It’s a diary on Daily Kos, so more verification is presumably in order, but there is evidence that the Clinton campaign has darkened up Obama to make him look blacker in one of their campaign ads.

John Hodgman, of Daily Show and Mac v. PC fame, has a blog that’s generally worth reading. Today he discusses why he feels that an Obama-led Democratic party is a party he wants to be part of and why a Clinton-led Democratic party is not.

Obama represents the model of the Democratic party I wish to belong to. It is a party that is inclusive. It is a party that does not tell me that I’m the wrong kind of Democrat (ie, latte-drinking). It is a party that does not imply that the Democrats of Texas or Iowa don’t count because they don’t fit into the electoral calculus. It is a party that is committed to innovative grass roots organizing: raising funds and building policy support voter by voter in all 50 states, and does not rely solely on entrenched political machines and top-down, mass media, which is dying.

I acknowledge that Obama is not pure-as-driven snow on these metrics. I am sure some may find quotes that would support that he alienated a voter there, or benefited from a political machine here. But is clear at least to me that he is closer to the mark on these principles than his rival, and he is a leader insofar as he is showing us why they matter so very much. These models for the party, especially the matter of inclusiveness, are not merely inspiring ideas, but also represent a blueprint for what I would consider to be a broader, more vibrant, and more powerful Democratic party.

Fourth, and to specifically answer Lex, I do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I voted for her husband twice, and I think she would be a capable president, were there not a better option available.

However, she nonetheless represents what I consider to be a model for a failed Democratic party. A party that divides its own membership against one another–by suggesting that a rival is not black enough, for example, or too maybe-Muslim–in order to conquer it. A party that prefers a meaningless, symbolic conflict over an effective struggle, or reasonable compromise. A party that is essentially unprincipled, following the DLC line of tacking further and further to the right to capture what I consider to be a mythical conservative majority until finally it is merely a shadow republicanism. A party that mocks inspiration and villifies optimism.

Hodgman does a good job of articulating what has been so frustrating about the Democratic Party in recent years — the party of Clinton & Bayh, Lieberman & Daschle. This sort of spineless calculation and, ultimately, capitulation. They do not fight to win. Rather, they fight not to lose. In doing so, they give up inch by inch, foot by foot; always the defender, never the aggressor. And, utterly bland.

That’s what was so invigorating about Howard Dean. The man was willing to fight. He wasn’t terribly liberal, but he was an unabashed Democrat. And a funny thing happened. He didn’t win the nomination. One of the bland Democrats won in 2004. But Dean turned around and secured the chairmanship of the DNC. He initiated a 50-state strategy against the howlings of the likes of Clinton-advisor James Carville and Rahm Emmanuel. And, what do you know? Democratic pick-ups in 2006 were more substantial than anticipated.

Now we have Obama versus Clinton. Offense versus defense. Playing to win versus playing not to lose. Aspiration versus calculation. So, what’s it gonna be?

I’ve got nothing. I’m still getting back up to speed after the flu. Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island go to the polls today.

The GOP deserves credit for somehow keeping together its disparate interests enough to pull together victories at the ballot box over the past quarter century or so. Basically, near as I can figure, you have the paleo-conservatives: sort of those Buckley/Goldwater types who were socially fairly moderate, economically conservative, and tended toward isolationist foreign policy. You have the neo-cons: foreign policy adventurists with no particular domestic agenda – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and those types. And, you have the social conservatives – Bible thumpers of various stripes.

For the moment anyway, the center is not holding in this particular coalition, as John McCain is finding out. And even among the factions there are factions. To wit:

It seems that McCain’s “proud” acceptance of the endorsement of John “The-Catholic-Church-Is-The-Great-Whore” Hagee has upset Bill “Hollywood-Is-Controlled-By-Secular-Jews-Who-Hate-Christianity” Donohue. It’s the ultimate rightwing cage-match, the battle of the bigots, fighting for the soul of the Republican Party.

Given Tim Russert’s vigorous efforts to make sure Obama not only denounced but also rejected the support of the hateful Farrakhan, he damn well better be willing to pin straight-talkin’, mavericky John McCain to the wall on this Hagee matter given Hagee’s hateful statements with respect to Catholicism.

And, when you get down to it, it’s not surprising that various religious institutions might be difficult to unify under one banner. There was a reason for the schisms in the first place. And they weren’t idle schisms. In many cases, they were bleeding, dying, history-shaking schisms.

Some live blogging – until I get tired of it.

First round, health care. Substance – a wash. Both stated the nuances of their health care plans. Style – Clinton kept pushing to get in the last word.

Second round, NAFTA. Clinton starts with a bizarre complaint about getting the first question on things. Then she said that NAFTA was something she opposed. (I’m a little unclear on what acts of Bill Clinton’s administration she gets credit/responsibility for and what she doesn’t — the long experience claim seems to be based on her, no doubt, active role as First Lady. So, it would seem, the NAFTA legacy would be something she needs to take responsility for.). Obama thinks NAFTA has been bad for the U.S. He is opposed to various perverse financial incentives for companies that have been adverse to the U.S. generally.

Tim Russert is annoying. But, he is holding Clinton’s feet to the fire on her prior pro-NAFTA statements. Obama says that Clinton is right on how to address NAFTA going forward. He says that he is not against trade agreements generally because he thinks our workers can compete in terms of productivity against any other workers in the world. He points out that NAFTA has been a successful proposition for the bottom lines of large companies. He says that investing in education, technology, etc. was another key to our economic success. Tim Russert is still annoying. He’s badgering her about her pledge to increase jobs in 2000 when she was running for Senator. She has an excellent response – “I thought Al Gore was going to be President.”

More after the break.
[Read more…]

So, I’m home sick with the flu or whatever; and I haven’t been good for much other than sleeping and watching daytime television. I can tell you that daytime television is truly awful. For example, somehow Jerry Springer has gotten even worse than it was before. On the other hand, credit where it’s due, Drew Carey is a pretty good host for The Price is Right.

I’ve also seen a parade of Clinton-this, Obama-that on the news channels. It occurs to me that the Democrats might be having trouble picking a nominee because they have one candidate who will probably be great at running the government and one who will probably be great at leading the country. Which one is more important? I’m going with leading the country. But the question isn’t a no-brainer.

According to Michael Powell, Barack Obama is a cocky, smack-talking Negro. He doesn’t use the word “Negro” of course, but that’s the tone I got. At the end, it appeared that he was just pissed off because he didn’t get as much access to the candidate he thought he deserved.

Obama has received generally favorable press coverage, so I’m not going to pretend the media is out to get him. But, I’m still annoyed at the prima dona campaign press that pretends their personal feelings and relationships toward the candidates ought to be projected in larger terms as somehow being relevant to the campaign coverage. Personally, a lot of them were annoyed by Gore and were buddies with Bush, and so the campaign narratives reflected these things. Gore was an earth-tone wearing sigher and serial exaggerator. Bush was a straight-talking good ol’ boy whose inability to speak was in no way indicative of the depth of his thought.

I’d find it helpful if campaign reporters would tell us up front for a given article whether they’re reporting news or whether they’re engaging in a good old-fashioned high school snark fest or some combination thereof.

Blue Indiana makes the big time. Thomas’s challenge to the number of McCain’s signatures from the 4th District to get on the ballot has been picked up by Daily Kos, a/k/a The Great Orange Satan.

Last night, Barack Obama’s wife, said she was really proud of America and American politics right now. But, she said it in a way that’s easy to deliberately misconstrue if one is so inclined. Abandoning basic rules of logic, we are getting folks who conclude that if it’s only now that she’s *really* proud of America, that must mean she despised America before now — really proud and hate being the only option, obviously. So, we’re getting a chorus of “OMG! Michelle Obama hates America!” And, now you have Bill O’Reilly letting lose with:

I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.

A “lynching party”? Really?

Even John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain got in on the action. The McCain campaign really doesn’t want Ms. McCain to become the story. She has some fairly prominent skeletons buried in shallow graves. And, the story of how St. John came to marry his second wife doesn’t exactly square with the narrative that he’s a Straight Talking Man of Principles.

I suggest we all just back off and leave the wives out of this.

The full Michelle Obama quote:

What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I’ve seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it’s made me proud.

Clearly the words of an anti-American America hater. Start the lynching, Bill.