Houston Chronicle endorses Obama

The Houston Chronicle has endorsed Barack Obama. According to my inside source -- the guy who actually got to write the editorial -- it's the first time the Chron has endorsed a Democrat for the White House in 44 years, meaning that the last Democrat the paper supported for president was Lyndon Johnson.

The times, they are a changin', folks.

Today's Must Read: What Republicans know & Democrats don't get

This is a bit long, but it is well worth reading to learn What Makes People Vote Republican.

University of Virginia Psychology Professor Jonathan Haidt explores different approaches to morality and concludes that people don't vote Republican because they're duped. They simply view the world, and morality, differently than Democratic voters.

I'm not certain I agree with all the solutions he proposes for Democrats, but Haidt's piece offers a fascinating review of the psychology of morality and voting behavior.

Participating in democracy: two hours at a Texas Precinct Convention

By Nancy Jane Moore

I just got back from my precinct convention. It was an informal, but very civilized affair, and we got the business done in a couple of hours. We were choosing 18 delegates to the Travis County convention and we ended up with 13 for Obama, 5 for Clinton.

169 people showed up, filling up the Galindo Elementary School library and causing everyone to want the air conditioning on despite the fact that today was rather nippy. (Turns out the AC is controlled from downtown, so we suffered in the heat.) I thought that was a huge turnout until I checked the local paper and found out other precincts had 400 - 500 people.

I ended up as an alternate to the county convention. We gave priority in choosing delegates to those who counted votes and helped people sign in. Seemed fair to me.

It occurred to me while sitting there waiting for the count that one advantage of the Texas Two Step is that someone who was really undecided could vote for one candidate in the primary and another at the caucus. Not a bad way to express your undecidedness. I wasn't undecided, but I know several people who have been agonizing over the choice.

At the moment, The New York Times is showing Clinton with 50 percent of the Texas primary vote and Obama with 48 percent. However, don't be surprised if Obama ends up with more delegates from the primary itself, even if that count holds up; delegates are divided up among state senate districts and those districts that had a better Democratic turnout in 2004 and 2006 get more delegates. The count's still far from over, but the sections of the state currently showing a heavy Obama lead -- Austin, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Houston (and surrounding counties) -- are all areas with more delegates.

The precinct convention votes will come in even slower. It's an overcomplicated system. I don't know why they designed it this way, but I suspect compromise: Some people wanted the flash and glitter of a primary and others wanted to stick with the traditional precinct conventions. I do understand why the delegates are weighted toward heavily Democratic districts: The Democratic Party has been very weak in Texas in recent years and they wanted to make sure the hard-core Democrats had the most say in choosing candidates.

Primaries and caucuses are, after all, a party process, not a citizen process. And parties get to make up their own rules, within reason.

I note that the newspapers and TV networks are now declaring Clinton the winner in Ohio. I don't know how they divide their delegates up, but I suspect -- based on earlier races -- that it isn't just a simple matter of percentage of the popular vote. It'll be interesting to see how many delegates each candidate gets there, too.

One thing I am sure of at this point: the race isn't over yet. We might even see a contested convention. I don't really object to that, so long as we all remember we're on the same side. We treated each other with respect at my precinct convention, and I hope the Obama and Clinton campaigns will show respect for each other as well. Democrats need to come out of this contest stronger, not beat each other up until they're too weak to take on McCain.

Thinking about Hillary Clinton

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Washington Post reports today that Hillary Clinton is leading in the polls because women support her.

I'm not one of those women.

As a feminist, I cannot help but be delighted by the prospect of a woman president. And I find many things to like about Hillary Clinton. She's very intelligent and has accumulated a wealth of experience over the years. Even though she's a moderate at best -- not the liberal painted by the right wing blogosphere -- she is, by word and deed, an advocate for women's rights.

Of course, she is also ambitious and aggressive -- even ruthless -- in her pursuit of the presidency. But so are all her opponents: You don't get elected president in this country without wanting the job very badly and being willing to break a few eggs on the way to the White House omelet. And given that the glass ceiling at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is even thicker than the one in the executive suite -- and we all know how hard it is to break that one -- a woman who wants the job must necessarily be both smarter and tougher than her opponents.

Electing Hillary Clinton president would certainly knock down a few more barriers to gender equality in this country -- and in the rest of the world.

But then we come to the Iraq War and national security -- exemplars of Bush's failed foreign policy. And that's where Hillary troubles me.

I know she's backed off from her original support of the Iraq War -- as have so many other people who seemed to think it was a good idea at the time. But even though she keeps calling it "Bush's war" -- which it is -- she hasn't moved away from it as completely as others have. She keeps refusing to apologize for her vote giving Bush the power to go to war.

And then there are reports like this one in The New York Times, in which she is quoted as saying that we are safer than we were before September 11.

I don't feel safer, Sen. Clinton. I feel like Bush's idiotic policies have inflamed people throughout the world and that more and more of them are turning to terrorism. And it isn't just the foreign policy disaster; there are also vast inadequacies in Bush's "homeland security" program -- Hurricane Katrina showed that. If we aren't even prepared for the natural disasters we know are going to happen, how can we possibly be ready for the unexpected?

It troubles me that Hillary feels safer. Plus Barack Obama seems to have a fresh approach, John Edwards has substantial things to say about social justice, Bill Richardson has varied experience, and Al Gore is out there critiquing the very core of our political system. So I find myself edging away from supporting her, no matter how many emails I get from NOW urging me to send money now.

And yet -- and yet -- the other night on the radio I heard thoughtful analysts speculate on the sexism issue. Then there's this editorial in the Des Moines Register, speculating about how sexism is affecting Clinton's rating in the Iowa polls.

It gets my feminist dander up, I confess. How dare anyone even hint that a woman -- especially a woman as bright and experienced as Hillary Clinton -- shouldn't be president just because of her gender? If enough people keep doing that, and especially if they keep doing it in the subtle ways that are hard to quantify, I'm going to find myself mailing her a check despite my qualms.