God dammit.

[Obama] paid the obligatory homage to Mr. McCain’s military service and sacrifice as a Vietnam prisoner of war, but then raked him for impugning his motives and patriotism. …

“I have never suggested and never will that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America’s national interest. Now, it’s time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.”

Enough with the high road already. It doesn’t work. Obama is trying to play Bill Clinton to John McCain’s Bob Dole, “honoring his service” and thereby implying that the old coot’s day has passed. But this isn’t 1996 and you’re not Bill Clinton, an incumbent president in good economic times.

And McCain isn’t honoring you at all. McCain is doing what he needs to do. Going on the attack day after day is working for him and hurting you.

Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight.com — which has become one of my daily political reads — puts it well:

[I]t’s worth remembering that McCain won the Republican primaries in large part because the other candidates were so deferential to him. Rudy Giuliani praised McCain incessantly during the debates of last summer, at which point McCain’s campaign was in tatters and didn’t seem like much of a threat. But guess where Rudy’s supporters went once McCain won New Hampshire?

The Republicans, of course, have no such inhibitions when it comes to Democrats, which is why they went right at Al Gore’s strengths, and right at John Kerry’s strengths, and are going right at Barack Obama’s strengths — and, importantly, did so early in those respective campaigns. It’s one of the big reasons that they win elections.

I almost hope Obama picks Hillary as his running mate. At least she’d go on the attack. At least she wouldn’t have compunctions about smearing McCain. At least she understands Republican politics.

Obama needs to stop trying to use the American people as a laboratory for his ideas about political theory. He needs to actually try to win this thing.

The guy is driving me nuts.

I haven’t been happy with the Obama campaign lately. The McCain campaign is doing all the defining and driving most of the news coverage. Yes, McCain’s ads have been asinine, but they’ve got the media talking, and that’s where many voters get their information.

Regular readers of my blog will know that I am no doe-eyed Obama supporter. I went back and forth between Clinton and Obama over the course of the primary race. First I was undecided; then I chose Obama, voted for him in my primary in February, and posted an Obama icon on my blog. Then, as the race went on and Clinton began to define the debate, I started to think she might be a more impressive general election candidate, even if I loathed some of what she was doing. (Gas tax holiday? Please.)

Lately I still think she might have been a better nominee.

On June 3, the day Obama effectively clinched the nomination, Electoral-vote.com published its last set of competing matchups: Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain. Clinton was doing much better against McCain than Obama was. That was two months ago, and things have moved in Obama’s direction since then. But I can’t help wonder whether Clinton would have a stronger lead right now.

Several months ago, the Republicans were relishing the idea of running against Clinton; they had a whole attack plan ready. And if she were the nominee they’d be using it right now.

But Clinton would be out-Roving McCain. She’d be running commercials that everyone would be talking about, defining the debate, defining McCain, going on the offensive against him, while casting herself as an issues-oriented champion of the working class. That’s what she started doing against Obama once she got her act together in March. The only reason Obama won is because he had a superior organization and racked up state after state in February. There’s nothing illegitimate to that; he knew the rules and took advantage of them. But he got blindsided once the Ohio/Texas campaign got under way and never really recovered. If not for February, Clinton would be the nominee. She ultimately lost, but she won the rhetorical debate.

The polls right now should not be as close as they are. Granted, according to the state-by-state polls, Obama still has a healthy lead. But the election is exactly three months from today, and so much can happen in that time. I want to smack Obama upside the head for not being more aggressive these last couple of weeks. Of course, if he winds up winning, everyone will say he chose his strategy wisely. But if he loses, Democrats will once again be banging their heads against the wall.

He’s still the favorite right now. But is anyone talking about his commercials? Is he doing anything but play defense? I’m sick of Democratic nominees who overestimate the intelligence of the American people. We need a nominee who kicks people’s asses. Clinton would have been that nominee.

Would her cynicism piss me off? Yes. Would I call her craven? Yes.

But would she have a better chance of winning?

Yes.

There’s been so much talk in this presidential race about Hillary Clinton as a woman: about whether her campaign has been hurt by sexism, about her campaign’s effect on future female presidential candidates, about her effect on the women of tomorrow, and so on. I’ve seen this discussed most often by Salon.com editor Joan Walsh, who seems obsessed with sexism against Clinton to an unhealthy degree.

The most recent piece I’ve read on the subject is this one by Peggy Orenstein from the Sunday Times Magazine, in which she wonders what effect Clinton’s campaign will have on her daughter.

So it is not the attacks themselves that give me pause, but the form they consistently have taken, the default position of incessant, even gleeful (and, I admit it, sometimes clever) misogyny. Staring down the sightline of my daughter’s index finger, I wondered what to tell her — not only at this moment, but in years to come — about Hillary and about herself. Will the senator be my example of how far we’ve come as women or how far we have to go? Is she proof to my daughter that “you can do anything” or of the hell that will rain down on you if you try?

I have to admit — I just don’t see it. I’m baffled by those who say that Clinton’s treatment will discourage females from running for president in the future, or that it has anything at all to say about future female candidates. I don’t know if it’s because I’m a Gen-Xer or because I’m male, but to me, Clinton’s gender has barely registered as an issue in this race. Stephen Colbert sometimes jokes about how he “doesn’t see race”; me, I haven’t seen gender in this campaign.

It’s not that there haven’t been some isolated sexist attacks against her. But “Iron my shirts!” was something yelled out by a couple of yahoos at a campaign event, and “How do we beat the bitch?” was a question asked by a single voter at a McCain event a few months back, and although Chris Matthews of MSNBC has said some dumb things (including some allegedly sexist comments that were not actually sexist), he’s one anchor. There are always going to be sexist people and attitudes in the world, just as there will always be racists and homophobes and antisemites and anticatholics. There will always be unenlightened idiots.

But there’s a big difference between isolated examples of sexism and systematic sexism. And I haven’t seen any systematic sexism in this campaign. Some people see any attacks against Clinton as sexist, particularly attacks by those in the media. Well, that’s the way politics goes. Cable news anchors are opinionated and they say dumb things about all candidates. Romney, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain (sometimes), and even media darlings Huckabee and Obama have had to go through this.

There are at least ten reasons why Clinton isn’t going to be the nominee that have nothing to do with her gender. I don’t buy any of the crap about how “Americans are uncomfortable with an ambitious woman.” It’s not that she’s a woman, and it’s certainly not that she’s ambitious. It’s that she doesn’t know when to stop, which is an obnoxious quality in anyone, man or woman. Were Clinton a man, I would be just as scornful of her for the way she’s run and is continuing to run her campaign. Were the two remaining candidates Obama and Edwards instead of Obama and Clinton, and Edwards weres doing what Clinton has done over the last few months, I would still be thinking, “Come on, get out of the race already.” I feel the same way about Ralph Nader, who runs narcissistic and delusional campaigns. I feel contempt for him. It’s not sexism.

Perceptions of sexism in this race are primarily a generational thing: I didn’t live through the sexist ’50s and wasn’t scarred by the battles of the ’60s or ’70s. And it’s a gender thing: I’m a man, so I’ve never directly experienced sexism. (Some say anti-gay attitudes have ties to sexism, but it’s not the same.)

Which of us is correct? Are those of us who are younger, or male, or both, blind to the sexism that exists because we’re not its target? Or are those of the older generation paranoid, seeing sexism when it’s not there? I suspect it’s the latter.

We’re dealing with (1) people who want a female president more than anything, versus (2) people who are completely happy and even eager to vote for a female president but not if she’s not the best candidate. Some people in group #1 see people in group #2 as sexist, and some people in group #2 see people in group #1 as sexist in their own way.

This is how it always works with identity politics. Some claim A is just as good as B, some claim A is different and therefore better than B, some claim A needs an extra boost to make up for past injustice, some claim that true justice lies in treating A and B the same. Thus will it ever be.

Perhaps if I understand that, I can get over my irritation at the people who see nothing but gender in Clinton’s candidacy. I haven’t yet. But we’ll see.

(Update: I missed this in the Times today.)

So, other than the Obama/Abercrombie/Fitch dorkwads…

I wanted to write some sort of insightful post about the Pennsylvania primary results. Unfortunately, I can’t think of anything insightful. It just goes on and on. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy just won’t die. She’s like the Anti-Monitor in issue #12 of Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Seriously, though…

Not that it matters, since I already voted (2½ months ago!), but I think I’ve returned to being neutral in the Democratic race. Or at least I feel less personally invested in an Obama victory. If for some reason he doesn’t get the nomination, I won’t feel personally offended like I would have after the Texas and Ohio primaries.

He still has my heart, but Hillary’s been starting to win my head. (Al Gore in 2000 had both; John Kerry in 2004 had neither.)

Hillary’s a dark lord, but she’s our dark lord. She has an intuitive understanding of how the Republicans play the game. At the same time, that’s what I don’t like about her. She’s adopted the Republican narrative. She’d endorsed the Republican way of playing.

Obama either doesn’t understand the narrative, or he doesn’t feel he needs to play it. “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?” Indeed. I’m increasingly frustrated by his unwillingness to play the game. Look, you’ve got the youth vote locked up already. Can you finally start turning your attention to the working class and elderly? Not everyone will go to your website and look at your specifics. Will you please deign to talk about them and play the game? There are some idiots out there who need to be led by the hand. They’re not going to seek out your positions. You have to talk about them.

Hillary Clinton’s transformation is unbelievable. She’s morphed from a “liberal elitist” enemy of the right into a gun-toting, shot-drinking, working-class hero. She’s practically the waitress who served Obama his uneaten waffle and topped off his coffee.

Oh, and she’s ready to nuke Iran.

What the frak happened to her?

I’m not as sure as Eric that McCain’s a goner. By all rights, George W. Bush should never have been reelected. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. On the other hand, McCain should be benefitting greatly from the internecine Democratic warfare right now, and yet he still can’t break his 45 percent ceiling, so who knows what will happen.

See? Like I said. I have nothing useful to say.

Someone needs to explain to me why the fact that Hillary Clinton has won several big states in the Democratic primaries/caucuses, while Obama has won mostly smaller states, means anything. I’ve seen Clinton supporters make this argument several times and I don’t understand what it’s supposed to mean. It’s mentioned here as well.

First of all, it doesn’t matter which states you win; it matters how many delegates you win. If you can win X number of delegates by winning a few big states or lots of smaller states, it’s the same thing.

Are the Clinton people trying to say that her wins in big states will make her a more viable candidate than Obama in the general election? That’s as silly as saying that Obama’s wins in traditionally red states will make him more likely to win those red states in November.

Um, these are all contests among Democrats (and some independents). There are no Republicans voting in them.

I guess Clinton could argue that her California win makes her more viable in that state in November. California had an open Democratic primary but a closed Republican primary, so independents could vote only in the Democratic primary. Most independents who voted in the Democratic primary chose Obama, but Clinton still beat him. This could mean that not enough California independents were enthusiastic enough about Obama to vote for him, and that they’d be more likely to vote for McCain instead of Obama in November. But it really means nothing, because I don’t see how Clinton could argue that she’d be better than Obama at attracting independents from McCain.

So winning a few big states as opposed to several small states means nothing. Right?

Am I missing something?

Here’s an assessment of the presidential candidates’ logos. Politics aside, I think Obama’s logo is pretty brilliant.

Interesting tidbit: the typeface of McCain’s logo is the same as that used on the Vietnam Memorial.

Pam is dead-on about why Hillary Clinton has been tanking. Some choice quotes:

Our country’s issues with gender bias places everything Clinton does under a microscope…. However, I would argue that gender may play less of a role in this race because of the broad demographic voting patterns we are seeing here. I think the problem is that the woman is Hillary Clinton — it’s quite possible that a woman could have faired better in this race, just not this one.

The problem isn’t the policy positions, I think the main dismay among the Clintonistas is that the voters are responding to something Obama has — charisma and a message that connects — that she cannot match, and that they don’t know how to successfully counter that.

Unfortunately it’s pretty hard to wag your finger at the American public and tell them not to be fooled, or that they are stupid for thinking with their hearts, not their heads. That doesn’t garner more votes, in fact it can cause blowback.

Hillary is now trying to win the nomination by brute force, with the help of idiots like Mark Penn. While Obama’s campaign entices and inspires, her campaign tries to tell people how stupid they are for wanting to vote for him. It makes her seem tone-deaf when it comes to people skills. Is this how she’d run her presidency?

If she manages to bounce back and become the nominee (it’s possible; there’s a debate tomorrow night and another one next week, and debates have a way of turning things around, and Obama has been diffident during debates), I’ll fully support her. She’s a Democrat with Democratic policy ideas and she’d be lots better than McCain. And I still want to like her. I don’t like not liking her.

But she’s not making it easy.

There’s been a meme going around for a while that Obama is all hope and sunshine and no substance. Clinton and McCain have both used this argument in the last few days. And witness this political cartoon today:

The thing is, it’s not true. Obama has plenty of substance. Just look at the Issues section of his website, which is filled with links to specific proposals on various subjects. He doesn’t talk about it much, but there is in fact a there there.

Carpetbagger does a good job of unpacking the meme.

(By the way, I love the word “meme.” Such a part of the Internet age. Remember when “memes” were just called “ideas”?)

Obama can sing!

Mr. Obama’s advisers said although they have not determined how to deal with Mr. McCain, they intend to keep their criticism focused on differences over issues.

And no, they said, do not expect Mr. Obama to dust off the lyrics to a song he performed on March 11, 2006, when he appeared as a keynote speaker at the Gridiron Dinner in Washington. His words were written to the tune of “If I Only Had a Brain.”

“When a wide-eyed young idealist, confronts a seasoned realist, there’s bound to be some strain,” Mr. Obama sang perfectly on pitch. “With the game barely started, I’d be feeling less downhearted, if I only had McCain.”

Random thoughts about the state of the presidential race, in no particular order:

(1) In New Jersey yesterday, my parents canceled each other out. My dad voted for Clinton and my mom for Obama (she was undecided as late as yesterday). Yay for bucking gender roles!

(2) It’s interesting how many candidates have multiple home states. Clinton is “from” Illinois, Arkansas and New York. Obama is “from” Hawaii, Kansas and Illinois. Romney is “from” Michigan, Massachusetts, and Utah (kinda).

(3) Running mates:

(a) McCain would be a fool not to pick Huckabee. He brings in the evangelicals and the South, yet they’re both appealing mavericks. But I was hoping to see a decline of evangelical influence in the White House.

(b) If Clinton gets the nomination, how could she not pick Obama? Not that I necessarily think she should. But she’d look like a chump if she didn’t ask him, and he’d look like a chump if he turned her down. But there are ways to avoid it and still save face. Meanwhile, would he be under pressure to pick her as a running mate?

(c) On the other hand, it’s unusual for nominees to pick primary opponents as running mates. Kerry/Edwards in 2004 was the exception; before that, the last such ticket was Reagan/Bush in 1980. So take (a) and (b) with a grain of salt.

(4) I can’t get the MSNBC election music out of my head.

Eight years ago I was in a long-distance relationship with a grad student who lived in Atlanta. He came up north over his spring break, and we spent several days in Boston and one night on Cape Cod.

We stayed on Cape Cod on a painfully freezing Tuesday night in the middle of March. We were the only guests at our bed and breakfast. After checking into our room, we went out in search of dinner only to find the main street was dark and deserted. God knows what we were thinking, Cape Cod in the middle of the week in March. Eventually we found the Lobster Pot, a great seafood restaurant that was filled with people. It was an oasis of warmth and friendliness. We went in and had a great dinner.

When we woke up the next morning, there was a big breakfast waiting for us in the kitchen, along with a newspaper with word that Al Gore and George W. Bush had trounced their respective opponents, Bill Bradley and John McCain, in the previous day’s Super Tuesday primaries.

The next day, we were back in New Jersey and I drove C to the airport to send him off. We said our sad goodbyes at the gate.

Meanwhile, John McCain was dropping out of the race on CNN on the airport TV. He spoke outdoors, with a beautiful Arizona landscape as his backdrop.

For some reason I’ve always remembered that. It just compounded the sadness I was feeling at saying goodbye to C (with whom I broke up amicably three months later). I liked John McCain. He was a Republican, but I liked him, especially because he was running against the Dark Prince, George W. Bush, whom I loathed.

I’d been rooting for McCain to beat Bush. I’d been thrilled when, three days after Bush beat McCain in the South Carolina primary with the help of dirty tricks, McCain came back and beat Bush in the Arizona and Michigan primaries. I was working a part-time job at Barnes & Noble at the time. I watched the news of the Arizona and Michigan victories on the TV in the food court while on my dinner break, my mouth agape. Weird, the details we remember.

And then McCain lost all but the New England states on Super Tuesday, and then he dropped out, leaving Bush as the Republican nominee.

I’d always felt bad for McCain after he lost. Now, eight years later, he seems the likely Republican nominee. Even though I won’t vote for him in the fall, I feel happy for him. Not only is it an amazing comeback from last summer, but I feel like he’s getting what was denied to him eight years ago. He’ll be the second-oldest major party nominee ever (after Bob Dole), which inspires me; I hope I’m still visiting new horizons in my 70s.

Don’t get me wrong; I disagree with the man politically on most issues. But I respect and admire him more than I do any of the other GOP candidates.

So for the first time since JFK was elected almost 50 years ago, the next president will probably be a sitting U.S. senator: Obama, Clinton, or McCain. And I don’t loathe any of them.

It feels good.