The Daily Five: Crazy Like A "Fox" -- Counterintuitive Thoughts

1. "Fox" Fallon really wasn't pushed out.

This is nothing like the case of Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who had his career cut short by Donald Rumsfeld for telling a Senate committee that a few hundred thousand troops would be needed to impose order in postwar Iraq. Shinseki was offering his professional judgment on a strictly military question—how many troops would be needed to perform a mission—in response to a senator's question. Fallon, by contrast, was challenging the president's policy—and at his own initiative.

Fallon, who is one of the military's finest strategic minds, may well be right. Certainly his views match those of many senior officers. But they are contrary to the president's views, and Fallon knew this. There is much debate within military circles these days over how far, and in what forums, a general or admiral should take his disagreements with political leaders. By most standards, Fallon probably went too far, too publicly. The U.S. Constitution does call for civilian control of the military, and generally, we should be thankful for that.

2. Was Geraldine Ferarro being racist? Racial? Or real?

3. Clinton has momemtum?

4. A same-sex marriage gift for John McCain from Republicans on the SCOCAL? (Is that what it's called? The Supreme Court of California? ScoCal?)

5. Orlando Patterson needs to get out more.

Comments

The guessing is that the Supreme Court will not overturn the law.

And for what it's worth, a poll published last week showed the public approved of full marriage rights by a margin of 49-46. Their likely proposition would ban civil unions and even more rights, and would lose for them.

Posted by hopeless pedant | March 12, 2008 5:41 PM

Ferraro has decamped the Clinton camp and will try to concentrate somewhere else.

Now, can somebody tell Hillbilly that their delegate math only add up if they assume that OBamBam voters and delegates are worth less than hers?

Unless, Hillbilly is expecting the pledged delegates to break their pledges, and / or many of the unelected delegates to vote for her.

Please, Hillbilly, tell us about your math.... are you using the three fifth's rule?

If you are, OBamBam is going to insist on the one drop rule.

Posted by D | March 12, 2008 5:50 PM

Between the Mickey Kaus snark and the Daily Howler ridiculousness, it seems no pro-Clinton stone is left unturnd for this "Daily 5."

Why are you paid for this, again?

Posted by Kevin | March 12, 2008 6:06 PM

Between the Mickey Kaus snark and the Daily Howler ridiculousness, it seems no pro-Clinton stone is left unturned for this "Daily 5."

Why are you paid for this, again?

Posted by Kevin | March 12, 2008 6:06 PM

So irritating it must be said twice.

For a better appraisal of the Patterson piece, see today's TNR:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/12/refereeing-wilentz-v-patterson.aspx

Posted by Kevin | March 12, 2008 6:08 PM

Re: Potentially Tainted money from Ferraro

Now that the Hillbillies finally did the right thing and sent Ferraro on her way, the issue of her past and future involvement in the campaign remains:

- Did Ferraro raise Clinton campaign funds from any person / group that are known racists?

- Was the race issue used in any of her pitches in soliciting funds?

- Will the Clinton campaign make public a list of donors whose funds originated from Ferraro?

- If any of the funds turn out to be from persons who are known racists or raised using questionable pitches, will the funds be returned?

Tell the voters the truth, please.

Posted by D | March 12, 2008 6:41 PM

On 2)
As an Obama supporter:

It can be argued Ferraro has a point on substance, if maybe she was a little more nuanced, but on style is where her words are not only wrong, but ridiculous, divisive, and counterproductive. The purpose was to appeal to rural Penn. (Mark Penn or Pennsylvania? you make the call) voters and uneducated whites with a persecution complex. It all ties in the with "unfit to be CnC meme and the other attempts to hint at the idea Obama got where he is through some bizarre AA programs for politicians. In this light her comments are unjustifiable and unforgivable.

Just what the democrats need, Hillary to fracture the coalition on the way out the door.

Posted by Mike P | March 12, 2008 6:41 PM

Let's REALLY get REAL:

Hillary Clinton is where she is because:
1) she is white
2) she is a woman
2) she is married to a former President

Number 3 the most! At least Obama did it on his own!

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 12, 2008 6:45 PM

Oh no, not Kaus link! Hex on this post!

Posted by Beth | March 12, 2008 6:53 PM

It's laughable for the Clinton camp or some stooges of theirs in the media to claim that it is she that has the momentum, after 2 straight losses of over 20 points. She has lost a slew of the last primaries, only winning 2. Her winning percentage is abysmal.

At this point Hillary can only do on thing: bring down the Democratic party.

If Obama wins the nomination, then she is just taking shots at him and keeping him from devoting full energy to going after McCain.

If Hillary steals the nomination, imagine this: John McCain making his case, pointing out that the Democratic nominee for president didn't even get a majority of her party's elected delegates, popular vote, or states won. Add to that the fact that the African American community would abandon her, as well as a whole generation of young people. You see why Rush Limbaugh is trying to get Republicans to vote for Hillary.

It's very simple: go with Obama, and you win...you win big, not just in this election, but for a generation. Go with Hillary, and you lose, and not just in this election, but for a generation.

Posted by cm | March 12, 2008 7:15 PM

3)

Loved the Chris "Pro Clinton, Anti Union" Lehane quote - "When a team comes from far behind to tie it, that team usually comes back and does well," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist with close ties to the Clinton campaign."

When was Clinton 'far behind'? I imagine he's talking about losing 11 straight... and if so, then when did she come back to "tie" it? She has not made any significant gains in pledged delegates since that losing streak.

Since it raises the issue of superdelegates, Sen. Obama must not follow Sen. Clinton's lead, and instead of arguing his electability, focus on the superdelegates' electability with Obama on the top of the ticket. Sen. Obama should mention Bill Foster (D, IL14) every chance he gets. Make a point of saying, like he does about the movement, that this campaign in not solely about electing him, but electing and growing a progressive governing coalition. My 2 cents anyway.

Posted by Ben | March 12, 2008 7:18 PM

Between the Mickey Kaus snark and the Daily Howler ridiculousness, it seems no pro-Clinton stone is left unturned for this "Daily 5."

Hey, not to be rude, but the proper form is "Republican blogger Mickey Kaus" on first reference. We want to be sure we follow style when referring to Republican blogger Mickey Kaus! Let me know if you have any questions.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 12, 2008 7:43 PM

"When a team comes from far behind to tie it, that team usually comes back and does well," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist with close ties to the Clinton campaign."

Huh, given his ties to HRC, it's awfully nice of him to praise the Obama campaign like that. I agree, coming back from 20 points behind to tie Texas (and to win the delegate race) is quite impressive. Gaining 10 points in Ohio in two weeks wasn't bad either.

But since, for reasons unfathomable to me, certain parties are intent on prolonging this race, I guess we'll just have to see that kind of excellent performance over the rest of the primaries. Here's to a strong April! And May! And June! See you guys in Puerto Rico! And then Denver! And then at the McCain inauguration! Won't Cindy look so pretty holding the bible up there! A regular Vicki Iseman!

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 12, 2008 7:47 PM

I agree with Jeff: at some point the Democratic party superdelegates and party elders need to realize that Hillary's campaign is seriously threatening to destroy the party and blow this election.

The Clintons are destroyers...they breed division, polarization, destruction wherever they go. They never were that great for the Democratic party as a whole; they were always about themselves.

The question is whether the party leaders will have the guts to step in and effectively pull the plug on Hillary.

Posted by cm | March 12, 2008 7:56 PM

That ABC story (Hillary's "edge") by Rick Klein was awful. Is he always such a tool?

Posted by ally | March 12, 2008 7:57 PM

"And then at the McCain inauguration! Won't Cindy look so pretty holding the bible up there! A regular Vicki Iseman!"

Wow Jeff Larson, you find new ways to be offensive everyday. Most people don't think its funny to repeat a fully discredited story from the NY Times and attack a man's family.

Posted by Jesse | March 12, 2008 8:01 PM

Ferraro's comments are the 2008 equivalent of Jesse Helms' "you wanted that job..." commercial in his 1990 Senate race against Harvey Gantt; its intended target is rural voters in PA and older people in the south/Indiana. To pretend otherwise or 'addressing the substance' of what she said should disqualify somebody from serious political commentary.

Posted by norbizness | March 12, 2008 8:08 PM

Re #2:
I have yet to hear anybody who says she is correct put forth any evidence. The only thing they can point to is that AA's vote for Obama in amzaing numbers. That does not prove her statement is correct. Let's say he was white, but with the same temperament, intelligence, grasp of what is happening in the world, unbelievably great leadership skills, amazing rhetorical skills, same organizational skills, same people judgung skills, same openmindedness to other points of view, same fantastic ability to convince people to vote for something they were originally against (speaking in a legislative sens), etc. I grant you, he might not be getting as much of the AA vote, but at the same time, he would be getting a lot more of the white vote, both male and female and would probably still get a sizable portion of the AA vote. He would still be bringing in the independent and disgruntled Republican vote. And the Clinton camp wouldn't be able to pull most of their shenanigans.

Posted by John | March 12, 2008 9:45 PM

If Barack Obama has such an overwhelming advantage because he's black, well, where are all of the other beneficiaries of the same kind of affirmative action? You know, the other black male nominees for President?

Of course being black is part of Obama's biography. But he's also a uniquely talented, intelligent and hard-working person with an attractive vision for the country. You don't get to where he is on the color of your skin - something that should be so obvious as not to need saying.

It is hideously ugly to watch Gerry Ferraro press out her sour grapes in public.

Posted by TedL | March 12, 2008 9:57 PM

The best part is this quote ....

But Clinton's campaign has proved more adept at seizing control of the race when no one is voting.

Unfortunately for her, she can dominate when there is no voting, but as soon as people head to the polls, they keep picking Obama.

But she sure kicked ass in 2007.

Posted by Curtis | March 12, 2008 11:04 PM

TedL:

Send that sour grape juice to some German wine makers. Their chemists can turn anything into wine.

Ferraro and Hillbilly don't even know or understand that they are prejudiced, or racist (choose your term).

That makes their prejudices that much harder to deal with. You cannot candidly talk to closet racist about what part of their racism makes no sense (e.g. separate bathrooms according to race) and, gasp, whether some of it might even make sense!

On the other hand, I have met people who are out and out racist --- explicitly and yet they can be impeccably fair when a qualified and outstanding candidate of another race shows up. For example: look at how Japanese / Korean and now Chinese manufacturing plants in the southern states completely upturned the traditional racial dynamic from the 1980s onward.

Real hard to look down on the people who happen to be of another race that invested hundreds of millions in your state and employ thousands --- especially when you are trying to get your cousin hired.

Posted by D | March 12, 2008 11:10 PM

I think there should be more frank discussion here and less disqualifying people from debate because they don't follow lock-step with politically correct talking points about Obama "transcending race."

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:24 AM

The only thing they can point to is that AA's vote for Obama in amzaing numbers. That does not prove her statement is correct.

hahahahaha. Oh, my lord.

"It's just a coincidence! They rilly rilly like his stance on school choice!"

Posted by Cal | March 13, 2008 12:48 AM

Klein's article was a masterpiece of idiocy. Here is what it boils down to:

"Sure, Obama is way ahead in pledged delegates, and actually increased his lead in March, after also getting more delegates in February, and January. And sure, he has been closing the gap in superdelegates since the contest began, and has continued to close it even after Clinton's supposed 'comeback' in her hand-picked states on March 4. However, in my subjective opinion, Clinton is better at manipulating the media, which I believe matters more than getting the most delegates, and accordingly I will declare that Clinton has 'momentum' in this all-important media primary. And to prove it, I will spend the remainder of this article typing up a memo from two Clinton supporters and pretending it is my own work, naturally failing to ask whether any of their arguments are remotely connected to reality."

Despite the overall idiocy of the article, I agree with him that the media is trying desperately to keep Clinton above water, because all this is a huge money-maker for them. The problem is that it turns out the delegates (pledged and super) do in fact determine the nomination, and recent events have proven that Clinton is going to lose the delegate battle (pledged and super) no matter how much the media tries to help her.

By the way, I am more or less done with the Ferraro thing. I will just note again that as with so many of the other factors that have led to Obama winning the nomination, the Clinton Campaign has contributed greatly to their own problems with black voters through their highly unethical behavior during the campaign. So, we will never know what sort of margin Obama would have had among black voters if the Clinton Campaign had actually tried to appeal to black voters, as opposed to trying to persuade everyone else that Obama is just an entertaining black guy and black voters don't count if they vote for a black guy.

But, of course, it is not in the makeup of Clinton or her supporters to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Accordingly, I have no doubt that they will continue to blame black voters for Clinton's low numbers among black voters, and refuse to admit that Clinton herself, along with her supporters, contributed greatly to those numbers being so low.

Posted by DTM | March 13, 2008 7:32 AM

Ferraro's comment wouldn't have been an issue if she hadn't phrased it specifically in the context of her assertion that Obama has no other considerable, substantive qualities. This is what she said in her GMA interview (about two minutes before denying it), and it's this specific context which makes the comment an attempt at denigrating someone on the basis of skin color.

No one can deny that Obama's race is part of his identity and an aspect of his campaign, but to claim that he's ONLY successful because of white charity is what's racist. If a young, uniquely charismatic, white fund-raising machine were in this race (imagine an anti-Iraq, mid-western John Edwards with money and authenticity), I have no doubt that Baruch Hudson O'Brien would now be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Klaus | March 13, 2008 8:05 AM

Cal @12:48, referring to my comment at 9:45, shows that he is incapable of reading.

Posted by John | March 13, 2008 8:09 AM

Good Lord. It's racist for blacks to support a black Presidential candidate, but totally normal for whites to support a white Presidential candidate. Does Cal wonder why there's never been a black Presidential nominee? Yeah, must be because every single black politician ever has strange views on policy.

The inability of racists to acknowledge their racism, not even to themselves, is actually quite an encouraging sign, I think.

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 9:50 AM

Babar:

It's not "racist" for 90% of blacks to vote for Obama, but many are clearly doing so because of his race, out of solidarity or because of the historic nature of the candidacy. It's silly to argue otherwise.

In the post-Reconstruction "Solid South" why did 90% of white folks vote Democratic?

This kind of polarization doesn't happen by coincidence, or because of issues like health care or education. And they don't happen because of speeches and big rallies. Only identity politics tends to produce these sorts of huge margins.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 10:16 AM

Ferraro is a complete and total tool, both in the sense of Hillary's campaign and the meaning used in Animal House.

First, let's look at the stupidity of her comments. How could a man in his 40s with mostly local gov't experience, despite being academically accomplished, intelligent, politically astute, and a great speaker, possibly get this far in the race for President? I don't know, Gerri. Maybe you should ask BILL CLINTON, you moron!

Next, is this really how you feel? Well in 2006, you are quoted as saying said that running for President is "more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American." Here are the other money quotes:

"There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true."

"Women are 51 percent of the population”

Gee! How quickly she forgets. As I said, a complete and total tool.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 10:44 AM

P.S.: How come Obama winning a large majority of black votes is racism, but Bill Clinton winning them isn't. The Clinton campaign seems to have an awfully short memory when it comes to Bill.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 10:47 AM

LFC:

Local government experience? You made it seem as if Bill Clinton was an alderman or country sheriff. Being a 4 term governor and attorney general is a lot different than being one of a few dozen state senators.

If Barack Obama weren't black then how would his candidacy be historic? How could he appeal to those who want to get passed race in America and move toward reconciliation? How could electing him send a positive message to the rest of the world and help re-brand America? Why would he have been the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention? No one is saying Obama isn't talented or intelligent. There are a lot of talented and intelligent people in public life. That obviously isn't enough to become the front-runner is a primary.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:06 AM

I agree with Tim K. It is racist for black people to vote for Obama because he's black. Especially considering that we have had so many black Presidents.

Posted by goethean | March 13, 2008 11:21 AM

goethean:

It's not "racist" for 90% of blacks to vote for Obama

Considering I specifically said I don't think it's racist that black people are voting for Obama, how can you claim that's what I said?

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:31 AM

Tim K said... Being a 4 term governor and attorney general is a lot different than being one of a few dozen state senators.

First of all, we're talking about Arkansas, not California ... or Illinois. So while he was a gov, the scale of state gov't is significantly smaller. FYI, AR population is currently 2.6 million vs. 12.4 million of IL.

Second, Obama actually also has federal experience. Bill had none.

So I see the experience factor as a wash. And to go back to my central point, I don't see Bill Clinton as having had more qualifications than Obama when he ran. And he was a white guy.

Sooooo, how come Bill can do it as a white guy but Obama couldn't have done it unless he was black?

If Barack Obama weren't black then how would his candidacy be historic? How could he appeal to those who want to get passed race in America and move toward reconciliation? How could electing him send a positive message to the rest of the world and help re-brand America?

You're confusing cause and effect. Being historic, being good for reconciliation, and being positive to the rest of the world are effects of his very strong candidacy.

According to your logic, no black man (woman for that matter) can ever come close to being president without a special boost bestowed upon them by their race/gender because their candidacy would, by definition, be historic. Your logic makes it impossible for any historically disenfranchised group to accomplish much of anything for the first time on their own merits. That's essentially what Gerri seems to say too.

Here's a news flash. Overcoming obstacles is not equivalent to getting special treatment.

Why would he have been the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because he's quite possibly the single most articulate member of Congress at this time? Maybe because his youth is looked at as the future of the party?

Why did Bill Clinton get to give the opening night address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention? Because he was black? No. Maybe, just maybe, it was because he was young and articulate. And unlike Obama, he actually believed to have screwed up his first big appearance in the national spotlight chance.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 11:58 AM

You white folks kill me. Anyway.

I'll just quote Ferraro from 2006.

"Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added."

Posted by Jay | March 13, 2008 12:01 PM

I haven't found an outlet for some things that I have been thinking about the Ferraro business. So here goes.

I think that what Ferraro said was silly, racist, and stupid, but I think her response to the backlash was probably right. I have been reading and posting on blogs since before Iowa (since last summer.) What I've found is disturbing. The hate of the Clinton's is really over the top. While they may have earned it by the way they have campaigned (I agree with Obermann here), but I bet that when Ferraro's email and phone number were posted on the blogs, I bet she recieved a fair amount of hate mail.

Since the primaries have started, the temperature of the dialog has burst into flames. I truly believe that Obama supporters, like me, have tried to keep positive, but it has been very hard in the face of the truly clueless Clinton campaign's attacks against Obama (Penn is such a slug) flaming this idiocy. However, I am distraught over the number of anti-clinton commenters that are not really supporting Obama, they just hate the Clintons. Polls showing Clinton's negative ratings can be belived because the people who hate her are very nasty.

That said, I did write to Ferraro. Here is what I wrote:

I don't agree with two of your points. First, that the road to the nomination is easier for Obama because he is black. Second, Superdelegates have a responsibility to vote their judgment with or without taking into account the people's wishes as demonstrated by their votes.

I'll take my arguments one at a time:

1. Obama's advantage because of his race is only tangential. African-american's are voting for Barack because he has won their trust by winning in Iowa. Blacks see that Obama can get white votes which allowed them to vote for him. They didn't want to 'waste their vote' on someone who can't win. Prior to Iowa, HRC had a majority of the black vote because of the fondness for Bill Clinton. The stories about whether Obama was 'black enough' ended after Iowa. Furthermore, Obama is winning primaries and caucuses because he is more organized. I have supported Obama since his announcement last year, through the summer and fall, during the time when Hillary was racking up endorsements and money. I was worried and anxious that he wouldn't make it. Then I listened to his JJ dinner speech in Iowa. That was the time when Hillary Clinton should have known what she was dealing with, but she did not.

In state after state, Obama was always weeks ahead of the Clinton campaign organizing on ground. He had a strategy that proved formidable. His get out the vote efforts were exemplary. Obama has won more states, more popular votes, and more delegates because he worked harder for them. It's funny, but Obama has been able to use Karl Rove's political organizing rules without the divisiveness of Rove's politics. Bush won in 2000 and 2004 because of the get-out-the-votes of the christian right, Obama has used his grass-roots experience to get his voters to the polls. Clinton has relied, not on message, not on hard work, but established political machines of local pols. The machine was no match for enthusiasm.

By the way, I am white, female, and 55 years old. I voted for you and Mondale for president in 1984. I am an ardent feminist who will vote for Hillary Clinton with pleasure if she wins the nomination. However, the better feminist in this election is Barack Obama. I have a graduate degree from Simmon's College Management School in Boston. One of the most basic tenets of my business school training is the asymmetric leadership style that all successful women business leaders use to get ahead in a man's world. Work in groups. Include all shareholders. Be open to ideas. Champion the best in others. Drive home the idea that we all should share a common purpose. Take responsibility for your success and/or screw-ups. Sound familiar? Yep. What has Hillary Clinton's leadership offered? Exclusivity. Disrespect to voters who haven't voted for her. Ungraciousness in defeat. Entitlement. And, oh yes, voting for macho-type war authorizations so the 'boys' will accept her. My grad school, women-centric, management professors would have flunked her right there. Women can't win on those terms. They must use a different, inclusive, idea-driven v personality-driven tactics to get ahead. Clinton's strategy, as designed by Mark Penn, is all wrong for a woman candidate in the year 2007. She should have fired that jerk after NH and kept her 'voice'. The best times for Clinton was her speech at Wellesley and her tears before NH. Both were exhilarating moments for me. If we can see more of that woman in the upcoming primaries, she just might win.

2. My second opinion is that, in 2008, no Superdelegate in elective office can afford to overturn the will of the voters. Maybe those SD not in office can do it, but not when the voters in their districts have spoken. Shame on your for calling out John Lewis. Not after Florida 2000. Not after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore. When the people speak, the SD endorsement should stand. That means that Kerry and Kennedy should support their voters, but John Lewis should be honored for his choice. He has not campaigned for Obama, he has just switched his SD vote. Now you, Al Gore, John Edwards, etc. you have no constituencies to please, so vote where your heart and leadership tells you. But just forget about democratic party elected politicians. Leave them alone.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 13, 2008 12:05 PM

LFC:

We're talking about Barack Obama, not Rod Blagojevich. Obama doesn't get credit for running a state because he was a state senator for 8 years, 6 of which were in the minority with little influence.

Barack had 2 years of experience in the senate then began running for president (so he wouldn't have added much to that experience in the last 2 years). You need at least serve a full term before applying for a new job in order to get full credit.

Being historic, being good for reconciliation, and being positive to the rest of the world are effects of his very strong candidacy.

Excuse me? So you're saying if Mark Warner had run for president and done really well that would have sent a message to the rest of world and re-branded America, and would have worked for racial reconciliation. I had to read what you wrote a few times just to convince myself you actually said it.

According to your logic, no black man (woman for that matter) can ever come close to being president without a special boost bestowed upon them by their race/gender because their candidacy would, by definition, be historic

Not at all. If Barack Obama served a couple of terms in the senate (he would be 54 years old) or ran for governor of Illinois in 2010 and president in 2016, that would be different. He'd have a solid resumé rivaling most past, current and future aspirants to the White House, rather than the thinnest record in a century. I was a great admirer (and to an extent still am) of Barack Obama and wish he had waited to run in the future. I just don't feel he is the most ready candidate.

Maybe because he's quite possibly the single most articulate member of Congress at this time?

He wasn't a member of Congress, he was a candidate for senate and member of the STATE senate of Illinois. Bill Clinton was the 3 term governor of Arkansas in 1988. Again, that's a major difference.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:15 PM

Tim K said... So you're saying if Mark Warner had run for president and done really well that would have sent a message to the rest of world and re-branded America, and would have worked for racial reconciliation.

Cause. Effect. Read it again. It seems you're somehow under the impression that I think nobody noticed Obama is black.

Obama's being black and having a successful candidacy have produced effects that a white candidate could not. His skin color and those effects are not the cause of his successful candidacy, as you and Ferraro argue. I'll repeat, overcoming obstacles does not equate to special treatment.

so he wouldn't have added much to that experience in the last 2 years

Aaaaah. The "that doesn't count" argument. Sorry, but I disagree. Being governor of AR with no foreign policy experience at all and a poor first appearance on the national stage do not make a strong resume, yet Bill made a very good President.

As an aside, Warren Harding was one of our most experienced presidents. History has given him a less than stellar review. George HW had a power resume too, maybe the strongest of any president in my lifetime. And non-presidential candidates Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle all had what could be considered strong resumes and each one has been a disaster.

I will take intelligence, judgment, calm under fire, and character over a few extra years in office any day. I believe that Obama has exhibited all of these in greater quantities than Clinton, Edwards, Romney, or McCain over the course of the campaign.

No amount of time in Congress or as a governor can prepare you to be President. George HW was V-P for 8 years and it didn't prepare him. "It's the economy, stupid" was more than just a slogan. He really didn't get it.

BTW, if resume is so important, why were Biden, Dodd, and Richardson left in the dust? How come even though Hillary spent 8 years in the Senate, and sits on both the Armed Services and CSCE, when asked about her foreign policy experience, all she could bring up was visits made as first lady? Shouldn't she do something substantive before running? John "I'll buy Greenspan's book" McCain has almost zero experience in economic matters. Should he hold off running until he sits on some committee, any committee, that gives him experience in budget and taxation issues?

Looking at the weakness of the other major candidates, both Dem and GOP, I see no reason for Obama to wait.

He wasn't a member of Congress, he was a candidate for senate and member of the STATE senate of Illinois.

I stand corrected on the office, but not on his oratorical abilities or the desire to turn to the future of the party. The fact that Obama's performance was viewed as major hit proves out the judgment of those who selected him.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 1:46 PM

I'll just note this briefly again:

For Tim K, this is all about protecting the notion that the Clinton Campaign bears no responsibility whatsoever for its current problems getting black votes. Again, it just is not in his nature to admit that the Clinton Campaign doing things like trying to portray Obama as just an entertaining black guy or that black voters don't count if they vote for a black guy might have something to do with black voters rejecting Clinton.

Posted by DTM | March 13, 2008 1:52 PM

DTM:

I never said "no responsibility whatsoever." But it has been GREATLY exaggerated. And I maintain that it was inevitable that Obama would win the majority of the black vote once he proved he wasn't a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (ie: out of the mainstream radicals with no chance of winning). I think these dust-ups have cost the Clinton's perhaps 10% extra of the black vote, but as much as that was due to David Axelrod's cynical distortions and exploitation of the situation, than the Clinton's actions. So I'd say the Clinton's actions themselves are perhaps responsible for losing 5% of the black vote. And that's being conservative.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 2:06 PM

Clinton's 1988 speech was a dud, while Obama's 1992 speech was very well-received. That's because Obama is black, and black people get all sorts of advantages that whites don't.

Posted by i'm not a racist!!! | March 13, 2008 2:28 PM

You mean his 2004 speech.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 2:30 PM

I never said "no responsibility whatsoever." But it has been GREATLY exaggerated.

Tim K, my wife is black (I'm white), and I can tell you what her side of the family feels.

Bill Clinton's statement about Jessie Jackson and the South Carolina primary was viewed as loud, clear, and offensive. Jackson's and Obama's victories weren't remotely comparable (as noted in multiple places), yet Bill all but outright said that Obama only won because he was black.

Blacks strongly supported Bill Clinton (he put his office in Harlem), and this was a slap in the face. It was so much more offensive because of the messenger. If Limbaugh had said it, blacks wouldn't have even noticed.

That incident probably did vastly more to alienate the black vote than you realize. It amplified things afterward that might have gotten a pass.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 2:43 PM

LFC:

My sister-in-law is half black (like Obama), and so my niece and nephew are also part black. I don't think it's necessary to make this personal.

The truth is while Obama's victory in SC was not identical to Jackson's wins in 1984 and 1988, those were the most comparable examples by demographic group. Obama's victory looked nothing like Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 or Al Gore's victory in 2000 or John Edwards victory in 2004. Those victories were either while winning the majority of BOTH whites and blacks (as Bill Clinton did) or the majority of whites but not blacks. Why was that at all relevant? He was pointing out that a victory in South Carolina is not predictive of a victory in states outside the South which have much, much smaller African American populations.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 2:53 PM

States like Iowa, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, and Kansas.

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 3:42 PM

Colorado, Alaska, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, Virginia, Hawaii...

Scoreboard, loser.

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 3:45 PM

Tim K,

Whether you want to call Clinton 0% responsible or all of 5% responsible, the manifest purpose of your posts is to blame someone else--black voters, the Obama campaign, or so on--for Clinton's numbers among black voters crashing (and keep in mind, they were once much higher). The fact is that her conduct and the conduct of her supporters has contributed not just a little, but a lot, to her problems with black voters. But like I said, I know better than to think you are willing to admit that.

Posted by DTM | March 13, 2008 3:46 PM

Dear Ellen Hamm:

Your missive is beautifully spoken from the heart!

I did not start out having strong feelings against Hillbilly.

It is what her campaign did, many of which you mentioned, that led me to conclude that she, as a leader, will almost certainly abuse her power.

There is definitely vile hatred for Hillbilly that goes far beyond what is acceptable. It is precisely this kind of politics of anger, hatred, division, etc. that need to be left behind.

If O'BammBamm have to jettison some of the Democratic Party extremists to do it, so be it.

A generation of politics and democracy based on 50% and 1 vote is enough.

Posted by D | March 13, 2008 3:58 PM

My sister-in-law is half black (like Obama), and so my niece and nephew are also part black. I don't think it's necessary to make this personal.

Not personal. I'm just pointing out that although my initial opinion was that it was a condescending gesture on Bill's part, I didn't FEEL it. My wife's family felt it. BIG TIME. I think you may be having difficultly understanding the level of the insult felt by black people.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 4:22 PM