbursts of "I'm a maveric, John's a maverick, We're mavericks!" Well that's great, Dr. Pepper, but the problem is you're full of s**t and you're a freak.

. . .
I feel the nasty in her came across loud and clear. This is a woman who you never have to worry will stab you in the back. Know why? Because if she stabs you in the back she would miss the chance to look at your face as you slowly died. It would kill the thrill, and how could she live with that? No worries, she will always stab you right in the front, looking in your eyes the whole time, and not flinch. That is my biggest impression of Sarah Palin.

Like I said, not impressed with Sarah Palin.

So my friend, who was already a Democrat, is even angrier at McCain/Palin. This highlights a major miscalculation on McCain's part: there are a lot of women who really, really do not like Sarah Palin. She's becoming an even more polarizing figure than Hillary. Say what you want about the senator from New York, she deserves her success. She's worked hard her entire life, takes her job seriously, and has a wealth of experience. She may not be the easiest woman in the world to relate to, but even her opponents have to respect her intelligence, work ethic, and accomplishments. Sarah Palin's opponents don't have to do anything of the kind.

In high school terms, Hillary was the overachiever who may not have been popular, but whom nobody hated, because she didn't screw other people over. Sarah Palin is the popular girl who uses her popularity to divide and conquer. Women get this. They all know other women like this. Men aren't picking this up yet. McCain thot Sarah Palin would attract many women. Turns out she's also repelling quite a few.

Hillary v. Sarah: not much yet

Hillary has been lying low since the DNC. Hasn't said much in public yet. Some people are wondering why. TPM has a good post on this: The Obama and Clinton camps have agreed that Hillary should not go on the offensive against Palin just yet.

I agree with this. If Hillary jumps in, it will be a distraction. Obama has to fight this without her help, at least for now. I think Obama has responded well of late, particularly on the "lipstick on a pig" thing. The race is tied right now, but that's partially because of McCain's convention bounce. Palin is getting all of the attention, but that's because she's so new.

This race has to be about Obama vs. McCain, about the Democrats vs. the Republicans, about Obama vs. Bush's legacy. I think Hillary and Bill will be able to make good contributions when Obama has inflicted some serious damage on McCain/Palin. When Obama and Biden has softened up McCain and Palin, then Hillary will be more effective. She should jump in when Obama has set the terms of the debate. Otherwise her presence becomes part of those terms.

Bill Clinton's speech

This is terribly late, but I finally got around to watching Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC a couple of days ago. I liked it. I don't think it was his best speech, but even a slightly-above-average speech from Bill Clinton is better than one from almost any other politician.

Before the convention, many people wondered if the Clintons would get behind Obama. My instinct was yes; it is in their best interests to have Democratic president rather than a Republican one.

One thing I picked up from Bill's speech is that he is a fighter. He loves to mix it up politically. He loves a challenge, particularly if the challenge involves both politics and policy. He lives for this stuff. This campaign will be one of his last best chances to do that. During the primary, he was fighting Barack Obama on behalf of his wife. Now that that is past, he has joined with Obama, put his ego aside, and joined the fight. For him, it's unfortunate that Hillary lost, and he has a few emotional bruises (bruises, not scars - the wounds weren't that bad) from the campaign, but he is a man who heals quickly. He's over that.

I'm sure that he's realized that electing Obama represents a repudiation of Bush, which means some sort of redemption for him and his presidency. One reason people will vote for Obama is that they remember the good times they had under Clinton. So this is an opportunity for him to remind both voters and professional Democrats he is one of two Democratic presidents who won reelection in the 20th century.

Now on the to the fight against Republicans.

Hillary's speech

I watched all of Hillary's speech last night. Very impressive. I think the key takeaway is that she tied her campaign closely to Obama's. At the end of the day, as a United States Democratic Senator, she will be personally much more successful under an Obama presidency than under a McCain presidency. Under Obama, she will have a great deal of influence on how we fix our health care; under McCain, she'll be fighting just to stop his veto.

I think she realizes this intellectually, and realizes it somewhat emotionally, although I don't think she will be completely comfortable with having lost the nomination until Obama is actually elected.

The ultimate step for Hillary would be for her to tell her followers: if you vote for McCain, you are betraying me. She came very close to that last night. Besides her personal ambition, she really does want to preserve reproductive choice; she really does want to get us out of Iraq. She really does want a president who focuses on education. And she made it crystal clear last night that the best way accomplish all of those goals is to elect Obama.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else is that, at some level, I think Hillary respects Obama as a masterful politician. That requires, on her part, recognizing that he is a better politician than she is. Which has to be painful. But there is, in almost any competition, an appreciation for an ability to play the game well. Which Obama is consistently demonstrating.

As for the Clinton supporters who claim that they are going to be voting for McCain. I don't think there are that many of them. I saw a few of them marching down the street yesterday. I counted 9 of them. Followed by 12 cops.

Unity!

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigned together in Unity, New Hampshire. How cute is this? Unity held the first primary, and 107 people voted for Obama, and 107 voted for Hillary. The Clintons have also donated to Obama's campaign, while the Obamas have donated to Hillary's campaign, to help her relieve her debt.

Give it up for Hillary! Let's hear it for party unity! Democrats together!

Now on to the general election.

Clinton campaigns for Obama

Hillary Clinton made her first campaign appearance for Obama today, speaking before the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials (NALEO). That's great. She's a total pro. She has been at this long enough to know that when you're down and out, you pick yourself up and keep on going. I think part of her strength at this moment is realizing how historic was her achievement of being the first woman to run for President and have a serious shot at it. No one will ever be able to take that away from her.

I am looking forward to her campaigning with Obama in the general election. And I hope Obama's fundraisers manage to retire a chunk of her debt.

Hillary's Great Speech

I just watched Hillary's concession. I now forgive her for not conceding on Tuesday, and I'm actually very glad that she didn't. I can see why she needed a couple of days to get ready.

This was one of the best speeches that I have ever seen from a Clinton, either her or Bill. It touched on all of the standard talking points, she endorsed Obama wholeheartedly, gave thanks to her supporters, etc., etc. All pretty much expected. But what really surprised me, and why I give it such high marks, is that she worked a bit of political magic that I did not even remotely expect: she endorsed Obama from a position of strength, not weakness.

Every endorsement that I have seen from a losing candidate has been as an act of necessity, but Hillary almost made it look like it was her choice. All of those previous endorsements that I have seen have had an undercurrent of pain and disappointment, but Hillary did everything she could to work some amazing alchemy, and transfer as much of her campaign enthusiasm as she could to Obama, with a minimum of pain and disappointment. She made it clear that whatever hurt feelings there are from the past few months pale next to the challenges Democrats face on many fronts, from just beating John McCain to cleaning up George Bush's mess. She reminded everyone of why she's in this - not for herself, but for the cause. Sometimes when a politician uses that kind of rhetoric, they're just masking their own ambition, and God knows the Clintons are ambitious. But Hillary was preaching to the choir, and they bought her message today, that everyone there has to remember that they have sworn allegiance to higher causes than her campaign. And everyone believed it, because they have.

Yesterday I went to the Barack Obama Web site, and Obama was asking his supporters to congratulate Hillary Clinton and her supporters. So I did. I clicked on the link, and filled out an email that was as gracious and encouraging as I could write. Looking back on this campaign, I have been disappointed and disillusioned by the Clintons, but the disagreements were not as deep as those between me and the Republicans. I think Hillary made some tactical errors, some strategic errors, and said some things that were, at best, ill-advised. I don't have as much respect for either of them as I did at the beginning of this race, and I doubt I ever will.

But I have more respect for Hillary as a politician and as a leader. The issues that I had with the Clinton campaign were mostly, although not entirely, tactical, of the moment, stylistic, rather than substantive. Hillary has definitely come into her own as a politician as a result of this campaign, and emerging from the shadow of Bill Clinton, even with his full encouragement, is a phenomenal achievement in and of itself. She has done a remarkable job of inspiring millions of people, particulary women.

Yesterday, as I was hearing about her speech and processing getting over the campaign just past, I checked my email, and saw an email from Hillary (I signed up for her campaign email a long time ago, long before I started campaigning for Obama). As with just about every email that shows up, from either campaign, these days, she was asking for contributions. This was before I watched her speech today. In the spirit of healing the wounds and letting bygones be bygones and letting water flow under the bridge, I made a donation. Not much, mostly because I still don't have a lot of money to give to candidates these days, but something. I am glad that I decided to campaign for Barack Obama. But, after watching Hillary's speech, I'm glad that I gave her a donation.

Here's the speech (from TPM):

Hillary Clinton's great legacy

Marie Wilson writes a paean to the legacy of Hillary's run for the presidency in the WaPo. She runs something called the White House Project, which "aims to advance women's leadership." She's very optimistic about the impact that Hillary has had, both on America in general and women in particular. Hillary has changed the game, she argues, and inspired many, many women to reach higher, and to do it faster. I completely agree, and I find myself getting choked up at the idea. I've had some serious disagreements with Hillary (and Bill), over political strategy and execution; I have been and probably always will be disappointed with how she ran some parts of her campaign. But I'm very glad that she did run, and damn did she give it her all.

Wilson's piece is chock full of great lines, but the last paragraph puts it best:

This race does not end with Hillary Clinton's campaign. By helping to fill the pipeline with a critical mass of diverse, well-equipped women, Clinton's candidacy has changed everything about the future of leadership in this country. And that is a legacy of which she -- and our nation -- should be proud.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Not a classy move by Hillary supporters

I've been thinking I should say something positive about the Clintons, maybe reminisce about what it was like to be in Washington back in late 1992-early 1993 when Clinton came into office. Let the healing begin, etc. It sounds like Hillary has accepted defeat; she and Barack met last night, she is going to be giving a concession speech on Saturday, and, on a particularly hopeful note, there's this:

Clinton hosted a conference call Thursday with her national finance committee, urging them to shift gears and begin raising money for Obama and for the Democratic National Committee, which will be coordinating fundraising efforts with the Obama campaign.

That's good, and it's what I expected. I've been wondering about why Hillary is taking so long to concede. One downside for her has been that other people have jumped into the void and defined her as being self-centered, because she didn't concede to Obama when she should have. That was my feeling as well, although I have also heard that Clinton supporters need time to decompress. I can understand that. Anyway, it's just four days. It will all work itself out. So good things are happening. Healing has begun.

But then I read this, at the same TPM post that I quoted above:

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has already reached out to some major Clinton fundraisers, urging them to put aside any lingering bitterness over the primary and come aboard to help Obama. Dean dined with several top donors in Boston on Wednesday night.

"He clearly made the case to this group of people that he needed them very badly and asked for our willingness to reach out and join up with the campaign as soon as possible," said Steve Grossman, a former DNC chairman and a Clinton supporter.

But in return, the group had asked Dean to relay to the Obama campaign "how very focused they are on Hillary being on the ticket," Grossman said.

Earlier this week, Clinton's national finance chairman, Hassan Nemazee, said he was also pushing an Obama-Clinton ticket, claiming that together they would be able to raise $200 million to $250 million for the general election.

Dean is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing: bridging the gap, mending fences. Good for him. He knows how to do his job well.

But do Hillary's supporters have any idea how incredibly tacky they look? Yes, they will support Obama, but they have a price. Do they realize how much they are hurting her chances of actually becoming VP? By implying that they will support Obama more if Hillary is on the ticket, they look like they're twisting his arm (at the very least). Do they think they can roll him? Don't they realize how bad it would be for Obama politically if he looked like he was being rolled? Guess what, folks, the smoke-filled back room now has a video camera in it. The more pressure they apply, the less are her chances.

The Vice President is one of only two offices that is voted on by all Americans. The Vice President is not the Vice President only of Hillary's supporters. Bill Clinton actually established a good precedent for how to pick a VP. He choose Al Gore because Al Gore was qualified to be President, and he made a good Vice President. That should be the only criteria: how well they can serve as VP over the next four to eight years, or, if the worst comes to pass, as President. Not how much money they can bring in in the next five months.

The Vice Presidency is not for sale. To even suggest that it might be is extraordinarily crass.

I hate to say it, but it looks like Hillary isn't the only one who has a problem with being a gracious loser. She should have another conference call with her supporters.

Post-mortems, #2

A reader alerted me to this article in the WaPo, with yet more detail about how Obama won with his targeted-delegate strategy.

The insurgent strategy the group devised instead was to virtually cede the most important battlegrounds of the Democratic nomination fight to Clinton, using precision targeting to minimize her delegate hauls, while going all out to crush her in states where Democratic candidates rarely ventured.
. . .
The surprise was how well his strategy held up -- and how little resistance it met.
. . .
"We kept waiting for the Clinton people to send people into the caucus states," marveled Jon Carson, one of Obama's top ground-game strategists.

"It's the big mystery of the campaign," said campaign manager David Plouffe, because every delegate counts."

The more I think about it, the less I am surprised. I have felt for a long time that the Democratic party has an anti-heartland bias. I've heard far too many liberals who are from either or both coasts dismiss people from the Midwest as stupid. I've actually heard that word used - "stupid." Many people in the "flyover" states are aware of this. This is why they don't like elitists, and it's a big part of why John Kerry and Al Gore lost. As much as Hillary tried to portray herself as a regular person, she's still the Senator from New York who lives in Washington.

What I learned from this article is that Obama capitalized on this arrogance, and this is a big reason why he won. Hillary and her campaign did not think places like Idaho and Kansas mattered. And by that, I mean that they did not think those places "mattered" in several respects. They don't matter culturally, they don't matter financially, and they don't matter politically. I think Obama did well in part because he was paying attention to people who were starved for it.

The Obama campaign also had this insight going for them:

The message -- of unity and hope -- did not come out of nowhere. David Axelrod, a Chicago campaign consultant, long ago hatched the idea that Democrats' campaigns should revolve more around personality than policy.

I agree with this. I mostly agree with Obama on policy, obviously, but I couldn't tell you a lot of specifics. And I'm a person who likes policy discussions.

At its most basic, voting for a candidate is a matter of relating to another human being. We do not base most of our human relations on matters of policy. Not with our friends, our significant others, our coworkers. We may associate with them because of a general agreement, but not because of specifics. We choose our friends, our lovers, and our colleagues in large part on things like trust and empathy. Do they have our sense of humor? Do they see the world the same way? Do we admire them?

Beyond the strategy of targeting specific districts and crunching the numbers for the delegates, the Obama campaign had a unique strategy for empowering voters:

From May through the summer of last year, more than 750 volunteers learned the do's and don'ts of canvassing, working phone banks and recruiting others to help at what came to be known as "Camp Obama"

I went to a Camp Obama, and I learned some things. It was great. It was based on at least one simple premise: inspiration takes hard work. It's like that saying from (I think) Thomas Edison: genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. The Obama campaign knew that it was not going to be enough to inspire lots of voters. They knew they were going to have to turn that inspiration into perspiration.

There's one point in this article that I somewhat disagree with:

"It's the story that hasn't been written yet, how Obama did everything right, targeting caucuses, targeting small states, avoiding the showdowns in the big states where he could," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, who watched the strategy play out in microcosm in his own state, "and how in the end Clinton did so much so wrong."

That's true, insofar as it applies to this campaign. But the real story that hasn't been written yet is how that strategy will play out in the general election, and then in politics in general after January 20, 2009.

Post-mortems

One interesting aspect of this very long primary race is that there is now a great deal of material to be analyzed, thot over, regretted, learned from.

The WaPo has a good analysis. The title explains quite a bit:

'She Could Accept Losing. She Could Not Accept Quitting.'

I think this may be because of something that has gone largely unremarked in this campaign: Hillary had never lost a campaign before this. She ran against two Republicans (in her Senate races) that no one (including me) remembers. Obama, on the other hand, ran for Congress in 2000 and lost. There's that old saying that failure can be the best teacher. At this point in her life, Hillary must be having a hard time adjusting to having to deal with the need to quit.

The Wall Street Journal has an analysis that puts it succinctly:

The bottom line is this: She called the biggest plays, and she got them wrong.

There's also this, which I hadn't heard before:

The Clintons were unfamiliar with caucuses: Mr. Clinton had left Iowa to native son Sen. Tom Harkin in the 1992 Democratic race and was unopposed there for his 1996 re-election.

So the Clintons didn't know their own blind spots. That is probably true in other respects, as well.