DNC CONVENTION: NIGHT 2

Orange Pantsuit Alert!

I still am not a fan of Senator Clinton's delivery, but her speech was on-point, well-crafted, and a blow to the GOP, which was clearly hoping for a Democratic implosion this week.

During her speech, MSNBC kept panning to Bill, in the audience, who was clearly gushing with pride whenever Hillary spoke. This would have been a heart-warming image but for the fact that every time I saw him, I also thought about the spunk stain that he left on Monica Lewinsky's blue Gap dress.

Her best moment was when she was speaking directly to some of her supporters, who ignorantly have been threatening to vote for McCain instead of Obama:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

I hope the PUMAs were listening.

Not that it matters since these PUMAs are clearly Republican COINTELPRO-type covert operatives hired by Karl Rove to destroy the unity coalition that George Bush's legacy is destined to create.

After all, I cannot imagine that any intelligent feminist who supported Hillary would actually vote for McCain -- a man who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade -- over Obama, who holds nearly identical positions to Clinton.

*

Many DNC speakers have noted how Hillary is a trailblazer for women and how her campaign made history.

In contrast, it's curious and sad how few people have made any mention of how Obama is a trailblazer for both African Americans and people of color.

Clearly, there is an internal DNC memo to speakers that says, "Don't remind voters that Obama is black."

*

Best line of the night goes to NY Gov. Paterson, who said of McCain:

"If he's the answer, then the question must be ridiculous."

--Junichi

OBAMA'S PROBLEM WITH WHITE SUBURBAN WOMEN

Do not ignore the lady in red

According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, Obama has a six-point advantage over McCain.

But for me, the most interesting aspect of the survey is that McCain has a six-point advantage over Obama among white suburban women (44 to 38), who constitute 10% of the national electorate.

The same poll concludes that Obama's lead would expand to a nine-point lead if he added Clinton as his running mate, despite evidence of many voters' strong negative association with her.

Given these numbers, how can anybody argue that Clinton would be a net loss? And in response to some of the comments left on this post, how can anybody argue that the selection of a VP doesn't matter? A 3 percentage point swing would have altered the results in 1992, 2000, and 2004, just to name a few.

(Thanks to my $50,000 question on Millionaire, I'm suddenly an expert on election results.)

I have no idea why any Clinton-supporting white suburban woman would vote for McCain over Obama, except for reasons related to prejudice, ignorance of issues, or irrational bitterness. (Is McCain's clear anti-choice record not common knowledge?)

But these numbers reflect a reality that Obama needs to figure out a way to reach out to white suburban women.

And therefore, despite my own personal objections with Senator Clinton, I remain convinced that Obama should consider her for the VP slot.

*

I suppose one other way that Obama could overcome his problem with white suburban women is to simply hope that this excerpt from the book The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter gets more mainstream coverage:

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, 'You're getting a little thin up there.' McCain's face reddened, and he responded, 'At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.'

Like, for example, in this video below. (NSFW!)

--Junichi

SO WHY NOT?

Hottie or Nottie?

As the post immediately below this one makes clear, I am not a fan of Senator Clinton.

She is a self-absorbed, dishonorable, egomaniacal, shifty, and unscrupulous beltway politician who doesn't have the moral fortitude to apologize for authorizing an unnecessary and unlawful war that has resulted in the evisceration of several hundred thousand lives.

And the nerve of some of her supporters to suggest that she has somehow "earned" the VP slot. Who has the audacity to insult a person as an inexperienced, corrupt, sexist, "secret Muslim" who might be assassinated and is the beneficiary of "reverse racism" - and then suggest that he somehow owes them anything? Like candidate, like supporters.

But all of the above is a long disclaimer to precede my current belief that Senator Clinton might be Senator Obama's best pick for Vice President.

At the very least, I believe she should be seriously considered.

Don't get me wrong. I, personally, would prefer a grip of other viable candidates over Clinton. Al Gore, for starters. (I really do think he could be persuaded.) Claire McCaskill. Russ Feingold. John Edwards. Joe Biden. General Wesley Clark. Jim Webb. Kathleen Sebelius. Jon Stewart. Even Republican Chuck Hagel would be attractive in the veep slot.

But Obama's goal should be to pick the person who will most effectively help him capture the White House. And Clinton may very well be that person who gives Obama the greatest net increase.

Sadly, I think there are currently at least a million voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and will (a) vote for McCain, (b) vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or (c) not vote in November -- before they vote for Obama.

Primary exit polls seemed to indicate that at least 10% of Clinton supporters fell into that camp. Let's say that half of those people change their minds once Clinton endorses him. If the remaining 5% of the 18 million voted for Clinton won't vote for Obama unless he chooses Clinton, that's 900,000 votes.

Are those 900,000 people ill-informed, unprincipled, or racist? No doubt. Given the similarities in their platform, a Clinton supporter who will vote for McCain over Obama is likely to be a naive ignoramus who is voting on the basis of trivial matters like flag pins or the middle name Hussein.

But you can't dismiss their numbers.

Plus, the polls strongly suggest that Clinton appeals strongly to groups like blue-collar workers and the elderly for whom Obama is apparently not an obvious choice.

If a million people transfer their vote to Obama because Clinton is his VP candidate, those voters may very well decide the fate of the election.

You might argue that this million will be canceled out by the millions more who find the idea of a black man/white woman ticket too much. But those bigots are not going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyway.

As for those of us who take issue with Clinton, we will undoubtedly recognize that she, if offered the veep slot, should not stop us from working to put Obama in the White House.

*

Although my wife (also an Obama supporter) hates this opinion of mine, I am nonetheless choosing to voice it because I seem to be in a very small minority of Obama supporters.

*

I'm not sure this debate is even necessary, however, as Clinton probably won't accept. Among other reasons, her husband will never release his list of donors and business dealings, which Obama would certainly require.

--Junichi

OBAMA CONNECTS FOUR!

I was really hoping this viral video would no longer be relevant or timely today.

But alas, Senator Clinton's speech last night was so extraordinarily ungracious that the above clip (created several days ago) has taken on new meaning in the course of a few hours.

Yesterday, at 9 am pacific time, the video was just kinda funny.

By 3 pm, when it was clear she wasn't going to concede the nomination, despite Senator Obama clearly clinching it, the video was eerily poignant.

By evening, shortly after Terry McAuliffe introduced Senator Clinton by asking the crowd, "Are you ready for the next president of the United States?" -- and precisely the moment when Senator Clinton ludicrously suggested, "the nearly 18 million people who voted for me [need] to be respected, to be heard, to be no longer invisible" -- the video became a very dark sketch about one person's horrible affliction with what psychiatrists refer to as narcissistic personality disorder.

(With thanks to AmericaBlog)

--Junichi

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #127

Who supports this sign more: Republicans or other Democrats?

This Week's Question:

You are a Democrat in Iowa. Your #1 goal is to get a Democrat elected to the White House.

Your favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton, who maintains the lead for the Democratic nomination in Iowa and nationwide.

However, current polls suggest that Clinton would lose in the general election against at least five GOP candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Fred Thompson. The same poll indicates that Obama and Edwards would do better than Clinton among independent and young voters.

For the upcoming primary election, do you vote for Hillary Clinton?

--Junichi

REASON #492 WHY I WILL NEVER SUPPORT HILLARY

Hillary speaks at a shadow hand puppet convention

When Senator Clinton was recently asked whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral, she deflected the question by answering, "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."

Shame. And lame.

Does the spineless senator really think that she's going to get any votes from people who consider all gays and lesbians to be sinners?

I hate the sexist jokes about Hillary having male genitals. But quite frankly, I wish she'd grow a pair, metaphorically speaking.

* * *

Update: Apparently, Barack Obama isn't much a person of principle either.

Will somebody please point me to an electable Democratic nominee for president who is not afraid to stand up for what she believes?

--Junichi