Clinton drama drowns Obama

Just as I was starting to get over my Clinton fatigue, the duo stages a reprise.

For two years, the Obama campaign kept negotiations and decisions private until they were ready to make an announcement. They were disciplined and leak free. No more.

Word leaked last week that Hillary Clinton had been offered the Secretary of State position in the cabinet and, ever since, we have been subjected to a barrage of leaks and public hand wringing. No other appointment has generated this much debate and public negotiation. Bill needs to be vetted. He doesn't want to be vetted. He has lawyers negotiating. She has angst. She's not sure she wants the job.

Enough already. Make a decision and STFU. Geez... Do we really want her around the executive branch for the next four years?

Through all this drama, we barely hear the name of the president elect. He is absent from the debate. You have to think that is deliberate. He's letting her suck all the oxygen out of the room again. This is just like the way things went when he won the nomination and, for a week, all we heard about was how hard Hillary had it. How much time she needed to admit what we had all known for three months. Through that time, Obama was silent as well.

I'm not sure what his strategy is...but I hope he soon has Clinton fatigue like we have. End this drama.

The audacity of nope

It's no less than amazing that the entire Democratic party has waited five days past the unofficial selection of a nominee to let Hillary Clinton finally accept what most people have known since the end of February -- that voters had the audacity to choose Barack Obama over her.

Much has been written about the strategy that allowed Barack Obama to rack up 11 straight wins in February and in the process, build an insurmountable lead. But the legendary No Surrender campaign told us that the 11 state sweep and 100 delegate lead didn't matter. Ohio and Texas were the states that were important. So we all waited for those two, and after she won the popular vote in both --and lost the delegates in Texas -- the basic math had not changed. Neither had the audacity.

We were told to look to Pennsylvania, to ignore caucus states, to count the censured Florida and Michigan, to focus only on the large states she won, to focus exclusively on the popular vote. And while we focused on the incredible morphing metrics, we conveniently overlooked that the delegate count remained insurmountable.

Superdelegates began eroding in March. A 100 plus superdelagate lead began dwindling to the point that it was completely erased. We settled the Michigan and Florida debacles. Networks began the delegate countdown clocks. And early Tuesday evening, virtually every news organization made it official, Barack Obama was the nominee.

Yet here we are five days later, waiting for Hillary to admit what has been general knowledge around the globe. The election was hers to lose, now, despite losing, she acts like it is hers to confer.

The audacity.

Amazing gracelessness

Imagine if after this year's Superbowl the New England Patriots had stayed on the field. Led by Tom Brady, they decided that they weren't quite ready to acknowledge the loss. They were in no rush to get off the field. They were going to huddle. Call another play or two and see how they felt.

Why shouldn't they? Over the course of the season, they had certainly performed better. They had won more games. They want to make sure that their season was fully appreciated by New York fans. They then invite Patriots fans to let them know what the fans think the team should do next. Until then, they would just wait on the field.

Sound ridiculous? That's the spectacle we are witnessing with Hillary Clinton.

After Barack Obama wrapped up the nomination last night, Hillary Clinton couldn't muster an acknowledgement. As late as today, Clinton's backers are still making the rounds on TV claiming that she shouldn't be rushed into acknowledging her loss.

The clock is out of time. The players have left the field. The stadium is emptying, and Clinton's team is still on the field calling plays.

Last night we expected to see a display of grace. What we got was a petty, self-serving speech. And to make matters worse, it was followed by an attempt to use the leverage of her voters to muscle her into the VP slot.

It would have been so easy to congratulate Obama and acknowledge the accomplishment of earning the nomination. That would not have precluded her from launching her VP campaign. Instead, holding out indefinitely is an amazing lack of grace. She can do better.

Assasination?!

I am utterly speechless at Hillary Clinton's defense of her continued candidacy that used the memory of Bobby Kennedy's assasination. Of all the outrageous things she has said, this has got to be the very worst, and as Keith Olbermann says, unforgiveable.

How Obama courts the Clintonites

I know Hillary Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Barack Obama in the Fall, but John McCain yesterday made it easier to bring the Clintonites back home.

In a speech laying out his judicial philosophy, McCain all but promised judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

He didnt say it explicitly, but he used all the code words as he addressed the largely conservative crowd.

So now the question would be to Clinton supporters, who are largely activist women, do you really want to play a role in reversing a woman's right to choose what to do with her body?

You might think Obama is an empty suit, but you can count on him to fight for the issues you support most passionately. Think about it.

-Sent from my mobile device.

Clinton: Nuke, nuke Iran

I shuddered when I heard John McCain singing, 'bomb, bomb, Iran,' but I never thought he would be outdone by a Democrat.

Repeating a line that most people seemed to miss during the Philadelphia debate, Hillary Clinton promised to nuke Iran if it threatened Israel. And when asked if that's what she really meant to say, she took it up a notch and said the US could obliterate them:

"The question was, 'If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?' And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran" to retaliate against an Iranian nuclear hit on Israel.

She added: "And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Wow! Whappened to diplomacy?

Obama took a more restrained view in the Guardian's report.

Obama, responding to Clinton's interview, said: "One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate'. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in sabre-rattling."

So now I'm wondering, what in the world would cause her to say something so hawkish that she is even appearing to be to the right of McCain? Is this her attempt to triangulate his message? Am I the only one who finds this just a little bit disconcerting? You'd think promising to nuke a Middle Eastern country would be the lead story, but it still seems to be buried. What gives?

Obama's debate debacle; grappling with the gotchas

I think we were beyond the halfway point of last night's debate when Charlie Gibson announced that 'now we will move to the issue Americans care most about, the economy.'

An interesting admission from anchors who seemed to glee in the endless stream of gotcha questions. From bitter, to Rev Wright, to Bosnia sniper fire, the debate seemed to deliberately avoid anything that looked like a substantive issue.

Too bad for Obama because he never fares well in those kinds of formats. Positioning himself as the gentleman of the race, he clings (yes, I said it) to being civil when the situation clearly calls for a street fight. A gentleman will never hit a lady, even if she is backhanding him with the broad side of a shovel.

I've often wondered why, after leading for so long, he can't or won't knock her out already. If Clinton had the advantages that Obama has presided over for the last few months, I'm sure she would have ended him in a grand a brutal fashion by now. Obama's the guy in the coliseum who has his opponent down on her back and rather than deliver the final blow, he turns and walks away. Everyone in the stands knows that were the situation reversed, she wouldn't hesitate to lower the hammer.

Clinton smells blood. The beating Obama got last night will pale compared to the beating to come. That is, unless he learns to shed the nice guy image and fight back. We all want to think optimistically about the new, diplomatic era of politics, but it ain't here yet. And you won't get to the big dance until you master the old fight.

I guess this is what the ABC anchors realize when they tossed both candidates into the ring and let them pummel each other for the first half of the debate. It's not the substance we hoped for but it's probably a fight they were destined to have.

I like the way Gail Collins sums it up in a NY Times op-ed:

I know it’s been a hard couple of weeks, people. You were all excited about this election and now you feel like someone who got all dressed up for a great event and wound up at a B-list party with a cash bar. You never want to hear the words “bitter” or “Bosnia” again. And the only political story that you’ve really enjoyed lately is the one about Cindy McCain’s list of favorite recipes being cribbed from The Food Network.

Clinton and the credibility gap

It's probably not fair to call the latest Hillary Clinton dust up a lie, but it fits so neatly into the narrative, it's not surprising why so many people do.

A New York times article, Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells, details yet another Clinton story debunked by the people who were there. Naturally, when it follows the Bosnia bungle so closely, observers start connecting the dots.

I've never had a problem with a Hillary pile-on, but I don't think she deserves it here. Unlike her Bosnia 'misstatement', we can clearly establish where she got this story:

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.

Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.

As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.

“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”

At worst, she's guilty of not checking the story out before using it, which is a stunning oversight. Negligence but not necessarily dishonesty.

But that's the problem that results when you are caught deliberately saying things that aren't true. Clinton's well deserved credibility gap has made an issue out of what looks like an honest mistatement.

We should give her a break on this one. I'm sure she'll earn our scorn soon enough.

Hillary channels Rocky

Maybe someone forgot to tell her how the movie ends.

Yesterday Hillary compared herself to Rocky Balboa, the fictional gritty boxer from Philadelphia.

Speaking on April 1 at an AFL-CIO event at a downtown Sheraton, Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Obama lacked the stomach for a prolonged primary fight.

“Senator Obama says he’s getting tired of it—his supporters say they want it to end,” said Mrs. Clinton. “Well, could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those Art Museum stairs and said, ‘Well, I guess that’s about far enough?’ That’s not the way it works. Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up.”

Rocky? Really Hillary? Will someone tell her the movie didn't end when he ran up the stairs? The movie ended when he got pummeled to death and lost to Apollo Creed, a Black man. Let's not make too much of analogies to that movie, shall we?

Clinton propses bowl off, Insert groan here

You knew it was coming, folks. After Obama's abysmal attempt at bowling (37 points in seven frames), Hillary Clinton today challenged Obama to a bowl off. It was utterly predictable, not very clever, full of cliche's and plays on words, and a pretty sad April Fool's joke. You even hear the polite applause and laughter.

Just in case you were wondering if Hillary was capable of exercising any kind of restraint, the pandering continues...

The mute Chelsea...

Love this line from Maureen Dowd...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?ex=1358830800&en=39ab771d166ef64c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Bill's transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

After Bill's success trolling the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, Hillary handed off South Carolina and flew to California and other Super Tuesday states. The Big Dog relished playing the candidate again, wearing a Technicolor orange tie and sweeping across the state with the mute Chelsea

That's too funny. I've been wondering why I see Chelsea everywhere and have never heard her voice once.

Crybaby Clinton

The buzz today was a boohoo from former front runner Hillary Clinton.

In a Boston Globe article Clinton is quoted as saying:

"It's not easy. It's not easy," she said. "This is very personal for me. It is not just political. It is not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game; think like who is up who is down. It's about our country.

"Some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought it through enough," she said.

Even through her tears, she is on message.

So what do we make of it? The staff was quick to put the spin on the sob. 'It’s because she’s so passionate. This is the Hillary we know. She cares so deeply, she’s emotional.'

Right. She’s human behind closed doors. It reminds me of when President GW Bush's staff tries to convince us that he is really intelligent and articulate behind closed doors. It’s the cameras that make him sound like a doofus.

I don’t buy either one of them. They are who we see they are. They have all been too calculating and consistent through too many different situations to convince me otherwise.

For Clinton’s good fortune, she seems to be getting sympathy for her outburst of emotion. It’s a time honored tradition from every playground in the world: If the girl cries, she can usually get the boys to stop picking on her.

F stands for Hillary

It happened today. Wolf Blitzer used the F word when discussing Hillary Clinton.

For weeks, we have been watching the second half of the media’s favorite Comfort the afflicted then afflict the comforted. Since the race began, Hillary has been comfortable. She was the clear frontrunner -- annointed by the Republican brain trust as the defacto nominee.

Barack Obama was the neophyte who didn’t stand a chance. A funny thing happens when voters get involved, however.

Barack gave an electrifying speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner, and he as been on the rise ever since. The latest polls either have him ahead or dead even with Hillary Clinton, not just in Iowa, but New Hampshire. Next stop, South Caroline.

And so Wolf, CNN’s Captain Obvious suggested used the F word to describe her candidacy.

Freefall.

Don’t get to comfortable, Barack. The media will come after you. :-)

Hillary Clinton, girl of convenience

She’s sugar and spice and everything nice, especially when she needs to differentiate herself from all the other boys in the race.

She, of course, is Hillary Rodham Clinton, lone female presidential candidate and leading contender for the Democratic nomination.

Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s convenient playing of the gender card but none struck me as more outrageous than a comment she made during her speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Iowa last weekend.

Here’s the line:

Now, we are getting closer to the Iowa caucuses. They are going to be earlier than ever before. I know as the campaign goes on, that it's going to get a little hotter out there. But that is fine with me. Because, you know, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'll tell you what, I feel really comfortable in the kitchen.

Huh? Did she really say that she felt comfortable in the kitchen? That kind of blatant pandering might have palatable if it weren’t for her famous line in 1992.

When she was defending her husband during his presidential run, the good senator said this:

I suppose I could have stayed at home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

Doesn’t sound like a kitchen dweller to me. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that, spending most of her adult life as first lady of Arkansas and the US, the only time she was in a kitchen was when the secret service was whisking her in and out of speaking engagements with her husband.

The kitchen is now convenient, as now her website portrays her as Mother & Advocate, First Lady and US Senator — in that order.

Speaking of her site, remember when she was asking for a theme song for her campaign? I know it’s late, but I’d like to formally offer one. Maybe she could come out of the kitchen long enough to hear it.

Hey Hillary, WE knew

There's a line from Sen. Obama's speech at the Take Back America event this week that I really like:

"We knew..."

Here's exactly what he said:

“We knew back then this war was a mistake,” Obama said at the Take Back America conference. “We knew back then that it was a dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. We knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “

“So many of us knew this back then, even when it wasn’t popular to say so,” he added.

This, of course, is a jab at Sen. Clinton's oft repeated line, "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the way."

That line has always been troubling to me because I knew then. It seemed so obvious that the president was taking the country into a war of choice. It seemed transparent that they were presenting selective evidence to make their case. It seemed clear that they were being impatient when they tried to convince us that we were under an imminent threat.

I never read any classified CIA reports or received top secret briefings. I don't think I'm much smarter than the average bear. But I knew that the adminstration was determined to wage war, no matter what.

That's why it always strikes me as a bit disingenuous to hear politicians like Sen. Clinton say that they didn't know. Why not? Is your judgment worse than mine? Are you less smart than the average bear? Neither of those alternatives instills much confidence in you as the next commander in chief.

With all the signs, you still didn't know. I have to wonder... Why didn't you?

WE knew.