Geraldine Ferraro's Big Mouth

Old time feminist are having a hard time with Obama. I really don't believe they are racist, but I think they view politics and conflicts through a prism of sexism. It distorts everything for them.

Her argument is wrong for a number of reasons:

1) Every candidate is who they are in part due to what they are
2) You could fairly say Hillary is where she is due in a large part to her marriage (which in part is due to being a woman).
3) Her statement gives Obama no credit for who he is. Apparently he has done nothing for the past few months but people are voting for him anyways.
4) Hillary's failure to win the nomination at this point is apparently not due to anything she has done or how she has managed her campaign.

I have more reasons to disagree with her, but you get the point. It is sad.

Obama as a blank slate

What Obama just ran into yesterday was the reaction to being a "blank slate".

People have been defining Obama as what they want. He admits that people put their hopes and dreams onto him since they just assumed he believed what they believed. He hadn't defined himself clearly enough. That worked to build his campaign.

So still being a relative unknown to many voters, this go around Clinton was able to start to define him negatively.

Clinton was able to get into voters heads that Obama may not be what they hoped.

If you start having doubts about an unknown, it is hard to vote for him.

Was it dirty? Might it hurt the Democratic Party this November? Yes to both questions, but it saved Clinton's campaign.

Obama can comeback from this easily enough. He has to start defining himself to voters and he will have to answer the charges. So that means he will have to find forums that allow him to explain his relationship to Rezko and the house/land deal. He will need to keep renouncing and denouncing Farrakhan. He will need to show his knowledge of foreign affairs. He will have to keep stressing judgement versus experience.

It will be interesting to see if Clinton stays negative or decides to change direction for a while at least. I think she would be foolish to not go negative again if she needs to.

And only be doing a better job of defining himself can Obama blunt that attack.

Little Boy Bush

I did listen to the President's press conference this morning.

When I hear the President talking, I can't help but get this mental picture of a 7 year old boy just getting off the school bus and eagerly telling me what he just learned in school. The 7 yr old wants show you how smart he is by explaining his new info to you. You have to be careful how you ask any question since he will only know what he was just taught, and you don't want to bust his bubble of excitement.

Another way to describe it would be "a mile wide, but an inch deep" but I think "a mile" is overestimating it.

I do think that no matter which major candidate running actually wins this November, we will be getting a leader who will actually understand the issues at hand. That's going to be a big upgrade.

She must know better

I can't figure out how Clinton could attack Obama for plagiarism and then take a riff from Edwards.

I would think if you examined the words of any politician, you'll be able to find passages from their speeches that are very similar to someone else's. That's a given.

And Obama borrowed from a friend who happens to be one of his campaign's co-chairs, so it just is not a big deal. They're friends. They have each borrowed phrases and phrasing from each other, so who cares.

The attack on Obama did not resonant with the voters at all, so Clinton should have just dropped it. But she went after him again during the debate.

That would have been viewed as just a waste of time, but then she ends the debate with her big emotional close that gets the audience going and the pundits praising, but she took it from Edwards. What do they say about people in glass houses?

I don't think her lifting a line from Edwards is a big deal at all, and I don't think anyone else would have cared either, except she made it a big deal.

Not landing the punch

I've noticed that every time Obama is attacked, he finds a way to turn that attack around. The Clintons' attacks that Obama's stance on Iraq was a fairytale or that he brings false hope have been co-opted by Obama. Now he uses those charges in his speeches for major applause.

For the last couple of days, Bill and Hillary are using the line that the Democrats need to nominate a candidate with solutions, not speeches. They've been repeating this basic concept enough to try and magnify a real issue in some people's mind.

I will bet you that we will soon find this "solutions, not speeches" idea coming back at the Clintons with a vengeance. Obama knows how to use a line like that.

And the funny thing is, almost all the time the candidates speak, they could be accused of giving us speeches, not solutions. Unless they want the crowd to fall asleep, no one gives a speech filled with policy details.

Obama's just so much better at giving a speech than any of the candidates this primary season, his opponents just have to try and turn his strength against him.

Watching Clinton stumbling around trying to land a punch in this campaign, I feel like I'm watching Sonny Liston versus Muhammad Ali (okay, I know he was Cassius Clay at the time).

Value of endorsements

I heard that John Glenn endorsed Hillary Clinton, and I realized that I didn't care. It didn't have an impact one way or another on me. I like John Glenn. He is a true American hero several times over, but I believe that endorsements just don't seem to help Clinton as much as they do Obama.

Now, I don't think most voters tie their voting decisions to one person's endorsement, no matter how high profile. But Obama is still such an unknown to most voters that an endorsement gives voters more confidence that there is something really there.

Obama gets people's attention. He is such a gifted speaker, and his post-racial, post-partisan message is exciting, but some voters doubt what he can really do if elected. He doesn't have a track record of actual accomplishment, so an endorsement can add some substance to the concept that is Obama.

We know who Clinton is or who McCain is, so an endorsement from some pillar of their party just doesn't carry that much weight. I guess you can view their need for gathering endorsements as a rearguard action.

Hillary needs Glenn's endorsement so Barack doesn't get it, but that is about it.

Is Ann for real?

The short answer to that question is no.

Ann hasn't been a legitimate pundit for years. She is more like a professional wrestler compared to a real sport competitor. It's all about self-promotion, outrageousness and such.

I've wondered why anyone listens to her for more than comic relief.

I'm not saying she isn't smart. She has made millions with her act, and at some level she might even believe some of it. But it is an act.

When she appears on a show, that is a sign that the show is not serious about the subject at hand, but it is serious about entertainment and ratings. Like a professional wrestler, Ann ignites the passions of the audience. Either they want to cheer her on or boo her.

Pro wrestlers need the attention (positive or negative) in order to be successful, perform in large arenas and get the big paydays. If the crowd is apathetic, they end up wrestling in a converted barn in front of dozens.

With her bizzaro world logic of supporting Clinton over McCain, Ann is working hard to stay in the arenas.

Scorched Hillary

I think the term is "blowback". The Clintons' fired their almost Rovian message at Obama and hurt themselves instead.

Hillary is too tough and too organized to be destroyed by South Carolina's vote, but a loss this big can't just be ignored. And it will be the lead topic of discussion on all of the Sunday shows. The spin should be interesting to watch.

It's great to see the divide and conquer approach didn't work. In fact it did more than not work. Their strategy resulted in a unity of revulsion.

Maybe now Hillary will put a muzzle on Bill.

For a moment in New Hampshire (depending on your personal view), Hillary revealed a human side that connected with people. She got choked up about her fight to help America. That's the Hillary that needs to get out on the campaign trail right now. Of course, if you didn't like Hillary from the start, then you would believe Hillary acted like she was overwhelmed with her struggle to save America. And perhaps she only got choked up because she couldn't believe she was really being challenged and may not get the office she feels she deserves.

I like to think it was the former and not the latter. A genuine Hillary is a much more interesting and compelling candidate. I think America is tired of cynical manipulators and fear baiters.

Obama has the chance to be the transcendent figure he hopes to be. His speech tonight was the message that will help him became that hope.

Hillary's Scorched Earth Tendencies

Hillary's scorched earth tendencies.

Many have known that Hillary has that unique ability to heal the fractures in the GOP. David Frum made that point in the NYT's today. We've seen the poll data that shows how close a general election would be between Hillary and McCain or Romney.

What I never realized until recently is how Hillary is able to divide the Democrats. Over this last week, she and Bill have done a tremendous job of polarizing the Democrats' primary.

We've watched her and Bill lie about Obama's positions, lie about his past associations and so forth. This act has alienated many Democrats and Independents and is red meat for the Republicans.

So the key question is: can Hillary actually win in November with a divided Democrat Party up against a united Republican Party?

If she was running against W, I'd say she could win, but I don't think she can beat McCain or Romney if she continues to destroy her own party.

She needs to get Bill to be an advocate for her and not an attack dog. The former president doesn't need to be playing the role of James Carville. They have James Carville and others for that job. He needs to keep the message positive.

CNN Debate

Last night's debate was a lot of fun for pundits and conservatives, but it really was a bad night for Democrats.

I left that debate thinking Clinton was petty, Obama was defensive and Edwards was irrelevant. I did not feel pleased that I was probably watching the next president of the United States.

Clinton's attacks on Obama were mostly nitpicking. They made her appear small since she was the one bringing them up. Watching her try to defend misrepresenting Obama's past statements was just painful.

Obama's ability to bring soaring and uplifting rhetoric is wonderful, but he can't do that while having to defend himself against attacks, no matter how silly the attack. This debate made him look much more like a regular politician which is a victory for Clinton. Obama needs to handle himself better in situations like this.

Edwards ended up as the third wheel. When you have to fight with the moderator to get some air time, you don't look very presidential.

I also thought CNN let the debate degenerate to the level of a bad high school debate. I'm also getting so tired of panelist asking questions that are just silly, like asking Obama to respond to Toni Morrison's quote. His response was okay, but the question was just dumb.

Why must Clinton lie?

We all like to joke about the lying nature of politicians, but I still get angry when they lie to me.

I didn't like Clinton when he ran in 1992 because I did believe there was some truth to the rumors of his infidelities. I felt that if someone would risk his career, lie to his family and get others to cover up his lies for him, then there was no way I should be surprised he would lie to me.

I was right.

But I will say that the Clinton lies we are aware of pale in comparison to the lies the current administration tells. We're looking at misdemeanors versus felonies. Lies yes, but the scale is very different.

If I need to start to list Bush's lies for you, chances are you are a Bush supporter and have been able to dodge reality so far so I'm not going to waste time right now trying to enlighten you.

But what got me riled up of late is Clinton is back in the news with his lying ways. The man should realize that we have the Internet available to us. I don't need his smarmy misstatements to tell me about what Obama said about Reagan. I watched what Obama said and it is very different than what Clinton was trying to tell us.

It's strange enough to have a former president campaigning heavily for a candidate in the party's primary, but no one would expect him to do otherwise in this election. But why does he feel the need to lie to us about Obama?

I watched Obama and can see the large gap between reality and what Clinton said, so I'm supposed to believe anything else that Clinton says? He has a history of being a liar. He has a history of manipulating language to be deceitful. But this in your face lie that anyone can see for themselves is over the top.

Clinton is making it hard for me to even consider Hillary. She says he is an asset to her campaign and I think he has been at times, but right now he is doing nothing but reminding voters like me about what I didn't like about the Clintons during the '90's.

McCain and Obama might not be perfect, but they don't seem to be so shameless in their behavior.