Palin Selection Does What Obama Couldn't: Unites Hillary Voters In The Democratic Party

We've been waiting and watching for a few days, but it's looking increasingly clear that McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has done a huge favor for Barack Obama: re-unite those disaffected Hillary voters as Democrats.

We don't know if McCain's strategy in selecting a woman as his running mate was to somehow widen the wedge between Obama and Hillary's supporters, but if it was, it was a terribly stupid strategy.

(On the other hand, perhaps his strategy was to get the conservative wing of the GOP behind him, in which case it was a good move.)

The selection of Palin is an insult to Hillary's supporters because it implies that they were for Hillary solely because she's a woman and the other candidates weren't. Of course, Hillary's supporters weren't backing her just because she's a woman. Hillary was a highly qualified, experienced candidate with terrific political skills and stances on the issues that many voters liked.

While Palin is a woman, any comparison between her and Hillary ends there. Palin is inexperienced and her stance on the issues is an insult to many women. Palin is not just anti-abortion--she would prohibit it in cases of rape or incest, and she's one of those nuts who opposes stem-cell research.

Indeed, Palin seems to be a bit of a nut. Sure, she's interesting, but we wonder what kind of President she'd make if McCain kicks off early. Here's a woman who says she puts her family first, but her ambition to be VP is so great that she knowingly put her 17-year-old daughter through having the entire nation know her unpleasant business. Her judgment in firing Alaska's state police commissioner over an intra-family spat is also questionable. And she's far more conservative than the country would ever tolerate in a major-party's nominee--she makes Huckabee look like a liberal.

In any event, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Hillary must've really shattered that glass ceiling, however, if someone as inexperienced as Palin can suddenly be part of the ticket!

Finally, the proof may be in the pudding. Following the Democratic convention, Obama seemed to get a relatively small "bounce" in the polls. But today, with Palin on the ticket and the GOP convention sort of underway, five national polls came out with Obama anywhere from 6-9 points in the lead of McCain.

Thanks John McCain!!

Hillary Delivers; Warner Disappoints

At first, last night, we thought it a shame that NBC would deem it more important to air it's summer reality trash series "America's Got Talent" rather than the Democratic keynote address by Mark Warner. (The other networks also opted out of the keynote speech, although you could catch it on the cable news channels.)

After seeing Mark Warner's speech, however, we were just as glad it wasn't on primetime TV. We like Warner, and he'll make a terrific Senator. But it was a disappointing speech.

We wondered whether it was different at the convention, but alas, no. Our Denver correspondent reported: "Warner, unfortunately, disappointed. He looked great and had a good message, but delivered it less well than he is capable of doing. He lost folks in the hall midway through with his fairly slow and stolid cadence."

We didn't catch much of another speech, given by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, but what we saw we liked (by this time, we were watching NBC primetime coverage, which appears to be all about NBC--more on that in a separate post.)

Again, our Denver correspondent agreed: "Contrast [Warner] with Brian Schweitzer, who was a little cornpone but really got the crowd going - and I suspect looked okay on TV as well." Hey, a bit of cornpone is fine--especially after folks have been watching "America's Got Talent" and its ilk.

Anyway, the big moment--the critical speech--was Hillary's, and she did a brilliant job. As our man in Denver put it: "The universal buzz as we left the hall was how terrifically Hillary hit all the right notes in her speech. It went a huge way toward driving the nail in the 'angry Hillary voter' coffin."

She really couldn't have done any better. The mainstream media, of course, is still running around digging up sourpuss Hillary supporters because, after all, they need a story.

But Hillary's supporters need to listen to her most important point: she didn't spend all that time, money and effort running for President just so we could end up with four more years of Republican rule out of spite.

Note to disaffected Hillary supporters: grow up and get over it.

See our other post on the media's convention coverage.

Why Obama's Winning

Why is Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton pretty handily in contest after contest? The Curmudgeon's brother has a simple theory: because he's simply more appealing--more pleasing to look at and more pleasing to listen to.

"The fact is that Barack Obama is more pleasing to look at than Hillary Clinton, and he also is more pleasing to listen to. For a great number of voters who otherwise have trouble making up their minds (two terrific candidates, right?), this has and will continue to carry the day in his favor. Nobody articulates their decision this way, but the impact is very real, and now magnified when only these 2 candidates are left. CNN reported one exit poll from Wisconsin that 62% of voters making up their minds in the last 30 days went for Obama. Hillary looks and sounds and smirks like an old-school politician. She says all the right things but there’s an element of sincerity and likeability that’s missing. Barack oozes confidence and inspiration, yet doesn’t seem condescending or pandering."

We have to agree. The distinction becomes important especially when you have two candidates whose substantive views on the issues are virtually indistinguishable. It's the "all things being equal" scenario: if two candidates are the same on the issues, then appearance and likeability will carry the day.

Brother Curmudgeon also points to a book by motivational speaker/author Tony Robbins, who compared Kennedy v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Reagan v. Carter and Reagan v. Mondale to explain that the winner of each of those races had it over the loser in terms of appealability.

Of course, if that's the standard, both Obama and Clinton should be able to defeat McCain this fall. But Obama would have the bigger advantage.

Will Hillary's Texas/Ohio "Firewall" Hold?

Hillary Clinton's campaign is counting on the March 4 primaries in two big states--Texas and Ohio--to form a "firewall" to stop Obama's recent string of victories, including anticipated wins in Hawaii and Wisconsin next Tuesday.

Obama is sure to carry his birthstate of Hawaii; Wisconsin is a closer matter, but he does lead in polls there.

We wonder about the "firewall" strategy. The last time we heard someone using that strategy, it was Rudy Giuliani, in Florida. We all know how well that worked out: after spending $65 million and leading in national polls by as much as 20 points, Rudy G. managed all of one delegate to the GOP convention.

There is a difference between Hillary's firewall and Rudy's. Giuliani's was a dumb strategy all along, doomed to failure--he couldn't just drop out of the media spotlight for six weeks at the beginning of the formal voting season and just pop back up in Florida as if nothing had happened in the interim. In contrast, Hillary is locked into a tight battle with Obama, and, far from being invisible, she is actively campaigning in the key states. Also, for the Dems, it's a two-candidate race now, not the multi-man scrum Giuliani was facing, and with the GOP race essentially over, the entire spotlight is now on Hillary and Obama.

Still, when you announce that certain states are "must win"--which the firewall strategy essentially does--you set yourself up for a fall (and you don't get much credit when you do win). So what of Ohio and Texas?

We think Clinton will do well in Ohio--she has a large lead in polls there (roughly 20 points), and that's notwithstanding Obama's recent string of victories. Ohio has plenty of blue collar Democrats and that's where Hillary's core strength is. Hillary's lead in Ohio won't change much if Obama also wins Hawaii and Wisconsin since the Mainstream Media is already projecting those as Obama victories anyway. To be sure, Ohio will tighten, in part because Obama will start campaigning there and his rallies are truly impressive.

Texas could be a different story. Three Texas polls came out in the last day or so, with two showing Hillary up by just a few points and one giving her a 16 point advantage. We think Texas Democrats, like Democrats in many other "red" states (like our Commonwealth of Virginny here) are tired of losing in presidential elections and want a winner--in their state--and see Obama as having that potential. In any event, Hillary's lead with Hispanic voters has been shrinking. We think Obama can close the gap in Texas. And really, since Clinton has said she has to win there, all Obama has to do is make it close.

Suppose Hillary does win Ohio--handily--and Texas in a squeaker? Well, there are other contests on March 4--Rhode Island and Vermont--where Obama may do well (we're not so sure about Rhode Island after what happened in Massachusetts), so he probably won't be shut out that day. And right after March 4 are the Wyoming caucuses and Mississippi primary, where Obama will be heavily favored.

At most, Hillary could get enough delegates out of Ohio and Texas to close the growing gap with Obama. By the same token, even if Obama wins Texas and makes Ohio close, he'll still be far from victory in delegates, although it might be a strong enough psychological blow to knock Clinton out of the race, or to destroy her fundraising base.

And we wouldn't rule out Obama sweeping on March 4, or coming close: many Democratic voters have to be wondering now how this is all going to end. Right now, Obama is leading in delegates and popular votes. Are some of those voters going to say to themselves, "look, all things being equal, I'd prefer Hillary; but we just can't have a deadlock and let the Republicans walk away with this; Obama is acceptable--I'm going to vote for him." If Obama can figure out a way to pitch that subtly, he could carry the day.

Having said all of the foregoing, we agree with a Clinton strategist with whom we spoke in the past few days about the firewall strategy: what other choice does Hillary have?

Obama Rolling

Barack Obama is on a roll, and it won't stop with today. He's apparently swept Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington today and he's likely--based on lopsided polls--to sweep Virginia, Maryland and DC on Tuesday.

We spoke to a Clinton strategist today who, fully expecting Obama's strength this week, claimed the calendar would favor Hillary after Tuesday. Problem is, you have to factor in the momentum effect of Obama's serial victories in this stretch on the later contests.

Hillary is in danger. By the same token, she's been there before--after Iowa with the MSM proclaiming an Obama victory in New Hampshire based on polls--only to bounce back, so certainly don't count her out.

In any event, if Obama becomes the "frontrunner," just see what happened to McCain today. This truly is a wild and wacky election season.

Hillama versus McAbee?

Wow, we're falling down on the job here at Curmudgeon HQ. Last night we went to see a screening of one of AOL founder Ted Leonsis's "filmanthropy" projects, "Nanking," at Georgetown University. An excellent documentary so long as you don't mind nearly two hours of depressingly gruesome stories.

But that caused us to miss all kinds of other stories of our modern era. Hillary was right here in Arlington, speaking at Washington-Lee High School, where the young Curmudgeons will go if they manage to make it our of middle school. We missed it, but judging from the emails we're getting from both campaigns, Virginia is a real battleground between Clinton and Obama for the next few days.

Indeed, Virginia Democrats timed their Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond perfectly--who knew the race would still be in issue by this point--so that attendees this weekend will get the full treatment from both Hillary and Barack. Friends of ours are going--we're jealous.

Then, of course, Romney dropped out yesterday. A shrewd move on his part--shows the calculating businessman in him. He had no shot at this point, but he's still relatively young (certainly compared to McCain) and has built himself a good base in the Republican Party, so he cuts his losses and lives to fight another day.

We predict Huckabee will go one more round--through next Tuesday--then also graciously drop out (unless conservatives somehow rally around him--we doubt it--and he sweeps the Saturday and Tuesday contests).

We spent our post-movie evening last night debating the merits of Hillary versus Obama. Spiritedly debating, we might add. Too bad we broke down along predictable lines: the wives were for Hillary; the men-folk for Obama (although respectful of Hillary--we do like her).

With McCain as the GOP nominee, Democrats need the strongest ticket possible. We think that's Hillary and Obama, or Hillama. The remaining primaries are not going to decide this contest--it's too close and with proportional delegate allocation, neither candidate can get a real leg up. So pretty soon it's going to be time for party elders (not Bill) to get the candidates in a room and have a good, mature discussion about it.

Meantime, who's McCain going to pick as his veep? Having gotten the nomination on about a 35% plurality of the party, he has a lot of mollifying to do. It certainly won't be someone like Joe "been there, done that" Lieberman. It could be Fred Thompson, although we doubt he's interested--better to go back to television than be a figurehead veep.

Someone who would be interested is Mike "I don't have a job after this" Huckabee. That would certainly help with a significant segment of the evangelical community. Call it the McAbee ticket. But conservatives decided--pretty unfairly--to label Huckabee a "liberal" (that nastiest of all Republican sobriquets) early on, and they would see McAbee as far too centrist for their tastes.

So does McCain go with someone hard right? And if so, who? Kansas Senator Sam Brownback could fit that bill--bringing home evangelicals along with conservatives. There are others, of course. The problem is that many of the more vocal, bomb-throwing conservatives will never be mollified, no matter who McCain picks as his veep, so he may decide "hey, why bother."

We're not making any forecasts, at least not yet.

Heck, we're still trying to decide who to vote for on Tuesday. Probably Obama, despite Mrs. Curmudgeon's protestations. As Virginians, we'd love to see an Obama/Kaine ticket, really putting the state into play in November, but we're not going to bet any real money on that one.

And don't forget tomorrow's contests in Washington, Louisiana, Kansas (GOP only), Nebraska (Dem only) and the Virgin Islands (Dem).

Chris Matthews: Obama's Worst Enemy

Every time Chris Matthews, and any of the other abrasive male television political commentators, go after Hillary Clinton, they hurt Barack Obama.

We saw it clearly in New Hampshire--women, offended by all the attacks on Hillary and sympathetic to her tears, turned out in droves, resurrecting her candidacy. Had Obama won, he'd probably be on his way to the nomination now.

After more than a week of defending his silly comment that Hillary owed her Senate seat and her standing in the presidential race to her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Matthews sort of backed off, but not really, conceding that maybe his remarks were a bit "nasty."

We can tell you what Mrs. Curmudgeon thinks about Matthews' view, but it wouldn't be printable in what we like to keep as a clean blog. Frankly, we share her view--a little more dispassionately. A lot of people don't like Hillary, and that's their perogative, but to say that's she's somehow not smart enough, not skilled enough, not politically adept enough to gain public office on her own is ridiculous. It certainly helped that she was the First Lady--that's a lot of exposure and name recognition. But she didn't get into the Senate because of sympathy over the Lewinsky affair.

Matthews, of course, won't keep his mouth shut--he gets paid good money to make an ass of himself. But if we were Barack Obama's people, we'd wish Matthews would concentrate on the GOP race.

Oh, and by the way, we think Chris Matthews owes his place on MSNBC to his much more talented wife, Kathleen (former News 7 anchor and now Marriott executive) pictured above.

Why Hillary Won In New Hampshire

To know why Hillary won in New Hampshire, you need only speak to a politically savvy Democratic woman. The Curmudgeon's stepmother clearly fits that bill, and her comments, validated by Mrs. Curmudgeon, tell the story.

"First of all, the people that caused Hillary to win were (besides Hillary and Bill, who worked their butts off) Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Pundits, Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman.

Bill Reilly's rush to get an interview with Obama pointed up the
ridiculousness of this infatuation with the newness of Obama as Reilly made a
total boor of himself. Matthews, Limbaugh, and even ultra liberal
Oberman, for different reasons, excoriated Hillary day after day, pounding nails
in where ever they could -- from hair do and bags under her eyes to tears of
exhaustion.

One now has to question polls that asked if people liked Obama more than
they did Hillary, setting her up for that question to which she answered, "It
hurts my feelings" when asked how she felt about it. This answer, and her
continual step by step actions through the slog they have been throwing at her,
humanized her in ways she couldn't do herself. It made it clear that those
kind of men would prefer any man to a woman.

Then, Gloria Steinheim's marvelous op-ed in the NY Times was over the top -- asking if a woman had only two years as a US Senator, and a few terms in a state legislature if she would ever have been considered a viable presidential candidate.
Asking whether these pundits that call Obama "fresh" and his speeches
"inspiring" wouldn't instead call them "emotional" if they had come from a
woman. It pointed out quite clearly what women have been feeling
since Iowa.

Darn it, enough is enough. Obama may be a phenomenon. But a
woman getting this far is also one. Hill won because the NH women
were furious at the pundits and the men who criticize her. If
men pull back and stop jeering at her, then we can have a civilized race.
If not -- well, there ARE more women then men."

There you have it. The women have spoken, now listen up!

Hillary and Alcee

Hillary Clinton's campaign has announced that Florida Representative Alcee Hastings will be one of her national co-chairs.

Bad idea.

Hastings is the last federal judge to be impeached by Congress. His impeachment stemmed from serious corruption charges. Appointed to the bench as a federal district court judge by Jimmy Carter in 1979, Hastings was soon indicted after being caught up in an FBI bribery sting. He was acquitted in a jury trial, but then impeached for perjury in the trial, which involved a number of significant irregularities.

The issue was never really even close. The House--then controlled by Democrats--voted 413-3 to impeach Hastings. The Senate convicted Hastings on 8 out of 11 counts that were considered.

Significantly, the Hastings impeachment was assigned to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, chaired by veteran African-American representative John Conyers. Initially, Conyers was skeptical, viewing the charges as racist. As he reviewed and heard the evidence, however, he became convinced that racism had played no part in the investigation, prosecution or recommendation to commence impeachment proceedings.

Conyers ultimately supported the impeachment resolution, neutralizing the race issue. "We did not wage that civil rights struggle merely to replace one form of judicial corruption for another," said Conyers. "We can no more close our eyes to acts that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors when practiced by judges whose views we approve than we could when practiced by judges whose views we detested. . . . It would be disloyal to the essential principles of the civil rights movement to my oath of office to attempt to set up a double standard."

It's a shame that Florida voters, most ignorant of the real facts, subsequently elected Hastings to Congress. That's their mistake, however.

At least when the Democrats re-took Congress last year, in part on an anti-corruption platform, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wisely removed Hastings from consideration as a Committee chairman.

So what is Hillary up to? Pandering for votes among Florida's African-American community, no doubt. Making Hastings a national campaign co-chairman, however, is a big mistake. Democrats should continue to marginalize--not martyrize--Hastings.