John McCain seems to be the GOP frontrunner…a position he has rarely held while aspiring to be the Republican presidential nominee. Following his victory in Florida, McCain and his campaign seem to have accepted the esteemed moniker. His apparent inevitability is troubling to many establishment conservatives and a number of evangelicals. As I watched the Senator in the GOP debate from the Ronald Reagan Library, I couldn’t help but notice the emergence of what I would characterize as the leading edge of his desire to release a blend of pent-up bitterness and spiteful and surly bravado.

Let me be clear, I don’t seek to disparage the Senator or his debate performance. I’m sure he and his fellow candidates must be tired. Nonetheless, McCain’s temperament has long been a topic of discussion…and a reason for pause. Last evening, in my opinion, I observed a man who has longed for the authority and the opportunity to speak his mind without the filters politicians so often employ. It left me wondering if I was watching a man who, upon attaining the presidency, might shed his subtle sophistry in favor of an unbridled style of authoritarianism.

Stay with me for a moment. McCain has made a career of portraying himself as a “straight talking” politician who is amenable to reaching across the aisle. When he’s done so, it’s often been to the chagrin of his fellow Republicans. On the surface, that’s an admirable trait and one that seems to have served the Senator well…especially with the mainstream media…the tool he often utilizes to assuage the animosity and skepticism his actions have generated amongst his peers. In my estimation, whether it’s a demonstration of sincerity or a carefully executed strategy is open to debate.

Now consider the 2000 GOP primary and the character assassination and personal assaults John McCain endured at the hands of his adversary, George W. Bush. If one can believe the media reports, the attacks were understandably quite hurtful to the Senator…and they are thought to have played a significant role in derailing his presidential aspirations.

Next, think about a man who spent over five years in captivity…a man forced to hold his tongue and bide his time in the face of adversity. Such treatment can undoubtedly alter one’s relational skills and interaction style…as well as lead one to adopt a strategy that I would equate with treading water. Essentially, it’s a recognition that survival is the fundamental objective…and that may mean saying what is expected or demanded in order to keep one’s head above water…until one has the opportunity to do otherwise. As such, John McCain certainly understands what it means to tarry.

As I’ve watched the run up to the 2008 election, I’ve felt that McCain has made a number of strategic decisions intended to afford him another shot at the prize he seeks…the presidency. His campaigning for the reelection of George Bush struck me as an attempt to receive the party’s presidential baton…in spite of his dislike of his former adversary. His subsequent forays into mending fences with the evangelicals he once assailed were more of the same. As best I can tell, in most instances, these mea culpa moments took place absent the dialogue one would expect to accompany a difficult reconciliation.

At the same time, my sense is his memory is akin to that attributed to an elephant. Hence he never forgets a slight, a fight, an insult, or a defeat. Like with his time as a prisoner of war, McCain has spent the last seven years plotting his escape from the subservience he resents and his ascendancy to the authority he craves. The phenomenon isn’t unique to prisoners of war. The same often exists in spouses who stay in abusive relationships until they can envision and enact their escape and exact their revenge.

His occasional episodes of vitriolic derision directed at his primary opponents may offer a glimpse of what lies beneath the affable surface he labors to demonstrate. The measured and halting nature of his recent speeches…delivered with a structured and rhythmic cadence…suggest an alternative stream of thought is on the verge of surfacing…and ample energy must be diverted to keep it at bay until the opportune moment.

His palpable dislike of Mitt Romney prompts other concerns and considerations. One, McCain is apt to see Romney’s flip-flopping campaign as a usurpation of the McCain “go along to get along” style. Two, the occasionally uncensored animosity aimed at Romney supports the psychological concept of projection…which essentially posits we’re prone to recognize and resent in others that which we have failed to expunge from our own suspect identity.

John McCain may well win the GOP nomination…and that may occur as a function of voter’s calculating he is best suited to defeat the nominee of the Democrats. If my hypothesis is correct, the more proximate McCain finds himself to his quintessential objective, the more difficult it will be to suppress the psychological scars that power his psyche. If this happens, the intervening months between his nomination and the November election may pull back the curtains and expose him as little more than the GOP’s angry, though impotent, wizard.

The following graphic is a tongue-in-cheek summarization of the above observations.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

The Republicans ought to dig up Ronald Reagan’s body and put it up in the Reagan Library in side some kind of crystal sarcophagus or something. OK, It was Anderson Cooper who asked the question, but even holding a debate at a place like the Reagan Library seems to prevent real debate. Last night we got a bunch of fireworks at the beginning of the Republican debate. McCain was smug while distorting Romney’s record, and Romney was whiney and petulent in return. Neither looked Presidential to my view, and Ron Paul looked like Mortimer Snerd (look it up, for those without the cultural history).

The responses to the last question of the debate were telling about these candidates, so I’m going to go over them carefully. Here’s the question, from the trascript at CNN:

COOPER: We only have about four minutes left. And this is a time restriction that all the campaigns put on us. We would be happy to have this debate go on all night long, but I know everyone has a lot ahead and a lot on their plates.

So this is a question that will go to each of you. Each of you has about a minute to answer.

We’ll start with Governor Romney.

Would, and if so, why — why would Ronald Reagan endorse you? Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?

I know how I’d answer this, I suppose, if I was a fervent admirer of Ronald Reagan, or just pretending to be a fervent admirer of Ronald Reagan. I’d talk about not one single issue, but about independence and change, how Reagan promoted those things while he served int he White House, and how independence and change will best serve Americans now. I would focus on ideas after a debate that got bogged down in the minutiae of he said/he said between Romney and McCain. As it turns out, nobody took that tack, and Huckabee answered the question even better than I would.

Romney decided to pander, pretending to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan:

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Ronald Reagan would look at the issues that are being debated right here and say, one, we’re going to win in Iraq, and I’m not going to walk out of Iraq until we win in Iraq.

Ronald Reagan would say lower taxes. Ronald Reagan would say lower spending.

Ronald Reagan would — is pro-life. He would also say I want to have an amendment to protect marriage.

Ronald Reagan would say, as I do, that Washington is broken. And like Ronald Reagan, I’d go to Washington as an outsider — not owing favors, not lobbyists on every elbow. I would be able to be the independent outsider that Ronald Reagan was, and he brought change to Washington.

Ronald Reagan would say, yes, let’s drill in ANWR. Ronald Reagan would say, no way are we going to have amnesty again. Ronald Reagan saw it, it didn’t work. Let’s not do it again.

Ronald Reagan would say no to a 50-cent-per-gallon charge on Americans for energy that the rest of the world doesn’t have to pay.

Ronald Reagan would have said absolutely no way to McCain- Feingold.

I would be with Ronald Reagan. And this party, it has a choice, what the heart and soul of this party is going to be, and it’s going to have to be in the house that Ronald Reagan built.

Romney hit every hot button for Republicans he could, and then averred that Ronald Reagan would support them. Simply put, Ronald Reagan would not support the extremist position on immigration, not when he proposed and strongly backed the first amnesty. He’s the one who said to “Tear down this wall,” and it is far fatched that he would support building one of his own. Reagan would also not back an amendment against gay citizens of this country. Though Reagan was not a friend of gay and lesbian causes, he was a friend to many gay citizens. You all can go through the fact-checking even further. Romney’s strategy was to get out his laundry list of issues he thinks will sway today’s Republicans and then plug in the Reagan name wherever it suited grammatically. Shameless pandering, and it started an avalanche of shameless pandering.

Here’s McCain, who continues the pandering only after taking a smug swipe at Romney:

MCCAIN: Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is.

Ronald Reagan — Ronald Reagan came with an unshakable set of principles, and there were many times, like when he had to deploy the (INAUDIBLE) cruise missile to Europe and there were hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against it, he stood with it. Ronald Reagan had a deal in Reykjavik that everybody wanted him to take, but he stuck with his principles.

I think he knows that I stick with my principles. I put my political career on the line because I knew what would happen if we failed in Iraq.

I hope that the experience I had serving as a foot soldier in his revolution would make him proud for me to continue that legacy of sticking to principle and doing what you believe in, no matter what.

OK, there’s more ideas in McCain’s answer, of sticking to principles and doing the supposed right thing regardless of how many mount strong arguments against, but still, this is pandering, with McCain claiming to be a “foot soldier” in the Reagan Revolution. Man, he makes the Reagan Revolution seem like the Long March with Mao or something. Again, I was not impressed.

Ron Paul as one might expect, tried to make Reagan out to be in favor of whack job ideas:

PAUL: I supported Ronald Reagan in 1976, and there were only four members of Congress that did. And also in 1980. Ronald Reagan came and campaigned for me in 1978.

I’m not sure exactly what he would do right now, but I do know that he was very sympathetic to the gold standard, and he told me personally that no great nation that went off the gold standard ever remained great. And he was very, very serious about that.

So he had a sound understanding about monetary policy. And for that reason, I would say look to Ronald Reagan’s ideas on money because he, too, was concerned about runaway inflation and what it does to a country when you ruin the currency. And that’s what’s happening today. The dollar is going down and our country is going to be on the ropes if we don’t reverse that trend.

The Gold Standard? Give me a freaking break! Sure, Paul was clear to say that he didn’t presume to know Reagan’s mind, and given that Reagan is actually dead, few people would know it, and Paul was also clear in noting that he had a close connection with Reagan. But to focus on the Gold Standard? The guy wants us to think he’s a John Bircher, doesn’t he?

Huckabee was smart. He saw the mistakes of his rivals and decided to take the humble route. I think that played better than the answers of any of the others.

HUCKABEE: I think it would be incredibly presumptuous and even arrogant for me to try to suggest what Ronald Reagan would do, that he would endorse any of us against the others.

Let me just say this, I’m not going to pretend he would endorse me. I wish he would. I would love that, but I endorse him, and I’m going to tell you why.

It wasn’t just his specific policies, but Ronald Reagan was something more than just a policy wonk. He was a man who loved this country, and he inspired this country to believe in itself again.

What made Ronald Reagan a great president was not just the intricacies of his policies, though they were good policies. It was that he loved America and saw it as a good nation and a great nation because of the greatness of its people.

And if we can recapture that, that’s when we recapture the Reagan spirit. It’s that spirit that has a can-do attitude about America’s futures and that makes us love our country whether we’re Democrats or Republicans. And that’s what I believe Ronald Reagan did — he brought this country back together and made us believe in ourselves.

And whether he believes in us, I hope we still believe in those things which made him a great leader and a great American.

(APPLAUSE)

Still, there’s a bit of hubris going on here, too. Just replace the words “Ronald Reagan” in that first sentence with “God” and it the sentence sounds like just the kind of formulation one would make about not claiming the imprimatur of God. Yeah, that would be presumptuous, and it would surely be presumptuous to claim the backing of Reagan, but it’s not like the two are equal, is it?

All in all I think it was a horrible idea to presnt the debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, as it brought the whining and pandering to a crescendo, but I suppose that’s all right. It lets us see that all the Republicans are about is pandering, and it lets us see that pandering in all its naked glory. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that Republican voters aren’t so sophisticated as to recognize that fact.

Now that it appears that John McCain has the inside track on the Republican presidential nomination, it’s time to draw some general election comparisons with his two potential Democratic opponents.

Before focusing on narrow specifics, my general impression has long been that McCain is the most formidable GOP candidate…despite the tepid support he receives from establishment conservatives and his shaky bona fides with the evangelical base.

Race & Gender:

When looking at either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, both must overcome potential bias…her with regards to being a woman and him with regards to being an African American. My own suspicion is that gender and race could cost either candidate a segment of the voting public. I’m of the opinion that could equate with a low to mid single digit percentage. Advantage McCain.

Conversely, race and gender may be an advantage for both candidates with their respective voter contingencies. If so, it would seem that Senator Clinton would have the most to gain given that women make up a larger portion of the overall voting public. However, that advantage may be somewhat offset by the fact that Clinton elicits high negatives amongst GOP voters. No clear advantage.

Experience (Age) vs. Change:

With regards to experience, the lines of demarcation are relatively clear. Clinton and McCain have more experience and each can be viewed as a Washington fixture. McCain can argue his maverick persona gives him an advantage over Clinton…pointing out that her election would be a return to a prior era of partisanship and acrimony. At the same time, John McCain’s record as a Senate contrarian could lead some Republicans to sit out the election. No clear advantage between Clinton and McCain. Both have an advantage over Obama.

As to change, this may be an area where one candidate has an unmistakable advantage. The mood of the country and voter dissatisfaction with the country’s direction support the notion that voters are looking for measurable and meaningful change. Obama’s age and his inspiring orations position him as a man of vision. Advantage Obama.

Nonetheless, that segues into two important caveats. One, while Obama’s message of change provides him with a noticeable advantage, the degree to which he is able to convince voters he can implement it and that they should forego the safety of two known commodities would be essential to his success in capitalizing upon it. Two, this requires a look at age. McCain could appear too old and Obama could be viewed as too young (green vs. eclipsed). Thus a slight advantage affords to McCain based upon historical data suggesting that the elderly turn out in greater numbers than the youth vote. Clinton’s age is generally neutral though her primary success with the elderly offsets McCain’s age advantage and leaves her with the same narrow potential preferential over Obama.

Foreign Policy & Terrorism:

This is truly a wildcard factor given the uncertainty with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and terrorism (al Qaeda & the Taliban). The status of these situations just prior to the election can and will likely alter this calculation. At the moment, I view the situation in Iraq as a wash between the Democrats and the Republicans. The reduced violence resulting from the surge minimizes the advantage of calling for immediate withdrawal. Additionally, while a wide majority opposes the war, the preferred exit strategy is murkier.

With regard to individual candidates, Obama and McCain have an advantage over Clinton based upon their positions having been more consistent.

If we approach the election with Iraq achieving the political resolutions identified before the surge, McCain likely has an advantage over Obama based upon the voter belief that the GOP is strong on national defense and the Democrats are more inclined to measured diplomacy. McCain would also have an advantage over Clinton but possibly not to the same extent.

If Iraq fails to progress, or deteriorates as the election approaches, Obama would have an advantage over both Clinton and McCain. Obama’s persistent opposition to the war would trump Clinton’s evolving position as well as McCain’s strident support. In this scenario, voter dissatisfaction should bode well for Obama. Advantage Obama.

A terrorist attack in the homeland prior to the election would likely provide McCain with a marked advantage based upon his incessant argument that radical Islamic extremism is the “transcendent issue of the 21st. century” and his military credentials.

Obama could argue that Iraq was an unwarranted distraction from the primary goal of combating terrorism…but the fact that the Democrats have failed to push that position since taking control of Congress in 2006 would likely handicap that argument and be overshadowed by the constant GOP contention that we must defeat the terrorists on their soil. I believe that the virtual silence of the Democrats since 2006 would be portrayed as indecision and political calculation and afford McCain and the GOP the high ground.

As long as Iraq is left to fester unchallenged, the GOP will appear to have demonstrated the willingness to lead and the Democrats will be seen as enablers looking to straddle the fence. Advantage McCain.

(more…)

I will say first that I am sorry to see that John Edwards is bowing out of this year’s Democratic primaries. His was a campaign infused with honesty and caring for the people in this country who need care most. As the AP article notes, he began his campaign in New Orlenas helping those displaced by Katrina, and he’s finishing his campaign there with his entire family, helping build houses. Man, the guy is the very picture of the candidate we need, except for the fact that he’s got his liberalism so much on his sleeve that he might be difficult to elect, and it will certainly be difficult for him to lead. The kids and family are great, and they’re all so photogenic. America would love to see little Jack romping on the White House lawn at the Easter Egg Roll. OK, no more sentimental stuff.

All reports say that Edwards is not backing either Hillary or Barack as yet. I’d like to see John Edwards change his mind on that and go and back either Hillary or Barack. I’d also like to see him throw himself into campaigning for his choice. I’m an Obama supporter, and I’d love for Edwards to jump in on Obama’s side, but I also think the guy could provide Hillary with some real support — show us her softer side, perhaps. Because Edwards, if nothing else, and there IS plenty there, is caring. That’s the softer side.

John, you and Elizabeth did a great job and I wish the best for you and your whole family.

Is it too early to be speculating? Probably, but I’ve never let that sort of thing bother me before. Larry Eichol, the Philadelphia Inquirer political reporter, notes that McCain is now the clear Republican frontrunner. Sure, Mitt Romney can come back, and as I think he’ll be a weaker opponent than John McCain in the Fall, I hope only good things for Mitt Romney for the next couple months. But the topic of the day is John McCain, and he’ll have a hard time putting together an adequate running mate, given the criteria that need to be met.

Let’s lay the groundwork a bit. I suppose we could call this handicapping the field:

1. McCain will be trying to prevent the first woman or African American becoming President. American seems to have fallen in love with the idea of change, and there’s no better symbol of change than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton’s potential to break new ground. So McCain needs to come up with some ethnic or gender diversity in his choice.

2. Democrats are outpolling Republicans all over, and that means McCain needs to choose someone who will help him energize the base, the radical right wing Christian Cleric wing of the Republican Party.

3. John McCain is old, and he’s going to need to balance that a bit to counter the dynamism of an Obama and the vitality of a Hillary Clinton. He needs a relatively young running mate, unless, of course, Dick Cheney is still ticking out there.

4. McCain needs a running mate who can win a region. Forget the Northeast, as it will go to a Democrat regardless. Forget California and the west. McCain needs a southerner, or a midwesterner.

5. John McCain’s running mate must have stature. Senators are OK, but a Governor would balance the ticket a bit. He could go for a cabinet member, or maybe a bigtime mayor. Whatever the choice, he or she must have stature, and must have at least some name recognition.

If McCain can satisfy a few of these conditions, he’ll be lucky. Frankly, as I quickly peruse the list of Republican Governors, Senators, Congressmen, etc., I’m finding slim pickings. Heck, there are few who haven’t been touched by scandal. But let’s throw a few names out there.

First, let’s look at those Republican Governors, starting with the southerners. Bob Riley of Alabama is nice, but both the wrong gender and race. Besides, his wife’s name is “Pasty,” and that could spell trouble in the late night talk show monologues. Governor Crist of Florida might be able to bring in a big state for McCain, but he’s long been rumored to be gay (as is Texas’ Rick Perry), and the radical religious right isn’t going to stand for that. At the very least, McCain’s running mate needs a running mate of his own, of the opposite sex. Haley Barbour of Mississippi? Too divisive, having been the Chair of the GOP in the past. Besides, he’s whiter than white.

Is there no woman or other diversity candidate among the Republican Governors? Well, there is Bobby Jindal, a bit of a rock star who just won the election for Governor in Louisiana. No, he’s not a household name, but he’s ethnically diverse and won over a very conservative state. Jindal is also young. The problem here is that an Indian-American, while an example of diversity, might remind Republican voters of McCain’s South Carolina problem back in 2000. Sure, that was just a slime, but I’m betting Rush Limbaugh won’t let it sit, and a huge portion of the Republican base listen to Limbaugh. As to South Carolina, the picture of the Mark Sanford family is just precious. . . but the diversity just isn’t there, and besides, the man looks like a cadaver.

Things don’t get much better looking at all the other Governors. Ahnold is not eligible. Mitchell Daniels is a stiff in Indiana, but has Mitt Romney-like CEO credentials from his time at Eli Lilly. Still he’s white and also older. “Otto” of Idaho — the name is too easy to make fun of, and besides, he doesn’t fit the regional criteria. I suppose McCain could do worse than Matt Blunt of Missouri. Young, photogenic family, also a Navy vet. He sure doesn’t fit the diversity criteria, but maybe the Republicans wouldn’t vote for a Veep with diversity anyway.

Of course, the Senate and the House are out of the question. Kit Bond is too old, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia has a funny name. Jim Bunning is senile. Tom Coburn is a whack job and Thad Cochran recently said “John McCain scares me.” Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, Olympia Snowe and Kay Hutchinson all off gender diversity, but they’re all too old or too liberal, in the cases of the Maine Senators. And come on, there’s not a soul in the House of Representatives, and certainly not among the leadership, who fits any criteria. They’re led, after all, by a man whose name is pronounced “Boner.”

I’m left with Condi Rice and Mel Martinez. Both are good diversity candidates, but closely tied to Bush, so they’ll not get votes for McCain that way, but Mel Martinez might be able to bring in Florida. Still, McCain just did well in the Florida primary, and the huge population of veterans there makes it a state he’s likely to win anyway. Condi? I don’t see why she would take the demotion, and I’m betting she’d be very happy to get back to academia. Besides, she’s single and rumored to be gay, and the Republicans won’t go for that.

Anyone else got an opinion?

Yesterday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly against cloture of the pending FISA bill, which as written, provides total immunity for telecoms in the U.S. against possible lawsuits for illegally assisting and enabling the Bush administration in conducting warrantless domestic wiretapping. Even Snarlin’ Arlen Specter broke ranks with his fellow Republicans and voted to kill cloture. Glenn Greenwald has a great summation and updates from his live blogging of the various votes that were held regarding FISA.

FISA expires this coming Friday. That means that the Bush administration has three days left to exert pressure on the GOP minority to get something passed - and George Bush has vowed to veto any bill that comes to him as an “extension” of the current law, or one that excludes telecom immunity. As things stand now, the Dems in the Senate have held together, perhaps at Sen. Chris Dodd’s request, but more likely because they’ve been hearing from their constituents.

This afternoon, the House passed a 15 day extension of the current FISA, and the extension has been sent to the Senate. Will it pass? If I was in possession of a magic 8-ball, I’d probably get the response, “All Signs Point to Yes”. And then the question becomes, will the Senate forward the extension to Bush, one he’s vowed to veto?

I’m not sure what the game is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been playing with FISA. Prior to the Christmas recess, they shelved the bill (after a threatened Dodd filibuster, and in the face of a lot of backlash from progressives). They knew they were just delaying the inevitable showdown, and we’re pretty much there at this moment. Passions are running hot on both sides of the issue.

As I’ve written before, once given, any immunity offered to telecoms is binding, whether or not FISA is ever revoked by a future congress and president. So, the upcoming vote, whenever it happens, is a showdown of sorts.

If you’ve never contacted your congressional representative before, now would be a good time to do so. The Senate and House switchboards need to be swamped with calls from angry constituents. Bush and Cheney know full well that, eventually, the scope of their domestic warrantless wiretapping is going to become public. They’ve vowed to protect their business partners in the illegality, and the Democratic Party-controlled congress needs to be just as resolute that when the day of reckoning comes, the force of law is behind the prosecution and/or civil liability of any enablers of the current administration’s spying activities.

Make the call.

Mr. Bush has spent seven years doing exactly what Republicans accuse liberals of. He’s not raised taxes, for sure, but he’s spent our tax dollars like a drunken Yale cheerleader. He’s not dismantled the military, but he’s misused time and time again. And Bush has certainly not called for abortion on demand, but here he is, in the 2008 State of the Union speech, his last important speech, supporting the main tenet of the pro-choice crowd. From the White House transcript of the SOTU (my emphasis):

To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options. We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. (Applause.) The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. (Applause.) So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it this year. (Applause.)

The Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create Association Health Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology, and confront the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits. (Applause.) With all these steps, we will help ensure that decisions about your medical care are made in the privacy of your doctor’s office — not in the halls of Congress. (Applause.)

Sure, Bush pretended to be a liberal with his support of AIDS care in Africa, and that was a good thing, but we have not seen so liberal a statement yet out of the Bush camp, that they brook no interference in the choices made between a patient and his/her doctor.

No, clearly this isn’t really a change in policy for the Bushies. No, this is yet one more example of incompetence. They know, when it is pointed out, that the pro-choice movement supports no government interference in the choices made by a woman and her doctor. They know that formulation is almost branded to the movement. The speechwriters were so focused on skirting the topic of national healthcare that they didn’t notice their words made Bush look pro-choice. And thus they reinforced ther Bush Administration brand: “incompetence” should be trademarked by the Bushies.

The rest of the speech, as lame and ducky as it was, didn’t hold a candle to the Ted Kennedy speech endorsing Barack Obama. Indeed, by the end of today we’re going to forget the SOTU as we watch the returns from Florida.

Ok, here’s your golden chance, if you need an excuse, to toss back (or toss up) a few during what the Washington Post describes as Bush’s “seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight”. (As ASZ’s good friend Brendan says, to paraphrase, “what - does WaPo know something we don’t??”)

Anyway, the SOTU drinking game has been a staple of Left Blogistan since the time that Bush gave his first address back in 2001. (Damn, that seems like a lifetime ago.) The phrases and words have changed over the years, but not the crux of the game itself.

There is one word that is really notable for its absence from game. Any further hint, and I’d give it away. Can anyone find the missing word?

The Trail by Anne Kornblut has a little item this morning on Hillary Clinton and how she thinks Bill Clinton’s Administration was about togetherness. Bullcrap. Hillary might make a fine President, but it is not true that Bill Clinton’s Presidency was about togetherness. I admire Hillary for her work on healthcare in her husband’s administration, but that’s just one node that attracted the divisiveness driven by the Republicans. That’s not necessarily her fault, but history can’t be rewritten. We had an attempt by the Republicans at an impeachment for Christ’s sake! That ain’t togetherness, not by any measure. Here’s some of Hillary’s words from the WaPo:

Clinton denied that her husband had been adding to harmful divisions within the Democratic party with recent statements about Sen. Barack Obama. In fact, Clinton said, her husband was someone who “brought our country together” when he was president. He was, she said, a president who sought to “repair the breaches and mend the divides” between blacks and whites by defending affirmative action and creating a commission on civil rights.

“I think Americans from every community know what his life’s work has been,” Clinton said in a news conference at the Peabody Hotel here.

OK, OK, Kornblut asked Hillary about the divisiveness of the Clinton Administrations of the 90’s. Obvious question, right? Hillary pretty much said it was because she and Bill tried to do the right thing. In short, they didnt have the ability to unite people:

Asked about the polarization of that time, Clinton said it was a byproduct of her husband’s effort to make improvements. “I believe that his policies have always aimed at trying to lift up people, give people a chance to fulfill their God-given potential. And people knew that, people understood it. You know, Bill and I, ever since we met in law school, have been committed to giving voice to the voiceless and empowering the dis-empowered and bringing hope to the hopeless.” She added: “We don’t just talk about it — we have done it.” And as part of that, Clinton said, she and her husband “withstood a lot of the negative response that that sometimes engendered.” And yet, she said, “I believe I stand on my own merits.”

A whole bunch of double talk there, enough to make even Mitt Romney blush.

Fresh off the South Carolina victory for Barack Obama (Dick Polman calls it a “Saturday Night Massacre“) is a flood of endorsements, as catalogued here by the Carpetbagger. Chief among them for my money is Caroline Kennedy’s. She did her work in the New York Times, and here’s an excerpt:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

It is too soon to say how much of an impact this is going to have on the Democratic primaries, but it seems to point, as Caroline Kennedy indicates, to a shift in Democrats from the politics of the Clintons to a politics of ideals. I would not be surprised if that shift towards idealism was not caused directly by the politics as practiced by Bill clinton over the last week or two. Democrats in general, I suppose, identify ugly, hard-hitting politics with Republicans, and they are turned off by it. I dare say that Americans in general are becoming more and more resistent to such ugliness, as it is associated with the Bush Administration and Karl Rove. One wonders if Bill Clinton just shutting up will be enough to turn this around for the Clinton camp. That’s what’s up for Bill, a shorter leash, at least according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign will try to shift former President Bill Clinton back into the positive, supportive-spouse role that he played before her loss in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton advisers said yesterday.
Yet some of them expressed concern that Bill Clinton’s aggressive campaigning in South Carolina might have already damaged Hillary Clinton and that he might be difficult to rein in.

After a week of all-out campaigning by Bill Clinton in South Carolina, there is fresh concern among some advisers that his visibility has dented his wife’s argument that she has the best experience for the job - leaving voters with the impression that hers would be a copresidency, one that could bring back elements of the Clinton history that many Democrats would just as soon leave behind.

“The president is going to pull back - he’s got to,” said Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, a leading supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton has had such a high profile lately that, despite his popularity among Democrats, he has emerged in news-media coverage and among voters as a reminder of the scandals and tumult that weighed on the Clinton partnership in the 1990s.

No, this is not a danger of reminding Democrats of the scandals of the 90’s. Heck, that might even energize some Democrats. It is going to remind them of Republicans and of rank and ugly partisanship, and that won’t be good for the Hillary Clinton campaign one little bit. Contrast the ugliness of Bill Clinton trying to gratuitously trying to paint Obama as “black” with the words of Caroline Kennedy above. Those are two very different world views. Bill’s is closer to the “win without a nod to ethics” approach of Republicans, and that’s what is going to hurt Hillary Clinton more than anything.

But let’s not fool ourselves. Bill Clinton is not the only example of folks in the Clinton campaign playing hardball while on steroids. The LA Times’ Gregory Rodriguez reports that the recent meme about Latinos not supporting African American candidates evidently is not so statistically accurate, but seems to have come from a different Clinton campaign source than Bill. Yeah, Bill’s behavior may be part of a pattern.