Game Over. (Now Who's Going to Tell Hillary)???

After a seemingly endless primary season, I think it is safe to declare today that Senator Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. Obama absolutely crushed Senator Hillary Clinton in yesterday's North Carolina Primary, and nearly pulled out a victory in Indiana where she had been favored to win. For Clinton to continue the campaign with any degree of credibility (if not self-respect), she had to have a far more decisive win in Indiana, and a far less decisive loss in North Carolina.

For a short period of time late last night when it appeared that Obama might win both states, some of the communications from the Clinton Campaign seemed indicative of an impending withdrawal from the race. There was word that she would hold no public events today, and even an apparently erroneous report that she had canceled her morning news show appearances for today. Apparently, though, while flying back to Washington from Indiana (during which time she was declared the winner in Indiana), Hillary and/or her advisers had changed course, announcing a campaign stop today in West Virginia, site of the next primary on Tuesday, as well as fundraiser in Washington this evening. Early this morning, news broke that Clinton had loaned her campaign nearly $6.5 million recently. Even as I write, the Clinton Campaign has announced that Hillary will also appear in South Dakota on Thursday -- a state whose primary is not for another four weeks! None of this sounds like a candidate who is ready to quit.

Remaining in the race now as it certainly appears she intends to do is not only stubborn and ill-advised, it really borders on the delusional. Quite simply, without some catastrophic implosion of the Obama Campaign, there is no way Clinton can now win the nomination. The sheer mathematical hurdles she faces alone are insurmountable, but when you add those to an obvious shift in tone from the media and political pundits and what I expect will be an imminent and significant shift of superdelegate support to Obama, it becomes even more crystal clear that for Hillary Clinton, this game is over.

My personal opinion is that Hillary and her inner circle are well aware of the reality of the situation. They have seen the numbers, and undoubtedly have crunched them in every conceivable way in search of positive spin. After last night, there is no positive spin to be found. I suspect that the reason she sounds today like a candidate who intends to continue (and indeed who is backing her rhetoric up by making additional campaign appearances) is to attempt to increase her leverage when it comes to the customary bargaining that will take place between Hillary, Obama and their respective campaigns when she inevitably throws in the towel. Whether she wants the vice presidential slot on the ticket, a cabinet position or who knows what else -- the longer she stays in the race and effectively denies Obama the ability to officially claim the nomination, the more desperate he will be for her to withdraw, and the more inclined he might be to give her what she wants to make that happen. A good test of this theory will be to watch over the next few weeks -- assuming she does continue her campaign -- to see if she avoids negative attacks on Obama. If while continuing her run she hesitates to inflict further political damage on him, that could be a sign that her continuing campaign efforts are no longer about winning, but instead about improving her strategic position for an eventual exit.

Regardless of her motive for remaining in the race, I believe it is now time for Hillary to withdraw if she values her own political future. A graceful exit -- even after a fairly bruising campaign against Obama -- would almost certainly result in enough goodwill on the part of the Democratic electorate to give her a future -- whether it be running again for president in 2012 (if Obama loses this year), running for Governor of New York, or seeking the position of Majority Leader in the Senate. On the other hand, if she continues to campaign in earnest, attacking Obama and pulling out every conceivable stop despite reality of her situation, she risks diminishing Obama's chances in November, further dividing the Democratic Party, and earning (rightfully) the permanent anger and resentment of her fellow Democratic officeholders and the Democratic voters. The choice should be clear, and the route she chooses to take will tell us more about exactly who Hillary Clinton is than anything else she has ever done or said.

Asking the "Wright" Questions

The Democratic Party may have a hell of a mess on their hands. That’s right, a mess, even in an election year in which every conceivable circumstantial advantage is on their side, and in which either candidate who ultimately prevails will make history as the first African-American or woman to ever win a major party’s nomination. Add all of this to an uninspired Republican base with an arguably weak candidate, and it’s hard to see how the Democrats could screw this up, right? Maybe not...

On the one hand, there is Barack Obama, the first African-American candidate with a serious shot at winning the presidency. He has won more states than any other Democratic candidate, won more of the popular vote, has more pledged delegates, and has more money in his campaign coffers. He is an incredibly gifted candidate, perhaps the most eloquent and rhetorically talented politician to seek the presidency in a generation. By any measure, he should already be the Democratic Nominee, yet on several occasions over the last two months, he has failed to win primaries that would have resulted in his decisively securing the nomination.

On the other hand, there is Hillary Clinton. She began the campaign as the overwhelming favorite but has had the unfortunate timing of running against the wunderkind Obama, who has not only won over millions of voters, but the mainstream media as well. Her campaign has been poorly managed, and she has been weighed down by the significant baggage of her time as First Lady and her husband’s controversial presidency. In a year in which voters seem to yearn for change, she failed to anticipate it, fashioning herself instead as the candidate of experience. Yet despite all of this, she remains in the race, and the Democrats have been unable to officially anoint their standard-bearer for 2008.

Even now, it is difficult to see how Obama will not ultimately win the nomination. Why then, can he not close the deal? The answer boils down to one man: The Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. It is hard to imagine there is anyone who has not heard about the Reverend or seen clips of some of his more infamous rants. For anyone somehow unfamiliar, Reverend Wright is the recently retired pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama has attended for twenty years. Wright married Barack and Michele Obama, baptized their two daughters, and has in the past been referred to by Obama as his “spiritual advisor” and “sounding board”.

The Reverend Wright was injected into the mainstream in mid-March, when ABC News acquired videos of dozens of Reverend Wright’s past sermons. The material found showed a man prone to incendiary, inflammatory, hate-filled and bigoted comments. In one sermon, he instructed his congregation not to sing “God Bless America”, but rather to say “God Damn America”. In another – on the first Sunday after September 11th, 2001 – he expressed his belief that 9/11 was nothing more than “America’s chickens coming home to roost”. In yet another, he opined that the AIDS Virus had been intentionally created by the American government as a form of “genocide” against African-Americans. And in still another, he referred to the United States as “the U.S. KKK of A.”, a “country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people”.

Obama attempted to put this behind him with a lofty speech in Philadelphia last month. In the speech, he gingerly addressed Wright, and while he expressed his disagreement with Wright’s aforementioned statements and beliefs, he dramatically stated:

“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother…"

He used the opportunity, though, to more broadly -- and with rhetorical beauty -- address the state of race relations in America. With the media’s help, the conventional wisdom seemed to hold that with his speech, Obama had not only diffused the Reverend Wright issue, but that he had actually managed to use it to his advantage.

But Reverend Wright didn’t get the memo, and last weekend, he reappeared with a vengeance. He not only managed to make new controversial statements, he also took the incredible step of reiterating and reaffirming many of the same comments and beliefs that had sparked the media firestorm a month prior. Further, seemingly personally wounded by Obama’s distancing of himself, the Reverend also dismissed much of Obama’s professed disappointment in him as mere" political posturing", the necessary steps taken by “a politician” to placate the electorate. To claim that Obama might simply be just another run-of-the-mill politician flew in the face of the carefully crafted image Obama has used to his great advantage this year. Much of his appeal to voters, after all, has been that he is a fresh face, someone not hardened or made cynical by years in Washington, and someone who promises “a different kind of politics”.

The double-edged sword, though, for a candidate like Obama who presents himself as a fresh face and about whom relatively little is known, is that when any facts or information emerge that may shed light on just who Obama is or just exactly what he believes, those facts or information take on more significance than they otherwise might. For example, a controversial televangelist, John Hagee, endorsed John McCain in the Texas Primary in February. Like the Reverend Wright, Hagee has a history of controversial and inflammatory statements. Some in the media such as liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich and MSNBC's resident leftist Keith Olbermann are trying to equate McCain's connection to Hagee with Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright. This is likely to be a futile effort because most importantly, there is no long-standing association between McCain and Hagee, and also because unlike Obama, McCain has been a public figure for more than twenty-five years. And while McCain's career has not been free of controversy, he is largely a known quantity, and he has certainly never given the slightest indication that he believes any of the far-flung remarks for which Hagee has rightly been criticized. While this is something of a double-standard, keep in mind that Obama will tout his lack of Washington experience (the reason that so little is known about him) as an advantage, and also will not hesitate to remind voters of McCain's long and very public record for his own political benefit, and already has with his back-handed compliments about McCain's "half century of service" to the country. If Obama wants to run as the "newcomer" with the positives that accompany such a label in this election year, he should also be willing to accept the higher level of scrutiny that ensues.

The most recent Reverend Wright barrage -- including the implicit accusation leveled by Wright that Obama might act or speak out of vulgar political expediency rather than snow-white virtue and integrity -- was apparently too much for the senator to stomach. After a full twenty-four hours without commenting on Wright's latest and greatest, on Tuesday, Obama changed his Philadelphia tune, and seemed to very clearly disown the right reverend. (His grandmother seems to remain in good standing). At a press conference in Winston-Salem, NC last Tuesday, Obama attempted to sever his ties to Wright, telling reporters:

"I am outraged by the comments that [Wright] made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

Obama’s repudiation may have been too little too late, though. Polls show that many voters have serious concerns about Obama due to his association with Wright, Clinton has a solid lead in the once neck-and-neck Indiana polls, and the double-digit lead Obama previously enjoyed in North Carolina is down to less than 10 points. If she wins in Indiana Tuesday, the race for the Democratic Nomination will go on, first to West Virginia on May 13th, then to Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th, Puerto Rico on June 1st, and conclude with Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd. After June 3rd, there will be no further primaries or caucuses. Mathematically, however, neither Obama nor Clinton will have been able to win the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination, leaving the party’s fate in the hands of the superdelegates – nearly 800 current and former elected officials free to support whichever candidate they choose.

Assuming the remaining primaries and caucuses play out as now predicted, it will be very hard for the superdelegates not to throw their support behind Obama – the candidate who will have captured more votes and delegates – lest they be seen as subverting the “will of the people”. What happens, though, if it becomes clear that Obama has been mortally wounded by the Reverend Wright controversy? Does the Wright issue matter, or is it merely a "distraction" as Obama now frames it?

I believe it does matter, and this is a question that I have grappled with since Wright's sermons first emerged in March. At that time, I reserved judgment, but with Wright's repetition of even the most outrageous claims seen in the videos, it becomes harder to believe that the hateful remarks we saw from the sermons were simply "cherry picked" or "taken out of context" as Obama first tried to explain, or that Wright's inflammatory invective could have been such a surprise and shock to him. I also think it is significant because this entire Wright affair speaks to the person Obama is and to the judgment he has -- both quite important in assessing a person's qualifications and readiness to be the leader of the free world.

The question of just exactly who Wright was to Obama must also be asked. How significant a role did he play in Obama's life? How influential was he in Obama's political views? In a Chicago Tribune article in January of 2007, before he had officially announced his candidacy, Obama described the importance of Wright in the following way:

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

This implies a relationship and a communication between Obama and Wright that goes beyond spiritual and beyond what might be the expected relationship between a pastor and one of his congregants. Again, this is the man who married Obama and his wife, who baptized their children, and Wright was the very first person he thanked in his victory speech after he was elected to the Senate in 2004. Obama even titled his book, The Audacity of Hope, after the first sermon he ever heard Reverend Wright give.

Yet it seems that from the very beginning of the campaign there was an awareness of the political peril posed by Reverend Wright. Obama has admitted that he uninvited Wright from giving the invocation in February of 2007 when he announced that he was running for president. According to several sources, this was a fairly sudden rescinding of the invitation, and in explaining it to Wright, Obama told him (per Reverend Wright's recollection):

"You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."

This implies at least a passing familiarity with the controversial nature of some of Wright's sermons. But when the feeding frenzy surrounding Wright took hold in March, Obama seemed to to downplay how cognizant he was about his former pastor's rhetoric, releasing the following statement:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

This implies less familiarity. And then several days later in his Philadelphia speech, Obama seemed to offer another version of what he knew about Wright's views and tendencies, saying:

"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely."

But yet he indicated he could not disown the man. So what changed for Obama between his March 18th speech in Philadelphia and his now apparent disowning of the man he'd indicated he was incapable of disowning? After all, there was very little of Reverend Wright's most recent pronouncements that had not already been heard in the series of sermons brought to light in March.

I believe the answer to that question (and also the answer to why Obama waited twenty-four hours before severing ties last week) is that the Obama Campaign saw poll numbers that indicated Reverend Wright was doing serious damage to them, and that a more forceful, angered reaction was necessary to stop his slide in the polls. I also think -- and this is supported by Obama's uninviting Wright from his announcement fifteen months ago -- that Obama and his campaign knew well the danger that his association with Wright represented to his chances for election. I believe that with this knowledge, they took the conscious (but inexplicable) gamble of not heading off the potential controversy by having a very public and decisive break with Wright early on in the campaign. The gamble did not pay off.

So what, then, does all of this tell us about Barack Obama? First and foremost, I think it tells us that he is not as averse or opposed to the tactics and maneuvers of a "typical politician". When poll numbers showed damage, he took the politically expedient path -- just as Hillary Clinton and many other politicians he criticizes for similar actions would have done -- not exactly "a different kind of politics". I also think it tells us that Obama has not been as honest with the voters about Wright as he could have been. At one point he called Wright a political "sounding board", at another his "spiritual advisor", and then when the controversy was swirling in March, he implied far less proximity to Wright and his views. But beyond the changes in Obama's descriptions of just how close he was with Wright is the following question: does anyone really think that someone as intelligent as Obama and as long-associated with Wright and his church as he was would seriously have been unfamiliar with the pastor's outrageous comments? I for one, do not. What does that tell us about Obama's judgment and values?

Since his break with Wright last week, the media have again helped him along by applauding the "forcefulness" of his remarks and the courage it took for him to take that step. The Obama Campaign has tried vigorously to imply that any further discussion of Wright is below-the-belt politics, merely a distraction from the "real issues" that concern Americans. In other words, the Obama Campaign wants to close the door on the Reverend Wright controversy as a campaign issue for good. I suspect this is wishful thinking on their part, especially if he has an unexpectedly poor showing tomorrow. The voters of North Carolina in particular may be the best indicator of whether or not that door is ever capable of being closed.

Therein lies the mess the Democrats may face. Obama is the apparent choice of the people, but if he is thought to be unelectable in November and Clinton is given the nomination by virtue of the superdelegates, the Democratic Party will likely face an implosion. Most immediately, this implosion would manifest itself in the party losing the votes of millions of African-Americans and other Obama supporters in November – and therefore losing the election. In the long-term and more seriously, the inevitable perception that Clinton had stolen the nomination from Obama would be a crisis from which the party would not soon recover – if ever.

So as Tuesday approaches, watch carefully. Clinton will almost certainly win in Indiana, and with an enormous number of African-American voters in North Carolina, Obama should win there. If, however, Clinton somehow wins in North Carolina, Obama will be in serious trouble, the first seeds of a potential Democratic Party apocalypse will have been planted, and John McCain should start buying lottery tickets.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

It's Groundhog Day for the Democrats

On Groundhog Day every February 2nd in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, the world's most famous groundhog, "Punxsutawney Phil" emerges from his burrow amid great fanfare. If Phil sees his shadow, the legend holds that we can expect six more weeks of winter. If he does not see his shadow, we can look forward to an early spring.

Today, Punxsutawney -- and all of Pennsylvania -- will take center stage again to offer another prognostication of what lies ahead. The Pennsylvania Primary is today, and the political stakes are enormous for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as they continue to battle for the Democratic Nomination. Today we wait to find out if we can expect six more weeks of what is quickly becoming a political winter for the Democratic Party, or if spring will finally arrive for Obama and his supporters. Pennsylvania, we again leave our fate in your hands!

In the latest RealClearPolitics "RCP Average" of the Pennsylvania polls, Clinton holds a 6.1 point lead over Obama, reflecting a much closer race than even a few weeks ago when she led by double digits. So let's look at four potential outcomes of this political Groundhog Day, and what each outcome would likely mean for the Democrats...

1) Barack Obama beats Hillary Clinton: In this scenario, Spring will arrive in all its glory for the Obama Campaign and their supporters. If he is victorious in Pennsylvania -- regardless of the margin -- the race for the Democratic Nomination will be over. Hillary will face insurmountable pressure to withdraw from the race, and the remaining undeclared superdelegates will begin flocking to Obama. Even Clinton -- as tough (stubborn?) as she is -- would realize that it would be time to go.

2) Hillary Clinton beats Barack Obama by 5 points or less: This scenario would be characterized as a narrow victory for Clinton and, while it would be a victory, I do not believe it would be by a margin large enough to allow her campaign to continue. I suspect that in an outcome like this, Hillary would continue to argue that she should continue her campaign, and perhaps her absolute most die-hard supporters would back her up on that. But many Democrats -- and even many current (if less die-hard) Clinton supporters and superdelegates -- would begin a noisy call for her to quit, and I think it would be just loud enough to force the issue.

3) Clinton beats Obama by 6 - 10 points: Based on the most recent polls, this is the most likely outcome, and the political ramifications of this outcome are the hardest to predict. After Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas six weeks ago, the conventional wisdom was that she probably needed to go on to win in Pennsylvania by at least 10 points. As Obama has flooded the airwaves with ads and as the voters of Pennsylvania have begun to pay more attention, the race has become closer, and as it stands now, I think that Clinton and her campaign have possibly managed to (somehow) successfully lower expectations to the point that a victory of this magnitude would allow her to continue -- at least through the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries in two weeks. There will still be some calls for Clinton to bow out, but I think this scenario would lead to her surviving at least two more weeks.

4) Clinton beats Obama by 10+ points: If Hillary wins by 10 or more points, the Democratic nomination contest is likely headed for six more weeks of what has already been a long winter for the party. (Quite frankly, this would really more like hell for the party, so if it's any consolation to the Democrats, the weather should actually be quite balmy)! Should she manage to beat him this soundly today, Hillary and her campaign will absolutely continue through Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, and probably for several weeks beyond that including West Virginia on May 13th, Oregon and Kentucky on May 20th, and Puerto Rico on June 1st. Additionally, this may initiate a period of real concern and doubt about Obama's strength as a candidate -- to the point that it could do the improbable and resuscitate the Clinton Campaign. On the other hand, this is the best-case scenario not only for Hillary and her supporters, but for John McCain and his too. There is absolutely no doubt that the continuing squabble between Clinton and Obama has helped McCain, and were that to continue (most likely with increased acrimony and negativity), he would only continue to reap the rewards.

The protracted fight we are now witnessing between Senators Clinton and Obama for the Democratic Nomination is rather extraordinary, really. At this point, I can see no truly legitimate or plausible way that Hillary will be able to wrest the nomination from Obama's grasp. His advantages in terms of his delegate lead, his popular vote lead, his financial lead and even his lead in sheer momentum are nearly impossible for her to overcome. Even if Hillary were to somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, the resulting damage to the Democratic Party and the fracturing within it would be catastrophic. Additionally, I can think of no candidate other than Hillary who would not have already faced overwhelming pressure to relent by now. It's a testament to her remarkable ambition, that (in)famous Clintonian "never say die" spirit, and the fact that she is a unique candidate as the first plausible female candidate, and a former First Lady at that. This has been a truly historic and exciting election year so far, and if the nomination contests have been indicative of what we can expect from the general election, it will be one fascinating summer and fall for political junkies everywhere!

Wanna Get Away? So Do Republicans...

All vacations are good. Some vacations, though, are better than others. A truly great vacation is marked by the ability to all but forget the worries or stresses of work or home awaiting your return. Then, before you know it, there are only three days left, then two days, and soon those concerns and anxieties creep back into your consciousness. And while you know the end is near and the real world must soon be faced again, another drink, another swim, or any of the other wonderful distractions of the trip allow you to sweep it all under the rug for just a bit longer. But deep down, you know what’s coming on Monday morning.

If this sounds familiar to you or is something you’ve experienced, then you – regardless of political affiliation – know what it feels like to be a Republican today. Because today and for the last two months, Republicans have effectively been on a vacation courtesy of the Democratic Party.

For Republicans, the best part of the ongoing nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is that with the focus squarely on the increasingly hostile and internecine squabble between the two candidates, the GOP faithful have been able to temporarily forget the candidate who they will put forth against the Democrats’ ultimate victor in November.

A stronger Republican candidate would be much better than tied with or slightly trailing Clinton and Obama in general election polls. A GOP candidate with solid and sincere support from the party’s base would see his campaign coffers overflowing with contributions. Neither is the case for John McCain, however.

Despite the thumping that Obama took at Wednesday night’s debate and despite the fact that it will “take a village” to convince Hillary Clinton to drop out, the reality is that this wonderful trip is coming to an end sooner than the GOP would like to think. Even if Hillary holds on to win in Pennsylvania, current polls indicate she’ll likely lose to Obama in both Indiana and North Carolina two weeks later, putting the nail in the coffin of her presidential hopes, and putting an end to the Republican vacation.

Over the last two months, Republicans have delighted in watching Obama squirm under the uncomfortable scrutiny of the Reverend Wright controversy, then watched in amazement as the media seemed to forget it entirely while tripping over themselves to exalt his much-ballyhooed “More Perfect Union” speech about race in America. GOP voters again high-fived as the Illinois Senator stuck his foot in his mouth last week in San Francisco, declaring that small-town voters in Pennsylvania are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”, then again watching as he apparently suffered no backlash in the polls as a result.

If Ronald Reagan was “the Teflon President”, many Republicans probably think they are seeing the closest thing to a Teflon Candidate in Barack Obama. While Obama’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities are apparent and likely not yet fully discovered, an honest Republican would admit that Obama and his campaign show every sign of being winners. This is evident in the size of the crowds he attracts, the frenzy into which he whips those crowds, and the staggering fundraising totals he has continued to post every month.

An honest Republican would also accept the reality that current political circumstances nearly guarantee a Democratic victory in November. The Republican incumbent continues to garner anemic approval ratings, the economy is hurting, and the Iraq War remains very unpopular among the majority of Americans. Perhaps a truly phenomenal GOP candidate could overcome these long odds, but even then, probably only with the help of a horrendous (think Dukakis or worse) Democratic nominee.

John McCain, though, is not a truly phenomenal candidate, and Barack Obama has shown no sign that he would be a horrendous nominee – particularly if the majority of the media remain in the tank for him, and if the majority of voters continue to ignore some very real concerns about him, seemingly transfixed by his brilliant and eloquent (if empty) rhetoric.

Is an Obama victory a foregone conclusion? Not definitely. A lot can happen between now and November – both geopolitically and on the campaign trail – that could alter the electoral landscape in ways impossible to predict today. McCain could catch fire somehow, or Obama could crash and burn. All of these what-ifs and contingencies, however, are the stuff of happy thoughts born of the surf, sun and umbrella drinks the Democrats have given Republicans over the last two months.

Unfortunately for Republicans, when the alarm clock goes off on the last day of this wonderful getaway, they will awaken to the harsh truth that John McCain just doesn’t feel like a winner in November – a deep-down realization that while hard to accept, is impossible to ignore – even while on vacation.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

None of Our Business ???

By now, almost everyone has heard about the two uncomfortable encounters that Chelsea Clinton has had on the campaign trail over the last few weeks.

The first instance was at Butler University in Indianapolis two weeks ago as Chelsea made another of the many college campus appearances she has made in the last few months on behalf of her mother, Senator Hillary Clinton, and her presidential campaign. While taking questions from the audience of college students, Chelsea was asked by Butler student Evan Strange – a Clinton supporter – whether Hillary’s handling of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that engulfed Bill Clinton’s administration had damaged her mother’s credibility. Chelsea appeared taken aback by the question, responding:

“Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business”.

(Here's the clip if you'd like to watch for yourself):

Not surprisingly given the media attention Strange’s question received, another college student made a similar attempt early last week. At North Carolina State University in Raleigh last Monday, N.C. State student Bryce Davis asked Miss Clinton essentially the same question. Chelsea’s response was likewise similar, dismissing Davis by telling him, “It’s none of your business”. Davis disagreed, however, and pressed on, indicating that he felt it was, in fact, his business given that Bill Clinton – Chelsea’s father and Hillary’s husband – was President of the United States when the scandal unfolded. Chelsea was unconvinced, however, and stuck to her guns:

“Well sir, I respectfully disagree. I think that is something that is personal to my family and I’m sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don’t think are anyone’s business either”.

(Again, here's the clip if you'd like to see and hear it):

Let me first express my sympathy for any child who has to observe and endure significant marital problems between his or her parents, particularly when those problems involve something as painful and destructive as adultery. In many ways, I have even more sympathy for Chelsea Clinton given that she had to observe and endure her parents’ issues along with the rest of the world.

With that said, if Hillary Clinton (presumably with Bill Clinton’s knowledge and approval) is going to use her daughter as a campaign surrogate and expect her to be able to answer complex questions about the details of Hillary’s health care plan, for example, how can Chelsea not be expected to address an issue that, while undoubtedly painful and arguably private to her, was certainly not private by conventional standards? If the same parents who so admirably protected Chelsea during their White House years are now willing to use Chelsea as the political asset she appears to be, that bubble of protection that has previously surrounded her no longer applies, and therefore no question, whether it be about health care, foreign policy, or even the Lewinsky scandal, should be off-limits.

Further, it is my belief that Davis was correct. While what her father did with Lewinsky may have been “personal to [her] family” for Chelsea, he did it on government property and on government time. The American people elected Clinton to run the country, not to run around on his wife. In addition, by lying to the people (not to mention perjuring himself under oath) and by sending his wife – now presidential candidate Clinton – out to propagate that lie, Bill made it our business.

For Hillary’s part, how can she claim to have “over sixteen years of experience”, thereby including her time as First Lady, but then expect that she and her campaign can pick and choose the aspects of those sixteen years that they wish to be considered? In this respect, Strange was correct, because he was almost certainly referring principally to Hillary’s infamous appearance on NBC’s The Today Show in the first days of the Lewinsky scandal. After spending the first part of her interview with Matt Lauer dodging questions and denying the accusations that her husband had engaged in and lied about an affair with Lewinsky, Hillary made the following comment:

“This is – the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it – is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president”.

As we now know, and as I feel certain she knew then, the allegations were true, and regardless of the existence of any “vast right-wing conspiracy”, Hillary was joining with her husband in an effort to mislead the American people to secure his (and her) political survival. How, then, can her credibility not be an issue – a question only underscored by her recent admission that she “misspoke” about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia in 1996?

Perhaps if Hillary (and Bill) didn’t have a consistent record of misleading statements, the questions posed to Chelsea would be irrelevant and would be “none of [our] business”. Perhaps if Hillary had said to Matt Lauer that day, “It’s none of your business”, Chelsea could now rightfully do the same. She did not, however, and Chelsea cannot either.

Note: Recently I was asked to contribute a weekly column on a new website called Splice Today. My first effort -- this very post -- was posted on Friday. Please visit Splice if you have a moment (http://splicetoday.com/), not only to check out my weekly piece, but also for the other thoughtful writing and commentary that can be found there. My Splice column will be political in nature every other week at most. (I'll keep the majority of the political commentary here at Bragging Writes).