Hmm... Did something political a second ago.

I signed up as a volunteer for the Obama camp and advised that I might contribute money as well...

hmmm.

Is it a slam dunk that I'll vote for Obama? No.

So why would I campaign for him? Because Hillary is just the left hand of the establishment. I have been evaluating Hillary for the last few months to decide if I could vote for her. I entered the election season with my personal pecking order topped by Wesley Clark, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Obama, Chuck Hagel, Al Gore, and that rascally Joe Biden.

Sadly Presidental Elections at this moment are mostly financial decisions. If you cannot generate a ton of cash, you have little chance of winning the nomination. As much as I love what Clark, Huckabee, Biden, Hagel have at their core, I don't think they will pull in the cash to win their primaries.

I think Gore won't run. The democratic nomination is likely a two way race between Clinton and Obama with Edwards (IMO) running for president with it in the back of his mind to try to land the VP spot if it doesn't work out. --- the thought being his X% of the democratic primary (15% or so?) would be enough for Hillary or Obama to bring him on.

Or at least that is how I see it.

So Hillary or Obama? I have been watching how Hillary has campaigned and initially I was impressed with her. In November CNN had the big three at 33%, 15%, 14%. Then Hillary and her handlers got bold. She got agressive, showing spine in a number of statements. She capped it off by putting out proclamations about how she would deal with the Iraq situation. In a time when the Democrats were not showing the public any backbone, Hillary stepped up and presented something that (at least from a distance) resembled an alternative to the Bush plan. (Even if I think history will prove me right in thinking it was strictly a visual aid to help her seal up the Democratic nomination --- afterall a plan written for the realities of todays' Iraq would be irresponsible to use in the Iraq of 2009, lol!)

In January, per ABC, Hillary had siezed 41% of the democratic vote with Obama at 17% and Edwards at 11%. With a sizable lead Hillary tried to squeeze out the other candidates by building a tremendous financial advantage.

This was a great strategy for her campaign. The Clintons, with their connections can raise money quite easily. As long as her vote and money leads seemed insurmountable, no other candidate would be able to raise the funds neccessary to mobilize the vote to compete. She could take the democratic nomination, find a VP who appeals to some strata of the population that disliked her, and hope that cash, dirty campaign tricks (assuming here), and general public dislike for Bush would sweep her into office.

Hillary has the highest negative rating of any candidate in the election at 38%. At the November numbers, Clinton was vulnerable to an Obama surge and frankly may have been even more vulnerable to Edwards (a vanilla white male --- the "safe" democratic candidate). Hillary is rated as unfavorable by 40% of independents, 33% of women, and 44% of men (quinnipac University poll). Having a poll that says you are a front runner 18% more popular than your next contender, over a year out, means nothing if you have that kind of disapproval numbers. All that means is that of the say 60% of society in play, you have only convinced half of them that you are a good candidate.

Obama has charisma and fortutiously for him learned his political skill in state politics. He thinks like a highly polished politician, but still is given the benefit of the doubt by the American public because he is "an outsider". His campaign did not appear to get any traction early on --- suggesting that his managers did not know how to present him or what strategies to take. If the expected Obama surge never came, the democrats would be looking at entering an election they should win with either a caustic Hillary or a generic handsome, white, male candidate in Edwards.

Hillary's handlers looked at the way the Democratic insiders jumped off of Dean to take the "safer" candidate, Kerry, in 2004 and they rightly knew the only way Hillary wins is as a front running candidate dominating the Democratic cash.

Then Geffen hit.

Geffen saw the strategy and hit Hillary really hard. Hillary should have just let it go. But she can't. Pundits said her handlers learned in the Bill years to hit back every time. Maybe. But to me, as an independent who often leans Democrat, it read like she took it personally. Like she was trying to crush out a Democrat she knew well because he rejected her personally.

The campaign further screwed up by trying to use fake outrage to create public pressure to force Obama into condemning Giffen, thereby alienating potential future contributors. Come on. How incompetent do they think any of the other campaign managers are? To me, it looked ridiculously contrived. The Hillary camp also publically tried to confuse the public into thinking Giffen was a part of the Obama campaign, and not just a contrbutor; a lie the media quickly dispelled.

Questions seemed to crop up. Why was Hillary freaking out over a guy she had a 25% lead on? Then the Civil Rights thing came up. Obama, as a black Presidential candidate, was of course going to have a good day. Hillary showed up with Bill in tow and tried to horn in on it. You can smell the despiration in the water.

As of March 9th, per bloomberg, Hillary is back down to 34%, Obama is at 31%, and Edwards is at 15%. Obama built his surge on winning over black voters (as contrary to logic as that might seem). I contend if Obama is a legitimate contender, people are going want to learn more about him. In compairison to Hillary (no knock intended), people are going to like him more and more as they find out more about him. He is pretty outside the establishment.

As it stands today, in terms of people who favor Clinton and Obama, it is a very narrow lead for Hillary. But once you figure in the elimination of Edwards as a candidate and Obama's comparitively non-existant negative ratings (8% of independents, 14% of Men, and 10% of women.) it seems likely that Obama will not only capture the anti-hillary vote, but also at least half of the undecideds.

Barring a Clayton Williams moment, of course. (Not out of the question.)

While I think Obama's handlers blew it a bit in the early running, overall they are taking the perfect tact for dealing with Hillary Clinton --- making her come to him. Hillary is essentially bringing attention to the Obama campaign with each little meltdown. With every percentage point increase, Hillary will fight harder, because that is how she knows to campaign. As she fights harder, the public perception of her as a shrill do-anything-to-win Washington politician will be reinforced in anti-Hillary voters. These voters will likely move to block her by electing the seemingly less shady, less abrasive Obama.

For me personally, I think the last month did a lot to clarify what I don't like about Hillary Clinton. I think she is too dogged, too willing to lie to get the desired results, and too corrupt. I have dealt with 6 years of Bush. I don't want 4 years of the democratic version.

The straw that broke the camel's back was an article I read on the dramatically named "10 most controversial presidential pardons of all time". #1 was Bill Clinton's pardon of filthy rich tax evader Mark Rich. I had not thought about this pardon for a long time. Rich allegedly knowingly ripped off the government in an oil scam and when the government wouldn't settle, left the country. If you read between the lines, it sounds like Rich was the asshole millionaire who rubbed every government employee who had to try to collect from him the wrong way. The Government employee's wouldn't take Rich's offers so he did an end around to the Clintons.

You can argue that maybe Bill Clinton really didn't Pardon him for his wife's fundraising efforts on his behalf, but I ask you --- why else would Bill come up with the idea of pardoning Rich? When you mix in the stories about the Clintons using coming to the white house as a fundraising tool, I have to question where they draw the line with fund raising, which then colors how I interpret the Rich situation.

I am tired of our government being for sale. (At least obviously for sale.)

I am also very leery of the Clintons for their seemingly wide open door to China. It is too similar to the the Bushs relationship with Saudi Arabia. I am tired of having a candidate in office who gives too much influence to a foreign power. 8 years of the Clintons and 12 years of the Bushs is more than enough for my lifetime.

So I am going to do my part to get Obama through the Democratic prmary.