Obama’s speech yesterday confirmed two things for me: (i) why I like Obama in the first place, and (ii) the stark contrast between Obama and Clinton as candidates and politicians.

On this blog last week I wrote this: “I’ve liked Obama for more than a year because I like the calm, rationale, pragmatic approach he brings to politics (and has brought throughout his career). Many Democrats seem to want a ‘fighter,’ someone who will be as nasty and polarizing and mean to the Republicans as the Republicans are to Democrats.  I’m not one of them.  I want someone who is cool-headed and thoughtful, not someone who wants to ‘fight’ over everything.” 

When backed into a corner and faced with a serious threat to his candidacy, Obama responded with a speech that was honest, balanced, intelligent, reflective and serious.  He didn’t pander, but instead elevated the discourse of the debate on race.  He did it without being condescending, and without clichés.  He appealed to our better instincts, to that which unifies, rather than divides us.  Contrast this to what Hillary did after losing eleven consecutive contests and seeing her chance at the nomination slipping away: she admittedly threw the “kitchen sink” at her opponent, insulted the foreign policy credentials of a member of her own party and resorted to Republican-style fear-based attacks with the “3AM” ad. 

This, for me, is the most basic reason why I strongly prefer one candidate over the other.  Obama certainly isn’t perfect, and I still have no idea why he would choose to sit in a church with the Rev. Wright for twenty years (although, frankly, it’s none of my business, nor my place to judge).  But it is his desire to move past “politics as usual” that inspires me.  I’m not so naïve as to believe that one speech (or one election cycle) will ever change political discourse (I’m not even sure that the speech yesterday will help Obama in any meaningful way), but at least he’s trying.  That is more than most politicians have ever attempted.

Governor Spitzer led the fight against the excesses of Corporate America. While some of his pursuits may have been overzealous, on the whole his efforts as New York’s AG were undeniably a good thing. Much has been made in the past week of Wall Street’s delight at Spitzer’s downfall. The question for Wall Street is what comes next?        

Will the pendulum swing in the other direction, giving corporations less oversight and greater freedom? Or will government take further regulatory/legal measures to ensure that there are no more Enrons or WorldComs in the country’s future? Which is better for our country, for the economy, for investors? There are good arguments on all sides of this issue and I won’t pretend to have a crystal ball telling me how it’s all going to shake out. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the push for additional oversight and regulation will settle down for a while. It’s going to be tough going for proponents of additional regulation after their figurehead, the supposed Elliot Ness of our time, was exposed for such extraordinary hypocrisy.

With Mississippi in the books, we now have six solid weeks until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.  Six long weeks of… what, exactly?  As Howard asked earlier, where is this thing headed?

Let’s start with what we know.  Obama leads in delegates, 1606-1484.  Obama has won 29 contests, to Clinton’s 14.  And Obama leads the popular vote by more than 700,000 votes (not including Iowa, Nevada, Washington State and Maine, which haven’t yet reported their final vote totals).  Much has been made of the fact that it is almost practically impossible for Hillary to catch Obama in pledged delegates.  There just aren’t enough contests left.  But if you look at the numbers, the same is pretty much true of the popular vote as well.  A 700,000 vote difference is a lot to overcome in the time remaining.  To put that number into context, Clinton’s biggest win – in California, where more than four million people voted – was by a margin of some 400,000 votes.  In New York, Clinton won by some 300,000 votes.  Even if she wins all of the remaining contests, which is not practical, it is highly unlikely that she can make up the difference.  There just aren’t enough “big” states where she can build up a large margin of victory.  (Another interesting number: even if you count Michigan and Florida, where Obama either wasn’t on the ballot or didn’t campaign, he still leads in the popular vote.)

All of which leads to the conclusion that, unless something really drastic or odd happens, Obama is going to end up in two months or so with more popular votes, more delegates and more states won.  My best guess is that if that happens, most of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates – some 300 at last count – will swing towards Obama and put him over the magic 2,025 number.  But what if that doesn’t happen?  What if Hillary refuses to concede, or enough superdelegates go her way to prevent Obama from reaching the necessary majority?

One thing I don’t see happening is a split ticket.  I don’t think either of these candidates has any desire to serve as the vice-president of the other.  Nor do I think that either of them would even want to offer it to the other.  If Obama wins, I think Hillary becomes a Supreme Court justice (if Obama wins the general election) or the first female Senate Majority Leader (if Obama wins or loses).  If Hillary wins, I think Obama bides his time in the Senate for a few more years and then runs for Governor of Illinois in 2010.  Or maybe she offers him a cabinet post, like Attorney General (he was, of course, a constitutional law professor and a civil rights attorney).  Both candidates have good options, and neither would be well-served by being a running mate.     

So, about those Clinton tax returns.  You know, the ones from 2000-2006 that will show how Bill and Hillary went from being debt-ridden public servants in 2000 to so incredibly wealthy by 2008 that they could stand to loan Hillary’s campaign FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.  The tax returns that will show who is funding Hillary’s campaign (via that $5million loan), and who might be looking for influence in a second Clinton White House. 

It is beyond ridiculous that Hillary has refused to make the tax returns public.  This is a basic rite of passage for a presidential candidate.  Heck, Hillary herself berated her first Senate opponent, Rick Lazio, for not releasing his returns.   So why won’t she release hers?   

It’s not like we’re talking about this year’s return; these are filed returns that go back six years. If Clinton said “go,” they could be produced today.  Yet she won’t.  She’s too “busy” (like she prepares her own returns, anyway).  And now, we’re led to believe, they’ll be released ”on or around” April 15.  On or around?  What’s that all about??  Why set a date a month in the future?  Why not today, or tomorrow, or – here’s a novel idea – several months ago, when Obama disclosed his?  So far, there has been no good excuse. 

When I hear April 15, this is what I think: one week before the Pennsylvania primary.  And then I think… hmmm, “on or around”… seems like a pretty good hedge to delay the release of those tax returns even further, until, say, AFTER the voters of Pennsylvania go to the polls.  Ten bucks says we don’t see a single Clinton tax return until the polls are closed in the Keystone State.   

So I’d like to pose a few questions to Hillary supporters out there – not to be antagonistic, but to hopefully help understand what’s going on from the other side’s perspective.  I’ve been a steadfast Obama supporter, and I know that it becomes easy to view this entire debate through that lens - in the interest of trying to counter that, I’d really like to hear an honest (i.e. not the stuff I see people saying on Hardball etc…) assessment of how Hillary supporters see the situation.  So to the Hillary supporters out there…

1) how do you see this ending? 

2) If Obama has the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote (which may or may not happen, but if), then how would you explain to an Obama supporter why the nomination going to Clinton is “fair”.

 3) As an Obama supporter I understand the argument that if Hillary gets the nomination, many of his supporters will not see the process as “fair” and may sit out November as a result.  I’ve heard the same thing said about Hillary supporters if Obama gets the nomination - what’s the rationale?  From my perspective, it’s not obvious why a Hillary supporter would think it was not “fair” if Obama wins the nomination after getting the most delegates and winning the popular vote. 

Again, I’m asking these questions not incite a debate, but to hopefully try to understand where the other side is coming from – any thoughts?

Great article on the front page of the New York Times.  Click here to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin 

Poking fun at himself he may be, I love this quote b/c it shows that even the idol himself knows exactly what he has accomplished:

“I’ve been very blessed,” Mr. Obama told the crowd assembled in March 2006. “Keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape.

“Really, what else is there to do?” he said, his smile now broad. “Well, I guess I could pass a law or something.”

I think the whole issue of “plagiarism” in campaign speeches is quite silly and stupid. Politicians borrow words and lines and themes from their friends, supporters and colleagues all the time.  This is best evidenced by the following:

Bill Clinton, 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

Hillary Clinton, last night: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

To the extent that the Hillary campaign likes to call Obama a plagiarist it might behoove her not to do the exact same thing, in the very same debate in which she is accusing him of plagiarizing. What’s that phrase about the pot calling the kettle black?

Watch one of his supporter’s be completely stumped when asked to name a SINGLE accomplishment of Barack Obama as a U.S. Senator.  NOT A ONE…

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUClmXCSRJM

After ten consecutive Obama victories, it’s hard to see a scenario by which Hillary can come out ahead in the delegate count. Even if she were to win all of the remaining states, she would have to win them all by large margins in order to make up the deficit she faces.  Although nothing is impossible, and it’s never wise to count a Clinton out, this seems highly unlikely.  In fact, I think the most overlooked storyline of the past two weeks has been the sheer magnitude of Obama’s wins. Ten wins in a row is one thing; ten straight blowouts is another.  In fact, Wisconsin’s 17-point margin was the closest Clinton has come to Obama since Super Tuesday.  

Barack delivers a speech that doesn’t use the word “change” so much it feels like fodder for a drinking game.  Unfortunately, it was already delivered in 2006 by Deval Patrick!  Click here to watch the video for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc