Davos Newbies

Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I get the sense from watching the debate that Hillary Clinton has all but given up. Going into the debate, it must have been clear she needed some dramatic change to the campaign dynamic. She’s being smart and engaging, but she seems content with supporting the line that the two Democratic candidates agree on most things. I think that’s true, but that attitude isn’t going to change the result of this race in her favor.

Maybe she read Graubard’s op-ed in the FT.

I’m watching tonight’s debate between senators Obama and Clinton. I’ve already nailed my colors to the Obama mast, but one thing screams out from this debate for me. There is no contest — both these candidates are superior by light years to John McCain in their command of the issues and their ability to articulate solutions. When it gets down to Obama v McCain (or, however unlikely, Clinton v McCain) the gap in ability is going to be glaring.

There are times when I’m truly baffled by newspaper op-ed pages. Today’s Financial Times has a trailer on the front page: “Bow out, Hillary. And help keep McCain at bay.” Turn to page 11 and you find a comment from Stephen Graubard, emeritus professor of history at Brown University, arguing for Clinton to do the right thing and surrender now.

Now, I’d like nothing more than for senator Clinton to withdraw from the nomination battle, and leave the field clear for Barack Obama. I don’t think it matters very much right now in the battle against McCain, although it might if this thing drags on to the Denver convention, and it certainly will if the Democratic contest degenerates into a fight about seating Michigan and Florida delegates. I’m reasonably confident neither of those things will happen.

I am certain, however, that there is precisely zero chance of Clinton pulling out before March 4. Depending on the results in Ohio and Texas on that day, there might be a slightly greater than zero chance of her withdrawing from the race before the Pennsylvania primary in late April. Graubard makes an eloquent argument about the greater good of party unity, and Clinton’s opportunity to become an enduring master of the Senate. But it’s truly an academic exercise.

So why do the editors of the FT publish something that is so speculative and meaningless? It’s not as though Graubard is a power broker whose views demand attention. I’m completely mystified.

Dave Winer: “Four years from now we’ll look back at this in amazement that there was a day when campaigns hid their words and ideas behind the filters of the press.”

Dave is on the warpath to get the presidential candidates to make MP3s available of their conference calls. It absolutely should happen and I’m sure it will absolutely happen in the not-too-distant future – Dave’s estimate of four years for it to be commonplace sounds right.

It’s an excellent, simple way for one of the campaigns to signal that they are in the 21st century.