Morning Joke™ Off The Rails

Scarborough, Buchanan and TIME's Washington bureau chief Jay Carney are sitting around in DC waiting for the Chimp in Chief's latest poo flinging, talking about the negative ads released today by the RNC and the McCain campaign associating Ayers and Rezko to Obama. Nothing new, right? Then I heard this (paraphrasing):

Carney: I don't think the ads are going to work because people are scared to death about the economy.

Buchanan: McCain missed an opportunity because the market is tanking after this $700 billion bailout and he should have voted against it. He could've been "in the catbird seat" if he had voted against bailing out Wall Street.

Scarborough: Well, why did he vote for it?

Wait for it... Ready?


Buchanan: Because he's an "ESTABLISHMENT GUY." He voted with the majority.

Mika from the studio: Wait, I'm confused. I THOUGHT HE WAS A MAVERICK!

Carney: Well... he's a maverick within the establishment... he's on the edges of the establishment.

McCain Wins Florida - Rudy's Out

While announcing and analyzing McCain's win in Florida, MSNBC and others confirm with two separate sources that Rudy Giuliani will drop out of the race tomorrow and endorse John McCain at the Reagan Library. Talk about irony! Is this a good thing for McCain?

...given Rudy's stands on abortion, guns and gay rights, his endorsement of McCain would also add some ballast to Romney's central argument going forward -- that of the two remaining contenders for the GOP nomination, he is the more conservative.

Looks like we won't have Rudy Giuliani to kick around anymore... and it was becoming one of my favorite pastimes.

As of this writing, Hillary Clinton has won the raw vote over Barack Obama in Florida, but no delegates were awarded due to the stripping of Florida's delegates after breaking party rules and holding their primary early.

Although Michigan (which is in the same boat) and Florida have been stripped of delegates, the Clinton campaign is challenging the Democratic National Committee's ruling.

"Nothing has changed," a party source said. "Florida will still have zero delegates. The party has booked no rooms for them at the convention."

Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2007

Vladimir Putin!



I'm speechless.

A TSAR IS BORN: TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years. Whether he becomes more like the man for whom his grandfather prepared blinis [Stalin] —who himself was twice TIME's Person of the Year—or like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admires; whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression [like Dubya?] —this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year.

Time Magazine's Top 10 Editorial Cartoons of 2007

... and this was number 1.

The Hillary Hate Factor

For quite a while now, I've been thinking about the Democrats running in the Presidential primary looking to get the votes needed to be the next nominee for President of the United States. As we all know, it's been Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who have been leading the pack in the polls, campaign contributions and in media exposure.

Both are worthy candidates, in my opinion, but there are always a couple of questions that come across my mind as I imagine either one as the Democratic nominee. Could one of these two actually win? It would be devastating for this country to elect another Republican. I don't say this because I'm a Democrat or a liberal or progressive or whatever label you want to put on it. I seriously believe that if we, as a nation, elect another Republican to the highest office in the land, we'll continue down this horrible road we've been traveling with Bush and his band, and the rest of the world will conclude that this is where we all want to be. Not just the people that vote Republican, but all of us, and needless to say, we're not anyone's favorites right now.

There may be an exception or two. I've been listening to Mike Huckabee on different talk shows and debates and he seems to have his head on straight on certain issues. But he's not a front runner. The leaders in polls on the Republican side show Rudy Giuliani holding a double digit lead over Fred Thompson, who hasn't even announced yet! And believe me as a New Yorker, living in a Giuliani world is not all its cracked up to be. Mike Huckabee has been holding steady at 3% for the last three months.

Anyway, back to my point. The Republican Party is on the ropes. Their base has had their head smashed in with scandal after scandal, the Iraq War is a mess, resignations are crippling White House computer printers and Congressional subpoenas are flying out of the Capitol Building fast than you can say "Alberto Gonzales". At this point, the Republican base will stay at home on Election Day. But the one thing they will rally around is who their political opponent will be .

Hillary Clinton has this hate factor that has manifested itself into an 800 lb. gorilla. And hell, where did it come from? What did Hillary do to make her so vilified, not only among Republicans, but some Democrats as well?

I had a conversation with a colleague at work who said she would vote for John McCain before Hillary. JOHN McCAIN!!! Mr. Baghdad Is Doing Great, Surge Is Working While Helicopters Protect Me From Overhead McCain. When I mentioned to her that there was probably no way McCain would get the nomination and asked her who she would vote for if it were Hillary or Giuliani, she begrudgingly said Hillary. "But I don't trust her as far as I could throw her" was her caveat. Why did this African-American woman not trust Hillary?

Is the distrust a culmination of Hillary's ambition to high office, so much so that she stood by her husband after it was revealed that he had an affair? Did my friend feel betrayed as a woman, perhaps thinking that Hillary lost some dignity in staying with Bill? We all assume the Clintons moved to New York so Hillary could run for office, but everyone does it, and I have to say that she's done a pretty good job as a New York Senator (despite voting for the war), so why is this so different? What is it about Hillary Clinton that pisses people off?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a strong Hillary supporter. I don't approve of what she says regarding her foreign policy. I do belive she's trapped herself in a corner and is now beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests. This is especially upsetting to me, because she's gone from being the most outspoken person on a national health care system as First Lady, to accepting campaign contributions from insurance and phamaceutical companies (that's for another post). But I'd still take her over ANYONE on the Republican ticket.

Barack Obama first got my attention at the 2004 Democratic National Convention with his Keynote Address. That great speech that literally took my breath away and got me excited about politics for the first time in a very long time:

"...there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

That galvanized me, and I hope most of the Democratic party, into thinking of what could be possible. It fell on deaf ears, however, to the other side. Before long, they were trying to make Obama the latest demon, calling him Barack Hussein Obama (his real middle name) in an attempt to associate him with Saddam, and saying he went to a madrassa when he was a boy. Now they claim his downfall is his inexperience, to which he replies, "Nobody had a longer resume than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and that hasn't worked out so well." I sensed the attacks coming, but what are you going to do?

My one hesitation about Barack: he's black. I have absolutely no problem with Obama's African-American heritage. However, I think too many other people in this country still do, including many in the Republican party. So the question there is: Is America ready to vote for an African-American to be President?

Which comes to my final point. This week's Time Magazine has a John Edwards article worth reading. I've always liked Edwards. He comes across as genuine to me. Not looking for the patented, rehearsed answer, or not saying what any particular audience wants to hear. But I believe he deeply cares about people and trying to make it better for everyone. He's big on health care and hasn't taken any money from lobbyists, corporations or political action committees.

His wife Elizabeth is quoted in the article regarding what I call the Hillary Hate Factor:

TIME MAGAZINE, Elizabeth Edwards: "The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers," says Elizabeth, the unfiltered voice of the campaign, during an interview on the bus a week before that speech. "Then the media folks say, 'See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates' ... It's enough to make you tear your hair out." Soon she's pressing the argument that her husband is the most electable candidate, the one who will help other Democrats win in the South and West--and she's managing to attack Clinton while defending her. "I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

My only reaction? She's right. But where do we go from here? Is middle America ready to vote for a woman? Or a black man? Can people who say they support either candidate be completely honest with themselves when they are all alone in the voting booth with no one looking over their shoulder?

Do yourself a favor and read the entire Edwards article in TIME (linked above).

(In the interests of total disclosure, I have donated to the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns.)