Enough is enough. The Clinton campaign, obviously beginning to realize that their candidate isn’t the inevitable nominee, has clearly started writing its denouement.

The question they should be asking themselves at this point isn’t ‘What can we throw at this guy to get some traction in Ohio’ but ‘What’s a good long-term strategy for the Clinton brand?’

First, I do understand that the race is not over, and that Senator Clinton still stands a reasonable chance at becoming the Democratic nominee. And I also understand that, in a tight race, the fight becomes fierce. The Democratic Party seems to have made an art form out of eating its own during the primary process, so this is nothing new.

However, the types of attacks which Clinton is putting forth now certainly have the hallmarks of the last gasps of a desperate campaign whose willingness to win is eclipsing logical, long-term thinking.

The Head Covering

It’s a pretty good bet that you’ve seen the picture of Obama dressed in traditional Kenyan clothing, including a turban-like head covering. According to Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, who displays the picture here, the picture came from the Clinton campaign. The campaign has offered some wishy-washy quasi-denials, but if it’s true, this is truly pathetic and despicable. Obama is not a fundamentalist Muslim, though this fact is sort of beside the point. It’s a desperate move indeed when one feels the need to cash in on latent racism (anti-Islam sentiment) to secure the nomination against someone who, presumably, is on the same side as you after the election is finished.

It’s also ineffective, because the same people who would not vote for Obama upon seeing this picture are probably already not voting for him for other reasons, and seeing “proof” of his menacing background just lets them rationalize their uneasiness toward him.

Mockery

Yesterday Senator Clinton sneeringly mocked Obama’s message of hope:

” ‘I could just stand up here and say “Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified,” she told supporters at a rally in Providence, Rhode Island.

‘The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.

‘Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions at how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.’ “

Ok, so she’s spent decades working towards this goal, and is understandably upset that someone with pretty words may well ruin it for her. But this was absolutely the wrong response to Obama’s message. When the other guy is running on – and winning with – an inspiring message of hope, this type of answer comes across as far too cynical and condescending. It also cements in many Democrats’ minds that Clinton doesn’t offer anything new, and also that she’s gearing up for a huge fight with Republicans as President rather than for thoughtful diplomacy. For every “I’m ready for the fight” that Senator Clinton tosses to the crowd, Obama has matched it with a more measured appeal to bipartisanship. Even if this isn’t practical and reeks of naivete, Clinton shouldn’t respond to it with mockery.

The Clinton Brand

Next Tuesday, we could be looking at an entirely different scenario, depending on the outcome of the Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries. We may be seeing a revitalized Clinton campaign marching toward nomination.

But it’s not looking great. Polls show the two in a dead heat, in contrast to two weeks ago when Hillary held commanding leads in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas. Of course, we can’t believe the polls – just look at the New Hampshire results – but Senator Clinton has got to start thinking about her long-term status in the public arena.

Clinton needs to think about how she’s perceived should her bid for the presidency be unsuccessful.

If she bows out gracefully and with a message of support for Obama and the Democratic Party, she will be lauded. She has a good shot at a leadership role in the Senate, and is still young enough for another presidential bid in 2012 or even 2016. If, however, she’s seen as a destructive, divisive force and as someone who resists the will of the party for her own ends, the Clinton stock will take a serious hit.

Ralph Nader announced on Meet the Press this morning that he’ll seek the Oval Office in ‘08 as a third-party candidate.

Nader’s campaign promises to fight “corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control” which he says will combat the disillusionment Americans feel with the Democratic and Republicans.

So, the question on most Democrats’ mind is: Will “Darth Nader” spoil another election?

The general feeling among Democrats is that Nader’s run cost Al Gore the election in 2000 (though Nader says this is arrogant thinking and that he draws support from people across the political spectrum).

So it’s a good bet that Democrats will feel a bit uneasy about Nader’s decision to run again.

Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty, especially since the Democratic nomination process seems destined to drag on at least until April - unless there is a decisive dominance by Obama on the March 4th primary and Clinton gracefully bows out on the 5th.

If that’s how it plays out, I don’t think Nader will siphon too many votes from Obama. The Democrats haven’t had such a charismatic and exciting character in my lifetime, and I think liberals would be hard-pressed to vote Nader instead - especially since Obama is also running on a platform that ostensibly challenges the influence of special interests in Washington. Of course, a major scandal can always shake it up, but so far Obama’s emerged mostly unscathed from his recent troubles.

Also, Obama seems to be getting support from conservatives who’d otherwise support a Ron Paul presidency - people who are against the war and who will vote for Obama even though they disagree with the rest of Obama’s liberal stances on issues.

However, it’s very unclear whether Clinton would draw such supporters, since she’s not generally seen as the anti-war candidate, so even without Nader we’ll be looking at a tight race between Clinton and McCain.

Additionally, given the notion of some progressives that Clinton represents Corporate America to the same degree as McCain, some who would have voted for Obama will give Nader a hard look.

With Nader running, it’s quite possible that even if the progressive vote is only slightly split between him and Clinton, we’ll be inaugurating President McCain come next January.

Well, the event I’ve been looking forward to for a couple of weeks now has come and gone. I tried every resource I knew to get tickets to the debate, but in the end I watched it in my family room armed with a glass of wine and a notebook.

So, who won? I’ll break down a few of the issues and my reaction to each.

Opening Statements
Clinton began her speech to a roar from the crowd, and hit a lot of the notes that people from Texas like to hear: references to hard work, self-reliance, and to hometown heroes like Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards. She also mentioned Ohio in her speech - the other big state at stake on March 4. She specifically used the phrase “lifetime of experience and proven results”, setting up the theme for the rest of the debate.

Obama took a friendly tone with regard to his opponent, saying that it was a great honor to share the stage with Senator Clinton. Nice start, Barack! But then he uh-ed and um-ed the rest of the way through his opening statement. He did manage to bring up the influence of the special interests in Washington, hoping to remind us that he’s the candidate that will change how things are done over there. Not a fantastic speech, especially with the fluency problems, but he got through it.

I have noticed that Obama tends to increase his momentum as the debate (and campaign) progresses. He starts hesitantly but usually finishes strong and with the kind of style that’s captivated many people. That held true tonight as well.

Cuba

Jorge Ramos asked each candidate whether they’d sit down with the new Cuban President, now that Fidel Castro has resigned.

Clinton: (I’m paraphasing from here on) Possibly, if certain changes are made within the regime first. I look forward to that change before meeting with them. They need to release political prisoners and allow freedom of the press.

Obama: Yes. I’d meet with them. No preconditions, but we’d have to agree on an agenda that would include human rights, freedom of the press, etc. But treating a Presidential visit like a privilege only cements our reputation for thinking ourselves superior to others.

Lucy says: Not a huge amount of difference in policy - just mostly in the rhetoric used.

Economy
The question was how their economic policies differ from one another.

Obama: Economy’s been in trouble for years. High gas costs, foreclosures, etc. We need to:
1. stop tax breaks for companies who outsource.
2. End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
3. Give tax offsets for middle class & close loopholes.
4. Trade needs to be about “not only Wall Street, but Main Street.” Discusses lead paint.
5. Green economic solutions. Addiction to foreign oil is BAD. (This is pretty brave to say in Texas.) Alternative fuels will spur more jobs for Americans.

Fight special interests.

Clinton: I agree with 1, 3, 4, and 5. I’d appoint a trade prosecutor to take a look at our trade agreements and to increase safety standards. Moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days, and freeze interest rates for 5 years. Clinton didn’t get to explain her point about “George Bush’s war on scientists”, but I’d guess this was about stem cell research.

Lucy says: Again, no fundamental disagreement in policy here.

Immigration

Clinton: Here she says that one of her First 100 Days priorities will be to begin what sounded a lot like an amnesty program: let undocumented workers pay back taxes, a fine, and then give them a path to citizenship so we don’t break up families. She has a good line about the family issue where she says “That’s not the America I know.”

Obama: Let’s tone down the rhetoric. We’re a nation of laws, and we’re a nation of immigrants. Let’s find a way to make this work. He then goes on a somewhat strange tangent about not using surnames to racially profile people involved in the raids, but didn’t develop the idea fully. He agrees about putting undocumented workers on a path, but that they should go to the back of the line. In the meantime, we’ll fix the current system so it’s not a hardship for people applying for legal status.

On the border fence issue, they both agree that they voted for it but that the implementation under Bush was absurd. Both stress talking and listening to the people most impacted by the fence.

The Campaign
Lucy says: Here’s where it starts to get interesting. John King says he feels like he lives in parallel universes, where the candidates are polite to each other in the debate arena, but not so on the stump.

Clinton: Obama and I have a lot in common. But I have 35 years of experience. I thought it was amusing when one of his supporters (State Senator Kirk Watson) was asked to list one of Obama’s accomplishments and couldn’t list one. Words matter but actions are louder.

(lots of applause)

Obama: We differ on how change gets done (referring back to his comments about special interests in Washington). Clinton said one time, “let’s get real”, sort of implying that all of the people who support me, along with every major newspaper in the state of Texas who endorsed me, are somehow delusional. It’s not all about policies - especially because we agree on many things - but also about inspiring Americans to get involved in their government.

(wild cheering)

Lucy says: I put a star next to this as Obama’s best remark so far. You could tell he was warming up to the fight, and the crowd was buying it.

On Plagiarism
Obama: I didn’t plagiarize. Deval is a co-chair of my campaign and asked me to use those words. This is silly time in the campaign.

Obama also referred to his speeches as “pretty good” and then smirked and chuckled at the audience, who laughed back.

Clinton: If your candidacy is all about words, then they should at least be your own. This isn’t ‘Change you can believe in’…it’s more like ‘Change you can Xerox.”

Lucy says: There was actually booing at this point, which she managed to shrug off pretty well and shift into some policy talk.

Clinton brings up Edwards’ health plan for the second time tonight and discusses how Obama’s plan leaves out 15 million Americans.

After this, the discussion devolves into the same debate we’ve seen several times already about the differences between their two health plans. One mandates too much, one doesn’t cover enough, and we’re all nodding off by the time they’re done. (I don’t mean to trivialize an important issue, but they’re not covering any new ground today.)

Obama waits until more than an hour into the night to bring up his stance on the war in Iraq - using his opposition to the war to claim that he has sound judgment and that he’ll have a better argument agains McCain on the war than Clinton would. He talks surprisingly tough about Pakistan and its failure to keep Al Qaeda under control.

Are you still there, reader? Here, at long last, is what I think:

Clinton has some great ideas, some pretty specific policy positions, and she finished the debate on a strong note. However, we didn’t hear anything new from her tonight. And what she’s been selling for the last month - that she has decades of experience and that Obama, by implication, doesn’t - hasn’t been working for her on primary days. She really needed to hit a new note, and I don’t think she did.

That said, I’m not sure how some of his comments on immigration will play in Texas on March 4th. It’s hard for a candidate to straddle the line between being sympathetic toward people hoping for a better life and being tough enough to attract crossover voters in the general election. We’ll have to wait to see if he managed the balancing act well.

Overall, though, Clinton really needed a home run to peel off some of Obama’s momentum, and I just don’t think she nailed it. Obama could afford to repeat what we’ve already heard from him - because it’s working. Clinton couldn’t.

What was your reaction?

In the midst of such a hotly contested primary season, it might be time to step back and look at things from a fresh perspective.

Forget for a moment which candidate has what platform, and think about this: can we know them better by the company they keep?

Celebrity endorsements have been bestowed on candidates as long as we’ve had elections, but this year’s crop seems especially interesting.

McCain:
Senator John McCain seems to have locked up the old white dude vote, grabbing endorsements from people like Wilford “Diabeetus” Brimley, “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf, the Elder President Bush, and former Democrat Joe Lieberman, but I might be willing to grant him a little street cred with his endorsement from Sly Stallone.

Obama:
Senator Barack Obama is hard to peg, as he’s got endorsements from people across the races, generations and genders. Oprah has been in the spotlight for her love of Obama, but George Clooney, Chris Tucker, Scarlet Johanssen, Robert de Niro and even Sacha Cohen-as-Borat have also jumped on board. Is nice!

Clinton:
Senator Hillary Clinton gets the nod from such loudmouths as Jerry Springer, of talk show and mayoral fame; 50 Cent, who claimed that Hillary is “smart” and adds, “I’m not sure America’s ready to have a black president. I think they might kill him”; Howard Stern, Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Jack Nicholson, Perez Hilton and Martha Stewart. To be fair, though, she also has some more laid back supporters like America Ferrera and Jon Bon Jovi.

Huckabee:
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has perhaps the most curious cast of stars. In addition to famous born-again authors LeHaye and Jenkins of the Left Behind series, dozens of Evangelical clergy have flocked to the governor’s side. But that’s pretty much to be expected. I’m not sure anyone would have predicted that international badass Chuck Norris, rocker Ted Nugent, or pro wrestler Ric Flair would heart Huckabee as well. Woooo!

So what can we conclude from the strange bedfellows noted here? I’m going to have to go out on a limb and predict Obama for the win, based on his ability to draw support from people across many demographics.

It’s going to be a long year, folks. Let’s at least try to take a deep breath and find a little time to laugh, or at least smirk, at the absurdity.

This article was also posted at Voice Your Vote by LeftyLucy, my alter alter ego.

About 25 kids in a Scotland high school were sent to the hospital after being involved in a massive pileup in the school’s hallway.

Proving that my own high school fears weren’t “ridiculous” or “irrational” after all, a first-year student who tripped and stopped to pick up a shoe “was overtaken by the mass of following pupils unaware that there was a problem ahead”.

A senior pupil at the school, which has 1,250 students, said: “The corridor was really busy, and people just kept walking, and they started to pile up.

“It was just a horrible accident, but I think the worst thing was the shock.

“We were helping the people who had been injured, and at one point it was like the scene in The Wizard of Oz when the witch is trapped underneath the house.”

In all, more than 25 students were crushed, and were sent to the hospital with injuries ranging from sprained ankles, dizziness, and sore heads to the ominous-sounding “soft-tissue damage”.
Happily, everyone was treated and sent home.

And I feel vindicated.