1.  That Obama won all of the primaries and caucuses over the weekend wasn’t particularly surprising.  What was surprising to me was the overwhelming margin of victory in each contest.  The closest race – Maine – was a 17-point Obama win.  What’s really weird about this is that almost all of the individual state races have been blowouts – on both sides.  While Obama and Clinton are neck-and-neck in terms of both the total popular vote and number of pledged delegates, none of the state races – with a couple of exceptions (Missouri, New Mexico and Connecticut come to mind) – has been close.  Clinton won big in California, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc.  Obama won by landslides in Washington, South Carolina, Kansas, Georgia, Minnesota, etc.  I’m really not sure what to make of this trend.  The country is evenly divided between the two candidates, but intrastate voters don’t seem to be… at least not to the same degree. 

2.  Lanny Davis – a longtime Clinton insider – was on MSNBC this morning, and a couple of his comments caught my attention. The first is that Clinton fully expects to lose on Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and that she isn’t really competing there.  The Clinton strategy now seems downright Guiliani-ish: skip everything until you find a state you like.  (In this case, Ohio and Texas, on March 4.)  Whether this works remains to be seen, but I thought it was pretty striking that Clinton – the candidate of inevitability; the presumptive nominee, someone with 100% name recognition – is now conceding states to Obama and hoping for a firewall.   

3.  The second Davis comment that I found striking came during the course of his spin on the greatness of Clinton’s candidacy.  In comparing her supporters to Obama’s, Davis noted that Clinton has assembled the “FDR coalition” of blue collar workers, women, senior citizens and Hispanics.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, and it’s certainly true.  But what is interesting is that Clinton has been trying to wrestle the mantle of “change” from Obama, to portray herself as new and fresh and historic.  Running as the candidate of a 1930s New Deal coalition hardly seems the way to do that.   

4.  Lastly, Paul Krugman has a really bad piece in the New York Times today – entitled “Hate Springs Eternal” – in which he suggests that Obama’s supporters are irrational, delusional and full of hatred and venom.  Yep, all those millions of new voters that Obama has brought into the Democratic Party – and into politics, generally – are really a bunch of hateful, divisive hero-worshippers.  Krugman even writes that the “Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”  Memo to Dr. Krugman: it’s about the message, sir, not the messenger.  It’s “Yes We Can,” not “yes he can” or “yes she can” or “yes I can.”  The underlying theme of this ridiculously trite and infuriating column was that Obama’s supporters (who are all a bunch of Clinton-haters, apparently) need to show party loyalty.  Krugman is certainly entitled to make that argument, but it is one with which I fundamentally disagree.  More on that later, but suffice to say, I resent anyone telling me that I have to vote for a particular candidate – whomever that might be – simply because of party affiliation.       

I’ve always kind of liked John McCain.  I don’t usually agree with him on substantive issues, but I like the fact that he is himself, and never puts on an artifice.  So I think it’s interesting that the Republican “base” absolutely detests him.  What happens if McCain and Clinton become the nominees – will Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combust?   

I’ve had trouble understanding the visceral hatred that so many on the right have for McCain, who is, by and large, pretty damn conservative.  And then I realized, he must be like Joe Lieberman for the Democrats.  Not that I think these guys are that terribly similar in style or substance – Lieberman strikes me as a pompous, self-righteous windbag, while McCain is sort of oddly endearing, like a crazy uncle – but I see how they could have the same sort of irritating effect on members of their respective parties (not that Lieberman is really a Democrat anymore).  I wouldn’t ever vote for Lieberman, so I guess I understand why many Republicans are hostile to the idea of McCain as their nominee.

Now that Super Tuesday is in the books, I want to get to a topic that’s been on my mind not only in this election campaign, but really for many years. What, exactly, is so compelling about Hillary Clinton? Frankly, I just don’t get it.  Never have, and probably never will.  This isn’t to say that I’m a rabid Clinton-hater, or that I think she’s the devil incarnate.  I just don’t understand why fully half of the Democratic electorate is so determined – and sometimes vehemently so – that she, out of all people, ought to be the next President of the United States.   

First, a couple of points.  I think that Clinton is extremely intelligent and is certainly competent.  She has a gift for policy detail and is a master campaigner.  I also believe that her passion for children’s issues is heartfelt.  I don’t doubt her sincerity in that regard.  Otherwise, I just don’t see her appeal.  

An agent of change?  Please.  She’s been in Washington for fifteen years.  She lived in the White House, for god’s sake.  You can’t get any more Establishment than that. 

Experience?  Outside of Mitt Romney, Clinton has less experience in elected office than any of the remaining candidates.  I’ll give her some credit for her years as First Lady, but I think those years give her perspective more than actual “experience.” 

“Thirty-five years of fighting for children and families”?  Only if you believe in puffing your resume… or you’re Mother Theresa.  She’s worked on children’s issues over the years, sure, but her actual job was corporate lawyer, not missionary or social worker.   

“Ready on Day One”?  Again, sure, but who isn’t?  This a presidential race; the candidates are all well-qualified.  Just because she knows how to get from the White House residence to the Oval Office doesn’t mean she’s more qualified to serve than any of the other candidates.  And what about Day Two? 

A woman?  I’ll admit, I’d be more than happy to see a woman elected president, but it ought to be the right woman, not just any woman who shows up for the party.  There’s a reason why we’re not talking about President Carol Mosley Braun. 

So how about the issues: 

On Iraq, for me, Clinton was wrong any way you slice it.  If she thought that attacking, invading and occupying a sovereign Muslim nation that posed no immediate threat to the United States was a good idea, she’s a dunce.  If she thought that voting to authorize force was politically expedient and would suit her well in her run for the presidency, she’s a cynical hack.  The same is true with her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran.  In both cases, her votes demonstrated either poor judgment or political calculation, or both.  That hardly inspires confidence.  

On economic issues, she’s taken a much more protectionist approach than her free-trading husband.  I disagree with this from a policy perspective, but what I find really galling is that the primary argument for her candidacy seems to be her husband’s record of economic prosperity in the 1990s.  She’s effectively running against his economic policies but on his record of economic growth.  That seems hypocritical.  (Also hypocritical: agreeing last fall that Michigan and Florida primary delegates would not be sat at the Democratic convention, then turning around after she “won” both primaries and pledging to fight to seat those very delegates.)   

On healthcare, if you’re going to mandate coverage, as Clinton proposes, you’ve got to say how you’re going to enforce the mandate.  A mandate without an enforcement mechanism is not a mandate.  Clinton continues to slam Obama for not having a mandate in his plan – therefore, she argues, it’s not “universal coverage” – but her mandate is, at present, as unenforceable as his is absent, which makes her arguments hypocritical.  Clearly she doesn’t want to tell people in the middle of an election campaign that she’s going to fine them for not buying health insurance, but the refusal to do so reeks of political cowardice. She needs to either take a stand for her own plan or stop criticizing her opponent’s for similiar deficiencies.  She can’t have it both ways. 

Hillary is also divisive.  This is an objective fact, and whether she is more or less to blame for it is immaterial.  It is what it is.  More troubling, she seems to revel in her divisiveness, bragging repeatedly about how she can take on and go toe-to-toe with the Republicans, and how political gamesmanship is “fun.”  To be honest, I don’t want a presidential candidate whose best talking point is that she’s a battle-hardened campaigner.  Running the country isn’t the same as campaigning (just ask George W. Bush).  Leadership is not – or shouldn’t be – a perpetual battle over small victories around the edges.  Leadership isn’t about playing to one’s base, or governing only in the interest of one’s political party.  It certainly isn’t about triangulation, or a 50-plus-1 strategy. 

Further, the United States is not Argentina.  What kind of country do we live in where two families keep trading the presidency back and forth for decades at a time?  Where the spouse of a former president is deemed the best possible candidate – in a country of 300 million people – to lead the country?  Even if I agreed with Clinton on every issue, I would still have trouble voting for her, because I refuse to perpetuate the dynastic politics that has taken over our system.  I’m sure I’m not the only person more than a little tired of seeing the names “Bush” and “Clinton” on the ballot in every single presidential election of my adult life.  What sort of banana republic are we living in?  What sort of entitlement does Hillary Clinton think she has to the presidency? 

Which leads to me to my last issue with the former First Lady, which is that I just don’t see what she’s ever done to earn her status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.  Clinton’s position is derived from her name recognition.  Her name recognition, in turn, is derived from the fact that her husband is the former President of the United States.  Who knows what Hillary Rodham might have done without Bill Clinton in her life.  Probably many great things.  But the undisputable reality is that she achieved prominence because of Bill’s accomplishments, not her own.  Bill ran for attorney general of Arkansas.  Bill ran for governor.  Bill ran for President.  This isn’t meant as a critique of the role she played in supporting her family as a wife and a mother.  It’s just the reality of the situation.  Regardless of her own talents, her profile was elevated because her husband was winning elections.  (This also isn’t meant to suggest that she has no “record,” or that she lacks experience.  She certainly has accomplishments to her name.  The point is that those accomplishments, on their own – like working for the Children’s Defense Fund, practicing law, serving on corporate boards and giving speeches – aren’t necessarily those that would ordinarily qualify one to be the leader of the free world.)  

Moreover, Hillary rose to the only elective office she has ever held not because she worked her way through the ranks, as most politicians do, but because it was effectively bequeathed to her in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment.  Does anyone really think that that any carpetbagger named “Hillary” (or, for that matter, “Jim” or “Joe” or “Jack”) – a political neophyte from Chicago, via Wellesley, Yale, Little Rock and Washington, D.C. – would ever have won a U.S. Senate seat in New York if her last name hadn’t been Clinton and she hadn’t spent the previous eight years living in the White House?   

None of this is meant to knock Hillary Clinton.  I’m just being honest about what I see as her fundamental weaknesses as a candidate.  I just don’t understand the appeal of her candidacy.  This is meant to start a discussion, and maybe someone can convince me to change my mind.  I’ve already voted in the primary, but the election, of course, is far from over.  

I was watching CNN this morning listening in horror to Ralph Nader.  I, for one, hold him partially responsible for Gore’s defeat.  The same people who talk about Hillary being divisive are sometimes the ones who previously supported him.  Nader divides the party and we desperately need it to stay strong.  And now he is talking about getting back into the race.  Selfish, shameful behavior. 

doesn’t matter who you support - great discussion of the issues and the differences between the candidates.

If you’re not watching right now, turn on the Democratic debate on CNN.  Finally a presidential debate without 1000’s of rules!

I won’t reproduce the entire article right here, but an endorsement came out today which may be particularly interesting for those of us at the b-school - Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker endorsed Senator Obama.  Take a look at http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/01/31/volcker-i-endorse-obama/

I’m generally unimpressed with lists of endorsement as they often speak more to the politics of a situation, rather than to issues or experience - I doubt, though, that Chairman Volcker at the tender age of 81 or so is angling for a position in an Obama Whitehouse… Seeing as he hasn’t endoresed a primary candidate in at least the last 25 years, it seems to indicate that Chairman Volker believes Senator Obama is really going to bring a type of leadership that we haven’t seen before and that he believes Obama has the requisite experience to assume the Presidency.

Kennedys for Clinton

She stands for Democrats and for the nation, these family members say. 

By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy January 29, 2008    

This is a wonderful year for Democrats. Our party is blessed with the most impressive array of primary candidates in modern history. All would make superb presidents.  We are supporting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton because we believe she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country.  

While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historical crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes.  Democrats believe America should not be torturing people, eavesdropping on our citizens or imprisoning them without habeas corpus or other constitutional rights.  We should not be an imperial power.  We need health care for all Americans and a clean safe environment.  The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues.  We need a president willing to engage in a fist fight to safeguard and restore our national virtues.  

We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 25 years and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions first hand. We’ve seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity, and her dignity and clear head in crisis.  We’ve also seen her two fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America’s principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation’s most determined and most democratic warrior.  She has been an uncompromising and loyal ally for each of us in our battles to protect the environment, to promote human rights around the world and juvenile justice in America.  Hillary is a problem solver listening to people then achieving solutions by changing attitudes. Her transformational leadership was on display when she ran for our father’s Senate seat in New York, facing the rabid, heavily funded attacks from the far right and the difficulty of prevailing in traditional Republican upstate.  Traveling with her, we watched admiringly as she persuasively articulated an inspiring and unifying vision rooted in American values and history.  Then, through patience, hard work, leadership and political acumen she transformed many of those rock-solid conservative counties into solid Democratic strongholds.  We look forward to working beside her in the general election as she uses those same talents to change once rigid opinions and political affiliations across the nation.    

Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life embracing and including those on the bottom rung of society’s ladder—giving voice to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty and injustice at home and around the world while urging Americans that we cannot advance ourselves as a nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind. She’s been an equally effective champion for women’s rights and human rights. Hillary Clinton, more than anyone, inspired the global movement on behalf of women and girls in developing nations. As a result of her efforts, millions of women around the world can now vote, go to school, own property, and enjoy rights we take for granted in our democracy.   She will use her position as the first woman president to further elevate the power of women around the world.  

Hillary’s towering global stature reflects America’s great humanitarian traditions. She has worked for peace in Northern Ireland and fought to bridge religious, racial, and ethnic divides from Bosnia to the Middle East to South Africa. She has been the human face of American democracy for more than a decade, showing a rare understanding that American values can only be exported by moral leadership, by a strong home economy, by a detailed understanding of the history and cultural backdrops of the nations we engage and by winning the hearts and minds of our brethren overseas. She understands as our current administration does not, the uses of power.  The world, she says, is hungry for American leadership, but will not accept our bullying. She knows the difference and will quickly re-establish America’s lost prestige and moral authority.  

Working as an activist, advocate, and public servant are not new to Hillary Clinton. Her political career has been centered in comforting the afflicted, afflicting the comfortable and reminding Americans what it means to be American.  As a young lawyer, she focused on children’s issues and legal aid.  She has always been fearless about engaging the most intractable  problems and the toughest opponents.  

As First Lady of Arkansas, she brought health care to rural areas and helped reform the state’s lagging education system. As First Lady of the United States, she courageously took on health care reform.  When a massive propaganda campaign by big pharma and the radical right derailed her efforts, she didn’t give up. She helped create the nationally acclaimed Children’s Health Insurance Program. That kind of persistence in pursuit of our highest ideals is the brand of leadership America now requires.  

Seldom has history confronted America with such daunting challenges: a catastrophic foreign policy that has cost us our international leadership and aggravated the threat of terror against our people, a misbegggoten war that is squandering precious American lives and dollars, a health care system that leaves millions of Americans suffering without coverage, irresponsible corporate power that is corroding our democracy, outsourcing our jobs, engineering tax breaks for the rich aggravating global warming and other environmental crisis and reducing our economy to shambles and  

We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient, and surefooted on the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy.  Hillary Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest ideals.    

– By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and Kerry Kennedy

Posted by Holley Chant,  from LA Times

The central debate in the Democratic primary campaign to date has been one of “experience” (Clinton) versus ”hope” (Obama).  Or ”action” versus “words.”  Or, as Obama put it, it’s a matter of judgment.  (Whether or not you accept this formulation — which I don’t — is another story.)  This debate, though, begs two important questions: (1) what is the true role of the president; and (2) which is more important in that role, vision or experience?  Judgment or action?

The role of the president is defined by the Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 2.  The president is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the armed forces.  Subject to certain limitations, he or she has the power to make treaties, to nominate ambassadors and justices of the Supreme Court, and to make legislative recommendations to Congress.  The president shall also take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.  That’s about it, as far as the Constitution is concerned.  Most of the powers of the federal government are reserved to Congress, such as the power to collect taxes, to borrow money, to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, to raise and support the armed forces, and, most importantly, to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” 

The job of the president is not, as Obama pointed out in a recent debate, to manage the day-to-day operations of the federal government.  The president is not a COO, nor should he or she be a micromanager.  Rather, the president sets the vision for the nation, proposes a legislative agenda to achieve that vision, and directs the Cabinet secretaries in the leadership of their respective offices.  

Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk, no doubt.  She has an incredibly detailed knowledge of public policy, and the conventional wisdom is that she has been an effective congressional representative of her adopted home state of New York.  In other words, she has acquitted herself well to the role of a United States Senator.  What she has not demonstrated, in my mind, is that she has any capacity to be an effective president.  Simply knowing the intricate details of health care policy, or social security, or Medicare, does not qualify one to be president, nor is it any indicator that one will perform well in office.  

An effective president must be inspiring.  Think of Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan.  He or she must have vision, wisdom and good judgment.  He or she must be a leader, someone who can rally not just one party but the entire country behind a common cause.  The president sets the tone for the nation and serves as a role model, as a representative of who were are as Americans and of what we represent.  The president of the United States is the leader of the free world, with vast influence beyond our borders. 

On those grounds, it’s hard not to see how Obama stands head and shoulders above his chief rival.  In fact, the very criticism that Clinton levels against him – that he speaks of hope and vision but is a man of no action – is (despite the falsity of the accusation) an almost tacit admission that Obama is possessed of the very qualities necessary in a president, and generally speaking, in a leader. Isn’t hope and vision something we want in a president?  Faced with a choice of two candidates, one with vision and a big-picture view of the world, and the other with a mastery of nitty-gritty policy details, do we not want the one who can lead and inspire?  Who can – regardless of whether you think he can succeed – at least make the effort to bridge the partisan divide and bring our country together?  That, of course, is for the voters decide, but I think it’s wise before casting ballots to understand what the role of the president really is.  

The president does not legislate, so why would we elect a Legislator-in-Chief? 

Tim Russert seems to be bent on avoiding legitimate questions in the Republican debate - He asks Huckabee whether he trusts McCain on taxes, then he asks Romney if he trusts McCain on taxes.  The best part - after Huckabee, to his credit, says the issue of trust is up to the voters and Romney finesses the question to avoid saying whether he trusts McCain, Russert has the gall to say to McCain, “Governor Romney invoked your name, I’ll give you a chance to respond” Are you kidding me, Romney invoked the name because you asked him a leading question.  He did the same sort of thing during the Democratic debate – Frankly, it’s just embarrassing that the Meet the Press moderator and Lead Washington Reporter for NBC seems to be trying to provoke the candidates rather than asking substantive questions.