How is it that the man who is supposed to be transforming politics - leading up to the Post Politcal Promised Land - has proven himself to be more politically astute than the Clintonians who were supposed to be the Machiavellian cutthroats willing to do anything to return to power?  And - if you truly believe that you are right, the better choice, the savior - do the ends justify the means?

It has been difficult for me to become reenergized politically since Senator Clinton suspended her campaign - and even before.  The lethargy doesn't stem entirely from HRC's loss - having been a lifelong Democrat, I'm used to losing.  This time though as the saying goes, "when the tide goes out, you can see who's swimming naked" and apparently we all are.  We all have a naked lust for power and we will play the spoiler if we can't have it or go back on our word to get it.  While one need only read a few blogs to find out how harsh this year's Democratic climate is, two developments in particular - and let's face it, perhaps my age as well - have made me feel the chill in the air more keenly.

First, the mushrooming of a number of Hillary forever sites. 

I don't believe HRC has anything directly to do with these sites - other than encouraging them to help her pay down her campaign debt - and yet they continue to agitate for her nomination; and if not her nomination for President then her nomination as VP.  Personally, I have no desire to see Hillary on the bottom half of the Dem ticket.  There will be only two stars in an Obama administration and they will share a last name, besides I would hate for John Edwards to have sold universal healthcare down the river for nothing (although sorry John, Jim Webb may have cut in line ahead of you).  Plus, were an Obama/Clinton ticket to lose, have no doubt that Senator Clinton would get the majority of the blame.  Better that she should continue her Senate career or look to the Supreme Court. 

Despite the fact that I don't see the point in continuing to be active for Senator Clinton in this election cycle, as a disgruntled former Dem I did nose about some of these sites like PumaPac and ClintonDems.  My suggestion was that rather than being a negative force within the Democratic Party they organize to be a positive, powerful third party.  With 18 million votes surely there are some states where Hil supporters could elect a senator in 2010, maybe enough seats that they would have to be consulted on important pieces of legislation.  No go, these folks want to remain unhappy, angry.  Their plan is to disrupt the convention and if that disruption doesn't get them what they want then they are going to take their votes and go home.  Some of them see a debacle of McGovern/Dukakis proportions in the Democrats' future - that despite the fact that current polls show Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by as many as 15 percentage points.  Their thinking, if I am following it correctly, is that they will withhold the election from the Obama-ites and retake the high ground for Hillary in 2012 - and there in lies the naivete that borders on delusion.  News flash to the supporters of HRC: "the torch has passed" (although not entirely to a "new generation") and if you try to douse that flame you are going to get burned.  If the Obama-ites win without you, they will not allow you back into the party in any meaningful way; if they lose, well, they are in control of both the machinery and the finances and if you think Senator and Mrs. Obama mean it when they say they will be no second run if they fail this time, then apparently you haven't been reading the papers.  What Senator Obama says and what he does have very little in common when what he said might stand in the way of what he wants - which brings me to the second chill in the air: Barack Obama's decision this week to forego public campaign financing. 

Now let me just say at the git-go that while it would have been refreshing for BO to have abided by his word and would perhaps have made me more of a believer in his credentials as a different kind of politician, I totally understand why he made the decision that he did.  Senator Obama can raise two to three times more - minimum - in private donations than the $84 mil he would have received from public financing.  All he had to do when annoucing his decision was stand up in front of a camera and say, "Do I look stupid?" what Senator Obama chose to do instead was stand up in front of a camera and say to the voters, "If you buy what I'm selling, you are stupid."  Senator Obama would like us to believe that he has only just now discovered that - damn - the Republicans play rough and - damn again - they can use these things called 527s to fund attack ads against me and my wife.  Well, Senator Holier than Thou, the Republicans have always played rough (so do the Dems) and 527s didn't spring up yesterday.  You knew about them when you first signed on (and you did sign on) to take public financing, you just didn't know how much money you could raise through private donations.  While I'm not entirely surprised - hell, I'm not surprised at all - that Senator Obama made the choice he did, I am surprised - well, no, again I'm not all that surprised - that so many in the media and so many of his disciples have chosen not to call him on it; and even those who have called him on it say in the long run it won't hurt him very much -  and they're probably right and Senator Obama knows that, he is counting on it.  Barack Obama is a consummate old school pol, perhaps one of the best ever. 

Barack and Michelle Obama believe that our nation needs Senator Obama; obviously Senator Obama feels he needs $250 mil to be able to lead the nation that needs him so badly - he should have just come out and said that.  To quote Mrs. Obama speaking about her husband, "He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism."  To which my cynical reply is, "Yeah, right."