Power to the People

The Republican Problem

2008-11-11T11:59:00.002-05:00

Ok, I'm a Democrat. No getting around it. Always have been. Most of the time the token Democrat among my friends in Fairfield County, Connecticut.

I have gamely defended Democrats and Democratic positions. For the first few years of this new century, it was tough. Rational argument was not something Republicans were interested in. I can't tell you how many times I responded to the post 9/11 question: "Aren't you glad Al Gore isn't President now?" with , "No, I'd prefer the guy who's sat in the war room for 8 years and has extensive relationships with foreign leaders, to a 1 1/2 term governor from Texas who's never been to Europe in his adult life." That, of course, was met with a pitying shake of the head.

But now the tables have turned. Now, Republicans are shaking their heads, but for a different reason: they're lost.

So, my Republican friends, as the soul searching begins, and the GOP attempts to rehabilitate the Republican 'brand', here are some thoughts to help you get it done.

For my entire life, Republicanism has always meant two things: wedge politics and moral unitarianism. Of course, these two go hand in hand--'if you don't look, think and behave like us, you're not really 'one of us'. In the 50's it was McCarthyism; in the 60's and 70's it was Nixon's enemies of state lists and 'southern strategy' of coded racial politics; in the 80's, more racial politics (Reagan in Mississippi, 'I believe in states rights', Bush with Willie Horton); in the 90's, the rise of the 'values voters'; finally, in 2000, the 'values' President.

In all of these eras, key Republican players sought to divide Americans and impose a uniformity of thought and moral conduct. And the more vitriolic still continue to do that today--Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh.

The problem with this approach is that it betrays the idealistic underpinnings of the American experiment. This country was founded on permission to disagree--about politics, about religion, about governance, about personal conduct. The litmus test was simply 'Don't hurt others, contribute to the common good, pay your taxes, obey laws-- and you'll be left alone.

So if you Republicans want to make a comeback, start by embracing that ideal. Wherever you think America sits now politically, center right or center left, it sits squarely on that ideal. We're all tired of being divided and derided for being different.

Second, and almost axiomatically, quit fighting the universal truth that we are all interconnected. Domestically, that means recognizing that a person's success is never simply the product of their own industry, but comes with an assist from a society that provides pathways and resources to success. It also recognizes that what happens to people of lesser circumstance affects people of greater circumstance. This is not socialism, it is common sense. Internationally, it means that different countries who deal with us have to reconcile their own needs as well as ours. It also means looking for areas of common interest not just unilateral interest. This doesn't mean that we have to embrace the WTO, it just means that we have to actually discuss things with other nations in a meaningful way before we act.

Third, stop the hypocricy. Don't rail on about the 'east coast elite' when your standard bearer went to Andover, Yale and Harvard. Stop opposing affirmative action when you know he wouldn't have been admitted to Andover, Yale and Harvard if it hadn't been for his family legacy. Quit the outrage over gay marriage threatening the 'sanctity of marriage' when your party has more gay legislators and more adulters than the other side. Simmer down about profligate spending, at least until you've had that discussion with Ted Stevens. Ms. Palin, quit talking about the evils of socialism when your state government distributes more federal money and big business money to its citizens than any other. And if you believe that the Ten Commandments should be posted on the wall of a government building, then make sure you're willing to have passages from the Koran up there as well. If you want to ban legal abortion, encourage contraception. If you didn't like Saddam Hussein's genocidal tendencies, speak up about the Janjaweeds in Darfur. No one likes convenient moral outrage.

Finally, understand that government needs smart, educated, knowledgable people who know what they're doing. The blatant incompetence of the past 8 years has been the number one contributor to your calamitous political meltdown. Appointments based on loyalty or payback is, literally, a killer. Ignoring dissenting expert advice is a recipe for disaster. Refusing to compromise won't change the tone in Washington. Competent politicians don't do these things. So if you love Sarah Palin, tell her to pick up a briefing book before 2012. We've seen her type before and we won't stand for it again unless she comes armed with some real knowledge of history, foreign affairs, government and aw, heck, maybe even a passing understanding of the Constitution.

Once you've addressed these four issues, the country will be happy to listen to solid, fact based arguments that form the core of the conservative approach: lower taxes, reduced Federal beaurocracy and a strong military. This country will always resist moralistic arguments about personal behavior, but frame an issue the right way. Say you don't want to ban legal abortion, say you want to create a world where women don't have to face that awful decision. Give us empirical evidence that school vouchers actually incentivise us to create better public schools.

The country will listen. It is a country in the center. But it's tired of the divisive, moralistic, hypocritical, incompetent brand you've served up the past 8 years.

You must be tired of it, too.

How can the GOP rehabilitate itself? Comment on this or anything else by hitting the 'comments' button, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

What We Know

2008-11-05T13:50:00.003-05:00

Now that 52% of American voters elected Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States, here are a few things we know:

The American people have the sense to come out of the rain. After 8 years of a slim Republican plurality taking the country to dangerous places financially, militarily, constitutionally and ethically, Americans said "Enough. Let's give someone else a shot."

Barack Obama knows what he's doing. Resisting the many calls to name Hillary Clinton as his running mate, to 'get tougher' (more negative) and to change his campaign strategy, he did it his way and won. In the most resounding Democratic victory since Lyndon Johnson.

Obama Campaign Director David Plouffe knows what he's doing. The architect of the single greatest campaign organization in U. S. political history.

Howard Dean knows what he's doing. He pioneered Internet fundraising and voter communication, demanded a 50 state strategy and made the Democratic Party relevant again.

The Republicans have a lot of work to do. They are not the party of mainstream America.

Lee Atwater is really dead. Though he died a while back, the racist, fearmongering politics he perfected (and repudiated on his deathbed), finally died as well. Personal, negative attacks just didn't work in this election. If you don't believe me, ask Hillary and Mac.

The politics of the Vietnam War and the politics of racial victimization are dead. Rumsfeld, Cheney and McCain can now fight the Vietnam War in their minds and not in our political agenda. Likewise, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright can vent about race victimization amongst themselves. It's time to move on.

Words matter again. The use of words as powerful tools make a welcome comeback after 8 years. Most ironic line in Obama's victory speech? Calling us to move past the 'immaturity' of partisan politics. The young President elect, not the 72 year old candidate or the 61 year old sitting president, telling us to grow up. Love it.

Intelligence matters again. While idiocy sought to gain a foothold in the form of Joe the Plumber, Americans decided to give the tough job of presiding over a country in crisis to a smart guy. Now we can all tell our kids that good grades matter--and mean it.

Politics matters again. People are engaged--and not just us political junkies. Lots of people.

What a great thing.

And one final thing: Missouri's not the infallible bellweather of presidential elections any more. It voted for McCain. Apparently, things are subject to change these days.

What else do we know from this election? Comment by hitting the 'comments' button below, by passing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Our Turn

2008-11-03T11:34:00.002-05:00

It's the last day of the 2008 Presidential election. Tomorrow it will be our turn to decide where our country goes in the next four years.

It has been an extraordinary race for so many reasons: the first serious bid by a female candidate; the most successful bid by an African-American candidate; the money--over 1.1 biiiillllion dolllars! raised (and spent) by both candidates; and an economic meltdown in the middle of it all.

On either side of the aisle there were amazing developments. Democrats, for example, implemented Howard Dean's 50 state strategy to great effect. Astonishingly, Republicans found a new female right wing standard bearer not named Ann Coulter.

After 116 blogs, in which I've tried to stay as non partisan as possible (though I certainly failed on several occasions), I'm going to give you my endorsement.

I'm going to vote for Barack Obama.

Here are some of the reasons. First of all, though my conservative friends are convinced that he will be a classic tax and spend Big Government Democrat, I'm not. While it's true that we need the federal government to be more active in this economic crisis, I believe that Obama will be careful to address the needs of the free market. I base that in part on the fact that he has economic advisers from both sides of the aisle, (Warren Buffet and Paul Volker are just two names that come to mind). His pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts is not radical socialist ideology. Most responsible economists and industry players like Robert Rubin all agree that going back to Clinton tax rates will not be onerous and are absolutely neccessary to get some financial footing. Obama also believes in 'pay as you go', a centrist budget philosophy if there ever was one.

On foreign policy, Barack Obama will not be as conciliatory to our enemies as conservatives think. Though he has stated that he believes in negotiation, he has actually out-hawked John McCain on the issue of military incursions into Pakistan. I found it ironic that McCain repeatedly hammered Obama on this policy even though Obama's stance has been identical to the Bush administration's current strategy.

Finally, I look to recent presidential campaign history as a barometer of effectiveness. The facts reveal this truism: how a candidate campaigns is how he governs. Ronald Reagan mixed a sunny optimism with a firm hand in his campaign. That was the MO in his administration. Bill Clinton prosecuted a tenacious campaign that fought back from continual personal drama. Same as his two terms. George Bush seemed like a great guy on the trail--until he started to lose to McCain in 2000 and then he let his cutthroat surrogates sling their unscrupulous dirt. No surprise then, that the guy who 'wanted to change the tone in Washington' would become the most polarizing President since Nixon.

Which brings us to McCain and Obama. What we've seen in 2008, as we saw in 2000, is a McCain who lost his way. In South Carolina in 2000, he pandered to voters on the question of the confederate flag flying atop the statehouse, stating that it was a 'states' rights issue'. He later regretted that stance. In 2008, he abandoned his happy warrior persona and let himself be 'handled' by former Bush operatives--with disastrous results. They transformed him from a center right conservative to a negative right wing nut. He also ran a sloppy, undisciplined, off- message campaign that had to reshuffle staff twice. His scatter shot reaction to the economic crisis was downright scary. I'm afraid that's what we're going to get in his administration.

Barack Obama? He has presided over the greatest presidential campaign organization ever. They've set fundraising records, on-the-ground volunteer records and voter registration records. He set out a long term 50 state strategy and stuck to it. When things got tough on the trail, he responded coolly and without rancor. His message has been disciplined, his focus singular and when he wasn't sure what to do, he asked a bunch of experts. This is what I believe we can expect from an Obama presidency.

So that's how I see it. But however you see it, please VOTE! Our republican form of government is not a spectator sport. Get out there, speak your mind and we'll see what happens.

Thanks for reading these many months.

If you'd like to comment hit the 'comments' button below, bypass the Google sing up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.

Wrappin' it up with Joe, O, Hill and Sarah

2008-11-01T09:46:00.003-04:00

Well, it's time to wrap this baby up. After a year of blogging and reading and talking we're three days away from electing a new POTUS.

I'm going to present a few random thoughts about the election's twists and turns and then on Monday I'll present my official endorsement.

Joe the Plumber

I really hate to sound like an East Coast elitist, but I've got to say it: Joe is everything that's wrong with America right now.

First of all, he's a fraud. He says he's a plumber, when he actually is not a licensed plumber in Ohio. He told Barack Obama that he was thinking of buying his plumbing business and wanted to know if his taxes would go up (because Obama's tax plan would restore the Clinton tax rates for those individuals and businesses making more than $250,000.) The truth is, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is about as close to buying his plumbing business as I am to buying that Gulfstream 5 I've been coveting. He has a tax lien on his house--which would be the first impediment to buying a business. He makes about $40,000, which would be another. And the banks aren't lending people money, which would also get in the way of his upward mobility.

But that hasn't stopped the McCain campaign--or the conservative punditry, from making Joe the new Joan--as in Arc; as in being sacrificed on the stake for the common man. As in declaring that Obama's tax plan would be a type of 'socialism'.

But what has been fascinating--and sad--is the way in which the country has jumped on this bandwagon. Joe now has a publicist! He has offers to be a part of the McCain admnistration. He wants to turn his celebrity into a country music career. He might get to do it.

The fact is, we, as a nation, have abandonded all regard for knowledge, for expertise, for the truth. Those are the obfuscative (look it up, people) tools of the elite. Fox News's Megan Kelly, whom I actually like, became incensed when it was pointed out that Joe wasn't who he said he was, that his name was really Samuel etc. "What does that matter?!!", she shrieked several times. And this is a journalist who is asking why the facts should get in the way of a good story.

Apparently, we want to be reassured that it's ok to be average. If that means canonizing someone who asks a disingenuous question and doesn't even listen to the answer, we'll do it if he helps us make a negative point about something. If that means marveling at a person who can get important people to regard him with respect even though he doesn't know what 's good for him, no problem-- (if Obama is elected Joe will recieve a tax cut). If he wants to talk about things of which he has no clue (Joe, could you tell us what 'socialism' really is?), we won't call him on it. In fact, we'll give him a national platfom.

Glorifying the mediocre because they remind us of us, is not how we move forward as a country.

Hillary, Obama and Sarah

Ok, it's gotta be personal. At first, I figured that Obama didn't choose Hillary as a running mate because he couldn't make the case for real change with her strapped to his ankles like a ball and chain. But with the twists and turns of the economy shifting the tenor of the campaign to steady stewardship and a break from Bush policies, she would have represented that change as much as Obama. And as I look at what Obama has asked of Joe Biden, it's clear that Hillary could have done a much better job as a running mate. Plus, the only thing that could snatch victory from Obama is low support from those blue-collar women in Pennsylvania. Yep, the same women who all voted for Hillary.

Check out this poll. Bottom line is that 1 out 7 voters are undecided. And 4 out 10 of those undecideds voted for...guess who? Yup. Hillary. So, everyone who kept saying that Obama and Hillary would be a dream team were right. With her on the ballot, this election would be over. Biggest landslide since LBJ. More than 50% of the vote. A true mandate. Without her, it's still anyone's game.

So now, I've concluded that Obama's Veep choice was personal. He doesn't like Hillary. And he's lucky she's being a mensch. She has been on the hustings in support of Obama more than 65 times since the convention. That's more than any vanquished primary opponent in support of the victor in US political history. So if you're an Obama supporter, thank Hillary Clinton if he wins. And you better hope he can survive the one major misstep in his campaign.

And it's a misstep for another reason if you're Democrat. With no Hillary on the ticket, guess who walked through that open feminist door in national politics? You betcha. Sarah Palin. While it's true that the VP pick on a losing ticket doesn't often have a great political career (Geraldine Ferraro, John Edwards and Dan Quayle come to mind), she could be different. And she could be the right wing thorn in Democrats' sides for the next two decades.

And you know who she'll be representin'. Good ol' Joe the Plumber and all those other folks that want to have their 15 minutes of fame--without knowing anything.

We'll see how it shakes out. But Obama may have some serious 'splainin' to do if it doesn't go his way. And if it doesn't go his way, somewhere the Clintons'll be saying--'told you so'.

Comment on any of this by hitting the'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Betcha By Golly Wow

2008-10-03T08:43:00.002-04:00

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. As we read the analyses of the Vice Presidential debate, the consensus is that Sarah Palin turned in a great performance because she didn't respond to questions with silence or jibberish. Well, complete jibberish. Because if you look at the transcript of what she said, you will see a great deal of jibberish, or Sarahspeak, as we like to call it. Let's go to the video tape.

"It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street (Or maybe the other way around?)

"And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq." (That's not English.)

"And Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there, also, still in these waning days of the Bush administration, trying to forge that peace, and that needs to be done, and that will be top of an agenda item, also, under a McCain-Palin administration." (Still waiting for a transitive verb.)

"Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." (Alright, forget the English. How about a basic grasp of the Constitution?)

I could go on and on. The point is, there has to be more to a political leader than the ability to seem just like us. It shouldn't be who can say 'betcha by golly wow' better. And that's what we're dealing with in Sarah Palin.

The question everyone, regardless of political ideology, (that means, you David Brooks and Pat Buchanan) should ask themselves after last night's debate is: if the President were out of the country, and we were hit by a terrorist attack, who would you want to step in and lead at that moment. Sarah Palin? Or Joe Biden?

Let's be honest. It's not even close. Joe Biden knows what he's talking about. You may not like him. He's not perfect. But he certainly acquitted himself in the only way he could last night. He was respectful of Palin. He never corrected her mistakes (McCiernan instead of McClellan, for example). He never showed her up. He never lost his cool. And he didn't make any gaffes. Plus, if everyone wants to be honest and not partisan, he had the moment of the night when said that as a one time single Dad, he knew the pain average Americans were going through.

As for Palin, we know she has strengths. As a hockey mom, I'd love to have her kid on my kid's team. (Although I know a lot of mothers who hate seeing 8 year old Piper toting around Palin's infant). As the mayor of a small town, I guess she was wonderful--although she did stick the residents with a load of debt from the building of a new hockey rink. As a governor of a culturally outlier state, with a population the size of Memphis, TN, which receives virtually all its revenue from two sources, (oil and the federal government), she seems to be doing a great job.

But we're talking about a potential POTUS. So why are we holding her to the standard of "Just don't embarass yourself"?

I'm sorry, we have all gone mad.

And speaking of that, Gwen Ifill was awful. Clearly the questions of her impartiality affected her performance. She never insisted that Palin actually answer a question posed and she never asked the obvious questions that are important in a VP discussion. Such as: "If Roe v Wade were struck down and the Senate rewrote the law to outlaw abortion in every case, no exceptions, and it was a tie vote, would you cast the deciding vote to make that bill the law of the land?"

The questions all lent themselves to pre-recorded answers, which obviously worked in Palin's favor. And one last question: when I was growing up, the GOP was the party of law and order, follow the rules, respect institutions. How is it that now a Republican is applauded for openly defying protocol as Palin did when she said, "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also. " Actually, re-reading this, it doesn't make sense, either. Forget it.

The fact is, if you thought she didn't embarass herself you were right. If you thought she was kind of appealing and spunky, you're right again. If you thought she didn't bury the McCain campaign once and for all, correct once more.

But if you think that makes her qualified to be Vice President, please...think again.

Do you feel good about Sarah Palin as a potential POTUS after last night's debate and why? Talk about this or anything else by hitting the 'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Interesting Times

2008-09-30T10:10:00.002-04:00

So, really, what happened? Why did this bailout bill fail when it's clear so much is on the line? Simple: Today's Washington has transformed politics from the art of the possible to 5th period in Middle School.

Let's examine each of the players.

Barack Obama
You can love him or hate him, but the fact is, he's right most of the time. When John McCain called on him to drop everything and help lawmakers craft a deal, Obama cautioned that Presidential politics might not help the process. Turns out, he was right. Is he to blame for the bill not passing? Of course not. John McCain sounds like an irrational 7th grader, blaming the quiet kid for his F. Could Obama have been more helpful? Absolutely. He should have galvanized more Democratic support as the leader of his party. Did he seek political cover? Yes. But this is the way he plays politics. The fact is, his measured reponse to this crisis will be more helpful to him than McCain's flailing.

JOHN MCCAIN
Can Mac be blamed for killing this bill? No. Did he help the proceedings in any way? Doubtful. His camp says he garnered 61 GOP votes for the bill that weren't originally there. We'd like to get independent verification of that. On the other hand, McCain may have killed himself.
Starting with his repeated pronouncements that the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong', he showed a fatal misunderstanding of the situation. Then, his obviously diversionary 'Hail Mary' tactic to 'suspend' his campaign, actually put more focus on his shortcomings as a responsible economic steward. And the hits just kept on coming. He prematurely took credit for assuring passage of the bill yesterday. And when the bill failed, he inexplicably blamed Obama. Even though the Republicans couldn't muster the neccessary 45 votes to put the bill over the top! At some point, you have to have some shame.

House Democrats
We'll never know exactly what went on behind closed doors, but it seemed that the Dems did what they could to assure passage of the bill. They compromised on several issues that were important to them, such as bankruptcy relief for average Americans, to get this done. They also fought for safeguards that were important for the American people, like a return on investment provision that would make sure future profits would flow back into taxpayers pockets. They guaranteed 140 votes, which gave some of their members cover to vote 'no' on the bill. They delivered on those 140. Is it fun to work with Barney Frank if you're a Republican? Probably not. But Chris Dodd is a straight shooter and they tried to address as many GOP concerns as possible.

House Republicans
Obviously, most of the blame falls here. They reneged on their pledge to deliver 75 votes, which would have provided political cover for most of their members who were under constituent pressure to vote no. They ignored the enormity of the crisis in the face of stubborn ideology that was not germane to this bill. They also hid behind the lame excuse that Nancy Pelosi's speech forced them to vote no, putting the country on the brink of economic collapse. Back to middle school.

Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi had an historic opportunity to singlehandedly reverse the 'tone in Washington'. She failed miserably. While her speech can't be blamed for failure of passage, it was unneccessary. Period. And it was the exact wrong time to say 'Naa, naa, naa, naa.' Save it for after school. An epic lapse of leadership.

Secretary Paulson
A good money man perhaps, but politically tone deaf. You can't present a 2 1/2 page piece of legislation, the equivalent a writing a contract on a diner napkin, that gives you unfettered power
over $700 billion. And then you absolutely can't fight the peoples' representatives on the issue of executive compensation. That started things off on the wrong foot and they never fully recovered.

The Bill
It was a flawed bill, no doubt. Hastily conceived and written. Other alternatives should have been given more consideration. But it's hard to create an emergency piece of legislation that has been thoroughly vetted and edited.

The American People
We live in a representative republic, not in a true democracy. We rely on elected officials who represent us to make governance decisions that are in our best interests. We supposedly elect these officials because they show an ability to work with others, to understand complex issues and to make calm, sound judgements. We also vote for them because their governing philosophy aligns with ours. This system was devised by the Founding Fathers because the average citizen cannot have the comprehensive grasp of issues and mechanisms that come with governing a complex country. This financial crisis is a perfect example. Most people cannot possibly know the intracies of credit default swaps, let alone the far reaching consequences of a credit crunch. Especially in this day and age, when the majority of Americans don't even read newspapers. So when constituents simplify this amazingly intricate situation into a Wall St. vs Main St. argument and threaten their congresspeople, it becomes the inmates running the asylum. I'm sorry, people, just because you trusted this Administration to take us to war in Iraq, and voted for the architect of that war twice, doesn't mean you can take out your frustration in a situation where action is really required and you don't have a clue about what's really going on.

That's harsh, I know. But at some point, a few adults are going to have to take responsabilibty for something.

Then, and only then will know what happened. And then maybe we can correct it.

It's On!

2008-09-04T13:06:00.000-04:00

After Republican GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin went after Barack Obama in her well-received acceptance speech last night, one Democrat told George Stephanopolous, "It's on!"

Indeed it is. At least we're not hearing any Republican blather about "changing the tone in Washington". If McCain and Palin get elected, watch out. It'll be a Beltway Brawl.

The only observation that I have of Palin's speech that hasn't been touched upon, is that her presentation made think how remarkably similar to Barack Obama she really is. Not ideologically, of course; but in their ascension as the new vanguard of their respective parties.

Both started in politics improbably and at roughly the same time (1996). Both achieved popularity early on. Both had fortuitous circumstances catapault them to the national stage. They are roughly the same age, they are both physically attractive and they both can give a hell of a speech. They have both had to counter the 'lack of experience' tag. And they are both going to be the faces of their parties after this election, no matter who wins. Obviously, Palin has to make sure other skeletons don't keep revealing themselves, but if they don't, she and Obama could be going at each other for the next two decades.

On the other hand, there are major stylistic differences, as well.

While Obama and running mate Joe Biden have gone out of their way to be kind to Palin, she bought into the standard Veep playbook: defend your guy and tear into the other guy. And she did, like a pitbull. Her delivery was pitch perfect and her humor was effective. But, she also woke up the Obama campaign. You can bet that this fight will get ugly in the next 2 months.

The good news for McCain is that Sarah Palin has given him more than he ever could have hoped to this point. Even with the distraction of her daughter's pregnancy.

But now comes the hard part. First of all, McCain has to speak tonight. That event is implicitly anti-climactic. And his lame speaking style will be more pronounced after the success of Palin's speech. Second, now that surrogates have hammered the other side, he's got to show the positive vision for change that his campaign stands for. Third, the scrutiny over his running mate's record will intensify. Especially since even a cursory look exposes large gaps between her pithy words and the facts. Troopergate is also an issue that will continue to be a distraction.

So far, this convention has been a success for the Republicans, the weakness of the usual parade of older white guys notwithstanding. It has rallied the faithful, inserted some much needed enthusiasm into their presidential campaign, and unveiled a potential star for the party heading into the future.

The only downside is that Sarah Palin's thin resume has reverted the election to a referendum on change. Is this really a fight that the party with eight years in the White House and seven years of Congressional control, can win?

We'll see. But, make no mistake: it's on.

Is this the winning ticket and why? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

McCain's Home Run

2008-08-30T11:06:00.002-04:00

John McCain hit a tape measure shot yesterday by naming Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Looking through the prism of short term benefits, the Palin choice scores big. For example, her presence on the ticket lets McCain:
1. Change the conversation from the Dems to the GOP.
2. Throw the ultra conservative base a bone.
3. Get the attention of Hillary supporters.
4. Reassert his maverick reputation.
5. Make the Dems nervous.

And you know the Dems are nervous when all the Obama surrogates come out flailing about the choice, saying stupid things like, "She has no experience!". Yeah, where have we heard this before? Or, "he's never even met her!" So what? "It's so overtly political!" Yeah... isn't this politics? I mean, they suddenly sounded like Republicans after Thursday night's convention triumph. (And it was a triumph: 40 million Americans tuning in. Impeccable speech, flawless stage craft. One conservative told me, "there really wasn't too much you could argue with in Obama's speech".)

Fortunately, Obama had the good sense to call off an ungracious official statement by his campaign. Instead, he simply called Palin to congratulate her on her historic ascension.

The good news for Democrats is that a home run doesn't mean you lose the game, at least not in the 7th inning, which is about where we are in this race. In fact, after Obama's home run on Thursday night, one could argue that McCain is still a run behind, even with this shrewd play.

And as time rolls on, we'll see if there are long term benefits to the Palin choice. One benefit will be her ability to campaign to the conservative base, freeing Mac to go for the indies and Dems. But the drawbacks may reveal themselves over time. For one thing, Hillary supporters are not going to support Palin when they discover how anti-abortion, anti gay, and pro guns she really is. And it will be the Dems job to expose the early myths about her positions.

For example, it's true that Palin vetoed a bill to ban health benefits for same sex partners of public officials. But she did it because it was unconstitutional under existing statutes. She then supported the effort to add an amendment to the state constitution banning same sex marriage, which passed. Thus, in the end, the health benefit ban went into effect anyway. She also says that she told the US Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' to funding for the now infamous 'bridge to nowhere'. Not true. In 2006, she actively urged squeezing as much pork out Congress as possible for Alaska, knowing that project was slated for consideration. She even went to Washington herself when she was mayor of Wasilla, to secure funds for her town.

And one unintended consequence of this choice might be to energize Hillary Clinton for Obama. (Talk about a nightmare week for Hillary. You're forced to give a speech supporting the guy who denied you history; then you had to publicly suggest he be nominated by acclamation; then you find out you may never get a chance to make history because the Republicans have done what your own party wouldn't do! Hoo boy.) But the good news for Dems is that instead of Hillary secretly hoping for a McCain win so that she can get another shot in four years, she now has to make sure he doesn't win so that Palin doesn't make any more history than she's already made.

So, now it gets really interesting for the next 66 days. All because Mac went yard.

Mission Accomplished

2008-08-29T08:52:00.004-04:00

The four day Democratic Convention ended last night at Invesco Field in Denver with a soaring display of political theater, capped off by another inspirational speech by Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama.

While the pundits from all sides of the political spectrum will debate the success of this convention, one thing is clear: this convention accomplished five important objectives for Democrats:
1. It forced the Clintons to heel--to help the Party heal.
2. It presented a clear mission statement for the campaign: Restore the American Dream and America's leadership in the world.
3. It redefined Barack Obama.
4. It re-energized party faithful and signed up new volunteers.
5. It took on Republican attacks and embarked on the push back strategy.

Considering the threat of chaos and disunity prior to Monday, Dems have to feel good about the arc of their four days. Much of the credit has to go to the Obama campaign. They navigated the treacherous Clinton negotiations and created compromises that mollified most and guaranteed strong political theater. They are also masters of theatrical production. We've said it here often: if a campaign reflects the governing style of its candidate, Barack Obama is at the very least a competent leader.

On the other hand, heavy props also go to the marquee speakers who, with one exception, all smacked home runs. Regardless of whether you agree with the substance of their speeches, they succeeded in their goals. Let's run 'em down one by one.

Michelle Obama
Faced with perhaps the most dificult assignment of any speaker, she exceeded expectations. She cast the theme of the convention, humanized herself, and redefined her husband and herself as regular, patriotic Americans. In remarks that were mostly personal, frequently revealing and always captivating, she succinctly laid out the Democratic vision: to bring the world 'as it is', closer to the world 'as it should be'. No one but the most cynical observer could have found fault with her presentation.

Ted Kennedy
As if brain cancer wasn't enough, Ted Kennedy defiantly left a Denver hospital bed suffering from kidney stones to deliver this emotional speech. He presented the fire expected of the party's unapologetic left wing standard bearer. He also looked better than a man in his condition had any right to.

Mark Warner
Warner's Tuesday night key note address was the only dud in the primetime line-up of Democratic speakers. He, of course, was in the unenviable position of living up to Obama's key note of 2004 and then, preceding Hillary in the evening's festivities. As for his poltical career, his speech was not the game changer Obama's was in 2004. Yet even Warner's remarks served a valuable function: to show the pragmatic side of the Party. He is naturally plain spoken and unable to furnish heavy rhetorical flourishes. But he delivered the important message that Dems will be hammering in this election cycle: we are the Party of jobs and opportunity.

Hillary Clinton
Take it from me, an ambilvalent Hillary observer. Tuesday night's marquee address was one of the all time great political speeches in convention history. A high voltage advocacy of the Democrats' vision for America, coupled with just the right amount of support for Obama made this a home run. Her tone was pitch perfect, her delivery was flawless and she found eloquence in authentic plain spokeness. It has always struck me as ironic that Clinton seems to be most attractive when she has been humbled. Perhaps a dollop of humility is the softening agent that Hillary bashers lament they never see when she is getting her way. No one could watch this speech and not be impressed by her range of policy knowledge, her emotional propriety, and her flat out leadership qualities.

Bill Clinton
Not to be outdone by his wife, the former President's Wednesday night speech delivered even more Clintonian fireworks. With Obama's folks biting their nails because his speech wasn't vetted, Clinton not only delivered a surgical breakdown of Democratic policy, but he emphatically excecuted his primary task: to declare Barack Obama ready to be President. Recalling his critics in 1992, who said he was too young and inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief, Clinton delivered a forceful message on Obama's behalf. He had one of the best lines of the entire convention: "America has always been best when it leads by the power of its example, not by the example of its power." Go, Bubba.

Joe Biden
Following Bill Clinton is never an enviable speaking task. But Joe Biden, historically, has never been afraid to talk, before, after or during anyone else. His confidence showed in a pitch perfect speech that bolstered his credentials to working class voters, demonstrated his personal touch on the stump and previewed the tenor of his attacks on McCain. I wrote a week ago that I was not convinced that Biden was a good fit as Obama's Veep. This speech went a long way to assuaging those doubts. As impressive was the strong stage craft of Obama's 'surprise' appearance and the Biden clan swarming the stage in Kennedyesque fashion.

Al Gore
For a clear, eloquent and unassailable presentation of the choice Americans face in this election, Al Gore's warm-up speech for Obama Thursday night rivaled Bill Clinton's . For sheer articulateness, this was a remarkable address. It was an example of what well chosen words and the appropriate recollection of history can do to sell a point of view. Just another reason for Democrats to shake their heads and a say, "Where was this guy in 2000?"

Barack Obama
It's easy to take for granted Obama's communication skills, but watching his acceptance speech is to watch a master communicator on top of his game. Consider how many of his speeches we have seen. Now consider that he has to deliver his most important one, preserving the best of what we have come to expect, and adding enough fresh material to keep us interested. Very tough. I thought he pulled it off. He introduced some catchy phrases including "Eight is enough" in reference to another four years of Republicans in the White House. And purely in terms of the tasks at hand-- redefining himself personally, recommitting to his message of change, signaling a willingness to go mano a mano with McCain, laying out specifics of his policy goals, and leaving a little left for good old fashioned inspiration, he succeeded wildly. When you see every crowd shot include people with tears streaming down their cheeks, it's a powerful reminder of the power of well stated ideas.

In 2004, at a Democratic function, I told Howard Dean that Democrats had to tell better stories. I said that there was nothing wrong with the substance of the Democratic message, but that Republicans consistently couched their issues and demonized their opponents with more effective storytelling that resonated with ordinary folks. Phrases like the 'death tax' and 'flip-flopping' consistently created enduring images with which Republicans bludgeoned Dems to successfully make their case. That was the night that I first heard Dean lay out his 50 state strategy and pledge that Democrats would start making their case as the party of 'real family values'. For, example, he said, Democrats couldn't keep conceding the faith card to Republicans--they had to talk openly about their faith and God.

This convention completed that evolution. The story telling prowess of Democrats, through their production techniques and choices, to the speechifying of their principles, has improved dramatically since 2004. And it's worth noting that no Democratic convention has heard more talk of faith and God than this one.

If a convention's primary purpose is to set the course for the remainder of the election and fire up the party faithful to engage in the work to elect their candidates, this convention succeeded.

And whether you're a Republican or Democrat, watching 84,000 people waving American flags and actually enjoying the political process is hopeful indeed.

Mission Accomplished.

Hey, Joe

2008-08-23T17:03:00.002-04:00

The jury will be out until the first gaffe, (maybe it already happened when he referred to Obama as Barack America?), or until the first week in November, but the McCain campaign has to be smiling at Obama's pick for Veep, Senator Joe Biden. Here's a transcript of the announcement made at a joint appearence in Springfield, Illinois.

Biden is one of two predictable choices that Obama could have made. The other was Evan Bayh of Indiana. Longshots like Kathleen Sebilius, Tim Kaine, Chuck Hagel and especially Hillary Clinton, would have created more uncertainty for McCain. But with Biden, the McCain campaign already has an ad quoting Biden's diss of Obama's experience ready for rollout.

So what was Obama thinking in choosing the 65 year old Delaware Senator? Biden doesn't bring a swing state into Obama's column, he can't run for President in eight years, and he has character baggage in the form of plagiarism charges that are frequently raised by Republicans.
Conventional wisdom is that Obama wanted a foreign relations and national security expert and a glib attack dog to signal the beginning of a new, tougher approach to this campaign.

My only original thought is that Obama also wanted someone who knew McCain well; someone who could point out inside vulnerabilities of which the public and media may be unaware.

Otherwise, I have personally evolved from an anti-Hillary-for-Veep stance to a 'she's-the-way-you-win, stupid' stance. Terry McAuliffe said, “If [Obama] picks Hillary he gets her 18 million supporters and we would win in a cakewalk and control the White House for 16 years.” This seems to look more and more like an accurate assessment. This blog routinely ignores polls, but one poll remains amazingly consistent: about 20% percent of Hillary supporters say they will not support Obama if Hillary is not the nominee or the Veep choice. They said this in the primary and they are saying it now. I have personally talked to several women who are violently dissappointed that Hillary is not the Dems' nominee, to the extent that they will sit this one out to insure that Hillary gets a second crack at it in four years.

I also think that Republicans are scared to death of Clinton. They see a politician who is willing to slog it out in the dirt like they are, and it worries them. But now, they can feel safe in their ability to dish out the negativity in a more one sided way.

Obama, like McCain, has been able to make campaign decisions at crucial times that were great for his campaign. Maybe this is one of them. We'll see.

The jury is out.

Heeeere's Johnny!

2008-08-01T06:12:00.000-04:00

It's the only mention I'll make of the new McCain spot that is getting so much play now. You know, the one with Britany Spears and Paris Hilton...and Obama. The one that lampoons Obama's celebrity. Even though I don't think it's as harsh a spot as some are claiming, it is decidedly un-McCain. It's more like McCain as host of a bad talk show. And clearly, the fingerprints of new campaign manager Steve Schmidt are all over this. He is a Karl Rove protoge--(you know, the Karl Rove that has systematically destroyed the Republican brand)--and Schmidt's mission is to get his guy elected. So you do whatever you have to do. Go negative, question character, make inane comparisons. I get it.

But my question is, when will the American people get that a disconnect between what a candidate says he stands for, and the way his campaign actually behaves, translates into the kind of leadership he will provide in office.

When George Bush said in 2000 that he was a compassionate conservative, but his campaign savaged John McCain with a pack of lies prior to the South Carolina primaries, should we have been surprised that he would become a polarizing figure with serious credibility issues on everything from the War in Iraq to the firing of federal judges?

So in 2008 when John McCain says he wants to have a serious debate about the issues, and then decides that the only way he can win is to go relentlessly negative on Obama, do we really think a McCain Presidency would include the honest bi-partisan dialogue he says he wants to have to get things done? Please.

I think Obama's two main statements on the spot were right on: "I have noticed that John McCain doesn't seem to have a lot of positive things to say about himself"; and, more to the point, "Is that the best he can come up with?"

I think that's a good question for Americans to ask John McCain.

Does the spot reflect the true John McCain? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Der Commissar's In Town

2008-07-24T22:12:00.001-04:00

I heard someone on XM's POTUS '08 say that Barack in Berlin was even bigger than The Scorpions reunion tour. That's big. Germans love their most famous 80's hair band.

Yes, the 'Be Careful What You Ask for, John McCain' tour kept rolling on. With more spectacular 'optics' (the new '08 campaign hot word), another almost flawless performance by Obama, and a growing sense that America's newest face is a great ambassador for our country.

You can complain about the coverage or complain about the attention but understand this basic fact: the political professionalism on display this week says something about the candidate and his ability to lead. First of all, a production like this requires a lot of money, which was raised by the most prolific fund raising machine ever. It requires advance people for logistics; policy experts to interpret information; speechwriters to craft message; big picture and small picture strategists; and all those who execute those strategies. Let's be honest: you sense that the McCain campaign couldn't pull off this type of trip if they had all year.

Now, let's review: O-Force sinks a trey in front of cheering troops in Afghanistan; parties in Kuwait; meets more troops, some Generals and diplomats without a slip-up in Iraq; parties in Jordan; assumes appropriate gravitas in Israel and Palestine; then kills 'em in front of 200,000 Berliners by the Victory column. 'Don't turn around, uh oh, oh; Der Commissar's in town , uh, oh, oh, oh.'

In fact, the only mistake Obama has made is to create such a spectacular trip... that John McCain is now exactly where he feels most comfortable: as the underdog. McCain's answer to Obama' s speech? I'll pick my teeth on camera in front of a German restaurant. Yeah, those are some good optics.

But don't be fooled. We love to watch fabulous, but we're more comfortable with ordinary. That's why numerous polls show a tight race in spite of Obama's non stop coverage and pristine event production. On top of that, McCain knows how to fight inside. He's landing some unspectacular but consistent body shots. He's Joe Frazier to Obama's Ali. And even though his surrogates whine about media coverage, the man gets more gaffe relief than anyone since Ronald Reagan. That's right, I said Ronald Reagan (Mr. please-wake-up-you're-in-a-negotiation-in-Helsinki).

So, as the GOP tries gamely to parry Obama's tour de force with all manner of shots, petty and legitimate, I simply ask you to read the speech. Parse the words. Then ask yourself: do these sentiments uttered by a fellow citizen...make you proud of your country?

Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Everything Keeps Coming up Roses...

2008-07-21T06:12:00.000-04:00

There still could be a stumble on Barack Obama's world tour. I mean, he has yet to visit Israel, where he could violate some kosher edict; or Jordan, where he might attract the furtive glances of Queen Noor. He could joke into a hot mike that Berlin doesn't seem to have a 'soup Nazi', like New York. You just never know what can happen when the pressure's on.

But so far, everything 's been coming up up roses for Obama. Let's review: as Obama leaves on his 8 nation junket with Senators Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel, Iraq Prime Minister Maliki gives an interview with Der Spiegel in which he explicitly says he supports Obama's 16 month troop withdrawal plan. After what must have been some frantic calls from Amabassador Ryan Crocker and, who knows, maybe some McCain reps, Maliki issues a tepid denial of his statement, saying he was 'mistranslated'. Yeah, right.

Then, after ridiculing Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran, The White House sends William Burns to Europe to... negotiate with Iran. Which kind of looks like they support Obama's position. (McCain must be asking himself, "and I sold out to Bush for this?). Then the White House starts talking about 'time horizons' (ah, George Orwell, you're still relevant) for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Which, again, is something that Obama has been talking about for, oh, 16 months or so.

And then, Obama shows up in Afghanistan, which he has insisted has been the neglected piece of the war on terror, after militants have killed 9 Americans and the Taliban is gaining ground. He says all the right things in a meeting with President Karzai, including describing the situation on the ground as 'urgent' and 'precarious'. He then moves on to Kuwait, for his second visit, which usually doesn't happen if the first visit was a bust. Now he's in Iraq, and so far, so good.

If you're an Obama fan, that is. Unfortunately for McCain, he's left grasping for any spin to slow down the coverage and deal with the increasing prospect that Obama will not make a Sunni, Shia gaffe. And remember, Obama doesn't have Joe Lieberman to help him through those episodes. Mac must be wondering how he's doing it.

The press, too, is desperately trying to sound evenhanded about this trip. Editorials and articles abound about the risks this trip could pose for Obama. However, they know that they're giving him the coronation treatment and he's got to come up with a doozy to fall flat.

But there is time. And several more countries to visit. Anything can happen.

He could tell Nicolas Sarkozy to "let 'em eat cake". That would be bad. On the other hand, if Sarkozy's sexy wife, Carla Bruni, sings 'Happy Birthday' to Obama, a la Marilyn Monroe, forget it. The trip was a success.

Will this trip improve your image of Obama as commander-in-chief if he comes away unscathed? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments'below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

2008-07-15T09:27:00.002-04:00

Apologies for not checking in for a while. Life gets in the way of political reporting, unless you get paid to do it. And then it is your life.

So let’s get caught up. Last tiome we met here, I lamented a lull in the presidential race. Silly me. Suddenly, things picked up with a call for castration, an ‘oops’ fundraising moment, surprising fundraising results, surprising theories of mental economics, two cute little girls, too cute energy plans, a new plan to kill Iranians and Iranian plans to kill others, a stunning reversal on an important vote, a stunning reversal of an alliance, a potentially stunning reversal of policy, a shameless pander to the people of Pittsburgh, and one really tasteless magazine cover.

So what's it all mean? Well, forgive me for dating myself, but we can start with the conclusion that we are living in a Mad , Mad , Mad, Mad World. Then I draw four other conclusions.

Conclusion One

Barack Obama is the luckiest politician on the planet. This is not to say he’s not skilled and that his operation doesn’t know what it’s doing. It is saying that he is the constant recipient of positive developments that occur right when he’s having some difficulties. For example, his reversal on FISA was a big deal, anyway you slice it. If he simply believed, as he said, that the legislation provided necessary resources to fight terrorism, that’s well and good. But he disappointed everyone who believes in the fourth amendment. And he disappointed Americans who believe the rule of law should apply to the President and telecomm companies. But while his own supporters attacked him for his yes vote (which kept telecomm immunity intact), John McCain couldn’t make any flip flop charge stick because he abstained from voting. That’s right, the national security guy in the race didn’t even show up to vote on the Bush administration’s cornerstone terror legislation.

Then, Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki indicated publicly for the first time, that he will request a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. Which is what Obama has been advocating. Follow that with the Bush Administration indicating that a serious reduction of troops was imminent and Obama seemed to be the guy with all the right ideas. And on top of all that, as Obama moved to the political center, Jesse Jackson gave him his own Sister Souljah moment.

And all the while the McCain camp was misfiring on all cylinders. While Mac looked and sounded awful in an interview with Brian Williams, Phil Gramm killed Mac with the sound bite from hell about Americans whining and suffering from a ‘mental recession’. Then Mac buried himself with an off the cuff remark about how our cigarette exports to Iran are another way ‘to kill all the Iranians.’

Then back to Obama. Access Hollywood interviewed him with his wife and two children, who happen to be adorable, smart, and completely normal. And the New Yorker’s attempt to lampoon the whisper campaign against Obama’s patriotism and faith fell completely flat, prompting even McCain to support the junior Senator.

Jeez. Throw a rabbit’s foot and two horseshoes around this dude.

Conclusion 2

John McCain is the luckiest politician on the planet. After everything that went down last week, some pundits (Mark Halperin) actually sad that McCain won last week. If any other politician had changed a POW story to pander to a city, or associated with such an impolitic surrogate like Phil Gramm, or shot from the hip on another dumb ‘let’s kill all the Iranians’ comment, he’d be out of the race. Not only is McCain still in, he had a great fundraising month in June. This can only help his fundraising this month, which will buy him time to right his ship. And if he stays close in this race, he always has a shot.

Conclusion 3

Both candidates have some serious issues to overcome. Obama still has a Hillary problem. His fundraising may be dropping off because his supporters aren’t thrilled about helping her retire her debt. I also recently talked to a former Hillary supporter (just a regular voter) who is still pissed. She is talking about sitting this election out. There are a lot of those folks out there. Obama may have to consider her for Veep.

McCain has to get his act together. Stop with the gaffes. He has to shift attention away from his positions on Iran and on Iraq. They are not serving him well. I also don’t think his full throated support for NAFTA is going to help him in swing states. If he believes in it, fine. But come up with another idea to counterbalance it. For example, I would start by showing how lower taxes on businesses will really help the economy. And say it like that. Don’t say ‘corporate’ taxes, say ‘business’ taxes. And show how this is double taxation on small business owners. And maybe get someone else to make speeches.

Conclusion 4

Never fear that a presidential race will be dull. After all, it’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

What's the weirdest story of the past two weeks? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Let's Be Honest...

2008-07-08T06:10:00.000-04:00

Let's be honest...it's a little dull out there in Presidential campaign land without Mr. and Mrs. Thing. I mean, where's a little Tuzla honey or a good stiff finger jab when you need to spice up the news cycle? Never thought I'd say it, but I miss the Clintons.

And that's because Obama's playing it safe and McCain is...trying to find his teleprompter? Really. Is it so dull that the press needs to run with Obama's 'refine my position' and McCain's mispronunciation of 'Lexington' for three days to stir the pot? Man. We're in for a long, hot summer if that's the case.

So how about this piece of news: the Prime Minister of Iraq wants to set a timetable for troop withdrawal. I think that's interesting, especially since it also sheds a little light on this secret negotiation to permanently have a bunch of military bases in Iraq. But I wonder...are these the type of negotiations that ABC has with ESPN to exhibit NBA Basketball on TV? (Someone tell our non sports fan readers that ABC owns ESPN, so they get the joke. Thank you.) Seriously, though, this is a potentially big story because it reinforces Obama's long held position on getting our troops out of Iraq and accentuates the already exaggerated '100 years' thing McCain stepped into. It also exposes the White House's continual chutzpah to think it can make this kind of an agreement without the approval of Congress. Amazing.

On another front, Jim Webb has unequivocally removed himself from the Obama Veep sweepstakes. I think this is a blow to Obama because Webb was able to do four things: help him with Virginia (Virginia Senator); help him with National Security (ex-marine); help him with the post partisan argument (Webb was Under-Secretary of the Navy in Reagan's Administration and pushed through the new bi-partisan G.I. Bill ); and, for crying out loud, Webb wrote a book on the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia. Talk about an entree to a tough demo group. So, adios, Jim. Ya coulda been a contendah.

Speaking of contenders, MSNBC's Chuck Todd made a great point yesterday on 'Hardball'. He said if the economy had been the dominating issue 8 months ago, today you might have Hillary versus Romney for President. It was the War, stupid, last year and that's where Mac and Obama separated themselves from their respective packs. Not so now.

And speaking of 'Hardball', Philadelphia conservative radio host Michael Smerconish sat in for Chris Matthews last week and showed what a skilled media talent can do with that forum. 'Smerc' as David Gregory calls him, was focused, funny and ran a tight ship, both with his pundits and with the technical performance. Chris needs to step aside as he becomes more and more a bumbling 'Saturday Night Live' caricature of himself.

Speaking of bumbling, I wrote last week that FARC, the Colombian rebel group, had turned over its hostages (which included Ingrid Betancourt) to the Colombian government. While that might be one way to describe it, the better way would be to report what really happened: as part of a brilliant rescue mission by the Colombian Government, the rebels were duped into boarding the hostages onto what they thought was their own helicopter to be moved to another secret location. Totally, my bad. Though it did prove once again, that some governments can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

Nice going, Colombia. Now if you'd just stop beating union organizers, you'd get a free trade deal that could really help you.

Sorry. Just being honest.

What's your unoticed big story in this Presidential race? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on the 'comments' button, bypassing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Moving Days

2008-07-03T06:17:00.000-04:00

Both Presidential campaigns did some moving in the past few days--Obama to the center and McCain to Colombia.

McCain sought to burnish his foreign policy credentials with the visit and he even had a mini Reagan moment. Shortly after his departure from Cartegena yesterday the Colombian government announced that the Revolutionary group FARC had released four high profile hostages. Like the Iranian hostage crisis, it's always great when you can do none of the work but have people say 'Well, maybe he had something to do with it'. McCain moves on to Mexico.

Many strategists find this trip curious. With an American economy in shambles, visiting a South American country and praising free trade (we have a free trade pact with Colombia that is stalled in Congress), is a gambit that could cause trouble down the trail. Perhaps that's why his campaign implemented a major personnel shake-up. Hard-nosed politico Steve Schmidt, who ran Arold Schwarzenegger's gubnatorial campaign, is taking over operations. Apparently, this move came at the behest of Republican bigwigs who weren't liking the McCain organizational or fund raising game plan. Normally, this would mean huge trouble for a candidate, but not neccessarily for McCain. For one thing, Schmidt is a seriously effective operations guy. For another, Mac did the same thing last summer (to the day) and went on to win the nomination. Let's face it, politically, the dude is like Jason. He just won't die.

Obama has continued his 'Values' week with a couple of more events meant to re-brand himself as a God-loving, patriotic Amurickin. After a faith-based speech in which he declared that he would expand on Bush's faith based initiatives (allowing Federal dollars to go to religious organizations who do public service good works), he gave a speech yesterday on 'Service'. No matter what you think of Obama, please watch this video of the speech. It is unassailable. It's what we ask leaders to pitch to us.

Predictably, voters on the left are getting nervous about this rightward tack of Obama's. If you want to see him win, this is good. This election, like most of them recently, will be waged in the middle. If Obama can ease the doubts about himself as an ultra liberal to just a small percentage of centrist voters, he wins. And one of the ways to do that is to make moves that shows he's not afraid of defying his base once in a while. To wit, when Arianna Huffington says he making a big mistake by moving to the center, he is succeeding in that mainstreaming process.

Speaking of mainstreaming, just when you thought it was safe to be a regular Joe and keep hitting Obama with the elitist club, out come some damning numbers on Cindy McCain's spending habits. Like $750,000 in credit card charges...for one month! Wow. Must be nice.

And finally, what's with the Joe Lieberman "I'm with him" tour? I mean, everywhere McCain travels, there's Joe. What's he doing? Is he there to keep correcting McCain on the name of foreign sectarian groups? I live in Connecticut. The guy's my Senator and I feel ripped off. Do your day job, Ace.

Yesterday, at a press conference in Colombia, Cindy walks up on stage, Mac walks up on stage...and doh, duh, doh, doh, doh, here comes Joe. I mean, it's like he's Zelig, or Forrest Gump. And I really don't mean to be catty, but I have to say when I saw the three of them up on the stage, all I could think of was "Cindy McCain looks like a beard". For those of you too young to know what that means, go ask your parents.

And one piece of advice to Steve Schmidt. Ban any video where Lieberman is wearing a baseball cap. He looks like a combination of Chico Marx and Michael Dukakis in a tank.

Will either campaigns' moves be beneficial to them? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comment' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Words...And Action

2008-07-01T06:00:00.000-04:00

Yes, I went back and watched it. The supposedly defamatory statement by Gen. Wesley Clark Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation. The one where he simply said "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and being shot down is a qualification for President of the United States."

Ok, it's not a flattering statement. First of all, I think John McCain was the pilot of the plane, so he wasn't just 'riding'. And he was risking his life, as he had almost two dozen other times. But is it any worse than Charlie Black's statement that a terrorist attack would play to McCain's political advantage? Clearly not. Because like Black's statement, it's true. And for all those who think Clark was dissing McCain, watch the whole segment of the interview. He says that McCain is his hero. But he wants to debunk the notion that an officer in the military will automatically make a great Commander-in-Chief.

Of course, Obama had to retreat from the statement. He used these very good words in his speech in Independence, Missouri to do that. Plus, his campaign came out with a full denunciation of Clark's comments.

But what does it all really mean? Surrogates suck? Democrats, even ex generals, can't sound pro-armed service? We're playing a national game of 'Gotcha'? Or is it as Hamlet said, just 'Words, words, words..."?

Fortunately, today there was also action. President Bush, over his dead body, finally signed a 162 billion dollar war appropriations bill that contained Senator Jim Webb's new G.I. Bill. This was years in the making and had to be added to the supplemental package because those pro- armed services guys like Bush and McCain fought against it. In the end, sanity made a comeback. Even though Bush praised McCain for helping to pass it, (really, he fought against it), Webb was the guy who had made it his mission to give post 9-11 service men and women access to a four year college education--just like their greatest generation forbears.

So in the election cycle there are plenty of words that in the end don't really matter. But every once in a while there is action that really does matter. Four years from now, when we choose another President, there will be more words. On the other hand, four years from now, when the first G.I. Bill servicemen and women graduate from college, we'll see some real action.

Do you know someone who will take advantage of the new GI bill? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

What Price Unity?

2008-06-28T09:17:00.002-04:00

For Obama supporters, and Democrats who really want to take back the White House, it will be refreshing to see their nominee finally focus on John McCain. Any month now. Yesterday, in an an event every one is describing as a 'picture perfect' display of party unity in Unity , New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton made nice with Barack Obama and urged her supporters to get behind the Democratic nominee. She seemed genuine, her speech was well written, and her delivery was flawless. She delivered for Obama. After Obama had delivered for her the night before by making it clear that he would rally his supporters to her financial rescue . The word in political circles is that the price of unity is roughly $10 million big ones, which is what Clinton owes the vendors that proffered services to her campaign. Obama will help with that debt. In exchange for unity.

This arrangement is not unusual in presidential politics. The scope of this arrangement, however, is unprecedented. Starting with a concession speech that came four days after his victory and continuing with an extended negotiation to figure out how Hillary (and Bill) can come together behind Obama, this type of attention paid to a primary loser has never been seen before. And, sure, we understand that Hillary's campaign was historic. We understand that special attention must be paid to assuage the hurt feelings of legions of women. But it's hard not to feel as if the Clintons are holding Obama hostage.

This kind of internecine squabbling is not unusual for Democrats. In fact, one could argue that this is a primary reason why they have not captured the White House more often. Their battles in '68 lost one of the closest elections in history and had direct repercussions in '72. Same thing in '80, though in fairness, that was a change election and Carter was doing a miserable job.

This election, despite the early polls, will almost certainly be a nail biter. For Obama to spend valuable time, energy and funds on a vanquished opponent is a drain that may wind up hurting him. Yes, Hillary's supporters are crucial for victory, but not if they prevent him from actually running against John McCain.

In one of the debates, Obama referenced a barb thrown at him by Bill Clinton, to which Hillary replied that she not Bill was running for President. Obama fired back, "Well, sometimes I'm not sure who I'm running against."

That's getting cleared up now. For a price.

Does it make sense for Obama to treatr Hillary with kid gloves in exchange for her support? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Roe For Joe

2008-06-27T08:28:00.000-04:00

Where, oh, where to begin with the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling in favor of Dick Heller in the case of District of Columbia V Heller. It is the first time since 1939 that the Court has weighed in on the tricky issue of individual's gun rights.

If you're a gun owner, you hail this ruling as a victory for common sense. Especially since the case revolved (sorry) around a security guard who was not allowed to have his licensed gun in his home because of the District of Columbia's draconian ban on personal gun ownership. (Of course, the law was created in response to the unbelieveably high numbers of gun related deaths). If you're Wayne Pierre, head of the NRA, you can pretend to hail this ruling as a victory of Second Amendment rights, when you know it really means unfettered profits for the firearms industry that you represent. And if you're the rest of us, you'll look carefully at the majority's opinion and see how a truly activist court inartfully cloaks itself in phoney constructionist gobbdleygook. The fact is, this ruling is Joe Sixpack's Roe v Wade. It's questionable jurisprudence, that validates what is for many, a cultural norm.

So how did the majority reach their opinion? By reaching back into the English history books--and interpreting what they found to suit their purposes. Unfortunately, the conclusion they reach, that the right to bear arms for personal defense has been long held in English law, is not supported by any of the sources they reference. In each case, the right to bear arms in English history came from the wish to preserve the individual's right to defend himself, not against his fellow citizen, but against an oppressive regime.

But one thing this majority does know how to do is say "they're wrong and we're right". Unfortunately, it doesn't realize its proof contradicts itself. Check this out:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. "

Oh, really? Can you give me some examples? No? Oh, ok. They continue:

"But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."

Who says? Not the Constititution.

Or how about this:

"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state. . . ” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State . . . ” This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."

So in other words, all of these states, reference a defense of the state as the purpose to bear arms in each of their constitututions...which means that...the defense of the state is not what the right to bear arms is solely referencing. And we know this...because...we say so.

Now here's another thought. The good news is that this ruling at least puts the cards on the table as far as the NRA's premise that if every law abiding citizen had a gun, we'd have no violent crime. Of course, that pre-supposes that if every law abiding citizen carried a hand gun everywhere, there would never be an instance where that law abiding citizen might become a criminal based on the use of that weapon. Which is a reach. I mean, the Columbine kids were law abiding, until they weren't.

But the point is, if every one should have equal access to guns, as the NRA believes, why not give guns away? Stop making guns for profit. Offer them as a public service. Take the profit motive out of firearms and then see how much support there would be for the Second Amendment.

Finally, these two statements say it all. The first by Justice Scalia, who exposes the majority's flimsy interpretation of the Constitution by acccepting limitations on the right to bear arms:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

And of course, the dissenters could only say this:

"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

So, no matter what you believe is the right policy for gun ownership in this country, understand this: we have an activist Supreme Court, who will protect profits above all else.

For the political fallout, firearms issues are to Barack Obama what welfare was to Bill Clinton: he needs to break with his past policy to get elected. McCain has already called him out on it and Obama will have a few days of discomfort, but in the end it becomes a non-issue. And in this way, the Supreme Court ruling gives him cover. It's done. The debate is over. The right for individuals to bear arms in self defense is established.

The last question, of course, is that of limitations. Chris Matthews asked Wayne LaPierre if it was ok to tote a machine gun in public. He responded by saying Matthews was trying to scare the public. When pressed, LaPierre admitted that any mainstream firearm, even an automatic, should be considered ok for personal use.

So maybe, we just eliminate police departments. Give everyone over 16 a gun and see if violent crime goes down. There are many web sites dedicted to this proposition. I don't know. I thought we tried that before in a place called the Wild West and decided that professionals should take care of law enforcement. But maybe backward is the new forward.

What I know for sure is that Smith and Wesson stock is a good buy today.

Give me some thoughts on this landmark ruling or anything else you'd like to talk about by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.

Hysterics

2008-06-24T06:00:00.000-04:00

Call me crazy but I just can't get too worked up over Charlie Black's comments in Fortune magazine. John McCain's senior adviser said of a terrorist attack on American soil: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him." And he didn't mean Osama Bin Laden. He meant John McCain, because of his so called edge in the Commander-In-Chief sweepstakes. Now everyone's in hysterics about a comment that is crass, but widely believed as true.

But is it? I remember when everyone said right after 9/11, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't elect Al Gore". All I could think of was, "Why? In this kind of a crisis, wouldn't you rather have a guy who'd spent eight years in the Situation Room and knew every international player on the planet over a 1 1/2 term governor from Texas who had never even traveled to Europe?"

Well, if the answer is "No", then who's to say a 1 1/2 term Senator from Illinois isn't just as capable of leading in a crisis than an ex-Navy squadron leader? The fact is, what matters is keeping your cool under fire. I'd take either of them.

The other fact is, it's impossible to control everything that campaign staffers say and do. Charlie Black was careless. So was Michelle Obama. It happens, it'll happen again.

But if you want hysterics, how about Mac talking about the "psychological lift" that tapping into our oil reserves will give Joe Sixpack at the pump, even though it'll still cost him 80 bucks to fill up his Silverado. And that was Mac's round-about-way of saying that he knew that none of his bright ideas-- gas tax holiday, off shore drilling or emptying our reserves--would actually lower gas prices. Reality bites.

But wait, there's more. How much would you pay for easing the energy crunch? $300 miiilllion dolllars? Good, because that's Mac's latest scheme. Give $300,000, 000 to anyone who creates a good enough battery to power a car. Oh, boy. Will someone get the man a copy of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE! THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS! RIGHT NOW!But the oil companies are making sure it never hits market. And if you don't know that, you shouldn't run for President. And if you do know that and you're just pretending you don't know it, congratulations. You're like every other Presidential candidate. Hysterical.

At least Obama made a reasonable pass at dealing with the problem by saying he'll get serious about the Gramm, I mean, Enron loophole, that allows oil and gas futures to be traded in a wholly unregulated environment. Speculation, many believe, is a primary cause of high gas prices. Joe Sixpack believes that 10 billion dollars of profit a quarter may also have something to do with it. I'm with Joe. Common sense trumps hysterics.

Read about the campaigns' dueling energy fixes here .

Finally, speaking of hysterics, a nod to the comedian who embodied the spirit of Power to the People: George Carlin. He died at 71, a classic iconoclast who had so many good political bits you couldn't list them all on the Washington Monument. But my two favorite bits were non-political: in a routine about getting high and going shopping, he said, "I love to go up to someone else's shopping cart and just start walking off with it. When they say, 'Hey! That's my food!' , I just smile and say, 'Not yet it isn't." Or in his routine about snappy comebacks to tired cliches, he cites the single parent who admonishes a teenage child by saying, 'I have tried to be both a mother and a father to you!' To which the teenager replies, 'Oh, yeah? Then why don't you go f*** yourself!"

That's hysterical.

So, who's funnier, George Carlin or candidates who think a President can lower gas prices? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and clicking on the anonymous or nickname button.

Big Week

2008-06-21T10:00:00.001-04:00

June 21. My favorite day of the year, because it's the longest day of the year. Actually, the 20th is the longest day, but the 21st is the first full day of summer.

In any event, it was quite a week for Presidential politics. With the ghost of Tim Russert inspiring our brightest minds to share eloquent memories of his life in an ongoing media celebration, the two candidates went at each other, scoring points and taking hits. Since I haven't written all week, I'll try to recap in entertaining fashion.

Gore
Barack Obama rolled out another rock concert style event in Detroit, this time starring Al Gore. Gore's rousing endorsement of Obama continued to make older Democrats shake their heads as they wondered why this Al Gore, this 'Inconvenient Truth' Al Gore, relaxed, witty and purposeful, couldn't have run for President in 2000. In any event, Obama scored big on the enthusiasm meter.

Oops
What we didn't see happen at that same event was that two Muslim American women were denied seats behind Obama because they were wearing traditional Muslim headscarves. One volunteer actually said to them they couldn't be seen in the camera shots because of the '...political climate'. On Thursday, Obama personally called them and apologized. Apology accepted. Issue may linger.

Habeas Schmabeas
Obama drew criticism from McCain on Obama's endorsement of the Supreme Court's ruling last week, allowing Gitmo detainees to challenge their detention in American courts. Obama went on to further say that he thought a captured Osama Bin Laden should be tried, not summarily executed. McCain, predictably, called this approach 'naive' and characterized Obama as soft on terrorism.

Reversals
Thanks to the dastardly, but brilliant, Karl Rove spin machine, Republicans have entered a phrase into the political lexicon that has done more to limit political discourse than any other phrase since Reagan's "There you go again" chide of Jimmy Carter. It's 'flip flop'. This derrogation summons the image of a helpless fish thrashing about on a boat deck, and doomed John Kerry's candidacy in 2004. The sub-text of flip flop, of course, is political expediency. Unfortunately, it has now come to mean any change in position, for whatever reason. This interpretation has discouraged many a politician from legitimately changing a stance on an issue based on new information or new understanding. For example, I have flip flopped on the issue of the boogeyman. I once thought he existed under my bed. I have now come to believe that he does not. I suppose I'm a flip flopper. A fellow named Abraham Lincoln also flip flopped on the issue of slavery. Lucky for us. Anyway, you'll never hear me use the term 'flip flop' unless referring to footwear. I will use 'reversal'.

This week both candidates reversed themselves on different issues. Both reversals could hurt them in the 'flip flop' (damn!) department, but help them in the long run. John McCain has decided that he now supports lifting the federal moratorium for off-shore oil drilling along US coastlines. This simply means that states can decide for themselves if they want to set up rigs. The experts disagree on how quickly this exploration could yield enough oil to ease our energy crunch. Most estimates put it at 5 years, minimum. The companion idea to this is that it would scare oil producing nations to lower costs or increase production. That's debatable, as well. What isn't debatable is that McCain's reversal is a political pander. It's not. We have an energy crisis and he wants all options on the table. Fair enough. The bad news for Mac is that it once more aligns him with George Bush on policy.

Barack Obama reversed himself when he announced he would opt out of the public financing pledge he signed last year. This is a true reversal and McCain has been correct to characterize it as 'breaking his word' to the American people. Unfortunately, when a one legged man complains that his two legged opponent didn't cut off a leg to make the butt kicking contest fairer, it sounds a little like sour grapes. Especially, when the one legged man borrowed money for a prothsesis by saying he would remain a one legged man.

Obama has taken some short term heat for the decision, which is fair. But detractors can't have it both ways. They can't say he's naive and untested and not tough enough, and then when he makes a savvy, pragmatic decision to advantage himself in a fight, they say he's just another politician.

Advantage?
Generally, most observers would agree that John McCain had a slightly better week. Fewer controveries, lots of policy statements. Plenty of openings to attack Obama. My own observation is that McCain should be troubled by one thing: None of Obama's controversy has stuck. He takes his hits and moves on. If he has to apologize, he does. The public likes that. I'm not into polls, especially this early, but major polls show that Obama got a huge bounce from his primary victory and now leads in swing states like Pennsylvania. As I say, this means little now; but it does energize the Obama campaign and could deflate McCain supporters enough to affect fundraising and general perception. We'll see.

Ok that's enough for now. Summer's officially started.

Time to put on my flip flops.

Whose reversal will hurt them (or help them) the most? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Russert

2008-06-15T08:20:00.000-04:00

I cried. And I didn't even know him. But at 3:30 on June 13--yes, Friday the 13th--I cried when I read that Timothy J. Russert had died suddenly of a heart attack while working at the NBC studios in Washington.

I can't provide a fitting obituary for this giant of TV journalism except to say this: his was the voice I trusted when I needed to get the straight dope on American politics.

We all know that Russert was the moderator of the hugely successful "Meet The Press", which he single-handedly revitalized 17 years ago. On that show, he was able to let newsmakers' own words make or break their cases. His dreaded quote cards that sat on the screen as he read them out loud, was a Washington media ritual that must have given politicians and newmakers nightmares. As all the tributes have stated, Tim Russert was the most prepared journalist anyone has ever seen.

But it was his ability to distill the facts into a simple storyline which set him apart. His famous "Florida, Florida, Florida" whiteboard in the 2000 election set the stage for those momentus events. His controversial (but correct) statement after this year's Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries, that Obama was going to win the nomination, sent a shudder through the Clinton campaign. They knew that if Tim said it, it was true.

In the extended tributes that flowed Friday night on MSNBC, much was made of Russert's everyman quality. His Buffalo, NY working class background and his obvious appreciation for his station in life made him such a universally appealing TV presence. He took his work, his friends and his family seriously. But never himself.

Some people you know are singular as you watch them. When Tiger Woods makes an impossible eagle at the U.S. Open, we know he's one of a kind. There are others who we realize are singular when we have to contemplate life without them. Russert, I think, falls in that category.

There are good TV journalists out there, but without Tim Russert, there's no one I'll really trust to give me the straight dope in this year's election. And what are we going to do at 10:30 on Sunday mornings?

Go back to church more often, I suppose. Or spend quality time with family. Because as Tim Russert's untimely death proved, life is precious and much too short.

Talk about Tim, if you'd like, by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.

Hoo, Boy

2008-06-12T07:00:00.000-04:00

If we thought we were going to have a general presidential election based on just the issues, this first full week of the campaign snapped us to our senses.

In the 'gotcha' sweepstakes the winner is...no one. The loser is...the American people as honest debate gets replaced by sound bite one upsmanship.

Yesterday, there were two separate developments that had the campaigns firing shots and emails all over the place. First, on 'The Today Show', Matt Lauer's asked whether the success of the surge in Iraq has made it easier to predict when American troops could come home.John McCain started his answer with, "No, but that's not too important... casualties are what's important..." Mac then went on with his usual South Korea and Germany occupation analogy.

Predictably, the Dems jumped all over the '...it's not too important' line. Sen. John Kerry said on a conference call that this latest statement proved that Mac was, “unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans,”. The McCain campaign responded with a full explanation of the statement. You can read some of the back and forth here .

While McCain's unfortunate statement gave the Dems an opening to hammer him on Iraq, their response has not elevated the debate or provided a 'different kind of politics' as Barack Obama has promised. And worse, it has squandered the opportunity to have a real debate about McCain's philosophy. The fact is, his premise about occupation versus casualties is flawed for this reason: Iraq, unlike South Korea or Germany or Japan, has an ongoing sectarian conflict that makes it impossible to eliminate casualties for our American troops. Unless there is an historic political settlement between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, American forces will always be in the crossfire of a potential civil war.

That's one argument. There are opposing viewpoints. But this is a legitimate disagreement that two reasonable candidates should debate for the elucidation of the American people. This latest round of 'gotcha' politics precludes that.

On the Obama front, the big news is that one of his three VP vetters, Jim Johnson has decided to resign. Johnson is the ultimate Washington insider, almost universally respected. However, he had recieved a $1.7 million sweetheart loan through his association with the CEO of subprime mortgage villain Countrywide. Though Obama first defended Johnson, it became clear that having a member of his team entrenched in the subprime industry would look hypocritical in the face of Obama's critisicism of that industry. When it also became clear that the story would not go away, Obama accepted Johnson's resignation.

For McCain's campaign this was a juicy nugget. They could hammer Obama on ethics and neutralize his attacks on their own staff issues surrounding lobbyists (one of whom worked for the military Junta of Myanmar). But again, this misses the more substantive debate. How does Washington really work? It is a free country, people can work for whomever they want, but where are the real ethical lines in the sand? Can candidates actually staff their campaigns with people who have never been lobbyists or who have never advantaged themselves within legal frameworks of the political/business nexus? Is it fair to ask them to do that?

These are real questions that go to the heart of why government may or may not be as responsive to the needs of the people. And to Obama and McCain's credit, they are trying to set the standard high for ethics within their campaigns.

I just wish they'd extend that committment to an ethical debate on the issues, as they've promised. This way, we'll know how well they'll run a government, not how fast they'll email reporters.

This election has the potential to be transcendant. But so far, it's looking an awful lot like business as usual.

Are the ethical bars that these candidates have set too high? And when is enough 'gotcha' enough? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

You Want History? Let's Check The List.

2008-06-09T07:00:00.000-04:00

One of the most historical political weeks in decades has come to a close--with resolution accompanied by nagging questions.

You want history? How about the first African-American to become a party's Presidential nominee? Or the first woman to vie for that nomination? Or...how about the first loser of a Presidential nomination getting an entire day of coverage...for her concession speech--four days after she lost?! Now that's history.

But that's not even the crazy part. The crazy part is that four days after Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech possibly doomed her vice presidential hopes, Saturday's concession speech at the National Museum Building in Washington absolutely catapaulted her back into contention.

That's because Hillary made sure that Obama could sit at home and check off each required statement from his "Things Hillary Must Say" list.

'I congratulate Barack Obama on his...victory'. Check.
'I endorse Barack Obama'. Check.
'I will work hard to make sure Barack Obama is the next president of the United States". Check.
'I want you to work as hard for him as you did for me.' Check.

So in 28 little minutes, she did what she's always done. She forced Democrats to put away their 'Ten Things I Hate About Hillary" list and pick up their 'Ten things I Like About Hillary' list.

It's confusing.

We're not going to spend time analyzing her loss. Power To The People is not interested in piling on and I don't think it's fun sport to gleefully dissect her campaign's failure. Especially when her bid for the nomination was every bit as historic as Obama's. However, read this fact-based look at the inner workings of Clinton's campaign. Yes, the reporters are examining the 'collapse' of the Clinton campaign, but they reveal fascinating internal struggles that afflict all campaigns. Great stuff.

There's been a lot of talk of sexism in the wake of Hillary's loss. Much of this is based on the adverse media coverage she's garnered. And she has attracted a steady stream of unflattering commentary. Interestingly, Hillary's toughest critics have been women. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and the New York Time's leading columnists, Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd have hit often and hard. Dowd, especially, seems to have a personal axe to grind, which to my eyes invalidates anything she has to say about Hillary.

But is this sexist? I don't know. As a man, I can't comment on sexism, except to say that it exists, it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated. Growing up in a household where my mother worked, ran a business and eventually out-earned my father, I don't see women as anything but equals.

I can comment on the fact that many people, including me, object to the sometimes shameless shape-shifting that Hillary has employed in this campaign. From her dismissing Obama's speechifying, to ripping off phrases from his speeches; from her denigration of his caucus victories, to her constantly redefining the metrics of 'victory', Hillary's behavior has often provided another example of the 'do whatever it takes to get elected' mentality that turns off voters. Whether it's committed by a man or a woman.

So, is she the best VP choice? We don't make predictions here. Personally, I'm a Jim Webb guy. He can help deliver Virginia (maybe), he's an ex-Republican, ex-marine, he wrote a book on the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia, he's opposed to Iraq, and he wants to change the way business is conducted in Washington. He seems like a perfect compliment to Obama. On the other hand, Hillary gives you a lot of women, a lot of Latinos and some Joe Sixpack. It makes a lot of sense from a down and dirty demographic standpoint.

The question is, if Hillary has to be Obama's number one surrogate, can she keep her shape? And we're not talking about her figure.

That would be sexist.

I'm looking for any thoughts on Hillary. Click on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.

Blowback

2008-06-05T06:28:00.000-04:00

Whether it was hubrus or stunning political miscalculation, Hillary Clinton's refusal to acknowledge Barack Obama's victory, in both word and deed, quickly diminished much of the goodwill and leverage she enjoyed after her historic primary campaign. As a result, the calls to officially end her campaign (coming mostly from her staunchest supporters) grew loud throughout Wednesday. And now, reports from various news sources indicate that Hillary has decided to listen. She will formally suspend her campaign on Friday and endorse Obama.

But the blowback from her truculence may cost her dearly.

While the Obama camp silently seethed at her graceless speech Tuesday night, more friendly folks were simply left scratching their heads. Starting with Terry McCauliffe introducing Hillary as "the next President of the United States" and continuing with her own proclamations of the campaign's successes, viewers across the country were wondering if she had received the news that Barack Obama had clinched the delegate total needed to secure the nomination. After she told the crowd at Baruch College in New York that she would make no decisions about her political future that night, she urged her supporters to write and email and call to tell her what to do.

And, boy, did they ever. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman, some of Hillary's aides secretly implored eight Senators, including Chuck Schumer, to convince her to get out of the race. A group of Congressional supporters, including New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, told her flatly that she needed to release them so that they could now get behind Obama. And with every new revelation of strong arming to get her to do the right thing, her stature and leverage diminished.

So what was she thinking? Detractors will point to their long held belief that the Clinton's are self deluded and self-centered; this episode is just another brick in the wall. More generous observers may say that it's tough to come down from such a grueling campaign. All I'll say is that I thought Hillary was a more savvy political animal than she has demonstrated.

It well may cost her. If she seriously wanted to be a VP, she's made it a tougher hill to climb. If she wanted to throw around the weight of the 18 million people (her number) who voted for her, the rest of the Democratic Party will now push back any attempts at hostage taking.

And the most damaging aspect of her behavior is that it has embarrassed her own supporters. She may have done the impossible and given them Clinton fatigue. Fortunately, they may have done the impossible and rescued her in time. If Hillary does all the right things on Friday, she will be forgiven.

I doubt, however, that Barack Obama will ever forget. What that means for Hillary's political future remains to be seen.

Blowback 2
I can't sign off without mentioning the biggest non-story of the day. Tony Rezko was found guilty on 16 felony counts, including bribery and fraud. For you conspiracy theorists out there, ever wonder about the timing? Convicted the day after Obama clinched? What impact would this story have had if he had been convicted 2 weeks ago? Or two days ago? Verrry interethting.

So what was Hillary thinking? Please, anyone, lay it out for me. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Let The Games Begin...Part 2

2008-06-04T07:22:00.004-04:00

On the historic night Barack Obama clinched enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee for President, all three Presidential candidates employed political gamesmanship to foreshadow their approach for the near future.

John McCain
Mac gave a speech in New Orleans that signaled his gameplan in the general. First, go to places like New Orleans that suggest to moderates and independents that you A) care about poor people and B) that you are not George Bush. His speech was a clear recognition that he is in a 'change' election. He offered himself as the agent of safe change, not change for change's sake. I ask for your input as to whether this can be an effective argument against Barack Obama. It seems to me that it is playing on the other guy's field, which can be dangerous. But Mac has done dangerous things politically and lived to tell about it. So maybe this is the way to go. Or maybe he has no choice.

Hillary Clinton
On a night when Barack Obama became the presumptive Presidential nominee and Hillary had a chance to become the presumptive VP nominee, she may have blown it. In an unyielding speech that sounded as if she hadn't heard the news that Obama had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination, she stated emphatically that she would make no decisions on the future of her campaign last night. Wow. While no one expected her to roll over and die, this was not even a concession speech. If you did not know the results last night, you would've thought she had won. Seriously. (Early this morning on CNN, a long time surrogate Bob Johnson, announced he had petitioned the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Obama to choose Hillary as his running mate. Talk about mixed messages) . What her speech revealed is that she is not going quietly into the night. And underneath the usual rhetoric, it didn't sound as if party unity was really on her mind--unless the party gave in to her demands in a big way. Give her points for Chutzpah.

Barack Obama
In spite of attempted upstaging by the other two, Barack Obama made sure this was still his night. In yet another display of skilled campaign showmanship, he held a huge rally at the XL Center in St. Paul, the site of the Republican convention. 17,000 inside, 15,000 outside. Really. 15,000 people were outside to hear the speech inside. For all the problems he may have with working class whites, poor whites, Latinos, and women, more people have come to see him speak than John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined. There hasn't been a politician who commanded these types of crowds since Kennedy in Berlin. So he must be doing something right. In any event, his speech clearly laid out the path before him. Conciliation with Hillary, direct confrontation with John McCain, and relenteless reminders that he is the true agent of change.

For everyone who wonders if Obama can overcome the obstacles so many have pointed out, it's important to remember that his campaign out politicked and out campaigned one of the most daunting political machines in US history. He basically ran against two candidates, one a former President, and won.

Let the games begin. This time for the whole enchilada.

Which way forward will be the most effective? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Escape From Hillaryland

2008-06-02T06:45:00.000-04:00

A day after Hillary's "great" victory in Puerto Rico, the Democratic Party is planning its escape from Hillaryland.

You know Hillaryland. The place where whatever Hillary wants to happen, can happen.

Right now, it's where more people have voted for her than any other candidate in the history of the universe. That's because in Hillaryland, invalidated primaries where her name alone remains on the ballot means...she won that contest! And all the votes go to her. And no one else. Because the others took their names off the ballot voluntarily. Even though they signed the pledge, along with Hillary, to not recognize that primary as legitimate. (Actually, that pledge happened outside of Hillaryland, in some place called the United States). Oh, and in Hillaryland, that popular vote total doesn't include any of the caucus states, because they don't count individual votes. Which is kind of lucky because Hillary got pretty well trounced in those states. But it's ok. In Hillaryland caucuses don't count. So she's recieved more votes than any person ever in any election ever...in the universe...ever.

By the way, in Hillaryland, the popular vote just became the new goalpost for victory. But it can be changed whenever she wants. The goalpost used to be pledged delegates, a long time ago. Everyone agreed it would be 2,025. But that didn't help Hillary, because she wasn't close to that. So she got it changed to 2,118. But now that new number hasn't helped her either. Wait... we just got a new directive: move the goalposts again...it's about stealing super delegates. Wow. Things come and go so fast in Hillaryland.

In Hillaryland, there's good talk of party unity. Party unity in Hillaryland means pointing out that the Republican nominee is more qualified to be the President than the other Democtratic nominee. It means crying sexism when people don't vote for you. It means threatening to take a resolved issue to the convention--to unresolve it. (Hey, that would be fun!)

Party unity also means Hillary will do everything in her power to support the eventual nominee. Which in Hillaryland, means her. The other people who are running in an election outside of Hillaryland, she... well, she supports them, too. And in Hillaryland, support means being able to say negative stuff like "He's got a real Latino problem"--without it being negative! Pretty cool, huh?

That's what's great about Hillaryland. If you can think of anything that will be good for Hillary, it will automatically happen. And nothing else matters.

Which is why the Democratic Party has had enough of Hillaryland. This became evident when the Democratic Rules and By-laws Committee actually ventured into Hillaryland. They seated the Florida and Michigan delegates, legitimizing those two primaries, just as Hillary wanted. They awarded the bulk of the delegates to Hillary. But that was as far across the border as they were going. They gave each delegate only a half vote (as punishment for violating the timing window of the early primaries) and they awarded Barack Obama Michigan delegates, even though his name was not on the ballot. Apparently, there were enough votes to actually pass the Obama solution, which would have meant splitting the Michigan delegates 50-50. But the Obama folks, in the interest of real party unity, went with the more generous proposal for Hillary. (Wow. That wouldn't have happened in Hillaryland). It was more than Hillary could have hoped for, yet she was angry that they didn't observe the rules of Hillaryland by giving her everything she wanted. 100% voting rights for 100% of the delegates. All of the Michigan delegates.

That's when the RBC knew it was time to leave Hillaryland.

And now, we'll see super delegates making their escape as well.

The reason Hillaryland is disturbing to many people is because it reveals a public servant who convinces herself of a narrative that is consistently contradicted by facts. And when that happens, the public servant becomes obssessed with a private agenda--often at the expense of the public's best interests.

That transformation never works out well in the end. Just ask the resident of... BushWorld.

So, yes, a 'great' victory for Hillary from the people of Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, turnout was low. Perhaps, many felt that if they couldn't vote in the general, (Puerto Rico is not a state) what was the point of voting in a primary.

Perhaps. Or maybe they were planning their escape from Hillaryland.

United?

2008-06-01T00:00:00.000-04:00

United. It was the word of the day as the Democratic Rules and By-laws Comittee forged a compromise on seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, and Barack Obama took my advice and resigned from Trinity United Church.

If you missed the RBC festivities today, no worries, I watched the whole thing. And what a show it was. Under the glare of television cameras and in front of a raucous crowd of mostly Clinton supporters, inside party politics took center stage. What could have been deadly dull parlimentary manuevering turned into compelling political theater, thanks to the passion of the presenters and the crowd.

Just to recap the problem: Florida and Michigan violated the timing window of the Democratic primary sequence, so their primaries didn't "count". Each state held a primary but none of the candidates campaigned in either state. And in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. But suddenly, with the primary so close, the Clintons pressed for these two states to be reinstated so she could get more of the popular vote and a few more delegates. This day was viewed as critical to Hillary's nomination chances.

Ok. So John Ausman presented the main petition for Florida. He was particularly articulate and good natured in advocating the restoration of at least 1/2 vote per delgate for the full Florida delegation. He pointed out that the committee's charter granted them the power to do this. He also wanted the Florida super delegates to get their original full vote per. After questions from the committee, he was followed by a feisty Sen. Bill Nelson, who clearly explained how the Florida Republican Party cornered the Florida Democratic Party into violating the primary date window.

It's worth laying it out briefly. In a bill to insure a paper trail for verifying electronic ballots, the Republican controlled state legislature included moving the primary to a date they knew was unacceptable for the Democrats. Faced with a choice of no paper trail (to avoid what happened in 2000) or a primary in violation of the party time window, state Democrats supported the bill. Republicans had succeeded in their mischief.

Nelson was followed by the passionate state senator Altheria Joyner, who advocated for the Clinton campaign and then by US Rep. Robert Wexler for the Obama campaign. Wexler laid out the first big move of the day. He said the Obama camp was willing to accept a solution whereby the Florida delegation would be seated, each with a 1/2 vote, and would accept the delegate apportionment of the original vote. This conceded up to 19 delegates to Clinton. Wexler ably made this sound like a huge concession. He was exposed a little by Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy when she asked if Obama would support a full reinstatement of the Florida delegation (1 full vote per delegate). When she chided him for his pat answer of "We support the Ausman petition", he followed with an impassioned (ok, he was shouting) defense of his own lifelong committment to voting rights. It was fun. Then Harold Ickes, a senior campaign advisor for Clinton who was on the committee (how is that allowed?) tried to get into Wexler's grill, asking acidly, "Are you familiar with the concept of 'fair reflection'?" Wexler shot back, "No, why don't you enlighten me". Ickes then stomped away. It was real fun.

The committee then heard from Michigan. Michigan was the tricky one, because Obama withdrew his name from the ballot. State Dem. chairman Mark Brewer presented the Michigan solution. It was a novel idea. He suggested a 69- 59 split of the delegates for Clinton and Obama. This was forged from a variety of exit polls which indicated that this was a "fair reflection"of the voters' will. Most importantly, it was acceptable to the Michigan State Democratic Party. Whether or not it's constitutional is another story.

Senator Carl Levin (who could be Danny DeVito's brother) then explained heatedly how Michigan wound up in violation of the Democratic rules. It's not worth going into, but let's say it was a protest against Iowa and New Hampshire's first states status in every Presidential election. David Bonior (ex-campaign manager for John Edwards) represented the Obama campaign. He was the least interesting of all the presenters, but he stated Obama's case: they wanted a 50-50 delegate split, with the full delegation seated, each with a half vote.

Finally, ex-Governor Jim Blanchard advocated for the Clinton campaign. He was great. Unflappable and enthusiastic, he even survived a sally from Donna Brazile, the grand dame of democratic insiders, (ex-Al Gore campaign manager), who called out the Clintons for trying to change the rules at the end of the game. Blanchard presented the Clinton solution: let the votes stand as they were counted, with Clinton getting her 55% and Obama getting nothing. Hmm.

With presentations over, the committee recessed for lunch. And as transparent as the proceedings appeared to be, the deal was still cut in a back room, away from the cameras and the crowds. But a bombshell was yet to come.

The final solutions? The Florida delegation would be fully seated, each with a 1/2 vote; Clinton would get an additional 15 or so delegates. The committee went for the 69-59 delegate split, with the entire delegation seated, also with 1/2 a vote. Now...on a day when Hillary Clinton got an additional 20 delegates and a legitimate claim to hundreds of thousands of popular votes, they were upset with the Michigan solution. Ickes, after saying "you bet your ass" several times, added, " "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity." Then he lowered the boom: "Mrs. Clinton has told me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee" at the convention. Wow.

We'll see if this is an idle threat or not. The truth is, that on a day when the Clinton camp got their wish to have these two primaries legitimized, Obama really won. The magic number is now 2,118 and if he and Hillary split the pledged delegates in these last three primaries, he'll only need about 25 super delegates to secure the nomination unless... there's a Credentials Committee hearing about the Michigan ruling.

After the votes were rendered, the protests began. Clinton supporters shouted over the committee members' closing remarks and stormed out of the room. They continued carrying on in the lobby of the Marriott. It could be a long, hot summer.

Nevertheless, the RBC did their job today. They tackled thorny issues and approved compomise solutions that re-enfranchised voters in important states. This should start the process of getting the party united for the fall.

Speaking of united, Barack Obama officially resigned from Trinity United Church. Here is an interview explaining his reasons. Bottom line is he had to do it for his campaign. America can't keep seeing pictures of his congregation whooping it up while pastors lampoon subjects most Americans don't find very funny. I don't care what the African American worship tradition is, this is supposed to be a Christian church. Where's the love and compassion and tolerance? All we see is ridicule and anger and hostility.

Obama did the right thing by putting United behind him.

Now let's see if Obama can get Democrats united behind him.

Do you agree with the RBC's decisions? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Silly Season ... Part 2

2008-05-31T08:28:00.000-04:00

With an active political weekend unfolding, I thought I'd recalibrate the political discussion away from silly season Part 2. So let's purge a little so we can concentrate on the results of the DNC's Rules and By Laws Committee today and take in the Puerto Rican primary tomorrow.

First, Father Flegmatic...er Pfleger. This is the exact kind of thing that can cost Barack Obama an election. I don't care if the good Father is white himself, what he said in the pulpit of Obama's Trinity Church last Sunday was inexcusable as anything but a losing routine in Amateur Night at The Apollo. And he knew it. As he walked away from the pulpit area, he referenced video streaming, knowing that this rant would be on Youtube in no time. That it took a whole week, was amazing. But the bottom line is that these Obama supporters need to SHUT UP.

Phleger has now given legitmate cause for all those Obama haters, starting with Hillary, to ask again, "why did Obama stay in that church if that's the accepted rhetoric from the pulpit?" And it's a valid question. We've now seen two examples of preaching from Trinity and it's basically the same tired white entitlement crap. And whether there's some justification to the premises is immaterial. Barack Obama is the symbol of 'It's time to move on, people'. But this jive from Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright keeps the black community stuck in that old school victimization. What's worse, is that it's now impossible to believe Obama when he says he never heard this kind of thing before in his church. He obviously has. So the next question is, 'Did he stand and wave his arms when he heard this type of preaching? Because if he did, he's not the guy we want healing any racial divide. '

Obama has to quit that church. Now.

Whether he likes it or not, John McCain is really starting to remind people of George Bush. This is the second time that he's made an obvious mistake on basic facts concerning the Iraq War, but won't admit to the mistake. Instead, he keeps trying to explain it away as other people's desire to 'nitpick'. Come on, Senator. If you're going to hammer Obama on the Iraq War, get your facts straight on troop levels. And don't confuse Sunni with Shia. And don't ever blame it on other people's hyper scrutiny of your verbiage. You named it the Straight Talk Express. If it ain't straight, your brand is in trouble. So my suggestion is, forget the Iraq visit clock, get your facts straight, quit worrying about your opponent so much and just make your case to the American people. It's a perfectly valid case. Don't keep screwing it up with gaffes and crooked spin. That was never your style. Until now.

And finally, Hillary. I've said an awful lot about her dubious claims to the nomination so I won't go on about it. I continue to be fascinated that she can say with a straight face that she's won the popular vote. And she has, until you check out her math: it throws out the caucus states (in fact, if individual votes could have been counted in those contests, it wouldn't be close--Obama would be way ahead); it keeps the Florida vote as it was voted in January; and, get this, it gives Obama no votes in Michigan. So, I guess the 13,000 people who jammed into an arena in Grand Rapids a few weeks ago, wouldn't have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot. Please. Spare us from the politics of desperation.

Ok. If we've gotten all this silliness out of our system, let's see what happens in the RBC.

Will the silliness continue in today's meeting. Or will there be a common sense solution? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Trifecta

2008-05-29T06:28:00.000-04:00

Three stories hit the news yesterday. Only two dominated them. The third? Maybe the most significant. Let's take a look, starting with that one.

Supreme Make-Up
In what amounts to the first rulings for 'the little guy' by the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court, a 7-2 and a 6-3 decision found for the plaintiffs in two cases that featured instances of retaliation against workers who raised discrimination issues in the workplace. Read about them in detail here. Because the reasoning in these decisions is such a departure for the methodology used by the Court in similar cases last year, these rulings strike me as the judicial equivalent of a make-up call. You know that concept: when a ref makes a truly horrid call, he tries to make up for it with a questionable call the other way that helps the recipient of the horrid call. In this case, that horrid call would be Ledbetter v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a pay discrimination case. If you're not familiar with it, read the story and be prepared to feel your gorge rise. The ruling disallowed any claim of pay discrimination unless it's filed within 180 days after pay has been set. This means forget about retroactive relief. And forget that it usually takes more than 180 days to uncover the discrimination. And forget that pay disparity usually is the result of unequal raises or bonuses over time. Of course, the Bush Administration aided the defendent, Goodyear, which no doubt swayed the 'strict constructionists' on the Court. It is a brutal precedent, especially for women, who are always recieving less pay than men for the same work.

On the other hand, one of these two retaliation cases, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, had both Alito and Roberts abandoning their reluctance to recognize 'stare decisis' (judicial precedent). In this case, they voted to uphold prior rulings on the intent of congressional law preventing workplace retaliation in the Civil Rights Act of 1866! So does this signal a kinder gentler court when it comes to the Average Joe? Don't count on it.

McClellan Spews
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've heard that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has released a new political kiss and tell called "What Happened". I haven't read it and won't read it because A) it's probably not great writing given how inarticulate Scott was when he was Press Secretary; and B) it brings to light things that have been sitting in the sun for years: The Administration used WMD to sell the war in Iraq (Whoa, had no idea); Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby really did expose Valerie Plame (What! shocking...); Karl Rove knew about it, too (But Karl said he didn't!); and they all forced poor Scott to lie to the American people (I mean, what's our country coming to?). The one funny excerpt I saw was Scott's incredulity over hearing President Bush admit that he couldn't remember whether or not he did cocaine. Scott found this very curious. Clearly, he didn't drink enough Jeggermeister when he was young and fancy free.

RBC! RBC! RBC!
You know the hottest ticket in Washington, don't you? No, it's not the Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana concert, it's...the Democratic National Committee's Rules and By-laws Committee aka The RBC meeting this Saturday. Cyrus took a full 12 minutes to sell out the Verizon Center. The RBC sold out a ballroom in the Marriott in 60 seconds! Alright, seating capacities for the two venues are a litttle different (18,000 for Verizon, 500 for the Marriott) but still. This is crazy. Be honest. Did you even know there was an RBC before this Democratic Primary?

The agenda, of course, is to find a compromise to seat the scofflaw delegations of Michigan and Florida. It sounds as if the deal will be to seat the full delegations from both states and give each delegate half a vote. Obama's folks indicate they are willing to cede some delegates to Clinton, but they will draw the line at Clinton's insistence that they be seated exactly as they voted.

When you listen to the Clinton camp argue this point, the lack of respect for reality makes one wonder what this woman would be like as President. Could she self delude herself into an untenable position that might be harmful to the nation--as many have accused George Bush of doing with Iraq? She seems to believe that no one is noticing that she has been methodically changing the definition of victory depending on what she can achieve. She seems to believe that no one is noticing that the 'principle' of counting all the votes from Michigan and Florida, only became a matter of principle when it was clear that she needed those votes to make her electability case to super delegates. And you can bet, that if she were in Obama's place, she would smugly insist that everyone should just play by the rules that they all agreed to in the beginning.

In any event, it will be fascinating to see how Barack Obama's campaign handles the final test of this primary. Do they have the savvy to prosecute a negotiation that delivers him victory, while preserving his reputation as a 'uniter'? It's his last lesson from the Clinton 'How To Win In Politics At Any Cost Handbook'. Of course, the ultimate irony of all of this, is that the Democratic Primary set up, with proportional delegate apportioning was intended to prevent the kind of back room wheeling and dealing that we'll see at the RBC meeting. But at least the back room will be televised. And watching will be an engaged electorate-- the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. All in all, that's progress.

What deal will the RBC strike to seat Michigan and Florida? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Hmmm...Part 2

2008-05-25T06:14:00.000-04:00

Curiouser and curiouser.

So, let me get this straight: John McCain will echo comments made by George Bush that insinuate criticism of Barack Obama (see, 'appeasement'); and will borrow similar construction from Bush's speeches (see, the Cuban Independence Day remarks); but when it's time to physically stand next to George Bush, Mac wants to do it in private, without any press. So no one sees. As if we don't know that he's still doing it.

And this from a guy who rides around in a bus with reporters. A guy who insists that he is a different type of Republican. That his administration will be transparent and won't have back room meetings (see Dick Cheney and Oil CEOs). Hmmm.

So, let me get this straight: Robert Kennedy's son forgives Clinton's tasteless assasination comments, ("It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. . . . I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense." ), but now her candidacy is doomed and her VP hopes are shot, as well? That's what some News 4 in New York flack said. Hmmm.

And finally, Obama has trouble with Hispanics, right? Then why do we see huge adoring crowds in Puerto Rico? Hmmm.

I don't know, folks. I'm watching this stuff like you are.

Can Mac have it both ways on the Bush situation? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Think For Yourself

2008-05-24T06:00:00.000-04:00

It's getting wacky out there on the trail. And the media is getting a little loopy as well. I get my political information from a wide variety of sources. But sometimes, you just need to think for yourself.

Let's take Hillary Clinton's RFK assasination comment. It exploded on to the scene yesterday and has drawn widely varying coverage. Most of it has hued closely to the simple story of a politician making an unfortunate statement, then explaining it. Most articles have described this as 'apologizing'. Which is not really accurate. She never really said she was sorry, but she did put it into context. Close enough, I suppose.

And then there was MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. He tore into Clinton with a 9 minute 'Special Comment' on his 'Countdown' show. The rant featured tears, yelling, and lots of words. But the most impressive part was the fact that he might be the only person outside of Tim Russert who can get a bloc of 9 minutes on national TV without a commercial break. Stunning. As I watched Olbermann's train wreck, a funny thing happened: I could feel myself being influenced by his extreme point of view. Just the way I'm sure Ditto Heads fall under Rush Limbaugh's spell.

I didn't like the feeling.

So I said to myself, "Ok, let's step away from the hype. What do I really think about this?" Well, I think Hillary is guilty of criminally bad taste when she brings up an assassination to underscore a point about the political calender. And because she's referenced this RFK assasination on other occasions, I think she's suffering from PRRD --Post-Rationalization Reality Disorder. This syndrome is commonly found among politicians. It happens when you concoct an air tight rationalization, repeat it ad nauseum, and forget what the words may sound like to those who live in the real world. Having said that, I do not think she's hinting that something terrible could befall Barack Obama so she should hang in, just in case.

You may have a different opinion. Good. Let's just think for ourselves on this one, because it's too easy for the media to run out of control with this.

Here's another one for you. I love Politco.com. But they've just got me all schizoid with this piece on Tuesday, and this one on Wednesday. I mean, I know Politco wants to give all viewpoints a shot but it's making my head spin.

We've seen the articles and talking heads offering up doom and gloom to Obama. But then I see a picture of him standing in front of 75,000 people and common sense makes me think, 'How bad can he be doing?!' I've heard he can't get the Jewish vote, but when he stands in front of a Jewish group and says , "My name Barack comes from the same semitic root as Baruch, which means 'blessed one'," I see an old Jewish couple look at each other and nod their heads approvingly.

The point is, we have to make sure we take in the info and sift through it responsibly. The words and the pictures are out there, let's make them work for us, not on us.

Finally, to a dear reader who asked me about the latest on Karl Rove, I say this: if he can be subpoened and grilled on the Siegelman travesty, we might see a house of cards fall that rivals the Nixon operation. As a gift for your readership, I present you with the letter from Rove's lawyer to John Conyers. Note the words Executive Privelege. Why is it that every Republican administration from Nixon to Reagan to Bush II keeps leaning on that? I thought these were the small government guys.

Stay tuned. It's going to get wackier before it's all said and done.

Is There An Echo In Here?

2008-05-22T06:00:00.000-04:00

I'm confused. The worst thing John McCain can do politically is echo George Bush. So why is he doing it? Check this out:

"The day will come when Cubans freely receive information from many sources. The day will come when popular blogs are no longer blocked, and broadcasts from the United States are no longer jammed. The day will come when Cuban leaders live up to the international human rights documents they have signed -- instead of making a mockery of them. The day will come..."

Ok, you get the point. That was excerpted from Wednesday's comments by George Bush recognizing Cuban Independence Day. Now, here's McCain, also on Wednesday:

"One day, America will again have warm relations with a Cuban government that represents the sovereign will of its people, one that respects their fundamental human and political rights. One day, Cuba will be an important ally in advancing democracy throughout our hemisphere. Make no mistake: Cuba is destined to be free. "

This comes on the heels of McCain hopping on the Bush 'appeasement' bandwagon. So what gives?

Here are two scenarios: 1. Mac still hasn't gotten the memo that this is a change election and riding George Bush's 28% approval coattails is suicide. Or 2. Mac simply believes that Bush is right in these instances and he doesn't care about the politics. Proving that he is a man of conviction, damn the torpedos.

It's fascinating, either way.

Forgot to send out good wishes to Teddy Kennedy. Take it from my friend, Boston journalist Meg Vaillancourt, who said Teddy Kennedy did more for the poor and disenfranchised of this country than almost any other legislator--despite personal wealth that could've blinded him to those constituents.

Hillary is pushing hard for Florida and Michigan, to be seated 'exactly as they voted'. I am just amazed at the shamelessness. When your opponent's name is not on a ballot, and you publically sign off on denying the two states legitimacy because of their defiance of party rules, and you know your campaign manager threatened to do the same thing to Michigan in 2004 when he was head of the DNC, yet you can still pretend that you're on a civil rights crusade, and think no one will suspect you're doing it for your own advantage? That's shameless.

And she wonders why the media comes down on her. Mercy.

Someone tell me what either of these candidates is really thinking. I'd like to know. Click on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.

Just Askin'...

2008-05-21T06:14:00.000-04:00

Well, Hillary Clinton succeeded last night. Even though she suffered a 16 point loss to Barack Obama in the Oregon primary, her 35 point blowout win in Kentucky has prompted a few questions--some obvious, some not. At this point, raising questions is the primary purpose of her campaign.

So let's ask them.

First, does Clinton really have a shot? Answer: Not if you look at the math. In the context of the current rules, which supposes 2025 as the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination, Obama needs 70 more delegates (super, or otherwise) to reach this goal. Clinton needs 250. This means that she would have to get 85% of all remaining super delegates. This is not likely. Check out the numbers for yourself on this page. Clinton's argument is that if she can rack up a big victory in Puerto Rico and get Michigan and Florida seated, she would have the popular vote, plus victories in key swing states, so that super delegates would have to take her electability argument seriously. It's a very long shot.

Second, is this really good for the Democratic Party? Answer: At this point, I say, 'no'. Clinton is reinforcing two damaging perceptions that will be hard to erase: Obama can't win the white, blue collar vote and her supporters won't vote for Obama in a general. This is unhelpful because it doesn't tell the true story. Sure, there are people who are voting against a black man. They've admitted it to exit pollsters. But, in a primary, Democrats have the luxury of a choice between two candidates with similar ideologies. Voters can get picky about personal preference. In a general, when a Democrat is pitted against someone who has opposite positions, voters are forced to look past things like race and gender and hair style and personal style. So all this talk about the 33% of Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama in the fall is not accurate, but it fuels a perception that will add another chore to his campaign.

Third, is this really a 50 state campaign Obama is running? Answer: Doesn't look like it to me. Now, maybe this is why Obama still has plenty of money in the bank. He's chosen his battles wisely. But right now, his campaign looks an awful lot like Hillary's before Super Tuesday. Concede certain states, concentrate on sure prizes and you'll be in great shape. Well, it didn't work for her and frankly, it's not working for Obama. If he'd campaigned hard in West Virginia and Kentucky, he'd have lost like he did in Ohio oand Pennsylvania. But a 10 point loss is not the same as a 41 or 35 point loss. These huge losses, while not detrimental to his nomination math, have served to keep the pesky electability questions on the table for Clinton.

Fourth, should Clinton be the VP, if she loses the nomination? Answer: I don't think so. It erases Obama's claim of a change and there are too many good options out there, Jim Webb, Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Tim Kaine etc. But I'm open to hearing the arguments that support the other side.

Here's a big question that we'll revisit down the road. If Clinton loses, will this mark a 'Sister Souljah' moment in the Democratic Party? (Remember when Bill Clinton famously denounced comments by the rapper Sister Souljah at a rally with Jesse Jackson, indicating a break with the Jackson wing of the Democratic Party? That moment was credited with Clinton's claiming of the center). Does saying 'no' to the Clinton machine serve notice to the nation that Democrats are truly interested in a new kind of post-Clintonian politics? Answer: remains to be seen.

Finally, on the Republican side, did anyone see that Ron Paul got 15% of the vote in Oregon? And 7% of the vote in Kentucky? And he wasn't even campaigning? I'll always give John McCain a good chance in the general, but that is not good news for him. There is still simmering antipathy for Mac within the GOP electorate. Expect to see more when the light shines more brightly on him.

Question: what's the endgame for Hillary? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

GOP... RIP?

2008-05-19T22:00:00.000-04:00

On the eve of the Oregon and Kentucky Democratic primaries let's talk about...the Republicans. Maybe you saw Peggy Noonan's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. If not, you should read it. Talk about some 'straight talk'. She lays it on the line about the train wreck the GOP has become.

But this is not a kick 'em when they're down blog. First of all, I do not believe the GOP is in any danger of going away. Republicans are moving through the same kind of course correction Democrats had to implement in the early nineties. And if this political season has proven anything, it's that things can change in a hurry. But the GOP is in trouble right now. When an extreme faction of a party guides policy, and that policy fails on many fronts, voters become alienated. It's the free market concept of politics.

As Noonan points out, the Bush Presidency has been a disaster. We all have our opinions as to how that happened. Just for the heck of it, I'll agree with many Republicans who believe that the party abandoned true conservative principles. But I take it one step further: they abandoned those principles to the 'values voters'. And 'values voters', some of whom are my dear friends, had an agenda that didn't mix well with competent governance.

The grand experiment of this country centers around the idea that individual freedoms can co-exist with the common welfare. It requires obeying the law, paying some taxes, and participating in basic duties of citizenship (like jury duty and voting), but the reward is the freedom to live one's life as one chooses, as long as it doesn't harm any one else. Unanimity of thought, or of religious expression, or of lifestyle is not the object.

But that conservative concept changed radically in the GOP, starting in 1994. And it culminated with George Bush as the choice of the 'values voter'. The bottom line for the values voter was that government should dictate morality; should emphasize religion in the public square; should govern what a person does with their body or whom they should sleep with. This was a social agenda that subsumed the need for competence in running a government, in exchange for a government that simply shared its values.

This was like the Democrats' notion of Big Government put on its head. Instead of the Democrats' style of government, which sought to take care of people's fiscal lives with entitlement programs or welfare, the values voters' big government would take of people's spiritual lives by legislating personal morality (see Terry Schiavo).

And it all went wrong. The governing part of the equation stood outside in the rain. Excessive spending, abuse of executive privelege, lobbyists running amok and extreme partisanship sent this country to a place where 82% of its citizens now feel it shouldn't be.

Unfortunately, John McCain is a poster boy for all that's wrong with the GOP. And it's not really his fault. In 2000, he was, indeed a maverick, free to speak out at the hypocrisy of both parties. But the GOP attack machine (spearheaded by the values voters) handed his head to him before the South Carolina primary. They made sure he learned his lesson. In 2004, he made the Faustian bargain to appease, I mean, embrace George Bush. In return, he would get the Bush machine behind him in '08. And voila, all of his truly independent positions on immigration, campaign finance reform, tax cuts for the rich, even his principled opposition to ban torture, evaporated in the mist of political expediency.

So now, in a change election, McCain has to tap dance between agreeing with Bush (on his 'appease' comments, for example) and distancing himself from Bush's 28% approval rating. He's an anti-lobbyist crusader who has surrounded his campaign with lobbyists--that he now has to fire. And instead of substantive attacks, he's resorted to playing the 'association game' with Barack Obama. As if the electorate can't see that Obama's association with ex-Weather Underground participant Bill Ayers is not the same as having five major campaign advisors involved in unsavory lobbying activities.

And honestly, I blame McCain less than the hard core right wing of the GOP for his confused message. They took his refreshing political approach and strait jacketed him into something approximating a values orthodoxy. It's a shame, because I think he's a good man with a great sense of humor and a lot of plain old political common sense. We'll see how this plays out. But I'm not feeling confident for the Grand Old Party.

And before we go, can we just take a moment, regardless of party affiliation or whom you support in the Democratic primary, to acknowledge what Obama did on Sunday. Take a look at this . I mean, come on. When was the last time you saw any politician attract a crowd that big? And the kid painting his bare torso with the words 'Hope' above an Obama logo? I'm sorry folks, Barack Obama is a rock star. He's not perfect, but he's got a lot of people believing in the possibilities of politics again. In this day and age that's a monumental feat.

Just ask some Republicans.

How can John McCain right the GOP ship, if in fact, any one person can? Talk about this ora anything else, by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Dems' Fightin' Words!

2008-05-16T07:00:00.000-04:00

Did George Bush do for the Democrats what the Democrats couldn't do for themselves? That is: unite them? Man! The President's comments in Israel yesterday prompted a blistering and unified reaction from the two Democratic Presidential candiates and a few others.

This is the statement that got everyone going:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Then Obama responded with a statement, assuming that the President's words were a shot at him:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Hillary Clinton jumped to Obama's rescue, as well:

"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush. There is a very clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy and that difference will be evident once we take back the White House."

And John McCain, who is trying to distance himself from George Bush, weighed in with this: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Of course, he probably lost his bearings in not remembering that Robert Gates just this week said we have to find some leverage from which to approach negotiations with Iran.

But back to the fun.

Then Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor responded to the McCain comment:

"It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon. Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done."

And then Hillary jumped in again, linking Bush's comment to McCain's speech on his vision for his first term:

"I think today we’ve had two examples of why this country is going to be voting for a Democratic president. And I hope that people really look seriously both at President Bush’s comment and at Sen. McCain’s speech and realize that the only way we’re going to restore our leadership and our moral authority and deal with the very real challenges we face in the world is by electing a democratic president and I believe that I am a stronger candidate against Sen. McCain and will be a president who could accomplish that," she said.

And finally, Joe Biden had the best line of the day when, referring to Bush's comment, he simply said, "That's bullshit".

People, this is politics!

So, here are some interesting ideas to ponder. First, it's clear that Obama is not following in John Kerry's footsteps. Any shots across the bow (real or imagined) are not going to pass without a stern and swift response. Second, with all the talk of a Hillary VP offer from Obama, her swift response has to go into his calculus. If you're looking for an attack dog, she's right up there with Dick Cheney in terms of effectiveness. Third, if you're a Democrat, you have to feel good that the leaders of your party are finally showing some spine. And fourth, if you're a Republican, you have to marvel at the fact that your linguistically challenged President has once again come up with a simple word that tells an entire story: appeasement. This will be the new catch phrase that the GOP will use to characterize the Dems foreign policy. Unfair? Of course. Effective, probably. Brilliant? Absolutely.

And speaking of that, you still have to know the context of the word 'appeasement' in relation to the Nazis if you're going to argue about it. For example, last night on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews', right wing radio bloviator Kevin James (not the comedian) was trying to excoriate left wingers for their policy of 'appeasement' when Matthews asked James if he knew what Neville Chamberlain actually did to earn his infamous place in history as the main appeaser. James tried to shout his way past the question but Matthews pressed him into finally admitting that he didn't know that Chamberlain had met with Hitler and relayed the message to everyone that Hitler wouldn't invade Europe. Classic.

Finally, on a day when George Bush united the Dems, a huge court ruling in California may revive a wedge issue for Republicans. The California State Supreme Sourt ruled 4-3 that gay marriages are constitutional. If you're gay, this is a big day. If you're Tony Perkins or James Dobson, you'll be rolling up your shirt sleeves to get the state legislature to pass a constitutional ban on it. That, of course, is already in the works. Interesting to note that seven of the eight judges on that bench were appointed by Republican governors.

Obama and McCain have cloaked themselves in the"states should decide" cop out. If I were running for President I'd just say, "I'm running for President of the United States not Match.com. I've got more important things to worry about than who's zoomin' who." Stay tuned on this one. It'll heat up.

So the question is: Did George Bush's comments amount to a deft political manuever or a mistake that will backfire on the GOP as it helps unify Dems? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', by passing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Mama Told Me There'd Be Days Like This...

2008-05-14T07:00:00.000-04:00

...Days that seem like heaven for a political junkie. Hoo, Lordy. Let's see what we've got.

First off, Mississippi's First Congressional District held a special election to replace Roger Whittaker, who took Trent Lott's senate seat after he retired. In spite of a massive Republican effort, which included appearances by Dick Cheney and Mike Huckabee, cost well over a million dollars and utilized smear ads starring Barack Obama and Rev. Wright, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis by 8 points.

Now, if you're a Democrat, this is great news. But you need to temper your excitement. Because there are some things you should know about Mississippi Democrats like Childers. They are twice as conservative as say, CT Republican Congressman Chris Shays. They're pro-life, pro-guns, anti-government, and you bet they're not pro-affirmative action. So... while it's true that the standard Republican attack machine couldn't make hay out of Rev. Wright's ties to Barack Obama in this race, it's probably because Travis Childers wasn't tying himself to Barack Obama. As a harbinger of how Rev. Wright and Obama will play on other down ticket races, I wouldn't consider this race a reliable bell weather.

If you're a Republican however, you should be worried. I don't care if the candidate was lousy, as most folks agree Davis was. This is the third special election in a row Republicans have lost. And to lose in this district? Bush won here with 62% in 2004. A Republican should roll out of bed and win here. But what should really worry you is that your national leadership is totally freaking out. There's some serious soul searching going on. And real concern about losing beaucoup seats in the fall.

Now look, I know endorsements aren't that big a deal, but what's NARAL thinking? The national pro choice group decided to endorse Barack Obama. I mean, I wish I could come up with an original take on this but I can't. It's a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton, who has worked on NARAL's behalf for decades. They say that they wanted to support the presumptive nominee and start unifying the party, but this doesn't help. A lot of pro-choice Hillary supporters (that would be almost every Hillary supporter) will be upset.

And last but not least, here's an endorsement that does matter: John Edwards' very public, very choreographed endorsement of Barack Obama. In a packed arena in Grand Rapids Wednesday night, just in time for all the nightly newscasts, Edwards appeared with Obama and endorsed him with a vigorous speech that recapped his favorite theme: making the two Americas one. For political spectacle it was non pareil. And for those of you who think Obama is too naive to be cold-blooded in his political calculations, I say you're naive. This bit of theater completely and intentionally made Hillary's huge West Virginia win seem like a distant memory. Every poltical pundit used the same words: 'impeccable timing'.

What was priceless was the joy and amazement that John Edwards tried to supress upon his entrance to the stage. It was just like a rock concert, which we've come to expect from the Obama campaign. But lest we forget, most campaigns aren't like this. I'm sure John Edwards has attended some big rallies. He was the VP nominee so he was on stage in front of a packed arena at the 2004 convention. But this was the night after a primary in Grand Rapids, Michigan! And it looked and sounded like a Bruce Springsteen concert. You could tell Edwards was thinking, "Hey, I could get used to this". Other small observations: Edwards was reluctant to give a full bear hug to Obama. And when Obama instinctivly went for another hug after Edwards' speech, he smartly made it seem as if he wanted to whisper in Edwards' ear. Obama's a quick study.

From a political standpoint, will Edwards provide help in wooing those famous working-class white voters in upcoming primaries? Probably not much. But if Obama can get Edwards' 18 delegates, that would give him the majority of delegates (based on 2025). Edwards' endorsement also beats the inevitability drum. And as everyone said, 'they make such a nice looking couple'. As a result, the whispers about an Obama/Edwards ticket have now become a dull roar. I don't see it. Obama needs to move to the center, not to the left, where John Edwards can live unapologetically--now that he's not running for President. Make him Attorney General and grab a front row seat for fireworks at DOJ.

Well, time to call it a night after a great political day. If you're a political junkie, that is.

What impact will the Edwards' endorsment actually have on Obama's campaign. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Expect the Expected

2008-05-13T22:14:00.002-04:00

Hillary Clinton did the expected and won the West Virginia primary in a landslide. She gave a good speech. She was gracious, determined, focused, and even a bit poetic. She insisted she would stay in the race. That, too, was expected.

However, unlike her supporters' rapturous declaration of a significant victory, the facts tell another story. The delegate math is irrefutable--even if one buys the outrageous new move-the-goalpost-strategy of declaring 2,209 as the number of required delegates to secure the nomination. (This supposes that...sigh...Michigan and Florida will count). And another Clinton super delegate, former Colorado governor Roy Romer, used the math to throw his support to Barack Obama. This gives Obama an ever widening superdelegate lead, as well. Pesky facts.

Nevertheless, Clinton has a right to make her case that she could win the general against McCain. She no doubt could. But many people think that Obama could, as well.

Which leads us to one big question: can the outcomes in these primaries be reliable harbingers of general election results? Does an Obama loss to Clinton in PA mean that he has no shot against McCain there? Hillary says yes. Others say, 'It's hard to tell'. Hillary's demographics seem consistent. But Obama has proven that when he gets in front of voters he can change opinions. And with the Rev. Wright issue stabilized and not fresh in the minds of a racially wary group of white voters, couldn't he make inroads with those working class white voters. We won't know until, possibly, the fall.

But there's this to consider: if any one can change the electoral map of battleground states, it is Obama. While Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida have been the old school swing states, Obama (with the help of Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy) has created a new map of swing states: Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Montana, North Carolina and maybe even Georgia.

So don't hold your breath while you drink the latest Clinton Kool-Aid. Not that much has changed after tonight's victory. But after a 35 point blowout, you can't blame her for offering you the drink.

Do these primary demographics spell trouble for Obama in a general? Talk about this or anything else you'd like by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google search engine and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Wait. What About Mac?

2008-05-11T21:34:00.004-04:00

I don't blame you if you're sick of the Obama, Hillary drumbeat. It has been riveting political theater but let's thank John McCain for a few noteworthy items that can give us a brief breather before the West Virginia primary in two days.

First of all, Mac tried out a fall campaign attack by trying to tie Obama with Hamas. In a sign that Obama is learning to throw some elbows (thanks, Hillary), he blasted Mac by saying that the experienced one was "losing his bearings". To which Mac's peeps cried "Ageism, ageism"! I'm not sure any of it resonated, which should worry McCainiacs. If this is what passes for definition campaigning (trying to define your opponent before he can define himself, or you, for that matter), it's pretty amateurish.

But what should really scare McCainiacs is the recent kerfluffle and resignation of two key campaign aides, Doug Davenport and Doug Goodyear, who worked for DCI. DCI is a typical Washington lobbying firm that works for the highest bidder, no matter the politics or ideology. Ok, that's what lobbyists do. It's a free country; no one begrudges their right to make a buck. Except maybe when you work for a not-so-free-country, like Mynamar. Yeah, the old Burma, whose Junta-led government is still not letting the international community help its people in the wake of the devasting cyclone, hired DCI in 2002 to help it with its image!

So this is the maverick who rails against doing business with lobbyists? This is the guy who gets holier than thou about terrorist groups saying nice things about another candidate? And more importantly, this is the guy who lets his campaign hire people with these ties without vetting them first? Everyone has been saying that when the spotlight shifts to Mac in the general, there will be enough missteps and mispeaks to give his campaign trouble. If this is a preview, look out.

Ok, that was enough of a breather from Hil and Barry.

I have to say I'm just a little confused. All I've been hearing is that Obama has locked up the nomination. I know that he's been acting very Presidential nominee-like. And I know that Hillary's desperation to prove that her voting coalition was superior to Obama's led to her politically sloppy statement: "...Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again..." . (Jeez, talk about beating a drum until it beats you back.)

But, let's be honest, in West Virginia's primary on Tuesday, Hillary is about to have her biggest victory since Arkansas. We're talking at least 30 points. (That's a lot of hard-working white Americans). And then the following week, she'll win Kentucky by 20 points and probably lose Oregon by 5 points to 10 points. But no one is saying Obama can't close the deal now. They're saying that the deal is closed. So when did that happen? With a big victory in NC and a little loss in Indiana? It was that easy? So why were all the Obama folks wringing their hands?

Is it because maybe Hillary had a shot? If so, why doesn't she have a shot now? As I say, I'm confused. Now, I know the math favors Obama. If the rules are followed, Obama has this delegate deal wrapped up. But since when did the Clinton's ever follow the rules? They made up the rules. Are we really entering an era where the Dems can say "no" to the Clintons? If so,then that's change right there.

Finally, the reason the math favors Obama is because of a low key lawyer who was in charge of Obama's delegate strategy. Read this profile to learn more about Jeffery Berman. If you're a political junkie, you'll love it.

The question today is: will McCain run a high-road campaign, or is it going to be bare-knuckled politics in the general? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.

Metrics

2008-05-07T22:10:00.000-04:00

That's the hip word these days. Metrics. As in, "how do we measure victory?" Or, more accurately, "how does Hillary measure victory". The word 'metrics' could only come alive in a discussion involving the Clintons--the same folks who shined a bright light on the taken-for-granted 'is'.

I don't want to pile on after the tough night Hillary had. I'm embarrased that our vulture culture finds it neccessary to dump on people when they're down. Even thick-skinned public figures. And after eking out a win in Indiana, losing heavily in North Carolina and revealing that she loaned herself more than $6 miillllion dollars, Hillary is definitely down.

But...it is stunning to hear guys like Howard Wolfson try to spin her to victory using creative metrics. Such as the 'poor white guys who decide close elections will only vote for Hillary' metric. Or the 'big state' metric. Or the 'African-Americans are keeping Obama ahead' metric.

So I decided to look at a real metric: margin of victory throughout the primary campaign. What I discovered blew me away.

The campaign has been going on so long that we forget how Obama put himself in a commanding position. It's no accident his delegate lead is now insurmountable. In primaries or caucuses where there was a blowout victory, which I define as 12 points or more (an 8 to 10 point victory is decisive, but not a blowout), Hillary won six, including Florida (I'm sorry, I just can't count Michigan). Her largest margin was in Arkansas by 49 points. The only other 20+ point victory she had, though, was in Florida, in which Obama did not campaign.

Now, check this out: Obama won 20+ point victories in Vermont, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina and Wyoming. He won 30+ point victories in Minnesota, North Dakota, Georgia, Washington and Illinois. He won a 51 point victory in Washington, DC. Alabama, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin were blowouts under 20 points.

All of these blowouts gave the lion's share of delegates to Obama. But they also told you something important: a lot of people voted for Barack Obama. So when Clinton hacks try to tell you Obama is weak in a general, be wary. African-American voters alone didn't create 17 blowout victories. A good campaign, a great message and a steady, likable candidate simply attracted a lot of voters.

And unlike 'metrics', you just can't spin that away.

What are the metrics that Hillary will call upon to make a real argument that she should stay in the race? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Split? Decision

2008-05-06T23:16:00.000-04:00

As the returns keep coming in from Indiana and North Carolina, the evening that Hillary Clinton hoped to have is not going to materialize. In fact, the opposite has transpired: a blowout win for Barack Obama in the Tarheel state and a close battle in the Hoosier state.

This means the following: there can be no claim of momentum by the Clinton camp. Her deficit in the popular vote will deepen, her deficit in the pledged delegate count will not improve, and it will be harder for Hillary to raise money.

So does this split decision mean it's time for Hillary to split? This might surprise you, but I say not so fast. There is a serious issue that exists right now in the Democratic primary campaign. It's an issue of history. As the first serious female Presidential candidate, a woman who carries the hopes of at least three generations of female voters on her back, it does not serve those women, the Democrats or even Barack Obama to have her concede an entire campaign after winning one of two contests.

The reality is that she cannot overtake Obama in either the popular vote or the pledged delegate count. The news tonight is that the Clinton camp's strategy has been to hold on until May 31st when the DNC Rules Committee meets. Word is that they will try to convince the committee to validate the Florida and Michigan results and seat those delegations. Word also is, that with Obama's big victory in North Carolina, his campaign feels they may be in a commanding enough position to cut a deal because by then it won't matter.

[A sidebar on the Michigan vote: imagine if you played on a high school basketball team and the league in which you played, perhaps because of bad weather, cancelled a game. So your team stayed at home. But the other team showed up to play. And they played by themselves, against no one, scoring basket after basket and then proclaimed themselves the winner of the game in a blowout. And then later in the season, when that team was behind in the standings, they went to the league and said the game should count. When it was pointed out to that team that your team didn't play because the game was officially cancelled, the other team said, "well, they chose not to play. We chose to play. The game should count". Would anyone take that argument seriously? Obviously not, but that's what the Clinton camp is doing right now.]

In any event, Obama's fortunes are intimately linked to Hillary's future in this race. If she is perceived as being forced out by the party, her supporters will have a tough time voting for him. If she goes full bore until June, the question has to be asked, "To what purpose? To weaken Obama in the general?" So the dance will begin. The goal must be to find a way for Hillary to come down from this campaign with full dignity and as a fairly vanquished contestant. Why would she do that? Well, in addition to the inexorable math, there's the issue of a different history. The one that contains the Clinton legacy. Do the Clintons want to be known as the team that denied America it's first African-American president? Do they want to have contributed to the Balkanization of the Democratic Party? Especially when Hillary would have a chance to run again in four years? I think they've proven that when it comes to enlightened self interest, the Clintons make the right moves.

The other question has to be, how did this night happen? Hillary was energized after Pennsylvania. Bill was barnstorming all over North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama had the worst three weeks of his campaign. Well, some are saying that the gas tax holiday issue was a gift to him. It refocused the debate on an issue and he took a principled stand that was not politically expedient. He was able to renew the criticism of Hillary as a "say anything to get elected" type politician. I watched both Hillary on "This Week with George Stephanapolous" and Obama on "Meet the Press" and I told my girlfriend afterwards that the gas tax holiday issue was a loser for Hillary. You could tell Hillary knew that the economics were flawed. And you could sense that Obama had regained his "reform politics as usual" voice.

In her 'victory' speech, Clinton gave every indication that she's going to continue the race. On the surface, this may seem like a bad thing for Obama and the Democrats. But if it buys her time to find the right way to get out of this race, it's actually a good thing. Because there's this issue of history.

Will she get out of the race? Or take it until June? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Thanks, Rev.

2008-04-29T06:15:00.003-04:00

Well, as usual, I have a different take on this whole Rev. Wright/Obama fracas. I actually think Wright has done America a real service in terms of moving us beyond racial division.

With his weekend "performance" culminating at the National Press Club, Wright reiterated extreme statements and positions (the U.S. Government planted AIDS in black communities) that could not be taken out of context. He dissed Barack Obama repeatedly and referred to the criticism he had received as worthy of a response called 'playing the dozens'.

Ok. I'm a white guy, but I've played the dozens. In New York City they were also called 'cutting contests'. It's basically, "you're girl's so fat, even Spandex runs away from her." The single funniest one I ever heard was one light-skinned Brother said to a dark-skinned Brother, "You so black, you sweat Bosco". (For you youngsters, Bosco was a chocolate syrup used to make chocolate milk.) But I digress. The point is, Playing the Dozens is done by adolescents and young men who have too much time on their hands and are looking for a way to build themselves up.

And that's exactly what Wright sounded like in patches of his speech. He resembled an unruly student who has given up trying to succeed and just wants any attention he can get. Even if he has to act like a fool to get it.

So how does this guy help us move past racial divisions?

Well, the fact that Wright's statements are so over the top has allowed Obama to unequivocally distance himself from his former Pastor. But more importantly, Obama stated that Wright's extremism does not reflect mainstream Black opinion. It doesn't even reflect the mainstream Black church. And in comparison to Obama, who has fashioned a mainstream movement that doesn't see race as an issue, Wright's rhetoric doesn't make him dangerously extreme, but simply out of touch.

As a result, White Americans don't see a potent rabblerouser who pricks at the collective white conscience. They see a narcissistic fellow on a press junket for his own commercial gain (he's writing a book due out in the fall). So we can all say, 'We are moving past this race thing. And not even a self-serving angry kook is going to change that."

The only group who must be confused by Wright's latest actions are Black Americans who support Obama. Those folks who thirst for an Obama presidency as the ultimate salve for racial inequality must view Wright's latest actions as a baffling case of sabotage --and to what end? To deny proof that America can move beyond race? So that an old man can remain angry about the injustices he's borne?

It's so crazy, it's obviously not a group mindset. It's not a conspiracy. It's not a movement. It's just the curious agenda of one man who's in it for himself.

The rest of us are doing just fine with race. Progress is being made. Thanks, Rev. We knew we had it in us.

Do you see race as less of an issue? Or has this Wright event made you feel that it's still out there? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on the 'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Let's Party Like It's 1959

2008-04-29T06:15:00.002-04:00

I was going to write about Obama's troubles and how he was having his Hillary moment. (You know that moment, that stalled eternity in political time when all the forces and stars seem to be uniquely aligned against you and you just have to tough it out?) But then I saw this article about another anti-citizen ruling by our scary Supreme Court. And by God, I realized we're all having a Hillary moment as long as these black-robed clowns are running the show.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high (I'll say!) Court upheld an Indiana law that requires everyone to have a driver's license, a passport(!) or other 'approved ID' in order to vote. Now this ruling in and of itsself, is not new or unprecedented. Many states, most notably Georgia, continue to impose voter ID requirements that make it harder for a certain segment of society to vote. But you have to read some of the quotes in this latest ruling to fully grasp how this court is hurtling us backwards in history.

"Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion upholding the law that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, acknowledged homeless or elderly people who can't track down a birth certificate needed to get an official ID might face a 'somewhat heavier burden.'

Ya think?

But then they got into a discussion of that old Jim Crow stand-by, the poll tax.

What's that, children? Never heard of a poll tax? Well, sit here on my knee and lemme tell ya about it. Was a time, not so long ago neither, when some states used to charge a 'poll tax' when you voted. In '66 it was $1.50. You paid your $1.50 at the polls and you could vote. Now, $1.50 doesn't sound like a lot of money by our standards. But it was a heck of a lot when you consider gas was only 32 cents a gallon. Whoops, get up off the floor now, child. Anyway, they did this poll tax thing to discourage poor and mostly Black folks from voting because they knew those poor minority voters couldn't afford it. Horrible, right? Well, not to some people then. And not to some people now. Check this out:

'To determine whether the Indiana law presented an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, the justices looked to a 1966 case that found Virginia's $1.50 poll tax unconstitutional.'

No more than three justices could agree on the right way to square the poll tax precedent with the voter ID law. Justices Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy acknowledged the potential for burden.

'Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, concurred in upholding the Indiana law, but went even further, and in a footnote suggested that even poll taxes, if imposed equally, might be constitutional. (italics mine). The ID requirement was "eminently reasonable," he wrote, and there was no need to consider whether it imposed a "special burden" on a subset of voters. The court has never held that elections laws must be calibrated "for their impacts on poor voters," he wrote.'

Oh, my Lord! Has that idiot read the Voting Rights Act of 1965?! That was the exact precedent which struck down the Virginia poll tax! And it was exactly calibrated to re-enfranchise millions of poor people.

But it's ok. Times have changed. This has nothing to do with the fact millions of new voters, some of whom are poor or black or immigrants, are registering as Democrats. It has nothing to do with the fact that an African-American has a real shot to be President. No. We've all moved beyond those old time shenanigans.

All of us except 6 old men. Who want to party like it's 1959. God help us all.

Yeah, It's Working

2008-04-26T13:46:00.000-04:00

It started long ago with one word: 'naive'. The Clintons used that word to introduce the first question about Barack Obama's legitimacy as a Presidential candidate. They have since orchestrated a steady roll call of similar questions about the Obama candidacy: Louis Farrakhan; Commander-in-Chief; elitism. Say what you want about the Clinton's tacky political strategy, it works. Forget polls and forget the math, which points to an Obama primary victory. The fact is, when people start talking and writing about what Barack Obama has to do to 'close the deal', you know that the Clinton's are working their magic.

And what is that magic? Simple. Create doubt. Frame the Obama campaign inside a huge question mark. Not only is it the only strategy left, (Hillary long ago lost the 'between the two of us I'm the better candidate' argument), it's the strategy the Clinton's have always been very comfortable executing. To be sure, the Reverend Wright flap and Obama's own "bitter" comments were a gift to this strategy. The Clinton's had been waiting for a little opening and they got one. But they know how to take advantage.

How's it's working? Newsweek's cover shows a leaf of arugula and announces "Obama's Bubba Gap". Howard Fineman of Newsweek gives Obama tips on being less elitist. A Politico.com piece outlines Obama's troubles. XM radio's Politics Nation broke down the demographics of Hillary's win in PA and they point to real questions of race in this primary.

And he's winning! Imagine how fast folks would bury him if he was just a little behind.

Even Obama conceded yesterday in a press conference that 'There's no doubt that a campaign has to continually fine-tune itself. What worked well three months ago, if you're doing the exact same thing now, it may not work as well.' That was a direct rebuke to his pronouncement two days prior that he would not change a thing in his campaign. So what will change in Obama's campaign to parry the Clintons? Probably more press conferences at gas stations like the one he had yesterday and fewer rock star events. More basketball (like he did yesterday with great success) and less bowling.

What won't change is the Clinton strategy. The Wall Street Journal's Monica Langley reports: "... Mr. Clinton has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks. He has been pushing for harder and sharper attacks on Sen. Obama. … Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists... On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: 'We've got to take him on every time.' At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher."

So, as Obama himself has said, if he can get by the Clinton's, he'll be well prepared for anything the Repubs throw at him.

That shouldn't be a big "if" if you look at the math. But because it's the Clintons, it's always a big "if".

Do you think Obama's in trouble? Talk about this and anything else you'd like by clicking on the 'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Quick Hits As We Wait For May 6th

2008-04-25T08:17:00.002-04:00

As we wait for the next 'make or break' set of primaries in Indiana and North Carolina (we'll believe it when we see it, by the way), here are some quick hits and random observations for your edification.

Rev. Wright, The Gift That Keeps Giving
Jeremiah Wright has broken his silence in an interview with Bill Moyers set to air Sunday night on PBS. Is this good for Barack Obama? From the snippets I've heard, no. Wright is unrepentant and says of Obama's response, ..."he did what a politician does...". Ouch. The only way this could help at all is if Moyers can present a positive portrait of Wright that makes folks say, 'oh, wow, I didn't know that". For example, I shocked a conservative Republican friend of mine when I pointed out that Wright's church is UCC, (United Church of Christ), the same umbrella church of very waspy New England Congregationalists like my friend. But let's face it, while this interview may break PBS viewing records, most people will only hear the snippets of it and won't watch it.

On the other hand, the North Carolina GOP is giving Obama a preview of the kind of 527 style ads he can expect in a general. It highlights, big surprise, Rev. Wright. Check it out, and the response advocating the appropriateness of the ad. Jesse Helms lives!

You Heard It Here First
I hate to brag, but to prove the point that informed citizens can compete with pundits, a day before the Times ran this article analyzing the politics of race in the Democratic Primary, I had said that it was obviously a problem for Obama. I hadn't read this article, either, that reveals some numbers.

Seriously?
It's one of my girlfriend's favorite expressions when she can't believe someone has the chutzpah to do something inappropriate and think it's perfectly fine. And since she's a Hillary supporter, it's appropriate that I use her phrase to register my disgust for Clinton's foray into 'fuzzy math'. Now Clinton is saying that she has actually registered more votes than anyone in the history of Democratic Presidential primaries. Of course, she's counting Michigan, when she and Dennis Kucinich were the only ones on the ballot. And she counts Florida, where no one campaigned. Again, this is an old political trick. Throw rubbish into the air and get people to watch it fall to the ground so that they won't look at what's right in front of them. This is Hillary at her worst. Whether it works remains to be seen. The fact is, it demeans the intelligence of the electorate when she puts forth this balderdash. It also reinforces the notion that she will say anything and do anything to get elected.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has to more forcefully call her on the carpet for this kind of thing. When asked about it, he gave a very tepid response instead of saying, "Look, she's desperate, and she's making stuff up again." This isn't being negative, it's being truthful. Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted to say or do anything that isn't wholly in her self interest. That's a real problem when you're President.

Why We Consider All Sources
This is why we read all sources of political info regardless of political slant. Check out these two very good editorials from the Wall Street Journal. The first is on the Clinton Library , the second on McCain and taxes. This last piece contains the capitalist's credo on taxes and for all you liberals out there, it just makes sense. Whether you like it or not.

Uh Oh
The non-partisan Pew Research Center has noticed a downward trend in overall interest in the Democratic Primary. People blame the increased negativity of the campaign. No doubt, we are getting to the tipping point before this turns from a phenomenon to 'politics as usual'. Read the study here.

The questions are many. Is Obama hampered by Rev. Wright? Are Hillary's tactics good or bad? Is McCain's economic vision going to play? Talk about these or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Just Win, Baby

2008-04-23T07:46:00.001-04:00

Al Davis, the owner of the Oakland Raiders football team, coined that phrase 40 years ago, and it serves as the de facto slogan of the United States of America. Because of our collective obsession with winning, Hillary Clinton's ten point victory in the Pennsylvania primary yesterday, changed perceptions in a way that belied the facts.

The facts say that she is still struggling for money, that she can't catch Barack Obama in pledged delegates, that she needs Florida and Michigan to catch him in the popular vote and that she has to just win, baby, every remaining contest to convince enough super delegates to support her for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The perception is that she's the one person who could actually pull it off.

While there has to be some hand-wringing in the Obama campaign, be assured that they were prepared for this loss. They have a fifty state strategy that clearly delineates where they'll win, where they'll lose and by how much. So far, their internal predictions have been spot on. So they won't panic. They remember when their candidate was just winning, baby. The bandwagon those eleven straight victories created was ginormous and almost forced Hillary out of the race. Now they know he has to start winning again to close the deal, which is the way it should be. If he wins North Carolina and Indiana, it's a done deal. If not, well, he's opened himself up to those pesky perceptions.

Here are some interesting questions to consider as this race moves forward:

1. Is continuing the race good or bad for the Democratic Party? In the face of the usual arguments that it's not helpful in a general election for the candidates to continue sniping at each other now, a contrarian opinion I heard suggests that it is great for the party. It keeps the focus on the Democrats, energizes the voters in the states that haven't voted yet, and most importantly, prevents John McCain from having a clear target to campaign against.

2. Polite pundits can't ask this question but Jon Stewart and I can: Is race the main factor affecting the outcomes in these blue collar states? 20% of Ohio Hillary voters flat out admitted that it was; 16% of Pennsylvanians for Hillary admitted the same. The corollary question then becomes: can Obama really win in a general when race is still a huge factor in our collective mentality? I mean, is this like a young white woman going out with a black guy but recoiling at the idea of marrying him? That's politically incorrect, but ask Harold Ford about its accuracy. He lost his senatorial race in Tennessee when a 527 ad supporting his white opponent closed with a young white woman salaciously looking into the camera and saying "Hey, Harold, call me." Apparently, the single Ford, an African-American, had been to a Playboy party, which now put him on a mission to sleep with all the ex-Chi O's in the state. He lost by 25,000 votes.

3. Finally, one school of thought believes that Barack Obama can close the deal the minute Americans see him get tough, or in politics parlance, "take the gloves off". But how can he do that with Hillary and still be considered a uniter? Maybe by doing what he's doing now: getting tough against John McCain to show how he would do it in the general. Here's his speech last night which hints at that strategy.

So, the beat goes on. And in this country, as long as there are winners and losers, the winner gets to change perceptions, even if the victory doesn't change the facts.

Let The People Speak...It's More Interesting

2008-04-21T06:00:00.000-04:00

I apologize to my loyal readers for the prolonged absence of new content. The reasons? Well, first, I've working long hours at a new job. Second, I have been bored to tears by the rut this election has fallen into.

For those of you who have been following the gestation of this blog, you'll remember that I wanted to offer a non-pundit approach to politics; a space for an informed citizenry to speak their minds. I counted myself in that group. The interminable run-up to the Pennsylvania primary has reinforced my determination to continue offering this content.

Now, I don't want to contribute to the prevailing practice of beating dead horses and jumping on negative bandwagons. Since the ABC debate, enough has been made of the press's overkill of the less substantive aspects of this race. The media is often an easy target when things get slow and unnattractive. For the record, I appreciate the political media. I depend on solid information (and opinion) from diverse sources like the Wall Street Journal, Politico and MSNBC. I check in on Fox News and CNN. I absolutely love XM Radio's Potus '08. I offer much of this content to you, my readers, when it provides information that it is truly germane to the proceedings. But lately, that hasn't been the case.

The reason is clear: the point of an election is to let the people speak. And when we have 6 weeks between primaries, nothing but ugliness is revealed-- about the candidates, about the media, even about us, the voters. That's where we are now. I mean, here's an interesting editorial from The WSJ, I suppose. But, in addition to being the ten thousandth piece on Barack Obama's 'bitter' comments, it really distorts the basic point of his comments. And I would ask: if most people think that Obama's statements were not wholly true, why are we so obsessed by them? Methinks we doth protest too much. If someone says I'm Chinese, and I know I'm not, I shrug my shoulders and move on. I don't spend two weeks trying to prove I'm not.

The point is, the longer we have to wait for the people to speak, the more that vacuum is filled with chatter. Chatter that increasingly offers more speculation than fact. Here's another piece on Obama, from Michael Hirsh of Newsweek. He's entitled to his opinion, but whether or not Obama is like Kerry in '04 will be revealed in the campaign. And we need real contests to determine that.

Similarly, watching John McCain try to remain relevant without an opponent is a sure cure for insomnia. Again, in the absence of a real contest with empirical results, the vacuum is being filled with idle chatter. Consider this revived conversation about (sigh) McCain's temper. On the other hand, he's doing well with conservatives...in this piece.

And then there was the debate. But we don't need to go there. It's been covered ad nauseum. I simply say: Bring on Tuesday, let's count some votes in Pennsylvania. Let the numbers reveal how people really reacted to Obama's comments, or Hillary's negative attacks or whatever. Let's bring some reality back to this very real process of Democracy--and then we'll have something interesting to talk about.

Substance, At Last

2008-04-15T10:02:00.002-04:00

I'm grateful to John McCain today for giving us something substantive to talk about. At last.

John McCain is making an economic speech today at Carnegie Mellon University. Read it. He has some ideas. The best one is the most obvious and the one I've been waiting for someone to suggest. He wants to drop the Federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Simple, effective. McCain wins on this one. As he mentions, it is a true stimulus rebate, because those few dollars saved at each fill-up go right back into the economy as discretionary spending by citizens and reduced costs for everything that gets transported by trucks.

McCain also talked to the AP yesterday. His comments, which you can see in the webcast on this site, showcase everything that McCainiacs love about this guy. Watch the first part of the video, especially his comments on his relationship with the press. It's good stuff.

Whenever I see politicians moving away from politics and simply laying out what they believe, I'm always impressed. It's when they get bogged down in the negative games that it all becomes such a turn off.

Thanks to McCain for taking 24 hours off from the jive to actually present some ideas that we can discuss.

Who's The Fairest Of Them All? Not Me? Fine. I'll Vote For Someone Else.

2008-04-14T10:36:00.005-04:00

Wow. We're still talking about it. Obama's 'bitter' remarks. While everyone is insisting that these remarks reveal an Obama that we don't really know, I think they reveal more about us, the American electorate.

The first thing I would say is that we're all really touchy about our collective self image. I remember the immediate 19 point dive in approval rating numbers for Jimmy Carter after his infamous 'malaise' speech. The fact that I refer to it as the 'malaise speech' lets us in on the touchy nature of the American public. In fact, that speech in 1979 was about the energy crisis. But it included a profile of the American citizenry that offended almost everyone. But if you read this speech , and I hope you will, you will see that it's really a call to arms. It's a call to unite as a nation to find common resolve to battle the energy crisis. There are also other extraordinary points in this address. As you read it, it could be a speech from today in terms of the threat to our country from the rapacious practices of OPEC.

But the distinguishing characteristics of Carter's address are its unflinching honesty and accuracy. Before he presented the solution to the problem, he needed to present the problem. And as he explained, part of the problem was us; specifically, it was our collective psychological condition. His observations about the American psyche came from interviews he conducted with a vast cross section of Americans. In response to concerns that America had lost faith in its government, Carter went on a ten day listening tour to find out what Americans really thought. He got an earful. And he reported back what he heard. The result? A 19 point drop in approval ratings.

I see an awful lot of parallels with Obama's comments. Like Carter's observations, Obama's are arguably true--because he is reporting what people have told him. His general characterization of small town reaction to economic stress is not inaccurate. His basic thesis that humans latch on to what they know in times of uncertainty is so obviously true, that it's equally obvious that something else motivates the type of negative reaction his comments have engendered. That something else might just be that we don't like others to take our inventory. Fair enough. Or it might just be that we don't like to hear anything negative about ourselves, even if it's true.

If that's the case, then don't roll your eyes in disgust when politicians pander to you. You've conditioned them to do that. Don't ask politicians to speak honestly if you can't handle the truth they expose. And above all, beware of politicians like Hillary Clinton who jump on a negative bandwagon and proceed to say someone else is elitist--even though for the past 20+ years she has known only governor's mansions and White Houses and has 109 million reasons that she is more elitist than Obama will ever be. At least John McCain had the good sense to simply label Obama's comments "elitist' without taking the persistent bait of reporters' questions practically begging him to say Obama was an elitist. That wouldn't have worked for a guy who left his first wife for a Budweiser distribution heiress and then spent 20+ years in Washington.

And then maybe ask this question of our conservative Republican friends who believe that these remarks show that Obama is 'out of touch' with mainstream America: where's your disgust for political correctness now? When it means being polite to minorities or gay people, it's "Oh come on, lighten up, everybody". But when it means being polite to small town Americans it's "What an outrage that someone would say something so awful!"

Is there a better way to say almost anything that's not completely complimentary of someone or some people? Of course. Is tact a good thing? I think so. Were these completely tactful comments? In hind sight, no. But do Barack Obama's comments belie a fundamental misunderstanding of a segment of the population? I don't think so. They do expose his misunderstanding of a fundamental political truth: don't say anything about people that isn't completely positive, because when it comes to our collective self image...we're touchy.

What's behind this huge reaction to Obama's comments? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Maybe This Will Stick

2008-04-12T09:23:00.003-04:00

Hey, I don't blame anyone these days for trying to trip up Obama. Let's be honest, it's a little boring out there now. We're waiting for Pennsylvania on the Democratic side and for McCain to get the Shiite Sunni thing straight in Iraq, on the Republican side. Just kidding, McCainiacs.

But really, no one considers the McCain/Obama public financing debate high political drama. And Hillary, who leads the league in plans, unveiled another one, I think. Scintillating.

So, when Obama suggested that some Americans in small towns are bitter because of the recent economic trends in this country, and, as a result, they "cling' to religion and their guns for comfort, the punditry (as well as the Clinton and McCain campaigns) jumped on the statement as a huge gaffe. Folks were saying that this might be the giant error that Hillary has been waiting for to alter the Democratic primary campaign.

Hmm. Did anyone see a recent poll where roughly 8 in 10 ten Americans feel the country's headed in the wrong direction? Did anyone notice how uttering the word Nafta in Ohio changed the dynamic of the Dem's primary race? So, I'm just wondering why this was a huge blunder? Are we getting picky about verbiage that may not sound perfectly complimentary? Or are we just trying to see if we can keep finding ways to not like Barack Obama.

If it's the latter, I say fair enough. There's nothing else going on. Let's keep poking around to see if we can uncover a sinister underbelly that will puncture his attraction for millions of Americans. But once again, I say to the Clinton and McCain campaigns: be careful what you wish for. Every time a situation is created to put Obama on the defensive and to expose him, he finds a way to move past it. And when he does, the teflon gets that much more non-stick.

Hillary tried the old "Obama doesn't think Pennsylvania is important" tack when Obama stuck to his 50 state strategy in March. Then he started to campaign in the Keystone state in earnest and promptly cut her lead in half. McCain's campaign uncovered the Rev. Wright speeches to bury Obama and--surprise--Obama neutralized the furor with one of the great speeches in recent memory.

Now Obama's hitting back at this lastest flap. Check out the You Tube video of his remarks in Terre Haute, Indiana. I don't know. It just doesn't seem like a really big deal.

And once again, the Clinton campaign is doing its darndest to neutralize any advantage it may leverage from Obama's remarks--this time courtesy of Bill Clinton resurrecting Hillary's Bosnia gaffe.

So, hey, I say go for it. But if you're looking for Obama to bury himself, don't hold your breath. And if you think either McCain or Clinton can somehow bury him in the court of public appeal, you're dreaming. But, it's boring out there. They might as well give it a shot.

Obvious question: will Obama's comments hurt him? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below , bypassing the Gooogle sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous buttons.

The Audition, Orwell Style

2008-04-09T07:46:00.001-04:00

In the de facto audition for Commander-in-Chief at the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, the winners were...George Orwell and David Petraeus. No matter what you may think of the Iraq War, we should all be glad that Petraeus is on our side, not someone else's. Cogent, articulate, knowledgeable, and cool under fire, this guy makes me feel a lot safer because he's running the show.

Unfortunately, he's not looking for a job. The people that are, Sens. Clinton, McCain and Obama, received mixed reviews. But they each took an interesting tack in their questioning that revealed more about themselves than the situation in Iraq. Which was probably the point.

Oh, by the way, the situation in Iraq is status quo. And this where George Orwell won. We now know that things in Iraq are not bad enough to say "Enough, let's go", but not good enough to say, "We did it, let's go". No, we found out yesterday, in a real shocker, that we should take another 45 days to keep assessing the situation and if "conditions" warrant, then we'll see if we should consider considering a consideration to make sure that conditions warrant a new consideration. And some wars are more equal than others.

But back to the audition. John McCain seemed very Presidential in his questioning, until...well, we'll get to that. But he essentially conducted a de-brief of the General. He picked at certain failures, demanding explanations. Petraeus was deferential and amazingly knowledgeable of places and events in Iraq that no one has ever heard of. Of course, at the end, Mac wanted to make his point that al Qaeda was still a huge threat. So, and I can hear Ronald Reagan saying, "There you go again", he again stated that al Qaeda was comprised of radical 'Shiites' before he quickly corrected himself by saying 'or Sunnis' or whoever. No, Mac, al Qaeda is Sunni. Period. And if you can't get it straight, go home. Jeez.

Barack Obama started out well in his questioning, sounding very Presidential. He got a little bogged down toward the end, but he did make a solid point: until we get our expectations in line with a reasonable reality, we'll never be able to leave. Which threw a little sunlight on the scary motivations of the current administration's policy. Because of oil, the idea is to be there for thirty years or more. But at least Obama, in an uncritical way, pointed out the tactic that is being used to achieve that: create unreasonable definitons of success, then fail to meet them, neccessitating further effort to try to achieve them. 21st Century Orwell. Obama also instructed McCain on what a real slip of the tongue sounds like. He said "Iraqi government" when he meant to say "Iranian government". That's a slip of the tongue. And Ambassador Crocker answered the question as if Obama had said Iranian government.

In some ways, Hillary had the strongest showing, if only because she evinced the most damaging admission from Ambassador Crocker. Through her adept questioning, she established that The Administration will be trying to forge an agreement (already far along) to establish the legal right to have a 'permanent' force in Iraq. She asked Crocker if the Iraqi Parliament would vote on such an agreement. He said yes. She then got Crocker to admit that the Bush Administration had no intention of letting the US Congress also have such a vote. Checkmate. So the Iraqi's, who can't get their governance together at all, still have the good sense to let the people's representatives vote on such a huge agreement--and the US, the beacon of good governance for the rest of the world, will let this go the way of royal, I mean, 'executive' fiat. Nice job, Hillary.

So the bottom line is that all of the actors got a call-back for Commander-in-Chief. It's just ironic that the stage manager may strike everyone as the best person for the job.

And if you weren't concerned about what this conflict is doing to our country, in terms of money spent, troops stretched and Orwellian executive machinations, these hearings should have gotten your attention.

Who did the best in these hearings? Tell us what you think about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below bypassing the google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight

2008-04-06T21:46:00.004-04:00

As I was driving to my teaching gig this morning I listened to a replay of Hillary Clinton's April 1st speech to the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, on XM's Potus '08. Remember that date. April 1st.

I've heard portions of the speech and I actually like what I've heard. But I hadn't heard this: "I appreciate Gerry [McEntee] talking about how I did speak out and oppose NAFTA, the president made a different decision but whether it's President McEntee or David Gergen or the people that were in those meetings in the White House, they know that I raised a big yellow caution flag, I said I’m not sure that this will work. And I have a plan to fix NAFTA, with the strongest possible labor and environmental standards in the core text of the agreement. And unlike my opponent, I will never come to Pennsylvania and tell the people here one thing while my staff says something else to a foreign government."

Ok, the italics and bold faced type are mine. But the point is...well, the first point is, I'm lucky to be alive because I almost drove off the road. And the second point is...Mark Penn just 'resigned' as Clinton's chief campaign strategist, for personally meeting with a foreign government (Colombia) to help them get the US Congress to pass a (you can't make this up) free trade agreement with the US!

If this is what 'experience' gives us, forget Obama, I'll take Jimmy Stewart in Washington.

Now, the Penn story is two days old. The resignation is new. But the real story is this: How can Hillary Clinton not know that her chief strategist (italics mine), the guy who said 'go after Nafta in Ohio to get the rust belt vote', the guy she knew was a professional pollster and lobbyist, how could she not know that he was working for the Colombian government on a free trade agreement she publicly opposed?! Especially since Penn's firm had been working for Colombia for a year? And how could she then say,"And unlike my opponent, I will never come to Pennsylvania and tell the people here one thing while my staff says something else to a foreign government"?

The same way she can talk about sniper fire?

I mean, events have fallen perfectly for her to get back in this race; but she just keeps blowing it. It's unreal. And it really says some bad things about her campaign: about how she delegates responsiblity, about how she stays on top of things, about how she can't smell a rat, about her competence as a manager of an enterprise.

Or maybe it was just April's Fool's Day, and the joke was on her.

But this latest debacle is no joke for her campaign. This is a disaster. For the second time in three weeks, her credibility is in tatters. And she gives Obama an opening just as he is making his patented push to let the voters in PA get to know him. If she thinks extending the race will increase the chances of a major Obama gaffe, she better stop being the one who keeps committing them.

As for Penn, it's been a rough week. Before leaving the Clinton campaign, Colombia left him, saying it was "unacceptable" that he refuse to meet with them any more. This was after Penn told a rather exercised union official that his meeting with the government was 'an error in judgement'. Can we add that continuing to work with the Colombian government when your candidate opposes the thing your working on might also be an error in judgment?

Who are these people that Clinton has relied on? Mark Penn? Patti Solis Doyle? Bill Clinton? They keep making mistakes that their vast experience should avoid. This is truly the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

And it all comes back to Hillary. She's responsible for her campaign. According to most folks with knowledge of the inner workings of her campaign, Hillary herself was one of Penn's staunchest supporters. This one, especially, is on her.

We'll see if she can wriggle out of it all. She is, after all, a Clinton. Anything's possible. But if you're a Hillary supporter, I wouldn't hold your breath. She's heading the gang...well, you get the point.

How damaging will this be to her campaign? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the google signup and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Remembering....

2008-04-05T07:13:00.002-04:00

Forty years. It's been forty years since Martin Luther King was killed at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. April 4, 1968. I was in 7th grade at Howard Middle School, Alexandria, VA. Going to school with many of the kids who would play on the famed TC Williams Titans football team immortalized in the movie "Remember the Titans."

The day was a whirlwind in Alexandria. With a sizable black population and right next to Washington DC, there was fear of widescale rioting--which never materialized in Alexandria, anyway. DC was another story. What I remember most were white kids I knew, 12 year olds, grabbing bats and saying they were going to 'get some N.....s'. I always felt ashamed I didn't try to stop them. When the day was over, we were all overcome by a collective shock as we watched the tanks rolling through the streets of Washington on TV.

There was also Robert Kennedy's brief speech in Indiana announcing King's death. Listen to it. It will make you think twice about Hillary's claim that words don't matter.

1968 was also an election year. And if you think that the Democratic Primary of 2008 is rough, all I can say is "Please". Starting with King's death, moving on to the bloody Chicago riots at the Democratic convention, followed by more riots in Miami at the GOP convention and then Bobby Kennedy's assasination in August, 1968 made 2008 look like like high tea at Harrods.

There are parallels, however. With Kennedy gone, Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey hammered each other just enough to to give us the glorious Presidency of Richard Nixon. Folks often forget that the '68 race was one of the closest in Presidential election history. Dems of a certain age shudder at this scenario as they look at the Obama/Hillary fisticuffs.

So the good news as we remember this awful day? Well, John McCain publicly admitted he was wrong to vote against a MLK Day in Arizona. Hillary Clinton recalled meeting Dr. King as a 14 year old girl from an all white world. And, of course, Barack Obama provides the most compelling evidence that Dr. King's dream, that we be judged "not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character" is close to becoming a reality. Here are his remarks yesterday.

It's also beautiful symmetry that on a day 40 years after MLK had led a march of sanitation workers and then was killed, Barack Obama reported he had raised...$40 million in the month of...March.

We'll get back to the campaign talk...tomorrow.

What do you remember about that day? Click on 'comments', by pass the Google sign-up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Careful...

2008-04-01T20:29:00.000-04:00

I'm not trying to stir up controversy when the most contentious back forth in the Presidential campaign today centered around Barack Obama's pathetic bowling skills (Hillary had a cute April Fool's Day riff on it ). Really. But after annointing Obama with pixie dust in my last post, I'm sending up the caution flag today. After a strong rebound from the Rev. Wright stuff, Obama's gotten a little sloppy.

First, he made a serious gaffe in views expressed on abortion. He said that girls who make a "mistake" shouldn't be "punished with a baby...". Not exactly family values. If Obama gets to the general, he can expect to see that sound bite played, oh, a few hundred times. Second, he put out an ad that goes after the oil companies. The ad claims that he doesn't take any special interest money from big oil, so he can do something about those huge profits. Unfortunately, these kinds of claims are risky because they invite scrutiny. Which is Factcheck.org's bailiwick. Their examination of the ad's accuracy isn't particularly flattering to Obama.

Third, he was uncharacteristically tongue-tied when asked a question about the kind of troop presence he would have in Iraq. His answer was not at all clear and at one point he had trouble saying "diplomatic corps". It sounds picky, I know, but when people are questioning your readiness as Commander-in-Chief, you have to pour those answers out of you like Guiness Stout. Finally, he was challenged on a decade-old issues survey he took when he was running for Illinois State Senator. His answers in 1996 displayed a progressiveness from which he has tried to distance himself in this campaign. The problem is, his story has changed about the questionnaire. It's gone from 'I didn't even see it', to 'I saw it, but aides filled in the answers' to ...you get the picture. Here's the whole story.

None of these things are all that egregious in the rough and tumble world of Potus politics. I mean, he bowls a 37 in his tie and everyone laughs. And he still draws 20,000 at Penn State--outside. But the danger for Obama is this: he's operating under a different set of standards; standards he has set for himself. He is running as the un-politician. So everytime he slips up, or gives a typical politician-style explanation, or isn't on top of his game, he runs the risk of being perceived as just another politician. And if that's what he is, then folks will say,"Well I might as well vote for the politician who really knows how to play that game." And that would be Hillary Clinton.

Fortunately for Obama, Hillary takes two steps forward (talks to striking truckers, gives a great speech before the PA AFL-CIO) and one big step back (gets exposed for her campaign's failure to pay, ready for this?, health insurance premiums for her staff. Can anyone say "mandate"? ).

So, maybe Obama is Teflon Man. But be careful. When there's enough heat, things still get sticky.

What do you think might really hurt Obama? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Weekend Update

2008-03-30T20:29:00.000-04:00

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.

Siegelman And Other Random Notes

2008-03-28T12:29:00.001-04:00

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.

This Mac's For You

2008-03-27T00:00:00.000-04:00

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.

It Boggles The Mind

2008-03-25T00:20:00.002-04:00

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.

Easter Eggs

2008-03-23T09:20:00.004-04:00

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.

Are You Still Excited?

2008-03-21T08:20:00.000-04:00

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.

Oops...

2008-03-20T00:00:00.002-04:00

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.

Where Have You Gone Ron Paul...And If You Can't Rock It In Bed, You Can't Be My Governor

2008-03-18T00:00:00.001-04:00

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.

The Company You Keep Or...Turn-Off Politics

2008-03-16T13:20:00.002-04:00

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.

Not For The Faint Of Heart...Or The Weak of Stomach

2008-03-14T09:20:00.001-04:00

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.

Other News...No, I Don't Mean Spitzer

2008-03-13T11:00:00.000-04:00

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.

Race In The Race

2008-03-12T08:20:00.004-04:00

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.

Client-9, They Call Me... Mister President, and the Queen Of The Okey Doke

2008-03-11T00:05:00.001-04:00

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.

Under The Radar...kind of

2008-03-09T13:37:00.000-04:00

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.

Warts 'N All

2008-03-08T11:27:00.000-05:00

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.

How It Works

2008-03-07T23:37:00.000-05:00

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.

Gettin' Jiggy Wit It And Other Random Thoughts

2008-03-06T12:47:00.004-05:00

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.

Winners and Losers

2008-03-05T12:06:00.001-05:00

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.

Fun While It Lasted

2008-03-04T12:00:00.002-05:00

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.

22 Hours And Counting...

2008-03-03T08:29:00.002-05:00

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.

Battling On Three Fronts And America's Doin' Time

2008-02-29T00:00:00.000-05:00

We now get to to witness Barack Obama's ability to multi-task. On one front, he's getting the business from Hillary Clinton who's making her firewall pitch in Texas and Ohio. On another, he's getting hammered by John McCain who's testing out some early attacks for the general election. And finally, he's taking shrapnel from third parties such as President Bush, who I guess has nothing better to do with the war going so well and the economy in such great shape. But, hey, this is the life of a front runner and to his credit, Obama's swingin' back. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23392288/

But the examination has begun. The "celestial choirs" as Hillary put it, are starting to be drowned out by the new drumbeat of "is he really fit for the job?" Tucker Carlson had an interesting interview with a professor of political science named Fred Siegel on this very subject. Of course, you never know whether these people are plants by one campaign or another. And Tucker is a die hard McCain guy. But...Siegel laid out a few specifics as to why he thinks Obama is not ready. He cited a comment that Obama made about Pakistan that Siegel felt revealed a serious lack of understanding about a key foreign policy issue. Obama said that the new government in Pakistan would be more cooperative than Musharraf in the search for Bin Laden. In fact, Siegel maintained, it's widely known that this new government has pro al Qaeda and Taliban factions, making it more difficult to capture Osama Bin Laden. On another issue, education, Siegel indicated that Obama talks about the need for more funding, when in fact, funding has doubled for public education in the last ten years. It's not funding that's the problem, it's the proper use of that funding. Siegel said that Obama is lucky that Hillary hasn't called him out on these points.

Speaking of Hillary, maybe one of the reasons she can't make these comparisons is that she trips over herself sometimes. Like yesterday. In a TV interview with a local Texas station, a reporter read Hillary a statement by a Hispanic supporter who said that Obama's problem with Hispanics was "that he was Black". Period. The reporter then asked Hillary if she "denounced and rejected" (wink, wink) those comments. Unbelievably, Hillary did not denounce or reject, giving the rationale that you can't really censor what a person says. The same rationale on which she had called out Obama during their debate. Of course, a little later her clearly horrified campaign did damage control, saying that Hillary had to verify the accuracy of the supporter's comments before she could denounce or reject them. Which she now most certainly did. So...I guess we can take that whole issue off the table.

In any event, this new phase will be very revealing. One thing Obama has shown is his proclivity to learn very quickly. If he survives these multi-front attacks, he'll be much better prepared for the job. If they draw real blood, we'll see if Hillary or McCain can take advantage.

Hey, how about a combination of Democratic and Republican approaches on the economy? For example, let's go with the McCain idea of reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%; then roll back the Bush tax cuts on everyone earning more than $300,000 (not $250,000), but... preserve the current capital gains and dividend rates. Then offer a middle-class credit on the payroll tax, which Obama favors, and you'd have a nice package that didn't hurt the wealthy too much, kept businesses happy and put more money in the pockets of lower income folks who would spend it.

On another note, if you know 100 people, chances are, one of them is behind bars. The Pew Center just revealed an amazing report that states that 1 in every 100 adult Americans is in prison or jail. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23392251/ At more than 2.3 million, we have the largest incarcerated population of any country in the world. Including China and India. That, my friends, is amazing. Oh, and if you're black, you're three times as likely to go to jail as a white person. Man or woman. We spend $50 biiii-llll-ion per year to do this. In fact, some states like Connecticut spend more on incarceration than higher education. You can't make this up. It might be nice to hear a Presidential candidate discuss this, but they won't because they can't appear soft on crime. Unbelievable.

Discuss this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Another Change Agent and Other Items

2008-02-28T22:19:00.000-05:00

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the general election will feature two real change agents. What? John McCain is not a change agent? Au contraire, mes amis. Look at his response to Cincinnati right wing wacko radio host Bill Cunningham. After Cunningham went on a ridiculous rant in his warm up introduction for McCain, invoking the name 'Barack Hussein Obama' half a dozen times and saying that Madeleine Albright looked 'like death warmed over', John McCain unequivocally denounced Cunningham's remarks. He stated that he respected his Democratic rivals and then took full responsibility for Cunningham's appearance, even though his campaign operation should have vetted the host's remarks. If that isn't a change in Republican politics as usual, I don't what is.

The bigger change, though, involves the level of discourse in American politics. A presidential race that is not waged in the gutter will attract more participation. It will inspire more young people to enter the political arena. Obama's positive, respectful campaign has already done this. McCain, by his actions, is calling on the 'values voters' to do more than just talk about good 'ol American values. He refuses to celebrate the heralds of those voters, these right wing media nuts who can't even practice the simple values of courtesy and respect. This election, one way or the other, will be about change. And don't think a guy with white hair can't be a change agent, too.

Speaking of change... who is going to be able to able to change this trend: the Federal government's health spending is supposed to double by 2017. It will account for 20% of our GDP. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/26/feds-health-spending-to-double-in-a-decade/
There are no great options to curb this inflationary trend. Hillary Clinton and Obama believe that improvements in administration (electronic billing for example) can save up to 70 billion dollars per year. McCain thinks that free market principles can fix the problem. I doubt it. I don't have the answers, but somehow I think you need to bifurcate the system into two separate areas: health care and catastrophic care. Health care involves prevention and wellness, catastrophic care deals with injury and disease. These are two completely different areas of the issue. For example, we could remove onerous tort insurance for GPs who only practiced wellness care. This would lower costs, encouraging people to get preventive care, which would prevent more serious illness in the future. Anyway, I'd love to hear from you about this issue.

More change...what about Iraq? Obama and McCain sparred from a distance on the issue, even as conflicting reports paint different portraits of the situation. Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin (a highly respected observer of the region) recently returned from Iraq talking about the radically improved landscape there. She described now-peaceful Anbar Province where Marines 'are actually bored' due to the lack of fighting. She offered a much more peaceful Bagdhad as further proof that we are in fact making huge strides in Iraq. She reminded listeners of Potus '08 that the government had achieved several of the benchmarks that were crucial to moving forward: a budget for 2008 and limited amnesty for detainees in Iraqi custody. Also, inflation had dropped from 32% to 10%. The bad news? Well, a key measure for provincial elections was sent back to the Parliament for more work. And Admiral Fallon was not ready to resume more troop withdrawals. Maybe that was due to incidents like Sunday's suicide bombing of 56 innocent pilgrims making their way to Karbala. So which candidate will actually forge a change in policy. Will Obama (or Hillary) really have the cajones to start an immediate withdrawal? Will McCain ratchet up our troop presence? Interesting to see. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412290878896765.html?mod=special_page_iraq_1

And finally, the economy. Really nothing but bad news. And it's not just the media making it bad this time, folks. Check this out: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412412525296845.html?mod=hps_us_mostpop_viewed . Chairman 'I' seem to be in over my head' Bernanke did his usual "I'll cut the Fed rate but I'm woried about inflation" two step. Aren't we all? In the end, the economy will carry the day in this Presidential election and the candidate who comes through with the most dynamic solutions to the current situation will win. Here's an interesting idea to check out: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/02/27/zandi-a-mortgage-bailout-would-cost-up-to-250-billion/ even though Treasury Secretary Paulson isn't crazy about the idea.

A PTTP tip of the hat to the late William F. Buckley, who died yesterday. Conservative when it wasn't hip, his National Review founded the modern conservative movement and expanded the political conversation in a unique, stylish way. Wiity, caustic, reasoned and principled, he inspired many young people who felt marginalized by the progressive movement of the sixties-- Peggy Noonan, chief among them. He will be missed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120414750648997515.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today

Lots to talk about. Click on 'comments', bypass the Google sign up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

Mr. Likeable

2008-02-27T23:37:00.004-05:00

I suppose the positive nature of Barack Obama's candidacy has rubbed off on me because I was tempted to title this post "Mommy Dearest"--but then I thought that was unkind and needlessly divisive. See? That's change you can believe in. But seriously, last night's Democratic Presidential debate in Cleveland made me about as comfortable as watching an episode of "In Treatment". Only this episode featured Hillary Clinton as a frustrated mother, Obama as her quietly rebellious son and Tim Russert as the therapist hell bent on getting to the bottom of it all. Yeesh.

Desperate to reassert herself and add primacy to her campaign, Hillary Clinton offered an aggressive approach that showed us the many faces of Eve--except the one that her opponent has trademarked: likeability. Hillary may have gained some voters last night--some women and some Jews--by reminding us of the 'sea change' a female President would implicitly effect, and by insisting that Barack Obama use the word 'reject' to distance himself from Louis Farrakhan. But her problem last night and moving forward is quite simply this: Obama has changed the calculus in debates. It's not 'who won or who lost?' anymore, it's 'did she change the course of the race?' And the answer, as it has been everytime they've met, is 'no'. If anything, stepping in the ring against the clearly superior debater has improved Obama in each debate. In fact, many agree he was at his most Presidential last night.

Hillary's problem now is that no matter how she performs--in anything!--she can't offset Obama's most powerful asset: his innate likeability. By likeability, I don't mean a person you neccessarily want to be your friend. I mean a person whose temperment is reliable; someone who seems decent and reasonable; someone you feel won't turn on you. It is the single most attractive political attribute a candidate can have. Ronald Reagan had it. Both George Bush's have it. And all of these guys drove Democrats nuts because they were considered by liberals to be unquestionably inferior. But criticisms didn't stick, defficiencies were overlooked and it was all because people, well, they just kinda...liked them. And if you're on the other side of that, it seems grossly unfair. The worst thing you can do, however, is whine about it. And that's what Clinton did early in the debate. She called out Brian Williams and Tim Russert for asking her the first question all the time. Not very Presidential. She mocked Obama for preferential treatment she believes he gets, referring to a SNL skit, for crying out loud. Of course, Obama just smiled, or shrugged, or quietly shook his head as if to say, 'Wow, I'm glad I'm not that unhappy'.

On substance, Hillary always gives a strong debate performance. Last night was no exception, though she was tripped up briefly by Tim Russert's pointed questioning on Nafta. The mild surprise last night was Obama's strong performance. He battled her to a draw on health care. He scored points on Iraq, especially parrying her criticism that he had voted with her on all the subsequent Iraq votes (best line, ' well, when you drive a bus into a ditch there are only so many ways to get it out, but I didn't vote to drive it into a ditch in the first place'). He also seemed strong on all of his national security arguments. Her strongest moment was her uncomfortable but correct insistence that Obama categorically 'reject' Louis Farrakhan's 'endorsement'. He, of course, undercut the moment by doing as she asked.

So what's left for Hillary? Hard to say. As I mentioned to a friend, her personality swings, as she searches for the right tone, remind me of an alcoholic parent. Sometimes they're sweet, sometimes abusive, sometimes funny, sometimes cold, but they're never consistent. And so they're never trustworthy on an emotional level. This is Hillary's biggest problem. In her public persona (I stress 'public'), she's Mommy Dearest. He's Mr. Likeable. Who would you rather spend four years with?

There's a great deal of other news that I want to address tomorrow. Things like John McCain's Bill Cunningham debacle ("...Madeleine Albright, who looks like death warmed over..." are you serious?); the amazingly bad economic news; shocking projections on inflationary health care costs. It's too much to cover, so I'll try to bring it to you tomorrow.

Talk about the debate or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Fatal Attraction

2008-02-26T17:37:00.000-05:00

Here are some random thoughts as I mark time before tonight’s final (please, Lord) Democratic Primary debate.

Regarding Hillary’s last stand to gain the nomination, I can’t help thinking of the final scene in the movie Fatal Attraction. You know, where we’re pretty sure Glenn Close has drowned in the bathtub, but out of the corner of our eye we think we see an air bubble float to the top of the water. And then…SHE EXPLODES OUT OF THE WATER FOR ONE LAST ATTEMPT TO…you get the idea. In these final stages of the Democratic primary race, we’re all looking for that air bubble from Hillary. No one, including me, is willing to pronounce her politically dead. I suppose it’s the respect everyone has for the political acumen of the Clintons and their prodigious will to get where they want to go. But it kind of creeps me out.

I understand the Obama campaign is touchy about dirty pool after the “Obama is a Muslim hell bent on destroying America” e-mail was circulated by ‘rogue’ staffers of the Clinton campaign during Iowa. And the 'cocaine dealer' insinuations by Billy Shaheen. And the Jesse Jackson put down by Bill Clinton. Actually, I really understand, when you put it down in black and white. Nevertheless... it does seem as if the Obama folks doth protest a little too much about the picture of him in tribal garb. I mean, if the electorate is sophisticated enough to look beyond race, they surely understand that dignitary visits to foreign countries often include costume parties. But here’s an idea: if Obama is elected President, foreign dignitaries wearing native garb can try on a Calvin Klein suit. Moving on…

As the Politico.com reports that Obama is becoming more guarded with the press, especially compared to the ever-accessible John McCain, everyone else was reporting about candid comments that McCain tried to retract. Too late. He said he understood that failure to convince the electorate his Iraq policy was right would mean losing the election. Then he said his characterization might be a bit “stark”. Ya think? But he’s right. Iraq is the key for him. And his candor is refreshing. Unless you’re his campaign manager. Or until he says we may be in Iraq for “100 years” or that he’s not really that interested in economics. Then you start to wonder what he might say in a sensitive negotiation with North Korea or Iran.

As far as handicapping tonight's debates, I'm calling for a Bette Davis kind of evening: 'fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night'.

Chime in on this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

Darth Nader

2008-02-25T08:14:00.002-05:00

You know, there are a number of more interesting stories out there than Ralph Nader's entry into the 2008 presidential race. But since this is first and foremost a political blog let's address it and be done with it.

Yesterday on Meet The Press, Nader gave his usual rant on the corporatization of both parties and voter dissatisfaction as valid reasons to run. He brushed off the criticism that Democrats hold him responsible for eight years of George Bush (he got 97,000 votes in Florida, 60% of which were projected to have gone to Gore, giving Gore a clear victory in that state and the election). Then he went down his admirable but Utopian checklist of progressive issues that he wants to address: worker disenfranchisement; corporate greed; bloated military spending; the Palestinian question and climate change. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

So, what's the problem here? It's a free country. Shouldn't we encourage people who want to run for office? Doesn't the two party system stifle debate on many issues? And isn't this just a Democratic issue? I mean, Republicans, have no problem because they see this as a boon to their chances in November. It's just Democrats who are afraid that Nader will once again siphon away a small but critical portion of their vote. So what is the problem?

I see four of them:
1. Nader can't win. It's not just his agenda. America, rightly or wrongly, is not going to vote for a 74 year old dude with a droopy eye who has never held political office. I'm sorry. And after eight years of George Bush a large section of the electorate is not in a very charitable mood. This was a point Tim Russert unbelievably never raised. Why run if you have no chance of winning? To bring issues to the forefront of the political debate? There are many other ways to do that. And if you can't even make it close in a Presidential election, why not try to influence local or Congressional races where Naderites might actually get elected?
2. In a huge country with such divergent interests, politics is all about compromise. As worthy as Nader's agenda may be, reform needs to be incremental. It will not come from a top down figure, it needs to be a grass roots deal.
3. As Hillary Clinton said when told that Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000, “Well, you know, his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we’ve ever had”. Precisely.
4. Finally, if you want to inject an agenda into the Presidential race, run early, not now. Now, is just a coward's game, the equivalent of crying wolf.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/the-candidates-on-nader/index.html?hp

The point is, presidential elections often present less than perfect choices. In elections, as in life, you can't have everything. So you compromise to get the best possible outcome, as reflected by the will of the people. But without a straight popular vote, the electoral structure makes it possible for a third party candidate to skew the will of the people. Eugene McCarthy gave us Richard Nixon. Nader gave us George Bush. In both cases, one thing was clear: the majority of Americans didn't want Nixon or Bush as President. But that's who we got. And history has not looked kindly on those choices.

So, as I see it, Ralph Nader once again runs the risk of obscuring the will of the people. But this time should be much different for Nader. He will see an energized Democratic electorate who may nod to him deferentially for the outstanding service he has performed as a consumer and worker advocate. But he can forget 2.7% of the vote. As Barack Obama noted, “...his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers...He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

In other words, the jig is up. Dems aren't going over to that dark side again.

Let's hear thoughts on Nader or anything else. Click on 'comments', bypass the Google sign-up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.

,

Cherry Pickin'...

2008-02-24T00:01:00.001-05:00

Hillary Clinton called on Barack Obama to knock off the cherry picking. And Lowell Paxson may have busted John McCain for a different kind of cherry picking. We'll explain.

Saturday morning, Hillary blasted Obama for a couple of fliers distributed by his campaign. One flier uses a "Harry and Louise" motif (the health insurance lobby's ads that doomed Hillary's plan in '94) to scare voters about the mandates in Hillary's 2008 healthcare plan. It also captures a negative quote about the mandates from a student newspaper in Iowa. The second flier criticizes Hillary's position on NAFTA, which is a touchy subject in industrial Ohio. That flier uses a Newsday quote that makes it seem as if Hillary said NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. In fact, the word 'boon' was part of Newsday's characterization of her position. Later yesterday, Newsday issued a statement clarifying that 'boon' was their word, not Hillary's.

Obama's fliers used a technique known in political circles as 'cherry picking'. It's the art of presenting damaging morsels of information, often out of context, in materials that can't be defended by the accused. And while the information isn't technically incorrect, it serves to negatively distort a candidate's position. The only way to fight back is to do what Hillary did today. She accused Obama of employing "Karl Rove tactics" and threw down the gauntlet to "meet me in Ohio and let's have a debate about these tactics." Obama responded calmly by saying that nothing in the fliers was untrue. He also wondered whether her outrage was itself tactical, pointing out that these fliers had been circulating for several days and she must have seen them before Saturday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

It will be interesting to measure the fallout of this episode. Hillary is correct to state that Obama's characterization of her health plan undermines Democratic efforts to achieve universal healthcare. She also pointed out correctly that these tactics run contrary to Obama's claim that his brand of politics 'doesn't tear people down, but lifts the country up'. (Lost in her valid complaint was a line she uttered that underscored a huge frustration: "...Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies...". Clearly, she has been unnerved by the sight of 19,000 screaming Obama supporters at every one of his campaign stops.) In any case, will this be "I found my voice, part 2"? Or will Obama cement his rep as the new 'teflon man'? Will this be judged as an unwise tactic that gave Hillary energy and sympathy when she most needed it? Or have the fliers already done political damage to her positions? However it shakes out, there's one thing no one can say anymore: that Obama's too nice to mix it up in the rough and tumble world of presidential politics. I mean, when you have the Clintons crying foul, you know you've jumped into the grown-up pool.

John McCain continues to ride a wave of positive reaction for his response to the NY Times article accusing him of inappropriate behavior with lobbyists and their companies. The problem is, Mac has been cherry picking his memory for the good stuff and not 'fessing up to the not-so-good. And now, he's getting caught in some lies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
In Thursday's news conference, McCain adamantly denied doing any favors for lobbyists. But in 1998 he sent a threatening letter to the FCC about a station ownership loophole. The FCC was considering closing the loophole, which would have adversely affected some media companies. Two of these companies retained Vicki Iseman to lobby McCain and it worked. McCain leaned on the FCC with the threatening letters and the loophole remained open. Mac has said recently that he never met with Iseman or Lowell Paxson before sending off the letters. But in a deposition in 2002, McCain offered that he had met with Paxson. Paxson also confirmed this, saying that he and Iseman met with McCain. Tsk,tsk,tsk.

Now, is this a big deal? McCainiacs will say no, it's a smear job on their candidate. They might also point out that most of the denials about the details of these episodes are being issued by the campaign. We know what that means, right? In the event that a bald-faced lie is reported, Mac can say "my campaign said it, I didn't. And they were mistaken". This is another type of cherry picking.

In either case, Mac's or Obama's, cherry picking is a sure fire way to turn off the average voter. We'll see if it has that affect on their campaigns.

Talk about these or any other topics by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

McCain's Thin Line

2008-02-23T00:07:00.000-05:00

McCainiacs won't like this blog, but too bad. We have to have a little straight talk.

Since the NY Times ran the article on McCain's alleged relationship with a lobbyist, the Gray Lady has been forced to take a look at her journalistic practices. The hope here is that they have learned something from the fall out. But John McCain should have learned something, too: Be careful of self righteous indignation, because when you point a finger at others, you can be sure three are pointing back at you. McCain is lucky that the Times decided to impersonate the National Enquirer. While he could safely deny the thin accusation of an affair with a female lobbyist, he was never forced to answer specifics that the article detailed regarding access he gave to special interests when he was Chairman of the Commerce Committee. And as McCain sits on a high horse about lobbyists, the truth is, he has more lobbyists and former lobbyists on his campaign staff than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

And he is now embroiled in an issue that calls him out as a complete hypocrite. The FEC released a letter denying Mac's request to opt out of public financing for the remainder of the primary season. That's right, I said opt out. It seems that last year, when Mac didn't have two nickels to rub together, he opted in on public financing for his campaign. Then he took out a $4 million dollar loan late last year, using public funds as collateral. But when he started winning and the donations started flowing, suddenly the crisis was averted. And now, he wants to opt out of public financing because it would limit his spending to 40 million between now and the Republican convention in September. The FEC is balking because of the loan. But Mac will probably get his way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22finance.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=McCain+Loan&st=nyt&oref=slogin

So, where's the hypocrisy? Well, while this has been going on, McCain has been hammering Barack Obama for hedging on a pledge he made last summer to use public financing for the general election. McCain made it sound cut and dried: Obama made a pledge and he should stick to it. But McCain went further to make his sanctimonious point. He said, in effect, that throughout his career he, McCain, had entered into arrangements that weren't always advantageous to him but he stuck to them because it was the right thing to do. Oh, really? But what about now? Now that it's not advantageous for McCain to stick to public financing, it's ok if he wants to opt out?

Now, McCainiacs, don't even go there. I can hear you starting in on ..."but Mac was talking about sticking to your word. And he never pledged to use public financing for the primary". No. He just used it when it was advantageous to use it. And now he wants out because it's advantageous to get out. Which is fine...if you're not crying foul when Obama might want to do the same thing. And if you don't assume we're all stupid enough to believe that raising this issue isn't to neutralize Obama's massive fundraising advantage, but to call attention to typical 'Washington politics' that people so hate. Please.

I'm going to chalk all of this up to McCain having a bad few days. But he needs to learn a simple lesson: If you're going to be a straight shooter, don't play petty political games. Because you never know when that petard that you think is hoisting up your opponent, can come back and grab you.

Oh, and why is Mac pretty confident he'll win his case with the FEC? He's got a former chairman working for him as an advisor. Now, that's typical Washington politics.

Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign in and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.

But Did It Stop The Train?

2008-02-22T12:08:00.003-05:00

I'm going to make this real easy for you if you missed last night's debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas. Hillary had the best opening, the best close and the best canned line--but she didn't make the slightest dent in Obama's quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination. And that can't be considered a successful night for her candidacy. Obama continued to battle the myth that he has no substance. He was armed with specifics, made no gaffes and easily parried the charges of plagiarism in his usual way: by elevating the discourse. The anticipation of Hillary going 'nuclear' proved unfounded. Even the moments where a true debate actually broke out, it never seemed personal. So, on the positive side for Hillary supporters, they could be proud of another solid showing. For Obama supporters, his performance kept the train a' rollin'.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/21/us/politics/20080221_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video

One interesting note: in persistent questioning by the Univision commentator on immigration, both candidates were forced into base-appeasing statements that could haunt them in the general. This year, immigration is a loser for standard liberal orthodoxy. The public is fed-up with the appearence of a free-ride ethic, much as they were with welfare. And just as Bill Clinton had to buck the Party line on that issue, I believe the Democratic nominee is going to be faced with a come-over-to the-other-side moment to gain support with those crucial indies and Reagan Dems. The good news for them is that John McCain is the one opponent who can't take huge advantage of the issue--or he'll look like a Romney-esque flip-flopper. Something to monitor in the Fall. I wish I was inspired to go into further analysis, but it is the 19th debate we've heard.

Conversation for the past few days has centered on the journalistic standards of the New York Times viv a vis the McCain-Iseman story. Conservatives have long held that the Times is a left-wing house organ. I dispute that, but I do see how their reportage can create an editorial-like impression. A prime example is a new front page story on Hillary Clinton's campaign finances. The first part of the story directly implies that she has been profligate in her spending and that her donors are worried. Fine, but then the story continues to make the case that her spending was not that out-of-the ordinary and that this is merely the type of scrutiny a losing campaign always endures. The problem, as Mike Barnacle pointed out on MSNBC yesterday, is that hundreds of papers syndicate Times' articles, and edit them to fit the actual space they have to run them. Thus, the first part of this campaign funds story is the one people around the country will read; they probably won't see the rest of it. The problem is it could seriously impact Hillary's ability to raise money. Now, I'm not sticking up for Hillary's campaign; I happen to think they have prosecuted a problematic strategy. But this type of journalism can influence events that are better off playing out on their own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?hp

So, who won the debate? Click on'comments', bypass the Google sign-up, hit the nickname or anonymous button and let's hear from you.

Muscle, Tussle, and Kerfluffle

2008-02-21T12:02:00.004-05:00

Less than twenty four hours after Wisconsin, Washington and Hawai'i weighed in on the Amazing Race of 2008, an impressive spate of new endorsements, attacks, responses, clarifications and revelations have got me a little giddy. If you love politics, it doesn't get any better than this. So forgive my insouciant tone as I catalogue the latest muscle, tussle and kerfluffle.

Let's begin with the Muscle. The Teamsters, one of the oldest and most powerful unions in America endorsed Barack Obama. This is more bad 'constituency-erosion' news for Hillary. The fact that seven of the most politically energized large unions in America--including SEIU and now, the Teamsters--are lined up for Obama gives him serious street cred with the blue-collar worker. The endorsement also makes us nervous for R. Thomas Buffenbarger, the President of The International Association of Machinists. It seems that Buffenbarger (clench your teeth when you say that one, Park Avenue) described Obama supporters as "Prius-driving" and "latte-sipping" at a Clinton Rally in Ohio. Now, you'd think a guy named Buffenbarger wouldn't go there. But he did, and word is, the Teamsters weren't too happy about the characterization. Having worked in show business, I know first hand that the one union you do not, repeat, do not mess with, is the Teamsters. So, the "Buffy" watch is officially on. We hope he can muster a clarification. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21teamsters.html?ref=politics

What a segue! Speaking of clarifications...Michelle Obama did a judicious backtrack of her now-famous, "I've never been proud" speech. As Dudley Moore's title character in the movie "Arthur" drunkenly proclaimed, "Ah may be craazy, but ah'm not stoopid". And Michelle proved she is certainly not stupid. I think she said something very clarifying like...'of course...I've been...proud...of my country...so proud...that it seems...like it wasn't all that much...pride...really, to be called real...pride or...most proud...y'know?...sort of...yeah. Love your outfit. Next question?' Now, I suppose I could try to interpret the patriotic parts of her original "I've never been proud" speech , but, seriously, it just gives me a headache. Not as big as the one it gave the Obama campaign, of course. But anyway, can we move on? We'll hear about this again in the fall anyway...

The tussles... where do we begin? Hillary, after admitting on Tuesday that words do matter (make up your mind already), cuffed Obama for not using his own. Fair enough. But then she did the Clinton Burger King ('have it both ways') when she stated that, “We need to keep dreaming; dreaming keeps us hopeful. Without dreams we can’t aspire to be great, but without action we cannot turn those dreams into reality.” Ok: if she's going to borrow Obama's lines and then butcher them, she should at least give him credit. Or Deval Patrick. Somebody. Obama lashed back with, ...“it’s a choice between a politics that offers more of the same divisions and distractions that didn’t work in South Carolina and didn’t work in Wisconsin and will not work in Texas, or a new politics of common sense, of common purpose, of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.” Great phraseology, which inspired an idea for a business: a discount speechwriting service from which any candidate can steal good lines. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21campaign.html?ref=politics

More tussles...John McCain took a break from deriding Obama for his 'bomb Pakistan' comments (from last autumn), to scold him again for not unequivocally holding to his 'pledge' to accept public campaign funds (from last autumn). Obama tried to use his words (or somebody's) in an op-ed piece in USA Today to weasel out--I mean, to explain his stance more fully. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html#more Of course, McCain was having none of it, simply saying "What's there to talk about?...he signed a piece of paper saying he would do it..." You get the idea.

But then, a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination...a kerfluffle! The NY Times finally ran a piece they had been sitting on for more than 2 months about McCain's 'relationship' with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for Paxson Entertainment (Pax TV). Though everyone has seized on the innnuendo of a possible liason dangereuse with the comely Ms. Iseman, the article actually paints a less spectacular but more disturbing picture about McCain's legislative work on behalf of private telecomm companies. It also rehashes the embarrassing Keating Five debacle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp
In a game press conference this morning, the McCains set the record straight by setting a new record for the use of the word 'dissappointing" by one couple in public. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Everything was going well in the categorical denials department until a reporter contradicted Mac about speaking to the NY Times about the article. Mac calmly said that he had forgotten about one conversation with editorial chief Bill Keller and apologized for not remembering. As someone who can't remember his phone when he leaves the house, I would personally give him a pass on that one. But his straightforward denials to straightforward questions ("did John Weaver ever speak to you about staying away from Ms. Iseman?", "No") makes this a very open and shut story. If he's telling the truth, it will be a done deal; if he's lying about anything, it'll bite him. The good news for McCaniacs is that some have said the only two things that can save John McCain's candidacy are Hillary Clinton and the NY Times. Hello, Times Square! So maybe this will help unite the arch conservatives behind him. The bad news is this story knocks McCain off of his sanctimonial perch a bit and gives Obama a second to catch his breath before the debate tonight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you can't make this stuff up.

Question: Is the NY Times the devil, as conservatives say it is? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' and bypassing Google and hitting the nickname or anonymous button

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid...

2008-02-20T01:37:00.000-05:00

That famous tag line from an old horror flick sums up where the 2008 Presidential election stands after yesterday's Wisconsin and Washington primaries and the Democratic caucuses in Hawai'i.

Barack Obama soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in both Wisconsin and Hawai'i to continue his winning streak. John McCain soundly defeated Mike Huckabee in both Washington state and Wisconsin to bring him to the doorstep of the 1191 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. He has 918.

So with apologies to Walter Mondale's famous line, 'Where's the beef?', we ask the question in 2008, 'Where's the fear'?

For Barack Obama, 'fear' is going to be the persisitent refrain he hears in opposition to his candidacy. Both Hillary and Mac are already playing the fear card in warning voters about Obama's inexperience to be Commander-In-Chief. Whether it will stick is anyone's guess. To start, though, Mac will have to do better than pillory Obama's long ago assertion that he would unilaterally bomb northwest Pakistan to nail Osama Bin Laden. Especially if he's going to take issue with the idea of revealing advance plans to bomb anyone. I mean, unless it's now ok to sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23245289#23245289

For John McCain, he needs to fear some unbelievable stats coming out of the Wisconsin contest. John Nichols of the Capital Times reports that out of 1.5 million Badger State voters in the open primary, 1.1 million voted in the Democratic Primary. That's about 75% in a traditionally 50-50 Dem/Repub state. Now, you can say that they felt that the Repub race was over. You can say that. But the truth lies closer to the idea that there is excitement for the Dems. Consider this: in Ripon, the town where the Republican Party was founded in 1854, John McCain, won 346 votes and Barack Obama had 789 votes, more than McCain and Huckabee combined. Obama's numbers keep presenting bad news for Republicans in a general. I urge you to check out the whole story.
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/273406

And finally, for Hillary Clinton, fear may be the wrong word. Panic may be closer to it. What do you do? She has now been crushed by Obama in five states (VA, MD, HI, DC--ok, not actually a state-- and WI) All the numbers suggest that Obama continues to raid her base. Her peeps think that they averted greater disaster by going negative, so that will continue. But how do you go negative when every attempt to do so (legit or not) garners a collective eye roll from the electorate. She is in a real box. She also doesn't have the money to keep competing in all of the remaining states like North Carolina, Vermont, South Dakota etc. Right now she has to win 58% of the rest of the delegates to draw even. If Obama wins one of the big states, say Texas, she has to win 65% of the remaining delegates. In contrast, if he wins 65% of the remaining delegates, he gets to 2025 and the nomination--without a super delegate battle. Again, the Capital Times reporter John Nichols reiterated an irony I noted several posts ago: after he interviewed Hillary, Nichols stated that one on one, she's as impressive in that setting as Obama is speaking to a large crowd. In fact, Nichols left the impression that Hillary was more impressive. The irony, though, is that she doesn't have the time or the money to communicate in small groups.

So maybe it comes down to the Debate in Thursday night in Austin. If you're a fan of politics, the only thing I'd be afraid of...is missing it.

Leave a comment by clicking 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or the anonymous button.

'On Wisconsin' And Kakua For Clinton?

2008-02-18T14:37:00.000-05:00

Forget Ohio and Texas, today's primary in Wisconsin and the caucuses in Hawai'i hold the key to the Democratic nomination. Why? Let me count the ways, first for Obama. If he wins:
1. On a 10-0 run, it enlarges his aura of inevitability and keeps the excitement high.
2. The races in Texas and Ohio will get much closer in his favor.
3. He increases his delegate lead. This means that future victory margins for Hillary have to be unrealistically large.
4. He puts to bed the claims that he can't win a primary in a key Democratic state.
5. He shows that the negative attacks aren't working.
6. He proves, once again, that his on-the-ground organzation is the best.

If Hillary wins:
1. She's baa-aaack. With such a fluid race, a come-from-behind victory will bring her dead even with Obama on the excitement meter.
2. She virtually evens the delegate battle.
3. She proves she can win a caucus.
4. She proves that her negative campaign against him is working.
5. She exponentially increases her fundraising.
6. She proves that this race is really not over.

So, with so much at stake, I'm surprised Obama's campaign did not milk every last second to campaign in Wisconsin. Why go to Ohio yesterday and to Texas today when you can put a stranglehold on this thing with victories in today's contests? Maybe because, as in New Hampshire, Obama lapsed into front runner mode prematurely. The fact is, Democrats don't want this race to end yet. People like me hate the negative politics of the Clintons but we do want to see how Obama handles himself in the face of them. Even though Obama got the jump on Clinton in the state, Hillary made the smart call to fight for her life in Wisconsin. And what are we hearing in early exit polls? Too close to call, in both Hawai'i and Wisconsin. If Clinton can somehow pull out one of them, the Obama spell may be broken and we'll witness an all out war. Guess who that favors?

Obama had a bad day yesterday with the plagiarism charges. Not the way you want to head into an election. Fortunately, some unseemly on-the-trail behavior by Bill (confronting an Obama supporter in a rope line) mitigated some of the sting. But still...this is waaaay too close to mess around. The good news for Obama supporters is, if he survives these days, he'll probably be ready for other tough ones. The good news for Hillary supporters is, the battle is shifting to her strengths. We all wish those weren't of the negative variety, but, hey...that's politics.

By the way, 'kakua' is Hawai'ian for assistance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23232655/

Where are we headed in this race? Talk about this and anything else by hitting 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.