The superdelegates are political pros. They'll vote for whoever they think can win in November. Some will admit that; some will give bullshit reasons. But the bottom line is: who can win? Jobs, funding for local projects, influence in the region -- all these things don't happen if their candidate loses to McCain.

There is one big upside to this mindset -- the superdelegates will almost certainly squash any attempt to seat the MI and FL delegations on a full delegate basis (they might compromise and let them sit but not vote), because political pros don't need to be told that if those delegations swing the nomination to Clinton, McCain can begin measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

How the decision is made will vary from state-to-state, but I have to believe Obama has an advantage. First of all, he's almost surely going to be leading in the delegate count when the primaries are over -- possibly by more than 100 delegates, which might be enough to get the superdelegates to seal the deal without further consideration. If the lead is under 50 delegates, however, the supers will probably take the view that this is essentially a tie, and they can vote their judgment, which is precisely the situation which the supers were designed to deal with.

Obama's other advantage is that there is such visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in many places in this country -- even more visceral than the racism that will surely cost Obama votes in November. Living in upstate New York, I see some of this hatred but it's not a huge factor, and I was surprised that Obama was able to give her a run for her money. Members of my family who live in the South, however, are petrified at the prospect of a Clinton candidacy, and have been predicting for months now that Clinton wouldn't make it.

If I'm a superdelegate from such a region, I see Clinton, but not Obama. as uniting the Republican Party behind McCain and going down in flames. And that thinking might be enough to get Obama nominated in Denver.

Has it always been that visceral? There was a period of time (between Clinton's run for the senate and well....now) that it was beginning to seem like a non-issue. She was the "inevitable president" who won polls for the White House in contests she wasn't even running. Neither the Dems nor the media seemed to be making such a fuss about it, and I was more than happy to give her my vote. She seemed tough and competent, and Bush seemed like a nincompoop.
Everyone seemed to back her and to feel good about it.

Then Obama comes along, starts talking about change and dynasties, and, despite his lack of clear policies or experience, and the crowd went wild. Clinton-villification was born anew!

I'm actually very surprised by it. Was the hatred forgotten, or just merely festering under the surface, or is it the product of two people: the Republicans who, of course, dislike the Clintons, and the Dems who want their boy to win, even as they claim that his campaign positive, and not negative?

Or, like anything tangible in this election, does it matter in the end? And...on that note, how much will it end up mattering when the love is over and it's time to work?

As I said, I don't hear much anti-Hillary rhetoric up here in the Hudson Valley (though I did hear the term ABH -- anybody but Hillary -- the other day, though not from a Democrat). In the South, however, I gather it's pretty bad. My sister lives in NC and she and her husband don't see how Hillary can possibly win. I think it was significant that McCain, who has a friendly relationship with Hillary, didn't feel any need to admonish the South Carolina woman who asked him, back in December, "how do we beat the bitch?"

Most of the anti-Hillary attitude does indeed come from the Republicans, of course. But I think it's wrong to say, as you do here, that "everyone seemed to back her and feel good about it" until Obama came along. Because of the very high public profile she inherited from her husband, Hillary went into this campaign as the overwhelming favorite. She was able to raise tons of money; she had the backing of a political organization that had already won two elections; she had, because of these advantages, an air of inevitability. To be quite frank about it, I never DREAMED she wouldn't stroll to the nomination.

What I think undermined her was not Obama but her votes on the war, which were transparently done to preserve political viability for an eventual run for the Presidency. The rest of her record in the Senate is pretty good for the most part, but of course the war was -- until the economy went sour -- the major issue for many people. A lot of liberal Democrats felt that if there were only someone else who did NOT wimp out on the most important matter of the day, they'd back him/her. Not because they hated Hillary, but because they felt she was not a person of principle.

In point of fact, most people who thought along these lines that I know preferred Edwards, not Obama. But too many remembered Edwards' weak campaign in 2004 and went for the newer guy instead. I know a woman who is a lawyer in Boston whose practice is devoted to feminist issues -- she has said that feminism is her religion. She was backing Edwards and is now backing Obama. The war is the reason.

When it appeared that Clinton was going to march unimpeded to the nomination in Denver, then of course many Democrats kept their mouths shut about these doubts, because they knew that they'd vote for her in November if she's the candidate (and still will do so.) But once an alternative became a realistic hope, they sided with him, and the sweetness and light disappeared. The beneficiary of this was Obama but it is not his fault that the perfect marriage went on the rocks. It was already on the rocks, and the parties lost their reason to cover that up.

Mercadia,

Clinton hatred was just festering under the surface. And it's not just Republicans who have it.

The proper object of disgust and loathing these past years has been Bush.

When it finally became clear that the Bush years are coming to a close, Democrats saw Queen Hillary, who had already nearly canonized herself as the next president, and people started saying, "Wait!" and that hatred from manyu quarters has sprung up anew.

Sure, she's tough and smart. "Competent?" I don't know. In what way? There is no evidence that she' s a good leader or manager of people, given her terrible campaign leadership. Her campaign and past history with Oval Office staff and Arkansas governor's personnel shows that she's a tyrant who terrorizes her staff and who rewards loyalty over competence to a fault. That is generally the mark of a paranoid leader (Hello Bush/Cheney, Nixon), and often an ineffective one.

She's shrill. She's grating. She's unlikeable. She doesn't seem to have an ounce of respect or like for average Americans who disagree with her on issues. Her campaign has been ham-fisted, rude, arrogant, a bit slimy on occasion, and classically, shamelessly cynical in that Clintonian way.

Hillary rightfully reminds us all of Golden Billy, but without the charm. Hillary is to the Clintons as the Valley is to the LA Basin: all of the worst parts and none of the good.

Because she is so cold and charmless, in Hillary we can clearly see the ugly underbelly of the Clintons, not the glad-handing, precocious boy-scoundrel, Billy. In Hillary we see the relentless parsing of words, dodges, outright lies, inability to admit mistakes or even frankly acknowledge past positions on issues, and cut-throat selfishness of the Clintons.

Hillary may be a victim of the Bush years and Obama may be a beneficiary of them. Bush has been so polarizing for so long, and he came after 8 exhaustingly partisan and frivolous years of the Clintons. (To a great degree as well, it's dawning on people that the "wonderful" Clinton years had a lot to do with historical luck, and that their skills are political not leadership.)

Americans are very hungry for some political unity. They see Hillary, and Bill in the background, and scream, "No! Not again!" No to the partisanship, polarization, paralysis, the endless Clintonian soap opera, the presidency being about the person rather than the country, the horrible outrage their characters engender.

I don't agree that Hillary is "shrill", "grating," and "unlikeable," but I do agree with most of the substantive points (as opposed to criticisms of her character) raised here. Hillary Clinton was handed the most important project in the Clinton White House in 1994 -- the health care program -- and she totally blew it. So totally that when the dust settled, the insurance companies were in a position to ram the whole HMO scam down our throats. I see no basis whatsoever to consider her as having more "experience" than Barack Obama, since that experience includes a colossal failure.

I also think that the Clintons were, for the most part, very lucky with the economy in that Clinton was in office when technological innovations resulted in the communications revolution, which was the engine of the boom. I give Bill credit for this: when he raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993 in order to bring the budget under control, Clinton sent a signal to the markets that the government would not be competing with entrepreneurs in the credit markets. This drove down interest rates and helped to launch the boom, but it was the shift in technology that did the heavy lifting. And Robert Rubin should really get the credit for the tax increase -- it was his idea, and as a guy with Wall Street credibility he was able to make it work, just as his credibility was key in solving the Mexican and Asian fiscal crises. So give Clinton credit for empowering Rubin, but very little else.

Yes, I do get wound up talking about the Clintons. I'm like Newman when he gets to talking about junk mail. "Newman!"

Since I piled on Billy Boy, I will also give him some credit for resisting his party's calls to regulate and tax the Internet boom to death when it was still in its cradle. They could have crushed the life out of e-commerce.

This article is an interesting examination of what happened during the health care hubbub in the 90's, written by the guy who was the White House senior health policy advisor:

<link>

Is it possible that we've been influenced by the press shift blame where it wasn't deserved? What do you guys think of Paul Starr's argument?

I do not doubt that Starr's description of what went on is probably accurate. My issues with its conclusion:

1) It is disingenuous to say, as Starr clearly implies, that it was Bill's fault and not Hillary's that the bill went down. The Clintons always presented themselves as a team. Does anyone really think that in a Hillary Clinton administration, Bill will be off playing golf and out of the loop on major decisions? By the same token, if health care HAD passed in 1994, wouldn't Hillary Clinton be taking full credit for that today? It may be that, as Starr claims, the fateful errors that brought the bill down were Bill's and not Hillary's, but by accepting the role in the process that she did, Hillary Clinton put herself on the line for its success or failure.

2) The core of Hillary Clinton's argument for herself over Barack Obama is that he is all words and only she can get things done. The logical implication of Starr's argument here is that if health care had passed, it would have been Bill, not Hillary, who should get the lion's share of the credit. The Clinton forces cannot have it both ways. If she wasn't directing the process, then did she have an important role in the Clinton administration or was she put in charge of the process mostly for show? If she was, then the bad decisions mentioned ARE her fault. Pick whichever one you wish, but neither fits the portrait of someone "ready from Day One."

3) It is said that one of Napoleon's generals lost a battle and was called before the Emperor to explain why he had been defeated. As it happened, the general had faced impossible odds and had been smitten with bad luck as well, all of which he explained in detail. Napoleon concluded the interview by saying "general, I forgive you for everything but losing."

It may seem unfair but I have read this article and forgive the Clintons (whichever one is really responsible) for everything but losing. Look, there are some battles that are so important that losing them is ipso facto blameworthy. Abraham Lincoln understood this, and when his generals failed to produce results, he fired them and replaced them with others until he found the ones who got it right. Some battles are to important to lose.

We all know what happened after the health care plan went down in 1994 -- the Republicans took over Congress and the insurance companies proceeded to ram the HMO process down everyone's throats. It's not as if the Clintons were unaware of the right wing's ability to attack their programs. When they passed the budget without a single Republican vote, that should have told them that there was no way they were going to get health care reform, and they should have postponed it until after the 1994 or, even better, the 1996 elections, when they could have made it a campaign issue. Instead, millions of Americans paid a price for their bad judgment, and the radical right effectively hamstrung the Clinton administration for six years, even though Bill won reelection.

4. Starr's article seems to indicate pretty clearly that the estimate of the Clinton forces that they had the political wind at their backs after the 1992 election was dead wrong. Bill Clinton won election for three reasons: 1) Bush 41 had come to be seen as out of touch with the needs of working people; 2) a recession which ran close enough to Election Day to emphasize point #1; and 3) the presence of Ross Perot in the race forced Bush to have to cover his right flank as well as his left. On this last point, it was ONLY this aspect of Perot's candidacy that influenced the race. He did not get enough votes to change the result, but he did affect the political dialogue in a way that mainly benefitted Clinton.

None of these reasons gives much indication of a positive impetus for major reforms. Rather, it indicates that Clinton won mainly because his opposition looked less competent and less focused on the needs of most Americans than he did. There was not, as there is today, the sense that SOMETHING, ANYTHING has to be done about health care, even from many CEOs. There was a recession but not the prospect of a massive drop in home prices and a massive increase in mortgage foreclosures. The country was coming off a WINNING war in Iraq, that had been ended in a timely fashion; now we have a Presidential candidate who muses about a 100-year war there. There was a concensus of sorts that tax cutting had gone too far under Reagan but it wasn't a very big concensus.

In sum, whatever the reasons for the failure of health care, it probably never had as much as a chance of happening as the Clintons believed. That's different now, but it's different for Obama as well as Clinton, and it seems to me that the ability to make stirring speeches will be every bit as important, when the right wing attacks health care reform, as the ability to craft a decent bill.

the_slasher14:

It may be that, as Starr claims, the fateful errors that brought the bill down were Bill's and not Hillary's, but by accepting the role in the process that she did, Hillary Clinton put herself on the line for its success or failure.

Dude, are you serious?! So, because she took a role in the process, she is responsible for its failure?! I'll remind myself tomorrow that, because I work for my company, if it goes bankrupt, its my fault. Come on, you're really reaching.

the_slasher14:

2) The core of Hillary Clinton's argument for herself over Barack Obama is that he is all words and only she can get things done. The logical implication of Starr's argument here is that if health care had passed, it would have been Bill, not Hillary, who should get the lion's share of the credit. The Clinton forces cannot have it both ways. If she wasn't directing the process, then did she have an important role in the Clinton administration or was she put in charge of the process mostly for show? If she was, then the bad decisions mentioned ARE her fault. Pick whichever one you wish, but neither fits the portrait of someone "ready from Day One."

Yes, she played an important role but she was not put in charge! You can play an important role in something and not be responsible for its failure. If it had passed, I'm sure Bill would have gotten the lion's share of the credit (although I'm sure he would have given a nod to his wife). Regardless, you can't use someone else's 14-year old mistake as evidence of incompetence, especially because both Clintons have moved on to do many other things.

I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for Obama if that is your decision, he certainly has many talents that may make him an effective and successful leader. I'm just saying that, when evaluating the candidates, let's be accurate.

1. Well, suppose your husband is the CEO of the company, and told the board when he was nominated for the job that you and he were a team and they'd be getting both of you as a package, and then, after the board elected him, he told everybody that you were in charge of its most important product line. If the company then went bankrupt because of the failure of that product line, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that you were in for a share of the blame, even though it may have been your husband's errors that caused it. Maybe you were TOTALLY responsible, but neither can you claim to have been free from blame.

I repeat my previous formulation -- if the health care bill had passed, do you doubt for a second that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be taking the credit for it? Well then...

2. The point I'm trying to make here is that Hillary Clinton is saying she's a superior candidate because she has experience with important projects in government. But the government project which she has been MOST associated with was a failure. After health care went down, I do not recall her playing such a central role again. (And as a Senator, granted, she has done a lot of things -- some good, some bad -- but that's not what we're discussing here.)

You can argue -- and in fact Starr DOES argue -- that it was Bill, not Hillary, who should bear the responsibility for that failure, Fine, the case he makes for that is strong. But if that's true, then what becomes of "I'm a superior candidate because I've got leadership experience." Her supporters are trying to have it both ways -- yes, she's done important things in the executive branch but no, the health care failure wasn't her fault because she wasn't really in charge of it.

1. I agree with his. She does deserve a share of the blame for its failing, but it should have never been, and should not be, called "Hillarycare." If it had passed, I already said Bill would have taken the lionshare of the credit, or, maybe he would have given it to his wife because he is just that kind of guy. And, although he has cheated and whatnot, I heard him on NPR one morning discussing his wife's Senatorial career and he said, "there's no one smarter or who I respect more than my wife." Maybe that sounds counterintuitive, and knowing the weird relationship some guys have with sex, I honestly really believed that. He sounded utterly sincere. It was a nice moment.

2. Yes, she is inviting herself to be taken down a peg anytime she mentions her successes because there's gonna be someone, or a group of people who think, or say, "Hillarycare, Hillarycare, Hillarycare." Well, does one's leadership always have to be a flawless string of successes? No, one is new to something, one makes a mistake, one learns, one grows. When are we going to move past that and see the forest for the trees? Or is it being too heavy-handed to demand people stop hyperfocusing on one failure, even if it was a large one. Or should we only think about JFK and the Bay of Pigs?

BTW, I forgot to thank you for pointing me at the link to Starr's article, because I learned a lot from it. As I said, he makes a convincing case.

I gave up trying to understand the Clintons' relationship a long time ago. They appear to have a kind of partnership going in which sexual fidelity doesn't count for much. (I started to say BILL'S sexual fidelity but who knows, she could just be more discreet than he. Just about everyone is.) Whatever the deal is between them, it is not now and never has been any of our business EXCEPT for the fact that they have presented themselves as a team, and therefore invited us to judge them as a unit. Hillary's has based a huge portion of her campaign on that concept, which, if it's fair, must acknowledge the bad with the good.

I also think that you cannot speak of Clinton's presidency as a "string of successes" except for health care. Other than his 1993 tax increase, he got very little done that didn't involve programs that were as much Republican as Democratic. I'm referring to welfare reform, NAFTA, stuff like that where he was getting as many if not most of his votes from Republicans. His environmental record was also very shaky. It was better than either Bush's, but that's saying very little, isn't it? I suspect that history will remember Bill Clinton as a moderating figure in the 28-year reign (hopefully no longer than that) of the radical right, who held the line against its worst excesses but was unable to reverse most of its gains.

And I think that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be pretty much the same. In her time in the Senate, she hasn't shown the fierceness of a person who could take on the right and lick it. Her votes on Iraq tell me that. I don't know how much better Obama will be, if at all, but there does seem to be the possibility there, which is why I feel as I do about him.

I didn't refer to anyone's leadership as a string of successes. I meant it exactly the opposite. No one has a string of successes. Everyone wins and loses. Except maybe Warren Buffett (does that guy ever lose?!).

I feel that way about both of the Dems--one might be too divisive to get it done, the other might be so into bipartisanship that he gets stuff done, but what he gets done ain't so great. I guess that's checks and balances for you! Neither candidate will bring me the utopia that I desire. :( Or maybe Obama can, and I'm just being a negative Nancy.

I think, the only conclusion I have is this one:

Warren Buffett for president?

Too old.

And we're seeing right now, in the Bush years, what happens when a group of men with specific business interests gets hold of the reins of government -- they tailor policies that serve the interests of those from whence they came. The price of oil was going to go up from 2001 to 2008 no matter who was in office, but it TRIPLED mainly because the two oilmen in power created perfect conditions for that -- NO conservation programs and a war in the Middle East. And, of course, no taxes on the profits of all of this.

Actually, I think one reason the right hates the Clintons so much is that they don't have specific business interests and so are inclined to serve what they perceive to be "the national interest," which often conflicts with what the right wants to see happening. McCain's coziness with various lobbyists was well documented in the recent NY TIMES article (though it muddied the issue, I think, by focusing on a sexual affair which it couldn't prove really took place). You and I read this and worry about what he'd do in the White House, but on the right this is seen as proof that he knows how to "work with business." Obama, if he's nominated, will inherit the vitriol that the right has poured on the Clintons up to now.

I agree that Obama might face similar levels of vitriol, but I have (the audacity?) to hope that that won't happen. He seems to be legitimately earnest, and it would be a shame to see a good-hearted idealist chewed up and spit out by a bunch of self-interested plutocrats masquerading as democratic representatives. To treat the Obamas like the Clintons would be egregious (especially because I thought it was egregious to treat the Clintons like the Clintons). Moreover, our government would prove every negative assertion made by Obama, and, more tragically, that it's just not capable of rising above itself. That would be shameful.

Or is it irresponsible for Obama to make those promises in the first place? Is it irresponsible to get the people excited for a future he can't possibly deliver? Or am I overestimating how much people will even care after election day?

Of course, we can always rely on the demagogue/media to work its "magic" by convincing the public that he deserves any derision heaped on him (no matter how unfounded the charges turn out to be.) Then the people can blame the individual and not the system, and we can move on with our daily lives as usual.