Oh, look. Hillary Clinton expressed emotion again. Must be time to beat her down.

Here is my toon on that subject.

I am not really sure what more Hillary Clinton could possibly say or do beyond tonight's speech to convince her supporters to rally around Barack Obama's candidacy for President. It was such a powerful speech, in fact, it could have —with a little tweaking for context— served her well as an acceptance speech for the nomination. It had to be powerful, of course, but both Obama and Joe Biden have their work cut out for them to maintain the momentum — or, optimally, surpass it.

Naturally, shortly afterwards the John McCain campaign ran its ad quoting Clinton's criticisms of Obama. This raises the headache-inducing possibility that the Obama and McCain campaigns could run dueling ads featuring Clinton praising and criticizing Obama. I hope not.

Yet CNN has managed to find Democratic delegates still unmoved, still unconvinced by Clinton's argument to support her former rival. I just saw one woman weep as she considered the possibility that she might not vote at all.

All of which makes me feel like an atheist observing a Methodist and a Baptist argue over issues of doctrine. Which, well, I am ... er ... when the issue comes up. It's not that I don't see the differences, but compared to the similarities they seem quite minimal. The challenge for Democrats comes during the general election to convince undecided and independent voters — not to mention recalcitrant Clinton supporters — that the differences between Obama and McCain are more cavernous than might be evident as the two candidates compete for the Sacred Middle.

If you are looking for some indication that the Democratic National Convention will be a giant healing ceremony for a party riven by the primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, my hometown newspaper The Buffalo News throws you a bone. Watch CNN or FOXNews and you will get the impression that Clintonistas are so disgruntled and petulant (a stereotype the John McCain campaign is counting on) that Obama has no chance of winning them over. By contrast, The News reports differently:

The Obama forces have gone out of the way to make Clinton delegates feel welcome, said Erie County Clerk Kathleen C. Hochul.

“I’ve gotten a lot of calls from the Obama people, wanting to make sure that I’m comfortable and have what I need and inviting me to go to some events,” Hochul said. “We’re clearly coming together.”

There certainly are plenty of events to attend. In addition to the traditional New York delegation breakfasts, there will be a plethora of parties each day, and a who’s who of New York politics will be here to witness it all.

Mind that "coming together" phrase. They use it a lot.

I find this significant for a few reasons. As Senator, Clinton has impressed Western New Yorkers by consistently sending their way federal funding and programming aimed at relieving the economic stagnation that has afflicted the area since the late 70's. As the article notes, local politicos from the entrenched Democratic Party machinery expected that a second President Clinton would be an intimate ear and share the largess. Also, WNY is chock full of those blue collar white people whom Obama has reportedly had trouble recruiting — the Reagan Democrats and Clinton supporters that might vote for McCain and against their self interests (economic, reproductive, etc.)

Mind you, it's not overwhelmingly significant. Voters might buck the machines of party and labor unions. And the various resentments of white workers against both affirmative action and the rise of the black middle class continue to obscure the mutual interests workers of all colors share. Code words like "unqualified" and "arrogant" persist, especially connected to the argument that Clinton was "more experienced" or "deserving." And the News article focuses only on local area leaders, party members with a personal stake in working with whatever Democratic administration might come to bear upon their political futures. Far be it from Jerry Zremski, the reporter to point that out or raise the question or exhibit any of the skepticism one might expect of a journalist, a Washington Bureau Chief.

FWIW, the News article is evidence that the Obama campaign has spent most of the Summer trying to make nice-nice with Clinton delegates. Hopefully the convention will get that over with so it can focus on winning the election.

Clicky clicky clicky clicky clicky clicky!

From the Gaurdian's Hillary Clinton campaign retrospective photogallery. Suzanne Goldenberg also writes not the first and certainly not the last autopsy of Clinton's candidacy. Also, Goldenberg and Ewen MacAskill join most of the American media to declare Obama the Democratic winner.

But I am not so sure. Clinton still claims a popular vote majority - if you count Michigan and Florida, and discount at least four caucuses (but why you would do that, I don't know) - and her campaign has spent all day fighting against an Associated Press story reporting that she would concede Obama's win. Sure, she'll acknowledge he got the necessary delegates, but she won't actually concede the contest. Does this strategy put pressure on Barack Obama to accept her as a Veep? To risk an already loaded historical analogy, it worked for Kennedy and Johnson. But that only sends chills down my spine.

Lessee here:

1. Hillary as a witch
2. Bill as an Arkansas redneck (note the goiter)
   
3. Hillary as a front for Bill's ambitions
4. Hillary as amoral political striver

What have you got?

Man, I love Pat Oliphant. I really do. His caricatures are rivaled only by Steve Brodner's and Kurt Anderson's, IMHO. And there is nobody with as bitter, as acerbic writing political cartoons, save for maybe our friend Ted Rall.

BUT Jesus-Mary-onna-Donkey-Ride! It IS possible to do all those things AND avoid negative stereotypes at the same time. In fact, it IS possible to criticize Senator Clinton -- and the Clinton spouses as a political team -- without resorting to such imagery.

The Fafblog interview with Hillary Clinton:

FB: Now, back when your husband was president he cut nine million poor women and children off welfare. But now you're the candidate of women and poor people and poor workin women. So did you approve of what your husband did at the time, and if not are you going to reverse it as president and give all those poor people their money back?
CLINTON: Ha haaa! That's an excellent question, Fafnir, and the only way to answer it is with a hearty chuckle followed by a complete non sequitur!
FB: Ha ha, that is so true!

Loooooove it! Read the whole thing.

So the Shiny Librarian gets me hip to infodoodads, which means I learn about all kindsa nifty sites, widgets and whatnot to play with, including silobreaker, a news and information gathering portal that will replace whatever love I have for googlenews, especially because it offers this addictive little toy: News Trends.

News Trends is a search engine that graphs media attention trends on a given subject. For fun, I thought I would compare media coverage for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan over the past 12 months. I'm cynical. I think Spears and Lohan will trounce Obama and Clinton. After all, neither Clinton nor Obama have flashed their genitals at paparazzi, at least not in the time period in which this data has been gathered.

I am wrong.

Well, wrong about media attention, not genitalia exposure. It turns out the media finds Obama and Clinton far more interesting than Spears and Lohan. I realize I am setting the bar pretty low, but I am happily surprised.

What's really cool about silobreaker in general and this graph generating tool in particular is that it offers some handy research tools students can use for class projects. No, the shit ain't peer-reviewed, and you might want to issue the usual caveats about research methodology (for instance, the developers claim to use "relational analysis" but do not explain how that is actually designed in their search algorithms.) But I think it's a good introduction to research for beginners, a way to get them thinking about information, how to display it visually, and how to manipulate it. It may also stimulate them to draw unusual connections. Or, as in my case, subvert a priori assumptions.

Click the image to see the full cartoon.

Despite a vow to myself to avoid all articles or blog posts with the words "Hillary" or "Obama" in them, I have failed spectacularly. Shoot, I just posted on Hillary Clinton's tenacity the other day. It's what Britney Spears is to most people; I can't look away.

( Read more... )

Cross-posted from mooretoons.

Cross-posted at my Wordpress blog.

Every time I think Hillary Clinton or her campaign has done something to destroy her bid for the Democratic nomination, I get surprised by the persistence - stubbornness? - of her supporters. Even if Republican mischief-makers drove Clinton toward a dubious victory in Texas, she still had solid backing from traditional Democratic voters.

( continued behind the cut )