I’m sure that this is going get me marked as a rabid Obama supporter (which I am not). But I can’t help but gush over his impressive response on the issue of church and state. In an interview with BeliefNet, he was asked, “You wrote in The Audacity of Hope about the role that faith and faith-based programs could play in confronting social ills. Isn’t your view on that similar to George W. Bush’s?”
His answer — the clearest ever seen — follows below the fold.
In the Jan 21 debate, on the subject of national security, Senator Clinton said,
And if it is indeed the classic Republican campaign, I’ve been there. I’ve done that.
See? She’s confessing that she and Bill really do steal plays from the Karl Rove playbook… she’s “done” a Republican campaign.
Wait, wait. You say that that’s not what she meant, that “clearly” she was commenting on the kind of campaigns she’s faced, not endorsing those tactics? I don’t know, it sounds a lot like parsing it to have it both ways…
(Obviously, I hope, I’m trying to draw a comparison to the freak-out that occurred when Sen. Obama noted the historical fact that Ronald Reagan was good at motivating people to vote Republican. Somehow his clear-as-day remark transmogrified into worship at the altar of Reagan. But Clinton’s comment — that her nomination would put us through the same Republican assaults we’ve suffered since, well, 1992 — apparently that’s not worthy of note.)
So Senator Obama has generated some heat by making the following remarks:
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.
(I’m quoting them from here.)
And a tempest has blown up in the Democratic party by some progressives that Obama should be shunned for having “praised” Reagan. Of course if you read the remarks, he didn’t actually do that. He did point out that Reagan was transformational — that the Reagan presidency moved the political stance of the country in a way that, say, the Clinton presidency did not. This statement is far from praise. It’s a recognition of fact. The proof is below the fold.
(more…)
One year from today will see, at long last, the end of the worst presidency in the history of the Republic. Come what may, on 2009 January 20, George W. Bush will be unemployed and this nation will have the chance to begin, at least, to heal.
Short answer: A whole lot less than the punditocracy would like you to believe.
Long answer: Oh, my goodness, people. Could we all just stop with the wild oscillations from day to day? No one in their right mind believed the polls showing Obama up by double digits in a single week. Clinton didn’t score a “comeback” because she didn’t go away: She has been strong in NH for the past year. Until a couple of weeks ago, Clinton had a 20 point edge on Obama and yet she won the state by only 2 points. How is that a comeback?
But what about all those polls showing the “Obama bounce”? They were ludicrous to believe. It takes time for actual views to shift, but polls are sensitive to short-period trends and, especially, news coverage. All of a sudden, after winning Iowoa, Obama was everywhere on the news. Of course his numbers ticked up.
Did Clinton “save” her candidacy by shedding a tear or by performing well at the debate or by saber-rattling? No, she “saved” it by having a strong organization in a friendly state. For five days, her supporters have been yelling at us that no one should count her out — correctly. But after castigating everyone for misinterpreting Iowa, they are exultantly misinterpreting New Hampshire. Excluding the post-Iowa media insanity, things turned out about as would be expected — indeed, I think Obama did better than anyone would have said just four weeks ago. (I mourn that my guy Edwards did not stage the upset that would truly have been an upset.)
Anyone with technical experience knows you don’t trust the gauge until it’s had time to settle down. Trying to spin Obama’s bounce into a steamroller mandate was silly. Trying to spin Clinton’s just-barely-held victory in a state she’d expected to win handily into a comeback of epic proportions… well, that’s just mendacious.
OK, so today during a campaign stop Hilary Clinton apparently teared up and allowed emotion into her voice. (See here for more if you need to.) And then John Edwards replied , “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business”. Now the blogosphere is abuzz with how unfair this has been to Senator Clinton and how if anyone else shows emotion, it’s depth but for her, it’s a breakdown and why is Edwards so mean? and…
Personally, I don’t think Clinton’s teary moment is a big deal. It’s been a long campaign, it hasn’t gone her way lately, and, win or lose, this is the capstone of her career. I think it’s entirely forgivable if she has a vulnerable moment and allows some of that to leak through. Here’s what I don’t get: Edwards has been campaigning just as long and just as hard. It’s pretty much the last act of his career, too. He’s seen Hilary crowned as the inevitable candidate and Barack as the “change” candidate, while the national press has ignored his message and focused on his haircut. Why isn’t it conceivable that his comment also reflects exhaustion and snappishness rather than a deep flaw?
I admit, I’m an Edwards supporter. But the reaction coverage seems genuinely out of line here. She was weak for a moment and let slip some tears. He was weak for a moment and snarked her. It’s passed, now, people.
Charlie Wilson’s War
screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
starring Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman
InstaRating: 5+ stars out of 5
It took less than five minutes for this film to remind me why I miss Aaron Sorkin on TV.
…. so I guess I’m obligated to post on the Iowa caucuses. This is straight political opinion, so bail out if you don’t want to hear me blather.
At the moment I’m writing it looks like Obama has pulled off a significant first-place tally with Clinton and Edwards more or less tying for second. I cannot say I am unpleased with that, though Edwards is my guy in this fight and I had hoped he’d take first. On the other hand, a lot of people seemed to be counting him out at Thanksgiving, so I guess it’s not a bad showing. I am happy that the presumptive Clinton steamroller got derailed, because while I’d vote for any of these Democrats over any of the Republicans in the field, I am least enthusiastic about Clinton.
(more…)
“Leadership” is a word tossed around a lot today, especially by those who evidence none of it. But today, in the United States Senate, Christopher Dodd (D-CT) stood up for the rule of law and demonstrated the sort of leadership that once made this nation great. Faced with Harry Reid’s inexplicable kowtowing to the forces of secrecy and intimidation, Dodd first placed a hold on the awful Senate Intelligence Committee bill to “fix” FISA (by, for example, exempting telecom companies from liability). When Reid ignored that (despite centuries of tradition), Dodd fought an underhanded rule change and then signaled his intent to filibuster the bad bill with all his strength.
How strongly did he feel? He abandoned the Iowa campaign route not three weeks before the caucuses. Let’s repeat that: He gave up his campaign, temporarily, so that he could return to Washington and do his job securing the rights and liberties of American citizens. There are three other Democratic Senators running for office; none of them did the same. I’m looking at you, Clinton, Obama, Biden. People will remember who acted and who only talked about acting.
I’m not in Dodd’s camp, but I just went online to make a contribution to his campaign. Let’s keep him in the race — let’s help him keep the others honest.
… than the following quote?
If at the top, the message that’s sent is, “We’re going to bend the rules to our advantage,” the message is clearly understood and creates a culture of attempting to avoid the rules.
— Steven L. Schooner, a procurement law expert at George Washington University Law School
Mr. Schooner (quoted in this New York Times article) was speaking with regard to the suicide of Chuck Riechers, the Air Force’s top procurement officer after becoming embroiled in a scandal. In this case, the rules-bending involved having a private contractor pay Mr. Riecher’s salary while he awaited formal confirmation for his new job.
But really, doesn’t it just capture the spirit of this benighted administration in toto?