Echoes of '04

The motivations and intented audience for Barack Obama's Father's Day speech have been getting some of the attention as a byline to the death of Tim Russert.

I suspected that the speech was intended by Obama to show that his words give better insight into his values than the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright. This speech given on Sunday was Obama at his iconoclastic best. His comment regarding the absence of black fathers from the lives of their families is very similar to the speech that Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention where he spoke about the "slander" that a black child with a book is "acting white." It is the kind of truth that only a black man in the United States could have experienced and speak honestly about.

I don't think that he was really trying to get to men, he may really be that sincere, but his speech will have a greater effect on women. Women seem to be a weakness in the Obama supporters, it may be Single mothers, older women, the Hillary Clinton pantsuit-set, this is what they all want to hear. An appeal to values, about family, and responsibility.

It's almost conservative. Family values has been a rallying cry for the GOP, it's popular and is usually very effective in bringing voters to your side. This definitely doesn't hurt Obama in any significant way that I can see, it will be interesting to see how much it helps Obama with older white voters, specifically women.

It's post-racial, post-feminist,

Tim Russert dies of heart attack

Tim Russert, NBC Washington Bureau Chief and host of "Meet the Press," has died of a heart attack. Russert was a former Congressman from Buffalo/Upstate New York.

This leaves a pretty big hole in the NBC political team, not the mention "Meet the Press." NBC does have several other pundits, including Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, and several others that could potential host the long running Sunday morning show.

We are going to be missing an insightful and thoughtful voice during this pivotal election.

Nightmare Team

Hillary conisidering VP position

As Barack Obama increasingly adds to Hillary Clinton's long odds for winning the nomination, Hillary is coming back down to earth. Not too long ago Hillary was chastising Obama (immediately after a debate where she said it was her deep honor to be on the same stage) for a negative mailing. Even more recently, the very possibility that she would lose was ridiculous, and therefore wouldn't even consider a the possibility of being Obama's Vice-President.

Hillary told a group of Empire State legislators today that she would consider a position as Vice-President.

It is still a terrible idea, especially for Obama. But at least the Clinton's are trying to make nice, in their own way. The two Clinton's would take up too much of the spotlight. Bill especially. Bill has lost his touch, his game is gone. It's sad really, it's like he doesn't realize that the microphone is on. He really needs to have less of a personal stake in it, or it needs to be more about him. It was always about his personality and empathy anyway, the fact he could actually govern was an added bonus.

I think that Richardson really makes the ticket work. He is possibly more qualified than Obama, especially in the international arena, and instead of trying to balance a ticket it plays to both of their strengths and several hot button issues. Race, immigration, energy policy, the war in Iraq, these two are uniquely qualified to talk about these issues. They are descendants of recent immigrants and have accomplished far more in that short time than generations of Americans have. Richardson conducted negotiations with Saddam Hussein and was Secretary of Energy.

If Hillary doesn't concede to Obama today, she will do it soon. She needs to make nice before the convention, and let the healing begin.

Washington Superdelegate endoreses Clinton

Another one of Washington's undecided Superdelegates has declared, and has declared for Hillary Clinton. Eileen Macoll, the vice-chair of the Washington State Democratic Party, will be casting her support with the Clinton's. At least the Chair of the state party had the good sense to go along with popular sentiment and winner of Washington's presidential caucuses.

There are still a few undecided delegates left, including the former Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, who lost in the GOP mini-revolution of 94 to George Nethercutt. There has been some speculation that Foley is in the Clinton camp, although many could point to the Clinton's as the reason why Foley lost his historical election. No other sitting Speaker has ever lost their election. At that point 94 was the largest swing to power in Congressional history. The Clinton's took a fair part of the blame, balancing the budget was the right thing to do, but it was a tough decision politically and congressional democrats took the blame. Not only the budget was a Pyrrhic victory, Hillary-care fell flat on its face and made a lot of people look bad and played into the fears that the GOP was telling people about the Democrats.

Obama is still going to win the nomination. So why would anyone be coming out for Hillary at this point in the game?

Look Who's Self-Destructing Now

Hillary Clinton hasn't been doing a very good job of following her strategy. She just needed to keep her mouth shut, play to her positives, and see if Barack Obama had another Reverend Wright in his past. Apparently she is waiting to see if Barack Obama gets assassinated.

Mike Huckabee, former GOP presidential candidate, also made a terrible joke at an NRA meeting. After a crash off-stage Huckabee joked that Barack Obama fell off his chair when someone loaded a gun. I would have jumped too. It's not like Barack Obama was invited anyway. It's the NRA.

Turn out the lights, the party's over.

This is too horrible to consider. Everyone knows what happened to RFK. He was killed by a Islamic extremist, Sirhan Sirhan, and the party LOST the election to Richard Nixon.

Is this the model that the democratic party wants to follow?

Hillary, it's time for you to be quiet.

Israel

You can forget about social security, the IRS, or health care, the REAL third-rail issue in American Politics is Israel. There is a real lack of honesty about the situation between Israel and what is left of the state of Palestine.

There is a pretty massive gap in the American consciousness regarding the state of Israel. Israel does a lot of questionable actions, such as the policy of settlements in the West Bank and the destruction of Palestinian homes when there are suspected militants. Obviously this is not a path to peace but to escalating conflict.

Bush is doing his part to fan the flames. His comments regarding the Democratic candidates for President were deplorable, and made on foreign soil. (Dixie Chicks anyone?) Bush should shuffle off the stage, and he should do it silently.

Our sitting President has zero credibility. At home or abroad. It would almost be laughable if it weren't for the fact that Bush is still President and those kind of smears work. When the issue is irrational those kind of attacks are particularly effective.

The first, and most important, is the situation on the ground and the readiness of the parties themselves to take the lead, irrespective of what America is doing. Anwar Sadat’s heroic overture to Israel, and Menachem Begin’s response, made the Jimmy Carter-engineered Camp David peace treaty possible. The painful, post-1973 war stalemate between Israel and Egypt and Syria made Henry Kissinger’s disengagement agreements possible. The collapse of the Soviet Union and America’s defeat of Iraq in the first gulf war made possible James Baker’s success in putting the Madrid peace process together.

What all three of these U.S. statesmen had in common, though — and this is the second criterion — was that when history gave them an opening, they seized it, by being tough, cunning and fair with both sides.

I don’t want a president who is just going to lean on Israel and not get in the Arabs’ face too, or one who, as the former Mideast negotiator Aaron D. Miller puts it, “loves Israel to death” — by not drawing red lines when Israel does reckless things that are also not in America’s interest, like building settlements all over the West Bank.

It’s a tricky business. But if Israel is your voting priority, then at least ask the right questions about Mr. Obama. Knock off the churlish whispering campaign about what’s in his heart on Israel (what was in Richard Nixon’s heart?) and focus first on what kind of America you think he’d build and second on whether you believe that as president he’d have the smarts, steel and cunning to seize a historic opportunity if it arises.

Thomas Friedman, New York Times May 18, 2008

I think that Friedman has been getting it right for a while now, and he appears to be spot on again. Read his whole column to really get the feel of what he is saying.

Shalom