Though I understand he's somewhat scandal-ridden right now, my understanding is that Newsom is, actually, popular. Plus, his wine is delicious.

why can't the Clintons find someone without a scandal to endorse them?

What would they have to talk about?

Hizzonor the Mayor said, "...I never was able to have a discussion of the issues with the same depth, the same understanding, that I have had with Hillary Clinton."

Yeah, one might imagine.

Hillary: "Know any juicy scandals?"

Newsome: "Yeah, mine."

[Both have a great laugh together.]

Nothing at all gets people together like common interests.

Edwards and Obama have no scandals to match and thus are out of the running.

Best, Terry

I've seen some justify it on the grounds that he's not descended from slaves, which seems specious to me.

Some African immigrants and temporary residents have many stories about hostility from the African-American community as a whole.

It's a bit odd and very sad if the same attaches even to the American son of a Kenyan father.

Surely it is no better if lack of acceptance among African-Americans arises against an intellectual in their midst.

In any case, every candidate has to fight prejudice of one sort or another. The simple matter of being tall seems to provide a hefty advantage to candidates. Isn't that grand?

Best, Terry

Clinton has Ruppert Murdock. Murdock is not not involved in a scandal . Murdock is a scandal.

Hillary Clinton at a Iowa campaign stop on January 28, 2007: "Well, the question really is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men, you know, people like Osama bin Laden comes to mind," adding: "And what, in my background, equips me to deal with evil and bad men?"

hmmm Bill Clinton, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, SF Mayor Gavin Newsome...
Maybe ex-NJ governor James McGreevey will be the next endorsement. Rudy Giuliani would be logical addition to the group, but I think he's already endorsed himself. How about Newt?

Hillary will not let a little serial philandering come between her and a convenient political ally. The term "like bees to honey" comes to mind.

Gravel is wrong . . . No one in the White House has the nuiance to play chess. Checkers with jackhammers is the cowboy diplomancy way.

Fun visuals though and pleasent music . .. Does anyone know what the background tune is?

The better question is not "Is Barack Obama black enough?" but rather, "Is Barack Obama enough of a Democrat?"

Think about it: Has anyone ever heard Barack Obama identify himself as a Democrat or make a case for the Democratic Party? He seems to enjoy making a case for himself, but not the party at large. Instead, he makes a case for himself with public quotes lamenting what Democrats are or aren't doing.

Take the most recent video from the Obama campaign. Obama doesn't mention he's a Democrat. He's afraid to mention that he's a Democrat in his ads or appearances. At the 2004 convention Bill Clinton said "Our way works better." It appears that Obama has decided that his way, not the Democratic Party, works better.

Clearly, running for President is more important to him than making the case for the Democratic Party and contrasting it with the utter corruption of the Republican Party. I want a nominee who will uphold the Democratic Party values and ideals with pride. You won't get that from Barack Obama.

I'm more worried at this point about his worship at the altar of bipartisanship rather than whether he's not black enough.

running for President is more important to Obama than making the case for the Democratic Party and contrasting it with the utter corruption of the Republican Party.

And you want the Clintons to make the point of corruption in the Republican Party?

You have to be joshing us.

Best, Terry

I'm not sure you can really compare the question of "being black enough" to being "white enough." It is not just about race, but about culture and experience in society for African-Americans. There is a perspective, right or wrong, that a black who has not lived with the legacy of slavery and legalized discrimination is not representative of the black experience and outlook in America. Thus, some mistrust and lack of acceptance of blacks who have immigrated from Africa. Blacks from the Caribbean, because they are the descendants of slaves, sometimes have more accpetance as immigrants, by African-Americans native born. In contrast, when "not black enough" is spoken about in specifics, Clarence Thomas and his conservative politics is often an example cited.

There are certainly white candidates who are asked if they are liberal, or conservative, or evangelical, or Southern, or feminist enough to represent that perspective/culture/value set/outlook/experience/philosophy.

CorinneM, it sounds like this election for you is about getting even.

I want a president with the vision and capacity to lead the nation, not just half of it. Intense partisanship and the continuous cycle of offense and retribution has gotten us into the deep pit we are in. I think there is a status quo special interest composed of oil, military contractors and banking who want partisan warfare while they buy every politican and get what they want behind the scenes. It really hasn't mattered what party is in charge: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton = status quo. Obama, potentially, represents change, a break with corporate governance, and moving forward.

why can't the Clintons find someone without a scandal to endorse them?

Offhand, I can only remember one thing Ronald Reagan said that I agreed with, and that was in response to someone asking him about an endorsement from someone less than admirable. He said something like...When someone endorses me, it's because they agree with me, not because I agree with them.
I'll probably be voting for Kucinich or Edwards in the primary, not because either has much of a chance, but to make it known who I agree with. If Hillary wins, I'll be behind her 100%. I hope all the Hillary bashers here, and elsewhere on the web, will make the same pledge.

If opposing Hillary on the basis of her record, character, and capacity for good judgment is "Hillary bashing," I'm guilty. I speak out now because I could never vote for Hillary for president. I believe that there are many other Democrats/progressives/independents who feel the same way.

If for Democrats, the ultimate good is noiminating Hillary, and winning the presidency is only secondary, then the "Hillary is inevitable" machine should push forward full speed. If securing the presidency with vision, substance, capacity for constructive change to end the status quo is the priority, however, agressive Hillary supporters might listen to her critics instead of calling them names.

I understand that if Hillary gets elected, she will receive only 71% of Bush's salary.

Will everyone in the West Wing claim that she screwed her way to the top?

Insightful, but unsettling observations.

Beyond the media magnates, advertising companies, there is a huge industry of "stategists," "advisors," fundraisers and pollsters who also have a major vested interest in the "permanent" campaign.

Intensly partisan politicians not only populate the Executive Branch and Congress, but increasingly the judicial system and even the judiciary.

So if I think Obama is too much of a centrist and Christian it would be okay with you guys if I vote for Nader even if the election is close in my state?

Hillary's not my preferred candidate, but that's not a fair question you're asking. Anyone can endorse anyone. If Charles Manson endorses whatever candidate I support it won't change my view of them...

right, but within your argument is part of its' own answer: "...a black who has not lived with...legalized discrimination..." - there is no reason to believe that Obama hasn't faced the same level of discrimination that black Americans commonly experience. he addressed that at one point recently saying that as far as he could tell, when he was in New York City trying to catch a cab, he was pretty sure he must have looked black.

i like how he's addressing it seriously while using humor at the same time, its a smart move because it takes what could be dry social commentary and makes it more indelible, and it gives extra dimension to him as a person and a candidate.

in a way, wondering if someone is not "southern enough" is a kind of a parallel to what we're seeing here. it seems to mean something like "is this person white enough to win over voters who support the GOP for its' regressive policies and views with regard to civil rights and its' legislative track record during the civil rights movement?"

not sure about the distinction i'm a bout to make but here goes - I've never heard Thomas being referred to as "not black enough", I've really never heard that, although I wouldn't doubt anyone who says they have. what i've heard is that his views are "too white". some kind of grey area both in terms of what the difference is, and what Obama is talking about re: a black kid with a book or attending an Ivy League school...

i agree with what you're saying, but only outside of politics! in the House and the Senate, numbers matter as much as anything, by definition. although the current Congress seems to be trying unnecessarily hard to disprove that notion...but in a way its a perfect example of the lesson. if Dems had a veto-proof majority, things would be very, very different right now.

if Dems had a veto-proof majority, things would be very, very different right now.

Democrats do have a veto proof majority.

No law can be passed without consent of the Democratic majority (including two independents in the Senate). Yet Bush was given a blank check to continue the occupation of Iraq and we have Alberto given authority the courts refused to.

It matters a great deal whether you elect a DINO or a D.

Best, Terry

The Hillary machine supporters scare me a little, mainly because I believe they're using gender as the only criteria for selection. Excuse me? Isn't that the same kind of thinking women have complained about from men? 

I have heard it said --in my own family... the discussion was in the car today -- that if Hillary is nominated, we would vote for her. That was the position.

After a great deal of discussion, we decided that an automatic vote for Hillary might not be the best choice. We're all sick of "he may be (or she may be) a SOB, but s/he's OUR SOB mentality. That's brought us a two party system of mediocre talent for a long time.

 It could be argued that, from a very cold and calculating point of view, a Republican in the WH for another 4 years, especially someone that'd continue Bush's ideas, would pretty much destroy the GOP from federal to local levels for at least a generation, if not more. Might be worth it. 

But I'm not looking forward to that. A Bush or a Clinton has been in the White House since 1980, after all. That was the year of the Lake Placid Olympics, for God's sake. My oldest was born that year! Is it really the argument here that Hillary deserves to continue this family dynastic story just because she's a woman? That there just couldn't be anyone else as good, that it's just a 'woman's time'? You mean the Democratic Party can't find another woman just as capable? That's a ridiculous argument.

She's unlikely to win in a general election. If the Democrats select her in this royalistic march of inevitability, we'll see the party steered onto the rocks again by the old farts who seem to be running everything these days.  

Re-electing ReThugs would not only destroy whatever remains of the GOP, it would destroy the United States as a democracy. So far the ReThug's ability to tilt and steal elections is not absolute: if they take Congress and mandate that only Diebold machines can be used it would be absolute. Tilting those machines by a few percentage points within the margin of error of the exit polls would be virtually undetectable.
(Breaking news: Diebold machine failed at the Iowa Caucus -- ROTFL and hoping this puts a spike in ReThug's affections for this plan.)

We have many good candidates and all of them are better than any of the ReThugs.

Hillary was judged unlikely to win election to the Senate in New York as well. If Democrats select her it will be because they
believe she will do a good job.

Fine with me if you vote for Nader, Giuliani, Mickey Mouse, King George, David Duke or even - Lord help us - Hillary Clinton.
You had me with you right up to the very end, Terry. But that last one -- say it ain't so!

AJM,

I am going to give you an at least semi-serious reply against my better judgment.

(You should understand I agree with Winston Churchill that Democracy is the worst of all governments except for all the others.)

I refuse to vote for someone I think will be really bad for the country unless I am reasonably sure they won't be elected.

We had just moved to Missouri and couldn't register to vote there. Missouri had a law that you could vote for president at the registrar's office in such a case but only for the president.

We were given a ballot with two choices: a crook (LBJ) and a fool (Goldwater). It wasn't quite as bad a choice as the governor's race in Louisiani when the voters got to choose between the Wizard (David Duke) and the Lizard (Edwin Edwards) but somewhat similar in my view. I was told I couldn't write in a name. Thought about casting a blank ballot. I ended up voting for the crook and thousands died in vain because of the vast ego of LBJ.

Maybe even more would have died under Goldwater too but I think the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (a con) would not have happened. I don't think Goldwater would have used "tactical" nuclear weapons but who knows really? What a gawdawful choice.

When faced with such gawdawful choices afterwards, I simply passed and will again.

Just my way.

You want to be responsible in any way for the needless deaths of thousands, have at it. I don't and won't to the best of my ability.

I was a soldier in Vietnam under
Eisenhower. I saw what was coming and could do nothing at all about it.

It was something like watching a terrible collision occurring over years with no ability whatever to do anything but watch.

Who could possibly want to relive such a nightmare?

Best, Terry

I'm surprised that nobody is even considering the president's prerogative to nominate Supreme Court justices. We just cannot afford *another* Roberts or Alito or Scalia or Thomas. And it's highly unlikely that there'll be no new opening between '08 and 12; certainly, there will be one between '08 and 16.

Which is why, although I'm an ABC Dem (anybody but Clinton) I'll limit my self expression to the primaries. If the gets nominated... So be it; a half loaf is better than none.

AJM, Hillary is the one who introduced the epithet of "girl" to describe herself. My comment was a joke, playing on that. For me,"hehe" means I'm not serious. Get a grip.

You are demonstrating the typical Hillary-us-or-them view of the world. If someone criticizes you, trash them. My character is not an issue in this election, thank goodness. Hillary's character is a major issue and vulnerability. Maybe you have some constructive advice for her?

AJM, To be fair, Hillary had no substantial competition in either of her Senate elections. She was running against Hillary, and to her credit she pulled it off, with two of the most expensive, nationally-funded Senatorial campaigns in history. Her elections in New York certainly helped her improve her campaigning skills and keep Bill Clinton's machine employed.

Two questions about Hillary:
If she were male with similar credentials, would she even be a contender?

If she was a female senator with a similar "record" and not Bill Clinton's wife, would she be a serious candidate?

AJM said: "If Democrats select her it will be because they believe she will do a good job." My hunch is, if she is nominated, it will be because (1) she is a woman, and (2) many Democrats want Bill Clinton to have a third term. If elected, Hillary will be "George", and Bill will be "Cheney."

Itsbenj, just to clarify: When I said "legalized discrimination" I was not thinking of "hailing a cab in NYC", but rather because of specific, once existent laws not being able to vote, or choose school/college, or order at a lunch counter, for example. All of these represent a part of the life/cultural experience of many U.S.-born African-Americans. Significant or not, these direct experiences, critics note, are not known to Obama or his family.

Also, you chose a negative, racial spin for the analogy to "not being Southern enough." It is an apt analogy, but not because of white vs. black, as you suggest. There is a deep, in many ways positive, cultural experience shared by many in the South of all races that includes distinctive history, aspects of language, music, food, and a bonding experinece in response to external hostility.

AJM said, "I have seen elections decided by a single vote." Are you talking about major elections, or classroom president?

Would you give more details: specific elections, dates, locations. Thanks.

Hi Terry,

As usual your responses are interesting and provocative. You know from our previous discussions that I think Obama is very committed to progressive change and that he simply has a different strategy for getting there than JE.

I have been urging the Dems to be more populist for most of the past 30 years, so in a way, my preference for Obama over JE is a bit of a personal flip-flop. If Obama had not gotten in this year, I would be supporting JE whole-heartedly and lapping up the populist rhetoric.

However, I think JE's struggles over the past six months have been illustrative of some basic truths:

1) The number of self-identified liberals in this country stands at about 20-25%. We are two few in number to win by simply mobilizing those who already agree with us. We have to reach out somewhere. I agree that attempting to bring home the white working class by stressing populist economic themes needs to be a big part of that outreach. Dems weakened their defense of the economic interests of the working class with their embrace of corporatist, free-trade policies. If we do a better job of advocating for the working classes economic interests perhaps they will be more inclined to forgive us for our social liberalism. On the other hand, Obama with his ability to talk about his faith and his commitment to stressing areas of agreement over areas of conflict is trying to package liberal values and policies in ways that are accessable and acceptable to many who are not self-identified as liberals. I think the jury is still out on which approach or combination of different approaches is going to be successful.

2) The corporate media in this country plays a significant "gatekeeping" function. They are inclined to protect the interests of their owners and advertisers by discounting the chances of anyone with the brass to challenge corporate intersts head-on. JE has gotten lousy press and I suspect it will only get worse. I view Obama's approach as highly subversive. He emphasizes the need to change the "political process" rather than directly emphasizing substantive policy changes that assault the interests of the rich and the corporations. Many here, and on the left in general, confuse Obama's emphasis on process as a lack of substance. I think this is a fundamental misreading of Obama's intentions.

The bottom line is that I believe the money chase, the poll numbers, the grass-roots energy, and the media coverage over the past few months have demonstrated that Obama's approach has more potential to achieve success than JE's more direct approach.

You prefer JE, but would be happy to see Obama. I prefer Obama, but would be happy to find that I am wrong and that JE can win the nomination.

Take Care.

FYI:

SF Mayor Newsom Maintains 80 Percent Approval Rating After Sex And Alcohol Scandals.

See the story.

"If she was a female senator with a similar "record" and not Bill Clinton's wife, would she be a serious candidate?"

LOL! How about a male senator with one term (or less) under their belt? I can actually think of a couple of those whom some seem to regard as fairly serious contenders.

I don't know where you're getting your information but Obama's lifetime voting record from the ADA (all two years of it) would be 97.5%, not 84. He voted their position on 19 out of 20 bills (95%) in 2006 and scored 100% in 2005, same as Hillary Clinton. Clinton also scored 95% in each of the previous four years of her term for an average of 96%. You can look this stuff up online at the ADA's web site.

You're right about the rest though. On the AFL-CIO score card, Obama's lifetime average was 96% as of 2006, compared to Clinton's 93%. Obama has missed four of the votes on their interim score card for 2007 so that may cost him a little this year even though he has actually voted against only one of their bills so far (same as Clinton who is 23/24 for the year).

As for Edwards -- I know no one asked but I'll tell you all anyway -- he missed a lot of votes while on the campaign trail in 2003 and 2004 but tended to vote the ADA and AFL-CIO's position when he was there. It's fairer to look at his scores for 1999-2002 when his ADA average was 85% and his AFL-CIO score averaged 94%.

Biden, whom no one also asked about averages 87% with the ADA and 88% for the AFL-CIO for 1996-2006. Dodd's average ADA score for that same period was 93% and his AFL-CIO average was 89%.

Anyway, all of the above good Democrats, as are the rest of the guys running, and anybody who tries to tell anyone otherwise is a troll.

Libra, I understand your commitment to support the Democratic nominee. I cannot make that commitment because I do not believe that moving all the Clintons' baggage, however it was acquired, back into the White House can in anyway be good for the nation. It will be a partisan war for four years, at a time the nation must have a unifier as president. So, I work hard now, in hopes that someone other than Hillary will be the nominee. If she is the nominee, and the republican is unacceptable, I will hope for a third party centrist.

Maybe we are seeing a change in the TV ad/sound bite culture with the rise of the internet and sites like youtube. At least it is an equalizer, not requiring mega millions and Madison Avenue execs to produce.

"probably" equals not proven.

"position she held de facto" - prove it.

"why not?" Bill isn't running and it's certainly not an accomplishment for feminism that our first female president comes to us by virtue of marriage and nepotism.