More and more over the last few months I have been filled with a feeling of pride when watching 'Hardball' daily and the Chris Matthews Show on Sunday.
It is rare that a nationally known pundit of his caliber shows such foresight when analyzing the current political landscape.
The Story - as in what is at the crux of what is happening these days between Clinton and Obama.
The Story - as in what is the correct way to cover the events...
The Story is the story of Clinton campaign sleaze.
When Bill Shaheen came out and talked about Obama's youth drug use, he not only repeated what Obama readily admitted in his book, but made a potentially slanderous statement regarding whether Obama had ever 'sold drugs'.
Without substantiation, this is a serious legal issue. Bill Shaheen knew that there was no evidence for this assertion (as was shown by his subsequent resignation) therefor it certainly qualifies as slander.
Chris Matthews called it right away. The Story on the Chris Matthews Show that Sunday morning was how predictable a Clinton strategy this was.
Here is how it is done in the Clinton/Bush textbook...
1) Take a high ranking operative and get him to make a 'mistake' by saying something underhanded about your opponent
2) Get this operative to apologize and resign
3) Get your candidate to distance themselves from the comment
This accomplishes everything needed.
- The underhanded comment gets coverage and the opponent needs to distract themselves discussing and/or denying the charges
- The candidate is inoculated and thus the 'mudslinging' charge does not stick back on your candidate
Lather, Rinse, and Repeat
Next thing you know, everyone is dispirited with the process, less people vote, and the establishment candidate wins. (Read as Clinton or Bush)
There is also a bigger socio-political issue here with regard to Chris himself and why I believe his is so energized by the Obama campaign.
Chris Matthews was in college in the Sixties and became political in part due to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and the upheaval of 1968. He remembers a moment on the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson - a normally apolitical figure - was moved by the string of assassinations to urge people to write a letter to the President regarding the control of handguns. He did so, and says that it was this moment in his life that moved him toward public service. The rest is history for Chris Matthews the politico. He then served in the peace corp from 1968 to 1970 in Swaziland and Mozambique and spent many years in politics as a Democrat.
Chris Matthews, a self-professed Roosevelt Democrat, worked as a speech writer for the Carter administration, and served as a top aide to Tip O'Neill for many years.
My point about bringing up Matthews' background is that he, in my view, represents the pragmatic middle of the Democratic party, but he's an independent thinker, strong on defense and fiercely patriotic. He is certainly not from the latte-sipping coastal elites, and is ideologically close to the Reagan Democrats. He is old enough to remember the hope and optimistic message of J.F.K., and as a catholic from Philadelphia - I'm sure was personally disappointed by campaigns and leaders that followed. Over the years, he has seen the Democratic party lose election after election by compromising beliefs - Rooseveltian Beliefs - in order to get elected.
Let me remind the reader
1968 - Humphrey (not McCarthy)
1972 - McGovern
1984 - Mondale (Not Hart, or Glenn, or Biden)
1988 - Dukakis (Not Hart, or Gore)
2004 - Kerry (Not take your pick)
An impressive slate of losers and apologists that were afraid to say what they believe for fear of losing the middle. Afraid to stand too strong on defense for fear of losing the anti-war fringe, but not eloquent enough to convince the patriotic middle. This is exactly what Republicans have NOT done for the last 50 years and it is why they keep winning.
When I see a candidate that I know is honestly stating what they feel I respect them even if I don't agree with them. This is why I can respect Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and a slate of Republican Presidents. This is also the reason that I do not respect Hillary Clinton.
My point is that if Barack Obama is winning Chris Matthews, he can win the Reagan Democrats and he can win the white house.
The elect-ability argument is clearly won in my mind, and it is clearly in favor of Barack Obama.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Softer Side of Hill?
In the closing two weeks of this campaign for Iowa, Hillary Clinton has launched a new 'softer side'
initiative. She parades around with her daughter and her mother, and says things like she's shy and doesn't like talking about herself.
Are you kidding me?
Is this really going to work?
Are the American people really that dumb?
Remember... this is the woman that was commonly joked to be running the 'secret police' of the white house during the Clinton Presidency.
Remember - Travel Gate? Where Hillary Clinton was found to have given false testimony to the special council?
William Safire was right. Hillary Clinton was and is a vindictive power player. Why do we want this back in the white house?
initiative. She parades around with her daughter and her mother, and says things like she's shy and doesn't like talking about herself.
Are you kidding me?
Is this really going to work?
Are the American people really that dumb?
Remember... this is the woman that was commonly joked to be running the 'secret police' of the white house during the Clinton Presidency.
Remember - Travel Gate? Where Hillary Clinton was found to have given false testimony to the special council?
William Safire was right. Hillary Clinton was and is a vindictive power player. Why do we want this back in the white house?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Real Reason Why Bill Did Not Run in '88
One name - Gennifer Flowers
Remember this?
Remember the 12 year affair he had between 1977 and 1989 behind his wife's back while he was governor of Arkansas?
Remember the denial during the 1992 campaign?
Remember the FULL ADMISSION of this affair during depositions 21 years later.
Look... I'm not a huge moralist and I don't think that our Presidents need to be perfect. Just stop lying.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton was advised not to run in 1988 because he was a well known womanizer and needed to get his affairs behind him.
NOT - as Bill claimed in his recent interview with Charlie Rose last sunday - that he thought he was 'not ready' to be President. This not so subtle dig at Barack Obama is another shameless attempt to rewrite history by the Clinton Clan.
So... Bill Clinton waited to run. He waited to run to save the country from the torture of a scandal, or to save his own candidacy?
Regardless, it worked well for him. He was elected by a plurality of the vote.
All we got was a paralyzed Presidency because of a woman named Lewinsky, a semen soaked dress, and a bunch of hypocritical senators rambling sanctimoniously about morality for 2+ years.
Is this the kind of soap opera we want again in the oval office?
Not me. And I hope, not the American people.
Look, exactly how much pain Bill Clinton caused his wife and how much damage he did to his wife remain a secret shared by Bill and Hillary. But do we really want that psycho-drama back into the halls of power in this country? Can't we get past this?
Can't we get a President that is not going to drape his/her emotions all over the international stage like some low budget TV series.
Please. Please. Please.
Remember this?
Remember the 12 year affair he had between 1977 and 1989 behind his wife's back while he was governor of Arkansas?
Remember the denial during the 1992 campaign?
Remember the FULL ADMISSION of this affair during depositions 21 years later.
Look... I'm not a huge moralist and I don't think that our Presidents need to be perfect. Just stop lying.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton was advised not to run in 1988 because he was a well known womanizer and needed to get his affairs behind him.
NOT - as Bill claimed in his recent interview with Charlie Rose last sunday - that he thought he was 'not ready' to be President. This not so subtle dig at Barack Obama is another shameless attempt to rewrite history by the Clinton Clan.
So... Bill Clinton waited to run. He waited to run to save the country from the torture of a scandal, or to save his own candidacy?
Regardless, it worked well for him. He was elected by a plurality of the vote.
All we got was a paralyzed Presidency because of a woman named Lewinsky, a semen soaked dress, and a bunch of hypocritical senators rambling sanctimoniously about morality for 2+ years.
Is this the kind of soap opera we want again in the oval office?
Not me. And I hope, not the American people.
Look, exactly how much pain Bill Clinton caused his wife and how much damage he did to his wife remain a secret shared by Bill and Hillary. But do we really want that psycho-drama back into the halls of power in this country? Can't we get past this?
Can't we get a President that is not going to drape his/her emotions all over the international stage like some low budget TV series.
Please. Please. Please.
New Iowa Poll
Barack Obama, 33%
Hillary Clinton, 29%
John Edwards, 20%
Bill Richardson, 8%
The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec 13-17 and involved telephone interviews with 652 adults likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses.
This matches well with my prediction for the final numbers from Iowa.
Expect John Edwards to get a 5-10% 'rural' bump due to the way the caucuses weight delegates.
Also, expect Barack Obama to get a 5-10% bump due to his 'second choice' power. Delegates from Richardson and Biden will go preferentially to Obama or Edwards.
Hillary Clinton, 29%
John Edwards, 20%
Bill Richardson, 8%
The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec 13-17 and involved telephone interviews with 652 adults likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses.
This matches well with my prediction for the final numbers from Iowa.
Expect John Edwards to get a 5-10% 'rural' bump due to the way the caucuses weight delegates.
Also, expect Barack Obama to get a 5-10% bump due to his 'second choice' power. Delegates from Richardson and Biden will go preferentially to Obama or Edwards.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Politics Matters Resolution
I pledge to post something each day until Super Tuesday.
Too much is happening in the campaigns to let things fly by anymore.
Too much is at stake in this election.
To get back on track, it seems that my prediction may be coming true regarding the Obama strategy.
In my March 12th blog, I wrote that if Obama played his cards right he could win the anti-war left and the moderate disenchanted middle - giving Clinton no where to go.
This, in my view has come true. This can be evidenced by her constant character attacks and Bill's back handed reference to his candidacy as "rolling the dice" in Sunday's Charlie Rose interview.
They have nothing.
There is no rational for her candidacy except inevitability and dynasty.
The only thing preventing Obama from running away with this nomination is the nagging doubts that the Clinton's are continually creating about his experience and elect -ability.
The only thing holding this 'establishment', DLC-generated message together is that she has intimidated most of the career party wonks into supporting her for fear of losing their jobs if she wins.
This is not the America I want, and this is not the Nominee that America needs.
Andrew Sullivan is right to be enthusiastic about a possible Obama presidency. In the December Atlantic Monthly he wrote "Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us".
This is the essence of what Obama offers and it contrasts 180 degrees with what Clinton exactly does not.
Is she "tested and ready"? Well, if you look at the last 3 weeks of flailing and disorganized attacks by her campaign you wouldn't think so. In fact, if you hadn't heard it thrown at you through the airwaves continuously since February of this year, you would never use these words to describe her at all.
The reality is that Clinton, as opposed to her husband, is a relatively green and unnatural campaigner and the strains are showing. Rumors of squabbling about strategy. Power struggles between Bill and her other advisors...
Is this the kind of president that we want? Because, like it or not, this is a hint of what it will be like during her presumptive presidency.
Will Iowa have the courage? Will they have the foresight to reject the barrage of conventional wisdom that has been thrown at them all year?
This blogger believes that they will.
This blogger predicts the results of the Iowa caucus as follows:
Obama 35%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 25%
Clinton will finish third. She has not the ground game of Edwards in the small precincts, or the momentum and excitement of Obama. It will not finish her candidacy but it will test her as a campaigner and a leader.
What behavior will we see during that test? Whatever it is it will be another glimpse into what we would truly be electing next year... if she gets that far.
Too much is happening in the campaigns to let things fly by anymore.
Too much is at stake in this election.
To get back on track, it seems that my prediction may be coming true regarding the Obama strategy.
In my March 12th blog, I wrote that if Obama played his cards right he could win the anti-war left and the moderate disenchanted middle - giving Clinton no where to go.
This, in my view has come true. This can be evidenced by her constant character attacks and Bill's back handed reference to his candidacy as "rolling the dice" in Sunday's Charlie Rose interview.
They have nothing.
There is no rational for her candidacy except inevitability and dynasty.
The only thing preventing Obama from running away with this nomination is the nagging doubts that the Clinton's are continually creating about his experience and elect -ability.
The only thing holding this 'establishment', DLC-generated message together is that she has intimidated most of the career party wonks into supporting her for fear of losing their jobs if she wins.
This is not the America I want, and this is not the Nominee that America needs.
Andrew Sullivan is right to be enthusiastic about a possible Obama presidency. In the December Atlantic Monthly he wrote "Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us".
This is the essence of what Obama offers and it contrasts 180 degrees with what Clinton exactly does not.
Is she "tested and ready"? Well, if you look at the last 3 weeks of flailing and disorganized attacks by her campaign you wouldn't think so. In fact, if you hadn't heard it thrown at you through the airwaves continuously since February of this year, you would never use these words to describe her at all.
The reality is that Clinton, as opposed to her husband, is a relatively green and unnatural campaigner and the strains are showing. Rumors of squabbling about strategy. Power struggles between Bill and her other advisors...
Is this the kind of president that we want? Because, like it or not, this is a hint of what it will be like during her presumptive presidency.
Will Iowa have the courage? Will they have the foresight to reject the barrage of conventional wisdom that has been thrown at them all year?
This blogger believes that they will.
This blogger predicts the results of the Iowa caucus as follows:
Obama 35%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 25%
Clinton will finish third. She has not the ground game of Edwards in the small precincts, or the momentum and excitement of Obama. It will not finish her candidacy but it will test her as a campaigner and a leader.
What behavior will we see during that test? Whatever it is it will be another glimpse into what we would truly be electing next year... if she gets that far.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Obama's secret weapon - Michigan
Barack Obama has publicly pulled out of the Michigan primary due to the fight between the state and federal Democrats.
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Is Keith Olbermann the last American Patriot?
If you haven't seen it.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)