Caption Contest
By Dan | August 20, 2008
Leave a comment with your caption for this photo of Bush at the Olympics!
Topics: Pop Culture to Politics | No Comments »
HILLARY’S THE ONE!
By Bill | August 15, 2008
Nearing the end of a week’s vacation, Barack Obama now faces the toughest decision of his life. He has to come back from Hawaii ready to announce his running mate. And for me it’s a no-brainer.
Forget Tim Kaine. He’s an impressive young governor of a key swing state, but he has even less foreign policy or national security experience than Obama. Forget Evan Bayh. Again, a popular former governor, now senator, of a key Rust Belt state, but a big, early supporter of the war in Iraq and not exactly a firecracker on the stump. By the same measure, and for similar reasons, forget Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.
They are all good people. Each of them would make an outstanding member of Obama’s Cabinet. But there’s only one person with the firepower needed in a vice-presidential candidate. If Barack Obama really wants to blow John McCain out of the water, the best candidate by far is . . . Sen. Hillary Clinton.
It’s all about winning in November. So think about the math. She got 18 million votes in the primaries; he got 18 million votes. She won the women and working-class vote; he won the African-American and white-collar vote. Put the two of them together and you have an unbeatable ticket: experience and promise, inspiration and perspiration, change squared. It’s the one sure way to unite and excite the party.
Nobody else would bring what Hillary Clinton does to the ticket. So why is there so much opposition, even among Democrats, to her nomination? There are three reasons I hear, from my radio listeners and others: Hillary was mean to Obama during the primaries; Hillary still hasn’t fully embraced Obama; and Hillary brings too much negative baggage, especially husband Bill. Come on, let’s get real.
Sure, Hillary said some tough things during the primary. She insisted she’d be a stronger candidate against John McCain, for example, and she once famously stated that, while she and McCain offered extensive foreign policy experience, all Obama could offer was one speech. But that’s what primaries are all about. She was running to win, she gave it her best shot, she made her best arguments — and she lost.
It’s extremely short-sighted of Obama supporters to reject Clinton as a potential running mate, simply because of something she might have said during the primary. Don’t they realize? She lost. Their man won. It’s foolish to cling to the differences of the past. The focus now must be on how to win in November and who would help Obama the most.
Nor, in all objectivity, could anyone seriously question Clinton’s support for Obama today. She endorsed him, graciously and enthusiastically, on the stage in Unity, N.H. She has asked her followers to support him and write checks. She campaigned for him twice this month. She’ll make the case for Obama on the second night of the Democratic convention, and has agreed to campaign for him and with him this fall, whether she’s on the ticket or not. There’s no doubt she’s on Obama’s team.
But what about all that negative baggage? What negative baggage? Those who make that argument are the same voices who said Hillary Clinton could never be elected, or re-elected, senator from New York. And it’s nonsense, as well as sexist, to suggest that her effectiveness as vice president would be compromised by husband Bill, looking over her shoulder, and telling her what to do. Hillary’s much too strong a woman for that. And I’ve asked several of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate how often, in the least eight years, they’ve seen Bill Clinton stick his nose into Senate matters. Answer: Never.
Isn’t it obvious? Among Obama supporters, there’s more than a touch of sour grapes in all three of those arguments against Hillary. Even worse, they’re all focused on yesterday, not tomorrow. To allow past differences or personal pique to dictate the strategy of the general election campaign would be a colossal mistake.
Again, the only questions now are: How is Obama going to win in November? And who will best help Obama win? Looking at it coldly in terms of winning — based on her experience in the White House and Senate, her popularity, her skills as a campaigner, her proven vote-getting ability — Hillary Clinton’s the one.
Topics: Bill's Column | No Comments »
FOR VP, OBAMA HAS ONLY ONE OPTION
By Bill | August 13, 2008
He may be on vacation, but Barack Obama faces the toughest decision of his life this week.
He has to come home from Hawaii ready to announce his vice-presidential running mate. And, for me, it’s a no-brainer.
Forget Tim Kaine. He’s an impressive young governor of a key swing state, but he has even less foreign policy or national security experience than Obama.
Forget Evan Bayh. Again, a popular former governor, now Senator, of a key rust-belt state, but a big, early supporter of the war in Iraq and not exactly a fire cracker on the stump.
Let’s face it, there’s still only one choice. If Barack Obama wants to blow John McCain out of the water, the best candidate by far – is Hillary Clinton.
Think about it. She got 18 million votes in the primaries, he got 18 million votes. She won the women and working-class vote, he won the African-American and white-collar vote. Put the two together, and you have an unbeatable ticket: experience and promise, inspiration and perspiration. It’s the one, sure way to unite and excite the party.
Nobody else would bring what Hillary Clinton does to the ticket. It’s clear she would be Obama’s strongest partner. What’s unclear is whether he has the courage and self-confidence to offer her the job.
Topics: Pop Culture to Politics, Today's Show | No Comments »
THE JOHN EDWARDS TRAINWRECK
By Bill | August 11, 2008
“Thank God, he’s not the Democratic nominee!” That was my first thought, when I learned that John Edwards had confessed to having the extra-marital affair he’d been denying for the last year and half.
My second thought: “What an egotistical, irresponsible putz!” For somebody who’s supposed to be smart, how could he be so stupid?
Unbelievable! Edwards actually thought he could have an affair, and get away with it. He thought he could lie about it, and get away with it. Even more outrageous, he ran for president knowing he’d had this affair and lied to his staff, the Democratic party, and the American people about being a man of faith, a family man, a model of moral rectitude.
Look, I’m not passing moral judgment on John Edwards. Nobody’s perfect, and he’s certainly not the first married man to cheat on his wife. Whether he’s forgiven for his transgression is between him, his wife, and his God.
But I am passing political judgment on him. For Edwards to go out and seek his party’s nomination, knowing he’d been sexually involved with this campaign worker, was reckless and deceitful beyond belief. Millions of Americans put their trust in John Edwards. He lied to every one of them.
One thing for sure: the political career of John Edwards is over. Good.
Topics: Pop Culture to Politics, Today's Show | No Comments »
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS?
By Bill | August 7, 2008
As the co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire,” I was in New Hampshire in 2000. I covered John McCain’s insurgent campaign against frontrunner George W. Bush. I rode the “Straight Talk Express.” I interviewed the candidate. I attended several McCain town halls.
Take it from me, the John McCain we see today is not the same John McCain we saw in 2000. Indeed, he’s not even the same John McCain we saw during this year’s Republican primary.
The old John McCain talked about the issues. He refused to sink to personal attacks, even when he himself was smeared by Bush. He denounced negative campaigning. In 2004, he condemned the Swift Boat ads against Democrat John Kerry. Many times during this year’s primary, he promised to run a positive campaign, based solely on differences in public policy.
Then McCain clinched the Republican nomination, and his Straight Talk Express ran into a ditch. Or was it the gutter? It appears that McCain did, indeed, learn something from the vicious personal attacks launched against him by George Bush in South Carolina back in 2000. He learned that dirty politics works. And he’s adopted the same ugly tactics.
The so-called “reform” candidate doesn’t talk about issues anymore. He offers no ideas on what to do about health care, Social Security, jobs, education, the economy or energy (other than to drill, drill, drill). His campaign has degenerated, instead, into a steady drumbeat of personal attacks against Barack Obama. Unable to build John McCain up, in other words, they have decided the only way to win is to tear Barack Obama down.
Phase One: Question Obama’s patriotism. “I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war,” McCain told those attending a July 22 New Hampshire town meeting. “It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” A serious charge, especially coming from one who promised never to question his opponent’s love of country.
Phase Two: Mock Obama’s celebrity. Three subsequent McCain ads portrayed Obama’s face on Mt. Rushmore and the $100 dollar bill, compared him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and painted him as the political equivalent of the Second Coming, or “The One.” Don’t vote for Obama, McCain seemed to be saying, because he’s too famous. Again, a strange argument for a candidate who promised a substantive debate on the issues.
Phase Three: Tell outright lies. In one ad, McCain accuses Obama of not visiting wounded troops in Germany because he couldn’t take network cameras along: a charge The Washington Post proved was false. In another, he claims his opponent wants to “raise taxes on electricity,” when Obama has no said no such thing. At least McCain has not accused Obama of fathering an illegitimate black child. Not yet.
Phase Four: Play the race card. It was outrageous for Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, to accused Barack Obama of “playing the race card” when, in fact, it was the McCain campaign, in June, that first showed Obama’s face on the $100 bill. And it was the McCain campaign, in a diabolical replay of the famous anti-Harold Ford commercial, that deliberately paired Obama with two white, blonde, bimbo celebrities. The message they were sending was clear: Black man plus white girls equals trouble. Who’s playing the race card?
Granted, this may not be the dirtiest campaign in American political history. In 1800, John Adams was vilified as a “gross hypocrite,” a “repulsive pedant,” “one of the most egregious fools upon the continent,” and a man of “hideous hermaphroditical character.” And Thomas Jefferson was accused, if elected, of wanting to round up and burn all Bibles. In 1828, Andrew Jackson’s opponents attacked his wife Rachel with signs reading: “Don’t Put A Whore in The White House.”
But John McCain’s gutter attacks against Barack Obama are not what the American people are looking for in this presidential campaign, with so many serious problems facing the country. And they are certainly not what we expected from a man who has spent his entire public career painting himself as a different kind of politician. Sadly, negative campaigning is now one more way in which John McCain shows himself to be nothing more than an extension of George W. Bush.
Topics: Bill's Column | No Comments »
« Previous Entries