Dream Ticket

After tonight's debate in California I am surprisingly attracted to a Hillary/Obama ticket.  Each senator has galvanized legions of voters -and its only the primaries!  It's fair to say that together they would be an overwhelmingly unbeatable pair.  Hillary Clinton has the knowledge and experience while Barack Obama has the inspiration and the optimism.  Who can say no to that?  (maybe a Republican?)

Unfortunately it may be too early to start dreaming... but it was a nice thought.

Obama showing his true colors

Has the Obama campaign regressed to high school tactics? I have to say that I found his "likable enough" comment unmentionable but now that its a pattern it looks very small of him. More and more he seems arrogant and peevish. How do his supporters reconcile moments like these with his supposed message of "unity"?

New York Times endorses...

HILLARY CLINTON

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

Shocking Obama remarks

Apparently unity is something Obama is interested in ONLY if he is the nominee. Can't say I believed his empty words to begin with...

Actual Obama quotes in context

“The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we’ve done that, we’ve tried it.”

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. 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 think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Make up your own minds... but I think it sounds like he's playing both sides of the aisle.

About that Republicans-having-all-the-ideas debacle...

So Barack Obama is purporting, or rather his supporters are saying, that the Clinton campaign has lied and/or distorted his Republicans-have-had-all-the-ideas-for-the-last-10-15 years remark. They also charge that the Clinton camp has distorted his Ronald-Reagan-transformed-the-political-landscape-in-a-way-that-Bill-Clinton-did-not remark. I know I have paraphrased slightly but I promise I will post the entire quotation in its context in my next post.

These are the problems with what the Obama supporters are alleging:

1) Republicans-have-had-all-the-ideas-for-the-last-10-15 years
Obama supporters say that Clinton has "distorted" the truth because Hillary Clinton has used his remark to show his perspective on which party had all the ideas the last 10-15 years.
His supporters say he never said they were "good" ideas and even goes on to say that they were "played out" in context.
Problem: The premise of his view describes is that the democrats did not have any ideas during this period of 10-15 years. And if they did have ideas, they were not important enough for Barack Obama to remember. Of course, there are many democrats that would not concur with this assessment. So while Barack Obama is entitled to his opinion, and we can agree that he never said they were "good" ideas, his perspective is that of a disgruntled Republican at best. Also, it is a very strange thing to say in a Democratic primary.

2) Ronald-Reagan-transformed-the-political-landscape-in-a-way-that-Bill-Clinton-did-not
Again, he and his supporters claim that he was stating a harmless opinion and that he never viewed Ronald Reagan in a positive light the way Hillary Clinton is purporting.

Problem: If this truly is his opinion- that Ronald Reagan ( the progressive democrats' nightmare) was the last president to transform the political landscape in a way that Bill Clinton did not, then why mention Bill Clinton by name? If he was truly a "unifier" as opposed to the alleged divisive Hillary Clinton- then why would he want to mention an equalizing polarizing figure such as Bill Clinton? Did he want a reaction out of the Clinton camp? Was he trying to get republicans on his side? Barack Obama would have had a strong argument had he ignored the Clintons all together. Still, his supporters believe with conviction he is above the attack politics that they all engage in- yet here it is for all to see.

I heart Ronald Reagan??

Is Barack Obama serious?

Andrew Sullivan Watch #00000000001

There is something wrong with Andrew Sullivan. Are his opinions the result of years of repressed anger and personal vendetta? If I were someone close to him I would recommend psychotherapy, but since I'm not I'll just highlight his skewed perspective:

This Strange Campaign

17 Jan 2008 02:10 pm
A reader writes:
I just do not know what to make of the fact that the two candidates who are by far the most competent - Romney and Clinton - are the two I loathe the most, the two who seem least willing to run on their own competence rather than on their their PR directors' advice. If only they would let me trust them by trusting me first, then I could be happy with either of them. As it is, I must support McCain and Obama.

I'm not sure Clinton is the most competent. She's just the most competent at conveying the sense that she is the most competent. I mean, she's not going to win on charm, is she?
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

Sullivan's comments in bold...
Then regarding Open Left author Matt Stoller's audacity in disapproving of Obama's stumble in his positive comparison of Ronald Reagan, Sullivan awards Stoller the "Moore Nomination" in reference to Michael Moore- that being a very bad thing to Sullivan:

Moore Award Nominee II
17 Jan 2008 03:09 pm
"Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world and used paranoia and fear to change our culture and government in horrible ways. He also wasn't particularly popular, though as a politician, he's worth admiring for his raw political skill. Conservative ideology is based on greed and fear. There's no such thing as a good conservative leader, period. It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America," - Matt Stoller, Open Left.
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

You can take the conservative out of the gay but you can't take the Reagan out of the conservative!
Later on he does what he does best and cherry-picks a view that makes Sen. Clinton a "disgrace" while totally ignoring Sen. Edwards's by far the absolutely phoniest response to the Nevada debate's question on weakness:

Obama, Clinton, Honesty
17 Jan 2008 03:51 pm
David Brooks makes a point about the Nevada debate that's worth revisiting:
"The third thing that happened is that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards disgraced themselves in the minds of debate-watchers everywhere. At some point in each campaign, candidates are asked to name their greatest weakness. Only the lamest political hacks answer that question this way: Goshdarn it, I just care too much. I am too impatient for good things to happen. Giving that answer is an insult to the art of politics. And yet Edwards and Clinton both gave that answer. They didn't even give artfully disguised versions of that answer. They gave the straight, unsubtle kindergarten version of that answer. Obama, honestly, admitted that he's bad at organizing his paperwork. Truly, here is a man willing to stand for change."
And Clinton has used that moment of candor since as a way to imply that Obama is unready for the presidency. God, she's slimy. At least this campaign has revealed that to those of you with '90s amnesia.
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

And why shouldn't we raise our eyebrows about a potential president being a bad manager ?? Gosh, how slimy of us to want somebody who is organized?

Nevada Debate

Hillary was strong.  She showed she was informative, prepared, and above the fray when it came to the petty attacks we've seen exchanged between her camp and Obama's.  I'm glad Obama took the high road too.  

Later- Sullivan Watch

Talking Points Memo Watch

ROPE-A-DOPE
TPM Reader ML on the fracas ...

I think that the Clintons' anti-Obama strategy is more subtle than commentators are realizing. It is in the nature of a "provokatsiia", as the Russians say. Cuomo didn't utter the phrase "shuck and jive"without forethought; nor did Clinton bring up LBJ and MLK on the spur of the moment. Both are experienced street-fighting politicians who don't say that kind of thing to the press without thinking it through. Such comments are a provocation, waving a red cloak in front of the Obama people. When they respond angrily with charges of racism, suddenly they look like Jessie Jackson redux...just the kind of angry, militant black folks who scare white people (btw I think black anger and militancy are completely understandable...this is just a point about how much of the white public reads such charges of racism). Then the Clintons deny responsibility.
The whole point was to get the Obama people to respond angrily, which they did. Clintons win.

--Josh Marshall

So let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton ( I guess ) are purposely putting out a whisper campaign against Barack Obama to scare the liberal white voter and to create the image of an angry black man candidate. And how do the Obama people know this? Well, they know everything about the Clinton's motives, doesn't everybody know ? The Clintons are media savvy, masters of campaigning, and bent on taking over the world. Well if they were that good then wouldn't they have a few more supporters than what they have right now? In actuality, every liberal site I have visited since the historic surprise in Iowa has been favorable, if not stampeding to Barack Obama's defense. How did Barack achieve this narrative? The savior who dare not be mistreated or questioned.

When Bill Clinton called his speeches on the Iraq War a "fairytale" he was right. Obama, to his credit, really only has one major difference with Clinton on the war vote and that was he voted against it in 2002. All votes since have been identical to Sen. Clinton's. He voted to fund the war 300 billion dollars and voted YES the Patriot Act. Yet still, every liberal site is behind him and have all lined-up together to make sure that everyone knows what the "truth" is behind the Clintons. And this kind of "truth" is not hard to come by these days especially when so many people would rather have preconceived notions justified: Robotic-heartless woman = Sen. Clinton.

Welcome

So far today... Hillary is a "racist" and Obama is a victim ... more later