After a tough two weeks, there was a great deal of positive pixie dust sprinkled on Barack Obama the last few days. And you could say the opposite for Hillary Clinton.
To wit: Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a veritable standard bearer for the blue collar, white voter that Obama supposedly can't attract, endorsed Obama and accompanied him on the kick-off of a 6 day bus tour. The tour might have come as a surprise to the Clinton campaign, who, not so long ago, were scolding Obama for taking PA lightly. Be careful what you wish for. We don't make predictions here, but we have a sneaking suspicion that this campaign trek will shrink Hillary's lead.
Then Obama publicly acknowledged Hillary's right to continue the primary. Very smart to take the high road on this. He can counter claims that he's piling on with the rest of the Boy's Club, which will help him with the female vote.
Speaking of the female vote, Obama wowed 'em on The View, the fem-centric talk show created by Barbara Walters. (How Hillary's people didn't get her on there first is a mystery.)
But the most shocking development of the week for Obama was that a bona fide conservative Republican said some nice things about his speech on race. Newt Gingrich, in an address at the conservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute, took Obama up on his call for a national dialogue on race. And he did it with a speech that can only be described as
a revolutionary call to action. The transcript takes a few minutes to read, but I beg you to read it. You won't agree with everything Gingrich says, but it is an honest attempt to transform the way we approach poverty in America.
And Hillary? Well, she had to beat back the drumbeat of ending the race. And now evidence is surfacing that her campaign is short on cash and is not paying its bills. In the meantime, her strong addresses on the economy and health care are not getting the attention they deserve. She's certainly capable of a comebeack, but the fact that polls show her losing ground after two tough weeks for Barack Obama (previous to this one), is not a good sign.
Here's a question: Is Obama lucky or good. Or both? Tell me how. Talk about this or anything else you want by clicking on'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Siegelman And Other Random Notes
The biggest political story that no one cares about is taking a bizarre twist. Don Siegelman, the former Democratic Governor of Alabama, who was serving a seven year sentence for bribery and mail fraud was released from jail today. What's so big about this? Well, in addition to the fact that a Court of Appeals soundly rejected a lower (kangaroo) court's claim that he wasn't eligible for release pending his appeal, he may be asked to testify in front of Congress. It's been long suspected that Siegelman was the victim of serious Republican judicial hanky panky. And all roads are leading to Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. Check out the story here.
The whole thing is extremely byzantine. Siegelman was a populer Governor who came up for re- election. This guy was not a flaming liberal. Look at his record. But Republicans felt that this was a key race and they went for broke, throwing the kitchen sink at Siegelman. This involved finally concocting a criminal case against him. According to lawyers and 50 state attorneys general who examined it, the case against him was specious at best. And it seems as if the Democratic National Committee abrogated it's responsiblity to work as hard to help Siegelman as the RNC was working to bury him. I'll be fascinated to see if this reveals a trail of manipulated justice that leads to the highest echelons of the Republican Party. Stay tune.
Yesterday, Barack Obama gave a speech outlining six principles for a new regulatory structure for the financial sector. These were billed as 'starting points' for a discussion on the subject. It's a solid address, and was completely overshadowed in our ADD age by the prospect of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. Speculation was fueled by the New York Mayor's warm introduction of the Illinois Senator and the kind words returned to him by Obama--especially a 'brother in arms' reference to their shared goal of moving past divisive politics.
McCain has been easily painted as having a 'do-nothing' approach to the housing crisis based on his recent economic address. This has to worry Republicans for the general. McCain was simply re-stating Republican orthodoxy, but his campaign is going to have to find a way to package his stances in a way that sound more pro-active. One valuable asset, however is Carly Fiorina. The Ex-HP CEO is now head of the RNC Victory Committee and has become one of McCain's first line surrogates. She is cool, articulate and can make Republican orthodoxy sound relevant and reasonable. She gave a beautiful exegisis of McCain's position yesterday in a conference call while she was driving in her car. Unfortunately, her phone cut out, which was bad news for McCain. They need to put her in a glass bubble on these calls. She's that good. Here's some of what she said.
Finally, Hillary Clinton unveiled new specifics to her health care proposal. The centerpiece was the idea to cap the cost of premiums at 10% of a family's annual income. Most economists think this is doable. We're always happy to hear her (or anyone) lay down specifics instead of lay out an opponent. She just needs to stop listening to people like Mark Penn who must urge her to open speeches with statements like, "...some people wonder why I always lay out so many specific proposals; wellll, I think it's important to tell people exactly what I'd do as President". No kidding? Actually, no one wonders why you do that, Hillary. Because we know it's a good thing to do. But we also know self-serving smugness when we hear it. Like the apple polisher in school who says, "some people wonder why I get A's all the time; welll, I think it's important to do well in school." We get that Hillary gets A's. We don't need to be reminded of it, because it doesn't make her real likable. And that's her problem right now. So, memo to Hill: don't listen to them; keep laying out your specifics. We appreciate it.
Do you know about the Don Siegelman story? And if you do, do you think there's a serious smoking gun that can unravel a nefarious spider web of RNC activity? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
The whole thing is extremely byzantine. Siegelman was a populer Governor who came up for re- election. This guy was not a flaming liberal. Look at his record. But Republicans felt that this was a key race and they went for broke, throwing the kitchen sink at Siegelman. This involved finally concocting a criminal case against him. According to lawyers and 50 state attorneys general who examined it, the case against him was specious at best. And it seems as if the Democratic National Committee abrogated it's responsiblity to work as hard to help Siegelman as the RNC was working to bury him. I'll be fascinated to see if this reveals a trail of manipulated justice that leads to the highest echelons of the Republican Party. Stay tune.
Yesterday, Barack Obama gave a speech outlining six principles for a new regulatory structure for the financial sector. These were billed as 'starting points' for a discussion on the subject. It's a solid address, and was completely overshadowed in our ADD age by the prospect of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. Speculation was fueled by the New York Mayor's warm introduction of the Illinois Senator and the kind words returned to him by Obama--especially a 'brother in arms' reference to their shared goal of moving past divisive politics.
McCain has been easily painted as having a 'do-nothing' approach to the housing crisis based on his recent economic address. This has to worry Republicans for the general. McCain was simply re-stating Republican orthodoxy, but his campaign is going to have to find a way to package his stances in a way that sound more pro-active. One valuable asset, however is Carly Fiorina. The Ex-HP CEO is now head of the RNC Victory Committee and has become one of McCain's first line surrogates. She is cool, articulate and can make Republican orthodoxy sound relevant and reasonable. She gave a beautiful exegisis of McCain's position yesterday in a conference call while she was driving in her car. Unfortunately, her phone cut out, which was bad news for McCain. They need to put her in a glass bubble on these calls. She's that good. Here's some of what she said.
Finally, Hillary Clinton unveiled new specifics to her health care proposal. The centerpiece was the idea to cap the cost of premiums at 10% of a family's annual income. Most economists think this is doable. We're always happy to hear her (or anyone) lay down specifics instead of lay out an opponent. She just needs to stop listening to people like Mark Penn who must urge her to open speeches with statements like, "...some people wonder why I always lay out so many specific proposals; wellll, I think it's important to tell people exactly what I'd do as President". No kidding? Actually, no one wonders why you do that, Hillary. Because we know it's a good thing to do. But we also know self-serving smugness when we hear it. Like the apple polisher in school who says, "some people wonder why I get A's all the time; welll, I think it's important to do well in school." We get that Hillary gets A's. We don't need to be reminded of it, because it doesn't make her real likable. And that's her problem right now. So, memo to Hill: don't listen to them; keep laying out your specifics. We appreciate it.
Do you know about the Don Siegelman story? And if you do, do you think there's a serious smoking gun that can unravel a nefarious spider web of RNC activity? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
This Mac's For You
Let's talk about John McCain. Because he's been doing some talking lately. First on the housing crisis (in a speech two days ago) and then in yesterday's foreign policy speech. Let's take a look at both.
In yesterday's speech before the World Affairs Council in LA, Mac said that he believed in a humble foreign policy, with no nation building and...oh, wait. I'm sorry. That was someone else's speech a few years back. My bad.
Aw, c'mon McCainiacs, lighten up. I'm just playin'. This is what he really said. You should read it to make up your own mind about its content. I see an attempt to signal a more moderate approach than Mr. 32%Approvalrating. And if you're a middle-of-the-road voter, you'll like his stances on just about everything. Such as believing that the US needs "to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."; for vowing to close Gitmo, repudiate torture and work on global warming. You would probably endorse his hard line on Russia and his wariness of China. Fine.
My problem with McCain's speeches is that they rarely contain any innovative ideas. Declaring to fight malaria in Africa as if it's a new initiative? C'mon. He's got to know that it's one of President Bush's rare foreign policy accomplishments. A 'League of Democracies'? Hmm. Didn't a guy name Wilson try something like that? The fact is, there is not one "hey, that's a really good idea" moment in the entire speech.
Now, McCain's problem with this speech is that it ends with his defense of the war in Iraq. And look, he makes an eloquent case for staying there. The problem is, we've heard this before from less virtuous messengers. If there were no history of deception in the initial run-up to the war, most folks would gladly accept his rationale that our leaving now would be a humanitarian disaster. And that al Qaeda was now a presence that needed to be contained, whether they were there before or not. But unfortunately for McCain, we're having a "Who" moment: "We won't get fooled again." We're suspicious of rationalizing a conflict that does not appear to have a happy ending. Especially when it's costing us billions of dollars a week in the midst of a financial crisis at home. So even if Mac takes a not-so-veiled swipe at George Bush's recent comment about the romantic nature of fighting--"Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war."-- it doesn't distance him from that fool or fraud because of his unwavering stance on Iraq.
Speaking of billions of dollars a week, Mac gave an address on the housing crisis. The good news is that he breaks down the problem in an easy-to-understand way. So even if he's not an economic genius, someone who writes for him has a solid understanding of the situation. The bad news is that he says, "That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages [out of 55 million] cause this much trouble for us all?" Well, let's see. If you have 4 miiillliion mortgages at an average of $200,000 a pop, that's 800 biiiilliion dollars. Just floatin' in the ether. And probably close to 10 million people displaced. Imagine all of New York City, looking for a new place to live. Definitely an issue. So implying that the scope of the crisis might be exaggerated given the small percentage of problem mortgages does not reassure me that he grasps the hustle and flow of our economic system.
And not surprisingly, the speech presents nary a solution. Now, there's a reason for this that has nothing to do with Mac's understanding of the crisis. He just doesn't believe the government should get involved. This is a pretty standard Republican stance: when the market screws up, the players need to take their lumps so they will change their behavior that created the problem in the first place. Ok. That's one approach. Didn't work so well in 1932 and, in fact, the Dems are hammering McCain as Herbert Hoover. This is clearly an exaggeration, but the point is, the government does get involved. With the support of Republicans. Which is why it usually results in a taxpayer funded bailout of these irresponsible corporate players. And this is what drives the average American crazy. Republicans want no oversight, no regulation until things fall apart. Then they accept a temporary government solution, but still resist oversight and regulation. Now, Mac says in his speech that he's not in favor of that kind of bailout. He insists he's not in favor of rewarding any of the players who didn't act responsibly. Great. But he didn't explicitly say that the Fed shouldn't guarantee the JP Morgan buyout of Bear Stearns, either. So, is silence assent? And is saying that nothing should be done courageous or lazy? Take your pick.
The bottom line on these speeches is that there is nothing controversial, nothing to make fun of, and nothing to really hang your hat on. They're cogent, but not revelatory. In fact, they're oddly passive. And I think in this election cycle, that's a problem. Even right of center folks are ready for a more responsive government.
It occurs to me that McCain would have provided the perfect move to the right of center from the Clintons in 2000. But in this election, he may not provide a stirring enough break with the status quo to win. But you never know. He' s not a guy you want to bet against. Ask the North Vietnamese.
Is McCain going to be able to separate himself from George Bush enough to win the general? Does he have to separate himself to win? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
In yesterday's speech before the World Affairs Council in LA, Mac said that he believed in a humble foreign policy, with no nation building and...oh, wait. I'm sorry. That was someone else's speech a few years back. My bad.
Aw, c'mon McCainiacs, lighten up. I'm just playin'. This is what he really said. You should read it to make up your own mind about its content. I see an attempt to signal a more moderate approach than Mr. 32%Approvalrating. And if you're a middle-of-the-road voter, you'll like his stances on just about everything. Such as believing that the US needs "to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."; for vowing to close Gitmo, repudiate torture and work on global warming. You would probably endorse his hard line on Russia and his wariness of China. Fine.
My problem with McCain's speeches is that they rarely contain any innovative ideas. Declaring to fight malaria in Africa as if it's a new initiative? C'mon. He's got to know that it's one of President Bush's rare foreign policy accomplishments. A 'League of Democracies'? Hmm. Didn't a guy name Wilson try something like that? The fact is, there is not one "hey, that's a really good idea" moment in the entire speech.
Now, McCain's problem with this speech is that it ends with his defense of the war in Iraq. And look, he makes an eloquent case for staying there. The problem is, we've heard this before from less virtuous messengers. If there were no history of deception in the initial run-up to the war, most folks would gladly accept his rationale that our leaving now would be a humanitarian disaster. And that al Qaeda was now a presence that needed to be contained, whether they were there before or not. But unfortunately for McCain, we're having a "Who" moment: "We won't get fooled again." We're suspicious of rationalizing a conflict that does not appear to have a happy ending. Especially when it's costing us billions of dollars a week in the midst of a financial crisis at home. So even if Mac takes a not-so-veiled swipe at George Bush's recent comment about the romantic nature of fighting--"Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war."-- it doesn't distance him from that fool or fraud because of his unwavering stance on Iraq.
Speaking of billions of dollars a week, Mac gave an address on the housing crisis. The good news is that he breaks down the problem in an easy-to-understand way. So even if he's not an economic genius, someone who writes for him has a solid understanding of the situation. The bad news is that he says, "That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages [out of 55 million] cause this much trouble for us all?" Well, let's see. If you have 4 miiillliion mortgages at an average of $200,000 a pop, that's 800 biiiilliion dollars. Just floatin' in the ether. And probably close to 10 million people displaced. Imagine all of New York City, looking for a new place to live. Definitely an issue. So implying that the scope of the crisis might be exaggerated given the small percentage of problem mortgages does not reassure me that he grasps the hustle and flow of our economic system.
And not surprisingly, the speech presents nary a solution. Now, there's a reason for this that has nothing to do with Mac's understanding of the crisis. He just doesn't believe the government should get involved. This is a pretty standard Republican stance: when the market screws up, the players need to take their lumps so they will change their behavior that created the problem in the first place. Ok. That's one approach. Didn't work so well in 1932 and, in fact, the Dems are hammering McCain as Herbert Hoover. This is clearly an exaggeration, but the point is, the government does get involved. With the support of Republicans. Which is why it usually results in a taxpayer funded bailout of these irresponsible corporate players. And this is what drives the average American crazy. Republicans want no oversight, no regulation until things fall apart. Then they accept a temporary government solution, but still resist oversight and regulation. Now, Mac says in his speech that he's not in favor of that kind of bailout. He insists he's not in favor of rewarding any of the players who didn't act responsibly. Great. But he didn't explicitly say that the Fed shouldn't guarantee the JP Morgan buyout of Bear Stearns, either. So, is silence assent? And is saying that nothing should be done courageous or lazy? Take your pick.
The bottom line on these speeches is that there is nothing controversial, nothing to make fun of, and nothing to really hang your hat on. They're cogent, but not revelatory. In fact, they're oddly passive. And I think in this election cycle, that's a problem. Even right of center folks are ready for a more responsive government.
It occurs to me that McCain would have provided the perfect move to the right of center from the Clintons in 2000. But in this election, he may not provide a stirring enough break with the status quo to win. But you never know. He' s not a guy you want to bet against. Ask the North Vietnamese.
Is McCain going to be able to separate himself from George Bush enough to win the general? Does he have to separate himself to win? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
It Boggles The Mind
This post is all about Hillary. And as I write it I'm shaking my head. Hillary Clinton is such a dichotomy that it boggles the mind.
Let's start with this: what Barack Obama did in his speech on race, Clinton did one better in her housing crisis speech yesterday. She outlined a huge problem in crystal clear terms and then presented a solution. She offered the kind of leadership her supporters say she is capable of.
Unfortunately, this is what her detractors say she is capable of . Or this. And that's why she was forced to say this. I mean, how do we process it? Does the name Clinton implicitly inspire deception? Why would she so brazenly offer up a fabrication of the Bosnia arrival when so many other people could dispute her version of the events? It simply boggles the mind.
But dammit, I want to focus on the issues so badly I'm going to leave you with the text of her speech. I urge you to read the whole thing.
Of course we can quibble about some of her ideas. For example, she suggests including Alan Greenspan on a housing crisis work group. This is insane. He, as much as anyone, is to blame for this crisis. As Fed Chief he repeatedly poo pooed the severity of the housing bubble, when everyone was looking to him for adult supervision. And in his puff piece on 60 Minutes a while back he still refused to admit that he had misrepresented the situation. But that's not a huge deal. A bigger bone of contention will come from conservatives who may feel that she's proposing too much government interference. She parries that argument effectively.
The fact is, Clinton's four point plan is the most responsible and carefully crafted proposal to come from a government official in a long, long time. It backs up her claim that she is ready to solve problems on Day 1. Unfortunately, that day may never come-- if she can't stop lying about the old days.
Say it with me: it boggles the mind.
So the question is: can her character flaws be ignored in the face of her obvious talents for governing? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Let's start with this: what Barack Obama did in his speech on race, Clinton did one better in her housing crisis speech yesterday. She outlined a huge problem in crystal clear terms and then presented a solution. She offered the kind of leadership her supporters say she is capable of.
Unfortunately, this is what her detractors say she is capable of . Or this. And that's why she was forced to say this. I mean, how do we process it? Does the name Clinton implicitly inspire deception? Why would she so brazenly offer up a fabrication of the Bosnia arrival when so many other people could dispute her version of the events? It simply boggles the mind.
But dammit, I want to focus on the issues so badly I'm going to leave you with the text of her speech. I urge you to read the whole thing.
Of course we can quibble about some of her ideas. For example, she suggests including Alan Greenspan on a housing crisis work group. This is insane. He, as much as anyone, is to blame for this crisis. As Fed Chief he repeatedly poo pooed the severity of the housing bubble, when everyone was looking to him for adult supervision. And in his puff piece on 60 Minutes a while back he still refused to admit that he had misrepresented the situation. But that's not a huge deal. A bigger bone of contention will come from conservatives who may feel that she's proposing too much government interference. She parries that argument effectively.
The fact is, Clinton's four point plan is the most responsible and carefully crafted proposal to come from a government official in a long, long time. It backs up her claim that she is ready to solve problems on Day 1. Unfortunately, that day may never come-- if she can't stop lying about the old days.
Say it with me: it boggles the mind.
So the question is: can her character flaws be ignored in the face of her obvious talents for governing? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Easter Eggs
Happy Easter, for those that celebrate it.
In the absence of big political news today, and given the nature of this Holy Day for Christians, I thought I'd go light on the editorialization and let you hunt for Easter eggs this morning. These eggs are in the form of newsworthy links. All of these links have one thing in common: they elucidate issues which have been presented to the public, for the most part, in the form of sound bites. For example, a 10 minute clip of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 sermon is right here. It's worth watching to see if the full context of his remarks changes your mind about the content. It turns out, Wright's most controversial statements were gleened from an interview on Fox News with Ambassador Edward Peck. Check them both out, to understand the full context of the past week's biggest political story.
I thought I'd also offer up the transcript of a recent Dick Cheney interview by the excellent Martha Raddatz of ABC news. This is the interview when Cheney responded to the statistic that 70% of Americans oppose the war by saying, "So?" Decide for yourself if he is measured and accurate, or evasive and arrogant.
Here are a couple of NY Times pieces that educate on the financial crisis. It's heavy sledding, but if you read them, you'll have a good overview of the situation and the choices facing Washington and Wall Street to mitigate the damage. Considerable damage.
A story that got a lot of sound bite attention was the Politico's analysis of Hillary's real prospects to garner the nomination. Here's the whole piece.
And finally, you all know I've been down on the Clinton and McCain campaigns lately. Nothing I see this morning changes that. For McCain's part, the fact that he is making the American taxpayer pay for his presidential foreign policy dog and pony trip is a disgrace. By toting Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, the trip is technically a "co-del", meaning a co-delegate junket as members of the Armed Services committee. The truth is, it's a Presidential campaign tour and we shouldn't have to pay for it. And, if McCain thinks that continued photo ops of him with Lieberman and Graham create a portrait of anything other than the status quo, he's mistaken. Of course, Joe did bail McCain out on the Al Qaeda in Iran pronouncements, so maybe he is useful. The fact that McCain gets a pass from the press on all of this should worry Democrats in the general.
And then there's the Billary campaign. Ol' Billy Boy's at it again with his desire to have "an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics" comment. And then the 'what, me? I didn't mean anything by it ' response. And then the outrage by Gen. Tony McPeak's comments calling Bill's statements a replay of "McCarthyism". At least Obama's learning to get a surrogate to match outrageous rhetoric with outrageous rhetoric.
So that's it. No questions. Have a peaceful day. If you want to leave a comment, hit 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
In the absence of big political news today, and given the nature of this Holy Day for Christians, I thought I'd go light on the editorialization and let you hunt for Easter eggs this morning. These eggs are in the form of newsworthy links. All of these links have one thing in common: they elucidate issues which have been presented to the public, for the most part, in the form of sound bites. For example, a 10 minute clip of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 sermon is right here. It's worth watching to see if the full context of his remarks changes your mind about the content. It turns out, Wright's most controversial statements were gleened from an interview on Fox News with Ambassador Edward Peck. Check them both out, to understand the full context of the past week's biggest political story.
I thought I'd also offer up the transcript of a recent Dick Cheney interview by the excellent Martha Raddatz of ABC news. This is the interview when Cheney responded to the statistic that 70% of Americans oppose the war by saying, "So?" Decide for yourself if he is measured and accurate, or evasive and arrogant.
Here are a couple of NY Times pieces that educate on the financial crisis. It's heavy sledding, but if you read them, you'll have a good overview of the situation and the choices facing Washington and Wall Street to mitigate the damage. Considerable damage.
A story that got a lot of sound bite attention was the Politico's analysis of Hillary's real prospects to garner the nomination. Here's the whole piece.
And finally, you all know I've been down on the Clinton and McCain campaigns lately. Nothing I see this morning changes that. For McCain's part, the fact that he is making the American taxpayer pay for his presidential foreign policy dog and pony trip is a disgrace. By toting Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, the trip is technically a "co-del", meaning a co-delegate junket as members of the Armed Services committee. The truth is, it's a Presidential campaign tour and we shouldn't have to pay for it. And, if McCain thinks that continued photo ops of him with Lieberman and Graham create a portrait of anything other than the status quo, he's mistaken. Of course, Joe did bail McCain out on the Al Qaeda in Iran pronouncements, so maybe he is useful. The fact that McCain gets a pass from the press on all of this should worry Democrats in the general.
And then there's the Billary campaign. Ol' Billy Boy's at it again with his desire to have "an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics" comment. And then the 'what, me? I didn't mean anything by it ' response. And then the outrage by Gen. Tony McPeak's comments calling Bill's statements a replay of "McCarthyism". At least Obama's learning to get a surrogate to match outrageous rhetoric with outrageous rhetoric.
So that's it. No questions. Have a peaceful day. If you want to leave a comment, hit 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Are You Still Excited?
Today is Good Friday, the most solemn day of the Christian calender. And reflecting on the dire events of 2000+ years ago, the events of a political campaign pale in comparison.
But I can't help think that the recent negative developments in this Presidential campaign are crucifying the universal energy with which many Americans followed the race. And now, as the old hands execute their strategy of distract and destroy, we're moving back to politics as usual--and, inevitably, the usual response: 'Who cares? Politicians are all the same. '
I will blame the Clinton campaign first for this descent into the muck. Her desperation was well chronicled. Her 'kitchen sink' strategy gave the McCain camp the opening they needed to start their shenanigans. And now we've got a political news day that looks like this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/McCain_aide_circulates_ObamaWright_video_is_suspended.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/State_Dept_workers_illicitly_check_Obamas_passport.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Jeremiah_Wright_was_White_House_guest.html
Now, I went to politico.com but I could have gone to the AP or anywhere else. It's all the same. And it's distracting from the real campaign. The campaign that identified leadership and ideas as the criteria on which to base a choice. To paraphrase Obama, who made the remark on his softball interview with Larry King last night, 'Why can't we spend a week on my health care proposal, or Hillary's or John McCain's?
Well, we know why. Because we're easily distracted. And political strategists know this.
And while Hillary may have opened the door, let's be clear: the entire Obama/Wright flap is on the McCain campaign. They continue to reveal themselves as a particularly insidious operation. It's the passive aggressive strategy. As they unearth the Wright videos to shift the debate on Obama, they also make a big show of firing an aide who was distributing a home-made video created by a conservative talk show host, Lee Habeeb. Thus, McCain can appear to take the high road while his operation drags this entire presidential campaign to the low road. And how do they do it? With that good old Republican stand-by: race. And it's no coincidence that all this is happening a week after the Karl Rove-Ken Mehlman axis of evil started assisting McCain. This is straight out of their playbook.
Why is it important to note this? Because these tactics serve to dampen voters' enthusiasm. Which is the point. The excitement surrounding this race was dangerous for the status quo. Apathy is the status quo's best friend. So the strategy is always to confuse and discourage, to get the same die hard voters whose votes you can predict. Union folks, evangelicals, old white guys, old white women. You know how they'll vote. But energized wild cards like young people and independents and fed-up Republicans are scary to political hacks because they're unpredictable. So, distract and destroy.
It's possible there's light at the end of the tunnel. This State Department flap may be a straw that gets folks to say 'enough'. The significant endorsement of Obama by Gov. Bill Richardson is also a way to get things back on track. Richardson may look like a schlub, but he knows political timing. This will be a needed shot in the arm for the Obama campaign.
And, please, let's be clear about something else. I'm not saying that Obama needs to do well for this Presidential campaign to be 'energized'. I'm simply saying that keeping standard dirty tricks out of the race is the start to a new political day, whether it's Hillary, McCain or Obama who winds up in the White House. And we've seen time and again, the behavior on the trail is the same behavior that prevails in the White House. So it might be time to let the people decide who wins, on the merits of the candidates' policies and on their ability to lead. Not on a 'lesser of evils' platform.
Can this happen? Can the earlier excitement be resurrected? Is it naive to think that our political approach will change? Hard to say. But if Good Friday tells us anything, it tells us this: it gets darkest before the dawn.
Fortunately there's Easter, which tells us that anything is possible if you believe. That would include political change.
Where is your enthusiasm for this campaign now? I'd love to know. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
But I can't help think that the recent negative developments in this Presidential campaign are crucifying the universal energy with which many Americans followed the race. And now, as the old hands execute their strategy of distract and destroy, we're moving back to politics as usual--and, inevitably, the usual response: 'Who cares? Politicians are all the same. '
I will blame the Clinton campaign first for this descent into the muck. Her desperation was well chronicled. Her 'kitchen sink' strategy gave the McCain camp the opening they needed to start their shenanigans. And now we've got a political news day that looks like this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/McCain_aide_circulates_ObamaWright_video_is_suspended.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/State_Dept_workers_illicitly_check_Obamas_passport.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Jeremiah_Wright_was_White_House_guest.html
Now, I went to politico.com but I could have gone to the AP or anywhere else. It's all the same. And it's distracting from the real campaign. The campaign that identified leadership and ideas as the criteria on which to base a choice. To paraphrase Obama, who made the remark on his softball interview with Larry King last night, 'Why can't we spend a week on my health care proposal, or Hillary's or John McCain's?
Well, we know why. Because we're easily distracted. And political strategists know this.
And while Hillary may have opened the door, let's be clear: the entire Obama/Wright flap is on the McCain campaign. They continue to reveal themselves as a particularly insidious operation. It's the passive aggressive strategy. As they unearth the Wright videos to shift the debate on Obama, they also make a big show of firing an aide who was distributing a home-made video created by a conservative talk show host, Lee Habeeb. Thus, McCain can appear to take the high road while his operation drags this entire presidential campaign to the low road. And how do they do it? With that good old Republican stand-by: race. And it's no coincidence that all this is happening a week after the Karl Rove-Ken Mehlman axis of evil started assisting McCain. This is straight out of their playbook.
Why is it important to note this? Because these tactics serve to dampen voters' enthusiasm. Which is the point. The excitement surrounding this race was dangerous for the status quo. Apathy is the status quo's best friend. So the strategy is always to confuse and discourage, to get the same die hard voters whose votes you can predict. Union folks, evangelicals, old white guys, old white women. You know how they'll vote. But energized wild cards like young people and independents and fed-up Republicans are scary to political hacks because they're unpredictable. So, distract and destroy.
It's possible there's light at the end of the tunnel. This State Department flap may be a straw that gets folks to say 'enough'. The significant endorsement of Obama by Gov. Bill Richardson is also a way to get things back on track. Richardson may look like a schlub, but he knows political timing. This will be a needed shot in the arm for the Obama campaign.
And, please, let's be clear about something else. I'm not saying that Obama needs to do well for this Presidential campaign to be 'energized'. I'm simply saying that keeping standard dirty tricks out of the race is the start to a new political day, whether it's Hillary, McCain or Obama who winds up in the White House. And we've seen time and again, the behavior on the trail is the same behavior that prevails in the White House. So it might be time to let the people decide who wins, on the merits of the candidates' policies and on their ability to lead. Not on a 'lesser of evils' platform.
Can this happen? Can the earlier excitement be resurrected? Is it naive to think that our political approach will change? Hard to say. But if Good Friday tells us anything, it tells us this: it gets darkest before the dawn.
Fortunately there's Easter, which tells us that anything is possible if you believe. That would include political change.
Where is your enthusiasm for this campaign now? I'd love to know. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Oops...
I forgot to actually activate my post yesterday morning so this is what I wrote:
"I'm going to cede my time to Barack Obama, who may have given the most cogent speech on race in America...ever. Whether you're an Obama fan or not, please watch this and learn.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23695322#23691239
We'll cover John McCain's Al Qaeda in Iran speech at another time.
The Question: have you ever heard any politician talk about race like Obama? If so, tell us when."
Ok. That was then. This is now. Let's talk about reaction to Obama's speech and then we'll get to reaction about John McCain's 'speech'. These are excerpts from my discussion with a white conservative co-worker:
'I just don't care about race that much...I was hoping for specifics but I just heard the usual Obama stuff...nice words, high minded stuff...he shouldn't have brought slavery into it, that's the past; we need to move to the future...he only made the speech because he was in the soup; he's just like every other politician...'
So...based on that, I wouldn't hold my breath for an Obama victory in PA. The problem with the speech is twofold: 1) Most Americans won't listen to it in toto. They'll only hear selected excerpts. And robbed of total context, the speech can be reduced to 'just being about race'. 2) It doesn't let Obama escape the charge that if he objected to Wright's approach toward white America (as Obama said he did), why didn't he object before this? I mean, he has never said that he ever registered any concern to Wright. So it does give the impression that the speech was merely a brilliant gambit to escape a perilous political situation.
But y'know what? I don't care. I simply loved hearing such a thoughtful, even handed explanation of the race issue and how we can transcend the negative aspects of that issue. Even, today, Obama had another great line: "I think the African-American thinks of the American experience...less as a John Philip Sousa march played by a brass band, but more as a jazz composition with some blue notes." C'mon folks, after seven years of hearing a President communicate simple things in a way we can't understand, let's give Obama some props for communicating complicated stuff so that we can understand.
And speaking of simple things, let's have a simple test. How many Al Qaeda insurgents are being trained by Iran? Well, that depends. If you're John McCain, you said, 'a lot'. And you said it was well known. And you thought it was really 'too bad'. And you repeated the assertion that Iran was training Al Qaeda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWf7w--TwyU But if you're Joe Lieberman, you said, 'None". Which was the correct answer. Because you knew that Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shiite and they've only been at war with each other for, oh, hundreds of years. And then you told your friend John McCain, very quietly, in his ear, so that no one could hear you say it: 'extremists, not Al Qaeda'. So your friend could say, Oh, I knew that, I just misspoke. As if a slip of the tongue was the difference between the words 'Al Qaeda' and 'extremists'. And then when NBC's Kelly O'Donnell asked, very respectfully, if your friend McCain was confident he knew the difference between Sunni and Shiite, your friend took offense. And said that he had been to Iraq eight times! and that he was astonished that anyone could question his knowledge of such things. Even though he made the most preposterous statement about Al Qaeda and Iran imaginable. And then, in another part of his soporific interview, O'Donnell asked your friend if he thought there would be a reduction of troops soon . 'Oh sure," he said. 'it's already happening". It is? When? "...but the number doesn't matter to me..." What?
People, people, people. I've been trying to give McCain every break. But we can't have another myopic leader who thinks he has foreign policy answers when he doesn't even have the facts! And for those of you who are buying this 'I misspoke' deal, here's another test. What if Barack Obama had said that? Would you say, 'Hey, give him a break. He just misspoke'. Or would you say, "See, I told you! He has no foreign policy experience! He can't be trusted to keep us safe!" This was an embarrassment of the highest order for McCain. The man is running on one issue: foreign policy expertise. And this is how he showcases that? At his own dog and pony show? God help us all. For the next hundred years.
So please tell me why this doesn't matter that McCain said this, especially in light of the fact that he's the one that wants to stay in Iraq. I'm really open to a convincing argument on his behalf.
Click on 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
"I'm going to cede my time to Barack Obama, who may have given the most cogent speech on race in America...ever. Whether you're an Obama fan or not, please watch this and learn.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23695322#23691239
We'll cover John McCain's Al Qaeda in Iran speech at another time.
The Question: have you ever heard any politician talk about race like Obama? If so, tell us when."
Ok. That was then. This is now. Let's talk about reaction to Obama's speech and then we'll get to reaction about John McCain's 'speech'. These are excerpts from my discussion with a white conservative co-worker:
'I just don't care about race that much...I was hoping for specifics but I just heard the usual Obama stuff...nice words, high minded stuff...he shouldn't have brought slavery into it, that's the past; we need to move to the future...he only made the speech because he was in the soup; he's just like every other politician...'
So...based on that, I wouldn't hold my breath for an Obama victory in PA. The problem with the speech is twofold: 1) Most Americans won't listen to it in toto. They'll only hear selected excerpts. And robbed of total context, the speech can be reduced to 'just being about race'. 2) It doesn't let Obama escape the charge that if he objected to Wright's approach toward white America (as Obama said he did), why didn't he object before this? I mean, he has never said that he ever registered any concern to Wright. So it does give the impression that the speech was merely a brilliant gambit to escape a perilous political situation.
But y'know what? I don't care. I simply loved hearing such a thoughtful, even handed explanation of the race issue and how we can transcend the negative aspects of that issue. Even, today, Obama had another great line: "I think the African-American thinks of the American experience...less as a John Philip Sousa march played by a brass band, but more as a jazz composition with some blue notes." C'mon folks, after seven years of hearing a President communicate simple things in a way we can't understand, let's give Obama some props for communicating complicated stuff so that we can understand.
And speaking of simple things, let's have a simple test. How many Al Qaeda insurgents are being trained by Iran? Well, that depends. If you're John McCain, you said, 'a lot'. And you said it was well known. And you thought it was really 'too bad'. And you repeated the assertion that Iran was training Al Qaeda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWf7w--TwyU But if you're Joe Lieberman, you said, 'None". Which was the correct answer. Because you knew that Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shiite and they've only been at war with each other for, oh, hundreds of years. And then you told your friend John McCain, very quietly, in his ear, so that no one could hear you say it: 'extremists, not Al Qaeda'. So your friend could say, Oh, I knew that, I just misspoke. As if a slip of the tongue was the difference between the words 'Al Qaeda' and 'extremists'. And then when NBC's Kelly O'Donnell asked, very respectfully, if your friend McCain was confident he knew the difference between Sunni and Shiite, your friend took offense. And said that he had been to Iraq eight times! and that he was astonished that anyone could question his knowledge of such things. Even though he made the most preposterous statement about Al Qaeda and Iran imaginable. And then, in another part of his soporific interview, O'Donnell asked your friend if he thought there would be a reduction of troops soon . 'Oh sure," he said. 'it's already happening". It is? When? "...but the number doesn't matter to me..." What?
People, people, people. I've been trying to give McCain every break. But we can't have another myopic leader who thinks he has foreign policy answers when he doesn't even have the facts! And for those of you who are buying this 'I misspoke' deal, here's another test. What if Barack Obama had said that? Would you say, 'Hey, give him a break. He just misspoke'. Or would you say, "See, I told you! He has no foreign policy experience! He can't be trusted to keep us safe!" This was an embarrassment of the highest order for McCain. The man is running on one issue: foreign policy expertise. And this is how he showcases that? At his own dog and pony show? God help us all. For the next hundred years.
So please tell me why this doesn't matter that McCain said this, especially in light of the fact that he's the one that wants to stay in Iraq. I'm really open to a convincing argument on his behalf.
Click on 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Where Have You Gone Ron Paul...And If You Can't Rock It In Bed, You Can't Be My Governor
He was the only Presidential candidate or officeholder actually speaking out about the dangers of a weak dollar ('currency devaluation', in his stark parlance). And now Ron Paul looks like a Nobel Laureate in Economics. I'm no MBA but even I can see how this devalued dollar is making our financial mess not just hard on citizens but downright dangerous. Like 1929 dangerous. A fairly good authority on these matters agrees. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120571257905240327.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
In campaign news Florida will not have a re-vote and Michigan will. Michigan will have a privately funded re-vote June 3rd. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9090.html
I'm too exhausted by this whole DNC issue to even comment.
Barack Obama will make a major speech on race today. Should be interesting. Hillary Clinton bashed both Obama and John McCain on their Iraq positions yesterday, prompting Obama to describe her comments as 'Chutzpah' on St. Patrick's Day. Well, why not? For many years, Dublin's Mayor was an observant Jew named Shapiro. Really. Look it up.
Speaking of Obama, William Kristol wrote what may be the worst Op-Ed piece in the history of the Times. First, he made a claim that Obama was in the pew for a Jeremiah Wright jeremiad (I can't believe no one's come with that pun yet) that Obama had said he was not present for. But then Kristol had to issue an italicised retraction before the column itself, because the Obama campaign had offered proof of his absence. Then, Kristol continued to deliver a flacid semi-condemnation of Obama supporters for calling themselves Generation Obama. Wow. Economy's collapsing. World markets are this close to all out panic. Violence is spiking in Iraq. Race has reared its ugly head in the Presidential campaign. And all Billy can write about is 'Generation Obama'? Unbelievable. Check it out. If you need a nap. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
And just when you thought no one in politics was having any fun, David Paterson runs from his swearing-in as NY Governor to tell the Daily News about his affair seven years ago. And his wife tells her side to a female reporter from the News. Ok. But do we have to know Paterson did it at the Days Inn on 94th Street? At least make it the Waldorf or the Algonquin. But a Days Inn? In Manhattan? That's an impeachable offense right there.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/17/2008-03-17_gov_paterson_admits_to_sex_with_other_wo.html
And, then Teddy Pederson, ex NJ Governor Jim McGreevey's chauffeur, swears he had a menage a trois with the maybe-he-is-maybe-he-ain't-so gay governor and his ex wife Dina. Dina, of course, has denied participating in these 'orgies', even though the Governor has confirmed them. But if she's worried that these episodes would blow (sorry) her contention that she didn't know McGreevey was gay, no problem. Pederson comments that he didn't think the Gov was gay, either. Even though he was only doing it with Dina. Whew. These guys make CT. ex-Governor John Rowland look like a choirboy. I'm going to take a cold shower now.
Will the US taxpayer bail out the financial institutions that gave us this suprime crisis? Or will everyone just have sex until this whole thing blows over? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
In campaign news Florida will not have a re-vote and Michigan will. Michigan will have a privately funded re-vote June 3rd. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9090.html
I'm too exhausted by this whole DNC issue to even comment.
Barack Obama will make a major speech on race today. Should be interesting. Hillary Clinton bashed both Obama and John McCain on their Iraq positions yesterday, prompting Obama to describe her comments as 'Chutzpah' on St. Patrick's Day. Well, why not? For many years, Dublin's Mayor was an observant Jew named Shapiro. Really. Look it up.
Speaking of Obama, William Kristol wrote what may be the worst Op-Ed piece in the history of the Times. First, he made a claim that Obama was in the pew for a Jeremiah Wright jeremiad (I can't believe no one's come with that pun yet) that Obama had said he was not present for. But then Kristol had to issue an italicised retraction before the column itself, because the Obama campaign had offered proof of his absence. Then, Kristol continued to deliver a flacid semi-condemnation of Obama supporters for calling themselves Generation Obama. Wow. Economy's collapsing. World markets are this close to all out panic. Violence is spiking in Iraq. Race has reared its ugly head in the Presidential campaign. And all Billy can write about is 'Generation Obama'? Unbelievable. Check it out. If you need a nap. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
And just when you thought no one in politics was having any fun, David Paterson runs from his swearing-in as NY Governor to tell the Daily News about his affair seven years ago. And his wife tells her side to a female reporter from the News. Ok. But do we have to know Paterson did it at the Days Inn on 94th Street? At least make it the Waldorf or the Algonquin. But a Days Inn? In Manhattan? That's an impeachable offense right there.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/17/2008-03-17_gov_paterson_admits_to_sex_with_other_wo.html
And, then Teddy Pederson, ex NJ Governor Jim McGreevey's chauffeur, swears he had a menage a trois with the maybe-he-is-maybe-he-ain't-so gay governor and his ex wife Dina. Dina, of course, has denied participating in these 'orgies', even though the Governor has confirmed them. But if she's worried that these episodes would blow (sorry) her contention that she didn't know McGreevey was gay, no problem. Pederson comments that he didn't think the Gov was gay, either. Even though he was only doing it with Dina. Whew. These guys make CT. ex-Governor John Rowland look like a choirboy. I'm going to take a cold shower now.
Will the US taxpayer bail out the financial institutions that gave us this suprime crisis? Or will everyone just have sex until this whole thing blows over? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Company You Keep Or...Turn-Off Politics
By any accounting, this has not been a good few days for Barack Obama. As he was recovering from the uncomfortable racial spotlight thrown on him by Geraldine Ferraro's identity politics comments, the McCain campaign exposed some incendiary passages from sermons given by Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright. This prompted Obama to do some serious denouncing and rejecting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23649347#23649347
Then Obama made a pre-emptive admission that his pal Tony Rezko actually gave a total of $250,00 to his state and US Senatorial campaigns, not the $150,000 originally reported. The only good news was a pick-up of more delegates through the continuing caucus process in Iowa.
Now, obviously, all campaigns have these periods of damage control. Each of the remaining candidates have been through them recently. They've all had to repudiate associations with controversial people. The question is, are these associations a valid measuring stick by which we should evaluate them? Is the company they keep a fair aspect of the vetting process? I say yes and no.
I think candidates should generally be held accountable for actions and relationships. In Obama's case, the Rezko matter offers an example of poor political and ethical judgment. That should be noted. And he should be questioned as to whether he has learned a lesson. Ditto for McCain's Vicki Iseman scenario. Forget the sexual innuendo, a Senator who rails against pork and special favors for special interests should not be flying on private corporate jets alone with a lobbyist. That's just stupid. Has he learned from that? And where do we begin with Hillary's transgressions and relationships (Whitewater, Vincent Foster?) Has she learned from them? So there is a value to a level of scrutiny.
But what we're seeing now in this campaign is not mere scrutiny. It's the ugly side of politics. The side that makes Americans apathetic about the process. And we can call it a number of things, but Obama's recent "vetting" is just race baiting. Sure, you can make a case that Obama should denounce a pastor who says, "Hillary's never ben called a nigger" or "Not God Bless America, but God damn America". You can say it may be worthwhile to know how Obama segregates his personal relationship with Wright from the Pastor's political views. But the reality is, the McCain camp used standard political playbook tactics to conjur up some doubt about Obama's fealty to radical black orthodoxy. Now, if Obama had given any indication, at any time, that he shared Wright's views, this would be a valid exploration. But clearly, Obama never has. In fact, he has gone to great pains to be race neutral. But it's standard racial politics to make white folks think that it's all an act. That this mild mannered black guy is really plotting the destruction of white America. And don't think this is anything but that. I have been an ardent supporter of McCain's integrity on the trail, but it's now clear his campaign will play gutter politics when it serves them. For example, McCain raised eyebrows a while back when he completely distorted Mitt Romney's comments about a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. And he was willing to look Romney in the eye at a debate and lie about Romney's position, leaving the former Governor dumbfounded at the audacity.
We can also look at the pattern of Clinton tactics, starting with the email that Obama's Muslim, to comments about cocaine use, to Jesse Jackson references, to the 3 AM phone ad, to Ferraro's comments, all of which reduce this exciting, trailblazing race to...well, race. .
So what's the problem with these lines of attack? There are two of them. First--forgetting the racial component--all of this 'vetting' leads to one unflattering conclusion: They all do it. The Richard Nixon defense. All the candidates have relationships and supporters and past behavior that are questionable. For every Geraldine Ferraro there's a Samantha Power or a Bill Cunningham. For every Norman Chu, there's a Tony Rezko. For every John Hagee or Norman Parsley there's a Jeremiah Wright. And then there's Vicki Iseman and corporate jet setting when you claim to be anti-lobbyist. But this is, let's say it together, politics. Of course unsavory relationships enter into the mix. And adroit damage control doesn't mean that something fishy isn't going on.
The second problem is that the campaign becomes about one thing: fear. And this is where we're heading now. All fear, all the time. He can't keep you safe at 3 AM. She's going to make Bill her co-president. He's going to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. He sounds like Bobby Kennedy but he's really Malcolm X. I just heard on Fox news an anti-Obama analyst say this thing with Jeremiah Wright was "going to stick. The voters know". Know what? No one asked that question. No one had to. They all knew what she meant. It was just left hanging in the air. And that is what fear does. It hangs in the air. Unnamed, but present. And that's when politics is reduced to the message that "the only thing we have...is fear itself." It's a message that worked for George Bush in 2004, but how's it working now?
Judging by his words lately, not so good. A few days ago, The President spoke of wishing he could be on the front lines in Afghanistan, saying that it could be considered almost a 'romantic' adventure? What? Obviously, this comes from a guy who never faced combat--and maybe even training--when he was a National Guardsman during Vietnam. Then he gave a speech Friday to the Economic Club of America. Not the greatest example of leadership I've ever seen. In fact, as he listed his perspective on the various disasters this country has weathered, it made me realize why we're in the mess we're in. Check it out. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23632324/
So the question of the day is: Is it enough for Obama to repudiate the words of Jeremiah Wright, or is he going to be held to a different standard than Hillary or McCain because this issue is really about racial fear? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Then Obama made a pre-emptive admission that his pal Tony Rezko actually gave a total of $250,00 to his state and US Senatorial campaigns, not the $150,000 originally reported. The only good news was a pick-up of more delegates through the continuing caucus process in Iowa.
Now, obviously, all campaigns have these periods of damage control. Each of the remaining candidates have been through them recently. They've all had to repudiate associations with controversial people. The question is, are these associations a valid measuring stick by which we should evaluate them? Is the company they keep a fair aspect of the vetting process? I say yes and no.
I think candidates should generally be held accountable for actions and relationships. In Obama's case, the Rezko matter offers an example of poor political and ethical judgment. That should be noted. And he should be questioned as to whether he has learned a lesson. Ditto for McCain's Vicki Iseman scenario. Forget the sexual innuendo, a Senator who rails against pork and special favors for special interests should not be flying on private corporate jets alone with a lobbyist. That's just stupid. Has he learned from that? And where do we begin with Hillary's transgressions and relationships (Whitewater, Vincent Foster?) Has she learned from them? So there is a value to a level of scrutiny.
But what we're seeing now in this campaign is not mere scrutiny. It's the ugly side of politics. The side that makes Americans apathetic about the process. And we can call it a number of things, but Obama's recent "vetting" is just race baiting. Sure, you can make a case that Obama should denounce a pastor who says, "Hillary's never ben called a nigger" or "Not God Bless America, but God damn America". You can say it may be worthwhile to know how Obama segregates his personal relationship with Wright from the Pastor's political views. But the reality is, the McCain camp used standard political playbook tactics to conjur up some doubt about Obama's fealty to radical black orthodoxy. Now, if Obama had given any indication, at any time, that he shared Wright's views, this would be a valid exploration. But clearly, Obama never has. In fact, he has gone to great pains to be race neutral. But it's standard racial politics to make white folks think that it's all an act. That this mild mannered black guy is really plotting the destruction of white America. And don't think this is anything but that. I have been an ardent supporter of McCain's integrity on the trail, but it's now clear his campaign will play gutter politics when it serves them. For example, McCain raised eyebrows a while back when he completely distorted Mitt Romney's comments about a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. And he was willing to look Romney in the eye at a debate and lie about Romney's position, leaving the former Governor dumbfounded at the audacity.
We can also look at the pattern of Clinton tactics, starting with the email that Obama's Muslim, to comments about cocaine use, to Jesse Jackson references, to the 3 AM phone ad, to Ferraro's comments, all of which reduce this exciting, trailblazing race to...well, race. .
So what's the problem with these lines of attack? There are two of them. First--forgetting the racial component--all of this 'vetting' leads to one unflattering conclusion: They all do it. The Richard Nixon defense. All the candidates have relationships and supporters and past behavior that are questionable. For every Geraldine Ferraro there's a Samantha Power or a Bill Cunningham. For every Norman Chu, there's a Tony Rezko. For every John Hagee or Norman Parsley there's a Jeremiah Wright. And then there's Vicki Iseman and corporate jet setting when you claim to be anti-lobbyist. But this is, let's say it together, politics. Of course unsavory relationships enter into the mix. And adroit damage control doesn't mean that something fishy isn't going on.
The second problem is that the campaign becomes about one thing: fear. And this is where we're heading now. All fear, all the time. He can't keep you safe at 3 AM. She's going to make Bill her co-president. He's going to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. He sounds like Bobby Kennedy but he's really Malcolm X. I just heard on Fox news an anti-Obama analyst say this thing with Jeremiah Wright was "going to stick. The voters know". Know what? No one asked that question. No one had to. They all knew what she meant. It was just left hanging in the air. And that is what fear does. It hangs in the air. Unnamed, but present. And that's when politics is reduced to the message that "the only thing we have...is fear itself." It's a message that worked for George Bush in 2004, but how's it working now?
Judging by his words lately, not so good. A few days ago, The President spoke of wishing he could be on the front lines in Afghanistan, saying that it could be considered almost a 'romantic' adventure? What? Obviously, this comes from a guy who never faced combat--and maybe even training--when he was a National Guardsman during Vietnam. Then he gave a speech Friday to the Economic Club of America. Not the greatest example of leadership I've ever seen. In fact, as he listed his perspective on the various disasters this country has weathered, it made me realize why we're in the mess we're in. Check it out. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23632324/
So the question of the day is: Is it enough for Obama to repudiate the words of Jeremiah Wright, or is he going to be held to a different standard than Hillary or McCain because this issue is really about racial fear? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Not For The Faint Of Heart...Or The Weak of Stomach
Man! I love politics, but if you want to get turned off to 'em listen in on a Clinton campaign conference call for reporters. That's what I did yesterday on XM's Potus '08 and all I can say is, "Yuck"! You can't find more unattractive messengers of disingenuousness, sloppy logic and pure fiction than Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. I know that this is the underbelly of retail politics and Obama's David Axelrod and David Plouffe aren't much better, but come on! No wonder Hillary's campaign keeps finding itself apologizing for undisciplined surrogates (which Hillary did two nights ago at a town hall Q and A with a group of Black newspaper folks.) If Penn and Wolfson are leading the charge, gutter politics is de rigeur.
The primary goal of yesterday's call was to show how important Pennsylvania was to the Presidential election. The fact that Hillary has a commanding lead there I'm sure had nothing to do with it. As the Obama campaign continues it's fifty-state strategy, refusing to place more importance on PA than say, on North Carolina, the Clinton folks are castigating him for it. Penn went so far to say that, "We believe that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to win, and that Sen. Obama really can’t win the general election." Wolfson later tried to spin out of that spin by saying that Penn didn't say that Obama couldn't win the general. You can decide for yourself. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/clinton-strateg.html
The point is, a primary splits the state's party vote. But that vote is mostly united in a general. So saying a loss in a state primary equals losing that state in the general is patently absurd. Then Penn stated that Obama has failed the "Commander-in-Chief test, the economic steward test and now the Keystone test." What? Who handed out those tests? And, by the way, it might be revealing to check out factcheck.org to see exactly how credible Hillary's foreign policy credentials are. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html
Now if it sounds like I'm picking on the Clinton campaign, well, maybe I am. But my bigger point is that Hillary Clinton is a much better candidate than her operatives are advocates. These guys cheapen her campaign. They also give Obama's criticism that Hillary equals old politics real credence. And finally, if you want to know why Hillary doesn't get more favorable treatment from the press, imagine having to listen to this drivel everyday. It wouldn't put you in the most charitable frame of mind.
The Senate voted down earmarks yesterday in a defeat for the three Presidential candidates, who were among 29 Senators to vote for it. Many smaller states rejected it because earmarks often provide them with neccessary infrastructure funds. John McCain was clearly disappointed. He said the lack of support from GOP Senators '"makes it more understandable why we lost the 2006 election. It wasn’t the war in Iraq, it was wasteful pork barrel spending. It was the spending that deteriorated our base.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9034.html
The Senate has already passed a bill that would make earmarks more transparent. Apparently that's as far as most of the Senate is willing to go. It's not good for the public trust, but it would be interesting to see how quickly bills would pass if they weren't loaded with pork. The results might surprise us.
Todays question: Can there ever be a change in retail politics as they are played now and does it bother you? Let's hear what you think on this or anything else. Hit 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
The primary goal of yesterday's call was to show how important Pennsylvania was to the Presidential election. The fact that Hillary has a commanding lead there I'm sure had nothing to do with it. As the Obama campaign continues it's fifty-state strategy, refusing to place more importance on PA than say, on North Carolina, the Clinton folks are castigating him for it. Penn went so far to say that, "We believe that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to win, and that Sen. Obama really can’t win the general election." Wolfson later tried to spin out of that spin by saying that Penn didn't say that Obama couldn't win the general. You can decide for yourself. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/clinton-strateg.html
The point is, a primary splits the state's party vote. But that vote is mostly united in a general. So saying a loss in a state primary equals losing that state in the general is patently absurd. Then Penn stated that Obama has failed the "Commander-in-Chief test, the economic steward test and now the Keystone test." What? Who handed out those tests? And, by the way, it might be revealing to check out factcheck.org to see exactly how credible Hillary's foreign policy credentials are. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html
Now if it sounds like I'm picking on the Clinton campaign, well, maybe I am. But my bigger point is that Hillary Clinton is a much better candidate than her operatives are advocates. These guys cheapen her campaign. They also give Obama's criticism that Hillary equals old politics real credence. And finally, if you want to know why Hillary doesn't get more favorable treatment from the press, imagine having to listen to this drivel everyday. It wouldn't put you in the most charitable frame of mind.
The Senate voted down earmarks yesterday in a defeat for the three Presidential candidates, who were among 29 Senators to vote for it. Many smaller states rejected it because earmarks often provide them with neccessary infrastructure funds. John McCain was clearly disappointed. He said the lack of support from GOP Senators '"makes it more understandable why we lost the 2006 election. It wasn’t the war in Iraq, it was wasteful pork barrel spending. It was the spending that deteriorated our base.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9034.html
The Senate has already passed a bill that would make earmarks more transparent. Apparently that's as far as most of the Senate is willing to go. It's not good for the public trust, but it would be interesting to see how quickly bills would pass if they weren't loaded with pork. The results might surprise us.
Todays question: Can there ever be a change in retail politics as they are played now and does it bother you? Let's hear what you think on this or anything else. Hit 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Other News...No, I Don't Mean Spitzer
Ok. So this is a blog. It's not a purely editorial space and it's not a breaking news space. It's a forum meant to bring folks up to date on politics and current events to inspire some thought and conversation. For my readers, you know I'm a news junkie with an emphasis on politics. I love it all. So, when I get sick of certain news stories, it's a big deal. I'm here to tell you I'm sick of the Spitzer story and I'm sick of the Ferraro story. I've written about them and I'm ready to move on--even though I know they are still dominating the news cycle. So let's just get caught up on some interesting news tidbits that actually may have greater impact on our lives than the afformentioned stories. Let's start with a resignation. No, not that one. I mean the resignation of Adm. William Fallon.
This looks like another case of dissent within the ranks of the Bushies rewarded with a premature golden parachute. Literally. As in getting pushed out of the plane. The other side is that some people have claimed that Adm. Fallon was way over his head as Commander of Central Command or Centcom . The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. Adm. Fallon has been outspoken in his views on the Administration's strategy in the Middle East. He was against the surge, and does not think that saber rattling with Iran is a good idea. That's fine. He is supported by a lot of military folks who worry that the Armed Forces are being stretched thin by Iraq and cannot absorb another conflict with a large nation. Fallon's problem was that he stated these feelings publicly, for example, on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera. And recently an Esquire interview printed a catalogue of his differences with the Bush Administration on Middle East strategy. Not good. So he's stepped down. Because we've seen this happen before (remember Erik Shinseki who said that we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq?), we wonder if the Bush Administration has a process for the brass to air differences in private--so they don't have to go public to be heard.
The flap over John McCain's role in the Airbus contract for a new airplane fuel tanker may be nonsense. That's my word. One of our favorite reporters, Fox News's (that's right, I said Fox News) Jennifer Gardner broke it all down on Xm Radio's Potus '08. She stated that in 2004 McCain exposed corruption at Boeing (the competing company) when the Air Force was ready to lease Boeing's tankers. Two Boeing execs were sent to jail. McCain then wrote letters to encourage a fair bidding process for the tanker, in order to save taxpayers money. And this is exactly what happened. According to Gardner, the Airbus entry is cheaper, better and will provide 5,000 new jobs in Alabama. Democrats efforts to demonize McCain on this one are way off the mark.
This is why I don't like polls. A Pew Center Research poll (whom I really respect) stated that Americans are more hopeful about the Iraq War. 53% think that we'll achieve our objectives there. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html
But then an NBC/WSJ poll stated Americans, by a 50% to 37% margin want a Democrat as President. Even though the Democrats are in favor of bailing on Iraq. And then the poll went on to show that Americans barely favor the Democratic candidates over McCain. In fact, it's a statistical tie. Okaaay. So what do I know now that I didn't know before? That we're all confused? Didn't need a poll to tell you that.
Finally, there may be a deal to have a re-vote to seat Florida's Democratic delegates. It's a combo plan of mail-in and in person votes and I urge you to check out the article to get the details. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/primary.proposal/index.html
There. We did it. Got into news that didn't involve the words 'race' or 'prostitute'.
Talk about anything you want, even race or prostitutes, by hitting 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
This looks like another case of dissent within the ranks of the Bushies rewarded with a premature golden parachute. Literally. As in getting pushed out of the plane. The other side is that some people have claimed that Adm. Fallon was way over his head as Commander of Central Command or Centcom . The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. Adm. Fallon has been outspoken in his views on the Administration's strategy in the Middle East. He was against the surge, and does not think that saber rattling with Iran is a good idea. That's fine. He is supported by a lot of military folks who worry that the Armed Forces are being stretched thin by Iraq and cannot absorb another conflict with a large nation. Fallon's problem was that he stated these feelings publicly, for example, on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera. And recently an Esquire interview printed a catalogue of his differences with the Bush Administration on Middle East strategy. Not good. So he's stepped down. Because we've seen this happen before (remember Erik Shinseki who said that we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq?), we wonder if the Bush Administration has a process for the brass to air differences in private--so they don't have to go public to be heard.
The flap over John McCain's role in the Airbus contract for a new airplane fuel tanker may be nonsense. That's my word. One of our favorite reporters, Fox News's (that's right, I said Fox News) Jennifer Gardner broke it all down on Xm Radio's Potus '08. She stated that in 2004 McCain exposed corruption at Boeing (the competing company) when the Air Force was ready to lease Boeing's tankers. Two Boeing execs were sent to jail. McCain then wrote letters to encourage a fair bidding process for the tanker, in order to save taxpayers money. And this is exactly what happened. According to Gardner, the Airbus entry is cheaper, better and will provide 5,000 new jobs in Alabama. Democrats efforts to demonize McCain on this one are way off the mark.
This is why I don't like polls. A Pew Center Research poll (whom I really respect) stated that Americans are more hopeful about the Iraq War. 53% think that we'll achieve our objectives there. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html
But then an NBC/WSJ poll stated Americans, by a 50% to 37% margin want a Democrat as President. Even though the Democrats are in favor of bailing on Iraq. And then the poll went on to show that Americans barely favor the Democratic candidates over McCain. In fact, it's a statistical tie. Okaaay. So what do I know now that I didn't know before? That we're all confused? Didn't need a poll to tell you that.
Finally, there may be a deal to have a re-vote to seat Florida's Democratic delegates. It's a combo plan of mail-in and in person votes and I urge you to check out the article to get the details. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/primary.proposal/index.html
There. We did it. Got into news that didn't involve the words 'race' or 'prostitute'.
Talk about anything you want, even race or prostitutes, by hitting 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Race In The Race
Well, maybe it's good to deal with this now and then get back on track. On a day when a huge racial voting disparity gave Barack Obama a convincing victory in the Mississippi Democratic primary, http://www.newsweek.com/id/121444 Geraldine Ferraro brought back a favorite 80's hit of hers, "Black Men Don't Deserve It." And once again, the issue of race jumped up in our faces.
Even for a candidate who has tried to transcend race as an issue in this campaign, Obama's people felt compelled to "push back" (campaign parlance for respond firmly) against what they see is a pattern of surrogate rock throwing. They accused the Clinton campaign of hypocrisy for a bland disavowal of Ferraro's remarks, (Hillary only said that she "disagreed" with Ferraro's comments) and they demanded that Clinton fire Ferraro from the campaign. She is on the finance committee.
So what exactly did the 1984 Vice Presidential nominee say? This: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman [of any race] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Wow. But then, instead of retracting, she said yesterday: "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white, how's that?" And then, in another interview, she said this: "What I find offensive is every time somebody says something about the [Obama] campaign, you're accused of being racist..." Okaaaay.
So where do we begin to analyze this? First, let's give Obama the first word. He handled it quite well in an interview with Matt Lauer. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23589533#23589533
Then, I guess we should point out that Geraldine Ferraro has always shadow projected her affirmative action guilt onto black men. In 1988 she said exactly the same thing about Jesse Jackson "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." I say shadow projected because by every account the only reason she was selected by Walter Mondale to serve as VP was because she was a woman. And even she's acknowledged this. She was not an influential member of Congress at the time, she wasn't going to deliver a state that Mondale wasn't going to win anyway (New York). It was a political stunt to energize his doomed campaign. So, we can dismiss Ms. Ferraro's comments as perrenial rantings that have no merit.
And they have no merit because she's historically and categorically wrong. With one male African-American state governor and only three African-American U.S. Senators elected in, can we say it together, the history of our nation, black folks have not had much of an advantage in politics. Roger Simon of Politico said last night on Hardball, that if Barack Obama wasn't black, he'd be JFK. On top of that, Obama has done the arduous work to run a successful Presidential campaign. He's raised tons of money, he's assembled a first class organization and he's delivered a potent message. His success is the simple product of hard work, not skin color.
James Carville, on CNN last night, railed against the over-sensitivity of the campaigns. He said you can't always control surrogates who pop off. To his credit, he believes that Samantha Power should not have resigned for her "monster" comment about Hillary. He may be right. But once again, Hillary is the one who raised the bar on all of this. She demanded, in a debate, that Obama 'denounce' and 'reject' Louis Farrakhan's stated support for Obama. And Obama complied. Now, understand that Farrakhan wasn't on Obama's campaign staff, hadn't provided material help of any kind and certainly hadn't said anything as patently rascist as Geraldine Ferraro in this primary race. So, it's fair that Obama's David Axlerod points out Hillary's hypocrisy.
But the Obama campaign also knows this: Ferraro's comments will touch a chord in countless white minds across this country. Especially the last comment, which bemoans reflexive political correctness. They remember Bill Clinton's famous 'Sister Souljah' moment when he publically repudiated her anti-white comments. They remember that secretly, whites everywhere said,"Oh good, he's not going to be held hostage to the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party." And so the Obama folks see an intentional pattern of subliminal race baiting that started with Bob Kerrey's comments about Obama's middle name, Billy Shaheen's cocaine references, (which, by the way, resulted in his resignation from the Clinton campaign) and on and on. They're rightly worried because the next big contest comes in a state that James Carville once described as 'Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between'. It's a state prone to racial polarization between working class whites who are competing for jobs with working class blacks. Very much like, let's say it together, Ohio.
Now, will all this benefit Hillary? Yes and no. It will help her with those working class whites in Pennsylvania. It will hurt her against the charge that Obama made again in his Today Show interview that she's politics as usual. And that her style of politics is the problem in Washington. It will also hurt because she is now having to respond to negatives about her campaign, instead of driving an agenda that highlights negatives about the Obama campaign.
Will this help Democrats? Absolutely not. Especially when it lets John McCain issue a memorandum to his people saying that he will not tolerate attack politics. http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/McCain_topper_to_allies_Stay_on_message.html Which is why it's hard for even Democrats to dislike John McCain. Disagree with him on issues if you want, but he stands for right and wrong. And he will take heat from right wing nuts on this memo. They'll want him to go in for the kill on a personal level and he just won't do it. Americans of any political stripe like that.
And in the long run, this discussion on race doesn't help America anymore. There is a candidate out there who as worked very hard to remove race from the equation. And his success demonstrates how eager Americans are to move beyond this issue. People like Geraldine Ferraro and Steve King (a Congressman who said on Monday that Obama's middle name, Hussein, does matter, and that radical Islamists will be 'dancing in the streets' if Obama wins) are a fringe element.
And it distracts us from what's really important. I'm devoting a post on this instead of examining a new Department of Defense report stating unequivocally that Al Qaeda and Iraq had absolutely no connection before we invaded Iraq. Or Adm. Fallon's resignation as Centcom commander in the Middle East. Or talking about the Fed's $200 billion dollar credit gambit, which spiked the market up 400 points. Or the National Academy of Sciences new recommendations about global warming. So I'll have to let you see my Wall Street Journal morning briefing so you can check out some of those stories. http://us.f829.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=5106_29928046_85539_1665_19778_0_35255_52882_1862159558&Idx=0&YY=87810&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
In the end, let's hope this dies down. And let's hope the Clintons take a tougher stance on this kind of surrogate rock throwing. It just doesn't move us forward.
Let's hear your thoughts on whether you think this is an intentional pattern by the Clinton campaign or just unfortunate surrogate ramblings. Click on 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous buttons.
Even for a candidate who has tried to transcend race as an issue in this campaign, Obama's people felt compelled to "push back" (campaign parlance for respond firmly) against what they see is a pattern of surrogate rock throwing. They accused the Clinton campaign of hypocrisy for a bland disavowal of Ferraro's remarks, (Hillary only said that she "disagreed" with Ferraro's comments) and they demanded that Clinton fire Ferraro from the campaign. She is on the finance committee.
So what exactly did the 1984 Vice Presidential nominee say? This: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman [of any race] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Wow. But then, instead of retracting, she said yesterday: "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white, how's that?" And then, in another interview, she said this: "What I find offensive is every time somebody says something about the [Obama] campaign, you're accused of being racist..." Okaaaay.
So where do we begin to analyze this? First, let's give Obama the first word. He handled it quite well in an interview with Matt Lauer. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23589533#23589533
Then, I guess we should point out that Geraldine Ferraro has always shadow projected her affirmative action guilt onto black men. In 1988 she said exactly the same thing about Jesse Jackson "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." I say shadow projected because by every account the only reason she was selected by Walter Mondale to serve as VP was because she was a woman. And even she's acknowledged this. She was not an influential member of Congress at the time, she wasn't going to deliver a state that Mondale wasn't going to win anyway (New York). It was a political stunt to energize his doomed campaign. So, we can dismiss Ms. Ferraro's comments as perrenial rantings that have no merit.
And they have no merit because she's historically and categorically wrong. With one male African-American state governor and only three African-American U.S. Senators elected in, can we say it together, the history of our nation, black folks have not had much of an advantage in politics. Roger Simon of Politico said last night on Hardball, that if Barack Obama wasn't black, he'd be JFK. On top of that, Obama has done the arduous work to run a successful Presidential campaign. He's raised tons of money, he's assembled a first class organization and he's delivered a potent message. His success is the simple product of hard work, not skin color.
James Carville, on CNN last night, railed against the over-sensitivity of the campaigns. He said you can't always control surrogates who pop off. To his credit, he believes that Samantha Power should not have resigned for her "monster" comment about Hillary. He may be right. But once again, Hillary is the one who raised the bar on all of this. She demanded, in a debate, that Obama 'denounce' and 'reject' Louis Farrakhan's stated support for Obama. And Obama complied. Now, understand that Farrakhan wasn't on Obama's campaign staff, hadn't provided material help of any kind and certainly hadn't said anything as patently rascist as Geraldine Ferraro in this primary race. So, it's fair that Obama's David Axlerod points out Hillary's hypocrisy.
But the Obama campaign also knows this: Ferraro's comments will touch a chord in countless white minds across this country. Especially the last comment, which bemoans reflexive political correctness. They remember Bill Clinton's famous 'Sister Souljah' moment when he publically repudiated her anti-white comments. They remember that secretly, whites everywhere said,"Oh good, he's not going to be held hostage to the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party." And so the Obama folks see an intentional pattern of subliminal race baiting that started with Bob Kerrey's comments about Obama's middle name, Billy Shaheen's cocaine references, (which, by the way, resulted in his resignation from the Clinton campaign) and on and on. They're rightly worried because the next big contest comes in a state that James Carville once described as 'Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between'. It's a state prone to racial polarization between working class whites who are competing for jobs with working class blacks. Very much like, let's say it together, Ohio.
Now, will all this benefit Hillary? Yes and no. It will help her with those working class whites in Pennsylvania. It will hurt her against the charge that Obama made again in his Today Show interview that she's politics as usual. And that her style of politics is the problem in Washington. It will also hurt because she is now having to respond to negatives about her campaign, instead of driving an agenda that highlights negatives about the Obama campaign.
Will this help Democrats? Absolutely not. Especially when it lets John McCain issue a memorandum to his people saying that he will not tolerate attack politics. http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/McCain_topper_to_allies_Stay_on_message.html Which is why it's hard for even Democrats to dislike John McCain. Disagree with him on issues if you want, but he stands for right and wrong. And he will take heat from right wing nuts on this memo. They'll want him to go in for the kill on a personal level and he just won't do it. Americans of any political stripe like that.
And in the long run, this discussion on race doesn't help America anymore. There is a candidate out there who as worked very hard to remove race from the equation. And his success demonstrates how eager Americans are to move beyond this issue. People like Geraldine Ferraro and Steve King (a Congressman who said on Monday that Obama's middle name, Hussein, does matter, and that radical Islamists will be 'dancing in the streets' if Obama wins) are a fringe element.
And it distracts us from what's really important. I'm devoting a post on this instead of examining a new Department of Defense report stating unequivocally that Al Qaeda and Iraq had absolutely no connection before we invaded Iraq. Or Adm. Fallon's resignation as Centcom commander in the Middle East. Or talking about the Fed's $200 billion dollar credit gambit, which spiked the market up 400 points. Or the National Academy of Sciences new recommendations about global warming. So I'll have to let you see my Wall Street Journal morning briefing so you can check out some of those stories. http://us.f829.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=5106_29928046_85539_1665_19778_0_35255_52882_1862159558&Idx=0&YY=87810&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
In the end, let's hope this dies down. And let's hope the Clintons take a tougher stance on this kind of surrogate rock throwing. It just doesn't move us forward.
Let's hear your thoughts on whether you think this is an intentional pattern by the Clinton campaign or just unfortunate surrogate ramblings. Click on 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous buttons.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Client-9, They Call Me... Mister President, and the Queen Of The Okey Doke
Just when you thought it was safe to take a couple of days off from blogging, here comes Eliot Spitzer, his trusty prostitute Kristen, a revivified Barack Obama and The Queen of the Okey Doke(guess who?) to make you jump back in with both feet. And remarkably, thanks to an astute reader of this blog, all of these things tie together! Read On!
Ok, I shouldn't make fun of Governor Spitzer's troubles. He has a nice wife and three girls who are now humiliated by the revelation of his alleged rendevous with a prostitute named Kristen at the famed Mayflower Hotel in Washington .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120517240415424747.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
The details are contained in a federal complaint against a 'Client -9' (allegedly Mr. Spitzer), a patron of a high-priced prostitution syndicate called the Emperor's Club. The complaint was part of a larger Federal case against the four organizers of this prostitution ring. I won't go into the sordid particulars (and they are pretty down 'n dirty) but suffice it to say that it doesn't bode well for Mr. Spitzer's career as Governor of New York. Many people believe he will have to resign. And he won't get sympathy from the many quarters that he built a reputation tearing down when he was Attorney General--such as the Mob or Wall Street or Joseph Bruno, the Republican leader in Albany. Has any one with so much political capital made such a mess of things upon taking office? Really, he's going to be in the Guinness Book of World Records. It's just been one thing after another with this guy. Fortunately, Spitzer's Lieutenant Governor, David Paterson, is well liked. Unfortunately, not many believe he is a strong enough leader to be an effective Governor; he was always thought to be priming himself for a U. S. Senate seat, if there just happened to be a vacancy for some reason.
Which brings us directly to the Democratic Presidential race...I mean, the Democratic Vice Presidential race...or, whatever. It seems the suddenly tone deaf Clinton campaign has pushed a little gambit too far and is now wiping gunpowder off their faces. You'll remember it started innocently when both candidates were asked if they'd ever consider placing the other on their ticket. Each responded in code. Obama said it was premature to entertain such a thought, which really meant, "Are you crazy?!! Ever hear of Al Gore?!!! Hillary said it was an interesting idea, depending who was at the top of the ticket, which really meant, "God, do you think he'd fall for that? Oh please, please, please!" At that point, it could've died a nice little death. But noooo. The Clinton's thought they'd hit on yet another way to distract Obama and his supporters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080310/pl_nm/usa_politics_democrats_dc
So they innocently beat everyone over the head with the perfect solution for all those hand- wringing fence-sitters who just couldn't bear the thought of someone losing: Obama as VP.
Unfortunately for the Clintons, Obama was campaigning in Mississippi. In front of a lot of Black folks. Who thought they might have heard something familiar in the Clintons' calculus. Something similar to "y'all can eat in the kitchen". No one, least of all Barack, would admit it but... he did go to town on it. Wondering how a person in second place could talk about someone in first place being better in second place. And that's when he got back to the ol' 'okey doke'. Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/barackobama . Obama wasn't alone. On Meet The Press, Tim Russert grilled sputtering Clinton supporter Governor Ed Rendell about the Clintonian logic that labeled Obama not ready to be President, but ready to be VP--especially when Bill Clinton said the primary criterion for a VP was the ability to take over as Prez. Newsweek chimed in. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/10/clinton-s-loony-veepstakes-logic.aspx And the next thing you know, Hillary was left muttering that this whole thing had been blown out of proportion. Yeaahh. By you.
So let's tie it all together. An astute reader, who is a Clinton supporter, offered the perfect solution to this entire Democratic soap opera. Eliot Spitzer resigns and Hillary gallantly offers her services as...the next Governor of New York! She tells Paterson she'll make him Senator if he resigns as Lieutenant Governor. Obama says, 'You go, girl!', and collects the Presidential nomination. Hillary gracefully bows out of the race with her dignity intact (she didn't lose, she gave herself up to help her state, and if things don't work out for Barack or McCain, she runs in 2012 on the 'told you so!' platform). The Democratic Party is spared a nightmare convention and life is beautiful, right? Well...there might be one little problem...David Paterson...is African-American. Okey doke!
The Mississippi primary is today. I'll have coverage of it tomorrow. What are the chances of a Hillary Obama ticket and would she consider being his veep? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Ok, I shouldn't make fun of Governor Spitzer's troubles. He has a nice wife and three girls who are now humiliated by the revelation of his alleged rendevous with a prostitute named Kristen at the famed Mayflower Hotel in Washington .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120517240415424747.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
The details are contained in a federal complaint against a 'Client -9' (allegedly Mr. Spitzer), a patron of a high-priced prostitution syndicate called the Emperor's Club. The complaint was part of a larger Federal case against the four organizers of this prostitution ring. I won't go into the sordid particulars (and they are pretty down 'n dirty) but suffice it to say that it doesn't bode well for Mr. Spitzer's career as Governor of New York. Many people believe he will have to resign. And he won't get sympathy from the many quarters that he built a reputation tearing down when he was Attorney General--such as the Mob or Wall Street or Joseph Bruno, the Republican leader in Albany. Has any one with so much political capital made such a mess of things upon taking office? Really, he's going to be in the Guinness Book of World Records. It's just been one thing after another with this guy. Fortunately, Spitzer's Lieutenant Governor, David Paterson, is well liked. Unfortunately, not many believe he is a strong enough leader to be an effective Governor; he was always thought to be priming himself for a U. S. Senate seat, if there just happened to be a vacancy for some reason.
Which brings us directly to the Democratic Presidential race...I mean, the Democratic Vice Presidential race...or, whatever. It seems the suddenly tone deaf Clinton campaign has pushed a little gambit too far and is now wiping gunpowder off their faces. You'll remember it started innocently when both candidates were asked if they'd ever consider placing the other on their ticket. Each responded in code. Obama said it was premature to entertain such a thought, which really meant, "Are you crazy?!! Ever hear of Al Gore?!!! Hillary said it was an interesting idea, depending who was at the top of the ticket, which really meant, "God, do you think he'd fall for that? Oh please, please, please!" At that point, it could've died a nice little death. But noooo. The Clinton's thought they'd hit on yet another way to distract Obama and his supporters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080310/pl_nm/usa_politics_democrats_dc
So they innocently beat everyone over the head with the perfect solution for all those hand- wringing fence-sitters who just couldn't bear the thought of someone losing: Obama as VP.
Unfortunately for the Clintons, Obama was campaigning in Mississippi. In front of a lot of Black folks. Who thought they might have heard something familiar in the Clintons' calculus. Something similar to "y'all can eat in the kitchen". No one, least of all Barack, would admit it but... he did go to town on it. Wondering how a person in second place could talk about someone in first place being better in second place. And that's when he got back to the ol' 'okey doke'. Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/barackobama . Obama wasn't alone. On Meet The Press, Tim Russert grilled sputtering Clinton supporter Governor Ed Rendell about the Clintonian logic that labeled Obama not ready to be President, but ready to be VP--especially when Bill Clinton said the primary criterion for a VP was the ability to take over as Prez. Newsweek chimed in. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/10/clinton-s-loony-veepstakes-logic.aspx And the next thing you know, Hillary was left muttering that this whole thing had been blown out of proportion. Yeaahh. By you.
So let's tie it all together. An astute reader, who is a Clinton supporter, offered the perfect solution to this entire Democratic soap opera. Eliot Spitzer resigns and Hillary gallantly offers her services as...the next Governor of New York! She tells Paterson she'll make him Senator if he resigns as Lieutenant Governor. Obama says, 'You go, girl!', and collects the Presidential nomination. Hillary gracefully bows out of the race with her dignity intact (she didn't lose, she gave herself up to help her state, and if things don't work out for Barack or McCain, she runs in 2012 on the 'told you so!' platform). The Democratic Party is spared a nightmare convention and life is beautiful, right? Well...there might be one little problem...David Paterson...is African-American. Okey doke!
The Mississippi primary is today. I'll have coverage of it tomorrow. What are the chances of a Hillary Obama ticket and would she consider being his veep? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Under The Radar...kind of
Today's big political news should be Barack Obama's decisive Wyoming caucus win yesterday. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8917.html But, let's face it, the win was expected, it nets him only 2 delegates (though a few more will come his way after the Wyoming convention) and there are two more significant stories flying under the radar, kind of.
First, a Democrat won Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a special election necessitated by Hastert's premature resignation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23540209/ Bill Foster will serve out Hastert's remaining term which ends this year. A new election will be held in November for a full two year term. This outcome is significant because the Illinois district in question has been a GOP bastion forever. It could be a grim harbinger of things to come for the Repubs in the fall.
Second, there may be a solution in sight for the Florida Democratic delegate mess. According to Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/119901, Sen. Bill Nelson, (a Clinton supporter) has proposed a mail-in do-over vote that would be funded by 'soft money'--that is, money legally raised outside the federal election guidelines. Details are being hashed out, but this could be a reasonable solution provided that: each candidate gets at least one full week to campaign and the ballots are counted expeditously. The process would cost only about $5 million and would send a positive message to the country about how Democrats view the sacrosanct nature of each vote. I would also add that the state of Florida should have to pay something, as they were the ones who flouted the agreed-upon rules of the DNC primary window.
So that's it. I'm taking a little break before the Dem's primary in Mississippi. Tell me if you approve of Sen. Nelson's idea or talk about anything else that's on your mind. Click 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
First, a Democrat won Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a special election necessitated by Hastert's premature resignation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23540209/ Bill Foster will serve out Hastert's remaining term which ends this year. A new election will be held in November for a full two year term. This outcome is significant because the Illinois district in question has been a GOP bastion forever. It could be a grim harbinger of things to come for the Repubs in the fall.
Second, there may be a solution in sight for the Florida Democratic delegate mess. According to Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/119901, Sen. Bill Nelson, (a Clinton supporter) has proposed a mail-in do-over vote that would be funded by 'soft money'--that is, money legally raised outside the federal election guidelines. Details are being hashed out, but this could be a reasonable solution provided that: each candidate gets at least one full week to campaign and the ballots are counted expeditously. The process would cost only about $5 million and would send a positive message to the country about how Democrats view the sacrosanct nature of each vote. I would also add that the state of Florida should have to pay something, as they were the ones who flouted the agreed-upon rules of the DNC primary window.
So that's it. I'm taking a little break before the Dem's primary in Mississippi. Tell me if you approve of Sen. Nelson's idea or talk about anything else that's on your mind. Click 'comments' below, bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Warts 'N All
On the day when suddenly relevant Wyoming Democrats (oxymoron) head to caucuses I'm going to present a trove of good reading (and viewing) on the state of this 2008 Presidential campaign.
As I and everybody else have noted, it's now ugly season (after a very brief stop in silly season, as Obama once remarked). And everyone's warts are starting to show. This includes the Obama campaign, who suddenly are operating like a JV team.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8912.html
Certainly, Hillary's folks , who may be winning the battle now, are reminding people of all the things we don't like about the Clintons. Check out Peggy Noonan's op-ed piece. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485348696518343.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
And even John McCain, without an opponent to zero in on, can only draw attention to himself in unfavorable ways. Check out this video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23525639#23522645
and this interesting article from the Politico.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8906_Page2.html
Finally, I want to get to back to yesterday's interview with Ex-DNC Chairman Joe Andrews from XM radio's Potus '08, as promised in yesterday's post. He made the startling point that the Democratic Super Delegates have become the new special interest group. Andrews explained that some of these delegates are going to the candidates with "issue blackmail", indicating that a favorable stance on a certain issue will secure a vote. As if the Dems aren't 'special interested' to death already, this is the last thing they need--for the nominating process and for their reputation as the party of special interests.
I'll have results tomorrow from Wyoming and all relevant commentary.
Will this election become the same 'ol same 'ol as it continues, or will things get aspirational again? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up then hitting the nickname or anonymous buttons.
As I and everybody else have noted, it's now ugly season (after a very brief stop in silly season, as Obama once remarked). And everyone's warts are starting to show. This includes the Obama campaign, who suddenly are operating like a JV team.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8912.html
Certainly, Hillary's folks , who may be winning the battle now, are reminding people of all the things we don't like about the Clintons. Check out Peggy Noonan's op-ed piece. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485348696518343.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
And even John McCain, without an opponent to zero in on, can only draw attention to himself in unfavorable ways. Check out this video. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23525639#23522645
and this interesting article from the Politico.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8906_Page2.html
Finally, I want to get to back to yesterday's interview with Ex-DNC Chairman Joe Andrews from XM radio's Potus '08, as promised in yesterday's post. He made the startling point that the Democratic Super Delegates have become the new special interest group. Andrews explained that some of these delegates are going to the candidates with "issue blackmail", indicating that a favorable stance on a certain issue will secure a vote. As if the Dems aren't 'special interested' to death already, this is the last thing they need--for the nominating process and for their reputation as the party of special interests.
I'll have results tomorrow from Wyoming and all relevant commentary.
Will this election become the same 'ol same 'ol as it continues, or will things get aspirational again? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up then hitting the nickname or anonymous buttons.
Friday, March 7, 2008
How It Works
This is how old school politics works. I listened to a great interview this morning on XM Radio's Potus '08 with ex-DNC Chair Joe Andrews. I was determined to share it with you all. Then I came home and started reading my different news sources. An op-ed by by David Brooks made the good point that Obama has to stay above the fray because that's what his candidacy is fundamentally about: new politics, not the old Clintonian campaign methods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ref=opinion
Then I read about Obama aide Samantha Power and her 'monster' comment--and the subsequent retraction and apology. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/07/741318.aspx and
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/whats-new-3.html
I then perused comments from the people after these articles (most of which condemned Hillary's new negative campaign) and was reminded that it now appears the Clintons were involved in the Canadian Nafta memo leak. Though no one's reporting it. Hmm.
So, now...my head's just spinning. I've forgotten about the good interview, I just want to tune out of this election. Which is exactly what the Clintons want. Muddy the waters, cast doubt, machinate, hurl charges, make unsubstantiated claims and then say you're a victim. Suddenly, no one really knows what to think. There's voter fatigue, Obama's not exciting and, oh, well, just pull the lever for the devil you know. That's how it works when you want to turn around a campaign. In the end, though, it tends to bite you.
I reflected on recent candidates who won the Presidency after tumultuous primaries. In these cases, the behavior in the primary resurfaced during the term, with disastrous results. Take Bill Clinton in 1992. Drama about his draft dodging and womanizing resulted in crafty denials and explanations that became emblematic of his two Presidential terms. It also resulted in impeachment. George Bush's primary campaign in 2000 featured a 'compassionate conservative' who would 'change the tone in Washington', a proponent of a 'humble foreign policy', and an all round good guy who suddenly had no problem throwing John McCain under the bus in the South Carolina primary. It's no surprise that the hallmarks of Bush's two terms are an extremely partisan, opaque administration that has had no problem reversing the 'no nation building' pledge of his campaign.
So we'll see what happens. We know a few things. No matter whom you support in the Dem primary it's going to be hard to endure much more of Howard (Obama's Ken Starr!) Wolfson, Hillary's press director. It's going to be even more difficult listening to Hillary praise John McCain as Commander-in-Chief (is she angling for a Veep spot on his ticket?). And it's going to be really hard to keep watching Obama's people trip over themselves after such a promising campaign up to now.
But at least one honest thing happened recently. Obama admitted his campaign had 'made some mistakes'. That's the first time we've heard a presidential politician say those words in about six years. It's a start.
Oh, yeah. Tomorrow, I'll discuss the interview with Joe Andrews. I almost forgot.
Is your enthusiasm for this race still high, or is it waning. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous buttons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ref=opinion
Then I read about Obama aide Samantha Power and her 'monster' comment--and the subsequent retraction and apology. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/07/741318.aspx and
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/whats-new-3.html
I then perused comments from the people after these articles (most of which condemned Hillary's new negative campaign) and was reminded that it now appears the Clintons were involved in the Canadian Nafta memo leak. Though no one's reporting it. Hmm.
So, now...my head's just spinning. I've forgotten about the good interview, I just want to tune out of this election. Which is exactly what the Clintons want. Muddy the waters, cast doubt, machinate, hurl charges, make unsubstantiated claims and then say you're a victim. Suddenly, no one really knows what to think. There's voter fatigue, Obama's not exciting and, oh, well, just pull the lever for the devil you know. That's how it works when you want to turn around a campaign. In the end, though, it tends to bite you.
I reflected on recent candidates who won the Presidency after tumultuous primaries. In these cases, the behavior in the primary resurfaced during the term, with disastrous results. Take Bill Clinton in 1992. Drama about his draft dodging and womanizing resulted in crafty denials and explanations that became emblematic of his two Presidential terms. It also resulted in impeachment. George Bush's primary campaign in 2000 featured a 'compassionate conservative' who would 'change the tone in Washington', a proponent of a 'humble foreign policy', and an all round good guy who suddenly had no problem throwing John McCain under the bus in the South Carolina primary. It's no surprise that the hallmarks of Bush's two terms are an extremely partisan, opaque administration that has had no problem reversing the 'no nation building' pledge of his campaign.
So we'll see what happens. We know a few things. No matter whom you support in the Dem primary it's going to be hard to endure much more of Howard (Obama's Ken Starr!) Wolfson, Hillary's press director. It's going to be even more difficult listening to Hillary praise John McCain as Commander-in-Chief (is she angling for a Veep spot on his ticket?). And it's going to be really hard to keep watching Obama's people trip over themselves after such a promising campaign up to now.
But at least one honest thing happened recently. Obama admitted his campaign had 'made some mistakes'. That's the first time we've heard a presidential politician say those words in about six years. It's a start.
Oh, yeah. Tomorrow, I'll discuss the interview with Joe Andrews. I almost forgot.
Is your enthusiasm for this race still high, or is it waning. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous buttons.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Gettin' Jiggy Wit It And Other Random Thoughts
On a day when Obama is chillin' and Hillary plays Xena, Warrior Princess in a photo op with military leaders, I give you some random thoughts.
Did you see any of the coverage of McCain's meeting with George W. Bush? Oh my. It was, as the kids like to say, awkward. First, you had the President do a little jig while waiting for the McCain motorcade. And then, as Bush motormouthed his way through the press conference, the 71 year old war hero stood mutely behind him like a little kid. But what really struck me was how giddy the President appeared. I guess you can't blame him. He's turning over yet another mess to someone else. Kind of like Harkin Oil, only bigger. On the other hand, it was interesting to see the kind of exuberance and regular-guy approach that endeared him to almost half the country eight long years ago.
Does anyone think that there is a pro-Clinton bias when she wins once a month and is percieved to have all of the momentum? Or do we just naturally celebrate winning? If it's the latter, then maybe Obama wasn't getting the free pass the Clinton's whine about. Maybe he was just winning.
An interesting interview on XM's Potus '08 with Morris Reed. He says he can't believe the Clinton's don't respond to Obama's attacks on Hillary's 'judgment' for her Iraq War vote by insisting that Obama's involvement with Rezko was a more apt example of 'judgment'. Reed explains that voting for the Iraq War Resolution was not a matter of judgment but an interpretation of evidence presented by the President and Colin Powell. The evidence strongly indicated it was a good idea. Reed says that Obama's decision to do business with a shady character like Rezko is truly bad judgment. Well, I see his point, if we can all agree on what "is" is. But taking Reed's argument a step further, I think Hillary's Iraq vote really reflects political calculation more than anything else (especially since she never read the intelligence paper put forth by the administration). She didn't want Republicans to hammer her as weak on national security, especially in light of her Presidential aspirations. And while she's taken her hits on the Iraq vote, she's getting her revenge by bludgeoning Obama as being weak on national security. Kinda like...the Republicans. Even though she recently accused Obama of "Karl Rove tactics". Boy, she's good.
There's an interesting op-ed piece that answers yesterday's question on this blog about how the protracted primary battle is good for the Dems. Check it out. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/the-fourth-quarter/index.html?ref=opinion
Michigan's governor Jennifer Granholm and Florida's governor Charlie Crist are making a push to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. This raises an interesting conundrum. I think we can all agree that the Democratic primary system, with caucuses, primaries, primacaucuses and super delegates, needs to be simplified. And we can all agree that every voter should be heard (although our electoral system in the general election renders many votes moot). But when do adults decide that rules need to be respected, if everyone agreed to them at the outset of a contest? If parents constantly changed the rules for their children, you'd have unruly children. Literally. So, why are we looking at this? Because the Dem race is so tight that voters rather than super delegates should decide it? Ok. But, it just seems like there is a lot of gerrymandering going on, which doesn't inspire confidence in the system. And how about unintended consequences? I believe, quite frankly, that Governor Crist (a Republican), is intentionally creating a fuss to preoccupy Democrats past June. But what if Repubs now think that McCain can beat Obama, then Florida has a re-do, Hillary wins, gains the nomination and then beats McCain? Crist is going to be persona non grata in the GOP forever. It's all crazy.
Give me a way to solve the Florida and Michigan mess or talk about anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sing up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Did you see any of the coverage of McCain's meeting with George W. Bush? Oh my. It was, as the kids like to say, awkward. First, you had the President do a little jig while waiting for the McCain motorcade. And then, as Bush motormouthed his way through the press conference, the 71 year old war hero stood mutely behind him like a little kid. But what really struck me was how giddy the President appeared. I guess you can't blame him. He's turning over yet another mess to someone else. Kind of like Harkin Oil, only bigger. On the other hand, it was interesting to see the kind of exuberance and regular-guy approach that endeared him to almost half the country eight long years ago.
Does anyone think that there is a pro-Clinton bias when she wins once a month and is percieved to have all of the momentum? Or do we just naturally celebrate winning? If it's the latter, then maybe Obama wasn't getting the free pass the Clinton's whine about. Maybe he was just winning.
An interesting interview on XM's Potus '08 with Morris Reed. He says he can't believe the Clinton's don't respond to Obama's attacks on Hillary's 'judgment' for her Iraq War vote by insisting that Obama's involvement with Rezko was a more apt example of 'judgment'. Reed explains that voting for the Iraq War Resolution was not a matter of judgment but an interpretation of evidence presented by the President and Colin Powell. The evidence strongly indicated it was a good idea. Reed says that Obama's decision to do business with a shady character like Rezko is truly bad judgment. Well, I see his point, if we can all agree on what "is" is. But taking Reed's argument a step further, I think Hillary's Iraq vote really reflects political calculation more than anything else (especially since she never read the intelligence paper put forth by the administration). She didn't want Republicans to hammer her as weak on national security, especially in light of her Presidential aspirations. And while she's taken her hits on the Iraq vote, she's getting her revenge by bludgeoning Obama as being weak on national security. Kinda like...the Republicans. Even though she recently accused Obama of "Karl Rove tactics". Boy, she's good.
There's an interesting op-ed piece that answers yesterday's question on this blog about how the protracted primary battle is good for the Dems. Check it out. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/the-fourth-quarter/index.html?ref=opinion
Michigan's governor Jennifer Granholm and Florida's governor Charlie Crist are making a push to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. This raises an interesting conundrum. I think we can all agree that the Democratic primary system, with caucuses, primaries, primacaucuses and super delegates, needs to be simplified. And we can all agree that every voter should be heard (although our electoral system in the general election renders many votes moot). But when do adults decide that rules need to be respected, if everyone agreed to them at the outset of a contest? If parents constantly changed the rules for their children, you'd have unruly children. Literally. So, why are we looking at this? Because the Dem race is so tight that voters rather than super delegates should decide it? Ok. But, it just seems like there is a lot of gerrymandering going on, which doesn't inspire confidence in the system. And how about unintended consequences? I believe, quite frankly, that Governor Crist (a Republican), is intentionally creating a fuss to preoccupy Democrats past June. But what if Repubs now think that McCain can beat Obama, then Florida has a re-do, Hillary wins, gains the nomination and then beats McCain? Crist is going to be persona non grata in the GOP forever. It's all crazy.
Give me a way to solve the Florida and Michigan mess or talk about anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sing up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Winners and Losers
Yesterday's Presidential primary contests in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont had the curious effect of presenting dichotomous results to everyone involved. In other words, the winners did some losing and the losers did some winning and everyone's got issues moving forward. Let's take a look, starting with the biggest winners.
The Republican Party
Hillary Clinton's resurgent victories made the GOP the big winner last night. Repubs can now count on a three month Democratic primary bloodbath to provide them with choice ammo for the general. It buys them time to fundraise, organize and create strategies for both Obama and Clinton, without having to campaign against them in earnest. With John McCain's sweep last night, the GOP did what the GOP has always done: unified early behind a nominee. Look at this party now compared to a month ago. It's in much better shape. So where does it lose? Well, under the surface there is still discontent among the base. And while John McCain has positive attributes for the general, he continues to align himself with a disastrous administration.
John McCain
He's the second biggest winner of the night by virtue of locking up the nomination. Now he has time, time, time, to build an organization, raise money, start defining his opponents and rest. Where does he lose? His victory speech revealed some positions that are going to kill him in the general. His stubborn stance on free trade could lose Ohio to either Dem candidate. I'm not saying he's wrong on the issue, just on the wrong side of the people of Ohio. Also, his cavalier remarks on healthcare put him out of touch with the American public's desire for relief. If he doesn't have a real plan to improve the current system, it'll bite him. And finally, his victory last night has prompted a lunch with George Bush today. That's B roll the Dems will cherish.
Hillary Clinton
As the next biggest winner, Hillary re-energized her campaign with a win in Texas and big popular vote wins in Ohio and Rhode Island. This Ohio victory supports her case that she wins in the crucial swing states. These victories stop Obamamania, allow her to raise more money and let her gather her wits before the next big contest in Pennsylvania. She has also found a way to go negative on Obama: create doubt. And she will continue that strategy because it's the only way she can win. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=294426 The success of this negative campaign is ironic. It garnered crucial victories, but it also verified everything that Obama has been saying about her: that she is not a change agent and, in fact, she's the opposite: a practioner of the old school politics responsible for the political division that people bemoan today. So how does she lose? Well, the delegate tallies are still incomplete, but this big night will not deliver a meaningful net gain of delegates. And this is her real problem, she can't really catch up to Obama in the delegate math. She also by loses by a prolonged negative battle, if she is the eventual nominee. It will certainly weaken her for the general.
Mike Huckabee
He wins by starting his 2012 campaign early or by getting his own talk show on Fox News. How does he lose? Well, something about a nomination, but it's not a big deal.
Barack Obama
Not a great night for the junior Senator from Illinois. But he wins by remaining ahead in the delegate chase after 10 days of collisions with the kitchen sink. In a startling announcement last night on MSNBC, Tim Russert triumphantly held up an internal Obama paper that predicted the outcome (complete with margins of victory) in each of the primaries. So far they had been eerily accurate. Russert revealed that the Obama projections for the remaining contests showed that he would garner the plurality of pledged delegates when all was said and done. Obama also wins by getting beaten up now so that his campaign can adjust and improve for later battles--which they have consistently done throughout this campaign. He wins by having Wyoming and Mississippi to hand him two more victories and more delegates. And finally, he will benefit from the analysis that exposes Ohio as a racially polarized state. Many exit polls found Clinton supporters willing to admit that race played a role in their vote. On the other hand, he loses big by... losing big. He lost three states last night, two of which were big states. So, critics can still point to the fact that, with the exception of Illinois, he hasn't defeated Hillary in one large state. He also loses by showing a real electability problem in Ohio. Whether it's race or the negatives conjured by the Clintons, he got trounced and it doesn't look as if he could do much better in a general. You don't win Ohio, you don't win the presidency. Finally, he loses by having to slog it out for another three months, battling both McCain and Clinton. With vulnerabilities exposed by the Clinton attack machine, he's almost having to start over. And he's exposed in a general.
The Democractic Party
No victory here at all. A once promising gallop to the White House has turned into a mid-winter slog through Donner's Pass. Count on cannibalism as the method of survival. Leave it to Democrats to cripple themselves in an election that has handed them every possible advantage on the issues and the mood of the country. Has it been exciting to showcase two historic candidates? You bet. Is it now detrimental to the party to continue this race? You bet. Especially when it's going to showcase nothing but negative campaigning. Squandering the fundraising advantage, providing cheap shots for the Republicans, alienating voters, and burning out the Democratic electorate prior to the general is the collateral damage created by last night's results. Everyone is starting to talk about the Democratic conventions of 1972 and 1980 as precident for what's to come. That's comforting. Maybe Democrats should let McCain win and continue our plunge into disaster, then try again in 2012, when things will be so bad nothing can deny Dems the White House. Not even the Dems.
Oratory In America...
was the biggest loser in last night's primaries. After constantly bashing Barack Obama's ability to speechify, Hillary Clinton and John McCain continued to steal or butcher parts of Obama's message. In last night's victory speech, after talking about what real change meant in Washington, McCain's run up to his big finish stated that "We are not afraid of history, we make history! This is the essence of hope in America..." Now, I don't know what being 'afraid of history' means, unless it's AP History in school, which is a tough course. But to place a hope line at the penultimate moment of your victory speech seems to be a pretty solid nod to the effectiveness of your opponent's speeches, even though you claim they're useless because they're, y'know, just speeches. Similarly, Hillary Clinton talked about change again as if it has always been her signature attribute and then--get this--shamelessly tried to peddle a version of Obama's "Yes We Can" by altering it to "Yes We Will!" I keep saying it: you can't make this stuff up.
I'd like to know if anyone thinks that what happened last night is good for the Democrats. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comment', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
The Republican Party
Hillary Clinton's resurgent victories made the GOP the big winner last night. Repubs can now count on a three month Democratic primary bloodbath to provide them with choice ammo for the general. It buys them time to fundraise, organize and create strategies for both Obama and Clinton, without having to campaign against them in earnest. With John McCain's sweep last night, the GOP did what the GOP has always done: unified early behind a nominee. Look at this party now compared to a month ago. It's in much better shape. So where does it lose? Well, under the surface there is still discontent among the base. And while John McCain has positive attributes for the general, he continues to align himself with a disastrous administration.
John McCain
He's the second biggest winner of the night by virtue of locking up the nomination. Now he has time, time, time, to build an organization, raise money, start defining his opponents and rest. Where does he lose? His victory speech revealed some positions that are going to kill him in the general. His stubborn stance on free trade could lose Ohio to either Dem candidate. I'm not saying he's wrong on the issue, just on the wrong side of the people of Ohio. Also, his cavalier remarks on healthcare put him out of touch with the American public's desire for relief. If he doesn't have a real plan to improve the current system, it'll bite him. And finally, his victory last night has prompted a lunch with George Bush today. That's B roll the Dems will cherish.
Hillary Clinton
As the next biggest winner, Hillary re-energized her campaign with a win in Texas and big popular vote wins in Ohio and Rhode Island. This Ohio victory supports her case that she wins in the crucial swing states. These victories stop Obamamania, allow her to raise more money and let her gather her wits before the next big contest in Pennsylvania. She has also found a way to go negative on Obama: create doubt. And she will continue that strategy because it's the only way she can win. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=294426 The success of this negative campaign is ironic. It garnered crucial victories, but it also verified everything that Obama has been saying about her: that she is not a change agent and, in fact, she's the opposite: a practioner of the old school politics responsible for the political division that people bemoan today. So how does she lose? Well, the delegate tallies are still incomplete, but this big night will not deliver a meaningful net gain of delegates. And this is her real problem, she can't really catch up to Obama in the delegate math. She also by loses by a prolonged negative battle, if she is the eventual nominee. It will certainly weaken her for the general.
Mike Huckabee
He wins by starting his 2012 campaign early or by getting his own talk show on Fox News. How does he lose? Well, something about a nomination, but it's not a big deal.
Barack Obama
Not a great night for the junior Senator from Illinois. But he wins by remaining ahead in the delegate chase after 10 days of collisions with the kitchen sink. In a startling announcement last night on MSNBC, Tim Russert triumphantly held up an internal Obama paper that predicted the outcome (complete with margins of victory) in each of the primaries. So far they had been eerily accurate. Russert revealed that the Obama projections for the remaining contests showed that he would garner the plurality of pledged delegates when all was said and done. Obama also wins by getting beaten up now so that his campaign can adjust and improve for later battles--which they have consistently done throughout this campaign. He wins by having Wyoming and Mississippi to hand him two more victories and more delegates. And finally, he will benefit from the analysis that exposes Ohio as a racially polarized state. Many exit polls found Clinton supporters willing to admit that race played a role in their vote. On the other hand, he loses big by... losing big. He lost three states last night, two of which were big states. So, critics can still point to the fact that, with the exception of Illinois, he hasn't defeated Hillary in one large state. He also loses by showing a real electability problem in Ohio. Whether it's race or the negatives conjured by the Clintons, he got trounced and it doesn't look as if he could do much better in a general. You don't win Ohio, you don't win the presidency. Finally, he loses by having to slog it out for another three months, battling both McCain and Clinton. With vulnerabilities exposed by the Clinton attack machine, he's almost having to start over. And he's exposed in a general.
The Democractic Party
No victory here at all. A once promising gallop to the White House has turned into a mid-winter slog through Donner's Pass. Count on cannibalism as the method of survival. Leave it to Democrats to cripple themselves in an election that has handed them every possible advantage on the issues and the mood of the country. Has it been exciting to showcase two historic candidates? You bet. Is it now detrimental to the party to continue this race? You bet. Especially when it's going to showcase nothing but negative campaigning. Squandering the fundraising advantage, providing cheap shots for the Republicans, alienating voters, and burning out the Democratic electorate prior to the general is the collateral damage created by last night's results. Everyone is starting to talk about the Democratic conventions of 1972 and 1980 as precident for what's to come. That's comforting. Maybe Democrats should let McCain win and continue our plunge into disaster, then try again in 2012, when things will be so bad nothing can deny Dems the White House. Not even the Dems.
Oratory In America...
was the biggest loser in last night's primaries. After constantly bashing Barack Obama's ability to speechify, Hillary Clinton and John McCain continued to steal or butcher parts of Obama's message. In last night's victory speech, after talking about what real change meant in Washington, McCain's run up to his big finish stated that "We are not afraid of history, we make history! This is the essence of hope in America..." Now, I don't know what being 'afraid of history' means, unless it's AP History in school, which is a tough course. But to place a hope line at the penultimate moment of your victory speech seems to be a pretty solid nod to the effectiveness of your opponent's speeches, even though you claim they're useless because they're, y'know, just speeches. Similarly, Hillary Clinton talked about change again as if it has always been her signature attribute and then--get this--shamelessly tried to peddle a version of Obama's "Yes We Can" by altering it to "Yes We Will!" I keep saying it: you can't make this stuff up.
I'd like to know if anyone thinks that what happened last night is good for the Democrats. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comment', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Fun While It Lasted
As we await the results of this 'junior Super Tuesday', a few random thoughts.
If John McCain sweeps the primaries, he'll have enough delegates to secure the nomination. Can't wait for Huckabee's concession speech. It oughta be a doozy.
If Hillary does well enough to carry on to the convention, the fun part of this campaign will officially be over. She will continue her current strategy of old school negative campaigning--because it works. And it works because people let it work. So no whining about negative politics, especially if you're a Hillary supporter. It's the only way your girl has a shot.
If you're an Obama supporter, the fun is really over with a strong Clinton showing today. Your dream of transformational politics is soon to be lost in a haze of response, counter-attack and damage control. Expect to be less naive, and a lot less excited. It'll be back to politics as usual for all of us. And I predict that voter turnout will slowly start to decline.
If you want some insight on Hillary's political acumen, Roger Simon has an interesting article on Hillary's 'victim and fighter' two step. http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/
If you want the final word on Obama's Nafta-gate, check this out. http://www.newsweek.com/id/118171/page/6
Finally, leave it to Eric Stern, head of the LGBT steering committee for the Obama campaign, to clearly define why Obama's refusal to take lobbyists' money is a big deal. Stern and 49 of his fellow workers left John Edwards' campaign when it was suspended to join Obama. One of the main reasons, Stern revealed on XM Radio's Potus '08, was because Obama, like Edwards, refused campaign contributions from corporate PACS. For example, Pfizer has a Political Action Committee that donates money to various candidates. The idea is that money gains them influence down the road. No one admits it, but that's the thinking. Stern said that Hillary's campaign has taken millions from these PACs, whereas Obama has taken none. Thus, Obama's claim that he can stand up to the special interests more resolutely because he hasn't 'taken a dime of their money' has some merit. Wow. I really thought Obama's claim was just talk. Nice to know that rhetoric is sometimes rooted in fact.
If you're in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, VOTE!
Today's question is: what would you do to counter Hillary's current campaign strategy? Talk about this or anything else by hitting 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
If John McCain sweeps the primaries, he'll have enough delegates to secure the nomination. Can't wait for Huckabee's concession speech. It oughta be a doozy.
If Hillary does well enough to carry on to the convention, the fun part of this campaign will officially be over. She will continue her current strategy of old school negative campaigning--because it works. And it works because people let it work. So no whining about negative politics, especially if you're a Hillary supporter. It's the only way your girl has a shot.
If you're an Obama supporter, the fun is really over with a strong Clinton showing today. Your dream of transformational politics is soon to be lost in a haze of response, counter-attack and damage control. Expect to be less naive, and a lot less excited. It'll be back to politics as usual for all of us. And I predict that voter turnout will slowly start to decline.
If you want some insight on Hillary's political acumen, Roger Simon has an interesting article on Hillary's 'victim and fighter' two step. http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/
If you want the final word on Obama's Nafta-gate, check this out. http://www.newsweek.com/id/118171/page/6
Finally, leave it to Eric Stern, head of the LGBT steering committee for the Obama campaign, to clearly define why Obama's refusal to take lobbyists' money is a big deal. Stern and 49 of his fellow workers left John Edwards' campaign when it was suspended to join Obama. One of the main reasons, Stern revealed on XM Radio's Potus '08, was because Obama, like Edwards, refused campaign contributions from corporate PACS. For example, Pfizer has a Political Action Committee that donates money to various candidates. The idea is that money gains them influence down the road. No one admits it, but that's the thinking. Stern said that Hillary's campaign has taken millions from these PACs, whereas Obama has taken none. Thus, Obama's claim that he can stand up to the special interests more resolutely because he hasn't 'taken a dime of their money' has some merit. Wow. I really thought Obama's claim was just talk. Nice to know that rhetoric is sometimes rooted in fact.
If you're in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, VOTE!
Today's question is: what would you do to counter Hillary's current campaign strategy? Talk about this or anything else by hitting 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Monday, March 3, 2008
22 Hours And Counting...
It's the countdown to the showdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And we'll be glad when it's over, no matter what happens. Obama identified this period of the manic '08 race, as "silly season". I don't know if 'silly' is the right word. 'Negative' is closer to it. 'Business as usual' nails it.
And it starts with Hillary going negative to keep her hopes alive in Texas and Ohio. To her credit, she has dragged this whole campaign down to earth (where she's most comfortable), in a fair way. Obviously, it's a buzz-kill telling the Senior Committee that the Prom King has warts on his back, but that's the only strategy she has left: let's make this all less fun and deal with reality. We've seen a 'red phone' ad, questioning Obama on his Commander-in-Chief reliability; we've seen the press respond to the Clinton's whining about unfavorable treatment with some Obama dumpster diving; and from all reports, Bill Clinton has been terrific on the stump.
But what still amazes is the continuing drama of the Clinton campaign. My sense is that she has done a good job refocusing the race to her strengths. I have a feeling that she may do better than expected in Ohio and Texas. But then a front page story surfaces about infighting in her campaign. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintoncamp3mar03,0,5417931.story
Where does this come from? Are there forces out there so inimical to the Clintons that they work to sabotage her at every turn? This is not the message any campaign wants on the eve of a last- stand slate of primaries.
On the recent scrutiny that Obama has attracted, a friend of mine said accurately, "When it was a torrid love affair, we didn't care about negative stuff, but now that we're actually thinking of walking down the aisle with him, a lot of us want to take a closer look." I love that. It is true that Obama has shifted his game. With fewer huge, adoring crowds and more town hall meetings he's trying to close the substance gap. I'm not sure that's wise. New and exciting is his brand, old style politics is Hillary's brand. And he's taking the shots. Memo's are surfacing that he's given a heads up to Canadian officials about his caustic Nafta comments. One Canadian aide wrote that Obama made it clear to them that this was just temprorary "political positioning", rather than serious policy discussion. Oops. Of course Obama's people said that the aide erroneously drew that conclusion. Whatever. All I know is, if you're going to slam Nafta for political gain in Ohio, I think it makes sense to send a wink wink, nudge, nudge to your largest trading partner. Is it pure? No. Is it politics? Unfortunately, yes.
And I'm sorry, I need to digress on Nafta. As a union guy I don't like Nafta. It allowed manufacturing jobs to flee to Mexico. If you want to know why Americans don't build things like computers and dishwashers and other appliances, take a stroll through Cuidad Juarez. That's where those jobs went. And Nafta sent them there. BUT...for either Hillary or Obama to say that renegotiating tougher climate and labor standards for Mexican workers will bring those jobs back, or prevent others from leaving, is pure fantasy. The answer is to either give monster tax breaks to companies who provide jobs here in America or to just scrap the agreement entirely. Stick huge tarriffs on goods that are imported here, even if built by our companies in Mexico. Of course, that imposes reciprocal tarriffs on our exports, which have a detrimental effect on some segments...yada yada yada. But let's drop this jive posturing on Nafta, until we're ready to have a serious discussion about it.
Anyway, the only guy having any fun out there is John McCain. He's been chillin' and grillin' at his Arizona ranch near Sedona. He also gave a wide ranging interview to the Wall Street Journal on his economic stances. Check it out. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120451614688707083.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today
He really is a piece of work. If you're trying to pin him down on straight orthodoxy of any kind, good luck. And this is part of his huge appeal. And then there are these reports, first from Chicago Trib's Jill Zuckman:
"McCain stood over not one, but two gas grills, cooking up ribs and chicken for his guests. McCain says he loves to grill because it's social and people can sit out on the deck, sipping wine and chatting with him as he does the cooking. 'I have so much nervous energy, it keeps me moving,' said McCain, dressed in jeans, running shoes, a sweatshirt and baseball cap as he used tongs to flip the ribs."
Ken Herman of the Austin American-Statesman: "McCain eschewed as premature any talk about barbecuing in the Rose Garden but did allow himself to joke about barbecuing for world leaders who might find their way here. 'We've been doing this for years,' he said."
I'm sorry, I always reserve the right to consider voting for a guy who takes grilling as seriously as he does.
Talk about the campaign or anything else by clicking 'comments' and bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
And it starts with Hillary going negative to keep her hopes alive in Texas and Ohio. To her credit, she has dragged this whole campaign down to earth (where she's most comfortable), in a fair way. Obviously, it's a buzz-kill telling the Senior Committee that the Prom King has warts on his back, but that's the only strategy she has left: let's make this all less fun and deal with reality. We've seen a 'red phone' ad, questioning Obama on his Commander-in-Chief reliability; we've seen the press respond to the Clinton's whining about unfavorable treatment with some Obama dumpster diving; and from all reports, Bill Clinton has been terrific on the stump.
But what still amazes is the continuing drama of the Clinton campaign. My sense is that she has done a good job refocusing the race to her strengths. I have a feeling that she may do better than expected in Ohio and Texas. But then a front page story surfaces about infighting in her campaign. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintoncamp3mar03,0,5417931.story
Where does this come from? Are there forces out there so inimical to the Clintons that they work to sabotage her at every turn? This is not the message any campaign wants on the eve of a last- stand slate of primaries.
On the recent scrutiny that Obama has attracted, a friend of mine said accurately, "When it was a torrid love affair, we didn't care about negative stuff, but now that we're actually thinking of walking down the aisle with him, a lot of us want to take a closer look." I love that. It is true that Obama has shifted his game. With fewer huge, adoring crowds and more town hall meetings he's trying to close the substance gap. I'm not sure that's wise. New and exciting is his brand, old style politics is Hillary's brand. And he's taking the shots. Memo's are surfacing that he's given a heads up to Canadian officials about his caustic Nafta comments. One Canadian aide wrote that Obama made it clear to them that this was just temprorary "political positioning", rather than serious policy discussion. Oops. Of course Obama's people said that the aide erroneously drew that conclusion. Whatever. All I know is, if you're going to slam Nafta for political gain in Ohio, I think it makes sense to send a wink wink, nudge, nudge to your largest trading partner. Is it pure? No. Is it politics? Unfortunately, yes.
And I'm sorry, I need to digress on Nafta. As a union guy I don't like Nafta. It allowed manufacturing jobs to flee to Mexico. If you want to know why Americans don't build things like computers and dishwashers and other appliances, take a stroll through Cuidad Juarez. That's where those jobs went. And Nafta sent them there. BUT...for either Hillary or Obama to say that renegotiating tougher climate and labor standards for Mexican workers will bring those jobs back, or prevent others from leaving, is pure fantasy. The answer is to either give monster tax breaks to companies who provide jobs here in America or to just scrap the agreement entirely. Stick huge tarriffs on goods that are imported here, even if built by our companies in Mexico. Of course, that imposes reciprocal tarriffs on our exports, which have a detrimental effect on some segments...yada yada yada. But let's drop this jive posturing on Nafta, until we're ready to have a serious discussion about it.
Anyway, the only guy having any fun out there is John McCain. He's been chillin' and grillin' at his Arizona ranch near Sedona. He also gave a wide ranging interview to the Wall Street Journal on his economic stances. Check it out. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120451614688707083.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today
He really is a piece of work. If you're trying to pin him down on straight orthodoxy of any kind, good luck. And this is part of his huge appeal. And then there are these reports, first from Chicago Trib's Jill Zuckman:
"McCain stood over not one, but two gas grills, cooking up ribs and chicken for his guests. McCain says he loves to grill because it's social and people can sit out on the deck, sipping wine and chatting with him as he does the cooking. 'I have so much nervous energy, it keeps me moving,' said McCain, dressed in jeans, running shoes, a sweatshirt and baseball cap as he used tongs to flip the ribs."
Ken Herman of the Austin American-Statesman: "McCain eschewed as premature any talk about barbecuing in the Rose Garden but did allow himself to joke about barbecuing for world leaders who might find their way here. 'We've been doing this for years,' he said."
I'm sorry, I always reserve the right to consider voting for a guy who takes grilling as seriously as he does.
Talk about the campaign or anything else by clicking 'comments' and bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
