I'm like, scratching my head. Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for president, correct? The nomination will be awarded officially by delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the delegate selection process is over, and the majority of the delegate votes at the convention belong to people who will vote for Obama. Ergo, QED, therefore, ipso facto, a fortiori and you can take it to the bank, Senator Obama will be the nominee.

So Hillary Clinton takes the occasion to announce:

She is the candidate who will be the best president;
She is asking people to continue to donate to her campaign;
She will decide on the future of her campaign in the coming days, based on what the people who voted for her want her to do;
That the voters of South Dakota have had the last word in the primaries, even though the polls in Montana were still open at that very moment;
That more people voted for her than had ever voted for a candidate in a primary -- even though more people voted for Obama than for Hillary Clinton.

Like you, I really don't have a clue what exactly TF Hillary Clinton thinks she's been doing for the past couple of months, or why she's been doing whatever it is, but in any event, no matter what she says tonight, starting right now Barack Obama and the Democratic Party -- with the possible exception of Hillary and 182 fervent supporters who will continue to hold out in caves on some remote Pacific islands -- will start to run against John McCain for the office of prezneh unigh stay, as Sen. McCain pronounces it. That means that if we are very lucky, we just might hvae some conversations about public policy.

So here's my list of public health priorities. It's difficult to put them in order, and I might change my mind five minutes from now, but as of 1:42 pm eastern time they are:

Hillary Clinton (pictured wearing the hat of her "favorite" MLB team) is expected to announce on Saturday that she is giving up her Democratic presidential ambition and will support expected nominee Barack Obama. (Not a surprise she is waiting until Saturday, as today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.)

I would bet that she will NOT be Obama's choice to be his vice presidential running mate, as the Obamas don't want the baggage that comes with her (aka Bill), and she doesn't want to be vice president anyway. (Obama needs a running mate who appeals to the two most important groups he still needs to win over from John McCain: Independents and Conservative Democrats. That's not Hillary.) I would bet in the long run she's hoping that Obama loses in November so she could run again in 2012.

Without endorsing either of the three Presidential candidates in the US, and without suggesting any underhanded shenanigans, let me propose a thought about USA '08.

It occurred to me last week while having drinks with a dozen or so industry peers - almost all democrats, mind you. The subject of the conversation somehow shifted to politics and the candidates... and I fully expected the group to be happy about Sen. Obama's advantage over Sen. Clinton. That, however, wasn't the case: No one at the table endorsed Obama.

Ugh, I am so ready for primary season to be over. And yesterday's result was almost perfect to maximize the annoyance. If Hillary had won resoundingly, it could have actually signaled the return of a real contest. But instead, she won by enough to ensure that she'll continue running for (probably) months without really doing anything to improve her chances of winning.

The reality is that she has very little chance of winning. And if she does win, it will almost certainly come in a fashion that will incite serious (and justified) anger. Which makes me wish that she would simply state that fact, call on her supporters to unite behind Obama, and let us all focus on beating McCain.

There was a story in the NYT today which repeated an argument Hillary Clinton has been making for awhile -- that only she and John McCain cross the "commander in chief threshold." This argument is meant to stress her experience and readiness for the presidency, but there is a shadow issue that few have noticed although it dogged the first Clinton presidency. That's the relationship between the officer corps and the Democratic party. So far I've noticed one story on this issue in the Washington Times which gave expression to the serious doubts the military has about both Democratic candidates. The conservative and Republican tendencies of the officer corps have been noted but I'm not advancing a Seven Days in May scenario and those tendencies are inherently no more worrisome that the liberal and Democratic tendencies of law professors. The issue is rather whether the gulf between most of the officer corps and Democrats has reached the point where alienation, lack of common ground, and mistrust would lead to unnecessary conflict, misunderstandings, and serious policy mistakes in a Clinton or Obama administration. Remember the opening months of the first Clinton administration -- gays in the military? That conflict featured the military brass drawing on their contacts in Congress to oppose an initiative featured in the presidential election.

Over at the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson gets what is at stake in the 2008 election-- a reconstructive presidency:

Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton's legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.

That, I believe, is the unforgivable insult. The Clintons picked up on this slight well before Obama made it explicit with his observation that Ronald Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

As many of you who regularly read my blog know, I'm not big into politics here. (It's a fascinating, but dirty business.) I've written the rare column about it, but I watched the returns on Thursday's Iowa caucuses with some interest, and I thought I'd write something about it, as the 2008 presidential campaigns got officially underway.

As you all know, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee were the winners on the Democratic and Republican sides, respectively. Obviously both candidates got a huge boost from winning the first major political contest of the 2008 presidential campaign. But I thought some pundits went a little overboard with the pronounciations they were making, especially about Obama.

If there is one thing that is clear about contemporary America, it is that "democracy" scarcely describes our approach to politics. No, I'm not going to do another attack on our Constitution. Instead, I continue to be interested in the widespread belief that the Democratic primary has gone on "too long" and that something needs to be done to wrap it all up (and, in fact, that it should have been wrapped up weeks ago). As a committed Obamaite, I've not been above such thoughts, but as a slightly more detached analyst, I wonder what exactly is wrong about the current imbroglio, at least if one believes in democracy.

Consider the following: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually have had to visit states like Texas, Wyoming, and Mississippi, which they will certainly not do for the general election. They will also find themselves in North Carolina and South Dakota before too very long. This means, among other things, that they are actually forced to become familiar with issues that might matter to people in those states and address them as, gasp, the equal of Democrats in safe states or the fabled swing voters in the few "battleground states." I'm opposed, of course,

This week history was made with Obama winning the Democratic party's nomination!

I love this video of Chris Rock's views on the 2008 Election: Chris Rock's 2008 Election Analysis

Hilary's speech was very interesting. Click here

People keep asking me who I'm planning to vote for Tuesday and I didn't have an answer -- it was a very tough call. Then I saw an ad last night in which Robert Kennedy Jr. endorses Hillary, and that sealed the deal.

I'm voting for Obama.

Unless Barack Obama wins both Texas and Ohio (and adds Pennsylvania a couple of weeks later for good measure), the race will go on, and the controversy about counting delegates from Florida and Michigan will become ever more heated. The Clinton position that the results of the primaries held there in January, in patent defiance of the Democratic National Committee, should be honored, is preposterous. The candidates had pledged to honor the ban by not campaigning there. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states and certainly didn't campaign. But if Clinton and Obama remain more-or-less tied after the next string of primaries, there will, I suspect, be great pressure to rehold the primaries in a context where both candidates can campaign. This appears fair on the surface, but there is a real paradox in adopting this solution.

A Wall Street Journal columnist today suggests that “Obama’s ‘Identity’ Beat Hillary’s ‘Identity.’” His argument is that the Democratic party is dominated by identity politics, and Senator Clinton lost because the race card beat the sex card.

The columnist claims, furthermore, that Obama (influenced by legal theorists at Harvard) sees matters in terms of identity politics, regardless of his professed desire to move beyond it. The columnist writes:
After South Carolina, the campaigns accused each other of playing the race or gender card. Obama deflected this charge. "I don't want to deny the role of race and gender in our society," Obama said. "They're there, and they're powerful. But I don't think it's productive."

I'm not convinced. I think Barack Obama is more inclined to interpret American life in the formal categories of identity politics than is generally thought, or even than would older "conventional liberals" like Al Gore or John Kerry. Legal theorists have been a main source of its ideas; it's hard to imagine that Barack and Michelle Obama didn't hear a lot about "marginalized constituencies" at Harvard Law School. Sen. Obama may not be so conventional after all.

Digby, (who has turned off commenting apparently because it bugs her when people figuratively yell at each other by hurling photons down fiber optic cables) gives this account of the battle for California's Democratic voters -- Obama reaching past the cerebral cortex to forge a mystic connection with the lizard brain, Clinton's generals meticulously marshalling the troops. Note that in neither case is the election about public policy.

And of course it cannot be. Elections are about very expensive theater, as edited and repackaged by a corporate media with its own bizarre obssessions that have no discernible relationship to any definition of the national interest or the interests of any definable group within society except for their own self adoring selves; and as transmitted directly by the campaigns to the extent they can pay for advertising. Secondarily, once sufficient brains have been rewired by the dramaturgy, the zombies have to be marched to the polls, which is where the military-style organization comes in.

All of this costs immense amounts of money, so that's where it all begins. And that's our form of government -- a moneyocracy.

Okay, since the NYT decided to hire Bill Kristol over me, I'll have to restrict my punditication to this space.

You may have noticed that I've had basically squat to say about the presidential campaign. I did point out that of the three Dem contenders, Edwards has the best health care plan, and Obama has the worst, but who cares, really? It's not as if an Edwards presidency -- which seems unlikely at this point anyway -- will result in the legislation he has posted on his web site becoming reality. In the best case, a Democratic president and a somewhat more Democratic congress in 2009 will result in some marginal changes around the edges. Big Pharma and Big Insurance aren't going to get rolled no matter who is elected.

Today's Washington Post has an article that discusses "The Downside of Obama Strategy," i.e., that he actually has the audacity to believe that every Democrat's (and, perhaps, every American's) vote should count equally. The article notes (accurately) that Clinton has done better in large, electoral-vote-rich states than has Obama, which has ostensibly provoked fears about the prospects of his winning in November. It doesn't matter that he has received more popular votes than Clinton in contested elections--which allows us to omit Michigan and Florida--and, of course, that he has won more delegates. All that matters, according to a number of quoted Clinton supporters, is the vote in large states. So what we have is an attempt to apply to the nominating process the Electoral College's effective disenfranchisement of those unlucky enough to live in states where they are the political minority and the insane emphasis on a relatively few "battleground" states . One gather that Clinton will lose to Obama in today's caucuses in Wyoming. But, hey, it doesn't matter what Wyoming Democrats think, because they live in a Republican state.

I am sure you have all seen the headlines – the big Democratic turn out, the big Obama win, the big Clinton loss, and the religious right’s single-handed miracle of a Huckabee win – but what happened in Iowa last night holds far more secrets about what is to come than those headlines.

I caucused with the Democrats so I will have to limit my comments to what I saw there, although from my understanding, the Republicans go, pledge, pray, vote, and go again -- home to watch the Orange Bowl (Kansas was playing after all). The Democratic caucus procedure is much more involved, but more on that later.

Almost assuredly not. In fact, neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama is likely to be even halfway to the required total of 2023 delegates by then, and the delegate difference between them on February 6th is likely to be quite small.

Jeffrey K. Tulis

Whether Senator Obama has a well worked out domestic policy agenda and a detailed understanding of foreign policy is a lingering concern of democrats who find his inspirational rhetoric short on specific analyses, proposals, and plans. This concern has provided occasion for Senator Clinton and others to revive Walter Mondale’s famous question to Gary Hart, taken from a then popular TV commercial for a hamburger, “where’s the beef?” Obama may be tempted respond to the question by offering detailed counter-proposals to Senator Clinton’s plans for health care, immigration, the economy, campaign finance and any other issue she chooses to highlight. This would be a mistake both as tactical choice in the primaries, and in light of his impressive understanding of the place of the presidency in the constitutional order.

As the nation gears up to see what N.H. has in store for us, I couldn't help but try to pull some attention back to Iowa. Although I gave you a taste of what the caucus was like from my relatively juvenile point of view, I thought my parents would provide an interesting take on the caucus that often isn’t available in the blogosphere (my parents are decidedly not bloggers). Since they are semi-retired, I was able to rope them in. Their thoughts are below:

Thoughts from my dad:
"I’ve always been an independent—although most often voting Republican rather than Democrat—so spent a lot of time reading about and listening to the candidates from both parties. With growing concern about Iraq and Pakistan and many foreign/energy relations issues, I joined my wife and daughters in supporting the Democrats—making that decision in the last 1-2 weeks.

According to the Obama campaign, he won 845 of the 1671 pledged delegates last night, to Senator Clinton's 836. This appears to be roughly consistent, give or take a few delegates, with others' estimates, as well -- see here and here. When added to his previous 63-48 lead, that would give Obama a 908 to 884 lead in pledged delegates. (There are seven more delegates to be chosen from Democrats abroad who voted yesterday.)

Only 1428 pledged delegates are still to be chosen in the remaining primaries and caucuses. Thus, in order to enter the convention with a majority (2025 delegates), Senator Obama would need to win 1117 of those remaining delegates, or over 78 percent. Senator Clinton would need to win 1141 delegates, or 80 percent. Obviously, neither of the candidates is going to secure anywhere close to a majority before the August convention. It is more likely that each will end up with between 1500 and 1700 pledged delegates, i.e., at least 300 delegates short of what they need to win.

Ralph Nader announced today on Meet the Press that he was running for a third time for the presidency. The reaction so far has been predictable.

Democrats, remembering 2000 and blaming him for the Bush Presidency, are annoyed and a little bit frightened that he is injecting himself into the race. Republicans are secretly delighted, in the hopes that he might swing a few close states like Ohio, or dare one say it, Florida, to the Republican nominee.

I think that Democrats have much less to fear this time. Nader's candidacy means something quite different in 2008 than it does in 2000. In 2000, Nader was one of several factors that put George W. Bush in the White House. And in fairness to him, he was only one factor.

My guess is that there is very little chance that Nader will decide the outcome of the 2008 election; he will probably have very small numbers, as he did in 2004. Third parties who do not quickly displace one of the two major parties (as the Republicans displaced the Whigs in the 1850s) tend not to wear well on repeated attempts.

Holiday In Cambodia - Dead Kennedys

Okay, last week I asked if there was anything more stupid than the recent spat about Obama's "bitter" comments. In the last several days, that question has been answered. By far the silliest thing yet to happen in this neverending primary season are the gas tax "holiday" proposals from McCain and Hillary.

Beyond just the absurdity of the proposals themselves, there is the very terrifying thought that such pandering actually could prove effective. I find it hard to believe that people could be bamboozeled by something so transparently stupid, but I also can't imagine that Hillary's campaign would deliberately shoot itself in the foot, which means they think they have a winner here. Double yikes, all around.

The headlines -- most of them, anyway -- are saying that Senator Clinton beat Senator Obama 51% to 45% in the Nevada caucus contest today. Except that some reports say Senator Obama "won," 13 delegates to 12. What's up? There's a debate going on over at Matt Yglesias's blog (and elsewhere, too, I venture to guess -- especially among the spinners).

Well, there are at least three different metrics by which today's contests could be evaluated.

Last July, I published a piece in the Boston Globe, entitled "No Vice," arguing that we would be better off either without a Vice President at all--we got along without one for 45 of our first 180 years)--or, perhaps more plausibly, waiting until after the election and having the winner, a la the 25th Amendment, nominate a vice president, subject to congressional confirmation. I would, incidentally, also allow the President or Congress to fire the Vice President, but that's another matter for another thread.

I can't help but wonder if John McCain might not find some real merit in the suggestion. Consider his dilemma. It is clear that Mike Huckabee isn't going to be the nominee for president, but his followers might (legitimately?) feel dissed if he isn't chosen for Veep. At best, they might stay home; at worst, they might vote for Obama and actually put some of the Red States in play, especially if Obama chooses, say, James Webb or Wesley Clark as his Veep. On the other hand,

All of the presidential candidates seem to be picking up Barack Obama's theme of change and portraying themselves as agents of change. If things keep going the way they have been, the 2008 election now looks to be as defining a moment as 1932, 1968 or 1980. (If things keep going, that is. A lot can happen in ten months).

If 2008 turns out to be a pivotal election, defining a new political era, it is important to give credit where credit is due. Two key reasons for the change will be the crackup of the coalition of the dominant party of the era, the Republicans, and the almost complete political failure of George W. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Let me begin with the second feature, and move to the first.

<
The single best campaign video I've ever seen in my life. Perhaps one of the best anything I've seen. Seriously, it's worth watching no matter who you support, simply as a reminder of what an astonishing world we live in, and how much we have to be thankful for.

I know a few words don't make a campaign, and I know it's not enough to just believe that things can be better...but sometimes I wonder if we give our smarter, more realistic, more jaded selves too much power. Sometimes I wonder if we pay too much attention to to the nitpicky details and don't leave ourselves vulnerable to being moved. Bright, shining eyes and bold smiling faces alone do not make a movement - it takes a lot of nitty-gritty, down and dirty work. But a movement is not a movement without a dream, an ideal that binds it together, and lifts us up.

Apologies to my hordes of disappointed readers for the lacuna. My Intertubes were blocked on Tuesday -- or, to put it in less technical terms, our ISP had an all-day, city-wide outage. I had the chance to post from elsewhere in the evening but I said to heck with it. Yesterday, the problem was in the wetware. I think I was just so depressed and disgusted by the completely idiotic and repulsive coverage of politics on TV that my neural circuits were sputtering fecklessly. The link is to Glenn Greenwald, writing coherently.

Anyhow, both the ISP and I have rebooted, so before I do a public health post later today, let me just put in my two cents on the presidential campaign. Nothing terribly original, just the same open letter to Hillary Clinton I know you would write as well.

Dear Senator Clinton: You have already made history as the first woman to run a truly credible campaign for the presidency. You have staked out substantive positions on many issues, and your campaign has simultaneously transcended gender and championed gender equality. Good for you. The next woman to run for president will find the way smoothed by your precedent. Chris Matthews has been chastened (to some extent) and it won't be a novelty, it will just be a presidential campaign.