Hillary: A Doppelganger or a Cuckoo?

Doppelganger: A ghostly counterpart of a living person. Cuckoo bird: Lays egg in another bird's nest, and when the cuckoo hatches it takes over the nest.

Thomas Friedman is pondering today in "Madam Secretary?" (NYTimes)

"My question: Is Obama considering Mrs. Clinton for this job in order to get her off his back or as a prelude to protecting her back?"

"That backing is the most important requirement for a secretary of state to be effective. Frankly, Obama could appoint his dear mother-in-law as secretary of state, and if he let the world know she was his envoy, she would be more effective than any ex-ambassador who had no relationship with the president.

"Our current president never cared about this, so neither of his secretaries of state were particularly effective. Rather than having Colin Powell’s back, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld delighted in stabbing Powell in the back, particularly when he was on the road.

"But being close to the president is not enough. Condoleezza Rice had a close relationship with Bush, but Bush had no coherent worldview to animate her diplomacy, so all her travels added up to less than the sum of their miles...

"Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they’re talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president.....

"My question is whether a President Obama and a Secretary of State Clinton, given all that has gone down between them and their staffs, can have that kind of relationship, particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency. I just don’t know."

And don't forget just vain Bill. Bill Clinton famously said during his 1992 presidential campaign that with him you get "two for the price of one." But it's 2008, and Maureen Dowd opines that getting Hillary for Secretary of State means getting "Two for the Price of Two." (NY Times)

Dowd thinks the grumpy hubby will come around if Hillary becomes the Mistress of Foggy Bottom. "At least Bill has the satisfaction of seeing that he has roiled the previously serene and joyous Obamaland. It may be Obama’s very willingness to take the albatross of Bill from around Hillary’s neck and sling it around his own that impresses Bill.

"Obama is overlooking all his cherished dictums against drama and leaking and his lofty vetting standards to try and create a situation where the country can benefit from the talent of the Clintons while curbing their cheesy excesses, like their endless cash flow from foreigners."

But, there is a deep unease with many counting on real change, unconvinced that regardless of their current public posture of support for the Obama White House, the Billary will do only what is best for Billary.

And shadowing about the world as Obama's Doppelganger may not fit into Billary's long-term ambitions.

As Chuck Todd points out today in "First Read".... "HillaryLand seems to be making a concerted effort to start tamping down speculation about the secretary of state job. Reports from the New York Times and Politico are sparking the debate about whether she's 100% ready to make the leap from the Senate and 100% ready to give up politics for a while (at least while at State)...

"Today's Wall Street Journal and the AP confirm that the Obama folks are letting it be known that Bill Clinton is fully cooperating with the vet. So while the Hillary folks use the Times/Politico to signal reluctance, others are using the WSJ/AP to suggest that the momentum is still building for the Clinton appointment to happen."

And that is pure chaotic Clinton conundrum-making style.... fogging the question of a closet-cuckoo Hillary in Obama's cabinet nest in Shakespearean "to be, or not to be" fashion.

Hopefully, not.

Cohen Blasts Bloggers as Haters?

Richard Cohen's "Haters Without a Cause" (WaPo) has it wrong.

Bloggers have been loudly, harshly and many times inelegantly sounding the alarm against the presidency of Hillary Clinton. But most don't hate her. They hate what she stands for.... a by-right dynastic candidate; and what she became.... a resume'-stretching manipulator.

In fact, one has to wonder if there is really anything more to the Clintons than chest-pounding politics and goal-post shifting.

Was Bill really a political wunderkind, or were savvy advisers.... like James "It's the Economy Stupid" Carville, and Dick "I Can't Stand Them Now" Morris.... really the wind in his political sails.

During Hillary's campaign, Bill appeared egocentrically out-of-touch.... his rants jarred, his scolding and blame-shifting reminded voters of the "As Bill and Hill Turn" soap opera of their White House years.

While Hillary trumpeted what she stands for.... she didn't mention that when given the chance for action she fumbled badly.

Bill charged Hillary with heading up a universal health care initiative. Instead of listening and compromising to make gains, she met behind closed doors and hoarded her power and decision-making to the extent that even the Democratic Congress rejected her highhanded proposal. The Democrats lost their Congressional majority in the next election.

What this long campaign season has exposed is for Hillary.... who couldn't and wouldn't recognize she lost until her own supporters tip-toed into her fantasy to suggest she concede.... that it is her way or the highway.

We've had nearly eight years of that type of messianic ideologically-rigid executive. A weary and discouraged electorate yearn for someone who can lead the country away from the Bush administration's destructive, "stay the course" corporate-serving governance.

Hillary's ambitions and policy-wonk skills seem to be well-served in her position as Senator from New York. She should stick to what she's good at and cast herself as the next Ted Kennedyesque Lion of the Legislature.

But, placing the power of the Oval Office, or the close-to-power vice presidency, in Hillary's obstinately-unyielding hands, with Bill as the loose cannon careening about the premises, was, and still is, to be loudly resisted.... however inelegantly.

And, that was the bloggers cause!.... not hate.

No Hill, No Bill.... No Way!

This from George F. Will from today's "For Obama, a Ticket Test" (Washington Post):

"Which brings us to the sorry idea that Barack Obama should choose to have Hillary Clinton down the hall in the West Wing, nursing her disappointments, her grievances and her future presidential ambitions while her excitable husband wanders in the wings of America's political theater with his increasingly Vesuvian temper....

"Clinton, having risen politically in her husband's orbit, is a moon shining with reflected light. Were Obama to hitch himself to her, he would reduce himself to a reflection of a reflection."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This from former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski on MSNBC's Morning Joe on the inadvisability of Obama naming Hillary as VP. He pointed out that with the Clintons living across the street from the White House they would be.... "a government in exile, and a government in waiting."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And, this from Eugene's Robinson's "What He Overcame" (Washington Post):

"A young, black, first-term senator -- a man whose father was from Kenya, whose mother was from Kansas and whose name sounds as if it might have come from the roster of Guantanamo detainees -- has won a marathon of primaries and caucuses to become the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. To reach this point, he had to do more than outduel the party's most powerful and resourceful political machine. He also had to defy, and ultimately defeat, 389 years of history."

Hillary Invokes the "A" Word

How low will Hillary go in pursuit of her lost campaign for the White House?

We found out yesterday.

In an interview with the editorial board of The Sioux Falls Argus Leader she opined... "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Adding "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Hillary enablers were quick to point out that she was just talking about the timeline.... June.... as a month where things could happen.... as if that justified uttering the "A" word in this highly-charged contest.

Assassination. How could she? But, evidently this has been one of her long-standing rationales for staying in the race after there was no mathematical way she could succeed.

According to "Clinton Remark on Robert Kennedy's Killing Stirs Uproar" in the New York Times, criticism of this oft-made argument caught Hillary off guard, "campaign aides were taken aback by the quick reaction to her remarks, but then quickly realized that Mrs. Clinton had to backpedal."

And, what was Hillary's backpedal..."I was discussing the Democratic primary history.... campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June, in 1992 and 1968 .... to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historical fact."

Facts are funny things, Hillary.

Because you can check them. On page 407 of your husband's autobiography, "My Life" he said about the New York primary on April 7, 1992 and the other primaries that day.... "we also won in Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over. I had more than half the 2,145 delegates I needed to be nominated....."

Funny, Bill thought the 1992 primary fight was over on April 7.... not June. And, his benchmark.... he had over half of the delegates, just as Barack Obama has over half of the pledged delegates.

The New York Times thought Bill had wrapped up the nomination even earlier, in March of 1992.... "he was viewed as having secured it in March, when his last serious opponent dropped out."

Can anyone really believe that Hillary was the only one who didn't know Bill's campaign was "wrapped up" months before June of 1992. Can anyone seriously think that mentioning the tragic Kennedy assassination wasn't one of the "catastrophes" she had in mind as being a reason to stay in the race.

Even Bobby Kennedy's son, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said yesterday.... "I've heard her make that argument before, it sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."

No need to point out the great risks Barack Obama is facing as the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Even giving voice to thoughts of assassination could unleash the action.

Ignoring Hillary's divisive race and class baiting comments such as "hardworking whites," her linking of the continuation of her presidential campaign with the assassination of a rival candidate in June is.... really, there are no words for the disgrace of such low behavior.

If there is a silver lining to this dark incident, it would be that it should remove the unsavory possibility that Hillary would be Obama's vice president.... and just a heartbeat away from her fanatical ambition.

McCain's Muddy Roadmap

Listen up!

Dick Morris, the spurned toe-sucking friend of and political-guru for Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign... now a scores-to-settle political analyst for Fox News.... has weighed in on the current presidential campaign in "Obama Has the Upper Hand. But McCain Can Still Take Him." (WaPo)

He sums up his view of the race.... "A candidate who cannot get elected [Barack Obama] is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable [John McCain] is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat.

"In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center."

Which only highlights what is really wrong with politics in American today. Advisers who want the candidate to say anything regardless of their real convictions in order to win. Run here, run there, run anywhere there are votes. And, McCain seems to be sucking up the hackneyed Morris ideas like a sponge in a cesspool.

McCain was okay with unending war in Iraq, but now he says "most" troops will be out by 2013. He sponsored and fought hard for corporate-pleasing amnesty legislation for illegal aliens, but now says we have to go slow and secure the borders first. He dismissed global warming, but now he's greener than the Jolly Giant. In fact, he's swerving to the center so fast his Straight Talk bus is about to rollover like a bellyrub-begging pooch.

There definitely was a time when a candidate could abandon his previously held positions to pander and waffle to get the vote, and then revert when elected. Take The Decider, for example. When he ran for the presidency he said we should not involve ourselves in nation building, he was for smaller government and a balanced budget.

But, those weren't the real Bush policies, they were Morris-prescriptions for winning since Bush has involved us in nation building in Iraq, installed a bloated government of Homeland Security and No Child Left Behind bureaucracies, and presided.... along with a complicit GOP-controlled Congress.... over the wholesale selling of America while incurring monstrous debts.

Morris is advocating just such a disingenuous campaign. And, while McCain is courting the center, Morris crows that the right wing can do McCain's "swiftboat" mudslinging a' la Rev. Wright. Have no doubt, Obama's in for a bumpy ride as he navigates his "one America" course.

But Morris hasn't factored the public's savvy into the equation. In this YouTube world, every McCain policy detour will be billboarded, every flip-flop becomes a pothole on the road to the White House.

Someone needs to point out to Morris that Obama has the upper hand because he a leader with convictions running against a morally bankrupt GOP spin machine. Morris needs to take his forked-tongue and retire to the dustbin of political losers.

Billary's Racist Underbelly

With all of the racial innuendos, and downright race-baiting "hard-working Americans, white Americans" utterances of the Billary campaign, the question becomes.... did Bill and Hillary ever really care about black America? Or was aligning themselves with African-Americans always just a cold and calculated vote-harvesting maneuver.

As Hillary elbows into West Virginia for today's primaries, will she once again crow that only she can attract white working-class voters, that Barack Obama just can't cut it with that crowd.... purposely fueling racism and undermining Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Bob Herbert asks, will Hillary blatantly keep sowing "Seeds of Destruction" (NY Times) for the Democratic party, and the nation, in November.

Herbert rips the scab off of the wounding Billary campaign in his hard-hitting weekend op-ed.... "Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way - any way - back to the White House" are drudging up the lousy GOP Southern strategy rhetoric....

"He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!

"The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It's a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years."

As Hillary stands on the bones of racial progress tonight to belch her pride over her predicted divisive win in West Virginia, Americans can be grateful that the vote-garnering pretense of the counterfeit Billary feel-your-pain persona has been unmasked.

Bill and Hillary have now proven beyond doubt that they are not the nation's healers, but just the usual craven political heels.

Clyburn: Clinton Conduct "Bizarre"

You probably remember seeing the dignified African-American during the South Carolina Democratic primary.... influential third-highest-ranking U.S. Representative, James E. Clyburn.

He remains an uncommitted superdelegate.... but, he isn't remaining quiet about the damage the Billary campaign is doing to Barack Obama, the Democratic party and Hillary's support in the black community.

In an interview with the New York Times Thursday.... "Black Leader in the House Sharply Criticizes Bill Clinton".... Clyburn said that Clinton's "conduct in this campaign has caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him."

Clyburn added that "there appeared to be an almost unanimous view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were committed to doing everything they possibly could to damage Mr. Obama to a point that he could never win in the general election."

Clyburn is finally saying what many suspect, that Billary wants Obama to lose in November instead of being a two-term president so Hillary can try again in 2012.

African-Americans, along with countless bloggers, op-ed writers, political pundits and voters view the Billary "race card" kitchen-sink campaign as nothing more than a seek-and-destroy effort.

The Clinton's seem to only have wanted to use the black community to further their personal power plays.

Watch for Billary to start taking Spanish language lessons.

Campaign Portends Governance

Thought for the day.... heck, the entire campaign season! "Presidents tend to govern the way they campaigned." Great insight from Peter Beinart in "Obama at the Helm." (WaPo)

Beinart opines that Hillary Clinton goes after Barack Obama by asking of his experience "whether he's too green." If Obama is the nominee, John McSame will take up the same banner. But Obama can point to something more germane: "the way he's run his campaign."

Jimmy Carter ran as a "moralizing outsider in 1976" and governed as an outsider to the Washington establishment he distrusted. "Ronald Reagan's campaign looked harsh on paper, but warm and fuzzy on TV."

Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign was "brilliant and chaotic, with a penchant for near-death experiences. And the 2000 Bush campaign.... disciplined, hierarchical, loyal and ruthless."

OK.... Beinart makes the case.... a candidate's campaign presages how they will govern.

So we come to the current crop of presidential wanna-bes. McCain's campaign was a "top-heavy, slow-moving, money-hemorrhaging Hindenburg that eventually exploded, leaving the Arizona senator to resurrect his bankrupt candidacy through sheer force of will.

"Clinton's campaign has been marked by vicious infighting and organizational weakness, as manifested by her terrible performance in caucus states.

"Obama's, by contrast, has been an organizational wonder, the political equivalent of crossing a Lamborghini with a Hummer."

The key to Obama's successful campaign may be that it "married Web energy with professional control. It has used the Web masterfully" but unlike John Dean's 2004 manic approach, "sees it as a tool, not a philosophy of life."

And, should Obama become our next president, it will be his amazing capacity to communicate and inspire that will mobilize the energy needed to turn the country from the path of a chaotic and ruthless past, to "fuse exuberance with discipline".... toward a future with the "audacity of hope" and accomplishment.

It's 3 a.m. in Billaryland

It's clear the steady drip, drip, drip of Barack Obama endorsements are driving Billary around the bend.

Bill Clinton's red-faced rants, Clintonite James Carville's "Judas" jab at Obama supporter Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Hillary's heartstring-thrumming rallies complete with warmed-over Ronald Reagan stories.... no tactic is too bizzare or contrived as they attempt to lure voters and superdelegates into their web, still....

Another governor and superdelegate, Wyoming's Dave Freudenthal.... a former Clinton appointee.... announced yesterday that he will support Sen. Barack Obama. Freudenthal spent time with both Clinton and Obama when they came to Wyoming, "but Obama struck him as 'incredibly smart' and someone who gives honest answers instead of scripted responses."

And, yet another Obama endorsement yesterday came from well-respected former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, the top Democrat on the September 11 Commission. This endorsement is timely as Indiana will be holding their primary in a few weeks.

Obama's delegate lead is steadily growing to unassailable numbers. It's 3 a.m. in the Hillary campaign.... when will she hang it up?

Media Excuses, Ware Reality

Recent polls show Americans are not as concerned about the Iraq war.... why?

Perhaps this has something to do with their flagging attention, "The War Endures, but Where's the Media?" (NYTimes)

That's right, as recently as the middle of last year.... around "surge" time.... "it was still the most-covered topic. Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted, to about one-fifth of what it was last summer."

The policy debate in Washington has almost disappeared from the news.... made obvious by the media's ignoring of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's major policy speeches on the war and national security last week.

The media wants to roll around in the muck of Rev. Wright's rejected comments, or Bill Clinton's musings that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are patriots.... plainly implying that Obama is not.

Just how does this smear-touchy-feely coverage inform the public on what the presidential candidates propose on vital issues like the slogging-in-place quagmire of the Iraq war, the dangerous state of our quickly unraveling economy and the out-of-control cost and out-of-reach availability of medical care and health insurance for tens of millions U.S. citizens?

This month marks both the 5th anniversary of an unwinnable Iraq war that is gutting our nation's military, economic health, and standing in the world.... and the horrific casualty benchmark from that war.... now a mournful 4,000 of our brave troops.

Yet, while news organizations say that the last six months have been safer for U.S. troops.... with statistics and reports spoon-fed to them by the White House.... they also say in the same breath that "violence against journalists makes reporting on Iraq costly and difficult.... the risks have forced news organizations to hire private security forces and Iraqi employees who can go places that Westerners cannot safely explore."

"From the start of the war through 2005, journalists and their support workers were killed in Iraq at a rate of one every 12 days.... in 2006 and 2007, the rate was one every eight days. Most of those killed have been Iraqis."

So.... which is it? Are things less deadly in Iraq or not? Or, is the expense of covering the war the driving factor in the lack of coverage? Easier to just take the war stories dished up by the Bush administration perhaps.

And, while we're on the subject.... what does straight talking, on-the-spot-in-the-middle-of-Baghdad-since-before-the-war reporter, CNN's Michael Ware, have to say about the lagging public interest.

In a recent interview (YouTube) with Bill Maher, Ware asked why would the public want to watch an Iraq horror show every night. He points out that regardless of what the "used car salesman" tries to tell us, only about 2 percent of the violence is caused by al Qaeda, that they are just used as the sales pitch to justify our presence.... this war has handed Iraq to Iran on a platter.

He further points out that the "surge" is working because besides more boots on the ground, we're bribing 70,000 militia every month so they'll sit on their hands.... for now.... and, that the neighborhoods are quieter because they've been ethnically cleansed.

But, he also warns that leaving would impact on our economy because unchecked militias on both sides of the civil war would go after the oil.

So, whether or not it started out as the reason... in deference to those of you still clinging to the ever-changing fairy tales of justification.... it's becoming increasingly clear that oil is why we're staying.

The media can make its excuses.... but they're not reporting on Iraq because the presidential campaign circus is in town and all three rings are the current freak show.

As Ware said, in Iraq at least, al Qaeda is so yesterday.

Obama: Go For Thrilla in Phila...

Yesterday's substantial win in Wyoming's caucuses by Barack Obama.... 61% to 38%.... over "Ma Barker" Clinton (as dubbed by WSJ) helps him regain his Big Mo, but it's still far from an eight count. So, before the next big bouts in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, take off the gloves....

Not the smearing, innuendo, conniving and misleading gloves that land Ma Barker's low blows, but, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in "The Monster Mash," it's time for Obama to start seriously rebutting Hillary's kneecapping remarks.

As, for instance, her loud refrain that she has far more national security experience than Obama has, when as Dowd points out.... "Having a first lady tea in Belfast is not equivalent to bringing peace to Northern Ireland."

After his losses in Texas and Ohio, Obama needs to be more fierce about winning. Being "Wimpy Man" won't be a winning strategy for Obama.... Just ask Bush "41" who drug that defeatist label to a second-term loss.

As Dowd points out, "Hillary successfully recast herself in Ohio as a beer-drinking former waitress. Only after last week's reversals did the Obama camp raise a louder ruckus about her tax returns. Obviously, Ms. Night Shift does not want to reveal the details of the fortune that Bill Clinton has made, sometimes through dubious associations."

And, when it comes to Billary's campaigning methods, who would know them better than the former political adviser to President Bill, Dick Morris. While he thinks, "It's Over" for Hillary after her narrow wins in Texas and Ohio, he knows "Hillary won't withdraw".... and will bulldoze forward with "ever-escalating rhetoric."

Perhaps, as Morris suggests, in the next round Obama needs to unleash his own phone-rings-in-the-middle-of-the-night ad.... "have a woman's voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, 'Hold on' into the receiver. Then she should shout, 'Bill, it's for you!' "

That would land.... with Hillary's lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs.... a solid and telling blow!

McCain's Bimbo Eruption

While GOP conservatives and John McCain lambast their despised New York Times for their story about McCain's relationship with female telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman, they should instead be thanking them for burying the story since late December.... before the start of the primary season.

Why did the Times finally publish the story? Speculation is that The New Republic was about to release a story about how the Times was handling the story. This from the Republic yesterday.... "TNR correspondent Gabe Sherman is working on a piece about the Times' foot-dragging on the McCain story, and the back-and-forth within the paper about whether to publish it." And yes, Sherman will release his story sometime today.

While GOP talking heads will focus their ire on the Times, there was this from Drudge on December 20, 2007.... "Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the New York Times, the Drudge Report has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defenses against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

"McCain has personally pleaded with NY Times editor Bill Keller not to publishs the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the Drudge Report.

"The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publications.

"The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain."

So, the story has been out there. But the GOP wouldn't go after Drudge..... the Times is a much juicier and satisfying target. Some say the source was departed McCain campaign Rovian-guru John Weaver. Weaver is central to the story because as the Times and the Washington Post both report, Weaver.... "met with Ms. Iseman at Union station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator."

Weaver said that the Times already knew about his meeting with Iseman when its reporters approached him, and that he was not going to lie to the paper.

According to the Times, their initial sources were.... "two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman..... they spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."

Just what favors might the crusader-against-lobbyist influence McCain be guilty of? For instance.... "In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain's staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

"Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman."

McCain had a news conference this morning basically denying everything.... that he had a romantic relationship with Iseman, that he acted inappropriately in his position as chairman of the Senate Commerce committee.... even denying ever talking to the Times until he was called on it by a reporter as conflicting with other reports, so McCain backed up and admitted having one brief nothing phone conversation with Keller at the Times.... not an angry or confrontation one.

Cindy McCain was at the press conference, standing by her man..... and that, as we learned from the Bill Clinton bimbo eruptions, is a powerful motivation to deny, deny, deny.

Newspapers gleefully joined in the GOP conservative witch-hunt over Clinton's personal life.... and now those same conservatives are crying foul.

Why did the Times bury this story? They say that the story wasn't ready until now. But, there can be no denying that releasing it before the primary season might have directly affected the outcome..... McCain as the almost certain Republican nominee.

We look forward to reading what Sherman at the Republic has to say later today.

Finding Voices for Obama

After her win in the New Hampshire primary, a victorious Hillary Clinton told her supporters "I found my own voice."

That was before she lost her own voice to her husband as Bill pushed her to the sidelines in South Carolina to defend his legacy, and coincidentally Hillary's candidacy, with eye-bulging, finger-waving, race-baiting vehemence.

As Hillary lost her voice in South Carolina, and the primary, she also lost her right to maintain the fairy tale that she could control Bill and was a woman who could lead. A sobered Democratic Party saw a replay of the painful Billary soap opera with an out-of-control Bill and weren't entertained.

Now other voices are rising to drown out Hillary's faux voice.... "Michelle, Maria, Caroline and Oprah on the Hustings in California" (NYTimes).... in support of Barack Obama.

Even though the NY Times endorsed Hillary, Times editor Andrew Rosenthal had a cautionary tale to tell. In California's U.C.L.A. basketball arena "four extraordinary women put on the best campaign rally I've seen in 20 years of covering presidential politics."

Caroline Kennedy, who brought along her uncle Sen. Ted Kennedy, delivered the message.... "step out of your lives and into this moment in history".... before introducing the surprise Obama supporter of the evening, Maria Shriver, the wife of Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who recently endorsed GOP candidate John McCain.

Oprah Winfrey urged the excited young crowd to see this campaign, with the two front runners, a woman and a black man, as a moment when they "are free from the constraints of gender and race".... to support the best candidate.

But, even with all of this star power, the person who stole the show was Michelle Obama who found her voice... "she was intellectually powerful, even fierce at times, in making her political arguments.... she also allowed herself to offer the full-throated praise of her husband that she avoided in earlier stages of the campaign. She spoke about his character, about his ability to lead, and aimed squarely at the criticism that his resume is too thin."

Michelle spoke about Obama's time in the Illinois State Legislature as better than "serving in Congress or as governor because it made him understand the impact that federal laws have on ordinary Americans."

In the end, it's these ordinary Americans who must find their voices.... "yes we can!"

The Billary Blitzkreig

Colbert King is worried about "Billlary Adventures in Primaryland." (WaPo) And for good reason.

He sees Bill and Hillary Clinton as the "superficially charming, self-absorbed couple Billary, ever so possessed with an outsize sense of entitlement" as they tag-team Barack Obama in their attempt to devalue him in their current run for the sun.

And, King is sure of one thing, "A Clinton administration will be a four-year co-presidency with all of the drama that Billary has managed to bring to every undertaking."

Isn't the country weary of the Clinton soap opera where the script is all about them.

While King makes a good case, there are yet other Billary pitfalls.... Hillary as the first woman president. If she isn't the right woman, she will set back years of progress for women. She will hurt the womens' movement. She will have the opposite effect that so many women who support her will be expecting, proof that a woman can handle the top job.

But, as King opines.... "let's not get ahead of ourselves and start worrying about tomorrow. Billary gives us enough to worry about today."

A Debate Too Far

Four showed up in Myrtle Beach, SC last night at the Democratic presidential debate (WaPo) on Martin Luther King Day.... John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton.

At least, that's obviously the way Obama sees things as he accused Hill and Bill of repeatedly distorting his positions on the campaign trail, and pointedly remarking on Bill's role in his wife's campaign... "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

But, Clinton was there only in spirit.... actually, he was taking a little snooze on stage while sitting behind the speaker, the son of the man of the day, MLK III. (Video) But we digress. Back to the fight.... er.... debate.

So protracted and angry were the clashes between Hillary and Obama that John Edwards wondered if just two people showed up for the debate complaining... "Are there three people in this debate, not two?"

Regardless of how many seemed to be in this debate... ugly is uncomfortable to watch. Private food fights in the face of our... and a worldwide.... plunge of stock markets that are reacting to our very sick economy seemed unpresidential.

Yes, the economy was eventually addressed in the debate, and while Hillary and Obama had ideas for immediate actions, Edwards plan seemed well, quaint.... a green jobs program that could start in thirty days or so. Good idea, Edwards, except the nation's HAIR IS ON FIRE!

Hillary and Obama still are Senators with the ability to help shape events and stimulus program recommendations. In the next few days, let's watch their actions to see "Where's the Beef?"

But, enough debates already!

The Truth vs. Reaganomics

It's a political strategy.... ".... people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

This is a part of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services description of Adolf Hitler's psychological profile. His methods were very effective, his repetitive-propaganda machine always in high gear.... people will believe that which is continually advocated if it isn't vigorously challenged.

There can be little doubt that the American public is being propagandized on all sides about Reaganomics and the joys of cutting taxes as a way to grow the economy.

Just listen to the GOP presidential candidates jostling to claim the Reagan mantle.... even Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama recently praised Reagan's presidency.

How about a reality check. Paul Krugman tries in his opinion piece, "Debunking the Reagan Myth." (NY Times)

Krugman points out that the GOP's rewriting of history never ends.... "That's why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seeming distant past, affects politics today."

Reaganomics failed.... just as the Reagan "trickle down" economics of the current Bush administration have failed, unless you are a CEO or belong to the country club set. With Reagan's credit-card economy in the early 1980s there was an initial boom, but then the bills came due.

"By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before - and the poverty rate had actually risen," Krugman points out. And the national debt had ballooned. This Reaganomics recession was the reason Bill Clinton captured the White House, and why he was reelected.

Understanding the fallacy of Reaganomics, Clinton declared in 1991 that.... "The Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."

Clinton turned the floundering economy around. Even the Bush administration's own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of the economic boom to 1995, during Clinton's first term.

Yet, Republicans anxious to take credit for this resurgence will tell you ad nauseam that it was Reagan's 1981 tax cut that fueled these positive economic developments 14 years later.

They have repeated this economic lie so often that they seem to believe it themselves, even as we are again experiencing the economic nightmare of Reaganomics from the Bush White House and Congress.... cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and forget about balancing the budget.

Credit-card Reaganomics, thy name is RECESSION!

Obama shouldn't be opining that Reagan's ideas were dynamic, he should be pointing out the GOP's "big lie" that Reagan's ideas led to prosperity when in fact they failed!

Hopefully Obama isn't so bent on defeating Hillary Clinton at any cost that he allows, even seems to buy into, the Reagan myth rather than give Bill Clinton his due.

The overwhelming majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.... if Obama misses that train he won't get out of the station.... "It's the economy, stupid."

Hillary Weathers NH Storm

Hillary's perfect-storm loss in the New Hampshire presidential primaries didn't happen. She weathered the storm, defeating rival Barack Obama in a cliff-hanger by a couple of percentage points.

The forecasters missed this one.... big time. Why is that? Every poll, except one by a college, showed Obama carrying the day.

Obviously the polls were wrong. There may have been several reasons besides the fact that Obama may have tried to make history instead of a cogent rationale for the vote.....

It could be that people lied to the pollsters in New Hampshire. While saying they could and would vote for a black candidate, in reality when left to the secret process of casting their vote, they showed a less-unbiased face than the PC one shown the pollsters.

On the other hand, the voters in Iowa had to publicly declare.... no room there for private ugliness. As the process moves forward Obama would do well not to depend on the sunny beachfront of acceptance reflected in the polls, they could be quicksand.

And, while there was no storm, there was a shower of sympathy for a more vulnerable, even teary, and ganged-up-on appearing Hillary. Her softer side was, and will be, a more formidable campaign front for Obama to face. She said she found herself in New Hampshire.... believe it.

And Bill.... he was well off-stage when Hillary made her acceptance speech. Perhaps at last recognizing he's more of a distraction. Hillary managed to overcome his "help," although his ham-fisted attempts to make the Obama story into a fairy tale may have given her some of the "there he goes again" womens' vote.

The next big battleground state for the Democrats will be Nevada on January 19, the home state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The most sought-after endorsement there is from the 60,000-member-strong Culinary Workers union and this morning ABC News confirmed that the union will endorse Obama.

This endorsement will definitely give Obama a boost in a state that is expecting only 40,000 to participate in their caucuses. But, Hillary is also courting union workers, John Edwards (who finished a distant third in NH) has invested a lot of time in Nevada with his populist message, and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson (who barely registered in NH) is counting on the large Hispanic population of Nevada to pull him out of the campaign storm cellar.

Let's see what the polls forecast for Nevada .... regardless, Obama had better batten down the hatches as he navigates the rough primary seas in Nevada and onward to Super Tuesday.

The Clintons Backward Glance

Is this a diva trill?...... me, me, me, ME, me, me, me. No, it's the theme of Bill Clinton's remarks in New Hampshire while supposedly campaigning for Hillary. What he actually said last night is: "We can't be a new story, I'm sorry. I can't make her younger, taller, male. There are a lot of things I can't do." MSNBC

Here we thought opponent Barack Obama was Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. No. Her worst nightmare is Bill.

As the polls show Obama steadily outpacing Hillary, the egocentric message coming from Bill amounts to.... "it's not my fault."

But, maybe it is.

Bill is yesterday, making Hillary and her "experience" yesterday. The voters sent a loud message in Iowa.... they want tomorrow. The polls agree.... it's all about tomorrow.

Like a robin on a June bug, Drudge pounced on the odor of desperation coming from the Clinton campaign in their flash today "from one top campaign insider.... Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!"

They also reported that John Edwards confided to a senior staffer that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

Rumors of a campaign meltdown are rife. A Clinton adviser told the Politico, "we're going to lose South Carolina." While Nevada is definitely pulling back as her endorsement by the powerful culinary union is in limbo, evidently awaiting the NH results.

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show this morning, Andrea Mitchell reported that many of Hillary's supporters at her rallies in New Hampshire are from Long Island and Upstate New York. NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert confirmed this, adding that at a rally he attended at Nashua High School over the weekend he was stunned to find the school's parking lot filled with cars bearing Massachusetts plates.

It's beginning to look like the perfect storm.... a dropping barometer of expectations, the gathering thunderheads of the Obama whirlwind, and her yesterday-sailor Bill heading for the lifeboats. If Hillary stays the course, it's going to be a dark ride.

Are Two Clinton's Better?

On the whole, does former president Bill Clinton help or hurt his wife's campaign?

Seems like Hillary had a lot more wind in her sails until Bill stepped in to add his hot air. Like, his telling people while campaigning for Hillary in Iowa on November 27 that "I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

This is so wrong, on so many levels.... the first being he didn't oppose the Iraq war, he's just trying to rewrite his history on back of Hillary's campaign. Second... in just one sentence on her campaign stop he used "I" three times, Hillary zero times.

His campaigning for Hillary is all about Bill, his presidency, his opinions..... all of the time. Mentions of Hillary sound like well-drilled rote lessons, like his parrot repetition of "Hillary is an agent of change." When he strays from the campaign script it's all "me, me, me, me, me, me, me."

As Alice Roosevelt Longworth said of her attention-demanding legendary father, Teddy Roosevelt.... "he wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening."

Teddy reborn in Bill.

Is it that Bill just can't help himself, or is there something more insidious going on.... an "I'm the best president" power struggle. Even if Hillary can grab enough attention to somehow win the nomination, then what is Bill's roll? The more he raises his profile, the more the GOP "vast conspiracy" will be motivated to squelch Hillary.

And, if Hillary somehow manages to win the presidency, will Bill then be undercutting her Secretary of State and other advisers?.... cranking up the media circus that follows him around like dust on a dirt road. These questions bring back to the voters the seamy side of Bill's White House life.

Some things are best viewed at a distance.... in this case it's Bill Clinton's presidency.

Rather than being the wind under Hillary's campaign wings, he's likely to become the draft drawing her off course. The old Clinton formula of "two for the price of one" could be.... and perhaps should be.... Hillary's undoing.

White House Christmas: Then, Now and....

A picture can be worth a thousand words.... so hope you enjoy this little jaunt through White House Christmas cards and wishes past, present and..... please, say it isn't so.... the future?

The Blue Room of the White House was the theme for the greetings sent by Presidents Lyndon Johnson in 1967 and Bill Clinton in 1995. Above is the Johnson card, a reproduction of Robert Laessig's painting, and below the Clinton card with the artistic image "Fantasy Blue Room" by Thomas McKnight.

The first President George Bush used the image of artist Kamil Kubik's impression of the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse for their striking 1992 Christmas card.

However, proving that political good taste doesn't reproduce itself, The Decider turned his 2007 greetings into a sermon, in keeping with the GOP push to turn our country into a theocracy. The biblical message reads (and I'm not kidding)....

"You alone are the LORD, You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you. NEHEMIAH 9:6 (NIV)"

"May the joy of all creation fill your heart this blessed season 2007."

Below are the front of the Bush 2007 card with this year's holiday "theme".... our national parks and natural history. And, depicting this "Holiday in the National Parks" is the 2007 Holiday Program, and on the inside back cover, (really, I'm not kidding) is Mama Bush's portrait regally lording over a terrra cotta replica of our Mt. Rushmore worthies.... Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

If you love the creationist thrust of The Decider's 2007 Christmas message, then you'll love a President Mike Huckabee who calls himself the "Christian Leader" and espouses the teaching of creationism in our public schools. This Huckabee family Christmas card is from when The Huckster was governor of Arkansas, before he embarked on becoming our Ayatollah in November 2008...

Think you can see the direction our country is heading unless you stand up for the separation of church and state, and for keeping American free for all Americans.

Ring in the New Year by supporting the candidate who offers "Peace on earth and good will to all men".... regardless of belief, or lack thereof.