I’ve not been fond of the Clintons for a long time. It goes back to a few days after the 1992 election when I heard Bill Clinton talking about his ambitious plans for health care and I turned to a friend and said, “I sure hope he knows now to count to sixty.” It took no special prescience to see the disaster of Clinton care coming. The program was formulated in secret with plenty of experts but few congressional allies. Those experts were more intent on creating a document to satisfy their fellow wonks than in developing a plan that might attract a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. No one was surprised that the Clintons lost both the Congress and the issue. Instead of using the failure of the Congress to address the major issue of the early 1990s and elect more Democrats in the 1992 election, the clumsy dénouement of Clinton care lead to an historic loss of control of the House of Representatives.

Back in the day, I was a huge Clinton supporter (by the way, back in the day was like last year), today that has changed. Clearly, Obama has demonstrated that he can do well in the general election. If you examine the coalition of folks that he has brought together, i.e., blacks, whites, young, not so young, Independents, and Republicans (Operation Chaos not withstanding), there is no way that you can reasonably conclude that he is less, not more likely to do well as a candidate in November.

Also, contrary to political spin, the base is uber-important. Given Hillary's early support of the Iraq war, this is an achilles heel for her. White rural Republicans will not vote for a D in November. Period. We will need overwhelming support from our base. Obama has proven that he can not only rally the base, but he can reach beyond it, which is not too shabby for a general.

As the Democratic contest continues on, the media has finally picked up on a simple fact: that apart from an absolute avalanche of super delegates supporting her (which will not happen), Hillary Clinton cannot win this nomination. So, while she sends around NRA-like mailings against Obama (oh, the irony), we wait for the inevitable to become clear.

One of the remaining undeclared super delegates- Bob Brady- has to my knowledge not officially announced he is voting for Obama. He did announce, however, he would support who the voters of his district supported. That was Obama, by a wide margin.

So, Rep. Brady, get going. You know all about healing political parties, right? It is time to come out for Senator Obama officially, and start that process before it is too late.

Please review the page B 11 of the Inquirer for an advertisement placed by my father, former Mayor Bill Green. In it, he makes the case for Barack Obama. I believe it is a great perspective on the Democratic presidential primary. Check out this link k or attached pdf.

The New York Times today was moved to ask the question that has bounced around this website for months: why is Michael Nutter, who in many ways seems to have an affinity for Barack Obama (cross-party appeal, plausible and powerful invocations of change and reform) supporting Hillary Clinton instead?

In some ways, the question that the endorsement has raised is the Rubik’s Cube at the core of the “post racial” politics that both he and Mr. Obama represent: If Mr. Obama’s candidacy is a historic racial benchmark, how do you introduce that idea into political discourse without reference to the old racial politics that give the benchmark its meaning?

Vivian McCabe, a grandmother, neighborhood block captain and supporter of both Mr. Nutter and Mr. Obama, expressed the frustration in a sidewalk interview the other day. “I was shocked,” she said, referring to Mr. Nutter’s endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. “Not because he’s black, but — I was just looking at him to...” She paused. “What words should I use?” she said. She could not come up with any.

If Mr. Nutter is inclined to ponder the conundrum, the political veteran in him — he was a Democratic committeeman, party ward leader and city councilman before running for mayor — does not show it.

The last sentence probably nails it. There's a cute section where Michael Nutter notes (over grilled cheese and chocolate milk at Little Pete's) that Obama is "'a really nice guy who’s talking about really important issues,' 'and I am aware that he is African-American.'" And an 82-year-old from Nutter's ward gets the last word: "'Nutter’s a smart fellow,' he said. 'He knows what he’s doing.' In this particular case...the new mayor just happened to be wrong."

I have issues with both Ed Rendell and Mike Nutter, but, generally, they are pretty likeable guys. And so, when they- and our City- get national attention, during the presidential race, I feel stirrings of pride.

As most know, in this campaign, Rendell and Nutter both endorsed Clinton. Rendell is close to the Clintons, making his endorsement pretty unsurprising. Nutter's endorsement has set off all sort of questions and theories. Personally, I really don't care why he, or Rendell are endorsing Clinton. She is a qualified candidate for President.

But, boy, I wish when they were being interviewed they wouldn't enforce stupid frames when talking about the race:

First, there is Nutter. His new line is subtly stirring the Jeremiah Wright controversey.

Obviously, the above interview is heavily edited, and at some point the reporter mentions that Nutter thought the Obama speech great. But, come on. When this controversey started, Clinton basically ignored it. After all, this was a fox news, right-wing controversey being fed in the conservative echo chamber. But, when the reality of her 'sniper fire' visit to Bosnia started to hurt her poll numbers, all of a sudden, Clinton became chatty about Wright:

"We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives," she said. "We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend. Everyone will have to decide these matters for themselves. They are obviously very personal matters."

It clearly became the campaign spin, and Nutter basically repeated it. Stupid move. This is the same crap that we will be hearing from the GOP and Fox, over and over, come the fall. Obama's speech was a watershed moment in our national discourse. Muddying it like this is just plain stupid.

Then, there is Rendell...

One nice thing in recent years is that Democrats have started to debunk any notion that Fox is a legitimate news source. But, there is Fast Eddie, praising Fox News, with a straight face as 'fair and balanced.'

Yeah, real fair, real balanced:

Why would a Democrat legitimize an organization that puts out right-wing propaganda? How about when they told us all that Obama attended a Madrassa? Was that cool? Or how about when they go after African-Americans? Down with that?

It doesn't bother me that these guys are endorsing Clinton, and I don't care why they chose her. I loved when Nutter said that Clinton and Obama needed to focus on urban issues. But, I really wish they would just leave it at that- pushing their candidate, and pushing issues that matter to Philly and PA.

Obama is going to be our Presidential nominee. It makes me cringe to see our biggest political leaders use right-wing frames in an attempt to help Clinton.

Yesterday, I heard my first ad of the Pa presidential campaign. It was an Obama radio spot, aimed at young people, imploring them over and over and over that they have to register Democratic to be able to vote in the primary. I suppose this means that it has begun... (I will write more at some point, but I am about 99% likely to vote for Obama.)

On that note, I am sure most of you have noticed the plethora of "guides to PA" that Newspapers have been publishing. (Ie, "this is what water ice is.")

The City Paper has put out something a little more useful, under the the title "The Pandering Guide." The basic idea is that, like the Iowa Caucuses forcing candidates to announce themselves "Ethanol Queens" and the like, Pennsylvania has just a few needs. As the CP notes, our needs don't generally involve propping up agribusiness, and instead focus on... poverty and infrastructure and all that cheery stuff:

So, Barack and Hillary, forget all that talk about the "right way" to order sandwiches, and behold the true path to Philadelphians' hearts: cold, hard cash, and some serious political promises. And hey, unlike corn ethanol, these panders have the benefit of being worthwhile.

So, they want solutions from the candidate. Maybe we should ask for one, too... What program is our ethanol?

Around 5:45 this morning, I groggily turned on my computer, and realized that insanity was about to rain down on Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and each of us. With Hillary Clinton’s wins in Ohio and Texas, there is little question that the race for President is coming to Pennsylvania. (As noted by just about everybody.) This is the first time we have had a say in the Democratic primary in many of our lifetimes. And, frankly, largely because we didn’t do what Mark Cohen wanted, and move up our primary like everyone else, the focus on PA- the last major state remaining, will be bizarrely intense.

We are the new Iowa. And so, to mark this occasion, and to simply deal with the reality of what is coming, we will be spending some time on YPP looking at the national race. Frankly, the time we spend on it will be directly proportional to how much time everyone out there wants to spend on it.

In the grand scheme of things, Pennsylvania’s delegates will not matter that much, because I suspect they will be fairly close, and Obama will still be ahead in pledges delegates when it is over. In all likelihood, an Obama win ends the race. A Clinton win and who knows what happens.

We will be feeling this out as we go along, but the first thing I think would be useful is for interested people to write posts- not comments, but, everyone their own posts- on why they support Clinton or Obama. What about Obama, for example, made Seth Williams pack up his kids, and drive to Springfield, Illinois, to see Obama start this journey? Or, what made Tony Payton spend his limited time off in cold New Hampshire, volunteering? Conversely, what does it feel like for a veteran of the women’s movement to see a woman with a legitimate chance at being President? I would like to see how many personal stories we can collect from Philadelphia progressives about their thought process going through this choice.

The same basic ground rules will follow for YPP as they always do… the more positive you are, the more persuasive you can be. But, over the next six weeks, the first thing I would like to do is to here from as many people as possible as to who they are supporting, and why. (And, if they are undecided, why, too.)

As always, this is still a local, Philly and PA focused site. So, in that vein, what do you see happening for our City, and its entrenched problems, under your candidate? Are there specific policies or political stands you can point to?

Additionally, I would like to figure out how volunteers from each campaign can have their own ‘space’ within YPP to let others know what they can do to get involved with each campaign. For now, if you are working for a campaign, please put in the topic of your post “Obama Volunteer” or “Clinton Volunteer.” I will put links up on the side of the page, so that those who want to get involved with each campaign can see what is going on. Maybe this will amount to nothing- but I know Seth Williams for example, will have lots of opportunities for Obama supporters to get involved.

I hope this race will be run somewhat positively, and if I see one of those 3AM ads here, I will throw up a little. But, bottom line, national politics here we come, if you all are so inclined. Please, please, please, be decent to each other.

In the end, this is unlike any local race for 99.99% of us, because we don’t know these people, we don’t have loyalties, they are not our neighbors. In a way, this is really a time for everyone to be free and unfettered in who they choose. Idealistic, even.

What do you think? And, would you be willing to reach out to others in our various communities and see if they will share who they are supporting, and why?