A Question for the Obama Campaign

I'd really like to know one thing: why has Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released to the press an old photo of his pastor, the highly controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, with former President Bill Clinton at the White House during an annual prayer breakfast 10 years ago? What's the point here? Obama's camp appears to be acknowledging how damaging its candidate's relationship with Rev, Wright is and is trying to minimize the fallout by showing that the Clintons have sidled up to him too, as if that one-time encounter at a routine event somehow establishes the same kind of irresponsibility as Obama's 20 year intimate relationship with the firebrand preacher. But what's more troubling to me is this: isn't Obama supposed to be above this sort of tactic, which looks and smells like a smear? Isn't this the same type of dirty politics he's been decrying throughout the campaign? I'm sorry, but Obama wants to play it both ways, and that's a bit duplicitous.

There's something else I wanted to comment on. Listening to Air America Radio Friday evening a female caller was gushing about how Obama "has united this country in a very special way." As Bill Clinton would say, this is yet another myth about Obama. The 100% undeniable fact is that the Democratic Party is virtually split right down the middle, in half, between him and Hillary Clinton. Say what you want about Obama. He is extremely bright, charismatic, talented, dedicated, capable and has much integrity and a clear ability to inspire. Personally, I could easily support him should he be the nominee, and I think he'd make for a terrific president, as would Clinton (by the way, my support for Hillary is quite narrow over him; consider me at 51-49). But not only has Obama not united the entire country, he's far from uniting Democrats. I can admire, respect and appreciate the excitement that Obama brings to many (and I share that excitement on many levels), but let's be real. That excitement starts and stops with just 50% of Democrats. And as we know from the latest polls and trends, Republicans are not going to vote for him, and he's losing appreciable ground with independents. I really wish Democrats could just put aside their love for a second and be able to keep things in their proper political perspective.

What Gov. Bill Richardson's Endorsement Means for Obama

A lot is being said about New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement Friday of Sen Barack Obama in his bid to win the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Personally, I think there's two truths to this action. The first is that, in a few Democratic inner circles, Richardson, with his Hispanic heritage, is perceived as a valuable election card. That he's now behind Obama certainly would raise the likelihood that the Illinois Senator could benefit within the Hispanic community as a result. But the more realistic fact here is that Richardson is relatively unknown throughout the U.S., even among rank and file Hispanics. Which is precisely why he garnered about 1% of the vote before being forced out of the race himself. I think Democrats are really kidding themselves to think that among average Americans Richardson's Obama endorsement will amount to much of anything. Endorsements in general mean very little. Just as Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 fell on deaf ears, as did Ted Kennedy's failure to help score a Massachusetts victory for Obama, endorsements do little more than get a few political junkies and party officials excited. Just walk down Main Street America and ask them who Bill Richardson is and you'll likely get "Bill who?" If universally known party luminaries Gore and Kennedy's thumbs up achieves nothing, Richardson's nod to Obama is not even worth discussing.

Cheney's Audacity of "So"

The unmitigated arrogance that's emanated from the White House since before the Iraq invasion has been absolutely infuriating. It started with all the lies and deception in justifying the war; the sheer post-invasion-planning incompetence of the Busheviks; the now-infamous "we will be greeted as liberators" and "Mission Accomplished" delusions by VP Dick Cheney and President Bush respectively; the myriad distortions of truth and reality during the prosecution of the war; false claims of progress and success at every turn; and a swaggering insistence to this very day that, despite every Bushevik claim being untrue, that the war was justified and worth it.

And in one of those classic throw your shoe at the television moments that we've unfortunately come to experience in abundance from the Busheviks, Cheney displayed a heretofore unseen level of arrogance and a disdain for the American people this week while discussing the war. While in Amman, Jordan, the curmudgeonly Dr. Evil was interviewed by ABC News' Martha Raddatz, who reminded the five-deferment Vietnam draft-dodging coward that "Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting."

"So?" Cheney answered.

"So?" replied Raddatz incredulously. "You don't care what the American people think?"

"No," Cheney said. "I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. There has, in fact, been fundamental change and transformation and improvement for the better. That’s a huge accomplishment."

Clearly, there's a reason why his name is Dick. From the weeks and months leading up to the war, he and his inept boss have been a couple of reckless cowboys who clearly had no friggin' idea what the hell they were talking about. And this colossal military fiasco of theirs has cost us $500 billion and 4000 U.S. soldiers' lives. And when asked to respond to the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans want an end to the war and don't think it's worth fighting, Cheney essentially held up his middle finger and issued a great big fat Fuck You to us all. So much for of the people, by the people, for the people.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.

Obama Campaign Hits Another Snag. Do New Polls Spell Trouble?

It appears the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama has been appreciably impacted by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, raising new questions about the Illinois Democrat's electability against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the November presidential election. New polls indicate that Obama could be in real trouble not only in a head-to-head with McCain, but that Democrats could be shifting back to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the current fiery Democratic contest.

In the most significant turnaround, a new CBS poll shows McCain now leads both Obama and Clinton among independent voters. Just a month ago Obama maintained a 10 point lead over McCain in this highly coveted group but now trails by 8 points. Most pundits agree that the outcome of the general election could hinge upon which candidate captures the support of independents.

And in another major turnaround, a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that Clinton has regained her lead over Obama for the first time in almost two months. The survey, taken after the Rev. Wright scandal broke but before Obama's major speech on race this week, has Clinton with a 49%-42% lead over Obama. Just a week ago Obama led 50%-44%. As to the potential impact of Obama's much-heralded speech, Gallup's Jeff Jones said "the initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton's gaining momentum as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night's polling as compared to Monday night's polling."

In the general election, Gallup showed McCain leading Obama 47%-43%. As recently as a week ago Obama held a 50%-44% lead over the Arizona Senator. But the CBS poll had Obama ahead 48%-43%, a drop from his 50%-38% lead last month.

Something else to consider: while Obama's favorable ratings remain largely unchanged at 44%, there's been a significant drop in undecided views to unfavorable views, to 30% from February's 23%. And he's also lost ground with male Democratic voters.

As I've been saying for weeks now, there's a whole lotta time between now and the August convention, and it's abundantly clear that HillaBamaDramaRama will continue, with both candidates swinging in a momentum pendulum. So my point is, no one poll is an indication of anything. Obama could very well sail from here on in, or his campaign could implode. Same for Hillary. But again, as I've also been saying for weeks, this historic contest is far from over.

All things considered, it still appears Obama is the odds-on favorite to snag the nomination, but Democrats would be remiss to ignore the challenges he's facing as indicated by these new polls. For Clinton, she really needs to score a political hat trick in order to grab the prize in August: a big win in Pennsylvania April 22; a lead in the popular vote; and more scandal such as the contentious speeches of Rev. Wright. Well, Pennsylvania has and continues to look very favorably for her, and Obama clearly has been negatively impacted by Wright. The question is, can she somehow pull ahead in the popular vote. If she does, and she remains close in the pledged-delegate count, then she stands a very good shot of convincing the super-delegates to support her...especially if she continues to gain in the polls against a continued drop in support for Obama among independents and males. Her 'electability' narrative could be quite strong at that time, and that could really shake these elite party officials into ultimately coming over to her side.

McCain Doesn't Know Shia From Shinola

On his "Gee, don't I look like a Commander-in-Chief" tour in Iraq, presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain said something that made him look anything but. He showed that he's either a liar, or woefully misinformed, or getting senile. He warned to reporters that Iran is sponsoring al Qaeda terrorists in their fight against the U.S. When pressed, the crusty old Repug added that it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." As anyone with an ounce of Middle-east/Arab history knows, Iran is a Shiite country and al Qaeda is Sunni. And the two hate each other. So, his trusty war-mongering sidekick Sen. Joe Lieberman, at his side, leaned in, whispered this sweet nothing into his ear, and McCain said whoops...I made a boo-boo. "I'm sorry...the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda," he said.

So what's the real shocker here, that McCain was trying to lie to Americans about who we're really fighting over there? Duh! He, Lieberman and Bush have been doing that for years. That McCain was trying to distort the truth should come as a surprise to no one. His entire campaign is built on the Iraq war and his support of the surge. And his main strategy is fear; keeping Americans afraid so that support for this debacle continues. The other day he said "if we pull out the troops, al Qaeda wins." The Repug neocons have been morphing Iraq and Iran into al Qaeda since the 9-11 attacks.

But what this should demonstrate to voters is that McCain's integrity is lacking. That he's a liar. or, if we giove him the benefit of the doubt and he's not intentionally deceiving Americans, then his understanding of of one of the most complexes ethnic struggles in history, in a violent part of the world, renders him unprepared to be president.

New Poll Shows Big Uptick for Obama. Picks Up 9 Iowa Super-Delegates. Florida Decides Against Do-Over. His Momentum's Back

Ok, so Sen. Hillary Clinton's putting up a good fight to stay alive in the 2008 Democratic race for president. But, following some appreciable big-state losses recently, the momentum has clearly shifted back to Sen. Barack Obama.

A brand-new CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll released Monday has Obama leading Clinton 52%-45%. This is an impressive lift from last month's Clinton lead of 49%-46%. It would appear that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, the "monster" blunder and the Tony Rezko scandal have not impacted the campaign much, if at all.

Even more good news for Obama. Over the weekend Iowa held its county convention re-caucus where he picked up an additional nine delegates while Hillary lost one. These were primarily previously-committed John Edwards delegates.

And late Monday Florida's Democratic Party decided against a do-over, dealing a potential huge blow to the Clinton campaign, which had hope to eventually pick up the Sunshine State and the majority of its 210 delegates.

So, is Hillary done? While the odds are against her, she's still in this battle. A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Clinton ahead of McCain 51%-46%. The fact is, Americans never re-elect a political party during a recession, so both Clinton and Obama look good this November against the ancient GOP relic Sen. John McCain.

Conventional wisdom says don't rule out Hillary just yet. On ABC's Good Morning America Monday, former President Bill Clinton gave the following analysis: "If Sen. Obama wins the popular vote then it'll be easier, but if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up in the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself which is more important and who's more likely to win in November...and I don't know that it'll be an easy decision, but that's what leaders sign up for." Again, if neither Obama or Clinton reaches the required minimum 2025 delegates to win the nomination, then Bubba's right in that the super-delegates will have to survey the entire landscape, not just total delegates, in deciding the fate of both candidates....and the party.

The True Definition of "Party Unity"

In response to several clearly spirited comments on my message board of late, here's a little civics lesson for my Obama-supporting Progressive friends: In the United States we have these pesky little things called elections. In these contests for president, which occur every four years, both the Republican and Democratic parties hold primaries and caucuses. At inception, several different candidates typically run. Our citizens then vote for whoever they prefer until one of these candidates in each party wins, and by win we mean they reach the minimum number of delegates (elected by voters to represent them at the conventions) required by each party (not some arbitrary number they come up with when and if they happen not to reach the minimum). Then, the two winners face off in the general election, along with any Independent/third party candidates who've made it onto the ballot. And I know this is once again very annoying, but Americans get to vote for who they prefer once more. So, let's summarize how our great Democracy works: we hold elections, candidates run, Americans get to vote for whomever they prefer, and then we have a new president.

Pretty basic stuff, huh? Yeah, but our Obama-supporting Progressive friends seem to struggle with all this. Seems they agree with only part of it...that only some of us get to choose their preferred candidates. The others, they demand, should like and vote for the Progressives' choice too. But if they don't, and the election gets too close, they then demand that the other candidate drop out so as to make it easier for the Progressives' candidate to win. And what's more, even if their candidate doesn't reach the minimum number of delegates, they say that's ok, let's just give it to Obama anyway since he's ahead. Of course, we all know they'd be arguing this position just as hard if Hillary were ahead but far short of the minimum, right? And when voters don't support Obama, they get attacked for being anti-American, Republican and of dividing the party. C'mon, that's not very Progressive, is it?

And they also get angry when bloggers like me actually write positive things about our preferred candidate, as if it's our job to subjugate our own preferences and write about the other sides' candidate. Yet, the irony is, my February pieces were extremely favorable towards Obama and quite negative towards Hillary, but these Progressives aren't concerned about objectivity. It's not balance they're looking for, but consistent, unconditional love for Obama. It's not ok to merely write negatively about Hillary some of the time, they want it all the time.

If you read some of these comments you'd think I, and anyone else who supports Hillary Clinton, is a subversive, treasonous traitor. See, I look at it quite differently. I'm just exercising my little old right to vote for whoever I please in the primary. Duh. And if my gal doesn't win, like the good Democrat that I am, I will passionately throw all my support (time, blogspace, money, etc) behind Obama and help him fight like an animal to beat John McCain which, call me crazy, seems the rational, logical, sane thing to do...especially since I am against the war, the Bush tax cuts, am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-guns, and want liberal Supreme Court justices, positions which McCain does not share with me or with Progressives, for that matter. Duh again. Now the Progressives, angry that we won't support their candidate right now or call her dirty or demand she quit even though she's a hair away from Obama, threaten to vote for McCain as punishment if she wins. My way or the highway is their campaign slogan. We fight for liberty, truth, justice and Progressive values for all, they self-righteously brag, but then would freely toss their precious votes to yet another war-mongering, small government, staunch conservative if they don't get their way in the primaries. Wow. Now that makes an awful lot of sense, doesn't it?

So, once again, we free-thinking Democrats say to our Obama-supporting Progressive pals....this is an election. And in these primary elections more than one person gets to run. And voters get to choose who they want, not who you want. And if our candidate wins, the sane thing to do is support her in our collective fight against Republican tyranny. And if Obama wins, we will of course back him with all we've got. Funny, that sounds an awful lot like party unity to me....

What Else Didn't Obama Realize?

He didn't realize his business dealings with indicted Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko constituted a conflict of interest. He didn't realize his pastor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered hate-filled church speeches. Are we really to believe those assertions from Illinois' junior Senator, Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and the first black president of its esteemed Law Review? Kinda hard for a magna cum laude Harvard law grad to play dumb, don't ya think? And is it not fair to ask the question, what else didn't Obama realize that might surface soon from his past?

Videos of Wright's speeches have surfaced in recent days in which he makes racist, anti-Semitic and anti-American statements. In one, he angrily declares that the United States brought the 9-11 attacks on itself due to its sponsorship of terrorism against Palestinians and others throughout the world. And Rezko, currently on trial in Chicago on federal corruption charges, helped the Obamas buy their home, and gave $250,000 in early campaign contributions (the Obama camp, btw, had previously understated this amount by $100,000).

To be sure, a lot of steam's been let out of the Obama campaign this past week. These two controversies have put the presidential hopeful on the hot seat, and both matters have serious legs. While Obama and his camp have desperately attempted to put them to bed, they're simply not going away.

For a candidate who's based his whole campaign on hope, change and personal integrity, these situations are causing Obama a lot of problems. Can you imagine the field day the Republicans would have against him in the general election? Can you imagine how vicious and personal their attacks would be? Think of what they'll do with Obama's admitted use of booze, pot and "blow" when he was younger. Throw in his clear lack of national and foreign policy experience and I seriously question Obama's electability. I'm not alone. A brand-new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has him and Hillary even at 45% against the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain. This is down from his 11-point lead over McCain just 16 days ago.

Obama's once inevitability is no more. With five months left until the Democratic convention in Denver, one or two more such controversies and Obama's ship could be sinked.

Enough is Enough

They want to squash the opposition. They are narrow-minded and intolerant of differing viewpoints. They engage in censorship. They are sanctimonious and holier-than-thou in their political preachings. They frame issues that result in wild accusations of unpatriotism, racism and divisiveness. Their arrogance and sense of entitlement knows no bounds. Republicans, you say? No. We're talking about Progressive Democrats supporting Sen. Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Their aggressive, self-righteous behavior is starting to resemble the 2004-era Rovians so much so that we should probably start calling them Regressives. And it's getting pretty annoying. Enough is enough.

-I'm tired of their relentless Hillary bashing: what happened to "the politics of hope?" I don't think they even realize just how much they hate this woman. And it's a real ugly hate, filled with harsh ad hominem attacks.

-I'm tired of them whining about Hillary's "dirty politics:" they're hypocrites who support whatever their side does while crying foul at the Clinton camp. This is politics, and politics sometimes gets ugly. Should Obama win the nomination, what the heck are they expecting from McCain, Rove and the GOP...a Kumbaya-fest? If he can't deal with Hillary's supposed wrath now, he'll be eaten alive by the Rethuglicans.

-I'm tired of the calls for Hillary to quit the race: last time I checked, Obama and Clinton were running neck and neck, separated by about 2% in the popular vote and 10% in delegates. Hardly a groundswell of Obama support. Certainly no mandate. If Obama can't handle a good old-fashion hotly contested race (for Pete's sake, this is an election, isn't it?), then he should get out, not her. Doesn't make you look very presidential, or like much of a fighter, when you incessantly whine that your opponent should quit the race when you're in a virtual dead heat. And yes, it is a dead heat, otherwise none of us, including Hillary, would be here in this debate.

-I'm tired of being criticized for my support of Clinton as if Obama is the rightful heir to the throne; that he's the anointed one, undeserving of intense opposition.

-I'm tired of being accused of "acting like a Republican," and of "deserting my Democratic principles," just because I support Clinton.

-I'm tired of hearing Hillary and Bill Clinton accused of "acting like Republicans" simply because they understand how the game of politics is played and they play to win.

-I'm tired of the Obama camp playing the race card every time their candidate is put on the hot seat. Sorry, everything is not about race. Sometimes people are criticized simply for being inexperienced.

-I'm tired of the Clintons being called racists when they have a long history of loyalty and support within the black community.

-I'm tired of being called a racist myself because I don't support a black candidate, and because I strongly criticize his experience, ideology and/or campaign strategy.

-I'm tired of Obama's supporters acting like the friggin' PC Police. Stop lecturing me about what's right or wrong or what the Democratic Party stands for. It's obnoxious.

-I'm tired of being denied my right to have an opinion, and a preferred candidate, simply because it differs from that of the ObamaManiacs.

-I'm tired of the Obama camp playing dirty Rove-like framing games. You know how the Busheviks successfully employ the "If you don't support me in the war, you're against the troops" strategy? Obama's supporters do the same thing: "If you support Hillary then you are dividing the party."

-I'm tired of being censored by so-called progressive news websites who blatantly promote the campaign of Obama, even at the expense of reporting the facts. Now read my blog. Pretty pro-Obama in February, pro-Hillary in March. I call that objective. Unfortunately, objectivity is not the progressives' strong suit.

-I'm tired of progressives talking about "protecting basic tenets of the democratic party" as they do everything possible to prevent do-overs in Florida and Michigan and disenfranchise voters in those two key states. What are they afraid of, Hillary pulling ahead?

-I'm tired of hearing progressives say they'll vote for McCain if Hillary's the nominee. I'm fed up with these ridiculous "protest votes" that, as in 2000, accomplish absolutely nothing but help a Repug, who stands against everything progressives and democrats believe in, get elected. This is the most misguided, convoluted way of "protesting" imaginable. It's these unfortunate protest votes that got us into the Iraq war, put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, and allowed a dangerous fool like George Bush to take the controls. It's astounding to me that any allegedly sane, rational, intelligent Democrat would willingly help put someone like McCain in the White House.

-I'm tired of the progressives' incredible naivete. They're so caught up in ObamaMania that they're unable to recognize that the Obama-Clinton battle is just that: a battle. That the war will begin after one of them is nominated. There's a bigger picture out there that they fail to see: that the Republican Party is going to scratch and claw and fight like animals in order to retain power. Just wait till these Rovian thugs sink their venomous jaws into the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy. One can only imagine the despicable ads. Perhaps ObamaManiacs should stop patting themselves on the back for being so darned progressive and above it all and instead start looking towards November and the knock down drag out bloody war awaiting us all. We should all just agree to let Obama and Clinton duke it out however, and then throw our collective support behind whoever wins the nomination. You see, that would be party unity. Abandoning the party and throwing a childish protest vote to McCain is not. So who's dividing who now?

-I'm tired of Obama and his supporters ignoring the fact that the party requires 2025delegates to win the nomination, not 1900, 1800, or 1700. The rule is 2025, not "whoever has the most by convention time."

Regardless of what the ObamaManiacs claim, the race between Clinton and Obama is a healthy one, and is good for Democracy. There's nothing "new" going on here. No different than Howard Dean's aggressive tactics in '04. No different than John Edwards joining with Obama during those last debates to attack Hillary. Politics is a rough business, and anyone who thinks otherwise is incredibly naive. These two candidates have been locked in a fierce battle, and only one will survive. That's the way it works. And as the candid clips of them this week on the Senate floor clearly indicate, they're close and will remain friendly no matter what the outcome, and whoever loses will ardently support the victor's campaign against McCain so that Democrats, regardless of the nominee, can win. Obama supporters should follow their lead and do the same. Enough is enough. Quit whining, start fighting, and set your eyes on November.

HillaBamaDramaRama: Both Candidates Now Dead Even Against McCain

What's happening here is inescapable: Sen. Hillary Clinton is holding her ground in a head-to-head match-up against the presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, while Sen. Barack Obama has been slipping precipitously. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday shows both Clinton and Obama at 47% against McCain's 45% and 44% respectively. For Obama, this is down from the appreciable 11-point lead he held on February 28th. And it should cause concern among all the Obama supporters who've been touting his electibility and inevitability. I'm sorry, but the latest trends are showing the momentum turning in Clinton's favor.

Are Democrats beginning to view her as the more electible of the two candidates? She's shown that she's a fighter, which is going to be a critical qualification for going against McCain and the Republican attack machine in the general election. To the contrary, Obama has appeared soft. His inability and/or unwillingness to get tough can be viewed among some voters as a sign of weakness; weakness that would be swallowed up by the GOP in a head-to-head against McCain. And as I've been writing about for a couple of weeks now, race is starting to play a major role in this campaign. Twenty percent of Dems surveyed say they'll defect to McCain if Obama's the nominee. Not a pretty stat, but a realistic one nonetheless. Let's face it, America can be a pretty ugly place wrought with racial intolerance.

Mississippi's Primary Results: A Wake-Up Call for Democrats

The headlines blare, "Sen. Barack Obama Wins Mississippi." Others declare, "Obama's Back!" and "Obama Momentum Continues." But what no one is brave enough to really address is the glaring racial divide that that state's Tuesday primary results indicate in the fierce battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Mississippi, with its 33 delegates, is 37% black. More than 50% of Tuesday's voters were African-American according to exit polls. What's startling is that Obama picked up 90% of the black vote, capturing just 30% of whites. Clinton, therefore, won 70% of the white vote and just 10% of the state's black voters. This election was all about race. Black vs white. It speaks to the larger issue of whether or not white America--Democrats included--when it's done patting itself on the back for being so progressive, will truly vote to put a young black man, with virtually no national or foreign policy experience, in the White House. Last week's Pew Research survey showed a 20% defection rate among white Democrats to Republican presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain if Obama becomes the nominee. Hey, I don't make this stuff up. I merely report it. And if anyone thinks come November, against the historically ruthless GOP, that race will not be an even greater factor...well, I have some mountain-top property along the Afghan/Pakistani border I'd like to sell you....

Case in point: consider last week's outlandish, despicable remarks by Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King suggesting that terrorists would "celebrate" an Obama presidential victory. King pointed to Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq and his heritage in his scurrilous claim that the junior Senator from Illinois would put the nation at risk.

"I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror," King regurgitated, adding that Obama’s middle name, Hussein, would stoke terrorists. "Additionally, his middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world. That has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name." Such incendiary rhetoric is in abundent supply. The GOP attack machine is stacked with these venomous surrogates all too ready to go into bloody battle to ensure that Republicans retain power. And they will do so at any cost.

Which is why I'm incredulous over all the whining from Obama and his camp about Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy of "dirty politics." If I were heading Obama's team, I'd be looking at Hillary's missives as boot camp; mere conditioning for the vicious onslaught that awaits him in a head-to-head against the McCain thugs. If the Obama folks think Hillary's playing dirty, they won't know what him 'em once the GOP says hello.....

Republicans Call for Spitzer's Resignation. What Hypocrisy

So here we have the holier-than-thou Democratic Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, building a career keeping us safe from bad guys, hookers and crooked Wall Streeters, and all the while he's out there spending $6000/hr on call girls (BTW, what exactly do you get for $6000? Can any woman really be that good?). Cries of condemnation and calls for resignation can be heard from the throngs of sanctimonious hypocrite Republicans across the land. The same hypocrites who have had absolutely nothing to say about Republican Senators Larry Craig (ID) and David Vitter (LA), both of whom have been embroiled in sexual scandal themselves. Vitter, like Spitzer, was linked last Summer to prostitution rings in both D.C. and New Orleans. He has been fully supported by his party and still serves in the U.S. Senate. Craig, the now-infamous "I'm Not Gay" alleged heterosexual who was arrested for attempting to pick up a male undercover cop in a Minneapolis Airport men's room, also still serves with his fellow Republicans' backing. No cries of condemnation here. No calls for resignations.

In a display of unbridled, shameless hypocrisy, the Republican Governor's Association (RGA) is aggressively calling for Spitzer's resignation, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who sits on the group's four-member executive committee, continues to lavish praise and support on his crooked Senator.

"The Governor of New York should immediately resign from office and allow the people of New York to pursue honest leadership. The American people are tired of corrupt and hypocritical politicians," said RGA executive director Nick Ayers. "The Governor of New York is just another in the long list of politicians that have failed their constituents."

In response, Chris Whittington, Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party, said "...Louisiana Republicans, including Governor Bobby Jindal and state Treasurer John Kennedy, got together last month and hosted a fundraiser for Senator Vitter that raised him nearly a half a million dollars."

And this from Jindal: "While we are disappointed by Senator Vitter’s actions, Supriya and I continue to keep David and his family in our prayers. This is a matter for the Senator to address, and it is our hope that this is not used by others for their own political gain."

Too bad the Governor, like his Republican brethren, doesn't practice what he preaches down there in N'Orleans.

As for Spitzer, if naughty boys like Craig and Vitter can continue to serve, so should he.

HillaBamaDramaRama: Welcome to "Democrats Gone Wild"

I call it HillaBamaDramaRama. It's the traveling circus that is the 2008 Democratic nomination contest between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's been mired by charges of racism and dirty politics, and it's turning into a major point of contention among normally congenial friends. The simple fact is, this race is splitting the party in half with the sort of vehemence not seen in Democratic politics since the 1960's.

I see it it my own relationships. There was a time when verbal sparring with my good pal Brian, a staunch conservative, was the extent of my political boxing matches. These days, I find myself increasingly engaged in Democrat-on-Democrat warfare. It's incredible, but I've not experienced this sort of passion and anger since 2004's Bush/Kerry main event. At first I thought little of it. Saw it as the standard-fare early primary season squabbling--jockeying for our preferred candidates' positions-- among the liberal intelligentsia. We're the ones who watch Hardball year-round and read the NY Times' op-ed page every day. We're junkies, and we think everyone cares about and follows politics as much as we do. But then we're brought down to Earth when we see people on Jay Leno who cannot name the vice president. Yet we're the geeks who know who Howard Wolfson, Bob Shrum, Ralph Reed and John McLaughlin are, and we love to mix it up and debate the landscape. But the debating has gotten intense, and it's pitting close friends who normally share ideology against each other as if we were crossing party lines. It's actually quite a fascinating phenomenon. As such, the party couldn't be any less unified. For the most part, those who like and support Hillary are not impressed by Obama and just aren't feeling the love. And those who back Obama seem to, well, hate Clinton. And I'm not exaggerating.

The intensity is so strong that many Democrats in both camps say they'll either vote for the GOP's John McCain or sit out the election entirely if the other candidate wins the nomination. And there you have the ultimate phenomenon: the steamy intensity of HillaBamaDramaRama has resulted in a new reality show: Democrats Gone Wild. They dislike each others' candidate so much that they'd rather go Red than support the other one. Whether it's rooted in sexism, racism, fear of the unknown or fearing the known, it's getting ugly and could likely cause Democrats the election if they don't start getting their act together.

Another phenomenon of HillaBamaDramaRama is the blurring of ideological lines between Clinton and McCain. The intensity of this primary battle has caused normally intelligent, practical people to utter things like, "There's no difference between McCain and Hillary...so I'm just gonna protest her behavior and vote for him." Huh? Wha? Does Hillary want to prolong the war? Bomb Iran? Overturn Roe v Wade? Outlaw gay marriage? Protect the gun manufacturers? Make permanent the Bush tax cuts? Appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court? How could anyone--any sane, rational Democrat--truly compare these two polar opposites? The only answer? HillaBamaDramaRama.... Democrats Gone Wild


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.

The Super-Delegate Debate: The One Question No One is Asking

So far the 2008 Democratic nomination process has yet to produce a clear victor, unlike the GOP, which will send Arizona Sen. John McCain to the general election in November. While some Democrats insist the crown belongs to Barack Obama and that Hillary should get out of the race, the simple fact is that both candidates are in a virtual dead heat. The junior Senator from Illinois leads in delegates by about 10% and by about 2% in popular vote. Hardly an Obama mandate, and certainly no justification to claim the nomination. But that's not stopping Team-Obama from insisting that come convention-time in August, if he's still ahead in delegates then he should be the nominee.

But here's what very wrong with that supposition: the party requires 2025 delegates to snag the prize. Not 2000, not 1900, not 1800 and not 1700, where Obama is likely to end up when the action moves to Denver this Summer. If it's as simple as giving the nomination to whoever has the lead by then, then why does the party have it's 2025 rule? Why then isn't the rule that whoever has the most delegates, not 2025, wins? Why is no one but me asking this question? Am I missing something? I think this is a very simple issue. If you get the 2025 needed delegates, you win the nomination. If you fall short, then the Super-Delegates must analyze all the critical factors of the campaign and assess the overall viability of each candidate. That's how the system is currently set up. Those are the rules. Why is it that the Obama camp can cry foul and accuse Clinton of attempting to change the rules (re: re-seating Michigan and Florida's delegates) but seemingly has no problem arguing against adhering to the 2025 minimum rule?

I think it's pretty arrogant for Obama and his team to essentially be saying..."We're gonna campaign long and hard to convince enough Americans to vote for us so we can get the 2025 minimum delegates to win the nomination. But if we fall short of that minimum, even several hundred short, then we're gonna claim the nomination's ours anyway as long as we're ahead." I ask again, if that's how it's all gonna work in the end, why have a 2025 minimum?

I'm sorry Obama fans, like it or not, both candidates are basically tied. Certainly close enough that neither of them can rightfully claim anything right now with five months to go until the convention. That's a lifetime in politics. And on April 22nd, the landscape can change even more, especially if Clinton wins in Pennsylvania, and wins big. For one thing, her winning streak of big Blue states will have continued; she could tie or even pull ahead on the popular vote; and she could appreciably narrow the delegate deficit. And if that's the case, the Super-Delegates' job becomes even more relevant. They must ultimately choose who is the most electable candidate, not merely who has the lead, especially a small one, in delegates.

To show just how murky the waters have become, former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, told host Tim Russert that the Super-Delegates will be hard-pressed not to follow the will of the people. That they could not overturn the American voters' wishes. But when asked by Russert if that would be the case should Clinton win the popular vote, Daschle back-flipped and said its the pledged delegates, "elected by the people," who should ultimately be making this decision. C'mon, Tom, would it really be going against the 'will of the people' if the Super-Delegates ultimately support the candidate with the most popular votes?

So let's get real here. It's time the mainstream media begins to ask the question....why have a 2025 minimum if simply finishing with a simple deleagte lead is grounds to claim the nomination? Until I hear a logical answer, and not one mired in partisan rhetoric, the issue is pretty black and white. No minimum, no nomination.

What the Hell is Wrong With Democrats? Will They Really Vote for McCain?

Something very alarming is taking place. A great many Democrats--disillusioned with either/both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--are threatening to vote for the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain....or even sit out the election entirely. And to that I say, What the f**k? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. What kind of logic is it to vote for someone who is against everything you stand for? What on Earth would possess a Democrat to vote for this chilling reincarnation of George Bush? How could anyone who's against the war, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-guns, anti-Bush tax cuts...who cares about the environment, education, health care, the elderly, the poor, children...vote for a candidate whose party's major platform issue is to make war and to reduce taxes for the wealthy?

But more and more, I am talking to family, friends, acquaintances and business associates who say just that: that they are leaning towards voting for McCain come November. And just take a look at many of the comments posted on this very blog. People who say things like "Unless Obama's the nominee I will vote for McCain." Good grief, man, do Obama and McCain really seem the same to you? Does it not mean anything that Obama has one of the most liberal voting records while McCain just the opposite? How is this a choice to you? What has gotten into these people? Didn't we learn enough from 2000's Ralph Nader "protest vote?" Do we really want to make another catastrophic blunder like that again and hand our nation--our standing in the world, our military, our economy, our education and health care systems, our children's welfare--over to yet another reckless elitist cowboy?

A startling Pew Research survey came out this week that showed an astounding 20% of white voters will defect to McCain if Obama's the Democratic nominee. What kind of Democrat would rather vote for a staunch conservative like McCain over a progressive Black like Obama? A racist one. And each and every one of them should be ashamed of themselves. And what kind of Democrat would vote for such a devout right-winger simply because they don't like Clinton or her so-called "dirty politics?" A naive one; one who is seemingly quite comfortable losing yet another election to a Republican. Can you imagine Republicans waging a protest vote? Nah, they're too busy winning. You'd think after eight years of the worst presidency in U.S. history that Democrats would do whatever they could to win. When will we ever learn.....


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.

Time to Put McCain and All His Warts Under a Microscope

Ok, so between now and April 22nd's Pennsylvania primary Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be garnering much of the media's attention as they slug it out more fiercely than Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier in 1975's famed "Thrilla in Manilla." But while the Fourth Estate fixates on this Democratic bloodbath, we suggest our friends in the mainstream media focus perhaps a little of its attention on the shortcomings and overall negatives surrounding the campaign of Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. Here's a few morsels for the press to consider:

1-Bush's endorsement: congratulations, Johhny Boy. You just got a thumbs up from the worst president in U.S. history. What should American voters make of that?

2-He's a flip-flopper: it's one thing to practically make-out on stage with Bush. It's another to reverse course and stump hard to make permanent his tax cuts for the rich. How should this play in middle-America?

3-He's a self-proclaimed economic novice: is he the best we can get when the nation is in recession; has record home foreclosures; is reeling from a housing and credit crisis; is saddled with record debt, oil and gas prices; and experiencing anemic growth and employment?

4-He's rabid hawk: the scrappy little POW Vietnam vet seemingly never met a war he didn't like. He's said we should keep U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years; he callously/cavalierly mangled a Beach Boys classic and sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran..." when asked what we should do with the third partner in Bush's Axis of Evil; and his new web ad features Winston Churchill rambling about "never surrendering." You get the feeling McCain's next ad will warn of the real threat from the "Japs." Do we really need/want another reckless cowboy in the White House?

5-Questionable ethics: remember the Keating Five? How quickly we forget. Not a proud moment in the self-serving Senator's political career. Why don't we see more written about what a phony he is?

6-Bad temper: his anger-management issues are legendary. He's a guy who will ruthlessly skewer staffers and then end up apologizing profusely. Did you happen to catch his version of the mile-high club Friday when he verbally undressed the NY Times' Elisbeth Bumiller aboard the airborne Nasty-Talk Express? Seems like the curmudgeonly right-winger didn't like being asked about his 2004 vice-presidential flirtation with Democrat John Kerry. I guess when a chunk of your own party hates you for allegedly not being conservative enough, being Kerry's boy is not a timely thing to have to defend against. Do we really want an angry president?

7-Definitely won't be voted Mr. Congeniality by his peers: McCain has the dubious distinction of being disliked across both sides of the aisle. Is he a "maverick" or simply an angry old dude who seems to piss a lot of people off?

8-Age: McCain would be the oldest president in U.S. history. How will this affect his ability to be the leader of the free world?

9-Health: he's recovering from bouts of skin cancer in 1993 and 2000, and no one knows today's status of his condition, as his health records have remained private. He suffered from Melanoma, the least common form of skin cancer but the most lethal. Do we not have the right to know more about the seriousness of this, and perhaps other, health conditions of what would be a 72-year-old president?

Never mind the Democrats. It's time to expose McCain for what he is, warts and all...

Is the Obama Bubble Bursting? New Pew Poll Shows Democrats Would Defect to McCain

I've been saying for some time now that many Democrats, while awed by Sen. Barack Obama's public speaking skills, charisma and inspirational talk of "change," see him as an empty suit who lacks the political skills, foreign policy experience and overall gravitas to be president. As a result, the fear is that many of the more centrist Dems will switch to GOP nominee Sen. John McCain come November. I've also been saying, and this points to a still-ugly truth facing 2008 America, that race will play a big role as well. A new Pew Research survey released Friday confirms these inherent challenges of Obama's campaign.

The poll reports that 14 percent of Democrats would vote for McCain instead of Obama, but that just 8 percent of Republicans would vote for the Illinois Democrat. These numbers don't support Obama's countless stump speeches that he's been pulling Republicans into his camp as the choice cross-over candidate. The survey indicates just the opposite is happening.

More troubling, however, is the 20 percent of white Democratic voters who said they would defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee. Even more alarming is that this figure is twice that of those who said they'd defect if Clinton wins the nomination. Again, Democrats who deny this reality are delusional. Sadly, America is still a very racist nation with lots of very ignorant people.

Additionally, there's concern that Obama could face a stiff battle in the Democratic bastion of California. A brand new poll commissioned by the National Campaign Fund shows that McCain can win that heretofore untouchable state. The poll states "When voters learn of Obama’s support of licenses to illegal aliens, they become far less likely to support him. They are also far less likely to support Obama when they learn of his support for more spending, to be funded by higher taxes."

To be sure, Obama is in trouble for the first time in his golden campaign. He has not bounced back well since his huge losses to Clinton Tuesday in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, appearing weakened and at a crossroads. He's now faced with the dilemma of staying the "above-the-fray" course and looking like a non-fighter against the more aggressive, calculating Clinton, or, getting down and dirty with her until April 22nd's Pennsylvania primary, and thus turning off myriad supporters--including the idealistic youth vote--who bought the old "politics of hope" Obama and not the "dirty-politics-as-usual" desperate one. Can he all of a sudden turn on a dime and become a street fighter and not turn off his base? I highly doubt it.

Case in point: look at what's happening to team-Obama. Friday morning his Foreign Policy Advisor Samantha Power "resigned" (read: was fired) after referring to Clinton, in an interview with the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman, as a "monster" who will stoop to anything to win. In my opinion, this is just the beginning. I suspect more heads will soon roll in the Obama camp as his campaign appears to flounder in the face of Clinton's resurgence.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.

Why It's Important to Seat Michigan's and Florida's Delegates

Mark my words. The Michigan/Florida problem is not going away. To the contrary, it will intensify as the battle between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gets uglier. This is a major problem for the Democratic Party and it must be resolved soon.

Some quick background: The DNC, led by chairman Howard Dean, unseated the delegates from these two critical states after they defied the party's warnings against moving their contests up to January after it had set February 5th--Super Tuesday, with its 22 contests--as the earliest date for primaries. Reason being, the states that hold the earliest primaries and caucuses usually have disproportionate influence over the nomination process. Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in these two states, but they were allowed to raise money there, and both Obama and Clinton agreed to these rules. When the primaries were eventually held, Clinton won Michigan with 55%, and beat Obama 50%-33% in Florida.

But here's why the Democratic Party must figure out a way, quickly, to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida: because it disenfranchises voters in those two states. It's as simple as that. There are millions of voters in those two states who never had a say in this unconstitutional cock-fight between Dean and the states' legislatures. When the threat from the DNC came down, no one asked voters whether they were willing to give up their votes in exchange for earlier primaries. A bunch of self-serving party elitists have absolutely no right to strip any American of their inalienable right to vote. It is unconscionable to think that the Unites States can hold an election and that citizens in two key states will not have the same opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to vote as their fellow citizens in the other 48 states. This is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It's about the American voter. Period.

What if Democrats Had Winner-Take-All Primaries Like Republicans? The Results are Startling

In its infinite wisdom to muck things up as much as possible and make it as difficult as possible to avoid the kind of disjointed horse race it currently has, the Democrat Party twenty years ago decided to adopt a system of proportional primaries rather than award its delegates as the Republicans do on a winner-take-all basis. And for all the talk of Sen. Barack Obama's recent winning streak (which came to an abrupt end Tuesday with losses in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island) and all the apparent momentum that temporarily followed, which caused many to prematurely anoint him the chosen-one and demand that Sen. Hillary Clinton drop out of the campaign, we'd be looking at a much different race if the game was played differently.

With all his states to-date, Obama would be sitting with 1233 delegates. The down-but-certainly-far-from-out Clinton would be enjoying a 482 delegate lead with a total of 1715, just 310 shy of the 2025 needed to snag the nomination. With a few more wins under her belt, like Pennsylvania, the race would soon be over and Democrats could be unified and begin preparing for the big battle in November against the GOP's Sen. John McCain. Instead, this archaic, flawed system will result in a knock-down, drag-out battle all the way to the August convention in Denver.

Man, if only the Democrats could get out of their own way they might actually win an election someday....

Never Underestimate a Clinton. Hillary's Wins Puts ObamaMania on the Ropes

Something new and exciting is in the air. You can feel it. Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday showed that she's a fighter, survivor and winner. In handily beating Sen. Barack Obama in the Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island primaries, she put an end to the ridiculous and premature assertions of Obama's presumptive-nominee status and that she should withdraw from the race as a result. That Obama's outspent her about 4-1 makes these wins even more significant. Frankly, the sense of entitlement from Obama's supporters is a bit arrogant. This is politics, and this year's contest is perhaps the toughest and most exciting in modern history. It's preposterous to suggest that Clinton should quit the race and hand over the mantle to her rival amidst such a hotly contested race. She trails only by about 150 delegates and is less than 1% behind in the popular vote. Can anyone truly say this is an Obama mandate? That he currently is the rightful heir to the throne, when in fact, the simple truth is, come convention time, he will fall far short of the 2025 delegates needed to ensnare the nomination? Sorry kids, but this horse race is not over, it's just beginning.

Clinton has so far bagged, among others, NY, NJ, Massachusetts, California, Michigan, Florida, Texas and Ohio. At this point, it's quite fair to say she will also win Pennsylvania on April 22, a state with 158 delegates to offer. She has the support of Gov. Ed Rendell, and voters there are firmly part of her base. These are the traditional big Blue states; the states Democrats must win, and historically do win in the general election. The states Obama has been acquiring along the way, including Kansas, Idaho, South Carolina and Mississippi, are Red states that McCain will win in November. But here's the rub: it's not safe to automatically assume that Obama, should he be the nominee, will take all of Hillary's Blue states. Given the "moderate" status that Sen. John McCain undeservingly enjoys and his attraction among Independents and Reagan Democrats as a result, can we be so sure that he will not win over voters in one or more of these key states? More troubling, are we to believe that race will not play a major role come November? When it's time to close the curtain and pull the lever, I suspect Obama will without question be hurt by the racial intolerance still rampant in America today. Remember gay marriage? Remember how so many Americans blinded by hatred of gays were literally driven to the polls in 2004? To think Obama will fare any better, or won't face a potentially worse onslaught, is incredibly naive.

I also worry how Obama's inexperience will factor into these same Blue-state decisions. A good friend told me Wednesday morning over breakfast that his die-hard Hillary-loving wife--an Ivy-League educated Manhattan Democrat lawyer--said to him Tuesday night that she'll likely vote for McCain if the choice is between him and Obama. I find this type of abandonment frightening.

So give Hillary her props. She had a very impressive showing Tuesday. Exit polls indicate she did well with women, the working class, Hispanics, white males and Independents. She's starting to build a broad coalition of Democrats. She's building momentum. She's demonstrating that voters are starting to view her as the more qualified steward of the economy and the more capable commander-in-chief. Safe to say, Hillary Clinton has finally hit her stride. The lady's got her mojo back.

Hillary had a great week. Obama did not. I wrote earlier this week that we should never underestimate a Clinton. They're fighters. They know how to win. As a friend and ardent Obama supporter said unwittingly to me Tuesday, "they play dirty, like Republicans." Bingo! There it is. That, in a nutshell, is what I like about Hillary's chances, not only against Obama, but in November against McCain. A Democrat who fights like a Republican is exactly what we need for Pete's sake. Haven't we learned from the past 14 years of Republican ass-whippings? Given the choice between a Gingrich/Rovian Democrat or a "why cant we all just get along" softee, as Obama's starting to resemble, I'll put my money on Newt and Karl, thank you. I like that Hillary's got junkyard dogs like James Carville and Howard Wolfson in her corner. These guys understand the political war we're in with the Repugs. There's a reason why Clintons are winners. To the contrary, Obama's not shown he has the political gravitas to fight hard; he lacks the fire in the belly. And he's been weakened this week by the Tony Rezko scandal; the Canadian/NAFTA memo brouhaha; and Hillary's "3AM" slam dunk national security ad. Her camp finally has figured out their road map. Finally understood how to frame the issues and get their candidate victorious. If he's to truly demonstrate his inevitable electability, Obama needs to stop whining about the "kitchen sink" he claims she's thrown at him and start showing voters he's a fighter too. Sorry ObamaManiacs, Hillary's going nowhere. She won't drop out, and she shouldn't. This is politics. She's proven this week she has lots of fight remaining in her. If Obama can't fight, he should get out, not her.

Clinton's victories Tuesday have brought Obama euphoria to a grinding halt. The winning streak is over. The momentum gone. He's losing all the big Blue states, and, as Clinton said Wednesday, "If you cannot win Ohio you cannot win the presidency." And she's right. No one gets into the White House without Ohio. My theory, as it has been all along, is that, while Obama's a great motivational speaker and inspirational, charismatic figure, politically he's an empty suit. And maybe that's what's surfacing right now. Maybe voters are starting to wonder whether there's any real "there" there. Wondering if Hillary's the safe bet because, at least with her and Bill, "we know what we're getting." They're starting to peel back the Obama onion, and maybe there's not as much there as some had hoped.

Consider the email I received Wednesday morning from another friend, an influential political insider and major New York Democratic fundraiser and heretofore Obama supporter: "I think that she had a very good week, he
also seems to flatten out a bit and get a little cautious/complacent. I
think that he didn't react well to her and it may be that he can't
counter punch as well as I thought. If that is case, then she may be best
nominee since as you know, I'm primarily for him because of my view of
his electability." Consider this guy one of the so-called "smart" ones; someone who closely follows every square inch of the political landscape. If he's now on the fence, just think about all those uninformed voters who simply get their news and influences from Jay Leno? Is Obama about to become 2008's Howard Dean? Only time will tell.

Obama has been out stumping Wednesday pointing out that the delegate count is basically unmoved following Tuesday's primaries. "The results are a wash," he said. And he's right. But where he's wrong is in the bigger picture; that this race is not merely about delegates anymore. It's about super-delegates. I caution against thinking that these back-room power brokers won't ultimately view Clinton as the more likely candidate to beat McCain in November. These elite party officials are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Democrats send the most electable candidate into the general election. The way the system works, the candidate with the most delegates going into the August convention is not the presumptive nominee. The candidate must have 2025 delegates. Again, Obama will fall very short of that number, as will Clinton. That means we're going to have a brokered convention, with the 330 unpledged super-delegates to-date, as well as those 600 already-pledged who could switch allegiance on a dime, rolling up their sleeves and basically making this decision. And it will be no slam dunk, as the ObamaManiacs would like us to accept. The kingmakers will be focusing on the entire political landscape...from momentum, to the big states, to overall electability.

Lastly, DNC chairman Howard Dean is now also faced with the inevitability of figuring out a solution to the Michigan/Florida problem. Those two huge, delegate-rich states have been unseated by the party over primary-scheduling dust-ups. Florida had a total of 210 delegates, including 185 that would have been at stake in Tuesday's Democratic primary. Michigan had a total of 156 delegates, including 128 that would have been at stake in its Jan. 15 primary. So far, voters in these two states have not had their voices heard. And that's a problem for the party. Dean is likely to work out do-overs in both, and if Clinton takes both again and picks up a disproportionate share of the delegates, the pendulum swings even further in her direction.

To be sure, the 2008 election is a political junkie's dream. Anything can, and likely will, happen.

One thing for sure, and just another reason why this down-to-the-wire slugfest is terrific for Democrats: all of the nation's media attention will be focused through August on Obama and Clinton. The dull-as-paste McCain will have to virtually get naked and run through the streets of D.C. in order to snag airtime.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.