The worst person in the world

I should have called this post “Ben Aflac is actually a really good actor.” His Keith Olbermann take off last night on SNL was brilliant – revealing him as the pompous, self-righteous, tool that he is. I saw Olbermann walking down 49th Street, near the GE Building, recently, and had to restrain myself from greeting him with a hearty “hello douche bag” as we passed, which was my strong inclination.

I’m happy to report that he looks much worse in person than on TV. He’s kind of short, at least compared to what I had expected, and really soft looking. He has one of those gushy, wide rear ends. In fact he looked really soft all over -- what my high school football coaches used to call “a real cake-eater.” Plus, he was wearing his studio makeup – lipstick, rouge, the whole schmegeggie. (Or maybe I’m giving him too much credit – maybe it was his everyday street makeup.) In any event it made the whole package truly frightening.

Speaking of SNL, I thought John McCain was funny and personable; everything he hasn’t been on the campaign trail. But did anyone else detect a hint of surrender in the opening bit? I was surprised McCain went along with the part where Tina Fey did her little aside, pitching the “Palin 2012” tee-shirts. It seemed a little too close to the reality of the situation to me. I would have thought he have balked at including it.

[Happy Birthday Charly!]

Lucinda et al

Joe Nocera’s column in the Times today described a really innovative idea for giving homeowners some relief from the credit collapse. In short, owners of homes that are worth less than the mortgage would give them back to the bank, but the bank would have to rent the home at market rates to the former owners for five years. At that point the former owners could repurchase the home at the value at that time. It costs the government nothing, people aren’t kicked out into the street, and both buyer and seller suffer a little, which is probably as it should be. Nocera’s explanation is more complete and compelling. Read it here.

The most irritating and pathetic recent example of how celebrity trumps substance was Senator McCain’s embarrassing appearance on David Letterman to apologize for pulling out of a scheduled appearance a couple of weeks ago in order to go to Washington during the Congressional credit debates. Letterman has skewered McCain nightly since then, in the most unflattering terms possible, until McCain was forced into his mea culpa. So a self-important, goofball acting like a 3-year-old throwing a temper tantrum can force a major party Presidential candidate to drop everything to come on his juvenile show, where he then ambushes (and I think this is the appropriate term in the case) him with question about his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. Candidates used to make pilgrimages to visit Harry Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Now it’s Oprah, Ellen, Dave and Jay.

If you think the financial crisis is under control, read this recent Fortune article on the $55 Trillion (yes – with a T), totally unregulated market in credit default swaps. The casino-like nature and size of this “financial weapon of mass destruction,” as Warren Buffett calls all derivatives, makes the sub-prime mess look staid and petite.

I’m loving the new Lucinda Williams album, “Little Honey.” Don’t buy it unless you love great country/rock/blues, kick-ass guitar-playing and a voice like a angel from down below.

I change my mind

I plan to vote for Barack Obama. Nothing I heard last night on the Joe the Plumber Show makes me think either candidate is likely to interject anything new into the conversation, so this seems like the time to make it official.

I believed everything I wrote in support of John McCain at the time I wrote it, and I still believe our country would be much better off today if he had beaten Bush in the 2000 primaries and gone on to win the Presidency -- but I think his time has passed.

I’ve been very disappointed that he did not move to the political middle and fight for the independent vote, which I thought he had a very good chance to win. Selecting Governor Palin was, for me, a complete deal breaker, and according to the polls, the same was true for millions of other Americans, which has to bring his judgment into question. I’ve also been put off by the anger that seems to eat at him.

But mine will not be an anti-McCain vote. I have reasons for selecting Obama, some of which are policy and logic-based, and some are just my personal instincts. (This might be a good time to say that I don’t consider myself anything other than an ordinary voter who happens to write a blog.) Here are my “fact based” reasons:

I am less fearful of Obama’s health care plan than of Senator McCain’s, which I think will take health care away from more people than it will help.

Obama is more likely to make a serious effort to develop alternative energy options, which is a crucial political act to free us from the tyranny of dependence on imported oil and the despots who control it.

Obama has shown a cool and steady demeanor through-out the primaries and the general election campaign that makes me feel he would not panic in difficult times. While I find him aloof and cold, perhaps it’s time to elect the candidate with whom it would be less fun to have a beer.

Obama is a greatly superior communicator, who writes and speaks in simple, declarative sentences; and he seems to understand the power of communicating well. We’re in for some challenging times over the next few years and the ability to communicate well in order to persuade and lead the public is going to be more important than ever.

It is also time to give the other half of America a chance at the helm. Millions of Americans feel they were cheated out of a victory in 2000 by the Electoral College, an antiquated and anti-democratic system that negated the popular vote. Nearly 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with Bush’s leadership, and the people who voted against him should have a chance to test their own man and his policies against the country’s challenges; otherwise, we risk making the wedge that divides us too great to ever bridge.

I’ve voted in nine Presidential elections and I’m 5-4 so far. But I regretted three of the five “winners” before his term was over, so I have some trepidation about making any pick. What if Obama turns out to be an old-fashion entitlement liberal who turns over the money-printing presses to Nancy Pilosi? I don’t think he will, but that would be a disaster from which we might never recover. On the other hand, the same could be true if a President McCain actually did “bomb, bomb Iran.” Who knows? In the end it is all a crap shoot. At some point you just have to roll the bones and hope you don’t crap out.

But finally, a part of me wants Obama to win just because I like the way it renews and confirms the essence of the American story. We elect a man of mixed race who rises from welfare, to Harvard, to the White House. He unites a divided country, puts people ahead of politics, ends the war, restores prosperity and discovers the secret to wringing unlimited energy from ragweed.

Only in America, my friends.

I deserve a major tax cut

I deserve a major tax cut for watching another one of those faux debates last night; another infomercial masquerading as a “town hall” meeting. The rules were set by the candidates, designed to protect them from themselves, and then they couldn’t stick with them.

What they should do is put the two of them on a stage with two chairs hooked up to electric wires (nothing lethal) leading to hand controls operated by a live studio audience of uncommitted voters who would crank up the amps when they hear an answer they don’t like. Booing, catcalls, and loud laughing would be encouraged.

In all seriousness I found both candidate’s understanding and sense of urgency about economic issues very much wanting. I hope they are just too timid to speak up and not actually that shallow.

That said, Senator Obama looks increasingly Presidential, while Senator McCain looks increasingly desperate. At least he didn’t go rhetorically postal last night, which might have ended the whole party.
---------------------------------------
The Sarah Palin poll closed last night (look to the right). The turn out was modest but the results were pretty conclusive.

McCain and Obama talk to a tie

It’s late, so I’ll just make a couple of very broad observations to get the conversation started. I thought the debate was very close. I suspect that who you liked going in is the guy you liked 90 minutes later. That was probably good news for Obama since foreign policy is McCain’s strength.
Neither man seems to really know much about economics, and that portion of the debate was superficial, with both candidates playing it safe.

Once it moved to foreign policy they both gained confidence, and my overwhelming impression was that both men displayed sophisticated knowledge and had nuanced positions on all the major issues. Again, who you liked going in was probably the winner in your mind on these topics, but perhaps I’m wrong. Tell us what you think.

The bottom line

It comes down to this for me. There are several big problems we need to address immediately: ending the war intelligently, implementing an effective energy policy for the 21st Century, making heath care affordable and available to more people, and putting the Federal budget, including Social Security and Medicare, into proper balance.

There are several more issues that are important but, to me, less urgent; among them are education reform, immigration reform, and improving America’s international imagine. All the other issues of the campaign are just distractions that are generally not solvable by the President anyway.

It is also important to remember that we are not electing a King. If we were, I’d be more likely to vote for Senator Obama. His ideas, are good, his leadership skills are polished, and he’s young and energetic. The King would command and everyone would have to obey.

But we aren’t electing a King. We’re electing a President who will have limited powers to implement his own ideas, all of which will have to be negotiated to completion with a Parliament of Whores (to borrow a phrase) comprised of 535 people who are only interested in what’s in it for them.

The only thing guaranteed in our system is that the best ideas will not win. What will win – if anything -- will be negotiated compromises. Nothing major has even been attempted in years. Bill Clinton’s attempt at health care reform was the last, and it was for many people a noble idea. But it was too radical for many others, and it was badly mismanaged on the political front.

So what we need is a highly pragmatic person who will look at ideas and know when to say, “it ain’t perfect, but it is a meaningful step in the right direction and we can get it passed.” And the person saying that must have the political skills and experience to be able to achieve the goal of getting to that point. It must be someone with great credibility in Congress, who has the trust of members of the opposite party that can only come from direct knowledge.

Great ideas are wonderful, but only if they are implemented. There is only one person running who has a record of non-partisan legislative success, Senator John McCain.

OK, fire away. I can take another volley.

Bipartisan redux

Well, I knew I was outnumbered on my own blog, but I didn’t realize how badly until this last post. But I’m going to plow ahead regardless, and comment on your responses to just how much baggage the Republican party adds to Sen. McCain’s load.

A frequent argument made was that, “the McCain of 2000 wouldn’t vote for the McCain of 2008.” As McCain, himself has said many times in response to this argument, “Yeah, but I lost in 2000.” The fact is that in America in 2008, a moderate Republican can’t get elected without the support of the conservative wing of the party. That leaves the nominee with two choices: Either alienate the right, as McCain did in 2000, or throw them some rhetorical bones as he is doing now. I wish it weren’t necessary but it is.

It is also argued that a McCain Presidency means a right-wing Supreme Court. This will come as a big surprise to Chief Justice Robert Bork. Oh, wait a minute, he’s not on the court, is he? That’s right, the Democratic Senate rejected his nomination in 1987, and the 65-or-so Democratic Senators we’re likely to have in 2009 should be formidable enough to keep us all safe from the fascists and religious fanatics many of you seem to expect McCain to nominate.

The President may be the most important person in the U.S., but he is not a King an Emperor or a magician. He needs the consent of Congress and/or the support of the people to do anything. The fact that the Congress is likely to be overwhelmingly Democratic come January is another reason I favor McCain. I think it is dangerous to have two branches controlled by the same party. GWB did the most harm when he had a GOP Congress behind him.

Many of you just don’t believe McCain is independent of the Republican party. I sited a number of examples in the 9/6 post, but let me add two more, including this McCain quote: "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." Can anyone name any example of any politician in the last hundred years who spoke so harshly of a senior official in his own party?

Or can you name one who has had a former Vice Presidential nominee of the opposition party site him, on national television, as a rare example of a national politician who puts country ahead of party?

Is he too partisan? Well, I still question these figures, but the same sources that say McCain voted with the GOP line 90% of the time say Obama voted the Democratic line 97% of the time. McCain has a history of bipartisanship, and he has promised to do more of it as President:

“Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as President. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. …I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability.”

Help me out here

As many of you know, or could guess, if the election were held tomorrow I’d be voting for John McCain. However I wouldn’t be pulling the lever with 100% conviction; like most people, I suspect, I have my doubts and questions about my man, and I see the appeal of the other guy.

I long ago gave up the idea of anything I say here changing anybody else’s mind, but I’m open to having my own reality altered. So here’s what I’d like to do now. Over the next few days I plan to lay out, in brief fashion, the factors and arguments that led me to where I stand today. Your job is to shoot holes in each (or to agree if you feel that way).

But please – try to stay on point. Let’s not let this drift into a wide-ranging argument. If I say I don’t like Obama because he has big feet, don’t say, “oh yeah, well McCain has hemorrhoids;” tell me why big feet are good, or why they don’t matter.

Here is factor Number 1.
I fully appreciate why many of you would not vote for any Republican for President. In fact, had Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee or Thompson won the GOP nomination I’d likely be voting for Obama. But the fact that McCain is running on that ticket matters very little to me.

First of all, the national parties are nearly meaningless today. Ever since the “reforms” of the ‘60s and ‘70s the parties are loose coalitions of people with similar (but not identical) views who vote together most of the time and watch each others’ backs when it is convenient. Most of the time, however, they are independent loose cannons.

Second, John McCain is despised by most of the Republican elite. He voted against them countless times in the Senate, drove the campaign reform bus, advocated immigration reforms that infuriated most of the party, was the key guy behind nailing Jack Abramoff, which deeply embarrassed the GOP, and he nearly picked Joe Lieberman, a New England Democrat without a home, as his running mate. Finally, he stood on the podium the other night and lambasted the current administration for failing the American public the past eight years. Some Republican.

In short, I’m voting for the man, and not the party, in full confidence that the party will wilt under the force of John McCain with an electoral mandate. Conversely, if I thought Barack Obama was one-in-the-same as the Democratic party he’d have no shot at getting my vote. I don’t want Nancy Pelosi running things any more than you (or I) want the religious right running things.

So, tell me I’m wrong.

John McCain's speech

"My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one.

If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them.

Enlist in our armed forces.

Become a teacher.

Enter the ministry.

Run for public office.

Feed a hungry child.

Teach an illiterate adult to read.

Comfort the afflicted.

Defend the rights of the oppressed.

Our country will be the better and you will be the happier because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your president.

I'm going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God as I thank him: that I'm an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach.

Fight with me.

Fight for what's right for our country.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight.

Nothing is inevitable here.

We're Americans, and we never give up.

We never quit.

We never hide from history. We make history.

Thank you, and God bless you and God bless America."

Somebody say something

This campaign has gotten dull, dull, dull. McCain and Obama are both playing the four-corner offence so as to give none. It comes naturally to Barack who can say “change” in 47 languages but can’t explain what that means in even one. The McCain “Straight Talk Express” has become the Rovemobile. Paris Hilton has a clearer energy policy than either of them.

Each is waiting for the other to commit the big screw-up, so even as people are deserting the Republican party in droves and swelling the ranks of Democrats, Obama can’t pull away because nobody knows what the guy believes in. And even though he’s a war hero running against a black man with a Muslim-sounding name, McCain can’t either, because he’s stopped saying what he believes. I hope it’s just the dog-day doldrums and things will pick up after the conventions, but this has been a really disappointing month.

New movie: This could be interesting: IOUSA.

2-1/2 speeches

I watched 2-1/2 political speeches last night. Hillary was Hillary. She’s gotten better from the podium, but what she had to say couldn’t have made anyone happy except a minority of the people who voted for her. And Barack was Barack. He had 20,000 people under a big dome in Minneapolis, and he knows how to fire them up. He didn’t start until around 10:30, and listening was a little like eating a big snack of empty calories late at night. When it’s all over and you ask yourself what he said, the answer isn’t really very substantive.

But it was John McCain speech that disappointed the most. The substance and specifics were there, and he certainly made it clear that he was no fan of George Bush’s policies on the war, disaster relief, fiscal policy, energy policy, international relations, and several other fronts.

But it was a badly delivered speech, poorly staged and poorly conceived. It used to be that whatever else was true, the Republicans could stage a hell of an event, with no detail too small to obsess over. But this was held in a small town near New Orleans in what looked like a high school gym. When the crowd of maybe a couple hundred cheered or booed the echoes were reminiscent of a homecoming pep rally.

Worse, the rhetorical theme he kept returning to was sighting something Obama said or did, that he would never do or say, and punctuating the point with the line, “that’s not change we can believe in,” a counter to Obama’s “change we can believe in” slogan. McCain is also now using the slogan, “A Leader We Can Believe In.”

Questionable grammar aside, it makes no sense to run a campaign that plays off your opponents themes, especially when your opponent is likely to outspend you more than 2 to 1. There’s a long way to go, but the national McCain organization has around 90 employees and Obama has over 700. McCain has raised $96.7 mm and Obama has raised $265.4 mm. These things matter. Republicans have usually had the most professional marketing organization behind them, but this seems very amateurish so far.

In case you’re thinking he can make up the difference with so-called free media, the reason I called this post “2-1/2 speeches” is that CNN broke in half way into the McCain speech last night for a “major, major projection” that Obama was going to get the nomination. Wow. There’s some breaking news for you.

Which is more important?

I just Googled "Scott McClelland's book" and got 621,000 references. Then I Googled "candidates unified on Darfur," which produced just 94,300. Even then, a quick look at the Darfur sightings shows that most do not actually refer to the recent agreement among Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama to unite in support of the people of Darfur.

Let's compare these two stories:

The former has no real news value at all. It’s a small story about a minor, slightly dim, political functionary coming out publically against his bosses. If it weren’t for the fact that 70% of the country hates his bosses it would be no story at all.

On the other hand, the candidate’s Darfur agreement relates to a daily struggle of life and death by some of the most pathetically abused people on God’s earth, who are being hunted down and murdered like dogs by Arab mercenaries on horseback. That alone should make it a better story.
But on top of that, we have the three remaining candidates for the White House publically agreeing on something, (can anyone remember anything similar happening -- ever?), and their agreement takes the form of a moral commitment. How often do politicians do that?

And yet the Darfur story came and went in a day, while Matt Lauer and Keith Olbermann and the rest of them will be bloviating about the McClelland book and interviewing C-list politicos for their “analysis” for weeks to come.

Sometimes I think television intentionally focuses on the least important issues available to them at any given time.

Here’s a short video about the joint agreement from a very effective organization. They make it very easy to get your voice heard in case you want to participate.

Things Younger than McCain...and other fun stuff

We can probably get the jist of what the Dem's messaging will be in a McCain v. Obama campaign by visiting a new web site, Things Younger than McCain. In case you don't have time to go look, these things include: Israel, FM radio, nylon stockings, Social Security, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Cobb salad.

Also, Barry Obama does def comedy.

And for you Hitlery fans, this is a must: in the bunker.

A really bad idea

We import too much oil.

We have to borrow billions every year to keep the government running.

So why not put in a new policy that rewards consumers for buying more gasoline that will be subsidized by the government through additional borrowing?

It sounds crazy, but that’s the idea that Senators McCain and Clinton are promoting. They want to eliminate the federal gasoline tax for the summer. It will save consumers 18 cents a gallon but will cost the Treasury billions. This will encourage everyone to load the kids into the SUV and drive to the shore this summer. Of course the kids will have the extra billions added to their future tax burden, or subtracted from their Social Security benefits down the road.

This is a very disappointing proposal from my man John and just the kind of short-term political expediency I expect from Mrs. Clinton. Senator Obama is against it, but he has his hands full trying to deal with his former pastor, so issues of substance may have to wait.

A little more McCain

Don’t worry, I don’t plan on using the blog as a regular bully-pulpit for Senator McCain, but permit me to respond to the comments from the earlier post. I was slightly disheartened (I’m over it) to have apparently failed to convert anyone, but since he is going to be the GOP candidate he has to be a part of the ongoing conversation. The counters to my arguments for McCain can be summarized into a few groups:

Some disagree with my priorities, placing health care, energy policy or other items ahead of international issues and fiscal restraint. I certainly don’t under rate these other problems; they are important and need to be solved, however, I see my picks as overarching issues, that is:

1. There can be no successful energy policy without a dramatic improvement in our international standing and ability to successfully deal with terrorism, and McCain has vastly more international policy experience than either Dem.
2. All other social problems require money – health care reform, infrastructure improvements, alternative energy R&D – you name it. McCain will demand we find a way to pay for it other than more borrowing or more taxes. I really fear that left unchecked either Dem will spend without regard for the consequences – taxes and the national debt will continue to rise and we will become weaker as we saddle our children with those costs.

Some people worry about Senator McCain’s temperament and perceived bellicosity, but try a military leader we have elected President who got us into a war. I don’t think there has been one. Military people understand the real cost of war better than the rest of us and work harder to avoid or stop bloodshed. If you are open-minded to this point, read David Brooks today. McCain is no cowboy-war monger.

The Supreme Court argument is the weakest against him. While he talks a good social-conservative game he has a long history of working well with moderate politicians, real social-conservatives know this and don’t trust him, and anyone he nominates has to have the A&C of the Senate, which will probably have 60+ Democratic Senators starting in ’09.

John McCain is a moderate, pragmatic, man who has more practical life and world experience than any candidate in the field. He is remarkably candid for a politician and he doesn’t take himself so seriously that his own opinions become dogma the rest of us have to live with forever. His character has been tested beyond what the average person can even imagine. He is human and flawed – but there is a lot to like and admire about him.

Let us now talk about John

The Democratic race has been so much more exciting I feel we’ve been a little like the media in general in that John McCain has gotten too little attention. Since he is my horse in this race, let me try to make the case for him and I’ll be interested, as always, in your responses.

I won’t dwell overly on his personal story, but it is worth stating in the beginning that few people who have ever run for President have given as much to their country, or shown a degree of personal courage that even approaches Senator McCain’s. I do not fault Senators Clinton or Obama for having given less – each of us lives our own lives – nor does this difference make them unqualified for this office. But we will have a choice and McCain’s character is clearly the most tested, and proven worthy, of those choices.

What problems loom most ominously ahead of us? In my view the greatest is the international political turmoil of terrorism and the shift in power to countries like China and an oil-rich Russia. Here again, McCain’s military and international experience dwarfs Clinton and Obama’s, and he is the only one of the three unwilling to promise the fairy tale ending of immediate and total withdrawal to the Iraq mess, which could only lead to a horror show for the Iraqi people and complete chaos in the middle east.

Second, we have America’s looming status as a second-rate economic power, as our Congress (and current President) continues to spend money we don’t have by borrowing it from China and middle eastern potentates who will use the debt as political leverage against us for decades to come. McCain may have questionable credentials as a social conservative, but no one doubts his status as a fiscal conservative. McCain is a vocal and determined foe of pork barrel earmarking, in which our elected representatives appropriate our money under the cover of darkness to advance their own pet political projects.

Social Security begins to go upside down in 2017; by 2030 it will run a half trillion dollar annual deficit unless something is done, and done soon. Who of the three still in the race is most likely to tackle this problem, I ask rhetorically?

Sen. Obama has made a great case for abandoning the old partisan politics, and perhaps he will, but who has actually done so? McCain had a real bipartisan success with campaign reform; he worked closely with Ted Kennedy on education reforms, and was an ally and mentor to Mrs. Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

You may remember that there was even serious consideration given by Sen. Kerry to making McCain his Vice Presidential running mate in 2004. Maybe he should have done it. Neither Obama nor Clinton have any real crossover appeal in the world of political governance. One might even call them polarizing.

And since the Democrats seem to be a lock to control both houses for at least another two years, I would feel a lot less need to hold on to my wallet if John McCain was in a position to veto Congress’ natural proclivity to hock our futures and spend our money without regard for the consequences.

Finally, while he is a politician, and all politicians say and do things for the sake of expediency at least occasionally, there have been few politicians of stature in our lifetimes willing to say the hard truths – to tell unemployed auto workers in Michigan that their jobs may never come back, to say it is impossible to deport 12 million illegal aliens, to call Donald Rumsfeld the worst defense secretary ever – and more. A little more truth is what we need.

So there it is, my case for John McCain. Another old white man, I know. But are you going to buy the packaging or the substance this time?

More on McCain smear

Even the New Republic found it strange that the Times would even publish such a piece. The New Republic, for God's sake. You can read their take here. Thanks to AY for the tip.

New York Times smears McCain

Here is a link to the New York Times’ 3000 word smear-job on Senator McCain. I’d be angry if it weren’t so typical. Everyone should read it just to see how lame the charges are, but if you don’t feel like it, I’ll summarize for you: an unnamed number of unnamed people “affiliated” with McCain’s organization were concerned that he and a 40-year-old female lobbyist were “too close.” No facts of any kind are offered in supports of these concerns.

This takes up a pretty small portion of the overall story, which is mostly an attempt to make McCain’s effects on behalf of campaign reform and other ethical issues appear to be either self-serving or hypocritical.

The institutional character of the Times is a little like the heart of the audience it serves: very insular and out of touch with most of the country. The story will play well on the upper west side and among Bennington, Bard and Brandeis grads everywhere. This has been a pretty uplifting election so far; I was hoping the spirit of it might have infected the media, as well, but the Times must have gotten its inoculation against decency.

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

The McCain Conundrum

I was going to critique the John McCain web site, but looking at the candidate sites makes my brain hurt. Besides, one is much like another, although McCain’s online store is pretty good (4 yard signs for 10 bucks). Also, I prefer the title of this post, which kind of sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel. (Does anyone know if RL wrote more books before, or after, he died?)

Here’s the conundrum: I read McCain’s positions on the major issues of the day and I strongly disagree with many of them. So why is it that if the election were held tomorrow, he’d get my vote?

The question is not simple, but the answer is: character. I believe John McCain is the most genuine and principled candidate in the field. He has had the courage to take some very unpopular positions (the surge in Iraq, immigration, campaign reform) and stick with them. Of whom else can that be said?

But here’s where it gets weird. I also think he’s less than candid about some of his positions. For example, he says on his site that he supports reversing Roe v. Wade. I completely disagree with that position, but I’m not bothered by it much because if he is elected I don’t think he’d do a single thing to affect that change.

A President isn’t really in the position to do much about Roe in the first place; I believe McCain is a pragmatic man who will work to find areas where Republicans and Democrats can agree, so he can accomplish something. He would not jump into a vicious fight he can’t win. Being pragmatic he says things he believes, and knows will appeal to the most conservative voters, because he needs their support, even though he is unlikely to fight those battles.

So -- I like the guy primarily for his honesty, despite recognizing that he is occasionally misleading, which I view as smart politics. Is it any wonder the pollsters can’t always figure out what people are really thinking?