Clinton and Obama: The Feel Good Hit of the Summer!

Note: This is a special joint post from Obama supporter Jason Chervokas and Clinton blogger Tom Watson.

From the time we met, as reporters and editors covering Bronx politics almost 15 years ago -  to this spring - Jason and I have spent countless elections bickering, bantering, observing, predicting, and generally arguing. It's been no different this election, with Jason backing Obama and me blogging for Clinton.

But for once in this cycle we agree about something: the Democratic party needs a fusion ticket and it needs to move towards one now.

Yeah, we know people are angry and bruised, but here's the simple truth: an enormous latent Democratic mandate is lurking in the electorate and a fusion ticket is the best way for the Democratic party to unlock it - putting aside the issue of who is at the top of the ticket for a moment.

Want evidence? The Republicans are talking about it, per right-winger William Kristol today in The New York Times: 

Another McCain staffer called my attention to this finding in the latest Fox News poll: McCain led Obama in the straight match-up, 46 to 43. Voters were then asked to choose between two tickets, McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Clinton. Obama-Clinton won 47 to 41.

It's simple really. The last few weeks of campaigning have hardened hearts on both sides of the Democratic divide:  40% of Clinton's voters in Pennsylvania said they would be dissatisfied Obama, and 33% of Obama supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. If even a fraction of those angry, disaffected Dems lick their wounds and return to the fold in November - and we suspect well more than a fraction of them will be back - there will be a big numbers advantage for whomever the Democrats nominate.  If both candidates are on the ticket then it's “everybody in the pool!” time.

More than that, the state-by-state campaigning by two strong candidates has left an entire ecosystem of new Democrats in its wake (Bucks County has gone blue for goodness' sake). And thanks to the quirky, proportional nature of the race,  the campaigns have built vast, nuts and bolt organizations across the country, congressional district by congressional district. Combining these operations would give Democrats an enormous tactical advantage on the ground, where the GOP has for years outsourced its organizing to the evangelical wing.

Further, the Clintons have been a Democratic fundraising machine for a generation, their supremacy challenged only by the young upstart from Chicago. Together: Ka-ching.

And only hardened partisans on each side can make the case with straight faces that an Obama/Sebelius ticket or a Clinton/Bayh ticket would be just as potent as Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

But a fusion ticket isn't just the best answer for the Dems, it may be the only answer to overturning a generation of near-hegemony for the GOP in presidential politics.

Obama needs Clinton. No other VP short-lister (with the possible exception of Senator James Webb, we both believe) strengthens Senator Obama more in the areas where he needs strengthening all in one feisty, battle-tested package - with seniors, with Hispanics, with Catholics, with Jews, with party regulars, with defense hawks, with labor union members. Perhaps no other short-lister gives him the backstopping experience he needs. Sure, some might suggest that she would be Dick Cheney to his George Bush, an ugly comparison morally, but perhaps electorally apt. And, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in yesterday's London Times, Clinton is the perfect street tough Jimmy Cagney to Obama's priestly Pat O'Brien:

By picking Clinton as a vice-president, he would be pulling a classic American manoeuvre — getting a surrogate to do the dirty pugilism of the campaign, while using his own extraordinary skills to provide a unifying and uplifting overall theme.

Clinton needs Obama. No other VP short-lister (again, with the possible exception of Jim Webb) stregthens her more with African-Americans, new Democrats, with independents, with young voters, and yes, with Republicans. Further, Obama clearly represents the future of the Democratic Party – one that changes the electoral map forver, opening the party to young evangelicals, moderates, and the formerly political dissaffected.

Each candidate would most likely become the other’s de facto successor – Obama would be only 55 in eight years; Hillary would by 69, still young enough by McCain-Reagan standards to seek the highest office. That built-in desire for the top spot usually keeps presidents and vice-presidents in the same camp. Further, a VP of the caliber of a Clinton or Obama would require a serious brief to handle, domestic or international.

Maybe 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. Even with Clinton below him on the ticket it's uncertain to us that Obama can win Florida. But with Clinton on his ticket he can certainly win Ohio, Pennsylvania and maybe still steal a state like Colorado or Nevada. Even with Obama below her on the ticket, Clinton may not be able to steal a real red state, but together they certainly can win Ohio and Pennsylvania and make a good run at Florida. And with both of them on the ticket, the prospect of a real landslide becomes far more than fantasy; and nothing could be better for every down-ticket race in the nation.

And for Democrats, a fusion ticket would be the feel good hit of the summer, a superstar tour bigger than a Led Zeppelin reunion. Can you imagine that convention? Sure feels better than the one featuring half the Democratic Party plus one lording it over the despondent other half of the Democratic Party minus one.

The problem for Dems, of course, is how to get to a fusion ticket. There's only one "elder statesman" in the Democratic party with the weight to broker a deal, and he happens to be married to one of the candidates. With both candidates so close to victory, there's no incentive for either to fold. That means another month of tough political warfare, driving up the negatives on both candidates. It may well mean a floor fight over Michigan and Florida.

Frankly, our hope for a fusion ticket probably requires the full run of the primaries and the last accounting before many prominent Democrats realize – all at once, perhaps – that there’s a happy and obvious solution to a potentially disastrous split. Both candidates have proven themselves to be realists, despite that many of their followers shout at each other. We think they’d take the deal, in order to guarantee victory. We also don’t buy two rampant themes among the bloggers – one, that Hillary is somehow posturing for 2012 by taking Obama down now, and secondly, that Barack would never accept “the Clintons” as partners in his presidency.

These are two extraordinary, big-time politicians with complementary talents and networks of supporters. Both have displayed determination, stamina, and guts. Beating John McCain in November is the primary goal of this primary season. A single path offers the greatest chance for victory.

So sign on for the fusion ticket – and please pass it on.

Comments

[Andre]

My only question is, why would Clinton want to take on Obama's 'still breaking' baggage. I am totally convinced that there's a video out there that will 'break the camel's back', and I do not see Clinton wanting to take on that potential. If not a video (though today there are videos of everything!), then what other problems has Obama got that we have not heard about? We know what we have with Clinton and what we have to deal with. Also, what we already know about Obama is going to be a problem that Clinton may not want to carry. What we already know is a task in handling.

[Judith]

OMG - Sullivan actually wrote that? That is hysterical! With friends like him who need MoDo?

Anyhoo, whatever. I think she would pick him if she thought she needed him because - well, why not? I think she is a pragmatist.

But I dont think he would pick her EXACTLY for the reason Sully states - which I believe was his unconscious attempt to pee on that particular flame anyway.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Ah, a return to reason. Emerson would be proud. Yes, we have no choice if we want to win in November and put a Dem in the White House for 2009. (Remember folks, it's about beating John McCain?) And nice to see Jim Webb being mentioned as possible VP if the unity ticket doesn't happen.

Now, I want to know what the heck Andre is talking about. A video of Obama saying something bad? Something off-color. I think the 'bitter' remark is as bad as it gets.

[Nancy]

sorry, but as of now, i think obama no longer adds much, if anything, of value to a presidential ticket. in fact, he's a huge potential liability. his numbers are falling and his support is soft and eroding.

she would be stronger than obama in the GE, not only in delegate-rich blue states like CA, PA, MI, and NJ, but also in swing states like OH, TN, NM, WV, NH, KY, AR, and NV. oh and then there's that biggie--FL. and what would obama bring to the table that she couldn't win by campaigning hard on her own? um, CO (maybe)? yeah. in short: not much. and now there's even evidence that he's actually a drag on down-ticket races--an extra bonus (yay)!

so remind me again why clinton would take the VP slot... would it be for the pleasure of providing obama on-the-job training--or would it be to do her boss's work for him? um, thanks, but no thanks. not only is the offer ridiculous, it's outright insulting. and considering the way he's run his campaign--one of the most dishonest and ethically disgusting i've ever seen in dem presidential politics--i don't even want him as VP. in fact, i'd like for him to leave the national political scene altogether--disappear, go back to chicago, whatever the hell he has to--so that i don't have to see or hear him anymore.

[Rain]

I'm sorry, I could accept Clinton at top of ticket, regardless of who her VP is. I would think she was taking a huge risk in choosing Obama as running mate, but if he was to be her choice, then I would accept it, despite my doubts as to the wisdom of it.

To me, its all a moot point anyway, Obama is the media darling and the Party's leadership choice, so no matter what happens in the remaining state contests, the Party will hand him the nomination. I can't see him agreeing to have Clinton as running-mate however, and I believe her skills would be better remaining in the Senate. I could see her campaigning hard for him though, because thats who she is, a loyal Dem Party activist for 35 years or so. I remember as a kid with my folks, seeing her in Texas campaigning for McGovern, and on the Dukakis trail.

I can't vote for Obama, but I'm in a solid blue state so it doesn't matter. I have volunteered in several campaigns since I first voted for Carter in 1976, but I can't do it for Obama. I am probably an outlier though, and most Dem voters will fall in behind Obama.

[riverdaughter]

Clinton as Obama's VP? No. Way.
She'd be just another woman doing her boss's job and getting no credit for it. Not only that, it's just insulting to put the better qualified candidate second.
I see this kind of stuff periodically from a lot of male bloggers, as if he'd be doing women a favor if he offered it to her. Believe me. He'd be doing us no favors. In fact it would be a humiliating set back. And I, for one, would lose all respect for her if she took it. My chances of voting for Obama do not improve under this scenario. She's better off in the senate where she can preserve her dignity.
She's either at the top of the ticket or no deal.

[tdraicer]

Sorry, I can't do it. I think Hillary wins without Obama, and I think Obama's is a political career I would prefer to see stop in the Senate.

[Tom K]

Tom:

To the extent your post in technically neutral, it only states the obvious. The meaningful message it conveys is that you, as a prominent HRC supporter, are prepared to accept the no. 2 spot rather than see her do what is necessary to secure the nomination. (I know Jason's presence was supposed to change this, but the device failed. It's your blog, and written too much in your voice, if you ask me.)

You picked a bad time to join the pack of sexist male bloggers conspiring to put the little lady in her place. (And like it or not, that's how your post will be read -- see RiverDaughter, consigning you to the sexist pack you've been railing against -- and to some extent, how it reads.)

Let me remind you -- Clinton is going to win the nomination. Having stuck with her this far, you should be pushing harder, not pulling back.

Or are you, in your deep heart's core, as disgusted by her latest round of pandering (eg, the ludicrous "gas tax holiday") as I would have expected you to be, before your transformation into Clinton PR accessory sometime within the past year?

[Tony Alva]

That's the Tom K. we all know and love!!!

[Palomino]

No way.

[Tom W.]

In compromise, some will always cry capitulation - that's as may be, and I'm sorry if this is read as surrender. For my part, it's not - I'd certainly want Clinton to be at the top of ticket and would happily see it go to the convention to achieve that aim.

However, I do not dislike Senator Obama as intensely as some Clinton supporters - I just don't. I don't think he'd be nearly as strong a president as Hillary, but as I've said here many times, I'd take him in a heartbeat over McCain.

As for the "sexist male blogger" tweak (with Tom K. at the pry bar), I'll just let the record here speak for itself

[Jason Chervokas]

I gotta say guys, when we first took a pass at this piece last week, before it became a meme, it had nothing to do w/ Tom losing faith in Clinton or in her ability to be the best president. I'm sure it still feels the same way.

In the end we both believe that there's little policy substance seperating the two candidates, that it's crucially important for the Democrats to win the White House in November, and that the biggest obstacle to achieving the prize is our house divided.

I still believe Obama is the smartest guy running, the candidate mostly likely to turn our governance from the ideological to the practical, and the only candidate who actually understands what's going on w/ the credit markets (the core of our current economic crisis).

Tom still believes Clinton's the toughest-minded, most capable candidate in the race.

As Democrats we'll rally around either as nominee because we agree with the policy principles they stand for--getting out of the strategic disaster of Iraq, reforming how we pay for health care in this country, a new economic convenant with tax and regulatory policy to protect the middle class not just C-level execs and money managers.

Furthermore, as political observers we also believe it should be obvious on its face that whoever wins the nomination would be best served politically by having the other on the ticket. Any other VP candidate, w/the execption of Webb, has no juice. Wesley Clark, Kathleen Sieblius, Evan Bayh? Do any of these folks really help the ticket the way the other guy would help either Clinton or Obama?

[AndreN]

Tom, I agree with you. It's difficult for me to imagine a ticket without both, and realistically with Hillary on top of the ticket. No matter how nice both sides might make following the victory of one candidate, the shocking character assassinations and vile conduct among supporters displayed, I imagine is unbridgeable unless they forge one ticket..which I agree also may be sound ironic, but it's the on;y way i can see out of the mess.

[Tom K]

Jason, I don't doubt that Tom still feels she would be the best President, but I read the piece as accepting that she won't, in fact, lead the ticket.

I know it doesn't say that, exactly -- but it feels like it does and, practically, it kinda gets there. For one thing, the "either or" proposal is not as neutral as it sounds, since the idea of HRC accepting no. 2 status to BHO is much more radical than the other way around, given their ages, expectations and standing in the party. (I hesitate to use the term "experience", which HRC has loaded down with meanings beyond what I intend).

I think Clinton/Richardson or Obama/Webb would be strong tickets. Either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would feel awfully strange to a lot of folks, and I can't see HRC (or, perhaps especially, many of her supports) accepting it unless she's on top. The other way around is more likely, I think.

[Tom K]

Uhhh, the ending of my 11:31 post is muddled.

I meant to say that I think a ticket featuring both is reasonably possible (though not probable) if HRC prevails, but not if BHO prevails. Assuming no joint ticket, I think HRC/Richardson or BHO/Webb would be best.

Not that I plan on voting D anyway . . ..

[Judith]

Hey Tom W - nobody called you sexist other than the guy who needs reading glasses, so dont sweat it. You are not sexist - -anybody who reads you over time knows this.

I think the post is fine - BTD at Talkleft was talking about this ahwile ago (which you linked to recently) and I was not for it. Both you and Jason show both alternatives and why you think it works. Both candidates are super smart, well-educated people who know what is at risk here. Both know they have to choose a partner who helps them win if they are the Nominee.

If Obama is the nominee, which I doubt (ha!), I believe Clinton would accept an offer to be VP despite anybody's issues with how this "looks". This is why I want her to be President - she actually wants to dp the work! But I do not think he would pick her unless forced and I doubt that would happen. (cagney to his Obrien? hint hint - who was the star?)

I do think she would offer VP to Obama and she has alluded to this many times. I think it would be great for him.

[Ralph]

You Hillary supports who won't vote for Obama, or don't even want him on the ticket -- YOU ARE NUTS! OK, I said it. Anyone who would rather vote for McCain or thinks that staying home and not voting for Obama is justified, are just not real Democrats (same is true for Obama supporters who won't vote Hillary - NUTS). Are you independents? Are you conservatives? What in the hell are you? Do you care about the future of our country? Do you want McCain picking the next few Supreme Court judges? What exactly do you care about - just getting your way? What are you people, ten years old? Get a life! Are you gonna let the Republicans take control of the White House yet again because your candidate may not end up at the top of the ticket, or on the ticket at all? Tom and Jason are 100% correct -- but you don't want to hear the truth, you want what you want and screw everyone else. Pathetic!

[Slappy]

Ralph = Consistently the sanest voice in all this mess. If not the only sane voice.

[Ralph]

Slappy I can't help it. Die-hard Obama and Clinton supporters are ALL driving me insane! We should be more united then ever against the right-wing hate machine, and yet here we are -- fellow Dems whining that they won't vote for the other candidate because they didn't get their way. Waaahhh!! Well, I wanted Edwards because I just knew that having two firsts in the race (a woman and a black man) would distract everyone from the real issues in the campaign. And I was right. Edwards could have unified the party which is why the media ignored him. He had the most progressive message. But instead you are all foaming at the mouth and the Republicans (along with Rush Limbaugh) couldn't be more pleased. So go ahead you rabid supporters of Clinton and Obama -- tell us why the other candidate is the personification of evil, or totally unqualified, or too weak, blah blah blah. You all sound like fools to me.

[Slappy]

The ridiculous back and forth on the lefty blogs is maddening. There is a good chance however, like Tom W has said, that this long drawn out fight is actually good for the Dems. Certainly it has taken up most of the political coverage and muffled anything the GOP has been saying. It also has convinced many to register to vote, and most of them are new Dems. This looks like a disaster in waiting but in hindsight could be the best thing to happen to the Dems. since... when Bill met Hillary at the Waffle House in Arkansas?

Remember when we all hated Bush the most? Those were the days.

[Palomino]

@Jason: "I still believe Obama is the smartest guy running, the candidate mostly likely to turn our governance from the ideological to the practical, and the only candidate who actually understands what's going on w/ the credit markets (the core of our current economic crisis)."

Agree he's the smartest GUY running, but by no means the smartest CANDIDATE.

Why do you think he would "turn our governance from the ideological to the practical"? Your opinion is based on what, exactly? (Please don't say, "Postpartisan unity.")

And why on earth (sorry, my skepticism is showing) do you think he understands even the first thing about the credit markets? He seems irresponsibly wanting on that score, and on the economy in general, IMO. Truly clueless. (And, yes, I've gone to his website.)

[Nancy]

uh, ralph, obama is not a dem. here's what real dems do: http://www.correntewire.com/real_dems_a_wee_manifesto.

and here's what obama is: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-time-to-get-obama-skeptical.html.

and here's what i think: obama is an opportunistic INDEPENDENCE PARTY impostor leeching off of democratic goodwill. he has ZERO commitment to fundamental democratic principles, and he stands for NOTHING--except as pesky inconveniences to be tolerated in order to fuel his rise. he is the parasite that could very well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for democrats in november.

[Nancy]

p.s. here's another good one: http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-liberal-not-left.html.

obama is not left, not liberal, not progressive, and not a democrat. he's an opportunist. period.

[Tom K]

Nancy:

Anger is one thing, but epithets as destructive and ugly as "independent" should be used more sparingly.

[Slappy]

"...and he stands for NOTHING..."

Obama and Clinton have FAR more in common than not. That the candidate bashing is based on such trivial matters and is more often than not personal attacks proves this. i.e. "...he is a parasite..." Give me a break.

Imagine if you actually were successful in convincing an undecided voter that Obama was a parasite. Imagine Obama wins nomination. Congratulations on helping McCain.

[Nancy]

read the shakes article, slappy. the factual evidence precedes the epithet, not the other way around. give ME a break.

[Palomino]

@Slappy: It's the DNC "leaders" that appear to be intent on helping McCain by promoting a half-term senator who is woefully unprepared for the presidency, no matter how brilliantly he managed to game the caucuses. I do give him that, hands down. G. W. Bush is a great campaigner, too.

[Nancy]

oh, and did i mention that he'll throw race relations back 40 years? here's a good place to whet your appetite on that thrilling prospect: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/06/mimi-speaks-the-truth-on-rev-wright-and-his-ilk/.

and did i mention that he thinks the GOP's the "party of ideas," that he loves to compliment republicans (but never democrats), and uses right-wing dogwhistles about the big three--the economy, social security, and health care?

don't even get me STARTED on health care. i'm being screwed by my HMO this very second, and knowing a little about health care law, i know obama wants to return to the same failed GOP-driven experiments to "cut costs" instead of forcing a wrench into the vicious circle of declining coverage, declining insurance pooling, and rising costs that got us into the health care crisis we're in to begin with.

oh and did i mention that he wanted to vote for roberts for the supreme court--until he was informed that wasn't a politically smart move?

different from mccain? i don't think so.

[Slappy]

Palamino, you can run the most progressive, most qualified, most _______(fill in the blank), or you can run the candidate most likely to win. For myself, the GOP not maintaining control of the White House trumps all other concerns. Electability is the only issue worthy of discussion at this point. Also, Obama's inexperience (A point I do not concede but will entertain) is a strength, not a weakness in a year people want more than anything else is change. People are not interested in legacy politics or politicians. Not a knock against Clinton, just a fact. Or a hunch.

[Slappy]

Time to move to Canada Nancy.

[Palomino]

@Slappy: You and I appear to have the same goals, but we live in diametrically opposed universes. In mine, Obama is unelectable.

[Nancy]

no, slappy. i LOVE this country, i have no intention of ever leaving what i consider to be the greatest nation on the planet, and i'm NOT going to give up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to kick some major GOP ass. obama, meanwhile: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/29/94057/4513.

as i read another commenter put it elsewhere: in my world, bill clinton is a hero and ronald reagan is satan. that's non-negotiable. apparently, in obama's world, he's willing to hand anything and everything we've fought for (and quitely merrily) over to the republicans. you know, that party he loves so much more than ours?

my hopes and desires may be ambitious, but they're far from impossible or even unrealistic. they're rooted in my love for democratic principles and the fights at the very soul of the democratic party. fights worth fighting for, goddamn it. and fights we can WIN. so i'll be DAMNED if i'm going to let some opportunistic, ideologically noncommittal, self-aggrandizing little upstart who doesn't understand the importance of those fights destroy my party from within. NO. WAY.

[Slappy]

Were not THAT different. I think Clinton would beat McCain and I'd be more than happy to vote for her. I just think Obama has less chance of a GOP upset. The only dog I had in this race exited a long time ago. Edwards. Ive refused to give any money to either Obama or Clinton during the primaries. Im not paying out money to bash another Democrat. A pox on both houses. THey should have merged after Super Tuesday when a clear winner wasn't chosen but instead they went all GOP on each other. Their crazed supporters even more.

[Nancy]

palomino, i agree with you. obama is a ticking time bomb waiting to implode. it's not a matter of if, but when.

[Ralph]

Hmmmm. Sorry Tom W., it looks like the dedicated Hillary Clinton supporters you have recently attracted to you site are beyond help at this time. Perhaps there is hope for them in the future. But right now, they are foaming at the mouth.

The gloves are off.

First of all, Nancy, saying that Clinton would be stronger in swing states makes no sense since Obama does better with independents (you understand what swing means, right?). Oh, and if Dems don't vote for Obama, whose fault is that?

And if he has more delegates going into the convention than he should be at the top of the ticket. And vice versa. And oh yea, he's no different than McCain. What the heck are you smoking? Whatever it is, please have it analyzed.

Obama is not a real Democrat? Do you folks realize that us Dems said the same sort of things about Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992? Remember the DLC? But, I had to admit, they were able to take some of the conservative issues off the table (balanced budget, welfare reform, etc). If it hadn't been for Monica-gate, Gore would have won handily in 2000 even without Florida.

PS: Both Obama and H.Clinton are moderate Democrats. So give me a break!

And stop talking about 'experience'! Dick Cheney has more experience than anyone in Washington and he's a raving loon.

[Nancy]

slappy, the electoral landscape has changed--and it's still shifting as we speak. even if the gop-upset scenario was valid before (which i disagree with), it's certainly outdated now.

based on the history of voting tendencies of the 50 states over the past 40 years, the bases that the two candidates have built up, and their performance thus far in the primaries, it should be increasingly clear to all of us that obama is an electoral *liability*--not a boon. choosing him on "electability" grounds is tantamount to failing to learn our lesson and repeating the same mistake from 2004.

obama won't fight when it counts (let alone for the right reasons), and more importantly, his advantage to date has been wholly dependent on media favoritism, which is fickle as hell and--mark my words--can and *will* turn on a dime. i don't want another kerry, mcgovern, or dukakis, and that's what obama is--only wrapped up in a nicer, more glamorous 2.0 kind of package.

[Nancy]

well, slappy, my opinions are derived from hard facts--solid historical and empirical data--and i've been following new developments this season pretty closely. so you can try to dismiss my reasoning as based on hysteria or irrationality all you want, but ultimately that won't change the facts, those darn inconvenient little things. you oversimplify not only what the candidates are capable of achieving electorally, but also who the candidates are increasingly proving themselves to be, as new facts unfold. your narrative is outdated.

[Nancy]

monicagate? what a joke. gore lost because he distanced himself from bill clinton's administration (the most idiotic electoral move ever) and because he hired donna brazile (the most politically inept consultant ever). kerry similarly screwed up by eschewing bill clinton's advice in his 2004 campaign. these guys (and apparently many democrats) still just don't get it. no wonder democrats lose elections.

[Slappy]

"obama won't fight when it counts" Like speaking out against giving Bush the OK to invade Iraq you mean?

"wholly dependent on media favoritism" You mean all the independents and youth coming out to vote for him don't count? Obama hasn't brought a new energy to the Democratic party? And I'll take a candidate the press loves over one the press detests. Any day. Is the press hating your candidate an advantage somehow? The press is fickle for sure. Except for their hatred of the Clintons. Deserved? No. True? Yes.

"hard facts" Like there is no difference between Obama and McCain. Obama is really a Republican. Obama is a time bomb. OK. Can't argue hard facts. As if anybody has any hard facts in this argument.

"kerry, mcgovern, or dukakis" All old-school establishment politicians. Obama is in many ways the antithesis of these candidates. Unlike McCain and in many ways *cough cough* Clinton.

"what the candidates are capable of achieving electorally" The primary results speak/will speak for itself. However... Any Dem will win NY, CA, MA, etc. Who has a better chance of stealing some purple states? Obama has had far more success than Clinton in that regard. Hey, looky there, a hard fact.

[Nancy]

the fact that you're repeating obama's talking points practically word for word suggests that you don't get it.

hillary has won or is polling far ahead obama in far more of the contests and demographic groups comprising the swing states in the GE. obama has won primaries (or caucuses, *snort*) in many solid red states that we have ZERO chance of winning in november, no matter how much unity-pony "hope" you have.

set aside firmly blue states that both can win, which are less germane for our present purposes. now of the blue states that are *less solidly blue*--i.e., have some history of going red in the past and have sizeable republican populations and numbers of GOP legislators--hillary has strong leads, especially in the states with the most electoral votes.

but hey, if you want to cling to your obama talking points, by all means, feel free. i can't help you if you just don't get it.

[Judith]

Tom W - I feel like I read this comments section already many many times in the last 3 months. Why yes! I did!

[Nancy]

yikes, sorry slappy, i meant for my comment 5 notches up to be for ralph. and btw slappy, even if i disagree with you, i hear what you're saying and understand where you're coming from. i'm sorry edwards had to drop out. he was a great candidate and i would have voted for him in a heartbeat in the GE.

[Nancy]

wow, slappy, now that i've stepped back and see i mistook you for ralph (and what ensued as a result), i feel super bad. i'm really sorry about that. please accept my apologies.

[Jason Chervokas]

Palamino-

Obama's the smartest candidate in the mix, male or female, editor of the Harvard Law Review, turned down a full professorship in law at U Chicago to continue to continue to pursue his political career. Very smart person, very knowledgeable person. And it wouldn't be bad to have a guy who taught con law as the chief executive.

In re the credit crisis, I've had a front seat to it over the past two years since my wife is in the structured finance business. Obama was the only candidate, when all three first addressed the problem, who accurately laid the blame at the feet of lax regulation of the non-bank-based banking system--the credit default swap market, the "self-regulating" bond rating system that enabled the bubble in securitized debt which is the real driver of the real estate crisis(bond raters are acutally paid when bonds issue, built into the system is a financial incentive to sign off on issues as AAA that shouldn't have been considered so on their face), etc.

Clinton, either for political reasons or for because she really has a superficial understanding, chose to define the problem as one that's principally a real estate crisis (it's so much bigger than that)--in my opinion dumbing down the real problem and turning the focus of her "solutions" to sound bytes of bad policies that sound good (like a federally mandated interest rate freeze on ARMs--a horrid idea that would make credit tighter and more expensive across all markets, worsening, not fixing the problem).

My principal attraction to Obama is my confidence that he and his econ advisors, like Austan Goolsbee, can lead the country into a post-Reaganomics Democratic economics that's not 60s liberalism redux but something new that addresses the new economy and the real needs of America today--improved savings, debt reduction across the economy, prudent regulation. I'm tired of the feel-good populist goobledygook that passes for Democratic economics in these presidential elections.

My principal beef with Clinton--and mind you, I'll gladly vote for her if she's the nominee--is her willingness to talk down to the electorate on policy with soundbyte quick fixes and politically convenient promises (obliterate Iran, gas tax holiday, interest rate freeze). This kind of talk is a problem because in the end it drives bad policy decisions--it's the kind of political convenience that, in the worst circumstances, drove us deeper into Vietnam and got us into Iraq in he first place.

In terms of post-ideology politics, it's simply impossible for either McCain--a committed movement conservative and Reagan revolutionary--or Clinton--fairly or unfairly seen as the last of the culture warrior presidential candidates--to take us over the hump as a nation. Whether Obama can get us there or not remains to be seen. But what I'm certain of is this: Together Clinton and McCain represent the end of a generationl line of public discourse not the beginning of a new one.

[Palomino]

@Jason: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm not persuaded, but I respect your point of view.

Principally, I worry that Obama will triangulate with the GOP on Social Security and with the insurance companies on health care. I also think that the economic advisers you named are not progressive.

And Obama himself seemed genuinely flummoxed by Charles Gibson's softball debate question about the capital gains tax. To the extent that Obama actually understands how the capital gains tax works, he seems really awful on that issue. For example, he doesn't seem to grasp that some 20 percent of people with incomes under $50K are subject to capital gains, through the forced choice of the retirement investment vehicles that have supplanted the secure pensions of decades past. I don't see any excuse for that level of misunderstanding in a presidential candidate.

Clearly there is a generational component in this primary season, and in this election. But please don't lump McCain and Clinton into the same generation. Clinton is an early Boomer (just as Obama is a late Boomer, though obviously he's in that bridge generation between the Boomers and the Xers). But McCain is a member of what used to be called the Quiet Generation, the crew-cut guys who listened to Pat Boone while they were in college and drank alcohol instead of smoking weed, a generation of frat boys and political quietists. That generation is actually responsible for many of the fuckups that Boomers in federal government get blamed for (not to say that the Boomers are without sin themselves).

That said, an emphasis on the generational divide on the part of Obama backers is understandable, but it needlessly alienates many in their fifties and older who have been voting Democratic for decades and who are not ready to be put out to pasture. And much of this emphasis has come from the candidate himself, for what seem like opportunistic and cynical reasons, however grandiloquently expressed at rallies of the jugend (/snark).

[Jason Chervokas]

Palamino-

I agree that sometimes Obama has seemed underbriefed, but so too has Clinton on ocassion.

I do think the Dems haven't quite gotten to the right answer on capital gains. I'd like to see capital gains not treated as ordinary income, but instead I'd like to see the creation of a secondary higher tax bracket for capital gains over a certain dollar threshold. When a hedge fund partner books a gain of $14 mil, he or she can take a higher % hit than when a retiree sells $10K in stocks.

[Nancy]

palomino, i agree with you on the ageism from obama's campaign. i'm 27, and i don't fit in their demographic pigeonhole.

[Ralph DeMarco]

If Obama alienates the fifty and older crowd, than Hillary alienates all those who want a clean break from the past (a past that has failed us on so many levels). If the Iraq war had never happened, than maybe Hillary would already be our nominee. But it did - and it galvanized the progressive movement in this country. I know, I've been paying attention. Regardless of what you think of Obama's chances in November, you can't deny that he has struck a chord with the left of center Dems.

And that's the elephant in the room that die-hard Clinton supporters refuse to acknowledge. Regardless of Hillary's smarts and savvy political skills she has been robbed of an easy primary victory because so many Dems are uncomfortable continuing the legacy of the two families who have been running the executive branch since 1989. This is why you cannot have a 2008 ticket without Obama and Clinton. Well, you can, but it would be a mistake.

And, Nancy, I hate to tell you, Bill Clinton's impeachment did have an impact on the 2000 election -- I know, I remember it very well. Why do you think Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate? You had every Republican claiming they were going to bring 'dignity' back to the White House. It worked on enough people that Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee.

[Judith]

Ralph, as 2000 was only 8 years ago I think we all remember it. But I remember it differently -I remember a media blowing kisses at Bush and building him up into something he quite clearly is not. He is a moron and his pals are thieves. I remember the media bashing Gore in a disgusting way because they cared more about making low rent jokes instead of informing themselves and the country and the blowhard calling out Clinton for sex was cheating on his second wife with his third to be. (where was THAT info at the time?) And I remember some hanging chads in Florida and a little thing called the Supreme Court. Gore should have fought back. Hillary would have for sure.

The elephant in the room (god, is that tired phrase or what?)is a vast media that cares more about a fresh story with a bouffant doo than it does about anything regarding the good of the majority of the citizens of this country. 2 million ways to entertain ourselves while we sink into shit and the rest of the world passes us by.

Hey, hand me the remote, willya?

[Nancy]

ralph, i remember gore's campaign well too--because i worked on it, as well as for the CA democratic party and its political consultants that year. and ya know what? i'm with judith on this one.

[bruce bernstein]

Jason said:

I'd like to see capital gains not treated as ordinary income, but instead I'd like to see the creation of a secondary higher tax bracket for capital gains over a certain dollar threshold. When a hedge fund partner books a gain of $14 mil, he or she can take a higher % hit than when a retiree sells $10K in stocks.

Jason, this is a fundamental point of economic injustice. When a hedge fund partner "books" a gain of $14 mil, in 99% of the cases (i.e. in all cases where he wasn't using HIS OWN money), it is actually ordinary income (a performance bonus or profit sharing) and not a capital gain, and should be treated as such.

This tax dodge for private equity partners is one of the grossest, if not most important in dollar terms, injustices in the American tax system.

I won't argue the other points at length, but I think you are in some ways misidentifying the problems with the sustainability of the American economy. Savings rate and debt is indeed important, but the basis of this is the destruction of our manufacturing base, and our huge structural trade deficit.

And of course our growing Latin America style income distrubution, which is related.

You can't have an economy that runs on everyone selling Internet advertising to each other, or flipping houses.

[Jason Chervokas]

Bruce, two things, I disagree w/ your characterization of the carried interest as income--it absolutely reflects a return on invested capital (you may also not be surprised to hear that I think the estate tax is in fact double taxation and patently unfair). I do agree that there's a problem of income imbalance, much of which I think resulted over the last 8 years from regulations that allowed too much leverage to be piled up in the so-callled "shadow banking system"--and I think things need to change, but I don't think taxing carried interest as personal income does the trick.

Second, you are right about the problem of the US GDP being 70% consumer spending and the problems that result from the trade imbalances w/ China and the oil producing countries, but unless we're in for a prolonged period of the dollar cratering--and by prolonged I mean decades--and a general decline in household income over, again, a period of decades, I'm not sure the US is going to become a major manufacturing economy ever again. The major, mature western economies are just never again going to be labor-intensive manufacturing economies unless a global depression brings our costs more inline with those of China or the Chinese economy grows to the point where costs there get closer to costs here. Either way it will won't happen in our lifetimes.

[Palomino]

What Judith and Bruce said.

[No Blood for Hubris]

Moi, I think it's time to euthanize the Unity Pony.

[Judith]

May I just say what a delight it is to see Jason and Bruce debating something interesting and important? Thanks

[Tom K]

Used to be, majority view said capital gains should be taxed higher, because they belonged to "fat cats".

Then, the R's convinced the majority that bringing down capital gains taxes was good for the economy (which is true).

Now, we seem moving toward the view that, if lower capital gains are good for the economy, it is fair and reasonable to tax them at a lower rate than applies to ordinary income for many taxpayers. That is why we see hedge fund managers striving to have the income taxed as captial gains. They sure wouldn't be arguing for that if captial gains were still taxed at a higher rate.

While the phrase "class warfare" gets thrown around a lot, this is an example where it fits. In an environment where "fat cats" and "working people", for example, believe they can manipulate the tax code to serve their interests, conflict is ensured.

While any proposed solution will have a lot of hurdles to overcome, I think the rough outlines of the solution here are easily made out. Just tax all income at the same rate, sharply reduce deductions (since it is infeasible to eliminate them entirely), establish a reasonably high floor at which the flat tax kicks in (pegged to regional cost of living, to keep it fair), and you will get rid of the class warfare arguments as well as the vast economy devoted to avoiding taxation.

This could be done in a way that is revenue neutral, or even increases revenue, depending where you set the floor and rate. And a flat tax covering all forms of revenue can hardly be assailed as regressive now that we have capital gains taxed at lower rates than ordinary income for many taxpayers.

Also, this reform would have the very happy effect of eliminating the understated scandal of contemporary US domestic policy: that the most heavily taxed commodity today is honesty. (It's well known, even in progressive circles I believe, that one of the sureset ways for the government to discourage a behavior is to tax it.)

No candidate is talking about this kind of change, because that things it would alter are too fundamental to the system they have thrived in.

[Ralph]

A bit off topic are we? First: The unity ticket. Yes. Those who don't agree -- I feel bad for you. Second: Anyone who thinks that BC's monica mess had no effect on Gore's campaign are deluded. Third: Capital gains income is UNEARNED income. ie: 'twas earned from the sweat of others and deserves to be taxed at a higher rate that regular income. Class warfare? Hah! The wealthy have been waging that against the poor since time began. Tom K, yer funny.

[gmanedit]

Aside from considerations of whether Obama is just too juicy a target (who thought it was a good idea to run a national race with a pol from Chicago?), some people are skeptical about whether Obama is really a principled Dem. Could Hillary work to promote Obama's policies if she thinks they are wrong?

A lot of O supporters remind me of Extropians: We can live on pixels. It's so old-school to want to eat.

[Tom K]

Ralph:

*A bit off topic are we?*

I didn't raise the subject of how capital gains should be taxed in comparison to ordinary income, I responded to what seemed to me a pretty substantive discussion. Off topic is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Anyway, this is like the D nominating process -- rules shouldn't be taken too seriously.

*Capital gains income is UNEARNED income. ie: 'twas earned from the sweat of others and deserves to be taxed at a higher rate that regular income.*

So far as I know, at least some hedge fund managers actually go to work. If money earned by working in an office isn't "earned", then there isn't much being earned in the US these days by anyone.

*Class warfare? Hah! The wealthy have been waging that against the poor since time began.*

OK. But, putting aside the fact that the "wealthy" is not a static category, I have a more fundamental response -- let's stop. Treating all income the same would be a big step in the right direction.

[Judith]

Hey Ralph - learn to read a little closer and try not to make yourself an assumption. Nobody said the hypocrites in the press didnt hype the monica thing while the politicians calling out the affair werent fucking around on their wives - my point is that the reporting was selective, lazy, and irresponsible and THAT is the reason damage was and is done.

The media picks a side alright and it is always their own.

[Slappy]

Tom K, isn't one of the purposes of taxation to spread the wealth? To equalize the inequities of the rich vs poor? A means of the wealthy subsidizing a society that has worked well for them financially? Not only to pave the roads that we all must use. If this is the case, doesnt a flat tax eliminate this purpose? Is it really beneficial to society for Bill Gates to pay 15% of his income and someone making $65k also pay 15%? Gates' has very little income compared to his wealth. Its all in stock. How would you tax capital gains?

[Ralph]

Just to clarify, and let me know if I am wrong (as if you wouldn't): Is there not a difference between receiving a pay check for work done in an office, and profit gained from the sale of an asset? I assume that the former is earned from labor, and the later is unearned because there is no real labor involved in the creation of the profit.

Judith: I was responding to the notion that the impeachment etc, it had no negative effect on Gore's campaign (I think it did) You understand that I am not saying it was fair or justified. You understand the difference between honest analysis and condoning the media's stupidity. Damn, I thought it was clear. You folks are just psycho about the Clintons. Hey, I voted for Bill twice, I voted for Hillary for Senate twice. So what? I can still critique them when I disagree. And I think that Bill Clinton gave the Republicans an issue they didn't deserve -- morality. We all know that's a bogus argument. But I will never forgive Bill Clinton for not keeping it in his pants when he knew damn well the Republicans were chomping at the bit to find evidence of his womanizing. And, I think it made the difference in keeping Gore from winning without Florida. All those swing voters (Reagan Dems) we need to win back the Presidency went for Bush in 2000. I blame Bill Clinton for that. Deal with it.

[Tom K]

Bill Gates would pay a whole lot more under my proposal than the person making $65K, because a flat tax is a percentage of income and his income is much higher.

Also, I have proposed that the tax not start until "a reasonably high floor". In high-cost-of-living areas like New York, I'd suggest that the figure be higher than $65K. In regions where $65K puts you in the upper third or so of earners, though, the guy making that much can start contributing the flat tax rate at the first dollar beyond the trigger.

This won't equalize his wealth with Bill Gates, but why should it? I don't trust the state enough to give it the power to do that. Nor do I think assured equality of outcome is inherently desirable.

As for taxing wealth, rather than income, I don't believe that is either constutitional or desirable. The principal amount of such wealth should be taxed as income when it is earned. Thereafter, income on it should be taxed as earned, but the principal should not be taxed again.

All the games the rich play -- but the middle class can't afford -- turning income into capital gains, or profits into deductible losses, could be eliminated by a simpler, flat tax like this. At least, to borrow a D talking point, it would ensure that Warren Buffet paid a higher tax rate than his secretary.

[Tom K]

Ralph:

There is a difference. While our insanely complicated tax code makes any simple statement risky, it is basically true, I think, that the paycheck for work done in an office is classic income, while the proceeds from sale of an asset is classic captial gain.

It used to be the former would be taxed at a lower rate than the latter. Now, it is frequently the other way around. Hedge Fund managers take a carried interest in the fund in exchange for their work managing the fund. In substance it is essentially salary, but in form it is capital gain (thus taxed lower than income at their income level). There are countless clever ways to play with the tax code, which clever accountants and lawyers will find as long as there is economic incentive to do so. The flat tax on all income eliminates that incentive.

[drinkof]

"Agree he's the smartest GUY running, but by no means the smartest CANDIDATE."

Where's the evidence? It's clear that he (with his team) has way more game than Team Clinton. Complete unknown smokes the best-known team in Democratic circles? What's even to argue?

"G. W. Bush is a great campaigner, too."

Actually, no. He was the namesake of a former president and eldest of a national political dynasty of sorts. He was never more than adequate as a campaigner, and benefited hugely from Gore's complete lack of feck as a candidate.

Obama is much more in line with the 50 state strategy, which probes for potential seats (anyone think the D's would take that LA seat last week?), builds the local party and makes the opposition react (and spend) everywhere. It's a pure winner for the Democrats. Focusing on historical swing states is just bad strategy.

And as I have been saying for months, NC is wide open in the fall. People don't realize, Jesse Helms never got more than 52%, the governor, lt gov and most other statewide officers are D's. With almost 200k new registrants and the turnout machine? The 10th largest state is at least in play, and (you read it here first) is very likely to go for an Obama-led ticket in the fall.

Changes the whole national math, doesn't it?

[Judith]

Ok Ralph.

[Slappy]

Tom K, I do not mean the tax code should try to bring the 65k worker and Bill Gates to the same salary level. But taxes are meant not just to pave roads but to help distribute wealth for the betterment of society. (Im sure you love that phrase.) Taxing everyone at the same percent eliminates this goal. A goal you probably disagree with. Not sure.

Bill Gates would effectively be paying far less tax than the 65k earner. His taxable income would be a very minor percent of his income. Most of his income being stock. The 65k earners taxable income is 100% of his cash salary. Am I misunderstanding you? I am no accountant but am curious.

Isnt sales tax a flat tax? Everyone gets taxed the same rate and is usually adjusted by region. Why do you not push zero income tax and only sales tax?

[Kitty Glendower]

Oh please, Clinton on top or nothing. She is older and more experience. Why should she have to wait until she is an old woman when she has the most experience of the two now.

I will not get behind Obama, ever! Just another man with less experience getting paid more than a woman. No, not now, not ever.

[Tom K]

A sales tax is a flat tax, based on what you buy. The flat tax I am proposing is based on what you earn.

I don't agree that taxing everyone (who reaches the floor income level) at the same rate runs counter to the goal of "distribut[ing] wealth for the betterment of society." I'm not really comfortable with that goal as stated but, rather than get diverted to that point, I'll deal with your objection, which I read as being that the flat tax I propose is not a progressive as a graduated income tax.

I disagree for at least three reasons:

(i) My proposal is not really "flat", but rather is progressive, because it would exempt most current taxpayers entirely, because of the floor/trigger. (I'm not wild about this, philisophicaly, but I think the proposal is a sufficient improvement over what we have that I can get over my qualms.)

(ii) Our current system is regressive, compared to the flat tax I propose, on account of the many loopholes, deductions and schemes available to the very wealthy, but not the middle class or even moderately wealthy.

(iii) Our current system is regressive, compared to the flat tax I propose, because presently any moderate income earner pays more on income than the wealthiest pay on capital gains.

I don't know what Bill Gates' salary is, but if he makes more than $65K, he would pay more than the $65K income earner. If he takes less in salary, than whatever entity is holding his assets would pay the tax on them, to the extent they appreciated in value. I don't see any unfairness in that.

[Slappy]

Im not disagreeing as much as trying to understand your proposal. Im not inherently opposed to a flat tax. I honestly dont understand it enough to have a real opinion. I am skeptical though.

Loopholes do not make a progressive tax system flawed. The loopholes themselves are flawed.

One major problem with the tax system as far as I can tell, is that corporations have tax laws far more favorable than those of individuals. There are probably few millionaires with their money in their own name but rather in some form of corporation. Hourly workers generally do not have these options. This problem is not limited to taxation but the entire American system as a whole. How does your system tax corporations and individuals?

[Tom K]

I don't want to give the impression that I have some master system all worked out; I don't. Generally, I think that corporations should be taxed the same as individuals. Whether Joe Doe or XYZ corp. makes the dollar, I would apply the same rules and rate schedule, at least presumptively.

It might be that corporations should have a higher floor than individuals since, as collective entities, they tend to deal in larger sums without being "richer" per se. Or, it might be that they should have no floor at all, but should pay from the first dollar since the floor is essentially a humanitarian exemption, and they ain't human. I'm not sure which answer is right (assuming either is).

Assuming they're under the same rules, I guess Joe Doe can have $60,000/yr. paid to him, and $60,000 paid to XYZ corp. (which he owns and uses to pay his daily expenses) so that neither hits the tax floor. But the types of scams you could work in a flat tax environment would be more limited than the variety currently on offer, and I see no reason why policing the abuses should be any more difficult.

As much as I admit I haven't figured out, this much I have -- the current tax structure is absurd; a simpler one would be better; a flatter one would be fairer; the tax on honesty must be repealed (even if, or especially because, so few are paying it.)

[mrmobi]

Tom W., I myself once thought that the "dream" ticket was a possibility, but I dont' see Hillary Clinton in a subservient role. VP is just not a good fit, for her.

There are lots of good people Obama can choose from, Claire McCaskill for one. Hillary, once she concedes and gives her full support to the Obama campaign, will have a wealth of choices, including Senate Majority Leader, (I think she'd be a much better leader than Harry Reid) or how about Governor of New York?

I do think, Tom, that you're barking up the wrong tree here, considering comments like this:

Nancy: in my world, bill clinton is a hero and ronald reagan is satan. that's non-negotiable.

I mean, where do you begin? Bill Clinton was a very good President. A hero? I think not. Don't forget about the horrible mess he managed to make of welfare "reform." What about his failure to act during the Rwandan genocide? Not hero material. A fine man and a good president, one of the most savvy politicians I've ever seen, and really smart. I miss that in my president.

Now, I'm not going to defend Ronald Reagan. No, someone who ignored the AIDS pandemic will not be receiving any kudos from me. I suppose that Obama's comment about Reagan is what prompted this, but clearly Nancy didn't hear or read the entire item, because he never said that Reagan's ideas were good, just that they changed the political landscape, which they did.

Nancy, however, is buying into the "Good vs. Evil" nonsense that is the speciality of the Republican Party. "Axis of Evil" "Evil-doers" and on and on.

As a non-believer, Satan is as silly a concept as God to me. You might as well say Reagan was a hobbit, for all the sense it makes.

What the use of that kind of language does do is polarize and offend people. In my view, there are some good Republicans, although they are a tiny minority right now. I don't like most of their ideas, but there are people in the Republican Party who believe the Bush Administration is damaging our Constitution. We should be talking to them.

What we don't want to do now, as Democrats, is run screaming into the general election saying that Reagan is "Satan." That's counterproductive, as Obama apparently has some considerable appeal to Republicans who haven't drunk the kool-aid. Ronald Reagan served two-terms as President because his party specifically courted a certain voter demographic which became known as "Reagan Democrats." There's nothing to stop Barack Obama from pulling the same trick, without the racist underpinning, unless Democrats are so polarizing that they force the country to turn, against its' better interests, to the right.

Just my two cents.

[zuzu]

Oh, I do so love having my reproductive rights used as a club to keep me in line.

I realize that the next president will most likely make two appointments to the Supreme Court. But what people seem to forget is that the Democrats control the Judiciary Committee, and they don't have to let unacceptable nominees out of committee.

Just ask Orrin Hatch how that works.

[Judith]

zuzu - I love when you show up.

I think we are going to continue on a very wild trip to Nov 7. I am keeping my phaser on stun. :-)

[Judith]

From Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200805070004

"Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler has written about these phenomena for years -- why mainstream liberal columnists and pundits almost never tell you the truth about the media. And trust me, they don't. As Somerby has noted, there was almost universal, real-time silence from them back in 2000 when the press unleashed perhaps the most sustained, unfair attack on a U.S. presidential nominee in modern times. Virtually none of the A-list liberal commentators came to Al Gore's aid when it mattered most; when the press was at times depicting him as unstable and pathological. (Conservative pundits never would have stood by silently if their nominee were torn apart by the media like that.) "

Indeed. Waiting for the same comment to be made about how the liberal media has treated Clinton.

[LC]

I'm a Hillary supporter, so take this with the proverbial grain of salt.

Obama/Clinton is a non-starter. She'd have much more power as Majority Leader. And, as VP to the vacuous Obama, she'd have to support policies with which she doesn't agree.

Clinton/Obama would make sense in that he desperately needs experience in Washington and would have value as a goodwill ambassador. But it would be a disaster for Hillary because he'd probably do everything in his power to make her fail.

Until today, I thought I could vote for Obama in the GE. Now I know that I can't. I won't vote for McCain. But I will sit out the Pres. race (or write in Hillary's name). In a way, I can do this with a clear conscience. I live in the Bay Area. It will go for Obama. California probably won't, no matter how I vote.

And there is no way that Obama can win the GE. Indeed, I suspect he will lose by historic proportions. (I am not saying that Hillary can win. I just believe she has a better chance against McCain - based solely on the experience argument - than Obama. If she loses, it would be close.)

No matter how much you talk about Obama's bringing in new people to the party, you underestimate just how much his campaign tactics, aided and abetted by the HDS media, have angered a significant portion of Hillary's supporters. Right now, I feel that voting for Obama would be the equivalent of an AA voting for a KKK member. There is nothing he or his supporters can say or do at this stage to win me back. Nothing.

[Judith]

LC - no one has to decide yet. There is no nominee yet despite what I read the teevee pundits are yapping. Cross that bridge when you get to it and, in my opinion, avoid burning it down prematurely.

Just my take as a Clinton supporter

[Pat Johnson]

The DNC and powers that be had better wake up. The GOP is just warming up with the mudballs already. Today's theme: Ayres. Last week: Wright. Rezko just went to the jury. The flag pin will be played up big time. His inexperience, judgment, background, thin resume is going to feed Fox ratings from now to November. He gives a good speech but extemporaneously he is mediocre at best. This is not a great candidate to go into the general against a GOP machine that brought down Kerry with bogus claims made by the Swift Boat group.

Hillary is a bulldog. She knows these people. She is a proven fighter. They will make mincemeat of The One and the Dems will go down yet again. Put her at the top and she will get them over the finish line. Enough of this "hope" and "change" mantra. We want a candidate that "can do".

[Teresa]

Sorry! But I disagree.

The Obama campaign machine has behaved appalingly and has gone against all Democratic principles I believed in. I could only support him if I am bereft of any principles or values. Thankfully I have still retained my values though us Clinton supporters have been subjected to horrendeous behaviour, name calling by Obama & Supporters to the extent they called us racist and as Donna Brazille so recently put it unwanted.

Obama campaign have behaved like republicans using republican talking points to denigrate Hillary and Bill Clinton. And if Obama wins the nomination it would be another theft (not counting FL & MI is Stealing however DB may put it) like Bush's in 2000.

I hope Hillary just chills out if she doesn't win the nomination and put all her energies for 2012.

[Jason Chervokas]

A coupla things..

Tom K- The problem w/ the flat income tax is, of course, equitable execution. It's all well and good to say "no loopholes" etc....but we both know that when the tax codes get written by congress, and accounting rule promulgated by regulatory agencies, that kind of purity is likely not to result. Plus, I do think the use of the tax code to stimulate or discourage certain kinds of activity via incentives and penalties (energy efficency, home ownership, whatever) is a good one. We need tax reform, no doubt. But I don't think were' gonna ever wind up with something so neat and simple.

Slappy you write:

...isn't one of the purposes of taxation to spread the wealth?

Absolutely not! The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government in order that it may do the things the electorate wants it to do (provide for the common defense and all that). That's it and nothing more. To the extent that tax policy can be used to create incentives and disincentives for certain kinds of behavior which promote a greater good (like the mortgage tax deduction), it's part of a process of social engineering. But it's not a wealth redistribution system nor should it be; this ain't the MLB luxury tax. Furthermore, I'm always shocked by the progressive movement's willingness to promote regressive taxes (like gas taxes) as a means of changing consumer behavior. Higher taxes shouldn't be used as a cudgel to beat the population into submission. It's not only bad for the economy and for working people, it's just wrong.

Teresa you write:

The Obama campaign machine has behaved appalingly and has gone against all Democratic principles I believed in.

which seems to be a popular meme among Hillary supporters. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I don't know how much experience you have in political campaigns, but by any historic measure this has been a pretty soft campaign with precious few negative or chippy tactics from any of the three candidates. Little in the way of negative advertising (no Willie Horton type stuff or flower girl ads), little in the way of whisper campaigns, etc. Frankly, as an Obama supporter, my preference from a sheer political POV would have been to have him go sharply negative after TX and OH, characterizing HRC as a pandering bullshit artist who will say anything and deliver the same legislative vaporware and policy gridlock we've had for a generation. I want people to like HRC less so my guy wins. But what do I know, Obama's less negative strategy appears to be working. The fact is negative campaigning usually works, its something all candidates have to do, and you have to have a thick skin and be able to take it if you're gonna be in the game. All you can do in a campaign is make people like you more and like your opponent less. You need to do both things to win. But in this cycle, throughout the primaries on both sides, the more negative a candidate goes, the less responsive the public is. Go figure.

Meanwhile, I haven't heard Obama or any decision-making figures in his campaign call HRC racist once. What Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes or someone at Daily Kos writes or says really has nothing to do with the candidates and is, frankly, irrelevant bullshit (same as this crap we're writing here). Fun for us to discuss maybe, but not very telling about the nature of the candidates. If someone wants to hold against a candidate what some "supporter" says on TV or on the Net, well that person is just looking for a reason to dislike the opponent. If I took seriously all the bullshit I heard from Ed Rendell during the run up to the PA primary, I would have lost my mind. Listen to the signal, not the noise.

Nancy writes...

in my world, bill clinton is a hero and ronald reagan is satan. that's non-negotiable.

Glad I don't live in your world. Now, I think Ronald Reagan's union busting, biz deregulation, and supply-side monetary and tax policy has caused among other things a capital crater in the US economy from which we will probably never recover as a nation. But to call Reagan "satan" is just chidlish, the kind of discourse that is almost a parody of bloggy discourse and that turns people off to whatever substantive ideas you may be trying to suggest.

Bill Clinton a hero? Again, way over the top. I liked the way Bill used US economic power as a wing of US diplomacy, and I liked the fact that he wasn't afraid of free trade and welfare reform. (And if you are a self-proclaimed "progressive"--which I'm not--it's tough to see how a a welfare reforming, free-trade promoting president who abandoned universal health care and gays in the military is heroic.) But he also got lucky catching the Internet boom economy and the fallout of the Soviet collapse and was able to be a caretaker president for the most part.

I'm old enough to remember a time in this country, before the culture warriors pushed everyone's backs to the wall with their Mancheian insistence on seeing everything they do as good and everything the other guy does as evil, when despite their legitmate disagreements, conservatives and liberals were willing to acknowledge that they were Americans before they were partisans, when every Democratic idea wasn't inherently good and every Republican idea wasn't inherently bad (and vice versa).

The persistent demonizing of the other guy has led to political success I suppose for the GOP in presidential politics (tho' I think the days of "liberal" as a bad word are over), but it has also created a kind of policy gridlock which ensures that we never address our big problems. And we have big problems---a generation with no savings about to retire; an economy that manufactures nothing but debt instruments and imports cash; a crippling dependence on a foreign energy source controled by hostile powers the use of which is destroying the planet; and a two-tiered health care system that provides world-class care to the rich and second-class care to everyone else.

Whether you like it or not, there's no day coming where all of America turns blue or all of America turns red. Addressing these problems means using the adversarial process the founders devised to come to functional compromises. Let's do it.

[Judith]

Teresa - I agree. Personally, I stick to my original statement on here - I will not go to the barricades with those who insult me. They can fight it alone. Who I vote for will be my business and I will keep the bridge intact and my options open. But fight with the Obama hypocrites against the GOP hypocrites?
I havent the stomach for it.

Jason, though I know you did not address me, I will tell you that I find your dismissive attitude toward Bill Clinton really bizarre. You talk about compromise and yet crap on Clinton - someone quite a few of us respect and whose presidency we admire. That kind of tactic work for you much?

[Jason Chervokas]

Judith, I'm not crapping on Clinton. I just think calling him a "hero" is as excessive as calling Reagan "satan."

My personal opinion of Bill is that I think he was a decent president who benefited greatly from the Internet stock market boom. I was a big fan of his economic policy and his use of US military and economic power in nation building. I was also a big fan of his willingness to champion NAFTA, something some Dems run away from today--if there was anything politically courageous in his administration it was pushing NAFTA through. I also think Bob Rubin was a great treasury secretary. Still, I find it odd for him to be characterized as "heroic" by progressives given that his biggest and longest lasting legislative successes were NAFTA and welfare reform, basically items cherry picked from the GOP adgenda of the time, and given how quickly he gave up on other cherished liberal policy goals. Not crapping on those things, but raising my eyebrows about his "heroism."

Furthermore, and I'm not ashamed to admit it as a liberal (tho not progressive) Dem, I thought he should be removed from office for lying under oath. I think if a president lies under oath and we know about it and don't do anything it profoundly undermines the entire institution of the presidency. Under Bill we took the presidency from the admittedly apocryphal "I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the cherry tree" to "depends what you mean by 'is'." Not the presidency's most heroic hour.

[Judith]

Jason - you dismissed his presidency. The only successful one we Democrats have had in many years. You called him "lucky" and a "caretaker". That is crapping on his years in office and in a very patronizing way. Jesus, that isnt compromise you want - that is surrender. The one thing I can respect about the GOP is they NEVER would do this kind of thing. Denigrate a wonderful president from their own party? Even today, Bush has 60% favorability with the GOP. I would have laughed at them in the past...today? I see they have loyalty even to a piece of crap when our own Democrats cant pony it up for one of our best.

The last 6 months have been an eye-opener for me.

But like I say - good luck with all that. Let's see how this turns out Nov 8.

Jason:

Once upon a time, I would have said, "you keep writing so sensibly, people will mistake you for a Republican." Alas, that makes no sense at all in today's environment.

Tho' on the tax code, you seem to waver a bit. If the point is not to redistribute income, isn't a flat tax the best tax, even if imperfections will inevitably seep in (as they will in any system)? And if encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors is a proper use of the taxing authority, what's wrong with the gas tax? The mortgage interest deduction is regressive too, since it favors hig