I have a theory about West Virginia, the state with the “Wild and Wonderful” slogan and the first bearer of good tidings for Hillary Clinton since her accountant told her it was okay to lend herself another few million bucks in her quest to defy gravity.

West Virginians aren’t irredeemably racist as some commentators portray them, they just don’t like any politician who is not a white male, and despite her lopsided 41-point victory there yesterday Clinton is no Mountain Mama, merely their version of sloppy seconds.

After all, 30 percent of West Virginia Democrats voted for George bush in 2004 over that girlie man John Kerry.

Furthermore, those all-important undeclared superdelegates are not going to be moved by the results of a primary election that hasn’t mattered since 1960 when JFK beat HHH, and whose voters personify the concept of a backwater state.

West Virginia ranks toward the bottom in household income and other quality-of-life indicators among all states, and apparently in viewing positively the coming of the first serious black candidate for president, as well. How else to interpret this staggering fact: Two in 10 people leaving polling places in the Mountain State unapologetically said that race was a factor in who they voted for, which I would translate to mean that it was a factor for a substantial majority of voters who would never utter such a thing to a network exit poller.

And although he had dropped out of the race 15 weeks ago, a white guy by the name of Edwards got 7 percent of the vote. Dunno. Maybe it was his haircut, but white guys did really well in the Republican primary, too.

This suggests a couple of things:

* Obama’s race will be a huge factor in the fall and the big question is whether people who will not vote for the nominee simply because of his skin color and/or because they falsely believe he is a Muslim can be offset by new Democratic voters who don’t give a fig about race, already registered blacks, more affluent white voters and Independents.

My own view is that they can, and American is an election cycle or two away from race, gender and sexual preference not being determining factors in the success of a national candidate.

* Despite Clinton’s belated apologies for her campaign’s seeming obssession with race (as in belabor Obama’s vulnerability because of his blackness 19 times and then apologize the 20th), expect to hear more such talk in the run-up to the primary next week.

That is in the state of Kentucky, which is a lot closer to West Virginia than Oregon in more than distance and will be another “symbolic” victory for Clinton.

This is not to say that people who are disinclined to vote for a black are her Great White Hope, because there is no hope for her with Obama holding a big lead in popular votes, pledged delegate votes, opinion-poll positives, contributions and endorsements, and is currently picking off uncommitted delegates by a 4-1 margin. (As it was, Clinton’s 12 delegate gain in West Virginia has been more than offset by superdelegates migrating to Obama.)

Besides which, the mainstream punditocracy has dutifully fallen in line behind NBC News blowhard Tim Russert, who in a moment being compared to Walter Cronkite telling LBJ that the Vietnam war could not be won, declared after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries last week that “We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it.”

Me too, and the version of this story at my own blog was bumped by two that are far more important — a development in the Pat Tillman case and the latest setbacks for the Bush torture regime.

Well, maybe not everybody has gotten the message. Just ask folks in the Wild and Wonderful State.

During the debate last night, it was obvious that the moderators were focused (almost obsessively) on getting their questions answered.

All by itself, that made the entire event much different from previous debates, and at the general level, they should be commended for it. It’s been frustrating in the extreme to hear candidates wander off on tangents, and never get called back to the initial point. Furthermore, I felt that the debate format, and most of the questions (yes, even the silly ones), were an improvement over prior events.

There was, however, an exchange that bothered me — not because the question itself was asked, but because the moderator evidently didn’t understand the answer. In a debate, I see that as a real problem:

[Russert]: On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

Russert was not satisfied, and came back around with four more questions on the subject — and in the process, he started dropping some of the more heinous Farrakhan comments into the record. That was, in my opinion, both unnecessary and inflammatory.

In the context of a debate, though, there’s an argument to be made for Russert’s tenacity with the original question. Staying on topic and requiring direct answers is A Good Thing. Unfortunately, he absolutely would not let go of his question without hearing a response keyed to the word he’d fixed in his mind: “accept”, or its antonym, “reject”.

This morning, the blogosphere’s all abuzz about the Farrakhan exchange — and while there are people who understood the meanings of these words, I’m shocked at how many people apparently don’t.

So here, in the interests of edification, is “denounce“:

1. speak out against;

2. to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful

or,

1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil

Denounce is an extremely strong word, and it carries with it much deeper levels of meaning than the simple word “reject“:

1.to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.

3.to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff:

or,

1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use

Obama answered the question much more forcefully than was required… and although Hillary Clinton followed Russert into this pit, she had a valid reason for doing so. She, unlike the moderators, had a stake in the debate. Russert’s foolishness gave her an opening, and she understandably tried to take it.

Tim Russert has no such excuse, and his refusal inability to process the information exposed him as either illiterate on these basic vocabulary words, or as a cheap hack trying to score points in his own right.

In either case, he embarrassed himself.

I’m here in the media filing center. The Ohio Democratic Party top dogs have given an overview that I didn’t really hear because I was busy figuring out where I am, uploading photos and saying hello to other press. There is supposedly going to be over 500 press here.

In Ohio, it’s 3:30pm EST. I will be blogging through until about 7:30 or so, when I have to go into the audience - I won a ticket to the debate through a lottery, as well as was awarded credentials. MANY bloggers are here and it’s great. I’ve got some video and will be posting that too.

Here are some photos, after the flip. Have questions about what it’s like and what’s happening here? Leave them in the comments and I’ll try let you know! Read the rest of this entry »

The e-mails, phone calls - robo and live, invites and blogs are buzzing through every inch of available space, cyber and otherwise, in Ohio right now. In the last two hours alone I’ve received information about Barack Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Jewish community in Northeast Ohio, I was called by a live (as opposed to recorded) Hillary Clinton supporter about attending a rally tomorrow at a local high school and I’m gathering information for a fellow blogger coming into Cincinnati soon, from California, who may drop in on some campaign events.

And there’s still 19 days before Ohio’s primary on March 4.

For those who are curious, the NBC debate - the one that seemed to be in jeopardy because of MSNBC’s David Shuster “pimped out” comment regarding Chelsea Clinton’s activities on behalf of her mother’s campaign - will occur. Tickets are being issued by lottery to Cleveland State University students only, but students, faculty and staff can volunteer. Hardball will be broadcasting all day from an adjacent location with a different sign-up for tickets process, and information on press credentials has yet to be released.

Here are on the ground reports by Ohioans about the campaign events so far:

Scott Piepho reviews Chelsea speaking to students at the University of Akron, 2/14 (with photos)

Annie at The Chief Source describes the same event (with photos)

Eric Vessels gives his account of the Obama organizational meeting in Columbus last night (2/13) (with photos)

Jen at Democratic Underground describes the Obama organizational event in Cincinnati, 2/13

Man with the Muck-rake was at the Obama HQ opening event in Toledo, also on 2/13

For a population that was convinced as recently as the first week of January that Ohio wouldn’t make a difference, we are mostly very glad that we didn’t kowtow and change our primary date.

As Jerid at the Buckeye State Blog might write, Rut-roh. From the Houston Chronicle:

The Partnership and the Sierra Club Foundation have long planned to hold a presidential debate at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Feb. 28, just five days before the March 4 Texas primary.

MSNBC has promised to air the event, with NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert as moderator.

The plan calls for the remaining Democratic candidates to face off in one session, with the Republicans going at it in a separate debate that same evening — assuming no candidate has clinched a party nomination by then.

…

The organizers of the Houston forum already changed their date once, after failing to to lure the candidates to the Bayou City as originally planned on Nov. 13.

Then on Thursday, CNN announced plans to hold a Democratic debate in Ohio on Feb. 27, followed by a GOP forum on Feb. 28. Like Texas, Ohio holds its primary on March 4.

CNN plans to team up with the Ohio Democratic and Republican parties to host the events. CNN did not say where in Ohio its debates would be held.

As of late Friday, nobody had agreed to reschedule, setting the stage for dueling debates.

Hmm - who will cry uncle? Who will make whom cry uncle?

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Clinton’s “Meet the Press” appearance this morning was one of the most overt displays of the old Clintonian attack politics I’ve seen in this campaign. Her blatant and transparent attempts to blame Obama’s campaign for “deliberately distorting” unfortunate remarks she, her husband, and others associated with her campaign have been making in recent days were, frankly, sickening and unworthy of a candidate for high national office.

Last Monday, Mrs. Clinton brought up Martin Luther King Jr. during an interview on Fox News. Here’s how the New York Times described her comments: “‘Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,’ Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. ‘It took a president to get it done.’” Understandably, she quickly came to see how that remark - probably unintentional - could have been perceived as a slight to King. She “returned to the subject at a later stop, recalling how Dr. King was beaten and jailed and how he worked with Johnson to pass the landmark law. Clinton advisers said her first remark had not captured what she meant to convey. And they said she would never detract from a movement that has driven her own public service.”

Fine. But it is also understandable that people might have been offended by her remark, including Rep. James Clyburn, a SC heavyweight who has remained neutral in the presidential campaign (so far). He said of Mrs. Clinton’s comment “We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics. It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.”

Today on “Meet,” Hillary blamed the Obama campaign for keeping her comment alive, quickly growing heated with Tim Russert when he brought it up. “I think it such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to misinterpret and mischaracterize what I said,” said the senator from New York. “This is an unfortunate storyline that the Obama campaign has pushed very selectively.”

Actually if she wants to blame anybody for pushing the story, it ought to be the media, but that wouldn’t serve her purpose quite as well, so she goes after Obama (and, by association, Representative Clyburn).

On another front too she attacked her rival, suggesting that he has somehow changed his views on the Iraq War from 2002 to today. He’s done no such thing so far as I can tell by any objective measure; yes, he’s voted to fund and support the troops already fighting there (while maintaining his view that they should be brought home), but he among the major candidates was the only one in 2002 who had the judgment to oppose invading Iraq. It was this narrative - of Obama’s longstanding opposition to the war - which Bill Clinton recently (and inexplicably) called “a fairy tale.” It’s true, the former president wasn’t talking about Obama’s race when he made those comments, and race shouldn’t play into the evaluation of them, but it is also true that the Clintonian truth-twisting is getting pretty tiring (again).

Hillary’s assault on Obama continued as she belittled his senatorial accomplishments (which do include the most far-reaching ethics reform package since Watergate) while refusing to come right out and call him a “showhorse” after making much of her so-called “workhorse” reputation.

Obama’s response and more, after the jump.
Read the rest of this entry »

It’s not stunning that Hillary won New Hampshire. What is stunning is the gullibility of the press and pundits following corporate polls that were as off as Roseanne singing the Star Spangled Banner on the baseball diamond.

After Iowa too many pollsters leaned out of their windows like old Mrs. Goldberg gossiping, calling out that the funeral dirge was playing for Senator Clinton. But even if so, which it wasn’t, tonight it’s clear, the Senator’s first, middle and last name may well be Lazarus. And some of the most venerable of the newscasters were taken in by the ‘public polls,’ as they called them.

I used to have a fantasy about pollsters too. When I was a kid, I imagined pollsters chose ‘informants’ with fancy names at random, out of the phone book…. like, Mr. Heathcliff Cunningham… but suspected many informants may have looked, in reality… more like characters from Mad magazine: blobby strappy-Tshirt, sitting in chairs that looked like enormous decayed mushrooms, three-day beard stubble, a mountain of empty crushed beer cans … and that was just the women…

Whoever the informants were, they had lots of opinions. Informed or ill-informed didn’t matter, male, female nuances were not graded in polls. What mattered: The stats in aggregate and by gender, socio-economic status, education, religion were ‘the get’ for my imaginary pollster…. amassing numbers. For money.

But, we all have to wake up from favored, or even hand-me-down fantasies, if we are to know the best, but also the worst, of human nature.

Now, these many years later, throughout 38 years as a practicing psychoanalyst, I know polling is a science. Or ought to be. But is the modern corporate business called polling, always free of what in psychology is called, “researcher’s bias?”

… that is, whomsoever pays for, whomsoever has interest in one side or the other of outcome… and who without blind study design or control groups, or an ironclad design, will not only influence, but skew, the numbers toward the researcher’s known or unconscious personal agenda(s)?

So many corporate polls. And tonight in New Hampshire, so many of the polls off the mark… the pundits stating and repeating the poll ‘data’, were misled all the way from a bit, to a huge amount. “Barack’s going to slam-dunk Hillary in New Hampshire” being only one of quite a few “stats” that tanked. Utterly. Embarrassingly so. It’s not that mistakes were made; everyone makes errors. It’s that polling as a science depends on ‘near accuracy,’ not a miss as far as Texas is from China.

Since pollster corporations, invited or not, have become part of the electoral process, given ‘the corporate benediction’ by many broadcasters, … I notice quite a few newscasters freed from having to read from the boring teleprompter, but instead, now sometimes act as though they’re ‘in the box with Cosell,” crying out the plays as they see ‘em, and drawing most of all on the numbers from polls that are simply handed to them, and not questioned.

Unfortunately, then, the news becomes not issues, not candidates, not investigative reports, not face to face interviews of substance, but hours and hours of a quasi exciting game (for the pundits and broadcasters only) of down-on-knees, back alley craps… with one pundit tonight literally yelling as though at ringside, (not Seven-come-eleven-Baby-needs-new-shoes, haaaaa… but) …. “The Clinton Obama upset… It’s as big as Ali/ Foreman!!!”

Spin is better done with floss rather than facts. However, tonight, when pundits and newscasters found themselves ‘wrong’ because they took the polls’ skew to heart, many touted Senator Clinton’s win as ‘a STUNNING upset,’ an ENORMOUS stunner’ and other purple sports’ prosaia… when in fact, Senator Clinton’s win in NH is perhaps only stunning to some of them who relied on polls too deeply. For a minute there, as developed as I think Chris Matthews and Tim Russert (who I know from adult literacy events in NY) often are in insight rather than braggadoccio, I thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit as each one Read the rest of this entry »

On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Huckabee answered a question about punishing doctors for performing abortions: “I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that’s why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor. I don’t know that you’d put him in prison, but…”

After protestations that he would never “use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict” others, Huckabee undermines that reassurance by saying he would ban all abortions “not just because I’m a Christian, that’s because I’m an American,” thereby consigning all those who don’t agree that life begins at conception to the same status he gives illegal immigrants.

Therein lies the danger of Huckabee to the separation of church and state–that as a man whose faith “really defines me,” his definition of issues would erase that traditional line without acknowledging it as all previous presidents have scrupulously done.

Even George Bush’s fake piety, used by Karl Rove to swindle the Religious Right, never extended that far. Banning gay marriage disappeared as an issue right after the elections.

Commendably, Huckabee reassured Tim Russert he would include atheists in his White House, but the Constitution requires the President to be more than smoothly-tolerant of others’ beliefs or lack of them. If he is nominated by Republicans, whether or not Mike Huckabee understands that will be one of the main issues in 2008.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Would you rather see the candidates grilled by Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer or a snowman and a gun nut cradling his “baby,” a semi-automatic weapon?

Close call, but isn’t there an alternative? The question is prompted by Paul Krugman’s column after last week’s Democratic debate, claiming Barack Obama was “a sucker” for signing on to fears that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” that will go bankrupt before Baby Boomers can collect what’s due them.

Most voters, it’s fair to say, would like to know who’s blowing smoke here–politicians or dueling economists–but we’re not likely to find out from sound-bite answers to ignorant questions.

In our treasured but messy democracy, there is room for college girls to ask Hillary Clinton about diamonds and pearls but so far not for informed political scientists, historians and economists to ask knowledgeable questions that could show us who really understands the issues.

At the end of this month, CNN will give us Republican hopefuls being discomfited by cutesy YouTubers, a spectacle that will undoubtedly produce entertaining insights into how well the candidates handle social embarrassment.

But if we want to know what they know about issues that will affect our lives when one of them takes the oath, couldn’t there be at least one debate in which they face those talking heads the networks trot out only on election night to give us perspective on what’s been going on or at other times we only hear on PBS?

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but total ignorance, as we know only too well from recent experience, can be disastrous. Along with the snowman and Chris Matthews, can’t we have at least one debate with questions from Krugman and his academic peers of various political persuasions?

We should be willing to take the risk of being bored to death to try to avoid being governed by morons.

Cross-posted from my blog.

There’s a fantastic piece by Paul Waldman at The American Prospect on Tim Russert — who he is, what he stands for, and how the insider media culture he embodies is harming not just political discourse in America but America’s very political process. Make sure to read the entire piece, but here are a few key passages:

Last month, near the end of the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, moderator Tim Russert — known as “Washington’s toughest interviewer” and perhaps the most influential journalist in America — had one last chance to pin the candidates down with his legendary common sense, persistence, and no-bull style. This is what he asked, first to Barack Obama:

“There’s been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question. Senator Obama, what is your favorite Bible verse?”

When Obama finished his answer, Russert said to the other candidates, “I want to give everyone a chance in this. You just take 10 seconds.” Predictable banality ensued. A foreign visitor unfamiliar with our presidential campaigns might have scratched her head and said, “This is how you decide who will lead your country?”

Indeed it is, because the process is controlled by Tim Russert and people like him. Russert’s Bible question encapsulates everything wrong with him, and with our political coverage more generally. It seeks to make candidates look bad rather than finding out something important about them (if you want to explore a candidate’s religious beliefs, you don’t do it in pop-quiz form and give them just ten seconds to answer). It substitutes the personal anecdote for the policy position, the sound-bite for the substantive answer. It distills the debate into a series of allegedly symbolic, supposedly meaningful moments that can be replayed.

This type of debate question is not about what the candidate believes and would actually do in office, but about how clever the moderator is for cornering the candidate. And above all, it takes a genuinely relevant matter (a candidate’s view of the universe) and crams it through a channel by which the thoughtful candidate will be pilloried and the shallow, pandering, overly rehearsed candidate will garner praise.

Russert claims — and claims repeatedly, ad nauseam — that he speaks for “Buffalo,” the heartland, the working class, speaking truth to power, demanding answers from those in power, demanding on behalf of the people, Buffalo’s man in Washington, at the Georgetown cocktail parties, tearing down the Establishment from within, a horse full of Greeks holding Troy at bay, ready and eager to strike, whenever necessary.
Read the rest of this entry »