Roll In, Roll Out

Well played, Hillary.

BUT a big way-to-go to both Obama and Edwards.

This puppy ain't over yet.

In the interim check out Frank Rich from Sunday, and look for a new post early Monday afternoon.

Who's On First?

This was the visual at HillaryClinton.com a few days ago.

Does this bother anyone except me?

Will the same 2 families rule this nation for years to come?

Update: Ok, I mean, I get it. But I don't get it.

The Audacity of Flip-Flops

With John Kerry out of the '08 race (remember those giant sandals?) the flips and flops are all happening on the GOP side this round. A short opinion article in today's Indianapolis Star provides a mini-summary (but I don't think my Governor is a flip-flopper, just an actor). The GOP cannot decide whether they want to be "principled" and go with, say, a proud reality-hater like Sam Brownback, or go with a new conservative convert like, say, the rest of the field (even Huckabee breaks the far-Right mold with his hippie love of art and music).

Anyway, here are some of the front-runner highlights so far...

Executive Flip-Flopper: Over the weekend there was an excellent Los Angeles Times article evaluating the formation of flip-flopping Willard Romney has danced in the past several months. Abortion, gays, trees and air--old Mitt is ready to change his mind. But for all the "Right" reasons, of course.

Straight Talk Flipper: McCain is the real pro this season, and this video on YouTube shows how it's done.

Mayoral Flipping: Now, Rudy! Giuliani feels left out and employs a turnaround on the flat tax issue (which worked very well for Steve Forbes).

Bonus Media Flopping: This isn't exactly a flip-flop but it is definitely intellectual flailing, and it has been driving me crazy this week-- Chris Matthews seems to believe there's a big metaphorical monster waiting to take down Hillary (with nothing but his own flip-from-Democrat-to-Republican past as a framework to guide him).

I've heard Matthews push this weirdo monster idea on Hardball and Imus (he most likely just enjoys saying "horny"). Here's how he puts down the concept:

Is there out in the country, or out in the Atlantic Ocean, some gigantic monster, big, green, horny-headed—all kinds of horns coming out, big aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn‘t shown itself; it‘s based upon gender, the fact that she is a liberal, that she is Bill—and that hasn‘t shown itself, because people are being so nice in the polling, they are saying all the correct things? Is there an anti-Hillary monster waiting out there that could deliver this nomination, or this election, to someone else? [Chris Matthews on Hardball, 3/26/07]

Matthews also keeps pushing the line that America is not ready to elect a woman, or at least Hillary. His circumstantial proof is that because no one in the media wants to discuss that Hillary actually is a woman, then the nation is not ready. The last time I checked, Matthews had 2 of his own shows on the TV. Maybe he should stop complaining about the dearth of talk about Hillary's gender and step up to the plate to discuss the topic on those shows. Or even more importantly, why the Atlantic Ocean? The Pacific Ocean has better monsters.

Time Past, Time Past

Former Senator Bill Bradley was on Meet the Press this past Sunday pushing his new book, "The New American Story" (yes, I still watch the show, despite my rants). To be honest, throughout the entire mini-interview I was puzzled as to what Bradley was talking about or what exactly Bradley is bringing to the political debate these days.

Bradley mentioned the "ethic of connectedness" which demands individual and collective action to solve problems (um, ok, we can give him credit for that radical idea). But he also whined and hawed about the Democratic Party, hanging onto that runaway bus of stereotypes that calls Dems tax and spenders, anti-defense hippies, and haters of wealth. This kills me when another Democrat pulls out the cloak of the past and swings it onto his shoulders to complain about the current state of the party. Clearly, Bradley is not substantively listening to the 2008 Democratic candidates at all.

Two of Bradley's "democratic curses" he discussed were my favorites:

(1) Russert: You talk about closed-minded devotion to the secular. Do you think the Democrats have been reluctant to talk about faith? Bradley: I think that the Democrats—some people in the Democratic Party have been reluctant to talk about faith, and not so much just in a religious sense, but in terms of how it informs our public life.

"Some people," my friends! Add Bradley to the picture board!

This "liberals don't like church" line is a very dull Fox News kind of talking point that the media loves. Pastor Russert in particular loves to talk about this despite any empirical reality backing him up (look here, and here, and wow, especially here).

I am befuddled as to how Senator Bradley can seriously fail to acknowledge that Obama, Edwards, or even Clinton have begun to turn the page on this alleged "curse." Look here, and here, and even here as evidence that Bradley is stuck in his 2000 race for the nomination and that 2008 is doing just fine in that regard, thank you.

The other favorite of mine was this one:

(2) Bradley claims the Democrats are "hypnotized by charisma," and that "the party has, has tended to look for a knight on a shining—on a white horse to solve all our problems."

Does this explain nominee John Kerry in 2004? No way. Al Gore? Um... lockbox? I would suggest that Bradley is taking a pre-emptive shot at the Obama candidacy. When he was asked about Obama, Bradley made a fair point that Obama needs to be more specific about his goals for the nation, but also admitted it was early in the race. But while Bradley said he was impressed with Obama's crowds he noted: "I’m impressed with 20,000 people at a speech, I’d be more impressed with 5,000 meet-ups with 100 people at a meet-up." I'd be more impressed if Bradley would acknowledge Obama's singular contribution to the party in terms of energy and idealism. 5000 meet-ups does not a president make. Ask Howard Dean.

Senator Bradley's book might be marvelous. I have read all of his other books. But something tells me that Bradley has been muscled out of his own party by others with even bolder ideas, sharper idealism, and genuine charisma and he knows it.

Super Quick Hits

The U.S. Attorney scandal is exhausting my outrage for so many reasons, but at least Keith Olbermann has been reporting on it with clarity and helping it all make sense.

Another "Go Hillary Go" article in the New York Times, now about her effort to master all things military. Is this in response to Bill Clinton's whining or is it evidence his prior complaint was bogus? Either way, a wet front-page kiss for the lady.

An original, solid article from Salon's Walter Shapiro about the reality that White House occupants actually do have personal lives, and that health or family issues are just additional burdens for a President, among many.

Light side from Olbermann: I don't know why, but this makes me laugh every time I watch it.

Couples Counseling

Seems reporters like to go hard after the Democratic marrieds these days (or maybe this tradition goes back to the early 1990s? Look, left).

Exhibit A is Katie Couric Sunday night on 60 Minutes throwing flippy-cold and oddly aggressive questions at John and Elizabeth Edwards about Mrs. Edwards' cancer and the campaign (watch it here and be sure to check out a great Nora Ephron response from Huffington Post).

Regardless of your comfort level with Couric's approach, the Edwardses seemed poised and ready to talk. I don't hear them complaining about their treatment, but I am sure they would agree using strawmen communities (By gosh, it does take a village! I am totally on to something here...) as justifications for questions is an intellectually lazy endeavor. Maybe if Elizabeth had colon cancer Couric would have been more empathetic.

Update: I didn't take the time to listen to Couric's solo audio of the questions today, but thanks to Mickey Kaus at Slate pointing it out, I clicked and listened. Couric's repetitive rancor was as cowardly as it was pointless. What, exactly, was she after? When I wrote days ago that a "cynical march of snide doubt and division" would commence, I had far-right bloggers and say, Rush Limbaugh in mind as the drum majors. "Journalism" has fallen further than I thought.

Exhibit B is Chris Matthews today, going straight for the throats of Tom and Christie Vilsack on Hardball. Matthews skipped the "Some people say" approach Couric lathered up with and instead exposed the strategery behind the Vilsack endorsement with pointed, even impolite questions. It seemed to me that Matthews made the Vilsacks look unprepared and amateurish, but you watch and decide.

In contrast, Exhibit C is the transcript of not-so-tough questions from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos aimed at Willard and Ann Romney a few weeks ago. My favorite question was the first: "Okay, Mitt Romney, management consultant. Give us the PowerPoint presentation for your candidacy." Oh, those softballs are hard to swing at, I'm sure. Even for a guy nicknamed Mitt.

What I really want to see is Rudy and Judy Giuliani on 60 Minutes with Couric. Perhaps she can ask them if they are "in denial" thinking that their marriage will work (considering their respective track records). "Some people say," Couric might begin, "that you're both bad at keeping commitments. How can we trust you won't leave America halfway during your term?"

Maybe if President Bush started doing interviews with Laura we could get to the bottom of this whole Iraq War everyone's talking about...oh nevermind, he's in that Republic Party.

Weekend Eggs and Links

President Bush has a lovely, well-propped press conference in response to the House passing an Iraq spending bill, remembers he can veto bills.

Federalism stinks, doesn't it Mr. President?

Vilsack expected to endorse Hillary Clinton on Monday. So expected it hurts. Too bad all Vilsack's voters have already wandered to the Edwards camp. But classy timing, Tom, if anything.

Rudy re-designs his webpage. Clean look and new logo, but seems under construction. So does the forming biography of his present wife. I think Rudy should use an exclamation point after his name--it just seems to be a Republican thing to do.

Congressman Tancredo hints he will join the field for the GOP nomination. So many awful choices, so little time. Come on Hagel, run!

For presidential campaign junkies, this site provides some great reminders of when the candidate fields were plentiful, like 2008 will be (especially 1988 and 1992).

Howard Fineman of Newsweek had a good take on the Edwards press conference. Saturday's New York Times will have a balanced, thoughtful look at possible voter emotions surrounding the Edwardses decision to carry on.

As of Friday afternoon, Obama had a classy front and center link to his message of best wishes for Elizabeth Edwards (including photo) on his homepage. Well done, Senator. Update: The link was gone as of 530pm PST Friday.

Final question on the Elizabeth Edwards announcement--do you think that if Edwards was the clear frontrunner, like Hillary, he would be second guessed for continuing the campaign?

Stay the Course

Modern presidential politics is overly personal, and has been for some time. This modern politics tends to focus on the actions of a candidate and how they can be manipulated to match superficial stereotypes that have been affixed to that image by the media.

Watching John and Elizabeth Edwards this morning, a new kind of personalization was introduced to the campaign. As a couple, the candidate and his wife spoke in a plain, grassy space with the sun at their backs and they told America of an intimate development in their personal lives. Elizabeth's cancer has returned, and is not curable. The moment was too real, in some respects, because it made every viewer a witness to the vulnerability of those who seek political power. I am not sure what Americans truly expect from their political leaders anymore, but the kind of vulnerability John and Elizabeth exhibited is rare and awkward and human.

Pundits and bloggers have already begun their cynical march of snide doubt and division on the matter, and this reaction can be expected, for it seems it is how one survives in America these days. But I couldn't help but wish, as I watched the Edwardses speak, that America would embrace the idea they were offering us: that honest public service is about sacrifice and hope in the name of ideas, in the name of some form of a cause that includes each and all. It is called public service because you are supposed to be a servant to the community, not just to your convictions or ambitions, but to a vision of building a community that includes every citizen, functioning in a system of order that balances both practical and impossible goals.

We are all so cynical, and so afraid to believe what leaders tell us anymore. The vision of community that has persisted from our political leaders for the past several years does not include everyone, it is a vision founded on group victory, on a selfish, singular faith without reason, and on delusions of success without planning that are always mightily crafted on the backs of others.

I have met John and Elizabeth and have worked for their past campaigns, and so my response to their press conference this morning was an instant, familial type of empathy. I am fully aware some will not respond that way. Some individuals will treat this situation as an opportunistic moment, a nasty reflex born out of the trail of deceits that liter our national landscape: the WMDs, the Mission Accomplisheds, the Patriot Acts, the Katrinas, the Walter Reeds.

We have been systematically trained to disbelieve all sentiment. We have been aggressively trained to view compassion as weakness. I don't know how to make that stop for everyone else, but I can make it stop with me.

The media has never questioned the substance of the family values of that stubborn 30% of America that adores George W. Bush and his divisive messianic visions. I am sure, however, that they will question the substance of the Edwardses family values in their decision to go forward with the campaign. Only Republicans are allowed to be resolute and principled, it seems. The significant difference is that George W. Bush is resolute in believing in his cronies and his God, but John Edwards is resolute in believing in a different America where all are included and lifted.

The shared faith of John and Elizabeth was evident today, and as they constantly "look for the silver lining" within the months to come that faith will sustain them. It was a living, implied faith and not sold as a slogan. How remarkable.

Senator Edwards likes to say that "It's time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war," and I agree. Today the Senator and his wife asked all of us to be patriotic about that vision of an American community where public servants and the polity trade sacrifices with confident faith in one another's honest efforts to make the nation work as one.

It's time to put our faith in something other than a President's certainty. I'll put my faith in John Edwards' humanity.

Grace Personified

Various news outlets are reporting that Senator Edwards will make some kind of announcement with his wife at noon on Thursday.

I personally met with Elizabeth two times during the campaign in 2004 (one time was a joyful, thoughtful breakfast at the Hamburg Inn in Iowa City). Elizabeth is an amazingly intelligent, humble and graceful woman.

My thoughts and prayers are with John and Elizabeth Edwards and their children. I hope yours are, too.

It Sure Takes a Village

George W. Bush has forcefully stuffed seven years of non-existent straw men down our throats, namely variations of the "Some people say..." rhetorical device (when no people say), and now Hillary Clinton (ever the ambitious one) has gone and done the President one better.

Hillary has begun to create an entire community of straw folk that will make the hard (or even simple) choices while Hillary focuses instead on focus group results.

Here's Hillary on whether the pro-Obama "1984" ad rushing through the internet tubes should be pulled: "You know, that’s for somebody else to decide."

Sound familiar?

Lee Iacocca would be proud--this Senator is "getting out of the way."

I guess we'll have to stay tuned to see how often Clinton employs this new village of deciders throughout the campaign.