Disciplined Dems

Give them some credit – this was one of the few smart campaign tactics from the Democrats in a long time. Hillary and Obama spent the entire two hours making their points and counter-points without ever devolving to picking at one-another. They both came across as more statesmanlike and mature than any of the Republicans did last night. That was obviously a big disappointment to Wolf Blitzer, who went so far as to accuse Hillary of calling herself naïve in a cheap attempt to stir up some conflict.

Apparently one had to be either a movie star or rock musician to be in the audience tonight. This star-seeker quality that seems to envelop Democratic politicians is a real turn-off to many voters. I know Rob Reiner does not represent me and the fact that he has such access and influence makes me suspicious of those who allow it.

Debate? pass the No-doze

Can someone tell me what the facination is with debates in this country? How many are there -- like 40? I get to feeling guily because I don't watch them, so I watched the Republicans tonight. Good lord. Not one new thing was asked or answered. The questions are either uninspired, or inspired to insight petty arguments. The answers are mini-TV commercials we've all heard 100 times already. We know their lines by osmosis. There has to be a better way to take the measure of these people. Anyone have any ideas?

I'm going to give the Dems equal time tomorrow. Perhaps with only two people fighting for the spotlight a little more substance will show through.

I only vote for losers

I haven't voted for the winning Presidential candidate since 1992. Several times during my losing streak I held my nose and voted for the "lesser of two evils" and at least once I voted for a 3rd party candidate, but none of them worked out.

In '92 I voted for a young guy who didn't have a lot of experience, but he was charismatic and said all the right things about leaving the old ways of Washington behind. He was also wrapped in the mantle of JFK, and had a cool photo of himself meeting the great man in the Rose Garden when the lad was just 16. He had a strong and accomplished wife -- a successful corporate lawyer with an Ivy league pedigree to match her husband's. I found this guy very inspiring and voted for him with enthusiasm. Once.

I think this is part of why I'm having a hard time jumping on the Obama band wagon. I find these parallels a little spooky, and like a badly jilted lover, I don't want to be disappointed again by misplaced faith in an articulate do-nothing.

Family feud?

That was quit a performance this afternoon at American University, where Ted Kennedy, flanked by his Congressman son and Caroline Kennedy Schlosberg, gave a good-old-fashioned thumper of a speech throwing his endorsement and enthusiastic support behind Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

He countered every one of Hillary’s charges of inexperience, etc., one-by-one and declared the Senator from Illinois: “ready to be President from Day One!” Then he wrapped the candidate from head to toe in the Kennedy legacy until you could barely tell Barack from Jack. Barack has to be the skinniest Presidential candidate since JFK, and he favors those slim fit suites right out of the ‘60s, so the image is eerily similar on some level.

And if there was any piece of the Kennedy legacy left ungifted by Ted, Obama claimed it in his acceptance speech that followed, which was also very stirring. They had a gym full of mostly college kids whipped into a real frenzy.

I’ve been avoiding making predictions, but I think you can put a fork in Hillary now – she is done. It’s not just the Kennedys jumping on the Barack bandwagon. The pundits have turned so harshly on the Clintons, and I sense there is just a general feeling in the country that we’ve had enough of the Clintons and the Bushes, and that it is time for a change.

Then there is this very interesting subplot. By endorsing Obama, the Kennedys are helping send the Clintons packing, which lets them regain their position as the first family of the Democratic party. Perhaps Uncle Teddy just had enough of Bubba and his bride and this was his way to regain the spotlight for his brothers’ legacies and his own amusement?

d’blank stimulation plan loses out

Mike Huckabee’s characterization of the economic stimulation plan racing through Congress was spot on. We will borrow $150 billion from the Chinese and then hope most of it gets spent at Wal-Mart buying stuff made in China. I wonder if this is what people had in mind when they swept the Republicans out of Congress in 2006? Nancy Pelosi and friends didn’t put up much of a fight against GWB on this, but that seems to be their role in the current political scene: yap like little lap dogs, but then fall in line with whatever the President wants.

Meanwhile, Senator McCain was on Meet the Press this morning talking, in part, about how damaging Congressional pork barrel politics are to our economy. He claimed there were over $35 billion “bridge-to-nowhere-type” appropriations in 2007, which is equal to the annual cost of over 900,000 decent-paying jobs with good health care.

P.J. O’Rourke, the author of A Parliament of Whores, may have said it best: “The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.”

Not so sweet Caroline (or Carolina) for Hillary

This was a tough weekend for Hillary*. Not only did 70% of women voting in the South Carolina primary vote for someone other than her, but this morning, Caroline Kennedy endorsed Senator Obama in the New York Times, saying:

“I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.”

This must be very worrisome for Mrs. Clinton, who can’t seem to get the traction she needs with women. Not only did she fail to persuade seven in ten women overall, she took only 40% of votes from white women.


*BTW, I mean no disrespect by commonly referring to her by her first name; her campaign does the same, I think, for the same reason I do: to avoid confusion with her husband.

The New York Times says: “It’s Hillary and McCain”

It may not count that much with voters, but the endorsement of the New York Times is probably the one most coveted by the candidates, and the editorial board announced their selections for the New York primaries today: Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Mrs. Clinton was no big surprise. She is, after all, the junior Senator from New York and has had the paper’s endorsement for both her Senatorial campaigns. They also had nice things to say about Senator Obama and John Edwards.

Senator McCain’s selection and the reasoning behind it was much more entertaining. To paraphrase, the Times position is: “Custom dictates that we endorse a candidate in the Republican primary as well. We hate them all, but the least odious is John McCain – who apparently served in a war, or something.”

They had nothing good to say about any other Republican candidate, and they beat Rudy like a red-headed step child.

Meanwhile this morning the Today Show gave Sen. Clinton a very hard time, and in my opinion, unfairly so. It was both shallow and misleading. It’s hard to make Hillary a sympathetic character in my eyes, but Matt Lauer and his producer did a heck of a job of it this morning. In an 8 minute segment there was not a single question relating to issues. Why don’t they just stick to diets, tabloid murder-mysteries and travelogue?

Link to NYT Clinton endorsement
Link to NYT McCain endorsement
Link to Clinton Today Show segment