garyfreedman's Blog

Throw in the towel, Hillary.

For the first time since the historic 1960 primary election, the Democratic presidential nomination remains hotly contested as West Virginians prepare to vote. So this state's Democrats and independents may, once again, help decide U.S. history. We hope they support the brilliant, inspiring, eloquent frontrunner in the race, Barack Obama. Sen. Obama is a rare figure in U.S. politics - a deep thinker who rises above partisan sniping and makes statecraft seem noble.

Hillary Clinton recently compared herself to Rocky as she campaigned in Pennsylvania, citing her ability to defy the odds and pluck her presidential bid from the jaws of defeat. And indeed, Mrs Clinton will need to match every ounce of the fictional Pennsylvanian's determination if she is to stop a sequence of setbacks from finally flooring her campaign for the White House.

A string of high-profile departures from her campaign team has highlighted some significant internal disagreements. First, her chief of staff, Patti Solis Doyle, resigned in February as Mrs Clinton began to "go negative" against Barack Obama. Then a member of her finance committee had to depart after suggesting that Mr Obama's success in the race for the White House had more to do with the colour of his skin than his political ability.

Now her chief strategist, Mark Penn, has resigned after he attended a meeting in support of a free trade agreement that Mrs Clinton had opposed. But even before his "error in judgement", he was involved in damaging spats with other senior advisers over the direction of a campaign which has seen Mrs Clinton lose a huge early lead. His departure will inflict further damage.

And Mrs Clinton's current problems do not stop at internal disputes. She is losing the support of super-delegates who will, in all probability, have the final say in who represents the Democratic Party in the November election. One important super-delegate, former President Jimmy Carter, recently all but declared his support for Mr Obama.

Mrs Clinton's eagerness to win the Pennsylvania state primary on 22 April has also seen her war chest empty, with new donors harder to come by than in earlier times, when she was the clear favourite for the Democratic nomination. Mr Obama currently has twice the spending power in the state, which offers a massive 158 delegates.

All this has served to attach greater importance to Mrs Clinton's battle to win the Pennsylvania primary, a contest she has been long-since tipped to win. Defeat there, or even a less than convincing performance, could see serious pressure heaped upon her to throw in the towel. She is well capable of pulling off a significant victory, as she has enjoyed support in the bigger states during the primary contests.

But if Mrs Clinton comes away from Pennsylvania with anything other than a win, it will be harder than ever to rebuff those arguing that the only winner of a protracted battle for the Democratic nomination will be the Republican nominee John McCain. Mrs Clinton may have recovered from previous knocks, but even she will find it difficult to beat the count if she loses in Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton is starting to look more and more like a loser -- and a desperate one at that.  Obama has the cool look of a winner.

Good riddance to Elliott Spitzer and his shiksa wife, Silda Wall Spitzer. The hell with them both.

Throw in the towel.  You're finished.  Don't embarass you and your husband any further.  Obama's got the nomination.  You can't beat him.

You may wonder what I'm looking for in life. I just wish I had a friend. Just one friend. I yearn for a friend. That's why I'm so obsessed with Brokeback Mountain. (I'm not looking for sex though). I just wish I had a friend I could have lunch with once in a while, or hang out with. I feel desperate for a connection with someone. It haunts me day and night. The problem is (one of many problems I suppose) is that I don't like most people. I would rather be alone than be friends with most people. I'm looking for a special person to be my friend.

And I feel I have the ability to detect who is special. I developed an imaginary friendship with a guy who lived in my building, Brad Dolinsky. I knew he was special the first time I saw him. I don't know what it was about him. Then one day I was talking to the front desk person in my building. I knew she was friendly with Brad Dolinsky and I sounded her out about him. I was curious about him. She said he was 31 years old. He had two degrees from Columbia -- his B.S. and his medical degree. He was a captain in the U.S. army and was doing a residency in ob-gyn at Walter Reed. He had published several papers already (even though he was only a resident.) One of his papers had won a national award for excellence in medical writing. I thought, "I knew it. I knew he was special." How do I have that ability? 
 
Then years ago, when I was at Hogan & Hartson, there was a law clerk. I identified him as a special person. I had no idea who he was, but I knew his name, Glenn Fine. I just knew he was special. I later found out, years later, that Glenn Fine graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and from which he received a law degree. He also received a master's degree in politics, philosophy and economics from Oxford University as a Rhoads Scholar. He was also a star basketball player at Harvard where he had a chance to make the NBA. Check out this web page. (Don't drag it. Just click it.) http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/glennfine.htm 
 
Where do you meet special people? (Certainly not at the Cleveland Park Neighborhood Library, I guess.) Could you give me your thoughts on this? This is terribly painful and tormenting for me. I live in a fantasy world where I have imaginary friendships with special people. I yearn for a connection with these people. How am I able to spot these people? It's all very strange. 

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," Caroline Kennedy wrote in an op-ed posted Saturday on the Web site of The New York Times. "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Kennedy, who was four days shy of her 6th birthday when her father was assassinated, wrote that Obama "has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things."

And she appealed to other parents to pick a candidate who she said could invigorate a younger generation that is too often "hopeless, defeated and disengaged."

Kennedy wrote that she wants a president "who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."

Roe should be overturned because it's bad law. A fundamental right or liberty should be grounded in something more substantial than a chimerical "penumbra of rights" flowing from a prior court decision (Griswold). Basically, what the court did in Roe was to say that women have a fundamental right to abortion "because we say so," that is because we said in Griswold that reproductive rights fall under a right to privacy that we "discovered." The constitution can be pulled and stretched only so far before it becomes a sham, a house of cards created by the Court. That's not constitutional law, that's "Alice in Wonderland."

Women should, however, have access to abortion. But the legal basis needs to be found in some other legal principles or be created by the legislature. Perhaps a constitutional amendment needs to be passed. But, of course, that probably will not happen. Yet, if women want a secure right to abortion they may well have to fight for a constitutional amendment, as they did early in the last century to obtain the right to vote under the 19th amendment.

There's a tangential issue relating to the abortion debate that has always intrigued me, though I have never heard any discussion of it. There is an interesting symbolic relationship between a pregnant woman and a federal republic such as the US. That is to say, a symbolic relationship between the state of pregnancy and the issue of states rights versus federal supremacy.

The pregnant woman is symbolically analogous to the federal government, which has supremacy over and a duty of protection to the individual states. The pregnant woman harbors and protects the fetus. Put another way, the mother stands in symbolic relation to the federal government, just as the fetus (or fetuses) stands in symbolic relation to the individual, subservient states.

Conservatives typically champion the power of the states against the encroachment of the federal government. While liberals typically espouse the supremacy of the federal government over the states. In parallel fashion, conservatives typically oppose abortion, promoting the unborn fetus's right to life. While liberals typically favor abortion, espousing the power of the mother over any supposed rights of the fetus.

Federal supremacy = a mother's right to choose

States rights = the unborn fetus's right to life

I wonder to what extent this symbolism is an unconscious factor in the passions and occasional irrationality that the abortion issue arouses in people.