What's so hard about his saying that he votes "yes" if immunity is removed, otherwise "no". Plus he supports any filibuster.

Posted at June 22, 2008 5:03 PM in response to Election Central Sunday Roundup

I'm a male, and try not to be a misogynist, just as I am white and try not to be a racist. I don't claim perfection in either of those endeavors.

As an Arizonan, I happily have helped elect Janet Napolitano twice, and am completely open to voting for a woman as President.

That being said, I don't believe the career path that the first woman President will travel will be through prior experience as First Lady and the benefits from much of the husband's political and money machine, no matter how much of a partner the woman might have been in the husband's political career.

This is a lot of the source of her perceived attitude of entitlement, including the notion that anyone who supposedly "owes" political favors to the husband is a "Judas" if they support the wife's opponent. (Witness Carville's reaction to Richardson endorsement of Obama.)

I think HRC was caught in a trap. You can make the case she never would have gotten to a front-runner status without having been the spouse of Bill Clinton, notwithstanding the fact that she is enormously intelligent. Once you agree with that case, she is open to having to answer for every aspect of her husband's Presidency that fell short of the mark, even though the current office holder has made his Presidency look good by comparison.

And the trap was not only a problem in the election or nomination process, but also resulted in a complete uncertainty in what governing would look like. How does an ex-President function as a First Spouse without overshadowing his wife -- especially this particular ex-President? The campaign at times offered reminders of this potential future problem, even though he clearly helped her when used right.

I predict the first woman President will get there based entirely on her own merits and with way less baggage than HRC brought to the party. And no one will be able to claim she had a feeling of entitlement.

Posted at June 5, 2008 2:31 PM in response to Don't hate her because she's beautiful

It's getting pretty hard to figure out if a given set of bad guys are really bad, or just doing G-d's work to punish some of his people that are doing something wrong.

We had the likes of Falwell and Robertson claiming that 9/11 was G-d's punishment of America for one thing or another, and now Hitler was apparently doing G-d's work via the Holocaust. The former would make Al Quaeda some sort of agent for a vengeful G-d, rather than just everyday terrorists. (AQ might even agree, but prefer the Arabic name for G-d.)

Can't we just get G-d to restrict himself to meteorological events, earthquakes, and volcanoes so that we don't have to decide if particular people who seem villainous are really G-d's agents and not just plain old bad people?

Posted at May 23, 2008 12:42 AM in response to McCain Rejects Right-Wing Preacher Rod Parsley, Too

OK with McCain and a Democratic Senate? NOT!!

Two words: Supreme Court. One of the good guys (Stevens) is really old, and who's to say that one or more out of Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer might be ready to, or need to, retire? With Kennedy and Scalis the next most likely to leave, based on time, we need Democratic appointees for a change. The Senate at best can block a truly "out there" appointee, but they can't make McCain appoint a progressive, and I think the days of a progressive "sneaking through", like Souter, are long gone.

Posted at May 22, 2008 7:40 PM in response to That's it. F**k it.

How about that? She apparently is introducing such legislation.

Points added for sincerity and determination, deducted for doggedly following a bad idea.

Remember that the determined, unrelenting pursuit of bad ideas is a key characteristic of the current White House incumbent, who is known to stand for the same things on Wednesday that he did on Monday, regardless of what facts may have been revealed on Tuesday. All she has going against her here is economic reality.

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:30 PM in response to Obama's gas tax logic holiday -- a few questions for the candidate.

Let's first recall that Clinton and McCain are sitting senators. If they really believe in this tax holiday, which they want to start in 30 days or so, they should be back in Washington drafting up the legislation and lining up support. McCain, especially, hypothetically doesn't have much else to do until he knows his opponent. If he's busy playing Senator he can save untold dollars on campaign spending, funds for which he is supposed to be in short supply for him.

Hillary could also play senator, save some much-needed campaign bucks, and run great commercials on how she is working hard for hard-pressed Americans, or at least those in Indiana and North Carolina. She has the additional benefit of a certain ex-president who can campaign on her behalf while she is doing hard work.

On the other hand, just talking about an idea in speeches sounds a lot like what she accuses Obama of doing all the time.

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:17 PM in response to Obama's gas tax logic holiday -- a few questions for the candidate.

Gregg,

I think you missed Obama's key point. It was when Wright explained Obama's Philadelphia speech as "just politics", implying that Obama did not believe what he said.

The key passage, which I paraphrase, was that Obama said that Wright may not know who he (Obama) is, and that perhaps Obama did not know who Wright is, oir has become.

That's about a lot more than race - it's about integrity, and its importance is clear to Obama. His whole bottom line is about being a different kind of politician, and what Wright said was a stab at that premise.

Posted at April 30, 2008 4:28 PM in response to Wright/Obama...A Sad Affair For All

It's not Obama's nature to rant and rave!!

One thing that people with class do is NOT shoot messengers.

He wasn't playing defense -- he was being a very good senator.

First he respected that he is on the Foreign Affairs committee and concentrated on the ambassador rather than the general.

Also he worked on developing talking points that contrast nicely with McCain's victory/defeat dichotomy. In other words he thought strategy rather than battleground. Very presidential.

Posted at April 8, 2008 7:21 PM in response to Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis

I agree that this shows why Obama's a cut above.

Note that he is talking and thinking strategically, which is what a President should be doing.

Also note that he did this without attacking anyone or turning it into a shouting match. This is what he does.

Posted at April 8, 2008 6:27 PM in response to Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis

Excellent post, CF. Feel welcome to write long (or even longer) posts when they are this good.

I think half of the problem is that the right wing (and some others) are pinning the "hate" label on Wright, where I think the right label is "really angry". Once they sell that he is a hater they can go after Obama's judgment or character for the 20 year association, and then they can pile on.

It is obvious to me that there has to be a lot of virtues to Trinity United that kept the Obamas as members, and that there is a lot more to Rev. Wright than the sound bites. I share your faith in Obama's character and wisdom, and hope that the electorate wil come to its senses.

Posted at March 20, 2008 3:06 PM in response to The Man Who Saw Not Black Nor White