Category: Homepage

I'm just saying . . .

(Tableau borrowed from huffingtonpost.com)

The two faces of Mitt Romney were seen arguing on Boston Harbor this morning:


Mitt I: See, I told you, you shouldn’t have gotten out of the race.
Mitt II: You? You said nothing of the sort. I wanted to stay in and you told me I should get out and endorse McCain.
Mitt I: Well, hear me now. You should cancel your subscription to that damn New York Times. Why are they now telling the world this about McCain? Couldn’t they have come out with it six weeks ago? Even a month ago would have helped? Now, that hayseed, Mike Huckabee is going to walk away with a nomination that I almost bought outright.

That’s one of the perils of being two faced. Sometimes one face doesn’t remember what it is telling the other.

Ensconced somewhere with a team of divorce lawyers, headed by Raoul Felder, Rudy Giuliani is bashing his head against the wall, saying: 9/11. Judy. 9/11. Judy. 9/11. Judy. 9/11. Judy. 9/11. Judy. At least he marries his paramours.

Okay, say what you will, but doesn’t ‘that woman, Ms. Iseman,’ look like she and Cindy McCain were separated at birth? I’m not saying that Jim Rutenberg at The New York Times looked at Mrs. McCain and thought he was looking at Vicki Iseman but . . .

Anyway, it’s not like Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), was ever a choirboy.

I mean, wasn’t it his flagrant philandering that broke down his marriage to Carol Shepp, the woman who nursed him of his war wounds? And people, especially his friends in the media, praised him to no end for his candor and straight shooting when he confessed to that little infidelity. And, of course, this started a pattern of bad behavior by McCain, followed by penitence, which then leads to more praise, and so on and so forth.

The Times’ exposé is essentially combining the two strains of McCain’s Washington life: marital infidelities and financial improprieties.

A friend sent this note . . .

that I thought I should share:

Michael-

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, Obama exhibits something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates.

That something is a creative imagination which, coupled with brilliance, equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace–that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but Obama is the man for this time.

A Moment . . .

Senator Barack Obama at a rally in Houston on Tuesday night. Photo (From nytimes.com is by Rick Bowmer/Associated Press

An impressive tenth straight victory for Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), in the race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. He cut across every demographic in Wisconsin and bested his opponent in areas that were once weaknesses.

The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, (D-NY), hasn’t thrown in the towel. Not Yet. Remember the Alamo! She said. See you in Texas, she said. She’ll work the night shift, she said. It’s about deeds, not words, she said. Besides, don’t listen to those sweet words because Obama plagiarized some of them, she said.

Hmmnn.

An argument could be made that all these victories suddenly put Ohio in play and Texas may even be winnable for Sen. Obama.

Is it?

Al Jolson, Elvis Pressley, Bill Clinton, just to name a few.

I’m sure I meant something by that list. But just what I cannot tell you because I am not really sure. The list is not random, however.

It took me a while to get to this Newsweek article by David Gates but I am glad I read it. Mr. Gates wrote a questioning and intelligent article about a sliver of American culture that is unstintingly honest.

Night and Day

I saw the contrasting pictures on the night of the so-called ‘Potomac Primaries’ and did not think anything of it until I read Frank Rich yesterday.

We don’t yet know who the Democratic Party nominee for president will be but, whoever it is, it is going to be a nice contrast with the presumptive Republican nominee. Come November, it will really be about the past and the future. Do we follow the same failed, ruinous policies that has driven the nation into a ditch, or strike out on a new path?

Trial Love Notes

Mr. Daniel Henninger, who writes the Wonder Land column on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, has been listening to Illinois Senator Barack Obama and, surprise, surprise, he found Mr. Obama “insanely” eloquent but the message a downer. The America that Mr. Henninger knows is not nearly as bad off as the good senator makes it out to be.

As a result, Mr. Henninger has a hopeful message for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, (D-NY): Hang in there. America will soon get tired of the Obama message and then she can coast in to the nomination.

Mr. Henninger’s reason for this is that he found a poll that says Americans, especially those who are supporting Mr. Obama, are generally optimistic about the nation and, they will naturally reject Mr. Obama when they realize he has not been telling them the truth about their beloved country.

The conventional critique of Sen. Obama has held that his pitch is perfect but at some point he’ll need to make the appeal more concrete.

I think the potential vulnerability runs deeper. Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It’s a downer.

Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama’s physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!” Can what?

Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928.

I have to say this is quite a novel take on the campaign, a trial balloon perhaps of how Republicans plan to attack the senator’s message in the fall. For instance, Mr. Henninger listened to another speech after Sen. Obama, this time by Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), the presumptive Republican nominee. He found Mr. McCain speech more to his liking.

The contrast with Sen. Obama’s is stark. The arc of the McCain speech is upward, positive. Pointedly, he says we are not history’s “victims.” Barack relentlessly pushes victimology.

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan’s signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections.

Prior to reading Mr. Henninger’s column, the chief complaint I’d read and heard about Mr. Obama’s speeches were that they were relentlessly positive and that Republicans will swiftboat and make mincemeat of him in the general election because he’s too nice.

One shouldn’t blame Mr. Henninger for this column. After all, it was on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. It could have been worse. This was a good try. It must get tiresome hearing all those hosannas from Republicans and independents praising Sen. Obama, the so-called Obamicans, even calling him Reaganesque.

Mrs. Clinton has been tearing her hair out trying to figure out how to counter Sen. Obama’s positive mien. Up to now, she has had to settle for being the the anti-hope candidate. Here’s an answer. Why not accuse him of being too negative for being so positive?

Obamican . . . Posthumously

(photo is a link) Don’t get me wrong, former Pres. Ronald Reagan did much damage to our nation. He devastated cities and set back the cause of justice in this nation. But he did it with a smile on his face and a song in his heart. He was an optimist and he believed in America. Today’s Republicans are all snarls, anger and hatred. They are afraid and they want all of us to be afraid. They serve the cause of the few at the expense of the majority.

Which is a reason to wonder whether Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), can deliver when he would be relying on Republicans to change their ways. Mr. Obama deserves a chance to try to “heal a nation; repair this world.”

Tone Deaf

Leon Wieseltier over at The New Republic had heard Sen. Barack Obama’s song and he, for one, is totally immune to this call:

It is not “the politics of fear” to remind Obama’s legions of the blissful that, while they are watching Scarlett Johansson sway to the beat, somewhere deep inside a quasi independent territory we might call Islamistan people are making plans to blow them to bits. (Yes, they can.)

I have to say his play on the “Yes, We Can” rhetoric is quite clever. Sen. Obama, I believe, threatened to pursue Osama bin Laden into Pakistan, if necessary, and was roundly lambasted for rashness.

You cannot win against Wieseltier’s argument because he is refusing to be convinced about anything and there’s nothing a person could say to change his mind. Sometime this fall, expect the erstwhile liberal magazine, The New Republic, to endorse ultra right wing Republican John McCain for president.