I think Bill Clinton's speech tonight is far more important than Hillary's speech was last night.  We knew what Hillary was going to say, that supporting Barack Obama is the most important thing and that her supporters needed to get over it, or John McSame will end up President.  Any semblance of a political future she had was 100% dependent on her nailing that speech and making all the right noises.  She did.

Bill Clinton on the other hand is not restrained by that.  He knows he's the only two-term Democrat President still around, and that gives him a hell of a castle wall to perch upon and direct the slings and arrows at whoever he damn well wants to.  He's been Hillary's pit bull since the spring and he's taken some pretty brutal shots.  I'm honestly not convinced that he's going to play nice at all.  Nobody's making him do so, not even Hillary can control the guy.

Now, he won't come out and attack Obama directly.  But I seriously doubt he's going to praise the man either.  He's hurt because Obama's camp has portrayed him as a racist, and the Big Dog is all butthurt at that.  Too bad.  Bill Clinton knew at every step of Hillary's campaign what he was doing and what he was saying.  He knows the reality of Plan 2012 and what's coming down the pike for the next four years economically and socially in this country.

Bill Clinton is not a stupid man, especially when it comes to knowing how relationships work.  He's acting like a spoiled child because it's politically convenient for him to do so, he can make a mess and still get away with it...he's Bill Clinton.  Ain't nobody gonna call him out.

Except the Obama camp did.  That wasn't part of the plan.  Obama was supposed to step aside and have the Big Dog have another shot at the White House.

Now he's got one final shot at assuring Hillary Plan 2012.  It'll come at the cost of African-Americans, but he figures he has four years to mend fences...and we're not going to vote for a Republican after Katrina.  It might even work, he figures.  That Bill Clinton charm will work in the long run, right?

So, here I am after defending the guy back in the 90's, wondering just how hard he's going to try to screw Obama over tonight.  I shouldn't be considering that, really.  Bill Clinton should be giving an amazing speech and he should be behind Obama all the way.  The reality is he's not, and he has nobody to blame but himself.

So either we're going to see Bill Clinton suck it up and do what he has to do, or we're going to see him blow a hole in the side of the S.S. O-biden and try to sink it.  The fact that I don't know what he's going to do scares me a little.  But it does NOT surprise me.  Not anymore.  Bill Clinton could come to bury Caesar and he is the one guy in the party who could get away with it...after all he's been getting away with it for a while now.

Will he emulate Ted Kennedy?  That's the kind of passing the torch speech that the Big Dog needs to make, it was a beautiful, emotional speech that sealed Ted Kennedy's role as the real elder statesman of the party and voice of our traditional liberal values.  Bill Clinton could do that, he's more than capable.  I don't think he will.

If he gives the subtext that Hillary Plan 2012 is on tonight, Obama is in real trouble.  If he gives the subtext that it's over and that he's accepted the fact it's over, and that Obama is the way to the future, Obama still has a real shot at winning.

But the fact that I don't know what he's going to do, and the fact that I'm finding myself questioning the guy is the real problem here.

We'll see what happens.

Cross-posted at ZVTS.

Yesterday I talked about how Clinton's surrogates were pressing the attack on Obama over being "snubbed" for Veep and McSame's boys and the Village Idiots were following suit.

Today as the convention opens the attacks from Clinton surrogates are officially getting worse. Howard Wolfson brings the Big Dog into the fight.

There is still work to do on the Bill Clinton front. He feels like the Obama campaign ran against and systematically dismissed his administration's accomplishments. And he feels like he was painted as a racist during the primary process.

Senator Obama would go a long way towards healing these wounds if he were to specifically praise the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency in a line or two during his speech on Thursday. That should be painless---he isn't running against the Clinton legacy anymore, and it would probably be a good idea to remind voters that the last time Democrats were in charge of the White House, we had peace and prosperity. Similarly, he could thank President Clinton for all of the work he did throughout his life to bridge the divides in our country. This is a cause near and dear to the president's heart.

President Clinton has his part to play as well. He needs to offer a strong argument in favor of Barack Obama's candidacy on Wednesday night, and remind everyone why he is one of the most gifted campaigners in our generation between now and November.

What both Clintons say about Senator Obama--and what Senator Obama says about both of them during this week--can go a long way towards tamping down whatever disunity still exists between the two camps and their supporters. And more importantly, it will encourage Senator Clinton's supporters to vote for Senator Obama.

The Clinton versus Obama storyline is irresistible to the press corps--and the McCain campaign. It is incumbent on both sides in Denver to do what they can to tamp that down.

The 800-pound plaid hedgehog in the room that nobody's talking about is "What will Hillary's supporters do about O-biden"?  Will they accept the ticket and work to help it win, or will they go to the dark side and put McSame in the White House in order to give Hillary a shot in 2012?

It seems like an unusually cynical and downright cruel thing to ask.  After all, Hillary's a Democrat.  But the fact remains only about half of her supporters are behind Obama right now.  And there's increasing evidence that the Clinton camp and their supporters are going to make O-biden pay.

Evan as Hillary Clinton praised the newly-minted Democratic presidential ticket Saturday, some in her circle are furious Barack Obama did not appear to give the New York Democrat serious consideration for the No. 2 spot, or even ask for her consultation on the matter.

"Set aside that Obama said she'd be on anybody's short list, set aside anybody's feelings on whether she was deliberately snubbed and the pros and cons of whether it should be her," a former Clinton strategist told CNN's Candy Crowley. "Focus on the politics of it and you have about a quarter of Clinton loyalists still not joining the caravan...for God's sake, not to even make a show of taking her seriously is flatly stupid."

A top Clinton advisor also told CNN they were "outraged," over how the process was conducted.

"You can't put [Obama VP vetters] Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy on an hour plane ride to Chappaqua just to check the box? They should have done it just for the optics," this person said. "Barack never even said to her, 'Here's how I envision the job'- not one discussion with her about [the position]."

"They thought her supporters were mad before? They are really mad now," this person also said. We knew it was never going to happen but you would have thought they might at least make a show of it."

Not too much equivocation on it: the big three automakers are facing imminent demise and are playing the Too Big To Fail card.  They are asking Congress for $50 billion in loans.

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler LLC and U.S. auto-parts makers are seeking $50 billion in government-backed loans, double their initial request, to develop and build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The U.S. automakers and the suppliers want Congress to appropriate $3.75 billion needed to back $25 billion in U.S. loans approved in last year's energy bill and add $25 billion in new loans over subsequent years, according to people familiar with the strategy. The industry is also seeking fewer restrictions on how the funding is used, the people said today.

First a little history lesson:  The Bradley Effect is the theory that an African-American candidate for political office can't win because in the end, while opinion polls can show the candidate ahead, when it comes to the actual vote, the candidate gets 10-15% less at the ballot box.  In other words, there's a whole lot of white voters who say in opinion polls they will vote for the African-American candidate, but in the secrecy of the voting booth they pick the white guy.

It's named for Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles who ran for Governor of California against Republican Robert Deukmejian back in 1982. The exit polls on election day showed Bradley had a comfortable lead in the polls...but the election showed Bradley lost by 2 points.  Last minute undecided voters in particular chose Deukmejian in huge numbers.

Deukmejian's campaign manager, Bill Roberts, said a month before the election that Bradley's numbers were at least five points too high because he believed a large number of whites polled were lying about preferring Bradley for governor so as "not to appear racist".  Roberts was forced to resign for his comments...but his predictions came true.

The Bradley Effect has been bugging me for months now that Obama has been the presumptive nominee, and I've often wondered about just how bad it will be in November for Obama.

Over at HuffPo this morning, Rebecca Curtis argues not only that the Bradley Effect will cost Barack Obama the election in November, but that there's only one possible way he can win:  his Veep must be Hillary Clinton.  Curtis argues history backs her up not just on Bradley but other African-American candidates.

Things are looking increasingly dim for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Analysts foresee both companies being unable to raise the capital they need to continue sometime in the next 45 days.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tumbled to about 18-year lows in New York trading on concern the government will be forced to bail out the mortgage-finance companies, wiping out common stockholders.

Fannie slid as much as 18 percent, and Freddie fell 19 percent after Barron's said the Bush administration anticipates the government-chartered companies will fail to raise the equity capital they need, prompting the U.S. Treasury to step in. Fannie is down 84 percent this year. Freddie has fallen 86 percent.

``It is very, very likely to happen before the end of the third quarter,'' Ajay Rajadhyaksha, the head of fixed income strategy for Barclays Capital Inc., said in an interview. ``Without government help, we think there is very little chance of Freddie completing a significant capital raising.''

A rescue of the companies, which own or guarantee 42 percent of the $12 trillion in U.S. home loans outstanding, would include preferred stock with a seniority, dividend preference and convertibility that would wipe out common stockholders, Barron's reported, citing an unidentified source in the Bush administration.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who on July 31 received the unprecedented authority he requested from Congress to help the companies, has said a bailout won't be needed.

``We aren't going to comment on speculation,'' said a Treasury spokeswoman, Jennifer Zuccarelli. ``As the Secretary has said, we have no plans to use these authorities.''            

Fannie Mae was down $1.40, or 18 percent, to $6.51, at 12:02 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Freddie fell $1.07, or 18 percent, to $4.78.

Your assignment today is to read your Roubini.  It's a bit weighty, but important.  We're starting the backslide into the twilight, folks.  I'll highlight the important bits for you.

Recent economic, financial and geopolitical events suggest that the decline of the American Empire has started. After the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a brief period where the world switched from a bipolar balance of two superpowers to a unipolar world with one economic, financial, geostrategic superpower, or better, hyperpower, i.e the United States. But by now three factors suggest that the US has squandered its unipolar moment and that the decline of the American Empire - as the US was in effect a global empire - has started.

Let us explain how and why...

...then who?  Jeralyn at Talk Left has a pretty intriguing theory:

The Vice Presidential candidate speaks at the Democratic Convention on Wednesday night. The theme that night is "Securing America's Future."  

So the VP candidate is someone who fits with that theme. Also, according to another report I read elsewhere, military veterans are part of the night's theme.

 

Could Gen. Wesley Clark be back in the ballgame? His organization is Securing America's Future, the same name as the night's theme. More on that here.

She argues that Wes Clark would actually be a pretty good choice.

Oil has plunged, the dollar is at a six-month high, and things are now looking up for the US, right?  Well, remember, the dollar's strength is coming at the weaknesses of other currencies, and the recession that infected the US has spread to other countries now.  The Asian and European economies are slowing down from their breakneck pace.  In the short term the dollar looks good, and oil hedge money is flowing from commodities to the dollar.  In the long term, we're going to be back on the downward slide.

There is now an increasing probability that the global economy - not just the US - will experience a serious and protracted recession. Macro developments in the last few weeks suggest that now all of the G7 economies (the group of the major advanced economies including US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada) are already in a recession or close to tipping into one. Other advanced economies or emerging markets (the rest of the Eurozone including Spain. Ireland the the other Euro members; New Zealand, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia and some other South-East Europe economies) are also on the tip of a recessionary hard landing.

And once this group of twenty plus economies enters into a recession there will be a sharp growth slowdown in the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and other emerging market economies. The IMF defines a global recession as a global growth rate below 2.5% as emerging market economies usually grow much faster (6%) than advanced economies where growth averages about 2%. For example, a country like China - that even with a growth rate of 10% plus has officially thousands of riots and protests a year - needs to move 15 million poor rural farmers to the modern urban industrial sector with higher wages every year just to maintain the legitimacy of its regime; so for China a growth rate of 6% would be equivalent to a recessionary hard landing. It now looks like that, by the end of this year or early 2009, the global economy will enter a recession.

Not likely.  The Village says she's playing hardball with her convention role.

Sources close to both Obama and Clinton told ABC News that the New York senator is highly unlikely to allow her name to be formally submitted for a roll-call vote on the convention floor. The Obama campaign wants to avoid such a vote, since it would underscore the party's splits and remind voters of the divisive primary campaign between the two Democrats.

The refusal to publicly announce her intentions is widely seen as a bargaining chip Clinton is holding on to as party officials negotiate logistics regarding her convention speech and other activities, according to several Democrats who are closely involved in the matter.

Clinton plans to hold a Web chat with supporters Thursday afternoon where she might clarify her convention role. In announcing the Web chat, she urged her supporters to continue to stay tuned to her Web site for updates about her convention activities.

But the very fact that details of her convention role remain unresolved less than three weeks before the Democrats descend upon Denver is a fresh sign of the difficulties the party will face at a convention when nearly half the delegates were chosen because of their support for a candidate who will not be the nominee.

History provides little guidance: In the modern convention era, the delegate count for the two leading candidates has never been this close.

Lanny Davis, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons, called the idea of putting Clinton's name into nomination a "completely idiotic idea that leads to nothing but party disharmony."

Still, the fact that some Clinton supporters are clamoring for a chance to vote for her at the convention is partly Obama's fault, he said. Davis, who described himself as "100 percent behind Obama" in the general election, said Obama should be doing more -- in symbolic and substantive gestures -- to make clear he values and needs the support of former Clinton supporters.

"It's a reflection of genuine frustration by Hillary Clinton supporters that Sen. Obama seems to have forgotten about 18 million voters," Davis said. "My concern about Sen. Obama is he doesn't recognize that the outreach to the Clinton grass roots has to be more visible, more overt, as well as more symbolic."

The two camps have worked cooperatively on a draft of the party platform, and Clinton is set to hit the campaign trail for Obama on Friday, appearing by herself at an Obama event in Nevada.

The campaigns also issued a joint statement late today, reiterating that there is no division.

"We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success," the joint statement said. "At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election."

If this is an effort to satisfy Clintonistas and get them behind Obama, that's one thing.  But the Clintonistas aren't behind Obama.  They're behind Hillary.  And crap like this doesn't help at all.  Remember the goal and the implied threat here:  Only Hillary Clinton can be Obama's Veep, or 18 million voters will walk...honestly, how many Obama supporters would abandon him for McCain because of Hillary?  As long as that number is less than 18 million, Hillary must be his VP.

Hillary could have stopped this at any point by saying "I have decided that the best possible thing I could do for my party right now is not to pursue being Obama's running mate."  That's it.  What really sticks in my craw is the fact that the one person who could put an end to all this won't do anything about it.  Instead she's telling Obama to kiss her ring, or she goes nuclear.

The message here is pretty clear.  Hillary for VP or bust.  And now that I think about it, Obama himself could end this by saying "No, Hillary is not on our list" and then Clinton would have to decide whether or not that party unity line she keeps spouting is the truth or not.

I reject Hillary as a Veep based on her record:  For the Iraq War, Ffor torture, against FISA, and very much for going after Iran.  Obama has enough of a Bush Enabler Problem since this June, Hillary on the ticket would be a disaster.  It's not like she would deliver red states, and she would just double down on the GOP talking point weaknesses.  The wingnut conspiracy theories of them killing everybody and establishing a New World Order would be insane.  "Vince Foster was killed because he secretly was in love with Reverend Wright!"

We need somebody as Veep that would reinforce Obama's meesage of change.  Hillary Clinton has her strengths, certainly.  18 million primary voters is nothing to sneeze at.  But honestly, what does she bring to the ticket other than turmoil?

Also posted over at Zandar Versus The Stupid.  Drop by, won't you?

Digby goes to the logical endpoint of the Barry's not up by 20, he must be losing meme.

McCain as comeback kid?

This would be a thrilling storyline for the media. Their favorite maverick was defeated in 2000, was the front runner for the '08 nomination, but went down in flames last summer. Then, like Jimmy Stewart in Flight of the Phoenix, the scrappy flyboy rebuilt his rickety campaign and came back to win the nomination against far better financed opponents. Then he faced down the Obama juggernaut and was given up by everyone as a hopeless cause --- no way, no how, could this tired veteran compete against the young genius and his hordes of cheering followers. And waddaya know? The grizzled old warrior's still got it. Wouldn't it be something if he pulled it out?

I don't know if it will catch on, but it seems tailor made for the media, hungry to advance a feel good story about a favorite village elder overcoming adversity and never giving up even when everybody says his best days are behind him. They can bring up his POW experience with vomitous frequency and talk about guts and glory for days.

McCain as underdog versus the "inevitability" candidate Obama?  The Village will be all over it for the next three months.  Obama is losing no matter how far ahead he is, because McCain is clearly the scrappy, vibrant, energetic outsider in this race.

...so Obama's down by infinity according to David "Always Wankin'" Brooks.

Why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?

 His age probably has something to do with it. So does his race. But the polls and focus groups suggest that people aren't dismissive of Obama or hostile to him. Instead, they're wary and uncertain.

And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner. He opened his book "Dreams From My Father" with a quotation from Chronicles: "For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers."

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded.

Repeat after me for the next 95 days:

"THE MIXED RACE MAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IS SCARY AND WEIRD AND I DON'T LIKE HIM ONE BIT, NO SIR."

Now you don't have to read Wankboy's column again until 2009.  Use the time saved to get out the vote for Barry O, eh?

You know BooMan's "nadir" theory about how the media can't get worse on Obama?

The McCain campaign sure as hell can.

My theory on them goes something along the lines of "It's always darkest just before the tornado eats your house."

Ladies and gentlemen, Barry is the Anti-Christ.

No, seriously.  That's the ad.  Fuck dog whistle politics, this is tornado siren politics.

Entirely new branches of mathematics must be invented in order to sufficiently quantify the depths that the McCain campaign will stoop to in order to keep us locked in the GOP police state forever.

How do you fight this level of pure absurdity without having to resort to absurdity of your own?

...Taylor Marsh, Big Tent Democrat and the Talk Left crew, and Jerome over at MyDD and their Hillary Is The Only Way To Win(tm) crusade, anyway?  Has logic and the sensibility of reason returned to a few of my favorite political sites in the last month or so?

Lemme take a look over in Marshan Country...

In the middle of it all lies this humongous gulf. Obama can speak in long sentences that rap around dreams, visions and enough rhetorical cotton candy to make his primary season word fogs look coherent. But the man cannot connect.

What is he going to do for my neighbor who has been laid off? Or the other neighbor who is about to lose his house and his life savings?

Hillary would have an answer. She would reach inside these voters and talk to their deepest despair and desperation, telling them that she can't work miracles, but she can offer solutions that provide a road map to find the way out.

Can Tim Kaine do that with voters? Can Evan Bayh?

Barack Obama seems to be under the grand illusion that he can do this alone, with simply a side kick to support his stardom. Or that he can do it with any old guy who can get his back. He's wrong. What Obama needs is someone who talks a language he doesn't speak or understand. Speaking of problems he knows but can't capture.

Suffice it to say there's an empathy gap.

Oh God dammit.

OK, what about The Big Man?

Trapper John has an interesting post on how Barack Obama MIGHT be approaching his VP choice. Trapper's bottom line? Obama will choose the "do no harm" option. I suspect that is the thinking in the Obama camp and likely the McCain camp (though clearly McCain will be more likely to take a risk for some upside). Here's the problem I see with Trapper's analysis - it is impossible for any choice to not do some harm.

I know they do not like to hear this at daily kos, but the day Obama announces his VP and it is not Hillary Clinton, that will cause Obama harm. It may be unfair, it may be wrong, but it is a fact. (My own view is that picking Hillary Clinton clearly remains the best choice for Obama, both on the positive and negative side. Clinton's supporters will be energized, her fundraisers will work their heart out, the Clinton brand will help with voters on the issue of the economy, she has become a first rate campaigner, etc. But he will not pick her for reasons only Obama can and will have to explain.)

Oh crapcakes.

Surely I can get one out of three over with Jerome at MyDD, right?

Sebelius, Kaine, or Bayh

Those are the three names that are being settled upon as CW chatter.

bayh is clearly the most 'political' choice, a Washington Senator, but from a state that Obama could win.

Sebelius and Kaine are the ones whom backed Obama, and are more of a companion/outsider choice.

Ehh, screw it.  I'll take that as a win!