Saturday, February 23, 2008

Kudos to Mike Huckabee

This election season has created a lot of cross-currents among Democrats, Republicans and Independents, maybe rip tides would be a more accurate statement. We've seen independents torn between supporting contradictory candidates such as Barack Obama and John McCain, whose positions are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum.

But this week, I want to focus on the populist positions of Governor Mike Huckabee, a candidate who was initially condemned by many on the religious right, until they realized they were going to get stuck with John McCain instead.

Mike Huckabee, like Barack Obama in many respects, represents a new generation of leadership. The old stalwarts of the religious right, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, focused almost exclusively on abortion and gay marriage as litmus tests for Republican candidates. But then here comes Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, who says that life does not stop after the womb. Yes, abortion is murder, but so is condemning people to a life of poverty. Yes, gay marriage is a sin, but so is social injustice. And, to add my personal belief, capital punishment represents the snuffing out of a human life just as much as abortion does.

Access to decent health care represents affirmation of life as well. And so does withdrawal from a needless and costly war where the true treasures of our nation, our young people, have been dying in droves.

So, even though I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter, this entry says, "Kudos to Mike Huckabee." Thank you for having the courage to show us what true Christianity is all about.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Analyzing Super Tuesday

Now that all the spin and counterspin has ended, how is the average citizen supposed to interpret Super Tuesday?

Is it true that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton blunted the momentum of Barack Obama in the final days before the election? Or did Barack Obama battle the Clinton juggernaut to a tie, rallying from up to 30 points behind in some states?

I believe the former, and here's why. Politics, unlike history, is all about the present, the here and now. What happened in the past is irrelevant. The rapidly changing kaleidescope of national politics generates its own demands, and, candidates who are unable to satisfy those demands fall by the wayside. It's all about today's headlines and tomorrow's.

Any pundit will tell you how, in politics, a day is like a year, and, thus, yesterday's headlines are a year old. Barack Obama has amassed one of the most amazing fundraising operations in the history of the nation, but, in spite of his monetary advantages, he is unable to put Hillary Clinton away; he just seems incapable of delivering that knockout blow.

We saw it in New Hampshire; we saw it again on Super Tuesday. Despite his momentum from Iowa, and later from South Carolina, a few days before the election, he starts hemorrhaging support.

The reason: Hillary Rodham Clinton is a uniquely compelling figure, and her time has come. Maybe, it's destiny, but she keeps hanging on, staying close, remaining in the game. And the longer this occurs, just like the other Super victory of the New York Giants over the New England Patriots, the more likely she will breakthrough, stage a comeback and win in the end.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

With the New York primary on Tuesday, here's a departure from the general format of My Week in Review. Instead of using this space as a company blog for Cut-It-Out Communications, instead please see below an article published in The New York Times on January 25, 2008, titled, "Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton."


"This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.


The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.


As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.


We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.


By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.


Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.


On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.


Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.


It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.


Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.


The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.


The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.


We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.


On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.


Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.


As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)


We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.


Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.


When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.


Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."