Snap Judgments

Thought I'd share quick thoughts about recent political events. Remember, I am officially NOT unbiased.

Hillary on Meet the Press: Count me unimpressed. She took every dig she could at Obama, rarely mentioning his name so there wouldn't be any mean sounding clips. Probably politically smart, and very Clintonian, but it didn't impress me.

The Truce on Racism: Why wouldn't Hillary work for a truce this week? She got all her digs in Sunday. I won't say Barack never left the high road, but he spent more time on it than Hillary did.

The Nevada Lawsuit: It may not be fair that Casino/Restaurant/Hotel workers have a special way to caucus that other people don't. If it were really about equality, though, they would have filed suit BEFORE the unions endorsed Obama. I'm sure Hillary's name isn't attached to anything, but it's her people. Effective politics, but save it for the general election. It's partisan, it's old school, and it makes Obama's road look even higher.

Nevada Debate: They might as well have sung Kumbaya. Seems like after the truce, we all ran against Bush/Republicans tonight; even Edwards was in muted attack mode. To me, Obama clearly had the "vision thing", but overall I call it a draw. I liked the fact that the candidates got to ask each other questions, but Hillary's request for co-sponsorship was cheap theatre. Obama accidentally burning his question was stupid.

Don't Ask Don't Tell: All 3 candidates got a fat pitch on this, and they all watched it got by. Brian Williams asked the candidates if they would enforce the law that colleges would lose federal funding if they don't allow an ROTC chapter. They all said yes. But none of them mentioned that top schools don't reject ROTC as an anti-military or anti-war stance, but because ROTC violates campus policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since all 3 are on record as planning to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell", it seems like one of them might have mentioned that the problem would largely go away in their administration. Makes me wonder, as Melissa Etheridge (Logo forum) and The Who did, if we "won't be fooled again".

Chris Matthews: I've been a Hardball fan, and I like the guy. But I think he has a crush on Hillary that is only now being requited. Before the NH primary, all he did was scream about how (Bill) Clinton had been ahead by 20 points, lost, and declared himself the "come-back kid". He seemed to have taken the spin as a personal affront, and his ire hadn't waned over 16 years. On the night of the NH primary, you could hear him laughing and talking off camera during interviews -- I thought he was drunk. But since that cheek pinch (or whatever), Hillary can do no wrong. Sorry, Chris, I don't think she crushed everyone tonight, nor do I think she restored her inevitability by running against Bush instead of Barack and John.

The Experience Question: Turns out it doesn't matter much to me. Hillary probably has shown us what she would do in more circumstances than Barack. But the defining moments of history and presidencies are about what you do in the situations you CAN'T predict. President Bush, in my opinion, is one for three. He handled 9/11 well with the megaphone and the attack on Afghanistan and the Taliban. Then he blew Katrina and Iraq.

I know Senator Clinton can respond to polls, read the tea leaves, and win elections. But I think Senator Obama has the vision to make the right choices in the tough situations. In short, he's a leader. I'm not sure she is. Look no further than her chief campaign strategist -- it's Mark Penn, her pollster. Heisenberg teaches us that you can't measure an event without affecting it. But I don't think you can't affect a situation much if you spend all your time measuring it.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, but no more anonymous endorsements. If you want me to publish your support for a candidate, put your name on it.

Late update: I just looked at the Michigan results. Remember that the Democratic Party stripped Michigan of it's delegates for having their primary too soon. Noone really campaigned there, but Senator Clinton was the only major candidate not to take her name off the ballot. She "won" with 55%, but only beat "uncommitted" (40%) by 15%. And apparently most of the African American voters said they would have voted for Senator Obama if he had been on the ballot. If Sen. Obama wins Nevada and South Carolina, I think the momentum will be with him. Again.

gO-bama!