Reality rains on Hillary's parade

While Hillary Clinton is already talking about Barack Obama as nothing more than a potential vice presidential running-mate, the bleary results from last night are belatedly coming into focus, and not entirely to her benefit. Consider the following:

1. The indispensible Burnt Orange Report out of Texas finds that Obama, not Clinton, won more delegates in the Lone Star State -- by as much as five (by the Obama campaign's count) or no less than three (by Burnt Orange's count);
2. Chuck Todd of MSNBC points out that mathematically, with the big states of Ohio and Texas out of the way, Clinton now can't catch Obama in the pledged delegate race;
3. Regular Daily Kos poster thereisnospoon notes the myriad ways in which Obama remains far ahead of Clinton in the overall race -- winning 27 states to her 14, winning the overall popular vote, winning more pledged delegates, performing better against McCain in national polls, et al.
4. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek crunches the numbers and shows that Clinton is how farther behind than the last time he ran them on Monday.

Now, there is little question in my mind that the Obama campaign has been coasting a bit too much, and playing it a little bit too safely. And there is no reason for Obama partisans to be overconfident, given that Clinton has demonstrated her willingness to stay in the race no matter what the mathematical realities and no matter how much her words benefit John McCain.

I just don't think things are half so bleak for Obama as the media coverage last night might have led one to believe.

And of course, 24 hours after the results came in, NAFTAgate turns out to have been a hoax. Nice timing.

EARLY EXIT POLL: Big time turnout by independents

According to the Associated Press, tons of independent voters are participating in today's four contests. This article indicates that as of late Tuesday afternoon, voters without party affiliations constitute:

* 20% of voters in Ohio;

* 25% of voters voters in Texas;

* 33% of voters in Rhode Island; and

* 40% of voters in Vermont.
In the primaries and caucuses thus far, independent voters have swung decisively to Obama, so this might appear to be good news for his campaign.

I'm tracking release of exit polls using this link to Google Blogsearch.

<b>UPDATE</b>: Al Giordano reports, via Fox News (strange bedfellows!) the following:

Fox News just reported the exit poll responses to the question of which candidate could better defeat the Republican in November:

Among Ohio voters:

    Obama: 52 percent
    Clinton: 44

Among Texas voters:

    Obama: 52 percent
    Clinton: 41

I take Hillary at her word that she is not a Republican

For some time now, I've been concerned that Hillary Clinton might really be a Republican.

I know, I know. She says that she's a registered Democrat. Now, I've never actually seen her registration card. But I have no reason to doubt that she is really a Democrat, just like she says.

Well, actually, to be honest maybe I do have a couple of reasons to doubt it...

First, I heard somewhere that her father was a Republican, and that she was raised in a Republican household. That was the first time that alarm bells started to go off in my head.

Next, I read about how in the 1960s she was a big fan of Barry Goldwater, the godfather of the conservative movement. That's weird, I thought, for someone who now describes herself as a Democrat.

Then, when she voted to authorize George Bush to use military force in Iraq, the thought flashed through my mind -- isn't that something a Republican would do?

Same thing when she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. Or when she talked about how Iran is a growing threat to our nation. Or when Rupert Murdoch talked about how much he admires her. Each time, just a hint of doubt entered my mind.

I confess that I've also seen some photographs which also made me slightly troubled. Pictures of her laughing and smiling with Bush, for example. Pictures of her speaking at Wal-Mart board meetings. Little things like that.

And then there was that email I received, which noted that her campaign guru, Mark Penn, is business partners with John McCain's campaign guru. That seemed a little funny to me. I also found it odd how Clinton is always saying how she's "ready on day one" to be President, when McCain's website also says he's "ready to lead on day one."

Similarly, when Hillary talks one day of being proud to be in the same contest as Barack, and then the next days says "Shame on him," I am reminded of how Republicans so often say one thing Sunday, and do the opposite on Monday.

But Hillary says she's a Democrat, and that ought to be good enough for me. Yes, I take Hillary Clinton at her word that she is not a Republican.

As far as I know.

Buckley v. Chomsky

William F. Buckley ("Bill," if you want to pretend to have been his buddy) is dead. Buckley got his start by arguing that god had disappeared from Yale, now he gets to find out if s/he's still present in Heaven. Here is the first of a two-part debate between Buckley and Noam Chomsky, if you want to be reminded of his inimitable, somewhat reptilian style:

I do think Chomsky gets the better of him here. I've never been a fan of Buckley's politics, and often felt that he had more wit than wisdom. But when you compare him to the "conservative" pundits of today, the drop-off in intelligence and sense is pretty steep.

Support Wikileaks

A California court has caved into legal pressure to shut down the domain of Wikileaks, the noted whistleblowing website.

But Wikileaks was prepared for such an eventuality, lining up a smart Swedish hosting company with a spine. So the site can still be found at:

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Pass it on...

(Don't these corporate dolts realize that they main thing they accomplish with such actions is to provide millions in free publicity to the targets of their heavyhanded tactics?)

Why this New Yorker didn't vote for Hillary

"I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone." -- Molly Ivins

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, there is no shortage of unfair and unprincipled reasons for disliking her -- and if you listen to AM talk radio for an hour, you'll probably hear them all.

I reject the sexism of those who still think a former First Lady has no place in policy debates, just as I reject the absurd theories of those who think she had a hand in the death of her close friend Vince Foster.

Having volunteered on Clinton's first senate campaign, I get mad when I hear Rush Limbaugh savage her as a liar and an opportunist. I'm also grateful to her for keeping Rudy Guiliani and Rick Lazio out of the Senate.

But you don't have to be a sexist or a conspiracy theorist to oppose Clinton's candidacy.

I don't dislike Hillary; I distrust her. And my reasons are both substantive, and based on direct personal experience.

When a major issue hit the area where I live, New York's Hudson Valley, Clinton was less than honest with her constituents, and all too eager to take credit where none was due.

For nearly 7 years, Hudson Valley communities were riven with controversy about a vast, coal-burning facility proposed by St. Lawrence Cement here in the Hudson Valley. The story follows below.

The company, a subsidiary of what was then the largest cement manufacturer in the world, had a horrendous track record of both environmental destruction and anti-competitive behavior, with millions of dollars of fines on the books.

The project would have burned some 500 million pounds of coal annually, with a 40-story smokestack, a 1,200-acre mine, and a huge barge facility on the Hudson, an American Heritage River. The controversy was covered everywhere from CNN to Swiss television, and every major Northeast newspapers (The New York Times, Hartford Courant, Boston Globe, et al.) opposed it editorially. The nearly seven-year battle was the subject of a PBS documentary, Two Square Miles.

Given the harsh health, scenic, noise, traffic, economic and other negative potential impacts of the project -- opponents naturally wanted to get the ear of Mrs. Clinton, and we tried everything.

She was approached at campaign whistlestops, at private dinners, and public fundraisers. Printed factsheets were pressed into staffers' hands, and handwritten letters beseeched our new Senator to help end this dangerous idea. But she refused to take any public stand.

Finally, as the leader of the grassroots opposition, I tried the old-fashioned political route. A friend identified a celebrity donor in nearby Dutchess County who was opposed to St. Lawrence's plans, and he called in a big favor. On February 12th 2003, we drove to the Capitol in his limo, and we met with Hillary first in a chamber outside the Armed Services Committee, then took a long walk and tram ride under the Capitol to her offices. Hillary was both charming, and surprisingly well-informed on our issue.

At last, here was my big chance to make a full case for her involvement.

But when I launched into a carefully-prepared spiel, the Senator stopped me: "You don't need to do the presentation," she said. "The plant is a terrible idea. Just tell me how I can help." Delighted, I described the various Federal permitting processes in which she could intervene, and the benefits of her taking a public stand.

She called in her chief environmental policy advisor, and gave detailed instructions: Get a memo on her desk right away, listing the necessary action steps and the policy rationales for each, and she'd get right to work on it. Her performance was smart and convincing, and her celebrity backer and I practically floated down the Capitol steps on the way out.

The rest was silence. After promptly delivering the requested memo, I was never able to get her staff (let alone the Senator herself) to discuss the issue again, let alone take action to stop the plant.

About a year later, Clinton was cornered on the SLC issue by an interviewer from The National Trust for Historic Preservation, who finally got her to say that she thought the proposal was "not the right direction for the Hudson Valley." These remarks were published in Preservation Magazine, which Clinton apparently thought no one would read... because when we then alerted local media to her statement, Clinton's staff denied the remarks and claimed she still had not taken a position.

Only after nearly 14,000 residents and 40 groups wrote in opposition to the Republican administration of George Pataki did this terrible project get scrapped. The company spent $60 million, and yet the citizens managed to stave off the largest cement company in the world -- no thanks to Hillary.

But there was one more damning chapter in our Clinton saga.

After we won, the group I co-founded received an award at the Waldorf-Astoria from the Preservation League of New York. During the award ceremony, it was announced that there would be a video tribute from someone who couldn't attend, but who wanted to pay her respects. Up on a giant screen came Hillary Clinton, talking about how we'd all fought such a good fight together.

Those of us who had been in the trenches for years looked at each other in amazement. All the awful things people say about Hillary were horribly validated: She didn't deliver on her promises, and then she took credit for a victory achieved without her help.

Now, some friends say, "Come now -- all politicians are the same. They tell you what you want to hear, and then do the opposite. Get over it!" Others say, "Well, Hillary dropped the ball on that one, but I still trust her on health care, education, abortion, the economy, et cetera."

To these excuses I say: Other politicians from five states had the guts to take a stand on an issue affecting hundreds of thousands of downwind residents; why couldn't Clinton?

Why should we expect her to act differently the next time a major regional controversy hits? If she won't stand up for the health of our local children and the elderly, and won't expend any political capital to save a broad swath of her own adopted State as its Senator, why should we expect her to behave differently as President?

And why shouldn't I get behind another candidate who is just as strong on core Democratic issues, such as Barack Obama -- whose campaign overtly rejects this cynical brand of politics?

The whole experience makes me think of the phrase famously mangled by our current President: Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on Hillary.

And that's why Senator Clinton didn't get my vote on Super Tuesday.

... NOTES, UPDATES & ADDENDA ...

UPDATE #1: In response to some mistaken or even malicious comments in the Daily Kos version of this piece, which garnered over 950 comments, I gathered these notes from my files:

1. The project in question did require Federal permits (EPA, U.S. Army Corps, FAA, Coast Guard) and thus Clinton had a legitimate role to play on the issue, beyond lending her clout to the citizens fighting a pitched grassroots battle.

2. I am not a "Blogger for Obama"; at the same time, I do not object to anyone reprinting the text of this diary, preferably with a link to the original.

3. I am actually a longtime Edwards supporter, who switched to Obama for obvious reasons. However, this opinion of Clinton was formed long before the Presidential campaign began.

4. Before accusing anyone of Hillary-hating and before trying to refute the story with personal attacks, please re-read the first few paragraphs of the intro and investigate the links. More info about my background can be found in a two-part interview at Grist.org

UPDATE #2, the smoking gun: I've managed to find the original documents showing how Clinton handled the Preservation Magazine interview, once it was publicized to a wider audience:

PRESERVATION MAGAZINE, MARCH/APRIL 2004 ISSUE, INTERVIEW WITH CLINTON:

Q: A large cement factory is to be built nearby [Olana State Historic Site]. Should such a thing be allowed?

A: It would be a big step backward from what has been a return to cultural and historic preservation as an engine of economic development.

THE REGISTER-STAR [HUDSON], 1 MARCH 2004:

Sara Griffen, president of The Olana Partnership, said, "We are of course very pleased to have her come out and state publicly her opposition to the St. Lawrence Cement plant proposal."

"Obviously, we're thrilled to hear such words from a New York senator and major international figure," said Sam Pratt, director of Friends of Hudson. Both Friends of Hudson and The Olana Partnership are fighting against St. Lawrence's proposal through the state's environmental review and permitting process.

While Griffen's and Pratt's reactions are understandable considering the published comment they read, Clinton's press secretary, Jennifer Hanley, stressed that "the senator hasn't come out for or against the cement factory."

UPDATE #3: I found a memo to Clinton in my files which contains the following simple and direct "ask” for her to intervene in the Federal-level review then underway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ask goes as follows:

As anticipated on the day of our meeting, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has, in fact, begun its review of the cement plant proposal, and as a result we are writing to seek your assistance in ensuring a proper review of this project at the Federal level.

24 national, statewide, regional and local groups representing over 135,000 members in the region have already signed on to a joint letter to the Corps; we expect that all 32 groups opposed to this project, which account for over 175,000 members in New York State alone, will sign onto this letter. The letter calls upon the Corps to (A) halt the project entirely, or (B) at minimum to:

1. Require a full Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) due to the extraordinary scale and scope of the project and its impacts;

2. Hold the public comment period open while waiting for other local, State and Federal agencies’ determinations, since key aspects of the project design remain in flux;

3. Conduct a thorough Section 106 [Note: this is a Federal process, too] review with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to consider this proposal’s severe impacts to historic properties and other scenic and cultural resources.

At the Corps’ recent two-day public hearings attended by Ken Mackintosh, 4 out of 5 speakers opposed the project. Moreover, many public officials echoed these requests, including Congressman Hinchey [a Federal elected official], the Village of Athens Trustees, two Hudson Aldermen, a Hudson Supervisor, and a Dutchess County Legislator. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which joins us in opposing SLC, also presented a very eloquent challenge to the project.

A copy of the Congressman’s letter will be faxed separately. Attached is a brief overview of the other key agencies with oversight for this project. [...]