Why the Clintons are fighting so hard for now and why Obama must win

One thing that had stumped me until a few days was why Hillary was fighting hard when the math and odds are so clearly against her. Then the Pennsylvania primary happened and I figured it out. Clinton has realized that she's fighting a generational battle. The exit polls bear this out. The under 40 set and the Millennials have decided that Obama is their guy. Now for the Clintons to see the next generation as vehemently opposed to them is dangerous to their SOP. Also the future doesn't bode well because of obvious next step. The currently under 40 set will hold more wealth and be even more motivated if their guy wins. In other words, the Clintons are drawing the line in the sand for the baby boomers to extend the fight for at least one more round. The only way for the Clintons to stop the flood gates is to win now and win ugly to the point that the under 40 set has had their political wills utterly destroyed. This is also why Obama has to win. If he doesn't win the present, an entire generation filled with promise will be totally disillusioned and may never recover. It may not be the reason why he originally chose to reason. However, it's the biggest reason left why he has to succeed and manage to do so while staying above the fray.

The danger of CW and last night (i.e. the conventional media must go)

I have a confession to make. I didn't watch last night's Democratic debate. My thought was that after 20+ debates, nothing new would come out of the next one. Boy was I wrong. Last night symbolized the tipping point of the DC media's relevance and why conventional wisdom is a bad thing. When you read 20 different sources with varying view points all completely ream the moderators of a debate, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the crowd booed the moderators during the commercial break, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the first question about Iraq (the number 1 or number 2 issue according to votes) came almost two-thirds of the way through the debate, you know something is wrong. The first question about the economy came even later. Health care wasn't even asked about. Instead the viewers were subjected to questions about pastors, lapel pins, Bosnia, and Bill Ayres. That is flat out disgraceful. What's even more disgraceful is that the conventional pundits were talking about how Obama was the big loser. Guess what, morons. Look in the mirror for the biggest loser. All of you idiots beginning with the two moderators (Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos) need to go. What's even more disturbing is find out that a clueless hack like David Brooks loved the questions. I'm sorry but David but voters won't give a rip about symbolic issues. They want answers to real issues and very little of the debate was spent on real issues. Hell, if I had been involved in the debate, I probably would've said at one point that the voters want answers to real issues and here's where I stand on ____ while completely ignoring the idiotic questions about lapel pins, etc. However in the traditional media, you'll see the conventional media protecting their own and bringing up more trivial garbage. However, it's time to call out the media for their hackery. Here are some examples of CW from the past 10 years:

1. Howard Dean would be the worst DNC chief ever- What happened. Dean created the 50 state strategy and the Dems took back the Legislative branch for the first time since 1994.

2. Being anti-war would kill the Dems- In reality, the Dems weren't anti-war enough.

I could go on for days. However, this quote that I stole from Daily Kos sums up the problem of the conventional media's conventional wisdom pretty well.

From November of 2002:

FRED BARNES, CO-HOST: [...] I wanted to ask you about something else, and that's someone that you have, you know, criticized very strongly in The New Republic, Nancy Pelosi, the new leader of Democrats in the House of Representatives. What, what's your problem with, with her?

BEINART: I think twofold. First of all, I think that Nancy Pelosi, even though she's now trying to appear as more of a moderate, was really elected by a House Democratic caucus that has moved to the left, and specifically wanted to elect someone as a repudiation of Dick Gephardt's pro-war stance.

And we very firmly believe that if the Democratic Party becomes the anti-war-with-Iraq party, the kind of soft-on-war-on- terrorism party, we really will no longer have a 50-50 nation, we'll have a 60-40 Republican nation. The Democrats will be in a kind of McGovernite wilderness for a generation.

That says it all.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

Has Hillary Clinton forgotten what party's nomination she's seeking. That's about the only explanation I can think of for making this run at party elder, loved statesman, former Vice President (for Bill Clinton, no less), and un-pledged Superdelegate Al Gore. Think about it, Al is about respect among the Democratic party faithful. Many still think he won in 2000. He managed to win a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2000 than Bill Clinton did in 1992 or 1996. Making a run at him as out of touch seems like the equivalent of political suicide for a Democrat. There's also another aspect of this slash and burn politics that scares me. If this is Hillary will do to a long time friend to score a cheap political point, what would she do to an enemy?

A one year anniversary of sorts and a story

As I told Joe yesterday, I'm in the middle of celebrating an odd anniversary. The day before the Final Four 2007 was the day I came home from a bad situation in Japan. However, the good thing about anniversaries is that they force you to reflect on the events leading up to the anniversary. One thing, I've realized is that my time in Japan is a major reason why I support Obama for President. While over there, I heard Obama was running and was happy in the sense that maybe a strong anti-Clinton rival had the chance of emerging in the Democratic Party. However, it was the next two months (coincidentally my last two) that made me a believer. From the minute he announced he was running for President, one of my roommates (a foreigner) asked me what I thought of this minority candidate. I told him that I would probably support Obama. At that point, he asked me pointedly why only probably. He found Obama's positions on the major issues and pointed out that I shared most of them for the same reasons. He also pointed out that I was worldly just like the Illinois Senator and that some of my drunken comments seemed to reflect Obama's vision of hope. He then asked again why I couldn't say for certain that I would support the Illinois Senator. I told him I would think about it for a month or so. A week later at work, in the mixed level section of my work a Japanese student of mine asked me point blank what I thought of this Obama guy. I didn't answer and asked the room (there were only 5 students) what they knew of him and thought about him. They all thought the world of him from what they had seen and read of his speeches. At that point, I knew why Obama was the right choice for President. Here I was in late February of 2007 and the foreigners were telling me that Obama would restore credibility to the US's image. A few days later, I confided in my roommate that I had become a believer in Obama not just because the US needs him but the world needs him to have confidence in the US, again. Looking back, it's interesting that the rest of the world knew what this country was ready for before we did.

Note to Democrats:

I will not vote for anyone that hires Mark Penn in any campaign related role. Why is that you ask? Because of this incident. That's right. Hillary is officially against a trade deal with Colombia. However, Penn (Hillary's campaign manager, no less) is negotiating with the Colombians on behalf of Burson-Marsteller. This is absolutely shameless and why I hate DLC Democratic strategists. It's impossible to take the high road in ethics debates for Democrats nowadays. The Republicans have a point in that the Democratic leadership really is no different. This isn't even close to Penn's first conflict of interest since the campaign started. At my work place, I have to do all I can to avoid incidents like this. The Penn wing of the Democratic Party goes out of its way to find these COIs. So from on, I'm warning every Democrat. If you embrace Mark Penn or Terry McAuliffe, I will not vote for you.