Category Archives: 2008 Presidential

A haiku for Mitt

There are different ways of looking at Mitt’s departure. And when I say different, I mean different. The WSJ has a blog that’s kept count on how many lawyers there were in the race, and has been striking them off the list one by one. (I called it up because the headline, "Mitt Romney (Harvard Law ‘75) Suspends Campaign," seemed an odd thing to be stressing at this moment.)

But what’s odder still is that this "Law Blog" has invited readers to submit haiku about each lawyer-candidate who has dropped out. Some samples:

Pony with one trick,
Don’t forget Nine Eleven,
Nine Eleven’s it.

They called him “tortoise”
But now the man with no hair
Has got out of ours

They call the form "bye-ku." Here’s my first attempt at one for Mitt:

French cuffs, perfect coif
He offered a ‘turnaround’
We didn’t want one

I’m sure you can do better. And no, I don’t know offhand whether he actually does wear French cuffs. Want to see my literary license?

Romney’s out

Romney_2008_wartmm

Looks like Mitt Romney’s accepted the inevitable, which is a good thing:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering presidential campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney prepared to tell conservatives.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney will say at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

"This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America."

McCain prevailed in most of the Super Tuesday states, moving closer to the numbers needed to officially win the nomination.

Overall, McCain led with 707 delegates, to 294 for Romney and 195 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at this summer’s convention in St. Paul, Minn.

"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror," Romney said.

Romney acknowledged the obstacles to beating McCain.

"As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, less than Senator McCain’s 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he’s doing quite a bit better with his number of delegates," Romney said in prepared remarks.

Romney’s departure from the race came almost a year after his formal entrance, when the Michigan native declared his candidacy on Feb. 12, 2007, at the Henry Ford Museum of Innovation in Dearborn, Mich.

So Republicans, it looks like John McCain is your nominee. As for me, at least there will be one candidate on the ballot in November I will be glad to vote for. Still waiting to see whether there will be two.

Romney_2008_wartnnn

Republicans for Hillary

As you know, I keep struggling with the terminology used to describe those Republicans who keep wanting to strike out at and pull down the man who quite obviously is going to be their party’s nominee, whatever they say or do.

"Conservative" is wholly inadequate for various reasons previously cited, and I’ll add another one here: No "conservative" would do something so reckless and destructive to his own cause. If a "conservative" would do that, the word means nothing at all. Actual conservatives are putting out releases such as this one, which I received this morning (the headline, in case you’re too lazy to click on the link, is "Reaganauts for McCain").

So let’s try this one on: "Republicans for Hillary." This fits in various ways:

  • Only those who want a Democrat to win the election would keep driving a wedge into their own party.
  • Only those who want a Democrat to win the election would do anything to try to delay or prevent the nomination of the only candidate with the independent appeal that is absolutely necessary for them to either Democratic nominee.
  • While Barack Obama could compete with John McCain among those same independents (and folks, we swing voters are the ones who decide elections), Sen. Clinton is far less likely to be able to do so. She alienates such voters. Therefor, if she is the nominee, she would love it if these alleged "conservatives" managed to pull off a miracle for Mitt Romney. But since that isn’t going to happen now, she depends on them to weaken McCain as much as they can — something they seem eager to do.
  • These folks are the natural GOP counterparts to the kind of Democrats who support Sen. Clinton — those who relish polarization and pointless partisan bickering, and put them above all things, certainly above the good of the nation.

Of course, if I get my way on the Democratic side, Sen. Clinton won’t be the nominee. But I don’t think "Republicans for Obama" fits these people; I don’t think they’d be as comfortable backing someone so post-partisan as he. It’s McCain’s very cross-party appeal that they hate about him; it seems unlikely they’d like it any better in Obama.

So "Republicans for Hillary" it is.

bud, do you STILL think Hillary is Mary Ann?

Total trivia from blogs past, but it has at least symbolic meaning. Never mind why I was looking at such an old post (another one of those things where TypePad told me it was getting fresh hits, and I couldn’t figure why), but in skimming through the comments on "W is Gilligan; Al is Mr. Howell," I ran across bud’s proposed "Gilligan’s Island" cast:

Gilligan – George W. Bush
Skipper – Dick Cheney (or Karl Rove)
Mr. Howell – George H. W. Bush (or John Kerry)
Mrs. Howell – Barbara Bush (or Teresa Kerry)
Ginger – Condi Rice
Mary Anne – Hillary Clinton
Professor – Al Gore

Most of those are pretty much on-point (as long as we think of a Brian Dennehy sort of dark, menacing Skipper, rather than the Alan Hale version), except for the two unattached females on the island. Condi as Ginger? I don’t think so. Condi’s more of a female version of the Professor.

But the one that still gets me the most is Hillary as sweet, unassuming little Mary Ann? I’m just not seeing that.

bud, or anyone — care to update that cast?

Good news: NEA not endorsing

Just got this release from the National Education Association, which describes itself as "the nation’s largest labor organization as well as the nation’s largest professional association."

The NEA went to all the trouble of putting out this release to let us know (like I was sitting here wondering or something) that it "remains on the sidelines in the competition for endorsements by the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates."

The groups seems to think this is a state of affairs that everybody’s going to want to jump to change right quick:

    With the failure of Super Tuesday to define a clear-cut favorite for the Party’s nomination however, the most valuable, and perhaps the most important, endorsement remains unclaimed by either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No mention, by the way, in either the e-mail or the attached Word file, of anyone at the NEA waiting to be wooed by any Republican candidate. Probably an oversight.

In any case, whatever your party, I hope things work out so that the NEA stays out of this, for the simple fact that the presidency should have little to do with K-12 education. Here’s the way the NEA looks at it:

“Both Democratic candidates have strong records on education, but our members want to know about their visions and their plans for the future, and we haven’t really heard that yet. If they haven’t made education a central part of their campaigns, how can we feel confident that they will make education a central part of their administration?”

The NEA’s position is self-contradictory. It complains that "For the past eight years, America’s public schools have been the victims of top down, manage by mandate federal education policy," when the clear and obvious solution is to get the federal government out of the business of trying to oversee education.

Sheesh. These people make no more sense than those self-described "conservatives" who are trying to help elect Hillary Clinton.

Let California do what it will; I’m turning in

Why can’t Californians just get up in the morning like the rest of us and get done that which needs doing?

I’ve had it with waiting for those people. There’s no trend yet I can have confidence in. I had expected Obama and Romney to win there, but now Clinton and McCain are leading — a mixed result, to my way of thinking, either way.

But blast it, that’s just with 19 percent of the vote in. That’s it. Let Jack Bauer stay up all night; I won’t.

No, wait — looks like Hillary won there. No, no, no, I can’t do this; I’m going to bed…

Folks in Illinois have got it together

Obama’s speaking — inspirationally, as usual — as I type, and there’s a crawl going across the bottom of the screen (WGN, the Chicago station), showing the results in Illinois legislative races.

How about that? Those folks figured out that as long as they were voting today, might as well have the state primaries, rather than having to haul all that stuff out and pay all those poll workers on a separate day.

We’ll have to wait to June to have our primaries (and to make it crazier, we’ll have Columbia city elections before that).

But what do you expect? We can’t even get it together enough to have our presidential primaries on the same day.

But I’m not giving up on my home state. I believe that one day, we’ll just haul off and start doing stuff in a way that makes some semblance of good sense.

You may not believe that. You may not think it’s possible. But I say:

YES, WE CAN.

(See what I did? I got back to Obama there at the end. Cool, huh?)

Hillary makes sure we remember what she’s about

While I was typing that last post I was able to sort of half-listen to a Hillary Clinton speech (top of the news hour, you know; don’t want to miss that prime opportunity), and while I couldn’t hear a lot of it, I got the essential message.

There was one sentence in which she got in the verb "fight" and the subject "Republicans," and later she said the usual thing about how she aimed to "take back America," and that’s all she need to say to connect with the sort of Democrats who vote for her rather than Barack Obama. The sort who believe the greatest enemy of all is other Americans with whom they happen to disagree.

For her, the main point in being president seems to be to GET the Republicans, and continue the pointless, nasty bickering that have torn us apart through the Bush-Clinton-Bush years.

A vote for Obama is a vote against all that, which is, as I may have mentioned, why I’m looking forward to a big win for him — to the extent that anyone can have a "big win" tonight. Too bad about the way the Democrats are distributing delegates. No matter who wins in the end, we’ll have to listen to at least a few more speeches of the sort I just half-heard.

I appreciate her mentioning the tornado victims in Tennessee and Arkansas, I will say. It prompted my wife to call kinfolk in Memphis, and things are apparently a mess there and in my old stomping grounds around Jackson. Folks in that part of the country get WAY more than their share of tornados.

Another overused (and ill-defined) word: ‘Conservative’

Having switched to PBS, where apparently they have a larger vocabulary, I’m not hearing "presumptive" so much, so that’s good.

What I am hearing to an absurd degree is the term "conservative," and always used either with no defining context, or with a contradictory context.

For instance — one of the talking heads was going on about how McCain had not yet been declared the winner of his home state some 90 minutes after polls closed (the irony was that McCain was declared the winner while this guy was talking), and saying that exit polls indicated it was because of self-described "conservative" voters.

And what do they mean by "conservative?" Well, apparently no one thought to ask them — which I would certainly do before turning around and reporting that they were conservative, because the word seems to be so malleable and subjective these days.

Anyway, we were told that Mitt Romney was leading among people who wanted to deport all the illegal aliens. Of course, those people are not conservatives — conservatives are sensible folk who don’t entertain fantasies — so that was apparently an unrelated phenomenon.

Then they spoke of voters who were opposed to abortion. OK, I thought, now we’re getting somewhere…. except that these voters were going, NOT for the senator who’s been strongly pro-life his entire public life, but for the ex-governor of Taxachusetts whose position on abortion depends upon what office he’s running for at a given moment. What on Earth is with these people?

Basically, I think newsfolk — so many of them being self-reported "liberals," whatever they mean by that — tend to be very gullible and just take people at their word when they say they’re "conservatives," sort of the way they tend to lump people into the realm of the unintelligible if they happen to be evangelicals (hence their constant surprise whenever Mike Huckabee gets a few votes).

Meanwhile, over in the FREE media department…

Mccain_freemedia

    "I get by with a little help from my friends…"

Up against Mitt Romney and all his media buys, you have John McCain getting the kind of coverage no amount of money can buy. A bunch of busybody meddlers known as the "Project for Excellence in Journalism" (don’t organizations with cheesy names like that make you suspicious? they do me) announces today that it has determined the following:

    With Florida winner John McCain getting about 75% more coverage than Mitt Romney, and with Mike Huckabee almost invisible, the press appeared conspicuously close to turning McCain into the presumptive nominee last week. In that Jan. 28-Feb. 3 period, which ran from the day before the Florida primary to two days before Super Tuesday, McCain generated more coverage than any candidate. And that coverage suggested a media “tiering” of the race, with McCain a heavy favorite over several also-rans. McCain had not necessarily put Mitt Romney away, but the press nearly had.

You can also see here that some rats in the MSM are actually treating this little bit of non-profit grandstanding as news. Ha!

But you know, when you’re caught red-handed, you just gotta own up and say we done wrong. I mean, what were we thinking, making a big deal over the one candidate in either party who may be on the verge of cinching his nomination? Under what stretch of the imagination would that be news? Some people; I tell ya.

You can still buy victory (maybe)

Romney_raise

    Oh, yeah? Well, I’ll see that, and raise you another $7 million…

Those of you who despise John McCain over McCain-Feingold (and sorry, but I don’t think I’m ever going to buy the George Will theorem that Spending=Speech) should be resting easy today. Even though, all across the country, Republicans are accepting and even embracing the Arizonan as their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney just might prove today that you can still buy your way to victory — even in the biggest market, or bunch of markets, in the country — if you’ve got enough do-re-mi on hand.

Here’s the latest from Zogby, showing McCain winning pretty much everywhere that matters other than California, where Mitt Romney was said to be spending oodles of his own cash.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation I’ve read as to why Romney is leading 40-33 in California is that California Republicans are particularly partisan and ideological. Maybe so. That would explain Reagan, although not Nixon. But why would just the Republicans be that way out on the Left Coast? If it’s in the water, why wouldn’t that rigidity manifest itself among Democrats as well? If it did, Hillary Clinton would be leading there. But she’s not.

‘Yes, We Can:’ Obama music video

A colleague brought this excellent music video set to the words of a Barack Obama speech. I don’t know where this speech was made, but it has a lot in common with his victory speech right here in S.C.

Great words. Now, as to the esthetics… artistically, this one beats the "Obama Girl" all hollow. Sure, that one had much to recommend it, by traditional MTV standards. But unless I’m mistaken, this new one has Scarlet Johansson, who’s way more Babelicious than that other chick (OK, at least SOMEWHAT more so). And I’d like to see the Obama girl try to beat Kareem Abdul-Jabbar under the boards!

Taking Mr. Retske’s ‘Conservatism’ test

Yesterday, one of the first comments on my "Give me that old-time conservatism" column post was from Gene Retske, who proposed the following:

Brad, c’mon, do you really believe that you are a conservative? Do you think that Roe v Wade was improperly decided? Do you think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century? Do you think America is the model for the world, and is obligated to spread democracy? Do you think America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Would you leave your wife for Ann Coulter?

If you can’t answer "yes" to all these questions, you may not be a true conservative.

John McCain believes in Duty, Honor and Country, for sure. That these basic criteria are touted as presidential qualities shows how far down we have come. There are over 12 million current and former military who also have these qualities, and are thus more qualified than Hillary or Obama to be president.

Sorry, Brad, you can’t redefine conservatism to your standards, nor can John McCain.

Hey, I’m good at tests! So here we go:

  1. Brad, c’mon, do you really believe that you are a conservative? No. I utterly reject both the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, because the popular, current definitions of those terms describe world views that each contain much that is repugnant to me. One of the main reasons I do this site is to have at least one place in the blogosphere that provides an alternative to the perpetual extreme-left vs. extreme-right argument that tends to predominate in this medium. Traditionally, however, there is much (or perhaps I should say, was much) in both conservatism and liberalism that I see as being of value. The last part of my column Sunday was an evocation of what I see as good in conservatism. As for liberalism — well, there used to be much good in that, too, but it really started to degenerate starting about 1968.
  2. Do you think that Roe v Wade was improperly decided? Yes, absolutely. In fact, you don’t state it nearly strongly enough. It was disastrous, on many levels. First, there is the obvious — more abortions. But then it’s not the job of the Court to decide cases in terms of outcomes (a point on which the admirers of Roe would disagree). Therefore in answer to whether it was "improperly decided" I’ll say this: The ruling was based on a bogus proposition — that the Constitution guarantees a "right to privacy." It does no such thing. (I’ve always been struck by the way the presumption was said to arise from a "penumbra" — suggestive to me of the Shadow of Death.) Finally, I’ll say — and once again, this is irrelevant to whether it was properly decided, but I think it speaks to where you intended to go with this — that this disaster of a ruling is probably more to blame than any other one cause for the nasty polarization of our politics. This country would be a better place in many ways without Roe.
  3. Do you think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century? Absolutely not. While I don’t dislike him today as much as I did at the time, I think he did much to ruin the sort of conservatism that I have always valued — in particular, he helped instill the imprudent notion that we can have all the blessings of good government (and folks, there’s no such thing as private property — to cite one such "blessing" — without a sound system affirming, protecting and supporting it) without paying for it. The grossly immature Gimme-Gimme wing exemplified by the likes of Grover Norquist is a product of the Reagan era. As for defeating communism — I give him credit for doing his part, as had every president of either party since Truman — and he had the honor to have the watch when it all came tumbling down. If he provided the final push needed to reach the tipping point — which seems to be the consensus, although I have no idea how to measure such things — hurrah for him. He certainly demonstrated resolve — such as the resolve to spend the Soviets under the table. To the extent that’s what did it, hoorah again. But was that "conservative?" Oh, and if you want to talk about "amnesty" for illegals (which I don’t, but a lot of folks who call themselves "conservatives" do) — Reagan went for it; McCain does not. (Let me point out that Sen. McCain, unlike Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney, has been opposed to abortion his entire career.)
  4. Do you think America is the model for the world, and is obligated to spread democracy? Yep, in many ways (although obviously we’re a poor model on health care). That’s why I’m an unreconstructed interventionist — but then, so were liberals before 1968. In fact, as I’ve often said, the invasion of Iraq was the most liberal thing that George W. Bush ever did — which is probably why he botched the aftermath. Like most conservatives, he doesn’t believe in nation-building. Like liberals of the endangered JFK stripe, I do. I’m assuming you meant to go in that direction. Or perhaps you’re speaking of the "city on a hill" notion of American exceptionalism? I’m for that, too. But again, there’s nothing conservative about that. To the extent that we are a beacon for the world, it’s based on liberal principles — in the sense of advancing liberal democracy. But then, I’m using terminology that has little to do with the post-Reagan definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" in our domestic politics (although, I’m happy to say, the term is still current in an international context).
  5. Do you think America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles? I believe it was founded by people whose culture was informed by Judeo-Christian principles, such "freethinkers" as Thomas Paine aside. If it helps you any, I’m much more an admirer of John Adams (he who wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.") than Thomas Jefferson, although Jefferson probably had a greater impact on the development of the country’s self-concept, which is a shame.
  6. Would you leave your wife for Ann Coulter? Certainly not! Nor would I leave her for French Socialist leader Ségolène Royal, who is a LOT more attractive. I would cross a continent to avoid either Ann Coulter or Paul Krugman, either Rush Limbaugh or Frank Rich, or any of those who delight in tearing this country apart. My support for both John McCain and Barack Obama is based in the same principles that cause me to utterly reject the Coulters and Krugmans of the world.

I’ll have to leave it to Mr. Retske to score this. Since it was an essay test (my favorite kind, much better than multiple guess), and since he’s the "teacher" in this instance, I guess he’ll assign whatever values (in every sense) he chooses to each question.

But if I flunk, fine by me. See my answer to question 1.

Give me that old-time conservatism

    My regular readers will recognize this column as having been adapted from a post from late last week. Sorry to be repetitive, but increasingly (and conveniently) I find blog posts to be adaptable into columns. I’ve developed it a bit — cutting some here, adding some there (particularly, a new ending, and therefor a new point). But the inspiration was the same.

    Aside from making my seven-day week a little more manageable, adapting a column such as this one at least exposes it to a slightly more friendly audience. The Blogosphere is more densely populated with the kinds of people who would take exception to the ideas expressed herein. I find that the newspaper’s readership contains more folks who harbor my notion of the best sort of conservatism. Every once in a while, even I would like to get a little encouragement, you know. Speaking of which, thank you, Chief Warrant Officer Libbon. It was good to get your message before the mob started screaming.

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THE IDEOLOGUES in the Republican Party — you know, the ones who don’t care who can actually become president, as long as their candidate thinks exactly the way they do about everything — don’t know whether to spit or go blind with John McCain as their presumptive nominee.
    And I gotta tell ya, I’m loving it. My happiness will be complete once the “anger” faction of the Democratic Party is similarly discombobulated by having Barack Obama as its nominee. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves on that.
    My other favorite candidate, John McCain (The State has endorsed both him and Sen. Obama), may not quite have the Republican nomination sewn up, but he’s close enough to it to give the more objectionable elements within his party considerable indigestion. True, Mitt Romney is doing everything he possibly can to stop the McCain bandwagon, spending $1 million on ads in California alone.
    But while this moment of promise lasts, let’s savor it.
    A colleague who listens to such things says right-wing talk radio is abuzz with apocalyptic rantings about the End Times for the GOP, which sounds lovely to me, UnParty adherent that I am. But I content myself with reading about it in the papers. Let’s take just one day (Thursday) of one newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) widely associated with Conservative Orthodoxy. Under the headline, “McCain Takes the GOP Lead,” we read:

    Republicans have a clear front-runner in Arizona Sen. John McCain. By nearly all accounts, he is the candidate many Democrats least want to face, the one who would best remake his party’s battered image and draw independent voters needed to win in November.
    But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents.

    Under “Giuliani Fund-Raisers Sit on Fence for Now,” we learn that while Rudy Giuliani may have pulled out…

    Mr. Giuliani’s well-heeled supporters might not throw their money behind the cash-strapped Arizona senator so fast. “We haven’t decided what we’re going to do,” says T. Boone Pickens, the Dallas tycoon who has raised more than $1 million for Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, since late 2006…

    Then, on the opinion pages, that font of oracular conservative wisdom, the very lead editorial of the hallowed WSJ itself, under the real-life headline “McCain’s Apostasies,” pronounces the following:

    Mr. McCain’s great political strength has also long been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological. He believes in duty, honor and country more than he does in any specific ideas.
    These personal qualities are genuine political assets…. But he is now on the cusp of leading a coalition that also believes in certain principles, and its “footsoldiers” (to borrow a favorite McCain word) need to be convinced that the Senator is enough on their side to warrant enthusiastic support…

    By “ideas,” the Journal does not mean “removing the inordinate influence of money from politics,” or “restraining wasteful spending” or “believing the surge would work” or “life begins at conception” or “maybe we should secure our borders without totally alienating the Hispanic vote.” No, it means such lofty concepts as: “What do you always, always do with a tax? Cut it!”
    Duty, honor and country indeed! What’s conservative about that stuff?
    Speaking of the Gimme-Gimme wing of the party, another newspaper (conservatives should cover their sensitive ears before I name it), The New York Times, reported on Friday that “leaders of the right” have practically been doing backflips trying to adjust to the new reality. My favorite in this regard is Grover “Shrink Government Until You Can Drown it in a Bathtub” Norquist, who goes further than anyone to spin this into a personal victory:
    “He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes,” Mr. Norquist says, adding that he’s been talking to Sen. McCain’s “tax guys” for some time. So you see, not only does this make everything OK, but Grover gets to take credit! Because, as anyone who has ever had cause to regret signing his “No New Taxes” pledge can testify, it’s all about Grover.
    By now some of you think I have it in for all things “conservative.” I don’t. I just grew up with a different concept of it from that which has in recent years been appropriated by extremists. I grew up in a conservative family — a Navy family, as a matter of fact. To the extent that “conservative ideas” were instilled in me, they weren’t the kind that make a person fume over paying his taxes, or get apoplectic at the sound of spoken Spanish. They were instead the old-fashioned ones: Traditional moral values. Respect for others. Good stewardship. Plain speaking.
    And finally, the concept that no passing fancy, no merely political idea, is worth as much as Duty, Honor and Country.

To learn more about the UnParty, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

So Hillary can’t make a concession speech in S.C., but she publicly celebrates a meaningless win in Florida?

Hillaryfla

Actually, I just said pretty much all I had to say in the headline.

Saturday night, I initially posted this with the headline saying, "HIllary’s concession speech." Then I realized it was just an e-mailed statement, so I changed the headline to reflect that, expecting the actual speech momentarily. It didn’t come. I saw Edwards give his concession/nonconcession speech (not quitting, although what he’s going on for, I don’t know). But no Hillary.

Did I miss it? I was busy being on live TV and all, so maybe I missed it. Did y’all see it or hear it? I ask because it seemed pretty bizarre for her to be cavorting about on a stage transported by a campaign "victory" that gave her no delegates, in a state which the Democratic candidates had pledged (and I’m using the term "pledge" here loosely) not to campaign in, in a "contest" that was obviously a measure of starting-point name recognition.

If Obama had campaigned there, do you really think she would have run away with it? Seems doubtful, but I’d be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

Anyway, either I’ve missed something (which is highly probable), or this sequence of events — no concession on Obama’s stunning victory in S.C., celebration of the meaningless win in Florida — would seem to be terra incognita in the Clintons’ exploration of the limits of gracelessness.

I can’t go home ’til McCain wins

Mccainwinfla

Having commandeered one of the HDTV receivers at a 5-Points bar, I’m running a tab on Yuenglings, trying to will McCain over the finish line in Florida.

Thirty-three percent of the vote in, and still neck-and-neck with that mannequin, Romney.

At least tonight will settle Rudy "Florida Strategy" Giuliani’s hash for good. Did you read that strong endorsement of McCain in The New York Times? Way brutal to our boy Rudy…

"…a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square."

No more Hizzoner in his own country.

McCain-Obama, and other match-ups

As I’ve expressed a number of times in the last few days — although it occurs to me it’s been on video or live TV mostly, and it’s past time I say it in writing if I haven’t already — my fondest wish for the fall is that John McCain will face Barack Obama. It would be a "no-lose proposition for the nation."

In fact, it would be the best choice of my adult lifetime. Yeah, I liked both Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford pretty much. And I had nothing particular against George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in 92. But this would be the first time I was ever positively enthusiastic about either eventuality. As I’ve spoken about it in recent days, I’ve had to stop myself several times from referring to it as a "ticket," and remember to say "on the same BALLOT" instead.

As to which I’d prefer — well, I don’t know which I’d prefer. If I’m to be consistent with my constant thought of the past eight years, McCain is the man. Going into last week, I was pretty sure I still preferred him, Obama (AND Clinton) being so much less experienced. There is also his position on the war, which almost exactly matches my own.

But the excitement of the last few days has made me wonder about that. And if Obama wins the nomination — with the Super Tuesday odds still against him at this point — I’ll be even more pumped about his ability to lead us into a new kind of politics.

None of that will diminish my deep respect for McCain. But once my dream is realized — if both are nominees — I’ll be able to compare them more objectively than I can now. Now, I’m just rooting for both of them.

But if only ONE of them is nominated — say, we end up with Obama vs. Romney, or McCain vs. Clinton — that makes my own, personal preference for endorsement the easiest I’ve ever experienced. And I think it would be just as easy for the nation, because the two I prefer are the ONLY ones with appeal among independents and crossover voters.

Then, of course, if NEITHER is nominated… well, that would be what we’re used to, wouldn’t it: A bitter choice between bad and worse. Surely this country can do better than that, for once.

After what we’ve seen happen in South Carolina, my hope is higher than ever for a far better choice for the nation than we have seen in many decades.

Race doesn’t matter!

Since I was doing the live gig at ETV last night, I missed a lot of the action at the Obama victory rally. I heard his wonderful speech, and that was about it.

But afterwards, I spoke to Inez Tenenbaum, and it seems I missed a lot that it would have been great to have witnessed. One, which I’ll just mention and move on, was when Bill Clinton appeared on a screen and the crowd booed, probably the only negative moment in that night of joy. But it marked an important moment, in terms of S.C. Democrats rejecting the kind of hyperpartisan, do-anything-to-win approach to politics that the former president, Sen. Clinton, and their supporters (think Don Fowler) embodied. As Inez said, "Would you ever have imagined a crowd of South Carolina Democrats booing Bill Clinton?" Until last week, no.

But that sour note just served to emphasize the alternative that had just been embraced so emphatically by South Carolina voters — the joy, the hope, the welcoming, the affirmation that filled the hearts of the hundreds of thousands who came out to vote for Barack Obama.

And that led to what had to be the high point of the night — indeed, a high point in South Carolina history: That room full of people, black and white, young and old — but predominantly young — chanting "Race doesn’t matter! Race doesn’t matter!"

People who had long been involved in struggling to make South Carolina a better place for all people, only to be disappointed so many times as things dissolved in acrimony, looked at each other in disbelief, with chills running down their spines. They truly never thought they would see the day.

This was more than just a bunch of charged-up supporters giving a team cheer. It was THE message of the day. A half million people had turned out, thousands upon thousands of them who had never voted before or hadn’t voted in years because they were so turned off by politics as usual, and the overwhelming majority had chosen the man who embodies the fact that race doesn’t matter. He embodies it in his own life — a man with a white mother and a black, immigrant father, who grew up in Hawaii (and if you haven’t lived in Hawaii — I graduated from high school there — you can’t imagine the degree to which our whole mainland black-vs.-white thing makes NO sense to the people of the islands) and abroad, a man who can’t be pegged, either in his skin or his mind or soul, as being THIS or THAT.

And he embodies it in his message, as he so eloquently encapsulated in his victory speech (and as soon as I get the full text I’ll post it here).

They were, in advance, repudiating the divisive, identity-politics, racist message that the Clintons will try to see between now and Super Tuesday (I understand that Bill has already said something like well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too, as I had predicted he would). The very fact that the man whose message was the Race Doesn’t Matter got 80 percent of the black vote speaks volumes. That that was the chant in this moment of victory — rather than some cry of triumph on the part of blacks, or women (the majority of whom ALSO went for Obama), or any other demographic group — marked this as a tremendous moment in American history.

And that it happened HERE, in South Carolina, where once the majority of the state’s population was enslaved, where the Civil War started, where so many live in deep, inherited poverty, after all the scorn we have had to endure from the rest of the country over our race-based pathologies — what a wonderful, triumphant day for the people of this state!

Yesterday, we overcame so much. Thank God for this. We have overcome so much. Now, South Carolina has set the most positive example that can be set for the rest of the nation. I pray that the rest of the nation will understand the message. It has to; it just has to.

Because Race Doesn’t Matter!

Our interview with the winner: Obama speaking to our editorial board

All week, I wanted to stop and edit some of the video I shot during our editorial board interview with Barack Obama Monday morning, but, well… it’s been a busy week.

I finally tried to start putting together a post on it this afternoon, but my internet connection at home crashed. So, now that it’s all over for South Carolina, I’m sitting here on the air at ETV using their Web connection, and putting up some rough unedited clips. Better late than never, right? No? Whatever. I thought you still might like to hear the man who won so hugely here talking at some greater length than what you get on the Boob Tube usually.

As regular viewers will know, my little camera only shoots three-minute clips at a time, which means they can stop and restart in odd places. But I’ve put together four sequential clips here, with only one or two seconds of real time between them, from the opening moments of the meeting.

What you’ll see here in these four clips is Sen. Obama responding to our standard opening question we use in all candidate endorsement interviews for all offices. It’s simple: We ask him to state why he’s running, and why he should be the one to get the nomination — and in this case, presumably, the presidency. Sometimes we couch in terms of a 10-minute version of the candidate’s stump speech.

This serves two purposes. First, we editors don’t get out on the trail the way reporters do, so it’s good to hear the overview of how this candidate chooses to present himself. Second, it helps us cut through the sound-bite, 24/7 news headline of the moment and step back and take a broader view of who this candidate is and what his campaign is about.

Also, it gives us a sort of base line for the rest of our conversation, as we dig further into what the candidate is really about.

The four clips include Obama’s full answer to that question, minus the second or so intervals it takes for my camera to start rolling again after it shuts off at the end of a three-minute clip. A little way through the fourth one, the senator starts answering our second inevitable question that we ask specifically of presidential candidates, which always takes roughly this form: What is America’s proper role in the world, and how should it go about playing that role?

The first segment is at the top of this post. The other three follow:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Perhaps when things slow down, I can put up some further parts of the interview, for posterity. Anyway, what you see above is the candidate who made such a tremendous impression on our editorial board — and obviously, on South Carolina voters.

Obama inspires board, offers hope

Obamaboard

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
A remarkable thing happened this week to The State’s editorial board — again. For us, it was the equivalent of lightning striking the same place, twice in the same month.
    After difficult, agonizing discussions over presidential primary endorsements in both 2000 and 2004, we arrived at a quick consensus on endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for the S.C. Democratic Primary on Saturday.
    We met with Sen. Obama Monday morning, before he and the other candidates spoke at the State House. (Neither Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards ever met with us, despite long-standing invitations — repeated invitations, in Sen. Clinton’s case.)
    Our decision was made easier by the departure of Sen. Joe Biden. We might have been torn between his experience and foreign policy vision, and fresh hope for the future offered by Sen. Obama.
    As it was, Sen. Obama clearly stood out as the best remaining candidate — and he had always been the most exciting and inspiring in the field.
    It’s not just that he might be the first black president — Sen. Clinton would make history, too. It’s that he offers a fresh start for American politics. It is his ambition to be a president for all of us — black and white, male and female, Democrat and Republican. The nomination of Sen. Clinton would by contrast kick off another bitter round of the pointless partisanship that has plagued the nation under presidents named “Bush” and “Clinton.”
    As he did before the Republican primary, Associate Editor Mike Fitts framed the discussion of our Democratic endorsement, and did a sufficiently thorough job that the rest of us merely elaborated on his observations.
    First, he mentioned the support John Edwards had enjoyed among members of our board in 2004, although he did not get our endorsement then (in a grueling three-hour talkathon, I successfully pressed the board to choose Joe Lieberman instead). This time, he was “a substantially different guy” — an unappealing embodiment of class resentment.
    Also, his extreme position on Iraq — wanting to pull all troops out, even those who are training Iraqis — made him a nonstarter.
    About Hillary Clinton, Mike said the same thing he said about Mitt Romney 10 days earlier — “Boy, I wish she’d come in to see us, because I have so many questions.” Mike cited her obvious intelligence, and the fact that she “knows where the levers of power are” — especially within the Democratic Party. She’s worked the corridors of Washington since well before her time as first lady.
    But she could never have built the kind of coalitions that could break the partisan gridlock inside the Beltway — even if she wanted to, and we’ve seen little indication that she would want to.
    And her policy prowess is that of the insider. We saw her failed effort to reform our health care system as emblematic of her style — get a bunch of wonks in a room, close the door, and come up with something too complex and nuanced to sell.
    Barack Obama, by contrast, would be oriented toward — and more successful at — bringing the American public into the debate, and persuading us to agree to a solution. He has that leadership ability that she lacks.
    Sen. Obama has political gifts that are more reminiscent of former President Clinton. Of Sen. Clinton, Mike said, “She’s sort of caught between Obama and her husband, as two of the most evocative leaders we’ve had in a while.”
    While Sen. Obama is completely true to the highest traditions of the Democratic Party, he would have the potential to lead others as well. Sen. Clinton’s main interest in Republicans seems to be beating them, prevailing over them, having things go her way rather than theirs.
    “I would really like us to be talking about Joe Biden or Bill Richardson,” said Associate Editor Cindi Scoppe. That leaves her with what she sees as “an emotional decision,” which initially makes her uncomfortable. Cindi usually prefers the wonkiest option, but in the end she’s quite OK with “going for the exciting person who gives us hope.”
    “Hillary is very smart,” Associate Editor Warren Bolton agrees. But “I think she thinks she is the only one who has the answers.” Publisher Henry Haitz said the same thing, in almost the same words, a moment later.
    In the end, we came to a second quick consensus for much the same reason as the first time: We thought among the Republicans, John McCain had the best chance of uniting the country and leading in a positive direction. On the Democratic side, the one person who offers that same hope is Barack Obama.

(Both photos from the board’s meeting are by Chip Oglesby of thestate.com. To read The State‘s endorsement of Barack Obama, click here. For video about the endorsement, click here.)

Obamawarthen