The Bush Legacy

After the American Century 

 The two presidential primary campaigns have preoccupied the media so much that it is easy to miss actual policy making going on in Washington. The American press today reports that President Bush has greatly reduced the oversight of intelligence operations inside the US. This action came almost 30 years to the day since that wild-eyed radical Gerald Ford created a civilian oversight board that had considerable investigative powers. In exchange, the reports of this board were not published to the world, but at least someone was watching the CIA and other intelligence organizations, and had the power to compel them to give regular reports. These powers have been almost entirely stripped away, leaving only the hollow appearance of oversight. 

The Bush legacy may well be a presidency on steroids, with vast powers granted to the White House and little countervailing power. Remembering that President Ford created this oversight board in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, and keeping in mind the excesses of Vice-President Cheney, Bush is creating a recipe for new disasters. It is bad enough to lack judgement in specific policy decisions or in specific Supreme Court nominations, but these are vetted openly in Congress, and therefore subject to democratic controls. But intelligence, notably wiretapping, is far less subject to open scrutiny, which is why the Intelligence Board was a good idea. Indeed, I am not aware of widespread critique of the civilian oversight of intelligence. No real justification was given for Bush's action. In effect, he is making it hard for us to find out what went on while he was in power, a bit like giving himself clemency in advance. 

It is hard not to think that this action is part of a cover-up. This is the same president whose CIA has kidnapped people and tortured them, imprisoned people without charging them with crimes, and denied prisoners the protection of a lawyer or habeus corpus. Those things all happened during a period of civilian oversight. Now that this safeguard has been removed, one can only wonder: What has the Administration done now that it would not like the world to know about? One can only hope that McCain, Clinton, and Obama will all be asked pointedly, whether they will return to the system created by Gerald Ford. If this does not become an issue, then Bush's legacy will include destabilizing the balance between the President and the people. 

All Americans know that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." And that vigilance must always include the executive branch and its surveillance operations.

Hillary's Pyrrhic Victory Strategy Endorsed by New York Times

After the American Century

Hillary Clinton has been attacking Obama in the last week, saying that he is not qualified to be commander in chief. At the same time, she has said that he would be a suitable running mate, as her vice-president. This is self-contradictory nonsense, because the chief qualification for being vice president is being able to take over as president in what may well be a severe crisis upon the death or severe impairment of the President. Clinton cannot have it both ways. If having Obama as her running mate would be a "dream ticket" that is unstoppable, as her husband says, then he must by defnition be qualified for President.

Now the New York Times, which earlier endorsed Mrs. Clinton, has published an article saying that these attacks and others that I will not give more currency by repeating them here, are realistically her only option. According to Adam Nagoruney in today's paper, Clinton must pursue this option because she cannot hope to win enough pledged delegates in the primaries and caucuses, and therefore has to spend her time calling Obama unqualified, rather than presenting her program. Rubbish. Nonsense.

First of all, on the question of qualifications and experience, what Clinton has been saying about experience is nonsense. Abraham Lincoln had less Washington experience than Obama, but somehow managed to be the greatest president in the most dire crisis of the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson had very little Washington experience, having been a college professor and administrator at Princeton. Yet he somehow managed to be a rather impressive president as well. One the other hand, there are many examples of peole with lots of Washington experience being unsucessful presidents, for example Van Buren, Taft, and Bush I. There is no necessary correlation between time spent in Washington and being able to get your agenda through Congress, either. Ronald Reagan had been a governor, never a Senator or a Congressman in Washington, and therefore, by Hillary Clinton's logic, he was not qualified to be president, and certainly had no claim on being commander in chief. I am not particularly a fan of Reagan, but he certainly was effective at getting his agenda through Congress.

So, if Hillary is spouting nonsense about experience, what should we be looking at? How about the ability to run a political campaign? Here the candidate has far more control than when dealing with Congress or foreign nations. A candidate should be able to organize and control an effective campaign, as a test to see how well he or she might manage the large staff at the White House. By this test, Hillary is not ready to be president. She mismanaged her money, her staff is often at odds, she had to reorganize after Feburary 5, and she has been unable to present a consistent, positive message to the American people. Instead, she has resorted to whining, negative campagining, and destructive behavior that all admit is helping the Republicans. Is this the behavior of someone ready to be president? Obama came in as the underdog, scracely known to most Americans, and created a tremendously effective campaign, whether measured in terms of its fund raising, fiscal discipline, or organization. He also looks like someone who can inspire loyality, while Clinton is spreading discord. As president, confronting the Republicans and an unpredictable international scene, with her we could expect negativity, self-dramatizaton as the "victim", poor coordination, or loss of control over the budget. Who will vote for that?

If Hillary Clinton has reached the point where she thinks the only way to become president is to launch the negative attacks one expects from the Republicans, perhaps she should consider joining that party. She could be Senator McCain's running mate. After all, she has already developed the negative arguments, and he could take the high road, letting her throw the mud. And given his age, she might be able to take over during his second term.

Shame on the New York Times for publishing and condoning an analysis of such monstruous stupidity. Shame on you Hillary Clinton for spreading it around in the first place. Until a few weeks ago, I was ready to support Clinton if she won over Obama fair and square. No more. The best the Clinton can achieve with her new strategy is a pyrrhic victory. The phrase is an allusion to how King Pyrrhus defeated the Romans twice, in 280 and 279 BC, but lost so much strength in the process that he lost the war. If Clinton wins such a victory over Obama through negative attacks, with the assistance of the New York Times, the Democrats will risk defeat rather than the massive victory that once was possible in November.

What to do about Florida and Michigan

After the American Century

The news media and the blogosphere are full of discussions about what to do about the unseated delegates from Florida and Michigan. You probably recall that both of these states moved their primaries up before Super Tuesday. They wanted to be important and would not wait, even though the Democratic and the Republican National Committees both warned that they would be punished for this. The Democratic National Committee decided that none of their delegates would count. This was harsh, but the judgement was public, and the two states might have rescheduled their elections to later dates. They chose not to do this, and now have created a difficult situation. 

In the extremely tight race for the nomination Obama and Clinton would love to get some of those delegates, especially Clinton, because she "won" in each state. But there was no campaign, no personal appearances, no shaking of hands, no engagement between the public and the candidates. Indeed, Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, as did John Edwards, so Clinton ran unopposed there. This makes it hard to see that she "won" when 45% of the voters still did not choose her. In Florida Obama's name was still on the ballot, but he did not advertise or appear there in any way.

The Clinton campaign wants the vote to count as it stands, while the Obama camp feels that you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. But both sides are wrong. It is patently unfair to accept these results, and it is also unfair to deny the citizens of these two states any representation at the Democratic National Convention. What should be done?

Step back a moment and consider whether this is not rather like a rained-out sporting event. The contestants did not come into the arena, but the fans there shouted at each other. But there was no real contest. When a baseball game is rained out, it gets replayed later in the season. By analogy, these two primaries need to be played later in the season, to help discover who has won the pennant, or Democratic nomination. Only then do we know who should be in the World Series, or general election in November. 

The two state governors are saying that they might be willing to hold new elections, but that the Democratic National Committee has to pay for it. This is politically motivated nonsense. The two states should be delighted to get all that publicity, all those reporters, all those volunteers spending huge sums on motels and meals and donuts. Are they really going to demand to be paid because they broke the rules and created this problem in the first place? However, Florida's Republican Governor Crist seems quite delighted to have this opportunity to complicate the Democratic Party's problems.

We need to hear from Michigan and Florida voters. They are large states, important states, states with many delegates. But ultimately, they will only give advice. They will not be able to eliminate one candidate in favor of the other. For with two extra primaries, neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to mount a 400 vote lead. That is what one of them needs to do to reach 2025 pledged delegates. Even with a replay of the Michigan and Florida primaries, in the end the 796 superdelegates are still going to make the choice. It is hard to see how either the loser or the American people can possibly feel that it was a fair result. Worse still, some voters might think that a party which is unable to organize and run a system of primary elections, is not ready to run the country. One can only hope that the Democratic leadership finds an elegant way to resolve the crisis it has created.

Clinton Rises from the Mud, But McCain is the Winner

After the American Century

Hillary Clinton has wallowed in the mud and been rewarded for it. No one doubts that her series of dubious allegations and fear mongering in the last week has been decisive in winning Texas and helping her in Ohio. Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater back in 1964 with an advertisement that bluntly asked voters, whose finger did they want on the atomic button. Hillary's advertisement was a bit more subtle, but not much, suggesting that for reasons never stated, she would be more competent to answer a sudden emergency in the middle of the night. Actually, I cannot think of any particular reason why Hillary, who has no military experience at all, and whose record on the Iraq War is uneven, would have better judgement than Obama when half awake in the middle of night. Perhaps we are to assume that she has Bill Clinton beside her to offer his non-existent military experience. The sad fact is that advertisement, effective as it may have been in the short run, undermines both Democrats. If the election really is about who should answer that phone in a military emergency, then most Americans will think of John McCain.

The advertisement is just one of many examples from the last week of how the Obama-Clinton fight runs the danger of damaging the eventual Democratic nominee. Suppose Obama decides to stop being so nice to Hillary? What if he put together an advertisement showing her many sharply different moods, including crying for the cameras? And suppose that advertisement ended with him asking: Is She Stable Enough In a Crisis? Every feminist in the US would rise up in fury, and help convince the electorate that Clinton indeed is unstable. By playing the "angry woman" which was her persona during much of last week, she runs a terrible risk. It worked for a few days, but the Republicans can easily undermine her for being moody if she does not hit and maintain a steady and measured tone, as McCain has been doing for some time.

Clinton's next stunt, yesterday, to suggest that Obama, who is leading, should subordinate himself to her and become her running mate, is calculated, too. There is no example in American politics, ever, of the person with the most delegates giving up like that. Obama should, of course, accept her offer to be his vice-presidential running mate! Which she too would refuse.

Then consider Clinton's successful smear tactics on NAFTA. Even Danish reporters who are following the campaign in the US, like Politiken's Marcus Rubin, are repeating the misrepresentations spread from the Clinton campaign, that Obama gave secret assurances to Canadian officials that he did not really mean what he was saying about NAFTA. Now the Canadians say that this did not happen. But if you throw enough mud just before people vote, then some sticks and is even spread around by reporters long after the lie has been discredited.

Meanwhile, throwing that particular mud at Obama helped voters forget that Bill Clinton championed the NAFTA Treaty and signed it, or that Hillary also supported it for some time. NAFTA should have been a problem for her, but by throwing mud it became his problem. Worst of all, NAFTA is not really the problem. Ohio did not lose its steel industry because of that agreement, nor are its automobile parts plants closed because of it. A far more nuanced debate on jobs and trade never took place.

Or again, Clinton is doing her best to make Obama look as though he was tightly connected to a Chicago wheeler and dealer, now on trial. But that man, in fact, has given campaign money to both Republicans and Democrats for a generation, and Obama gave back all the funds he ever contributed. She wants to make it seem that Obama, who bought his house and an adjoining strip of land at the market price, has committed a crime. Last time I checked, there is nothing illegal about purchasing land at the market price from someone who has legal title to the land. Should Obama reply in kind, and dig up old Whitewater allegations against Clinton? Should he remind the public that the Clintons took quite a lot of White House furniture with them, illegally, when they left in 2001? The Republicans will be ready to do that anyway, but what if it starts already now?

The Clintons headed into the mud with less success in South Carolina. When behind, their instinct is to go negative. We have not seen the end of it, but the consequences can be dire. For these tactics take the gloss off both candidates, and deepen the split between Obama's and Hillary's supporters. Mud slinging will make it harder to unify the Democratic Party later, and it will weaken the party's appeal to the Independents. And don't forget, those swing voters decide every close election.

Meanwhile, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, as Huckabee withdrew from the race. McCain has not thrown any mud, but remained statesmanlike during his campaign. He was at the White House yesterday, getting the endorsement of President Bush. Republicans are beginning to adjust to the idea of McCain as their leader, and Mrs. McCain has now had a chance to think about how to rearrange the White House furniture. Meanwhile, the Democrats are getting dirty, and no where near the Rose Garden.

Three months ago, many said that 2008 would definitely be a great year for the Democrats, because of Iraq, because of the failing economy, because Bush is so unpopular. But McCain is the strongest opponent the Republicans had available, because he is definitely neither a Bush clone nor a religious, right-wing candidate. He appeals to swing voters. According to polls, still early of course, he would beat Hillary now and is running close to Obama. Think what he might do after some more mud has been thrown, once he has, for the first time some money to campaign with. All in all, it has been a great week for the Republicans.

Crunch Time for the Democrats

After the American Century

Now that we have heard perhaps the last primary debate, the psychology of the Democratic presidential campaign has reached a decisive point. If Obama wins either Ohio or Texas, Clinton is expected to drop out. Many stories in the media are saying this. Symbolically, Senator Dodd has just endorsed Obama, saying that the campaign should not go on too long. Dodd hopefully put himself forward as a candidate, but was one of the early casualties in the primaries. I believe he is the only former candidate to endorse either Clinton or Obama. Even Bill Clinton has said that Hillary must win both Ohio and Texas if she is to go on. Admittedly, he said it a while ago when she had comfortable leads in both states. The latest polls now show that - as has happened in so many other states - Obama has overhauled her in Texas. Two weeks ago Clinton had more than a 10 point advantage, but now she trails by as much as 4 points.

The Obama team smells victory in Texas, and so do the Move.on activists. They are putting together a gigantic nationwide phone-a-thon, getting members to gather on Sunday, bringing their cell phones along, for a massive effort to get out the Texas vote. In the past phoning voters was usually done from a central location, but Move.on is getting people together in smaller groups in their home towns. This demands a high level of organization, getting lists of phone numbers in Texas to each of these calling groups, and organizing tens of thousands of volunteers through Internet communications. If they can pull that off, Obama will get quite a boost. I think it likely he will win Texas. He will also win Vermont, but probably not tiny Rhode Island, where Hillary has been more.

Obama can easily afford to lose Rhode Island, but Ohio is another matter. Hillary still has a lead there of 4 to 6 points, depending on what poll you look at. He has been chiseling away at her, but the shift toward him is more gradual than in Texas. Averaging all the polls together, his momentum might push him into the lead in a couple of weeks, but five days may not be long enough. Today, I note that he has left Ohio for Texas, while she remains in the Buckeye State a bit longer. Still, the difference between them is about the same as the margin of error, so he has an outside chance to win there, too.

Ohio is suffering economically more than Texas. Cleveland has been especially hard hit by teh mortgage crisis, and thousands of homes have been foreclosed there, and neighborhoods are dotted with For Sale signs. There are not likely to be many buyers in Cleveland. That city looked pretty depressed in 2003 when I visited there twice, and it has gotten much worse since then. Judging by the still weakening national economy, Ohio will likely suffer more during the spring and summer. Clinton has appealed to struggling blue-collar areas throughout her campaign, so it is appropriate that she makes what may be her last stand in Ohio. Back in the 1970s Ohio was the heart of the "rust belt" and some parts of the state never entirely came back to full prosperity. The steel mills are mostly gone from Youngstown, for example, and Clinton seems popular with the voters there. Should Obama be the nominee, he will need to find a way to appeal more strongly in such places, because it is a vital swing state. Kerry would have been president had he carried Ohio.

John McCain has a chance to win Ohio in the national election, especially if he can convince blue-collar voters that national security is the central issue of the campaign. He is there now, of course, ostensibly running against Huckabee and Paul, but focusing most of his attacks on the Democrats. Polls show him narrowly defeating Clinton, but trailing Obama by as much as 6 percentage points. McCain surely would prefer to face Clinton, whom the Republicans love to hate, so he spends much more energy running down Obama. (Yesterday he accused him of having a weak, naive approach to Al Qaeda.) I would not be amazed to hear that some Republicans were even giving Hillary contributions now, in hopes of derailing the mesmerizing Senator from Illinois.

With McCain sniping away every day, it is becoming essential for Obama to wrap up the primaries and shift attention to a full scale challenge of the Republicans. If it is crunch time for Obama, however, it is do-or-die for Hillary. She is becoming more shrill and aggressive, but I sense that she becomes unappealing in the process. One has to admire her grit and determination, but the hectoring tone and tired voice begin to wear on the nerves. Worse, the "shame on you" tone may have worked for Bill Clinton, but when she uses the same phrase it does not sound "presidential," but more like an angry mother.

It is not (yet) easy for any woman to run for president. Should Hillary bow out next week, she will have done far more than any previous female candidate, pushing open the White House door for other women. She will remain a force in the Democratic Party and the Senate, and she could also run again in four years time. Then again, this race is not yet over. It's crunch time.

Enter the Spoiler: Ralph Nadar, Again

After the American Century

Just when it looked like the election might soon become focused on two candidates, a familiar Wild Card has appeared in the political deck. Ralph Nadar, admirable crusader for consumer causes, and perennial candidate for president, has declared himself a candidate. This will have little or no effect on the primaries, but it might become extremely important in the national election. Al Gore certainly remembers him, because Nadar did not siphon off many votes from the Republican Party. Nadar's 2.7% of the vote came almost entirely from the liberal side of the electorate. Gore would have won Florida and the presidency had Nadar stuck to fighting consumer issues. Nadar had far less effect on the 2004 campaign, getting less that 0.5% of the votes, although he certainly did not help John Kerry.

I heard Nadar speak in the spring of 2003 at Notre Dame University. To be accurate, no lecture room was big enough for the student crowd, and I ended up seeing him on a closed-circuit TV screen down the hall. But in any case there was not much back and forth with the audience. Nadar spoke long and well, but without much humor, and one often could agree with a what he said. Nadar is a lawyer, and he presents an argument for the prosecution, detailing the sins of the defendant - not just the current president but both political parties - and offering prescriptions for change. He is, after all, the man who wrote Unsafe at Any Speed that led to greatly improved automobiles and undoubtedly saved many thousands of lives. Nadar is also an Arab-American, which may give him an extra reason to join the political fray, though neither Iraq nor the Palestinians are even mentioned on page one of his homepage. There, he attacks the "corporate Democrats" and the "corporate Republicans" and their domination by the lobbyists. His homepage slogan is "Corporate Greed, Corporate Power, Corporate Control." The targets of his wrath are "the health insurance industry, agribusinss grants, corporate criminals, nuclear power, big banks, drug companies, polluters, union busters, war profiteers, credit card companies, Wall Street, and big oil." Nadar reportedly liked John Edwards' message, and he might have supported Obama. After all, the Democratic front-runner has accepted no money at all from the lobbyists. However, Nadar's psychology is combative and adversarial. His idea of a dialogue takes place in court. Obama is more pragmatic and looks for negotiation.

Nadar's candidacy is good news for John McCain for several reasons. Nadar is 73, a year older, so McCain is no longer be the oldest one running for president. More importantly, when Nadar attacks McCain it will help to consolidate the Republican base. Even better, when he attacks the Democratic candidate, some voters will be drawn away to the Green Party.

Nadar has no chance to win, but he can be the spoiler. Should the race be close, count on the Republicans to donate a little money, quietly, to his campaign. They want Nadar to have a large megaphone. McCain might conceivably attack Nadar in a few speeches, but more likely he will ignore him and hope a brawl breaks out between Democrats and Greens. To make this a fair fight, we need a comparable figure on the far right to run to take some support away from McCain. Will someone please call Ross Perot?

What is at Stake in November?

After the American Century

The race between Clinton and Obama should not distract from the fundamental oppositions between McCain and the two Democratic candidates. Party divergences are so fundamental that this election seems to be a defining national moment. Count on the Republicans to try to find some symbolic controversy to distract the voters, such as respect for the flag, prayer in schools, gay marriage, and the like. One can only hope the American people will not be easily distracted. Here is what they should be thinking about.

One. The Bench. Will a conservative, strict-construction of the Constitution be cemented more firmly in place, with four more years of Republican judicial appointments? This concerns not only the Supreme Court but the many appointments to the other Federal courts as well. It is not just about whether abortion will continue to be legal, but whether the courts will agree to hear cases dealing with social inequality, racial discrimination, and free speech, broadly defined. In a worse-case scenario, conservative judges (whose terms to not expire until they decide to retire) could become the dominant force for a generation. A conservative bench is potentially dangerous after eight years of Bush's attacks on civil liberties, along with continual attempts to place both the President and the Vice-President above scrutiny and the rule of law.

Two. Will the destabilizing tax cuts that Bush enacted become permanent, or will more progressive taxation return? Under the Bush plan, the rich keep getting richer and the national debt grows, the middle class and the poor lose ground, and the next generation gets the bill. McCain has pledged to keep the Bush cuts, while the Democrats want to return to the system that served the nation so well in the 1990s. Recall that from 1992 until 2000 the economy grew, the middle class did not lose ground, and the national debt was rapidly paid off. The Republicans have evolved into a party of fiscal irresponsibility. Under both Reagan and the Bushes, they have run up huge deficits and given the wealthy tax breaks. In effect, they keep imposing a tax on the next generation. That was the central issue that got Ross Perot to run in the election of 1992, siphoning off enough Republican votes to get Clinton elected. However, the Republicans shamelessly keep calling the Democrats "tax and spend liberals". This rhetoric worked a generation ago, but since 1980 have become "tax and spend conservatives." The difference is that their spending is for the military rather than for social programs.

Three. Will the Iraq war continue without any end in sight (McCain) or will the US seek to negotiate its way out of the mess Bush created there (Clinton and Obama). Back in 1968 and again in 1972 the Republicans railed at any suggestion that Vietnam could not be won, and they stuck to their guns for six years after Nixon came in. The Republican "plan" for Iraq now seems like "deja vu all over again." Remember "Vietnamization?" The US is now spending billions on building up a new Iraq army and police force with the same idea in mind. The Democrats want to end the conflict and put the money saved into social programs, notably medical care. How much is Iraq costing? About $15 million an hour.

Four. Will the US fix its medical system? Costs are out of control, malpractice insurance drives some doctors out of business, patients in rural areas are underserved, employers have begun to eliminate health care from worker benefits - the list could go on, but this is a national emergency must be solved. It is a terrible problem at the personal level, but failing health care also makes the US less competitive in the world. The Detroit automobile companies spend as much money on health care for their workers than they do for steel. In many other nations health care is paid by the state, and corporations do not have that expense.

Five. Will corporations be regulated? The 9/11 attacks saved Bush from a major investigation of his close financial and political ties to ENRON. Its executives were frequent guests at the White House and advised Bush and Cheney on energy policy. Yet that corporation's rapacious and illegal activities cost California billions of dollars, and such predatory behavior emerged again in the behavior of the mortgage industry. Likewise, this government cut back funding for inspectors in many areas, making actual enforcement of the laws difficult. The Republicans are so in thrall to the special interests that they no longer protect the public. Only a few Enron executives were punished even lightly for their felonies. If the Republicans stay in the White House, they will continue to resist government oversight of corporations and environmental inspections will be under-funded.

Six. Energy policy. The Bush government has squandered eight years when the US could have moved toward sustainable energy use. With two former oil executives in the White House, the nation fell behind Europe and Japan in creating the next generation of energy systems, notably wind and solar power. For those curious about what is possible, see Scientific American's article on how solar power alone could supply most of the US electricity needs. ("A Solar Grand Plan," January 2008). Such creative thinking has been anathema in Washington. Republicans have resolutely hung on to a national energy model from c. 1950. For example, they have resisted for 25 years higher mpg requirements for cars, and Detroit makes gas-guzzling automobiles that are not competitive in the rest of the world. The Republicans should accept responsibility for those thousands of jobs lost in Michigan and Ohio. (There is a silver lining for some Republicans personally: Exxon-Mobile's profits for the last quarter topped §100 billion.) This election will determine whether the oil industry will continue to hold back economic development and have an undue influence on foreign policy, and whether the US will actually do anything about global warming.

Those are all vital issues for any candidate. After winning ten straight states, it does seem that Obama is the more likely candidate. At his Tuesday night rally in Houston, attended by 20,000 people, tickets were free but in such short supply that some were scalped for $100. I don't think anyone is paying that kind of money to see Hillary. Yet whether the Democrats ultimately choose Obama or Clinton, both oppose John McCain on all these issues. Either would be far, far better than McCain.

For more on "The Bush Economy" see this blog for Dec. 12.

Can Clinton "Come back" in Wisconsin or Hawaii?

After the American Century

Tomorrow the last primaries in February take place in Wisconsin and Hawaii, with 74 and 20 delegates respectively. For Obama, it has been a spectacular month, starting with a strong showing on Super Tuesday, followed by victories in eight straight primaries. The polls suggest that he can make it ten in a row tomorrow, which would give him even more momentum. For Hillary this month was supposed to be a triumph and instead has bordered on disaster. Rather than being crowned as the nominee, she found herself nearly bankrupt, fired her campaign manager, and lost every primary after February 5. If she can win either election tomorrow she can claim it as a second comeback. In New Hampshire she made her first comeback, after coming in third in Iowa. 

In Wisconsin the economy is the main issue for 4 our of 10 voters, while only a quarter of them focus on the War in Iraq. This emphasis is good for Hillary, as voters seem to like her on economic issues. No doubt they remember the prosperous Clinton Presidency. The polls also indicate that the same pattern we have seen before recurs. She is leading Obama among women and older voters. He does better among men, younger voters, and African Americans. Overall, it appears to be a close race. Several different polls puts him ahead by just 4%, which borders on being statistically insignificant, as there is always a margin of error.  Moreover, in another pattern familiar from the previous primaries, 25% of the voters remain uncertain and say they might still change their minds. In short, Hillary might pull off an upset.

On the other hand, the trend in the polls over time suggests otherwise. Clinton consistently led in the Wisconsin polls until Super Tuesday, when she fell behind. Obama appears to have momentum, and he also tends to bring out marginal voters such as young people and African-Americans, who are both under-represented in polling samples, because they often do not vote. Another problem for pollsters is their data bases focus on land-line telephones, which means that voters under 30 - heavily for Obama - may also be under polled. So the margin of polling error may be greater than 4%, and it may favor him, not her.

Hawaii is less problematic, because Obama was born there. He represents the multiracial integration of Hawaii, which has been far in advance of the rest of the United States in developing multicultural harmony. There seem to be no polls for Hawaii, however, where 20 delegates are at stake in caucuses. The local newspapers predict that the turnout will be at least 50% higher than in 2004, and the Democratic Party there fears it will be overwhelmed. Obama has won every other caucus, and it seems hard to believe Hillary has a much of chance. She did send daughter Chelsea out to enjoy the good weather, however, while she slogged on through the heavy snows of Wisconsin. 

Of the 94 delegates at stake, Obama will likely get a few more than Clinton, but neither is likely to gain a decisive statistical advantage from these contests. More important, at this point, is the psychological victory for Obama, if he can make it ten in a row, or for Clinton, if she can make a second "comeback." 

Endorsements and Super Delegates

After the American Century

Perhaps it is appropriate that the US celebrity culture relies so much on endorsements for political candidates. It does not happen much in the Nordic countries, where a singer or actor's political views are seldom thought to be worth extensive coverage. I have never seen in Scandinavia anything like the "Yes We Can" video made by star supporters of Barack Obama. One might see it as a new genre, the political speech remade into a collective song. I saw it almost as soon as it appeared, and I was moved by it. However, some Europeans I have shown it to find it both attractive and unsettling. One woman took a strong dislike to it, feeling that such things had no place in a political campaign! I report this as it may interest the growing number of Americans who are reading this blog. With many months ahead in this campaign, one can only expect more inventive forms of endorsement, and even more extensive use of the Internet. 

At the same time, the ultimate result for the Democrats may depend on that more traditional technology, the personal telephone call. The press is saturated with reports of former President Clinton calling undecided super delegates, seeking their public endorsement of Hillary. Obama also has his surrogates on the line. Yet it appears that the super delegates are not easily swayed. Some of the most famous and influential want to hold out and let the popular contest run its course first. Notably, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter all refuse to make an endorsement yet, and seem to be holding others back as well. But each day a few do seem to decide. The New York Times, after consulting with both the Clinton and Obama camps, indicates that more than half of the 796 superdelegates have now made public endorsements. Apparently, something like 350 people remain on the increasingly uncomfortable fence.  

It is difficult to reconcile this spectacle with the idea of democracy. Whatever happened to the ideas of equality and "one person, one vote"? Another problem is that two of every three super delegates is male, and almost half are white males who were elected governor, senator or to the House. The Democratic Party might want to revise its rules (again) before the next presidential campaign. The Republicans seem to be better off without super delegates and letting the winner take all. But a back-of-the-envelope calculation strongly suggests that neither Obama nor Clinton would have much of a lead were the Democrats to give all the delegates to the one "first past the post." Perhaps there is no perfect voting system to help adjudicate between two equally strong candidates – which may make endorsements all the more important.