NAFTA-gate: It Was Clinton, not Obama!

Another despicable dirty trick by the Clintons and conservatives. Have these people no shame? Please, wake up, citizens! Save us from 4-8 years of this Clinton crap. VOTE OBAMA, PUH-LEASE!!!!

Hillary Clinton's Love Affair With John McCain (Or, Traitor to the Party?)

Hillary Clinton's Sybillish Personalities?

"On the Red Phone"
by Larry David

Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.

So, the ugliness will continue...

So, Hillary squeaked by in 3 out of 4 contests yesterday, winning RI, OH and TX, but losing VT. Her campaign is spinning this as a "comeback" and Obama is focusing on the delegate count, which remains in his favor. The strange thing about the "comeback" narrative is that Clinton was leading TX, RI and OH by 20 points or so just a couple of weeks back, so in fact she lost lots of ground between then and yesterday. Each week, her team moves the goal-posts to keep them in the race. On the other score, the math continues to be incredibly daunting for her and Obama remains in the drivers seat for the nomination, but the damage Hillary is doing now with all of her nastiness will not only hurt him in upcoming primaries and caucuses, but also in the general election.

What last night assured is that this thing moves on and that it is only going to get uglier and nastier from the Clinton camp. Their willingness to smear the guy who will probably be the nominee, even going so far as to side with John McCain time and again against Obama, is reprehensible. The clear lesson from the last week or so is that ugly, negative politics is effective in America. And, as long as that continues, the Democrats' prospects in the Fall diminish and McCain grows stronger. Sad.

So, it is gut-check time for Obama and his supporters. What do you think will happen...?

Tomorrow is the Day...

Please, God, liberate us from the torture of the Democratic primary process tomorrow! Have mercy on us by ending this thing decisively. I'm begging You...



Anyone want to venture a prediction on tomorrow's results?

Hillary's Xerox Moment

Much hay has been made about Hillary Clinton's zinger-line in the Austin debate calling Obama's rhetoric a "xerox copy." It has been widely noted that the crowd roundly booed Clinton for this attack, but the more interesting and important dynamic has not been reported on as extensively: that wasn't Hillary's line. Clearly a speechwriter came up with it. Isn't it kind of weird to slam a guy for "plagiarism" with a line that is so clearly scripted it isn't even funny? See the irony here?

I'll also note the very ugly turn the Clinton campaign has taken since supposeduly playing nice the other night. Let me make it clear: that was all a part of the strategy. Show "nice Hillary" on the nationally televised debate, but keep on smearing and slamming, keep on with the negativity, the misrepresentation and the innuendo on the campaign trail. It is the Jekyll and Hyde approach. She essentially challenged Obama to a schoolyard fight in Ohio earlier today. It is very ugly and not very presidential. It is clearly the result of the desperate situation the campaign finds itself in, but it is no less unsavory. Shame on you, Mrs. Clinton.

And there is some bizarre psychological projection going on. Hillary charges Obama's campaign with Rovian tactics. Meanwhile, it has been her campaign that has engaged in the slimy stuff. These people really are lunatics...

As far as I am concerned, I hope Obama comes out with both barrels blazing in Ohio on Tuesday night. I had hopes that she might go quietly into the night, or at least have some class, but now her campaign needs to be put out of its misery before she takes the whole party with her. I will shed no tears on the day she is finally forced to eat that huge humble pie that is hurling her way...

"Hey Hillary, MLK Was a Talker AND a Doer"

One of the preeminent historians of African American experience, Harvard Sitkoff, has written an interesting short piece in response to Hillary Clinton's comments about MLK, LBJ and change. Here is one nugget:

MLK was never a mere dreamer, never only a talker. He stood up for what is right, repeatedly putting his body on the line, going to jail again and again, constantly facing death threats. By such actions, King and a multiplicity of black leaders and movements at the grass-roots level mobilized black Americans as they had never previously been mobilized to collectively bring about change. King, above all, stirred African Americans’ emotions, raised their hopes, convinced them to believe in their abilities to alter history, and got them to come together to press for racial justice in a manner that could not be, and was not, denied.

To read the whole essay, click here: Sitkoff, "MLK Was Both a Talker and a Doer, Hillary"


I think all of this points out the way Hillary Clinton fundamentally misapprehends how social change occurs. You can hear it in her speeches, not only as she belittles and denigrates Obama's oratorical powers, but also in her persistent references to herself and to the idea that what we need most is a strong, experienced, centralized, supreme power. It is the constant refrain of "I," "I," "I." By contrast, Obama stresses "we" in his rhetoric. He is clear to tell his audience that real change depends on a movement, depends on the mass participation of millions of ordinary citizens, that only "we" can do this together. I think Obama has the cart and horse in the right order on this one. If real, transformative change is going to happen, the broader political context has to be different and Obama gets that. Clearly, he is the only remaining candidate that not only can win, but who might also have some coattails. Hillary is too polarizing and divisive; she may win, but she won't have significant coattails. And, if Obama were to come into office with a nice, comfortable majority in Congress, and a new coaliton of voters, that may enable him to be more bold, active and progressive that if he or Hillary is elected with a tightly split legislature.

But, back to the inspirational/empty rhetoric part of all of this. I feel strongly that charisma and visionary language actually matters quite a bit from the president. Such rhetoric can be central to cultivating the type of political context necessary to make governmental change. Clearly, Obama's rhetoric is not hollow, since it has connected with millions upon millions of citizens and turned them on to the process.

There is something amazingly condescending (cynical?) from Clinton and her supporters when they argue that Obama is full of hot air ("all hat, no cattle") and/or that Obama supporters have been somehow hoodwinked, or brainwashed by his blinding charisma. Hear the arrogance of that view? I've met hundreds and hundreds of Obama supporters in multiple states and I have yet to meet a single one who is glassy-eyed and clueless. In fact, at the events I've been to, I've been impressed by how highly engaged and conscious Obama folks are.

Anyway, check out Sitkoff's brief essay and think more broadly about what each candidate is telling us in terms of what lies ahead and what our responsibility in all of this is?

The Clinton Campaign's Disdain for Democracy

OK. It will be no suprise to readers here that I am not a fan of the Clintons, or their DLC Republican-lite philosophy of Democratic Party politics. In addition, I have found their various attempts to willfully misrepresent or distort Obama's record, and their willingness to play the race card, despicable. It is now clear, in their desperation, that the Clinton campaign is going to drag this whole process back into the mud by going negative. More disturbing, the Clinton campaign has a clear disdain for democracy and for all of the people who don't live in "important" states like California and New York.

For just a taste of this arrogant, anti-democratic attitude, read the following statement by Clinton campaign Chief Strategist, Mark "cocaine, cocaine, cocaine" Penn:

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

So, all of us in "insignificant" states clearly don't matter to the Clinton campaign. This is probably why we were not good enough for her to show up a couple of weeks ago. Yet, if she does steal this thing, I am sure they will try to romance us again in the Fall.

At this point, it is incredibly difficult for the Clinton campaign to overtake Obama in pledged delegates, those delegates determined by actual voters in primaries and caucuses. So, they are turning to undemocratic measures, particularly the super-delegates and the sketchy seating of MI and FL delegates. I doubt this will work out for them in the end, but you never know. The party apparatus is stacked with former Clinton appointees. Also, people know that the Clintons have a history of severely punishing anyone who does not support their every move. If party people think she even has a chance to win, a certain number will jump on board out of fear of reprisal if she does steal this thing. That said, there are many, many in the party who are just looking for a solid opportunity to jump ship on the Clintons and get some payback for the last 15 or so years.

So, we will see which way this thing tips, but the anti-democratic arrogance of Penn and others in the campaign is offensive. Spread the word far and wide about these anti-democratic sentiments. Don't let the Clinton campaign swift-boat Obama...

- Redouble your efforts for Obama.
- Donate a little more money to his campaign.
- Talk to as many people in your circle as possible.
- Write a letter to your local newspaper.
- Write to the Clinton campaign and tell them what you think of their slimy tactics.

Moore Says He is "Morally Prohibited" from Voting for Hillary in Primary

a letter to SNCC...

It is my honor to participate in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) email listserv. SNCC was the vanguard of the civil rights movement. Recently, a minor fracas broke out over on that list between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters. A few Hillary supporters took what I thought was a very hard charge at some of the Obama folks and seemed to suggest that if you supported Obama you weren't a feminist. There was a hostility in the messages that was notable and I've felt that coming from other corners, as well. For instance note the recent screed by the head of NY NOW. After several rounds of back-and-forth, I wrote a response and sent it into the SNCC list. A number of folks asked me to post it over here, too, so I've done that below. I've edited it a bit, and added a thought or two, but it is mainly how I posted it on the SNCC list.

Hi everyone,

I am a bit hesitant to wade into this discussion, and I am not meaning to pick any fights or ignite any hostility.

But I am curious about the strong negative energy I sense to Obama and his supporters (of which I am one; and I consider myself a feminist) in reading some of the pro-Hillary responses. I am curious because Obama has received the highest ratings from women's groups based on his work as a legislator. He has a fine record of supporting women's rights, including reproductive rights, despite a purposeful misrepresentation of that record by the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire. He also has an excellent record on GLBT issues. So, why tear the guy (and his supporters) down when he seems to model a positive alternative masculine identity, as well as a positive alternative racial identity.

Moreover, for those supporting Hillary, how do you reconcile the following:

- she and her husband have always been in the moderate-conservative wing of the party, the DLC crowd. Not exactly progressives and not exactly in the SNCC mold, it seems to me. The Clintons were at the center of the fight to position the Democratic Party as Republican-lite in the 1990s. That is how Bill won the presidency.

- she has been consistently one of the most hawkish members in the Senate, regardless of party, until she jumped in the presidential race and suddenly found the light against militarism. And, during Bill's administration, apparently she was consistently more hawkish than he was and encouraged much more military action than he actually went forward with. Oh, yeah, and she had it completely and totally wrong on Iraq from the get-go.

- Since she is claiming Bill's mantle, it seems legitimate to remind ourselves that many of the Clinton policies were destructive to black communities and poor communities, in general: welfare deform, expansion of the prison-industrial system, expansion of the War on Drugs, NAFTA/GATT, etc.

- Also, the Clintons have a history of exploiting race as a divisive issue in campaigns. Note Ricky Ray Rector in 1992, as well as the silly fights Bill picked with Jesse and Sister Souljah to prove he was "tough on crime" and "those people." Remember, the early 1990s was an orgy of anti-black hysteria over urban crime, which was presented in the form of "super-predator" black males and "welfare queens." This year, well, we've all witnessed the various attempts to "blackenize" Obama by the Clinton camp. I am not aware of a similar sexist politic coming from the Obama campaign. Certainly, the media has shown itself poorly on this score, but I don't see the Obama camp suggesting Hillary is a lesbian, for instance.

- And, in assessing Hillary's legislative record, I don't see much evidence that she has been some sort of aggressive, progressive fighter for the poor, for people of color, or even women? These are issues that require bold vision, but I don't see any real vision or risk taking on these issues. Other than technocratic tinkering, what visionary policy has she put forth?

- And, what about the fact that Hillary claims to run on her experience, yet, in fact, she did not even have the highest security clearance so could not sit in on most of the important policy meetings in Bill's White House? And, the one major policy initiative she was given control over - health care - was a major disaster. Why should she get a do-over on this crucial issue?

- And, finally, Hillary and Bill have always been Establishment politicians with massive ties to corporate America. Remember the selling of the Lincoln bedroom? While on the board of Walmart for 6 years, Hillary sat silently as they went on their anti-union crusade. Walmart is also one of the most sexist corporations in America, the subject of one of the largest class action lawsuit in American history... because of gender bias.


I could go on and on and on... but I think you catch my drift here. Again, I am not trying to flame throw or anything. I am serious in these queries and perplexed that any progressive would embrace Hillary as one of their own. This has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her "35 years of experience."

I suspect everyone on this list would like either/both a female or African American president, so it seems tragic to me that we might name call on that score. I also suspect everyone here likes to think of themselves as feminists and anti-racist activists. Given that, again, I guess I have trouble understanding why Hillary is anyone's first choice, given what I have listed above (and a number of other positions and policies that place Hillary squarely in the moderate to conservative wing of the party). So, perhaps one of the strong Hillary supporters on the list could please explain to me exactly what it is about Hillary that draws you so forcefully to her? I certainly understand the attraction of our first female president, in the same way I understand the attraction of our first African American president. It seems like a wash on that "historic first" point. So, beyond that, what makes you think her administration will break with all of the established moderate/conservative Democratic record she has built and now will magically be some kind of progressive president... particularly given the fact that she is likely to have a very divided congress and a massively divided public, given the love/hate relationship most Americans have with the Clintons. It will be very, very hard to be "progressive" with such a division in the nation and it is clear all signs point to more division and partisan rancor under a Clinton II administration. That may be unjust, but I think it is pretty clear that that will be the case. She mobilizes the currently demoralized conservative base. She will breath new wind into the sails of the lagging conservative talk radio-sphere. She will bring millions to right-wing groups who have made a cottage industry off of anti-Clinton fund-raising over the last 15 years. And, she demoralizes a certain percentage of her own party/base. Again, this all might be unfair, but I think the evidence clearly shows it to be true.

Finally, as an example, from out here in Nebraska where, like so many midwestern and western states, the Democratic Party is the minority party, but showing some signs that it is growing. In 2006, Jim Esch made a strong run at long-time Republican Lee Terry, Jr. It would have been an epic upset, but Esch did surprisingly well. Most were confident Esch would run again in '08 and might just win. Yet, in the Fall, when it appeared Hillary was a shoe-in for the nomination, Esch announced he would not run, referencing among other reasons, the prospect of Hillary at the top of the ticket. He suggested the obvious for Dems in states like Nebraska: Hillary hurts Democrats down the ticket because she animates the conservative base to come out big. Looking at this reality, Esch calculated that it was a no-win race for him and opted out. There went one potential pick-up for the Dems in Congress. See what I am getting at here? Hillary might very well win, but she won't grow the party... and right now in midwestern and western states there is a real shot to build the party. This is why so many western states Dems, many of whom are prominent women politicians, have endorsed Obama over Hillary. Obama brings the possibility of growing the party and expanding the base/coalition.

Again, I am open to a counter-argument for Hillary, but have yet, in my mind, to hear a compelling one.

Respectfully,
Patrick

Well, there you have it. If anyone would like to respond, please drop something in the comments!

Oh, Good Lord, Now What??!!?!?!??!

Oh, good lord. No one got any kind of advantage in the Democratic primaries on Super-Duper Tuesday. Now what?

Saturday: Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska
Sunday: Maine
Tuesday: Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia

Yo! If you are a Democrat in Nebraska, this Saturday is your chance to have your vote really count... because, let me tell you, it ain't gonna matter in the Fall!

Any ideas about how this thing ends?

David Bowie Takes on Presidential Change...

This is fun. Watch it all the way through:



Here's an older video set to U2's "Sunday, Bloody Sunday". If you are prone to seizures, you might want to skip this one:

Open Thread: Endorsements

In light of the spate of high-profile endorsements for Barack Obama, do you think endorsements make a significant difference in the presidential race? If so, how and why? If not, why do we go through this ritual? How do you think the endorsement game is playing out thus far in the election?

Post a comment...

Beware: The Race Card is Still in Play...

For sure, it was a HUGE victory for Obama tonight in SC and he gave another spirited and moving speech. It was exactly what was needed: a surprisingly big win and a rousing, positive, transcendent speech. Obama feels back in the game. I hope he can now parlay this into some momentum going into the February 5th contests. But, beware... the race card is still in play. In fact, what happened tonight is a part of the Clinton plan to "blackenize" Obama.

"What??!!?!?" you say... "He won by 29%!! You are crazy! The SC numbers were a clear repudiation of the Clinton's divisive race strategy. Everyone is talking about it."

Indeed, Obama won by a much larger margin than anyone thought possible. Shocking, really. And, it is true, he won with a bigger than expected proportion of the white vote, particularly in some key constituencies (under-30s, white men, etc.). So, I suspect he'll argue that this victory proves that his appeal transcends race and that he can, indeed, put together a winning coalition in the fall; and he might. But, the point all along for the Clintons after Iowa, was to "blackenize" Obama. To knock him off the race-transcendent groove and reduce him to a more narrowly defined "black candidate." In recent history, it has been proven again and again that "black candidates" do not garner much white support. Now, the Clintons have known for some weeks that Obama was going to win in SC. So, their plan, by playing all this racial crap, has been to racially polarize the electorate, which they have successfully done. They have tried to brand Obama as the "black candidate" and denigrate the SC primary as essentially a narrow "black primary." Here is the twist. By Obama winning so big, and with damn near 80% of the African American vote, the Clintons can argue, subtlely and not so subtlely, that this is just a black guy winning the black vote. I already heard a report that the Clintons are banking on the fact that "in SC Democrats vote for black guys, in CA they vote for white women." The Clintons are hoping that she can win the women, white and Hispanic votes in the remaining states. Even if he continues to get 80% of the African American vote, she wins.

What, you still don't buy it? You still think tonight was a repudiation of Clinton's racial innuendo? You think he has to back off?

Exhibit A: Bill Clinton tries to minimize Obama' landslide by equating (read, dismissing) him with Jess Jackson in '84 and '88.

Or, click here, or here, for a text analysis of the same issue.

Exhibit B: According to AP, here is how the Clintons spun the massive loss in SC:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Ahhhhh, yes. Deny that you are playing the race card, but then suggest someone else might play it later... Either way, the racial doubt is put out there into the political ether. This way, the Clintons claim plausible deniability. Classic psycho-politics. Classic Clinton.

Still think they aren't playing the divisive race card?

Keep your eyes on the prize. In politics, never get distracted by the sideshow... or the smiling face and twinkling eyes.

It remains unclear which politic will carry the day, ultimately. The good money is still on Hillary. She has the structure to do well in the Feb. 5th elections and that is key. She also has polarized the electorate, at least to a degree. While not unanimous, we do see broad patterns in the SC vote: white men voted for Edwards, African Americans for Obama and white women for Hillary. She has been racking up large polling numbers among women, whites and Latinos in the Feb. 5th races. This bodes well for her. Yet, tonight's numbers suggest that this is at least a partly risky strategy. Obama did win enough of the white vote and he won overall by a decisive enough margin, that he just might be able to change the tide and...

Stay tuned. This just got REALLY interesting...

Ethics, Clinton-Style: The Money Angle

So, I'll leave aside, for now, the clear racial (racist?) strategy the Clintons have employed to take the lead in the Democratic race for presidential nominee. Or, the fact that the Clintons have decided to unleash Bill as the modern incarnation of Spiro Agnew, Nixon's henchman.

I will point out the gross hypocrisy of the Clintons slamming Obama for his connections to indicted Chicago-land wheeler-dealer, Tony Rezko. Yet, she claims she has never met Rezko. Well, you see that guy with the mustache standing with a smiling Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the above photo? Uhhhhhh... that's Rezko!

Or, remember this guy? He's Norman Hsu, who Hillary once described as "a good friend." Hsu raised roughly $1M for Hillary's campaign before going on the lam, being arrested and charged on November 27, 2007, by a federal grand jury for violating federal campaign finance laws and defrauding investors "out of at least $20 million." More here: Hsu Casts Wide Net for Clinton Donors

While we are at it on experience, remember also the never-ending revolving door of corporate donors and all-around sleaze-bags that were welcomed to stay in the Lincoln bedroom... for a fee?!?? You really think another Clinton will be an agent of change, or reform?

And, did you know Hillary Clinton was a corporate shill for one of the most hated corporations in the United States: WALMART!!??? It is true. As one report stated,

The Walmart board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.

More here: Hillary and Wal-Mart: A Love Story

Finally, if Hillary Clinton is such a threatening reformer bent on change, why is it that Right-Wing media czar, Rupert Murdock, has been raising and contributing money to the Clinton campaign? Why have several other top execs at Fox been contributing to Hillary's effort, along with corporate reps in hundreds of corporations?

For a full report on Hillary's donors, see: Open Secrets

If you think Hillary Clinton will be some kind of anti-corporate warrior, I've got some nice beach-front property to sell you in Nebraska...

Compare and Contrast: The Candidates on MLK Day

Obama at Dr. King's church the day before the MLK holiday:


John Edwards at SC NAACP Rally:


Hillary at the SEIU Local 32BJ Martin Luther King Jr. birthday celebration in New York:


Bill Clinton sleeping through Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech on MLK Day:

It's Getting Ugly Out There...

Looks like yet another Clinton campaign surrogate has smeared Obama. This time it was BET founder Robert Johnson who smeared him on the drug stuff and for being, well, hhmmmm... he laid down this weird Sidney Poitier stuff, so I guess he meant to call Obama an Uncle Tom. Man, this is really getting ugly...

Sad: Robert Johnson Smears Obama at Clinton Endorsement Event

Or, here: Clinton backer appears to raise Obama's drug use

The Right Hook: a bizarre-o Sidney Poitier Uncle Tom charge

“That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

The Left Hook: the drug smear

“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."

So, I want to make sure I've got this straight. Hillary is on Meet the Press in the morning blathering about how it is not her campaign, but Obama's, that is playing the race card, how she is the victim of racial politics (despite 5 or 6 instances of campaign surrogates playing the race card). Then, later the same day, one of her surrogates in the battleground state of SC, where the African American vote will be decisive in a couple weeks, makes what can only be described as a complete and utter racial smear against Obama, no TWO of them. Uuuuhhhmmm... I, uh, think that, uh, maybe..., uh, suggests that... uh, the Clintons might, uh... be... playing ... the... race... card.

Look, one or two of these incidents might have been explained away as a rogue supporter who put their foot in their mouth, but now we are up to five or six or seven or something like that...

... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

what do you think?

UPDATE: This is probably not helpful from the Obama camp:
Obama Staffer Plays Jay-Z Song at Event

Hey, Barack, DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

Undecided NH Voters Turned Off By Hillary in Debate

Take this one with a grain of salt since it is coming from Fox News... but if their sample is even a little bit representative, if it is at all indicative of a trend out there in NH among Independents, Hillary is in some deep electoral doo-doo...

Iowa Caucus Day!

Well, here we are. We made it... the day that never seemed like it would really come. I think I speak for most of us when I say: thank our lucky stars, today is finally - FINALLY! - Iowa caucus day. This election has already been interminably long and we haven't even made it to the general election, yet! But, whoever wins tonight, at the very least, the process will be formally in motion.

That written, in case any stray, uncommitted Iowa Democratic caucusers wander into this blog, here is my final pitch:

A picture is worth a thousand words...







Even the undergraduates at Hillary's alma mater prefer Obama for the Democratic nomination...















And, for whatever it is worth, here is my prediction (admittedly, on the Democratic side, it is probably more of a fantasy than a cold, reasoned prediction, but I'll throw it out there...):

Dems:
• Obama
• Edwards
• Clinton

Repubs:
• Huckabee
• Romney
• McCain


What do you think...?

Tom Tomorrow - "The Trouble with Hillary"

(click cartoon to enlarge)