Hillary's Speech: What she needs to say

When Hillary Clinton addresses the Democratic Nation Convention tonight she needs to say the following:

"I, of all people, understand the disappointment, and yes the hurt felt by my supporters. But if you support me, if you support the goals which I've spent my life pursuing, then you must support and vote for Barack Obama."

Anything less is unacceptable if either Clinton seeks to have a political life within the Democratic party.

My bet is that Hillary understands this as well.

[UPDATE: Mission accomplished, great job Hillary!]

A coupla thoughts on recent Obama news

On public financing: Obama would be a fool not to use every advantage he can legitimately muster to win this election, and he's never struck me as a fool. As for going back on his "promise", said "promise" was pretty finely parsed. After 7 years of finely wrought arguments about what TORTURE means, I'm not too shocked by a politician walking a fine line on a campaign promise.

On helping to retire Hillary's debt: Welcome to politics. By helping Hill, the O-Man will help soothe some of HRC's followers, and as importantly encourage HER donors to give to him.

Count me as among those Democrats who are tired of losing elections because we were too proud to muss our hair and (God help us) actually engage in politics.

Democratic debate: South Carolina

I've been busy, busy, busy, with the day job, and that's a good thing. However it does mean I tend to watch major events at 11:00 PM on dvr than live. So it was with the first Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina.

(New York Times debate transcript)

I've purposely avoided much commentary on the debate as to leave my first impressions as unspun as possible, and I'll be interested to see how others viewed the affair.

So, off the cuff, and in no discernible order, my thoughts...

First, and foremost, damn these folks are good, and so vastly superior to chimpy that I am tempted to wish for Adam Sandler's fast-forward remote. January 2009 can't come to soon.

Hillary wasn't smarmy. In fact when discussing specific policy issues she came off as nothing less than extremely competent.

Best response: wearing Republican antipathy as a badge of honor. I don't know how that would play with independents, but given the level of contempt with which Democrats view the current corporate-Christianist iteration of the GOP, that thought should play well with the base. It played well with me. She's still not my first choice, but she certainly didn't hurt herself.

Obama struck me as a bit flat, but I have to wonder, given the accounts of his soaring oratory, whether my expectations were a bit high. From reading press accounts one expects to hear Martin Luther King channeling Abraham Lincoln whenever he opens his mouth.

On the other hand he also didn't strike me as light on specifics (his main criticism to date). I wonder if his tendency to re-frame specific issues within their wider context (a good thing to my mind) tends to muddy his reactions among some viewers and the press.

Edwards won points in my book for not taking an obvious cheap swipe at Hillary, though he was mightily tempted by host Brian Williams. One hopes he would would be a little more willing to do so when debating Republicans.

He also has made great use of his time since 2004 to study issues and develop specific ideas on where the US should be going and the steps needed to get us there. He clearly seems the most wholly formed of the candidates.

Richardson also seemed to have some quite specific views on how best to deal with the challenges America faces, and though a little workmanlike, I've always been fond of the step 1, step 2, step 3 format for laying out policy objectives. It's a little dull, but it's also very clear.

Perhaps he was a little limited by the rapid-fire nature of the debate format, but I think Richardson still needs to find a way to use these opportunities to highlight the strongest overall resume among the field. He did manage to refer to his executive experience, but I think he needs to elucidate why that's so important, especially now given all the recent revelations as to how our MBA president is currently mis-managing the government.

Biden clearly gave the best response of the night by responding to Williams' question about his legendary loquacity and penchant for gaffes and whether he could provide sufficient focus for the American people to trust him with the presidency, answered with a simple "yes".

In fact it occurred to me, as it did with Kerry 3 years ago, that Biden would greatly benefit if his staff could arrange for a 30 second clock whenever the senator opens his mouth. Certainly his responses tonight, short and to the point, and clearly demonstrating his years of experience, were all the more impressive for their unaccustomed brevity.

Chris Dodd also was very strong on policy, though I found myself in agreement with most of his policy stances, I have to wonder, to be blunt, whether the country is really interested in electing another old white male as president this time around. I know how superficial that sounds, but there you go.

In times past I might have supported him as an older, mentor-type veep for a younger, more charismatic, though more inexperienced president. I suspect the results of the Bush/Cheney model have, however, poisoned that idea for some time to come.

Mike Gravel seemed to be working on sewing up the crotchety old man vote, which is too bad because I agree with his further left of center stances more than I do the more moderate front-runners.

But this is politics and presentation matters and coming off as the kind of guy who yells a kids riding their bikes on the sidewalk only plays into the "angry left" meme so well developed by the GOPers.

Dennis Kucinich seems to be solidifying his place as the Ralph Nader of the Democratic party: the guy you know is right about the issues, but who you also know will never be elected in this country in a million years.

Not surprisingly, Mrs. CaliBlogger, who is rather further left than yours truly liked him the most from a policy perspective.

My final thought for the moment is that while it was great to get the opportunity to hear from folks I never get to hear from, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich, and Biden greatly benefits from that 30 second clock thing, none of them (except maybe Biden) gave me an excuse to support them over the top tier candidates. And while it is early still, I find myself looking forward to smaller forums where the candidates can more fully explore the challenges this country faces after years of Republican corruption.

Bottom line though, I am now more than ever confidant that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be worthy of my full support.

And that's a good feeling to have.

Bill Richardson: still worth a look

It's no particular secret that, as much as I like Edwards and Obama (and keep a chair at my table open, in case Al Gore shows up) I believe New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson should not be discounted.

Aside from Mr. Gore, Mr. Richardson's credentials place him head and shoulders above the current field as far as relevent experience goes. And while Americans don't, nor do I believe they should, select their presidents on resume alone, still, when combined with respectable fund-raising, should give hints of a candidate's viability.

Kevin Drum would seem to agree:

[D]idn't Bill Richardson do awfully well? Sure, $6 million looks anemic compared to the three frontrunners, but in absolute terms that's pretty impressive, isn't it? If he keeps it up, he'll have a plenty big enough war chest to wage a serious campaign.

I don't have any big point to make here. It just seems like Richardson deserves a little more attention for raising that kind of money with virtually no name recognition.

$6 million is still an awfully large amount of money at this stage of the game. It was John Edwards who raised eyebrows in 2003 when he posted the then ridiculously large amount of $7.4 million in his opening bid in 2003.

Sure, it's not Hill's $26 million, or Obama's $25 million, but believe it or not $6 million will buy you lots of face time in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, the sites of the first three referendums.

It's now up to Governor Richardson as to whether he'll be able to make the most of it.

April 4 roundup

I've been having an extraordinarily busy time at the day job, (not to worry, busy=$), but it's put a severe crimp in my energy and time reserves.

However, several of today's events demand at least a few words before I toss myself in bed.

First off is the resolution of the Iran/Britain hostage situation. Though a blow to warbloggers across the US, the rest of us are glad to see that these lads (and one lass) will be going home safely, with no shots fired and no apparent harm to civilization as we know it. Point to note, Syria was an important element in the resolution of this affair, maybe we should talk to them sometime.

Speaking of which, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing just that. And while BushCorp insists on standing in a corner in a childish snit, it's important for the world to see that indeed some adults do still work in Washington and are able to carry on as adults, dealing with problems as they are.

And speaking of problems, Hillary Clinton's claim to "inevitability" is taking body blows of late, most importantly from Obama who not only has virtually matched her dollar for dollar in fundraising, but also enjoys twice as many donating supporters.

Not only that, but John Edwards, holds a statistically significant lead over Clinton in the Iowa caucuses. Also newsworthy, from the same report, the top three Democrats (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) fared better than the best Republican, Rudy Giuliani.

And just because it's emblematic of this presidency, video of Darth Cheney keeping a close eye on his puppet, apprentice to the darkside, president:

Bill Richardson: Worth a look

As I've said before, there are no circumstances under which I can foresee voting for anyone other than the Democratic nominee for president. Certainly ANYONE in the Democratic field, up to and including Dennis Kucinich is vastly superior to the current occupant of the Oval Office.

That being said, I am currently leaning towards Bill Richardson, and, at the very least, hope he gets earnest consideration by other Democratic voters.

I can understand Hillary's appeal, with her immense warchest and connection to the previous Democratic president, but he stances and approach, for me smack too much of the Democratic party of the past, with its dedication to big money and special interests.

Obama still serves as the most inspirational Democrat in the race, and, along with John Edwards, strikes me as the future face of the party. But frankly, given the mess the current president is going to leave for the next, I'd prefer someone with more executive experience and international expertise.

To my mind Bill Richardson is someone who embodies both.

From Robert Guttman, Director of the Center on Politics & Foreign Relations at Johns Hopkins, blogging at HuffPost:

Richardson is knowledgeable on the foreign policy issues of the day. His background as a congressman, United Nations Ambassador and Energy Secretary plus his frequent successful role as a roving diplomat who goes abroad to solve problems from Sudan to North Korea were readily apparent.

As he said in his talk, "I am a governor with foreign policy experience". Looking at the fact that four out of five of America's last presidents have been governors (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) and they have hailed from southern or southwestern states - Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas - and you see in New Mexico Governor Richardson a competent and competitive Democratic candidate for president in 2008.

Richardson is exactly the sort of person one used to expect to get from Republicans, smart, tough, and competent. And I'm increasingly of the mind that he is exactly who the United States will need as its next president.

(Unless Al Gore decides to run.)

Bill Richardson: a clear vision on Iran

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

If the United States chose its presidents based on resumé alone, Bill Richardson would be the clear front-runner for 2008.

But Richardson, who is notably lacking in Obama's charisma, Hillary's name recognition and organization, or even Edward's boyish charm, is currently firmly ensconced in the dwindling (farewell Tom Vilsack, we hardly knew ye) second tier of potential Democratic nominees.

But regardless of his poll standings, I have no doubt that the New Mexican Governor, former UN ambassador, and Energy Secretary (see, I told you he has a great resumé) would may an excellent president.

One reason I believe that is his clear vision of America's place in the world and what needs to be done to improve that place.

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Richardson outlines his vision for dealing with an international crisis that, should it follow the trajectory which BushCorp™ seems to have mapped out for it, would indeed make the debacle in Iraq appear the mere comma W says it is:

The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf.

And while BushCorp™ continues to rely on its belief that diplomacy amounts it the issuance of threats and ultimata, Richardson proposes an approach to the issue that relies more on neurons than testosterone:

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership. [Emphasis mine]

The article should be read in whole, but my point is that, whatever is lacking in candidate Richardson (and I'm not endorsing ANYONE at this point), he would none-the-less, be a vast improvement over the current administration, and is certainly worthy of consideration for the Democratic nomination.

As a commenter on the WaPo article puts it:

What a breath of fresh air. Finally, some level-headed, discerning experience talking. Exactly what this country has needed for the past six years. Not the deceit and recklessness of the dangerous boy scouts running the country who are happy to use our kids for their wars. Thanks, Governor. Such sanity shines through the clouds of war of these dark, tragic days.

Clinton/Obama dust-up: donors beware

It's not about Obama.

It's not even really about David Geffen's snarky, though some would say accurate analysis of Clinton's situation.

The key point is, and I've said this before, it's about the money. Specifically the millions of dollars the candidates will have to raise to run. And it's an especially intense subject now because Democrats are to a large extent drawing from the same pool of potential donors.

No Democrat is worried about losing David Geffen's support to, say, Sam Brownback.

And so, like all intra-familial altercations, the infighting can get particularly nasty and mean-spirited.

And in a way the latest beouhaha has almost nothing to do with the Obama campaign. The real message is aimed at potential Democratic donors. The Clinton camp has made it eminently clear that they're not about to cut donors any slack, you're either with HRC or against her.

So beyond all the sniping, the point is this, if you're a Democratic donor who gives to someone besides HRC, be prepared to be attacked.

The real question is: how will Democratic donors react to HRC's strong-arm tactics?

It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it

President Bush has famously said that he expects that the next president will still have the Iraq war to deal with, and at least one prospective next president is not at all pleased.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush has made a mess of Iraq and it is his responsibility to "extricate" the United States from the situation before he leaves office.

It would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief, she said.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

And while I certainly agree that Bush SHOULD clean up his own mess, given his history in life, in business, and in the oval office to date, that doesn't seem at all likely.

But really what can we expect? The next Democratic administration is going to have to spend significant resources cleaning up the messes the Republicans have made all over the world, as well as here at home.

The other option would be another Republican administration that will only make things worse.

So Democrats, buck up. It's a dirty job, but somebody's go to do it.

Will Al run?

And there's another reason I haven't commented too much on 2008, the guy I really want to run hasn't announced and may not wish to run counter a Clinton juggernaut: Al Gore.

From Rolling Stone:

If the Democrats were going to sit down and construct the perfect candidate for 2008, they'd be hard-pressed to improve on Gore. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no controversial vote on Iraq to defend. Unlike Barack Obama and John Edwards, he has extensive experience in both the Senate and the White House. He has put aside his wooden, policy-wonk demeanor to emerge as the Bush administration's most eloquent critic. And thanks to An Inconvenient Truth, Gore is not only the most impassioned leader on the most urgent crisis facing the planet, he's also a Hollywood celebrity, the star of the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time.

Of course this may all be wishful thinking, but I don't disagree with the article's main premise: if Obama, Edwards, or someone else manages to put a dent in the Hillary machine, Gore is well positioned to step in as a unity candidate, and raise buckets of netroots money virtually overnight.

I know who I'd be making out a check to.

Bayh out, Edwards in

I've mostly shied away from talking too extensively about 2008, but I wanted to take note of Sen. Evan Bayh's announcement that he would not be seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination, as well as John Edward's spokesman's intimation that he will.

Clearly this is an example of the Obama effect of clearing out second tier candidates, at least those who haven't already been infected by the presidential campaign virus.

I call this the Obama effect rather than the Clinton/Obama effect because Hillary's been running since she cleared out the first lady's suite in 2000.

That 600 lb. gorilla's been in the room for 6 years, and didn't deter feelers from potential Bayh, Feingold or Warner campaigns.

But while a plausible case can be made for running against one gorilla, as the anti-gorilla candidate, who in their right mind would want to run against two?

And while Obama may not be up to 600 lbs. yet, I hear he's on one of those all-carb diets so loved by growing sumo wrestlers.

Though it doesn't show in his face.

In other news, dog bites man...

I'm with Arianna on the shocking, shocking revelation in the NYT that, you'd better take a seat, that HILLARY CLINTON IS CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!

OK, take a few deep breaths before we continue.

...
...
...

Better?

Actually the NYT article is a case in point on one (though not all) of the problems with Hill.

Hillary strikes me as Kerry redux, without his warm fuzzy charm.

My worry is that the Hill machine will suck all the air out of the nominating process, limiting the Democratic choices and chances.

I may or may not support Bayh, Vilsack, Obama, Richardson et al., but I'd damn well like to hear what they have to say and see how they respond to the pressures of a national campaign.

If she wins the nomination I'll vote for her (given the character of the potential Republican field to date I don't foresee any options there), but I'll do so with a weary sigh at best.