Clinton is the new Humphrey

Hillary Clinton was 20 years old in 1968 when the Democratic National Convention took place in Chicago Illinois. Barring amnesia or dementia, she should have some distinct, clear memories of the scar that event left on the American political psyche. I have no idea where she physically was at the time. My guess is that she was attending university and, as most young people were then, intensely aware of current events and the stark choices at hand.

For those whose history is a bit fuzzy, the Democratic Party was to nominate its candidate for the Presidency that would run against the Republican’s nominee, Richard Nixon, and determine how the United States would conduct itself in the Vietnam War. The Democrats’ options were Lyndon Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, and Eugene McCarthy. Mr. Humphrey did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination. The popular vote, however, belonged to McCarthy. From what I glean in speaking with the boomer generation, he was the anti-war candidate and the young person's favorite for those inclined to vote for a Democrat.

Vice President Humphrey sought to continue President Johnson's policies regarding the war. Mr. McCarthy campaigned for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. History tells us that relations between the two sides of the argument were not rosy. Humphrey, through despotic maneuvering, got the nomination. Rioting followed that got very ugly. Moreover, it fractured and more or less ruined the Democratic Party for years to follow. If the nomination had gone the other way, no one can say for sure what would have happened or where we would be today. What is certain is that Communism in Asia was a red herring that cost too much American blood and treasure.

The cyclical nature of history is awesome. Once again, our nation is involved in an unpopular war abroad and a majority of Americans want to withdraw our forces from the Iraqi theatre. Once again, we have two Democratic candidates who are on either side of this issue. While Hillary Clinton, unlike Humphrey, is running a competitive primary campaign to win the Party's nomination, it is very much like 1968 in that as of this writing, she has, arguably, enough super delegates to take the nomination despite not controlling a majority of elected delegates. She falls well short of an appreciable majority in the popular vote as well. May history write that when you’ve said “Wisconsin, you’ve said it all.”

Barack Obama probably has more momentum than Eugene McCarthy did in '68. We can certainly hope so. Polls and general observation suggest that he is the young people's candidate for change and ending the war. The Clintons embody the Boomer generation’s last, definitive grasp on power. While the contest is far from over, the political weather vein is suggesting that Hillary’s campaign is gradually spiraling into failure. Still, there is a lingering fear that she may attempt to clinch the party’s nomination through the use of super delegates. It would be her first step on an imperiously laden road to hell paved with “good” intentions.

It is surely a common human quality to, once invested in something, be reluctant to let it go. This is certainly the case when a presidential candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Call it the fog of war or not seeing the forest through the trees. The bigger picture here is that the Clinton campaign sits on the cusp of both history and hubris. From here to the Convention will show which she will follow more truly.

What is clear is that if Hillary attempts to grab the nomination without the support of the popular vote, there will almost certainly be riots again. Obama is clearly the youth candidate and that is the future of the Democratic Party. Be Obama the right or wrong choice, Hillary Clinton must abide by that choice or whatever ill comes down the road for the Democrats rests completely and solely on her shoulders. Until the Convention, progressives can only hope for a well situated, nearly altruistic moment of clarity for Senator Clinton or a total avalanche victory for Obama in the upcoming primary contests. Fingers crossed.

Master Debaters

OMFG! How many more Democratic debates can we have? There has been a challenge issued from the Clinton camp to have a debate hosted by Fox. Given the biases of the host, you can well imagine how substantive the discourse of the conversation will be relative to informing the electorate's decision for a Democratic nominee, let alone President. While I am all for thorough vetting of candidates, out-of-the-box thinking needs to be applied post-haste in this field if debates are to continue to catch our attention. Allow me to posit the following...

I have read other bloggers who have, quite reasonably, advocated (or demanded) debates moderated not by journalists but bonafied conservative or progressive thinkers, pundits and the like. To wit, having a Democratic and/or Republican debate hosted by Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would be brilliant. Other moderator/hosts who come to mind are: William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Ann Coulter and Tina Fey, Wynton Marsalis, Bill Cosby, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, any prominent poli-blogger (Kos, Atrios, Sullivan, etc...) ... The list could go on for pages. Oh, and me. I want to have a debate too.

When Ralph Nader ran for President in 2000, he rationalized a Bush victory due to Nader leeching of votes away from Gore by stating that it would reinvigorate progressive voters and call attention to the important issues that the Republicans are, from the progressive perspective, so wrong on. Sadly, I don't think his prediction was the case. By some accounts, the Republican Party is now imploding thanks in large part to the unconstitutional and, arguably, criminal behavior of the Bush Administration. But a exponential short term loss for a long term gain does not a justification make for Mr. Nader.

Record turnouts in the primaries and caucuses thus far have shown that people are paying attention. The electorate is invested, motivated and participating like the nation has not seen in, perhaps, a generation. Still, having yet another debate hosted by yet another news entity (albeit decidedly "other" relative to their piers) is dulling the effect of the political process. Sadly, policy and personal convictions are not enough to hold an audience over time. The institution that is American Democracy would do well to take up a bit more self deprecation beyond the White House Correspondents' Dinner and individuals' appearances on various late night talk shows.

There is everything to gain in being informing and entertaining (by incongruity of context or genre) at the same time. The popularity of The Daily Show, et. al., bolstered by analysis showing that a significant percentage of people get their news content from it and the actual facts presented are approximately equal to those of the regular network news programs validates the concept. Its an innovation we need, would welcome and would work.

Oh, and dig this:

Breaking News 12:19 PM ET: Romney Is Suspending Run, According to Campaign Sources. (NYT)

Suck it Romney.

Considering a VP

Its the first mention outside the usual suspects I have heard of. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Obama's running mate? However unlikely, it would be sharp.

What I'd like

So, my favorite blogger posted a list of what he wants out of the candidate who is to be the recipient of his vote in the '08 Presidential election. Its quite good. The criteria I particularly like are:

• Restoration of Habeus corpus;
• Repeal of NSPD-51, a directive signed by the current President that empowers the Executive to legally seize all powers of government;
• Cessation or severe curtailment of the use of Signing Statements;
• Cessation of all extralegal activities of the Executive Branch with regard to FISA;
• Cessation of all extralegal or otherwise inhuman methods of treatment of captured "enemy combatants";
• Assertion that the Vice-Presidency is in the Executive Branch;
• Refusal to grant pardons in which they have a vested interest;

The other three on the list are totally valid, but these seven truly float my boat. In the past, I have pondered the next executive to hold the office of President and the powers they will inherit. What Checkypantz has done is to remind me of this and make me wonder why no journalists are asking questions about this stuff. Seriously. Habeas corpus, NSPD-51, Signing Statements, FISA and the actual place of the office of the Vice President in government have all been major stories over the last seven years and have total relevance and bearing on the next President to hold office. So why aren't the candidates being vetted on such issues?

These questions need to be asked and definitive answers need to be given from all the candidates. Over the last eight years, the American people have let too much slide with regards to their rights and governance. That has to stop and the effort begins with this election.

Looking at the entire field

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own. (Slate via TDD)

On Bloomberg '08

In between feeding and looking after my kid, I pay a mild attention to the news. What I have heard is a great hubbub about is the punditocracy's titillation over New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg's defecting from the Republicans and the potential that brings for his presidential prospects in the 2008 race. Initially I thought little of it. He'll just be another candidate, but without a party. Perhaps another H. Ross Perot but certainly not a Ralph Nader.

Then, during BFD's nap time, I blue skied this a bit more. I have an acquaintance who works within the city government and has known about the Bloomberg '08 potentiality as rumor for some time. As memory serves, she was all for it. That is what drove me to consider it further. And, though it is by no means an endorsement, I am all for it.

Allow me qualify my position. No candidate is ideal. Just consider Bloomberg relative to rest of the field of candidates. Firstly, he's done more for New York than Guilianni did. Rudy may have had to oversee the worst disaster in American history, but Bloomberg had to handle the aftermath and clean-up. In case you hadn't noticed, he's done quite well. I can't say I am pleased with all the things he has done (read: Brooklyn Rail Yards). Gentrification is inevitable as part of an evolving urban landscape. It comes and goes. But, when aided by government policy and backing, moneyed interests always seem to win out and the average city dweller gets shafted some way, some how. So, take this as one big reason Big Mike isn't going to get my rubber stamp.

Being a big business kind of guy, Bloomberg is bound to appeal to the pro-business Republicans. The Christian Right won't be greeting him with open arms, however. So, he effectively splits the GOP. Big Mike has done a great deal to green the Big Apple. His mandate to get all taxis to be hybrids in short order is grand and he's approved many green-space projects for the city. He's also done a great deal to lessen the carbon footprint of New York City by pursuing alternative energies like tidal energy, wind, and solar power. He openly acknowledges the fact of Global Warming. He'll garner a great number of progressive votes with theses notches in his political belt.

Lastly, the most attractive thing about Mike Bloomberg as a candidate for President of the United States is that he could independently finance his entire campaign. Dan Balz of the Washington Post speculated the other night on The News Hour that Bloomberg could spend $500 million of his own cash without breaking a sweat. This is an alluring fact in that it makes Big Mike truly an independent candidate. He would be beholden to no special interest group. Bias, be it progressive or conservative would potentially be solely at his whimsy and not at the behest of some fat cat lobby another candidate might owe the office to. That would be a refreshing change from the examples set in the present administration. (Remember Cheney's Energy Task Force?)

As Mayor, Mike Bloomberg has been a consummate populist. As a business man, he's been a hard nosed executive with a remarkable track record. But as a candidate for the most powerful office in the land, he's not without his faults, depending on where you're coming from. He's not charismatic. Frankly, he's a bit robotic from the times I have seen him speak. Charisma is integral to leadership, for the most part. So, strike one. Strike two will come from the social and religious conservatives. Big Mike has been seen waving the rainbow flag. Personally, its a point in his favor, but have you seen how many red states are out there? As to his actual preference, its been subject to speculation, but it will be an issue despite the fact that it shouldn't be.

At the very least, Bloomberg will make the race for the White House interesting. Like Sharpton in 2000 and 2004, he will be able to bring certain issues into the arena of discussion whereas other more politically entrenched candidates might not. Unlike Sharpton, he'll be a real threat to the candidates from the established parties and, hopefully, keep them somehow honest. Third party candidates have traditionally been a bit of a joke in modern American politics. Not since Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party staged its upset has anyone mounted a credible threat aside from that of spoiler. Bloomberg is potentially more than spoiler material.

One can argue about national security experience and many other issues to disqualify Bloomberg from contention. However, he's been dealing with the biggest target city in the post 9/11 world. I'd say this is an endorsement of his viability hand over fist compared to Rudy Giuliani. Recall that just recently, reports about Rudy's national security strengths have shown him to be quite other than strong on national security.

At the end of the day, all this presents is another option. Bloomberg, like Obama, has accurately assessed that things are broken in this country and disparately need fixing. The two party system, it can be argued, is not serving this nation well. If it came down to certain candidates winning their party's nomination, Bloomberg might actually get my vote. That is, if he runs.