Category Archives: Barack Obama

What did Hillary say that was so wrong?

18 Replies

Democrats_debate_wart

So Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have put their spat over race behind them. That’s good, but it still leaves me with a question that I guess only a Clueless White Guy could ask: What was that all about?

Maybe it’s that when it was all brewing I was too busy with the GOP primary to take notice. It seemed to happen late last week, when I was trying to get our endorsement of John McCain decided, written, elaborated upon, discussed in multimedia, and put on the Sunday page.

That’s got to be it. There’s got to be something I just missed entirely. That’s why I find myself still asking, What did Hillary Clinton say that was so wrong? (And note that I’m not even getting into Bill Clinton saying Sen. Obama
was peddling "fairy tales." Supposedly, that was taken by some as
racially insensitive also. But Mr. Clinton say
anything about anybody’s race? He did say "fairy," but it
seems that would offend a whole other demographic group, and then only
if it was really, really willing to stretch to be offended.)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but did this controversy not erupt when the senator from New York said:

    "Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson
passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."

And did it not only deepen when she said:

    “Sen. Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. to criticize me. Basically compared himself to two of
our greatest heroes. He basically said that President Kennedy and Dr.
King had made great speeches and that speeches were important. Well, no
one denies that. But if all there is (is) a speech, then it doesn’t
change anything.”

This was deemed offensive by some, and the nature of the offense was racial, apparently because Dr. Martin Luther King was mentioned. Or maybe because Sen. Obama is black, or not, depending on who’s keeping score.

Where did the offense lie? Haven’t all great, inspirational leaders been followed by more prosaic types who did much to make the dream a reality? Did Moses not have his Joshua? Did Jesus — whose sudden execution essentially left his movement, at first, in shambles — not have his St. Paul? And do any of us think that, because he essentially invented the idea of a "church" as something Gentiles could join, that St. Paul was greater than Jesus? I would hope not.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t MLK, in the most famous passage of one of his most inspirational speeches, compare himself to Moses? And was that comparison not specifically with regard to the fact that, while he had led the movement right up to the border, someone else might have to lead it into the Promised Land? ("I may not get there with you.")

Or did I miss something? It’s highly possible that I did, which is why I’m asking. I’ve looked at several stories on this subject, but it’s certain that I haven’t read them all.

But if I didn’t miss something, then I think Sen. Clinton caught a lot of grief she didn’t deserve. She might be called all sorts of things, by those who are inclined to criticize her — overbearing, perhaps. Condescending, maybe. But racist? I don’t think so.

By the way, that was what I didn’t like about the Ariail cartoon that I showed you in sketch form yesterday: I thought it was way unfair to Mrs. Clinton. Of course, it is in the essential nature of caricature to exaggerate, and even to offend. But I thought the Ariail cartoon we actually used made the same point (with which I disagree, but what Robert wants to say is Robert’s business), and since it left out the emotional hand grenade of the lawn jockey, it did so in a way more likely to be clearly understood. But it’s hard to be sure about such things, which is why I asked y’all about it.

Democrats_debate_wart2

Democratic endorsement delayed

18 Replies

Much to my disappointment, we will not be ready to endorse in the S.C. Democratic Primary on Sunday as planned.

As blog readers should be aware, the only Democratic candidate we have had an endorsement interview with thus far is Joe Biden, and being the current-events whizzes y’all are, you know he dropped out after Iowa. Now if you’re wondering why he’s the only one to have come in before the last-minute crunch (he last visited us on Oct. 1), that’s a good question. If you come up with an answer, let me know. All the major candidates have had standing invitations since well before the first of the year.

Anyway, we have not taken the position that "You should have done your homework before the January crush rather than waiting until the last minute." (No way I could have any moral standing there, as I always do stuff at the last minute, which is one reason I’m in the deadline-oriented newspaper biz.) We’re still doing our best to get folks in here. We’ve grown accustomed in recent elections to having that opportunity, and while we realize the insane front-loaded primary schedule we have this year is pulling them in far more directions than we’re used to, we’re not comfortable with endorsing someone we haven’t had the chance to interview as a board.

As of now, the one remaining candidate we have scheduled is Barack Obama — on Monday morning, MLK Day. His campaign says he won’t be east of Nevada before that. We continue to hope for something earlier if his plans change, but right now this is what we’ve got. I’m hoping rather fervently that we can get Hillary Clinton in before Obama, so that our decision won’t be further delayed, but no time has been set yet. (That this is on MLK Day is ironic, because it underlines the fact that Biden and Chris Dodd were here last MLK Day, campaigning their rear ends off, months before Obama and Clinton entered the race as automatic front-runners, thus crowned by the inside-the-Beltway media without having lifted a finger to seek the votes of South Carolinians.)

As those are the front-runners, those are the two we are really pressing at this point. Our standing invitation remains open to John Edwards (for the rest of this week anyway), but as time runs out, we’re pushing the ones who have the greatest chance of actually becoming president. And as I said last, week, South Carolina is now about these two candidates, as the GOP one is about McCain and Huckabee (don’t look at me; look at the polls).

This is not what I wanted. I wanted both of the endorsements to run on Sunday, as the McCain one did. That gives maximum exposure to something that has high reader interest (our endorsement was the top-rated item on thestate.com over the weekend, I believe), and also gives some time for letters and other reaction before the vote.

But right now, our best-case scenario is that our endorsement will run on Wednesday, Jan. 23. We would also put it online early, as of 3 p.m. Tuesday, as we did with the Republican one.

Speaking of the Republican endorsement — we entertained the idea of delaying that one as well. I brought it up to my colleagues late last week. But the situation was different. We had already met with the two front-runners, and the remaining candidates showed little interest in coming in, even late. No campaign suggested, as Sen. Obama’s did, coming in at the first of the next week. If we tried to go ahead on schedule with the Democratic endorsement the way we did with the GOP, we’d do so with a dearth of input.

(Personally — speaking only for myself here, not my colleagues — I am really counting on these meetings to help me make up my mind. Y’all know I always liked McCain, and hoped that was where we would end up as a group — those meetings for me were about testing my preference through dialogue with him and Huckabee, my second choice. With the Democratic race, I truly don’t know which one I’d pick right now even if I could wave a wand and make it so without regard to the other members of the board.)

So that’s the way things stand. I’ll tell you if I learn more.

Would you run this cartoon?

12 Replies

Aria08sketch8

Here’s one of the many cartoon ideas Robert Ariail had today, in sketch form. We went for something else in the actual paper for tomorrow, but this was one of the sketches Robert gave thestate.com for use in this package.

I made sure senior editors down in the newsroom were aware of the cartoon (thestate.com is part of the newsroom, and therefore separate from my department), so they could make a conscious decision about it before it appeared.

The question I had raised about the cartoon earlier with Robert was … well, never mind the concern I raised. I’d rather not prejudice your response. After y’all have a chance to say what you think, I’ll tell you what I think. (I’ll only tell you that if you’re one of those simple souls who don’t know me at all and think all newspaper editors are about political correctness, you’ll probably guess wrong as to what my concern was.)

So … whaddya think?

Rasmussen: McCain widens lead; Clinton gaining on Obama

19 Replies

Right after I posted this video of McCain talking about 2000, I ran across evidence that things are definitely looking better for him this time than last time. Rasmussen has him up nine points over Huckabee. (And for you Fred fans — Thompson’s numbers have improved, too.)

Meanwhile, the race on the Democratic side is seen as tightening up. with Hillary Clinton only five points behind Barack Obama.

It’s about Clinton and Obama, too — but later

6 Replies

Obama_2008_kerry_wart

As previously noted, Barack Obama was down in Charleston today picking up John Kerry’s endorsement. Somebody remarked to me this morning that meant he was dissing his former running mate — which made me pause to think, that guy’s still running?

After Tuesday night, the South Carolina Democratic primary is about Obama and Hillary Clinton. So is the Democratic nomination overall.

But we have another week to think about that. With our GOP endorsement coming up Sunday, which means I’ve got a lot of writing to do about that over the next day or so, I’ve been concentrating less on the Democrats this week. That will soon change.

(Trivial footnote: The picture above is from this morning at the Cistern. The one below is from Tuesday night. The Associated Press has not moved a single picture of Hillary Clinton since then. There’s probably a logical explanation, but it still strikes me as odd.)

Clinton_2008_new_hamp_wart

Don’t hold this against Obama

11 Replies

Kerry_obama_2004

Today in South Carolina, John Kerry will endorse Barack Obama:

CHARLESTON, S.C. – Senator John Kerry is set to endorse the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama at a rally here today, the first of several high-profile Democrats expected to announce their support for Mr. Obama in his fight to win the party’s nomination.
    Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who was the party’s presidential nominee in 2004, will argue that Mr. Obama represents the best prospect for uniting a divided country, aides to both men said, as well as transforming America’s image around the world…

Still, I don’t think S.C. Democrats should hold it against Obama, even if Sen. Kerry is the least cool nominee the party has known in many a year. Remember, Oprah likes him too.

The Hillary cartoon that wasn’t

5 Replies

08ari0109

Last night, while I was making the rounds of campaign HQs in Columbia, it suddenly hit me that I needed to come in and revamp the editorial page for today, which at that point had gone to the pressroom hours earlier.

The first thing that hit me was that a couple of passages in my column for today were wrong — more about that in a minute. But the thing that would have really hit you in the eye and make you wonder what we’d been smoking was Robert Ariail’s cartoon. What you see above is what would have landed on your doorstep today if I hadn’t gone back in to the office a little before 10 p.m.

When Robert had left for the day, the cartoon was as fine as prognostication could make it. The polls almost uniformly had said, right up until the day of the New Hampshire primary, that Obama and McCain were going to win up there, and that Obama would win by a bigger margin than McCain. All of the talk about Democratic Party insiders was about how Mrs. Clinton would probably have to skip South Carolina, conceding it to Obama, and concentrate on the big states coming up in February.

By 8:30 or so, it was becoming obvious that even if Obama won New Hampshire, it would be close. An hour later, it was looking increasingly like Hillary had achieved an upset win. And this morning, I have yet to find anyone who offers a plausible explanation as to why that happened. People mention the tears, but to me, that remains implausible. I guess I just don’t want to admit voters can be so swayed by something that that. Perhaps I should know better.

Here’s the cartoon I put in place of the Hillary one (it’s also reproduced below) — fortunately, Robert had finished it earlier in the day, only deciding to do the Clinton one late. All I had to do was scan it in and put it on the page.

Due to a glitch in software that automatically searches for each day’s cartoon and puts it on thestate.com, some of you may have already seen the Hillary cartoon. But we’ve fixed that, and at least I was able to keep it out of the paper.

Oh, yes, here are the changes I had to make in my column. Originally, the relevant passage in my column went like this:

    Let’s do Republicans first, since y’all face S.C. voters first (on the 19th) and come back to the Democrats (assuming, of course, that Barack Obama hasn’t sewn up the nomination before this column lands on your doorstep).
    We’d like some specifics beyond the vehement claims that pretty much each and every one of you is “the real conservative” in the race.
    We’ll start with John McCain, the likely winner (as I type this) in New Hampshire Tuesday.

Once again, that was based on the best info available at the time our page needed to go to meet our normal production schedule. Here’s what it changed to:

    Let’s do Republicans first, since y’all face S.C. voters first (on the 19th) and come back to the Democrats (after the cliffhanger night Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just went through, they could probably do with a rest today).
    We’d like some specifics beyond the vehement claims that pretty much each and every one of you is “the real conservative” in the race.
    We’ll start with John McCain, the big winner in New Hampshire Tuesday.

As the world keeps changing several times a day over the next couple of weeks, this sort of thing is likely to keep happening. I just hope I can always catch it before an error is published.

08ari0109a

Whoa! Looks like Zogby did his sums wrong

5 Replies

Hey, wait a minute! Wasn’t Obama supposed to run away with this thing tonight, while McCain was supposed to win by a relatively smaller margin on the GOP side? Wasn’t tonight supposed to spell the end for Hillary Clinton?

Sure, the results are not all in yet on the Democratic side as I write this, but what’s happening is far from what I expected, point spreadwise.

That’s what I get for putting too much stock in Zogby. Here’s what he had as of this morning:

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire Tracking Poll: Obama, McCain Enjoy Solid Leads As Election Day Dawns

UTICA, New York — The big momentum behind Democrat Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, continued up to the last hours before voters head to the polls to cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary election, a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll shows. Fed by a strong win in the Iowa caucuses Thursday, Obama leads with 42% support, compared to 29% for rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.
    In the Republican primary race, Arizona Sen. John McCain extended his lead over rival Mitt Romney from five to nine percentage points since yesterday, the survey shows.
    Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards mostly held steady, winning 17% support, though he has begun to lose steam. Though he won the Republican Iowa caucus Thursday, Mike Huckabee found himself in the same position as Edwards, unable to build Obama-like momentum and stuck in third – a distant third in Huckabee’s case….

OK, so he wasn’t so far off on the GOP side — he had McCain beating Romney 36-27 percent — but the Democratic contest doesn’t look anything like what anyone expected.

Top S.C. Dems see little hope for Hillary in state

8 Replies

Folks, it’s been a long day, and I haven’t had a chance to something I had resolved to blog about early this morning:

On my way to breakfast, I ran into two former Gov. Jim Hodges and former Democratic nominee for Attorney General Steve Benjamin, and both said the same thing — if Obama won today in New Hampshire by as much as expected, Hillary Clinton has no chance in South Carolina.

Without naming names, Gov. Hodges said that based on his conversations, watch for some of Sen. Clinton’s black support in S.C. to suddenly declare "neutrality" in the contest. Neither S.C. Democrat would be surprised if Sen. Clinton, who had dominated the polls here for most of the past year, decided to skip the state altogether, in a last-ditch effort to stop Obama on Super Tuesday.

The big question, Mr. Benjamin said, was whether Mrs. Clinton would go negative on Obama. He speculated that that might be what John Edwards will be counting on, if he stays in it — mutual destruction by his rivals.

Zogby: Obama gets N.H. boost from Iowa; Huckabee does not

9 Replies

Zogby reported this afternoon that Barack Obama is surging in New Hampshire after his Iowa win, but no such luck for Mike Huckabee:

    Democrat Barack Obama’s dramatic post-Iowa momentum has come to full bloom in the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire daily tracking poll, rocketing to a 10-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton and a 20-point over Edwards. In New Hampshire’s Republican primary race, the survey shows Arizona’s John McCain had a very good day at the same time that Massachusetts’s Mitt Romney lost ground, resulting in a five-point lead for McCain.
    Iowa’s GOP caucus winner Mike Huckabee has fallen into a distant third at 10%, barely ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who enjoyed a slight uptick and rests at 9%.

I guess that sort of follows the conventional wisdom line — New Hampshire is all about independent voters, who tend to favor Obama and McCain. Bad news for Hillary Clinton. But with fewer evangelicals, there’s no bump for Huck — It’s still McCain in the lead, with Romney firmly in second.

Could be that Mrs. Clinton has missed her chance.

Anyway, click here for poll details.

Dave Barry meets Dick Harpootlian

1 Reply

Colbert_082

Thought y’all might enjoy checking out this column, headlined "Harpootlian to take New Hampshire," by funnyman Dave Barry that appeared in The Miami Herald Saturday. In it, Dave has no end of fun — with Dick’s name:

    The political landscape has been severely shaken up. To help you
understand what is going on, here’s a summary of the situation, with
key names and concepts in capital letters:

    On the Democratic
side, HILLARY CLINTON, who was the FRONT-RUNNER based on her EXTENSIVE
EXPERIENCE being married to her HUSBAND, BILL CLINTON, totally got
pulverized in Iowa by BARACK OBAMA, who has been a U.S. SENATOR for
like FIFTEEN MINUTES during which he acquired many NEW IDEAS such as
CHANGE.

    Also he has a supporter named DICK HARPOOTLIAN, which has to be one of the best supporter names ever…

And to think, people accuse me of being shallow in my analysis…

If Dave only knew some of the stories about Dick — especially the ones he tells on himself — he’d have all sorts of fun. He would have to use one of his stock punchlines — "I am not making this up" — so often, he’d wear it out.

Oh, by the way, in keeping with the in-depth reporting you’ve come to expect on this blog, here’s video of Dick talking about his support for Barack Obama. (This was at the Colbert brunch back in October, previously reported here):

Iowa: The Politics of Joy Redux

4 Replies

Obamajoy

OK, since everybody ignored my plea and paid attention to Iowa anyway (as I knew they would), here’s an observation that is hardly original, but I thought I’d provide a place for y’all to talk about it.

What happened last night was a remarkable case of caucusers going for new, fresh, upbeat, hopeful change over ticked-off, bitter, resentful, angry same-old. It’s almost HHH’s "Politics of Joy," only more convincing.

Caucusers (as distinguished from voters, which is what you will encounter in New Hampshire and South Carolina), went for the squeaky-new, self-described "conservative that’s not mad at anybody over it" and Barack Obama’s optimistic, youth-and-future-oriented Call to Service. Rather than Humphrey, I’d cast Huckabee as Jimmy Carter (think, "Scandal-weary nation turns to evangelical Southern newcomer") and Obama as JFK in this context. Anyway, to the extent that this phenomenon is borne out in broader venues, it bodes well for America.

And it bodes very badly for Mitt Romney, whose constant attack mode, amplified with all that money, had to be a huge turnoff to folks in a looking-for-joy sort of mood. It bodes even worse for John Edwards, who picked the wrong year to switch from Happy Populist (a role gratefully seized by Obama and Huckabee) to Angry Populist. And (here I’m really reading way more into Iowa than anyone should) it could spell the beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy depends completely on the voters being willing to endure four more years of the wretched partisan bickering of the Clinton-Bush years.

Last night’s result caused me to amend my opinion of Iowa in one respect — obviously, with these results, the caucuses this year were a measure of more than just "organizational skill" (fourth paragraph of today’s column). These results show that even the unabashed partisans who show up at caucuses are susceptible to a new mood rising and sweeping through the Zeitgeist. And that bodes even worse for the aforementioned campaigns, because if their money and organization don’t serve them well in THIS controlled environment, what fresh humiliations will they suffer out here in the broader electorate?

But enough about that. I’m more eager than ever now to see what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Huckabeejoy

Belated, inadequate thoughts on Bhutto

11 Replies

Pakistan_bhutto_kille_wart

I was actively avoiding posting last week, trying to have a real vacation for once and saving my strength for the home stretch heading up to the S.C. primaries. Not to mention the Legislature coming back next week.

So I didn’t say anything about Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. But I will now share what I was thinking at the time. It was basically two simple thoughts:

  1. This should provide a good gut check for all those people running for president — do they really want this job? Do they really think they know how to react in a situation such as this? Are people like Mike Huckabee, who has so many fine domestic sensibilities but NO foreign policy experience, thinking "Hey, wait a minute…"?
  2. Does an event like this reverse the process that David Brook wrote of last month. I thought his explanation of why Iowa voters were turning to Mr. Huckabee and Barack Obama was on-point: The success of the surge had made foreign affairs sink to the background in the public’s mind, and made them feel free to look around for a "postwar" president.

But make no mistake. Dealing with ungodly messes such as this is the main, chief, most essential part of the job description. The rest is mostly window-dressing by comparison. We need a wartime consigliere. Maybe it should be Obama or Huckabee. But if people are turning to them because they think "Happy Christmas/War is Over," they should think again.

I resisted writing the above during my vacation because … well, because I hate the way so many commentators change the subject from an important, knotty policy problem to electoral politics. They do it because they know electoral politics, or think they do, so that makes things easier.

But the truth is, it’s what I was thinking. And the further truth is, the biggest effect that you and I can have on the course of events in Pakistan and the next, yet-unidentified powder keg is to choose a president who’s a lot better qualified to choose a course of action than I am. Personally, looking at the chaos that Mrs. Bhutto’s death created, I would have no idea what to do or say next — if I were the one who had to do the saying and doing. I was truly at a loss.

Sacrifice and religion: More Sorensen video

3 Replies

Following up today on stuff I didn’t have time to deal with adequately before Christmas, what with Mike being off and me doing the pages in his absence…

One ball I dropped was to follow through on my promise to deliver more video from my interview with Ted Sorensen on Dec. 20. Here’s a link to the much-better-than-mine video that Andrew Haworth of thestate.com posted that very night, covering the first part of the interview.

And here, from my dinky, low-res camera, are a couple of quick clips on other parts of the interview I found highly interesting. They are…

First, a clip covering the subject of my recent column challenging candidates today to challenge us the way JFK did. Since that was triggered by a JFK speech I had recently heard again, I thought it particularly apropos to talk with his speechwriter about the subject (The setup — my question — takes a while, but Mr. Sorensen’s reply is worth waiting through that to hear):

Second, we have Mr. Sorensen on the subject of another pair of speeches, both on religion and politics — Kennedy’s to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, and Mitt Romney’s to a sympathetic crowd at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library on Dec. 6, 2007:

Viewing that second clip myself today as I edited it, I realize that much of what was said was said by me (pretty much what I had said already on the blog). But Mr. Sorensen adds some nuggets of perspective that no one else could contribute, so I thought it worth putting this up anyway. Normally when I edit video, I cut myself out as much as possible — why bore my readers/viewers? This time, I didn’t see a good way to do that and keep the context. So, sorry about that.

JFK adviser Sorensen tells why he’s supporting Obama

10 Replies

Sorensen_001

Oh, yeah, now I remember why I do this job — one of the reasons, anyway: Really, really interesting people come to see you and you get to ask them questions.

Today, I was honored to meet Ted Sorensen, chief adviser and speechwriter to John F. Kennedy. You know how I’ve written in the past about how how Barack Obama’s call to service echoes JFK’s? (And yes, I know I’m hardly the only one to mention it.) Well, Mr. Sorensen was here to confirm that as far as he’s concerned, Obama is indeed Camelot’s rightful heir (so forget what you may have heard about that Mordred guy; he’s not running anyway).

It’s been a long day, so I’ve just edited and posted one quick video clip (below), with Mr. Sorensen talking briefly about why he supports Sen. Obama. But more will be coming. For one thing, Andy Haworth of thestate.com shot video of the whole interview, with a much better camera than I use and lights and everything. I’ll give you a heads-up when he puts that up.

Also, I’ll go through the rest of my footage as soon as I can (probably this weekend at this point), and provide video on some of the other topics we covered, such as:

  • The Cold War, from a leading participant’s perspective.
  • Why Kennedy doesn’t deserve any blame for Vietnam escalation.
  • How Romney’s "religion" speech stacks up to his own — I mean, to JFK‘s.
  • What kind of speech he’d like to hear the eventually Democratic nominee give.
  • Which Republican he’d prefer, if we had to have a Republican.
  • Why he particularly prefers Obama to Joe Biden.

I’ll get to in when I can. I’m out of steam for today. In the meantime, here’s a clip with Mr. Sorensen talking about Obama:

   

Which Democrat would the UnParty embrace?

9 Replies

Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of John McCain dramatizes the Arizonans status as the one Republican most in tune with the UnParty. To quote from Sen. Lieberman’s statement:

    "I know that it is unusual for someone who is not a Republican to endorse a Republican candidate for President. And if this were an ordinary time and an ordinary election, I probably would not be here today. But this is no ordinary time — and this is no ordinary election — and John McCain is no ordinary candidate.
    "In this critical election, no one should let party lines be a barrier to choosing the person we believe is best qualified to lead our nation forward. The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the Presidency.
    "We desperately need our next President to break through the reflexive partisanship that is poisoning our politics and stopping us from getting things done. We need a President who can reunite our country, restore faith in our government, and rebuild confidence in America’s future.
    "My friend John McCain is that candidate, and that is why I am so proud to be standing by his side today…"

Does anyone else on the Republican side have UnPartisan potential? Sure, to differing degrees. Rudy Giuliani has certain appeal across party lines, and one of our commenters had it right when he compared Mike Huckabee to Jimmy Carter (Lee didn’t mean it as a compliment, but that doesn’t make the comment less true).

But Lieberman definitely gave McCain a big leg up in this regard.

That said, who on the Democratic side is most likely to appeal to UnPartisans? This is a tricky question. David Brooks (who, as you will recall, wrote of the McCain-Lieberman Party last year) framed part of the dilemma well in a column that will run on our op-ed page tomorrow. One the one hand, Hillary Clinton has been a significant bipartisan force as a senator:

    Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline.

All very true. On the other hand, Barack Obama is the guy who wants to be president of all of us, while Mrs. Clinton tends to attract those who want to "take back" the White House for their partisan faction:

     Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.
    But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

Then, of course, there’s Joe Biden, who has more experience working effectively across the lines toward pragmatic policies than either of them. Unfortunately, David Brooks isn’t writing about Sen. Biden, and too few are thinking about him. But he certainly deserves the UnParty’s careful consideration.

I’m sure that’s a great comfort to him, don’t you think?

Do YOU color (or colour) outside the lines?

11 Replies

    “I know that folks were rifling through my kindergarten papers. I’m
going to be disclosing them tomorrow. It will show that I experimented
with colouring outside the lines. I was pulling on pigtails.”
             — Barack Obama

The Economist brought my attention to the above quote, which it initially got from an ABC News blog. The point was to mock the way Clintonistas have been attacking him, but it raises another key issue:

Did he color (or, to do it the Economist way, "colour") outside the lines? And if so, what does that say about him?

I’m strictly orthodox on this. I was taught to stay in the lines, and I did so. This is one of the few areas of fundamental disagreements I have with my wife, who was told to let her creativity free. Personally, I found this scandalous, and have done my best just to overlook it for the sake of matrimonial harmony over the past three-plus decades. There’s just no point in my going on about the fact that she was taught wrong.

I find myself wondering whether this is any kind of indicator of our political attitudes. Do Ron Paul supporters and other libertarians tend to be outside-the-lines people? Whom are we stricter types more likely to favor, as a rule?

And does it matter? (Of course it matters! Only those outside-the-lines anarchists would think otherwise!)

Edwards gets some respect from Katon — briefly

4 Replies

End of last week, I thought maybe there was a John Edwards surge in S.C. that I hadn’t heard about. That’s because state GOP Chairman Katon Dawson actually deigned to attack him, after months in which you would have thought that the only Democrat out there was Hillary Clinton:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson today released the following statement on John Edwards’ visit to the Upstate:
    “John Edward’s photo-ops in small-town South Carolina are little more than transparent campaign stunts that won’t fool voters in our state,” said Dawson. “Edwards couldn’t win South Carolina four years ago, and he has again made it crystal clear he is wrong for South Carolina – promising to raise taxes, socialize healthcare and abandon Iraq before it is secure.”

But everything was back to normal today.

Which raises the question — with him rising in the polls, and still no mention, does this mean Katon likes Obama? Or does he just not fear him?

Maya Angelou — when is HER show on?

1 Reply

Poor Zac over at Clinton HQ sent this out today, with timing that invites (probably intentionally, but set me straight on that if I’m wrong, Zac) comparison to the Double-O show yesterday:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2007

Contact: Zac Wright

Dr. Maya Angelou Hits SC Airwaves for Hillary
‘My Girl’ Radio Spot Airs Statewide
(COLUMBIA) – Dr. Maya Angelou took her support of Hillary Clinton to the South Carolina airwaves as Clinton launched her fourth radio spot in the state, entitled “My Girl.”  The 60-second spot began playing on radio stations across the state over the weekend.

In the spot, Dr. Angelou describes her personal support of Hillary and focuses on Hillary’s experience as an advocate for families.

A complete transcript is included below.  The radio ad can be heard online at: www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/southcarolina.

Maya Angelou:   Hello South Carolina, this is Maya Angelou. Let me tell you about my girl… Hillary Clinton. 
    As a child, Hillary Clinton was taught that all God’s children are equal, so as a mother she understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe.
    I know what kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know who she is.  Hillary Clinton has always been a strong woman and a passionate protector of families.  For 35 years, that’s exactly what she has been doing.
    Each generation of African Americans stands on the shoulders of those who came before.  Today, the challenges facing us threaten the dreams we have had for our children.  We need a president with the experience and strength to meet those challenges.
    I am inspired by Hillary Clinton’s commitment and courage… a daughter, a wife, a mother… my girl.

                        I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.

                        ###

So, how does that match-up play out? Oprah vs. Maya? I think I’d choose the endorsement that Obama got, if I were running for the Democratic nomination.

Hang in there, Hillary

5 Replies

At the otherwise civilized NPR debate, some of her rivals gave Hillary Clinton grief for doing exactly what she should have done — vote for the resolution aimed at isolating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

This, of course, is in keeping with the fad of the last couple of days, in which everyone projects what they wish the facts to be upon the rather mixed National Intelligence Estimate — you know, the one that said Iran stopped working toward a nuke over here, but over there it kept busy enriching uranium, putting it on track to have enough for a Bomb sometime between 2010 and 2015. (The Israelis, meanwhile, are more pessimistic than their friends over here.)

I’m still waiting for a reason why we should stop doing what we’ve been doing — working with France to keep the pressure on Iran to get it to abandon its nuclear ambitions — but I haven’t heard one yet.

This issue illustrates the flip side of the contradictory role that Mrs. Clinton plays in this election. She’s the embodiment of the hopes of people who want to continue the bloody partisan wars of the past 15 years, and Barack Obama offers the hopeful alternative to that.

Meanwhile, when it comes to actual policy — particularly foreign policy, which is the biggie when you’re talking chief executive in our system — she comes closer than Obama to the kind of Third Way approach once exemplified by her husband, Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair and others. (Example: The way she infuriated some in the base by her refusal to say she regrets her Iraq vote — that is the proper response for someone who is serious about occupying the White House.)

Anyway, when it comes to her Iran vote: You go, Hillary. Pay no attention to those boys.