Friday, May 9


While Donna Brazile and her main man Barack Obama may think that Democrats can win presidential general elections with a coalition of The Creative ClassTM, AAs and the youth vote, I have very serious doubts that dumping other minorities, women and blue-collar whites is a sustainable strategy. After all, youth AGE and lacking another charismatic suit like Obama for a nominee, what guarantee is there that young people will continue to coalesce around a Democratic candidate in the future? The Creative ClassTM are process-oriented, not issues-oriented, and therefore not reliably Democratic (witness the way the Blogger Boyz have surrendered their progressive credentials during this primary season). AAs have long been a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but they're never going to be much more than 10% of the total electorate.

I had lunch today with five other lifelong Democrats, two who have supported Obama, two for Hillary (me being one of them), one who has been unwilling to declare for either, and one who can't vote (a management consultant from Singapore who is still not a citizen, but leans Democratic). One still supports Obama but is "waffling," the other Obama supporter said she's now sick of him and the sexism and misogyny revealed by Obama's campaign and the media, and will vote for John McCain in the GE. We two Hillary supporters (one is male) are going down to the wire with her. The uncommitted said it's time for Hillary to leave the race, but he is highly skeptical of Obama and suggested he might vote down-ticket and abstain in the presidential vote (unless McCain chooses Romney for a running mate -- then he'll vote for McCain; he's from Massachusetts and thought Romney was a good governor). I took a vote, and found that of the six of us, FOUR believe John McCain will win the GE, one didn't have an opinion, and the sixth believed the Dems would unite around the nominee and squeak through to victory.

Not a good sign, Donna. Wise up. You need us. The party needs us. And we won't be there for it if party leaders and influencers continue to tell us they don't need us and/or that we're racists if we support Hillary instead of Barack.

Labels: , , , ,


I've been in intense all-day meetings for most of this week and working on details of my daughter's impending wedding at night. While I've tried to follow events and blogs on my Blackberry Internet browser during infrequent breaks, I realize I'm woefully behind on things. So this morning I was disgusted to tune in to Morning Joe (absent Hillary admirer Joe Scarborough) to find Mika B. and David Shuster desperately trying to get everyone to agree (they had no problem with Peggy Noonan) that Hillary and Bill have gone openly racist.

(1) Gasp! Hillary in a conference call referred to Obama's growing weakness with white, working-class voters.
(2) How dare he! Bill told an audience of Hillary supporters that it is "you people" who are going to help her win this thing.

Mika and David believe there is something "insidious" with "long-term consequences" about Hillary using the word "white." They went over and over it with each guest, and it took conservative Pat Buchanan to point out that every pundit in every newscast for the past several weeks has speculated on the demographic results of the exit polls, which indicate that Obama has the AAs by upwards of 90% and has faltered in the past several primaries in reaching white, working-class voters. So what's with calling Hillary racist for doing the same thing? Did she say that whites SHOULDN'T vote for Obama? Of course not, it's ridiculous, and it's the kind of thing the Obama campaign and the media have used to tar the Clintons (and later, by extension, their supporters) as racist ever since South Carolina.

Then David Shuster had the "audacity" to say outright that clearly Bill Clinton meant "you white people" when he was speaking to his audience. Pat broke in and emphatically declared that that was grossly unfair to Bill Clinton. There were AAs, Latinos, Asians and others in that crowd besides whites, and in any case he obviously and on the face of it meant "you Hillary backers" of whatever identity.

When Pat Buchanan is the only fair-minded pundit on the panel, it's time to change the dial. Oops! It's the same on all of them ...

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 6


... until the Kentucky/West Virginia primaries become The Night.

I won't even pretend to have any intelligent idea of what the vote will be. I know what I want, what I pray for -- that's for Hillary to win both Indiana and North Carolina, unlikely as that may seem.

Let's watch it unfold.

Okay, first thought on the coverage. Chris Matthews is trying desperately to paint Hillary as an "Ivy League" elitist. Clinton advisor Lisa Caputo is shutting him down charmingly. Keith Olbermann (with Chris laughing in the background) is openly mocking (along with Obama supporter Tom Daschle) what he repeatedly refers to as Hillary "changing the math." It's oh so silly how she keeps insisting that the Florida and Michigan votes count. She's just delusional, and Tom Brokaw has heard from Clinton people that Hillary and Bill intend to take this all the way to the convention, no matter what. Well, that settles it. The Clintons are out to destroy the Democratic Party. I can't stand it any more.

To CNN. Ridiculous setup. Lou Dobbs is moderating a panel consisting of two Obama partisans and two Republicans. Fair and balanced, yep.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, May 5


While the pundits, Obamabloggers, and DNC officials continue to put public pressure on Hillary to drop out of the race, some people are listening more to the candidates, and putting their own personal everyday concerns ahead of the hysteria of the chattering classes. Beltway vs. the John Deere voter:

There is a huge disconnect between the Joe Andrew voters and the John Deere voters in this world. No one can win in the general election without them. They are the Reagan Democrats that swing elections. The last time I checked, the voters who live in the Beltway have never swung a national election. Ever.

If the leaders of the Democratic Party want to win in November, then they need to step outside of their comfort zone and take a look at what the people are saying. Yes, Obama had glorious wins in the early caucus states, but are caucus voters reflective of general election voters? Voters then knew less about Obama than they do now.

This is not an argument for Clinton but an argument that the process needs to be taken to the end. It has to. To have superdelegates, the bulk of who derive their livelihoods out of Washington, decide the candidate without looking at the collective vote would be tragic for the Democratic Party.

And if superdelegates understand their greater roles, they know there must be a careful examination of all the primaries before they make a true decision.

Here is a requirement that all superdelegates should complete before making their decisions: a two-day trip across the state that they hail from and listen. Not talk, listen. A test of a true leader and thinker should be to listen twice as much as you talk. Maybe that is why we have two ears and only one mouth.

As one Hoosier voter said to me along the road, "just let us vote. Stop telling us it is over before we go to the booth."

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, May 4


We watched the first thirty minutes of Obama's stint on Meet The Press, then switched over to ABC to see Hillary's "town hall" meeting on This Week With George Stephanopoulos.

Obama was weak, we agreed. He seemed short on energy, and his remarks about his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, were so obviously tired and defensive. A generally lackluster performance.

Hillary, while not at the top of her form, was still presidential, leader-ly, and fluid in her speech. She didn't have to think, she just pulled the information out of the file cabinets of her mind. That's the most amazing, impressive thing about Hillary -- her complete mastery of every nuance of every issue. It boggles the mind.

A plus -- the first mention I've heard on broadcast TV that Hillary has the backing of 35 flag officers. She worked that in nicely, along with some recognizable names such as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton.

George has to bring in the unfavorables. Her honesty is an issue. Hillary responds convincingly.

You know, I was one of those bright girls growing up, that the Tweetys of the world like to dismiss as so unlikable. I had the genius IQ, got the scholarships to college, always made the top grades. I was a popular leader at school, but I was concurrently known as somewhat of a tomboy sports nut and bohemian intellectual, which made me "interesting." And I had lots of friends who were boys, who didn't seem the slightest bit intimidated by a smart girl -- not even my debate team pals, who were all learning nerds and completely accepting of me as the lone girl in the circle. I never really felt the gender bias except from my parents' generation, from teachers and counselors, and after school, from business recruiters and employers.

When I moved to Arkansas as a young bride, Bill Clinton was running for governor for the second time. All our friends in our new hometown were Republicans who were eager to clue us in on the despised Clintons. What The Sage and I gained, though, was a terrific admiration for and excitement about them as a new political promise -- a pragmatic, intellectually engaged, connected-to-the-people, solutions-oriented couple who were completely committed to improving and defending the nation. And I was particularly admiring of Hillary, who had made some of the same choices I had (marriage, motherhood, subliminating one's own career goals somewhat to those of the husband) yet somehow found the energy and commitment to devote herself to public service at the same time. I could only shake my head in admiration and respect for her. And even today, as one of the "smart girls" so denigrated for the amusement of the MSM, I am in awe of her ability to process and store so much information. A few years younger than Hillary, I nonetheless have problems these days with remembering the birthdays of my relatives.

And now that she actually has received her well-earned position at center stage, she continues, day after day and week after week (as she did this morning), to demonstrate a detailed knowledge of every issue the next POTUS may face and the fact that she's reflected on all of them and reached imminently reasonable and thoughtful judgments. She truly IS ready to take on the job on Day One.

Labels: , , , , ,