THE FINAL DEBATE

In tonight’s final, must-win debate before next week’s critical primary, Hillary Clinton fumbled the opening kick-off. When Bryan Williams gave her the first question, instead of answering it she chose to complain about getting it. “I find it curious,” she said, “that I always get the first question. I’ll answer it – I just find it curious, that’s all.” It was a desperate response from a desperate candidate.

Barack’s performance, if not stellar, was certainly smooth. Asked to respond to a taped clip of Hillary sarcastically mocking the theme of hope in his stump speeches, he graciously laughed and gave her points for humor and delivery. He remained unrattled and calm under fire.

The first sixteen minutes were spent on health care. Though she tried to parse the minute difference in their respective plans, it was clear that they are both seeking the same thing: the best coverage for the most people at the lowest price. So in the end, Sen. Clinton appeared to be grasping at straws.

For people of my generation, Jack Kennedy’s presidency and Bobby Kennedy’s candidacy were magical times. They made it seem as if anything you could dream was indeed possible. Barack Obama inspires that kind of dreaming, and that power simply cannot be overstated. He won the debate and will likely win the nomination.

a foot on either side

NEW PITCH

Hillary Clinton has changed her pitch, if not her tone. Last week she was the candidate who would be ready to lead on day one. Obama, for all his good intentions and good looks, was little more than an apprentice, a wanna-be.

This week, after Obama’s sweep of the Potomac primaries and the undeniable power of his growing momentum, she is coloring her opponent with a harsher shade of contempt. “Obama has speeches, I have solutions,” she said in Wisconsin. “He’s all hat and no cattle,” she said in Texas. She is, in essence, accusing him of being an empty suit, which is, to say the least, empty rhetoric.

Clinton’s accusation is no more substantive than, “We have to beat ‘em over there, or else they’ll follow us back here.” It is a slogan, a product ad, a plea. It can neither be proved nor disproved, it is simply aired in the hope that the voter, like the consumer, will believe it because they heard it on TV.

I noticed, too, that Hillary couldn’t complete a sentence without referring to her script on the podium, leaving the impression that whatever she was saying, it wasn’t from the heart and may not even have been from her. Obama, on the other hand, speaks without notes – he may be using a teleprompter, but if he is, he has gotten so skilled at it that you can’t tell – leaving the impression that, like a rock star, he is spontaneous, unrehearsed, a man inspired, which is why his speeches are so inspirational.

If I were Mrs. Clinton, I wouldn’t be so quick to criticize Obama for his speeches, not when those speeches are at the top of the charts. Not that I would count her out yet, but she is definitely back in her corner, breathing hard.

a foot on either side

CPAC

Mitt Romney spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, finally giving up the ghost of his failed campaign. He tried to put the best face on his loss, but after spending $50 million of his own, he was not a happy camper. He did, however, manage to coin the next big political catch phrase. Praising his retreat from the field as an act of party unity – and setting himself up for another run in 2012 – Romney said he did it to prevent Hillary from winning the White House where she would “surrender to terrorism.” So now, after five years of “cut and run" and "stay the course," any suggestion of troop withdrawal will be denounced as a "surrender to terrorism.

Duplicity, which is deeply ingrained in most politicians, not just conservatives, was displayed at CPAC as a shield of honor. With one face, speakers promised to strike down Roe vs. Wade, praising God and gushing about the sanctity of each individual life, especially those yet to be born, while with the other they promised to continute sending American troops to their death, reguardless of the cause or location. Obviously, the sanctity of life does not apply to the battlefield. Romney, who never fought anywhere more dangerous than a corporate board room, was especially patriotic.

John McCain, who will in fact carry the Republican standard this Fall, took the opportunity to pander to the party’s conservative base. This genuine tough guy, a bona fide American war hero who didn't give up a single piece of information to his North Vietnamese captors, promised the CPAC audience that he would be a really really, really, really good conservative. Not everyone was impressed.

Tom DeLay, the Former House Majority Leader and power broker from Sugarland, Texas who is now under federal indictment for corruption, told Chris Mathews that McCain's mea culpa wasn't quite sincere enough for him. Ann Coulter, the conservative author and commentator who has gained national fame by turning bad manners and vile speech into an art form, opined that McCain wasn’t a true conservative. God help the Republicans.

a foot on either side

VOTERS GUIDE

There are some interesting choices for Californians on Tuesday. First things first.

Proposition S:
This is a cloudy issue which would changes the current Telephone User Tax to a Communication User Tax. Those in favor say emails and internet usage will not be taxed, but I am suspicious. The two opposing sides tell two completely different stories leading to a single conclusion: someone is lying. Since there is no way for a civilian to divine who is telling the truth, I am voting against.

Propositions 94 – 97
Some people are on the warpath over the Indian gaming initiatives, which isn’t very surprising, considering how much money is at stake. There are two stories here, and given the long and tragic history of American Indians I think you can choose to either believe the happy story or the sad one. The happy story is that the Indians have struck gold in their casinos and are finally going to receive their just rewards. The sad story is that some Indians have struck gold while others have simply struck out, and that isn’t fair. Since I don’t know anything about inter-tribal relations and I strongly suspect Vegas money is behind the opposition, I choose to believe the happy story. I will be voting in favor of the gaming propositions.

Proposition 93
This is the TERM LIMITS proposition, and, like the gaming propositions, arguments on both sides are filled with vitriolic hyperbole. No surprise there.
The basic argument in favor is that altering term limits will result in more experience and expertise for legislators, which translates into better governance. The legislative process is very complicated, they say, and it takes a long time to figure it out. Detractors are supposedly sponsored by out-of-state troublemakers with secret agendas. This is a little hard to verify.
The argument against is that #93 is a not-so-subtle attempt to subvert the will of the people, who voted for term limits in 1990. They claim the initiative is backed by special interests and power hungry politicians. They also claim that a loophole in the proposition would allow some sitting legislators to serve far beyond any suggested term limit. Each side claims the non-partisan support of everyone from NASCAR to the Pope.
Hyperbole aside, I oppose proposition 93, primarily because I prefer the notion of citizen legislators to career politicians, and therefore prefer a more aggressive turnover in Sacramento. If the legislative process is in fact so complicated that it requires years to master, the solution is not to extend term limits but to reform the legislative process. It may be theoretically true that time served = knowledge gained = a better legislation, but in the real world it is more likely that time served = connections made = political corruption. I’ll stick with term limits the way they are.

Democratic Primary
And then there were two. Wow, this is truly an exciting moment in American politics because no matter which Democrat wins, it’s a huge step forward for our development as a nation. That said, I truly believe Barack is right: it isn’t about black vs. white or men vs. women, it’s about yesterday vs. tomorrow.
Hillary, for all her qualifications, and she has many, is old school. She represents power for its own sake, while Barack, though far from perfect, is facing the future with a strong wind at his back. I believe his heart is in the right place, which trumps any lack of experience he may have. He’s smart, articulate, and most important, inspirational. I think he will be swept into office. He will certainly get my vote.

Republican Primary
If I were a Republican I would choose therapy. At the moment their choice is between a war hero who seems to have lost his marbles and a car salesman with a heart of coal. Perhaps they should just stay home on Tuesday.

As they say in politics, vote early and often.

a foot on either side