Late Thoughts

So the day after there are a few more plausible explanations of why Sen. Clinton bested the poll numbers and beat Sen. Obama in the only poll that really counts.

There's the Biden/Dodd drop-out theory wherein their supporters went to the next longest-serving Senator on the ballot. Makes sense, particularly with older voters, especially older female voters.

There's an emerging argument that Obama's conciliatory "unity" speech actually hasn't gone far enough in criticizing El Presidente Bush, as (sorry, GOP Barack supporters) we really are angry about what he and President Cheney have done to this country, and the fact that they're still in power more a little more than another year, still time enough to gin up an attack on Iran. (As they've been doing under the cover of Primary fever -- maybe deliberately?) Obama seems to have started correcting that today in speeches. Very important to do -- as all of the Republican candidates, aside from Ron Paul, have in some way fundamentally endorsed or enabled Bush's policies.

There's a very compelling case to be made that the misogyny of the pundits gleefully piling on after her loss in Iowa, specifically Chris Matthews, created a groundswell of sympathy for Clinton. Even Kos found himself half-rooting for her against the onslaught. Matthews seems to single-handedly be trying to get her elected in some sort of self-destructive pathology. And in one instance she actually handled him beautifully, cuddling up when by all rights she should have been clobbering him.

Caryl Rivers wrote a great piece about it in HuffPo today, and it's a pretty stirring argument for Hillary over Obama if you're old enough to have had a working mother who actually experienced sexism when pioneering the workplace, a ceiling that all-too often still exists today (i.e. how many male vs. female CEOs?):

And why was Barack anointed so instantly? To use a sports metaphor, it was like the talented rookie being handed the Cy Young award after his first pouting on the mound. As Gloria Steinem noted in her much-discussed New York Times op-ed, what if Barack Obama had been a woman, with the same resume? She'd have been laughed at if she said she wanted to run for president.

I believe a lot of women thought "This isn't fair. Give her a chance. She's earned that. Maybe she won't win in the end, but if she loses, let it be fair and square. Any why doesn't the media seem very excited about the first woman president. Why isn't that 'change?""

For women of a certain age, there was an air of familiarity about the whole process. Often, women work hard, learn their craft, pay their dues, don't try to step in front of other people, and then, when they are due for the big promotion, something happens. Some young guy is suddenly standing in front of them. He's the hot new commodity, and she is just expected to gracefully step aside.

The real big hidden story of New Hampshire, one that I'm sure Fox News and the GOP establishment desperately wants to keep under wraps until they can fool us in the General Election that the country really is 50% theirs, is the massive disparity between the Parties in number of voters. 60,000 less people voting for any Republican candidate than for Democratic.

That's 44% voting Republican, and 56% Democrat -- a 12-percentage point difference!

In politics, that's called a mandate, and some might cry landslide.

- You've got "frontrunner" McCain ceding President authority to end the war in Iraq to General Petraeus, what Jonathan Zasloff calls disqualifying himself from the Presidency.

- You've got ex-frontrunner Romney now losing his firewall state, Michigan, to McCain.

- You've got Conservative "savior" Fred Thompson at 1% and losing to write-ins.

- You've got loser Giuliani stringing together a noun, a verb, and 911.

It's enough to make one wonder...and you may want to punish me for the thought, at least at first:

If Sen. Clinton does succeed in winning the nomination, and if they keep at least the victory and concession speechifying between now and then as graceful, civil, and mutually respectful as they have so far...

...and if she were to actually turn around and (shades of Reagan/Bush) choose to unite the Party by offering Sen. Obama the Vice Presidential candidacy...

...and if he were to actually think about it, being the first black VP in the history of America, with a chance to not only be President in eight years time but also establish sixteen years of Democratic Executive control (the first since FDR/Truman)...

...would the Hillary haters within the Party come around and...

...would it finally unite the Democrats?

At that point, would there be any way for the Republicans to stop us?

Wild Times

There's suddenly a flurry of action at the end of 2008. I can't hope to cover or even tie together on short notice all that's happening in our political America just this week -- two days.

The FISA vote -- Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has been staunch and articulate on protecting the U.S. Constitution, threatening to filibuster and forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to pull the bill from the floor. Dodd has been a total hero, and while I don't know if it will significantly improve his Presidential bid, it makes him the #1 pick for a new, progressive Majority Leader.

Dodd made Orrin Hatch break down into sad nonsense. The bottom line as Ted Kennedy said:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.

Not so fun to remember that they are still President, even if the Primary Season sometimes makes us forget.

But the really huge decision affecting us all, the one designed by Rupert Murdoch et al with this Republican Administration to control all of the news we receive by television, radio and print all in one market. And if the market, like most, has only one newspaper, guess who's going to control the agenda?

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin cast the deciding vote to allow monopolistic territorial media control by major corporations:

Free Press: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is ignoring the public will and defying the U.S. Senate. His decision to gut longstanding ownership rules shows once again how the largest media companies — with their campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists — are corrupting the policymaking process at the expense of local news coverage and independent voices.

“Martin’s FCC relied on slanted research and a rigged process to reach today’s preordained outcome — local media wrapped in a bow for Tribune, News Corp., Gannett and all the rest.

John Kerry's talking about freezing FCC funding in retaliation, not sure how much that will do with the horse already over the gate.

It's clear to me that the only candidate who's just all out declaring themselves the people's warrior to beat back our almost medieval global corporations, get our Constitutional rights and help America save itself. There's things I like about the others, but Edwards is starting to do in Iowa what he's known for doing best: making the strongest closing argument.

Think about it, three lawyers. Can Obama or Hillary do what Edwards did in courtrooms for huge verdicts?

Meanwhile, Blackwater, no joke, shot to death the The New York Times' dog in Iraq, and Ron Paul reveals exquisite literary taste when he calls a spade a spade.

Brave Ones

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) seemed like the only principled Democratic Senator today, vowing to filibuster the cave-in FISA bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to push through. For Rockefeller, the grant of retroactive immunity to telecom companies for agreeing to break the law for the Bush Administration appears tied to a sharp increase in campaign contributions by said companies this year. And I used to like that guy.

It's behavior like that which leads to editorials -- accurately representing Democratic rank and file sentiment -- like this:

It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.

By the end of the day fellow candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), had stepped up to say he'd join a filibuster against the bill.

Now where are supposed "leaders" Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) on this?

Why haven't we heard yet?

Props to Dodd for acting like a frontrunner more than the frontrunners. Leading is about protecting us first, that America outside the beltway. Getting out in front of issues rather than seeming like reactants. Contribute here.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, where there a chance of another female restoration at the top of the government, that woman is risking life and limb, as are her supporters:

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto said on Friday she would carry on her struggle for democracy, despite an attack on her motorcade that killed 133 people as she returned home after eight years of exile.

"We are prepared to risk our lives. We're prepared to risk our liberty. But we're not prepared to surrender this great nation to militants," Bhutto, wearing a black armband, told a news conference at the home of her parents-in-law in Karachi.

"The attack was on what I represent. The attack was on democracy and the very unity and integrity of Pakistan."

I have no idea what's the truth over there in Pakistan's politics, whether Bhutto is saint or not, but it sure looks like she's the one alternative to the current President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, per the rules of their democracy, and there's no denying the risk she's taken in returning to her country.

With her own and other actual lives on the line, sure, Bhutto's courage may be greater than Dodd's. But we need courage like Dodd's to try and prevent threats to our own democracy.

Threats from within.