Battle of the orators

In many ways, the speechs delivered last night by John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were an object lesson in style, substance and sincerity.



John McCain's "strategic" speech, timed to appear just prior to polls closing on the last of the Democratic primaries, was laughable from start to finish. McCain began by lashing at the media for not appreciating Hillary Clinton's fine qualities. Then he went after Barack Obama with a repetitive "laugh" line for which he never did find the comic timing. As a result, the line, which was designed to elicit response from the audience, fell flat. McCain was off his mark for the entire speech. He claimed he was in New Orleans, though he was in Kenner. He claimed that he would be an agent for change, though he didn't give any substantive evidence. He looked like he had never seen the speech he delivered before it appeared in front of him on the telePrompter. He appeared like an insecure bully.



For her part, Hillary Clinton delivered her "concession" speech without a concession in sight. She's can deliver a good speech, filled with concrete details and illustrations which give power to her ideas. But this speech, as was her entire campaign, was about the fact that she was entitled to the candidacy, and that somehow she had been cheated out of it. It was she who did the cheating. How else to explain that she made the claim to the popular vote, when that claim can only be supported by the technicality that she was awarded votes in Florida and Michigan which were truly unearned. I expect to feel wistful as she granted victory to her opponent. I expected to feel badly for her. I ended up thinking she was a poor sport. While she declared that she cared for everyone of the 18 million people who voted for her, she obviously doesn't give a shit about the rest of us, or the Democratic party.



Barack Obama is a superb orator. That has been acknowledged by supporters and opponents alike. He graciously praised Hillary Clinton. He exhibited humility. He inspired and he showed emotion. I believe he was close to tears as he finished (but likely remembered the fate of Edmund Muskie). Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but neither of the other candidates can hold a candle to his oratorical skills.

H/T to Talking Points Memo for posting all three speeches.

Clinton invokes assassination

It's true, isn't it? She will say anything.

Now she's said this:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

There's no good exlanation as to why she would say it, except for the obvious one.

The reaction, as can be expected, is unbelieving. Here's what Keith Olbermann said in a special commentary last night.

Creepy Joe™ Lieberman may be promoted from "creepy joe™" to "toady joe™"

Creepy Joe™ Lieberman is making the rounds of one of the few places he is welcome - right wing xenophobic talk shows. (Just try to remember the last time he made an announced appearance in his home state - could be he doesn't make enough cash here.) He makes it clear that Hillary Clinton's threat to bomb Iran into oblivion is appealing. I wonder what cologne she's wearing "Eau de morte?"

Hold your nose and swallow hard and see if you can accept this premise

Andrew Sullivan makes a ridiculous suggestion that may not be so ridiculous.

He suggests the real way to heal the Democratic party, and quickly, is for the Obama campaign to accept Hillary Clinton as a running mate. It would certainly be an unstoppable ticket.

John Olsen, predictable superdelegate

John Olsen, Democratic superdelegate and head of Connecticut's AFL-CIO announced his support of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential Primary race, in the offices of Jim Amman.

You remember John Olsen, he was a strong and active supporter of Creepy Joe™ Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate Primary against Ned Lamont, throwing the weight of his union behind Lieberman. While support for Lieberman in the union was decided in what some described as a close voice vote, Olsen declared his undying support of Lieberman. According to the New Haven Independent:

Olsen said that the federation, if it endorses Lieberman, would stick with him even if he loses the primary and runs against the Democrats as an independent in November. “We endorse individuals,” he said. “We don’t endorse the party.

In the end the AFL-CIO remained neutral during the General Election, which Lieberman won.

At a peace rally in Hartford several months later, Olsen was booed heartily by the crowd when he got up to speak against the war in Iraq.

No surprise, then, that he's endorsed Clinton. Obama is not unlike Lamont, an outsider, a newcomer and a creator of change. Guess there's something about that Olsen doesn't like.

The wheels on the bus go thump-thump-thump, thump-thump-thump

It's a dive. It's a set-up. It's a thrown fight.

Barack Obama needed to shed the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, completely, but he couldn't do it based on past statement (Obama had already taken his stand on those). So he needed Wright to be just a bit more outrageous. Just a bit more offensive. A bit more flamboyant in his criticism's of politics, politicians and America.

And Obama got what he wanted from Wright. A speech so distasteful to so many Americans (I can't include myself in that group - I enjoy Wright, and agree with most of what he says), that Obama could jettison him like yesterday's New York Post, and be done with him for good.

Now, who could challenge Obama about Wright. The deal is off. The relationship severed. The friendship abandoned.

It's a shame that politicians can't speak the truth in America. But whatever we have to do to get Obama elected...

Take that Rush Limbaugh. Hope you weren't betting on Sonny Liston, Hillary.

The conservative love affair with Hillary Clinton

Andrew Sullivan has figured out why there is a sudden outpouring of support for Hillary Clinton (often expressed as a vitriolic distasted for Barack Obama) among conservative Republicans like Limbaugh, Buchanan, Scaife and Rove. They want her to win so they can beat her.

I hate to give any credit to this gasbag, but...

Rush Limbaugh is encouraging Republicans to switch party affiliation and vote for Hillary Clinton in a mobilization of his dittoheads called Operation Chaos designed to disrupt the Democratic campaigns. He's claimed victory in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and while no one in the news media seems to be taking his claims seriously, the news media is not necessarily the place to search for real answers.

She's right, the tide is turning and the seas are parting and a burning bush has spoken to her and...

The bigot ballot

I suspect that Hillary Clinton's victory in the Pennsylvania primary had more to do with race than any of us want to talk about. Clinton worked consistently to portray Obama as a black, radical, elitist. To the extent that white middle and lower class male voters went for her and not Obama, I would have to surmise that his race had something to do with it.

Greg Mitchell at the Huffington Post seems to be thinking the same thing, and he grew up in Pennsylvania.

On the way in this morning, I heard Courant columnist, and former counselor to Bill Clinton, Bill Curry say on the local public radio affiliate, that we shouldn't take these results as saying that as a country we are swayed by race, false patriotism and petty politics. I think another former Connecticut resident got it right. PT Barnum is reported to have once said: "No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the American people."

He also said: "There's a sucker born every minute."

She twists the knife again, he brushes it off

Shot with her own gun

Hillary on Nader, Nader on Hillary

When it comes to damaging the hopes of electing a Democrat to the White House this November, Hillary Clinton (and he companion Bill), are doing a great job of boosting Republican candidate John McCain.

Still, Hillary was quick to point the finger when Ralph Nader decided to run again:

“Obviously it’s not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is. But it’s a free country,” she said. “I don’t know what party he’ll run on. Where did he run on last time? Does anybody remember? Was it on the Green Party? Well, you know, his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it.”

And does Ralph repay the favor? No he defends her right to run.

"I know something about this. Here’s my advice: Don’t listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore. That’s just political bigotry."

Who then is more in the service of democracy?

The weather in November

The Hartford Courant is at it again. Front page banner headline above the fold:

McCain-Clinton a Tossup.

Two things wrong with this article.

After editorially excoriating media who used polls as news in New Hampshire, and getting it fiercely wrong, The Hartford Courant once again presents polls as news, polls as fact. This headline will sit on coffee tables, and in honor boxes across the state all day long, creating an impression that is wrong and speculative. They may as well be trying to predict the weather on election day in November.

Another thing, the headline reveals a secondary facet of the story. The real story is that if Barack Obama is the candidate, which evermore so, it appears he will be, then, according to the polls, he is predicted to beat McCain by a whopping 17 points.

Shame on the Courant for once again misusing polls as news. If I never hear "Quinnipiac" for the next seven months, it will be too soon.

NOTE: Had the gall bladder removed today, so liklihood of additional posts is slim.

Spelling jerk with a "G"

Gerry Ferraro is as stubborn as she is wrong. A typical politician, she's denied what she's said not once, but several times. And now she's trying to say the foot in her mouth belongs to Barack Obama.

Not that there's anything wrong with that

Olbermann blasts Clinton

Who's veeping who?

Bill Maher asks what journalist won't

As long as he isn't being interrupted by hecklers, Bill Maher can bring a certain swagger to an interview, even one that is mysteriously interrupted when the interview grows uncomfortable.

Clinton's scorched earth approach

Burn the villages, take no prisoners and salt the fields. It been a strategy of avenging armies since the Scythians, and it's been ruthlessly employed by everyone from Sherman to the Janjaweed.

It's now being employed by the Clinton campaign which is spoiling for a fight with Obama, who, so far, has decided not to step into the gutter with Hillary.

Former Senator, Princeton grad and NBA great Bill Bradley bemoans the Clinton "us or them" approach. He feels it will alienate all the new voters whom Obama has drawn into the process. On the other side of the argument, Maureen Dowd, in her NY Times column Sunday, scolded Obama, saying that he couldn't win if he was resigned to being a sissy. I haven't read that kind of anti-intellectual invective since Spiro Agnew was in office.

I have a theory that Samantha Power's calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" may not have been a mistake. I suggest that it may be brilliant tactic which allowed Obama's camp to float the idea that Clinton indeed may be monstrous (Power certainly has no affection for the Clintons as her book about the Rwandan genocide proves), while allowing Obama to "punish" his staffer and simultaneously chide the Clinton's for not doing the same to the loudmouths on their campaign staff. One could be completely cynical and suggest that it will sell a lot more books for Power (and it probably will), but in investigating her background as a war reporter, intellectual, anti-genocide campaigner and author, I've become a fan, and I think this effete, Ivy-league egghead would make a great Secretary of State.