Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Because watching a televised debate is really the only chance most voters have to see the candidates answer questions and have to think on their feet in a live format. Which means that the more debates that happen, the more people get to see the candidates. And that is indeed a good thing, because it informs the electorate about the candidates to a certain degree.
Since Republicans have all but anointed John McCain as their presidential nominee, it's about time to start speculating on who he's going to choose to fill out his ticket. Most of this speculation has so far centered around the possibilities of McCain giving the nod to one of his primary opponents (Huckabee or Romney), in order to shore up his support among this GOP faction, or that right-wing interest group. Going further afield, there have been some guesses about Republican officeholders who may help a McCain ticket in other ways. But there's one name I haven't heard mentioned yet, one which should worry Democrats: Condoleezza Rice.
All hope is not lost, though. Because the House passed a version of the bill which did not include the retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking telecommunications companies. Because the Senate bill is different, it now goes to conference committee. What gets voted out of committee will be voted on again by both the House and Senate. It's a slim reed to cling to at this point, but hopefully House Democrats will stand firm against Bush and the GOP.
And one more thing to drive a wedge between McCain and his party -- both Clinton and Obama should begin questioning John McCain's position on torture. This backs him into a corner, because he's (obviously, and with good reason) against it, but his base feels differently about it. Forcing him to talk about it, after the Bush administration this week admitted that it had waterboarded prisoners, is an excellent way to weaken him even further with the GOP base right now.
This column is dedicated to the idea that Democrats can learn to use talking points as effectively as Republicans often do. This idea annoys many who feel that Democrats using talking points is degrading, and stoops to Republican tactics; a position I don't agree with, but still respect. But sometimes even I have to take Democrats to task for not backing up such talking points with action, or at the very least a plan of action.
As the field of candidates from both parties narrows, it is now possible to talk of the possible matchups in November in a single column.
But before I get into this candidate versus that, I would like to point out one more interesting thing about this year's election. It's a footnote, really, but an interesting one nonetheless: there's a large chance that this year will be only the third time Americans have elected a sitting senator. There's been a sort of "curse of the Senate" hanging over presidential candidates ever since JFK became the second to make the leap. While this isn't as exciting as electing the first black or woman to the White House, it will be one more reason this year's election isn't exactly like the others. By my figuring, there's a 75% chance we'll have a senator moving to the Oval Office next year.
I do wonder at the stunning political tactics it must have taken to get Sebelius selected to give the speech, though. She must have been sold as a successful Democratic politician from a red state, and her speech must have been sold to the party leadership as a "let's work together and get something done" speech. But the speech she actually gave could easily have been given by Obama himself. It was entirely in tune with Obama's campaign slogans and strategy, and then the day after giving the speech she endorses Obama publicly. That's quite a coup for Barack, and shows that maybe he knows more about manipulating the levers of political power in Washington than most give him credit for. In the midst of a tight primary race, a week before Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday, Barack gets his own supporter to give a speech that an enormous number of Americans are watching. That's impressive, and I bet the Clinton camp is seething today over being outmaneuvered in such a crafty way.
Netizens, fellow bloggers, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and all Americans... I am proud to stand before you and say... the state of the weblog is strong!
Blogging, for instance, means you can put your own comments out there before President Bush gives his final State of the Union speech next Monday. This is a good thing for our blogosphere!
Either Karl Rove has joined the Clinton campaign as their advisor, or somebody over there has learned a lot from his standard campaign playbook. Because they're successfully using Rove's signature (and quite bizarrely effective) political tactic: attack your opponent not on his weak points, but on your weak points. This throws your opponent on defense, when he should be strongly playing offense.
I apologize in advance for the disjointed nature of this week's column. There are a lot of odds and ends to cover, including tomorrow's primary picks, a cartoon, and the usual awards and talking points.
But the first of these ends is definitely odd: is it just my imagination, or did Charles Krauthammer (of all people) read my earlier column before writing his own? You be the judge.