As an original supporter of Edwards and a born-again Obama fan, I think that whatever my reservations and trepidations about Hillary, reruns in Florida and Michigan are the best alternative. If Hillary wins, she wins.

We can not simply ignore the states and we can not simply disregard the refusal of the power structures to abide by the Democratic Party rules. If anything defines Hillary’s pragmatic amorality, it is her claim to Michigan where she said she didn’t withdraw because it didn’t make any difference – the votes didn’t count - and now, the only candidate on the ballot, is claiming the delegates.

What has clearly happened is that Hillary in Ohio found a new voice (again) and channeled John Edwards. Obama has yet to do that effectively and for him it may be off message.

My problem with Hillary, and its from personal experience, is that while she is A-One in her mastery of issues, she is C- in her choice of companions - and I don't mean Bill. In short, I am a Reform Democrat, and when push comes to shove, she is a Regular Democrat who has gone for the power, rather than the people. Her normal habitat is salons (or game farms) rather than saloons.

She will do the right thing usually, but you have to hold her feet to the fire. It's all about triangulation.

On Tuesday, David Brooks, the NY Times house columnist and heir apparent to George Will, spoke of Obama's transcendent moment being a speech before an Iowa Democratic Dinner where he spoke about unity of America and Hillary gave the I am a fighter speech. To Brooks it was the defining moment of the campaign. The problem is, that in the Democratic primaries, the fighter may be more preferred to the conciliator.

We face daunting problems that can only be solved by both inspiration and struggle. Conciliation of people is possible because people get it. Conciliation of corporations is another matter. Hillary has been a divisive figure who is toting baggage. But she has learned to struggle. Obama has run a campaign on inspiration but now must struggle. But he has struggled. His life was no walk in the park (or Park Ridge).

In 1996, I represented Pat Buchanan in his attempts to make the Republican primary ballot in NY. It was a professional task for me, not a political one. But for awhile, Buchanan had struck a nerve because he was actually hitting some populist themes that seemed to have legs in his attacks on corporations.

John Edwards was pushed a side by the historical candidacies of Obama and HRC. HRC has gotten the Edwards message. Now it's up to Obama to get it quick.

The fact is that given his background, Obama ought to be able to do it. We still need to find unity and conciliation. But we can not unify and conciliate with greed.

Is Hillary's populism a facade? Can Obama adopt his message to populism?

This is going to be a great fight. Popcorn anyone?

http://johnklotz.blogspot.com

Having been on the periphery of NY Politics, I happened to observe Eliot Spitzer from the beginning of his political career. I first met him, at a reception by the NY League of Conservation Voters (LCV) held at the Dakota coop of "Rosemary’s Baby and John Lennon fame.

To me there was an off-putting intensity and I felt this was one ambitious, self-centered man who did not exude empathy. I don't remember shaking his hand but the image that comes to mind is of the politician shaking your hand, mumbling a few words and looking over your shoulder, and thinking about, someone, else.

His first primary victory which made him the Democratic candidate for Attorney General was tainted. His opponent charged him with using illegal contributions from his extremely wealthy family. He denied it, but after the election it turned out the allegations were true. But this issue was marginal and faded out and Spitzer won the General Election.

Like everyone, I cheered when Spitzer aggressively prosecuted Wall Street insiders. I also cheered when Rudy Giuliani prosecuted City Hall insiders from the Bronx. But, although Rudy Giuliani shared some of the personality traits with Spitzer, he was dependent on family money illegally funneled into his campaign for is office – had Giuliani had been appointed.

When a family money to buy office where there beneficiary lacks empathy. The end is almost always tragedy for someone.

That is one reason why the Obama revolution is so important. If we can move to a system where truly innovative candidates can raise money for important campaigns the rich kids may lose their insurmountable edge. Spitzer’s first electoral victory was fueled by funneling money from his family into his campaign. Maybe, just maybe, in the future, that will not be as divisive as it has been.

http://johnklotz.blogspot.com

I have never been impressed with Spitzer as a person but I have cheered his work. However, the issue here is a cataclysmic hypocrisy.

By latest reports he has been at this for years including when he was prosecuting prostitution rings. Criminal charges are a matter of dire importance to the accused. To brand someone as a criminal and seek their imprisonment for conduct that you secretly indulge is beyond the pall.

Weep not for Eliot Spitzer but weep because the felons on Wall Street are rejoicing in his fall. But it is his fault.

johnklotz.blogspot.com