Cool Hand Barack

Yesterday, Obama again proved why he should be the nominee and why Clinton shouldn't. He came to the Rules Committee table ready to negotiate, knowing exactly what he needed to take away and what he could afford to give. He told his supporters not to attend and not to engage the Clintonistas, trying to avoid an embarrassing spectacle for the news cameras.

She came to the table, full of huff and rhetoric. She had 13 allies out the 28 members of the Committee. She rounded up the rabble rousers to make a big show of it. Even her allies on the committee were visibly annoyed by her supporters.

Her offer for Michigan was an insult, not a negotiating point. Who really thinks he deserves NOTHING in MI? Her motions were quickly voted down with little support, even from her allies.

When it got past rhetoric to votes, the Florida compromise passed 27-0, taking it off the table. Obama had 15 votes to take a 64-64 split of delegates, but he opted for 69-59 (halved) to get 19 votes. Instead of a narrow win, he got 70% of the committee to agree to a compromise. This makes it extremely difficult for her to challenge on any logic, other than the emotional impact of her losing.

Ironically, she would have gotten a better deal out of Michigan if she hadn't rejected the Michigan Democratic Party's 69-59 split last month, giving her +10 delegates. Instead, she gets the same split, halved, and she loses her only rationale for staying in the race.

So, when you talk about Iraq, health care or Congressional relations, which candidate looks better prepared for Day 1?

You want drama and emotion, vote Clinton. You want long-term strategy and cool efficiency, vote Obama.

Hill-Billy Country

Some have speculated that Clinton is doing so well in West Virginia because her campaign is spreading the rumor that Barak Obama fathered two black children.

MoveOn, Clinton, MoveOn

Losing teams always make mistakes, but so do winning teams. The key is what mistake was the gamebreaker. Many have pointed to Clinton's 2002 vote to invade Iraq, but Kerry got the nomination (even though it handicapped him in the fall) just 2 years later. Voters are more forgiving since many of them initially supported the war. You can write that off as "Bush screwed it up."

What did Clinton in was her vote in fall 2007 for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to authorize Bush to invade Iran. It completely undercut her argument that "Bush tricked her" in 2002. Fool me once, well, you can't fool me again, as Bush would say.

Her vote in 2007 was based on the same political calculation as in 2002: don't look weak on defense. She completely ignored the Democratic base who are angry with the Democrats for not doing enough to end the Iraqi war, but she figured they would have no choice but to vote for her.

In April, she criticized MoveOn for financing Obama, but it was her Iran vote that decided them for Obama. Once she betrayed their core issue: ending the war in Iraq, she lost them forever. They found a messenger in Obama, and provided him with an endless supply of money and volunteers. He has been winning college students and young adults overwhelmingly, and they are the small donors fueling his money machine. They were behind him when the black community was solidly behind Clinton.

Without the Iran vote, MoveOn would have at best been a non-factor. Without MoveOn, Obama would have never won Iowa. Without Iowa, Obama would have been another Mosley-Braun, while Clinton would have wrapped up the nomination on Super Tuesday, just as she thought God intended.