Hillary may get the nod from the DNC and this will be a good thing IF the GOP has a viable candidate.
I ran across 4 articles today that are well worth the read no matter your political trends.
MSLSD/Newsweek is always good for a laugh:
Does Barack Obama have have enough experience to be president? This is the question Hillary Clinton would like to spend the next seven months debating. Her slogan is that she’s “ready to lead”; she cites her extensive foreign travel and sessions with world leaders. For his part, Obama prefers to talk about living overseas and the good judgment he displayed in opposing the Iraq War from the start. For months, Clinton and Obama have taken subtle digs at each other’s résumés. But there’s nothing subtle about it now.
The article rambles on but it is interesting to “hear” what they leave out. Like Hillary’s “experience”. Sure she traveled a lot and met some folks but what is her claim to fame? Whitewater scandals? Campaign fraud scandals? Rose law Firm scandals? What exactly has she accomplished as a Senator other than being Queen of Pork?
I imagine, the Chicago Sun-Times inadvertantly exposes the racism involved withini the candidacy of the leading DNC contenders.
More than any other debate thus far, the National Urban League’s presidential forum illustrated how sharply the Democratic primary is dividing the African-American community’s political allegiances. Although the National Urban League doesn’t endorse political candidates, the presidential forum gave the front-runners — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and his closest rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — their best chance yet to compete head-up for the urban black vote. There were a lot of signs that many of the Urban Leaguers — who tend to be solidly middle-class entrepreneurs and professionals — haven’t made up their minds about whom they will support in 2008.
CNN/Time displayed how Barak seems to think he is Kennedy…John, Bobby or Ted?
When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn’t, he was dangerously close to ordinary. Spoke movingly — even/almost presidentially — about America’s troubled history with race, his favorite teacher and how hard he would fight for universal health care. (Obama even drew an approving nod from Elizabeth Edwards in the audience on that last one). Took occasional soft shots at Clinton on Iraq and her questionable ability to fight for change (his main theme), but never made a decisive impact. He began many more sentences with, “When I am president” (without the conditional) than he has in past debates, but his own video (all the candidates made them, and they were sprinkled throughout the telecast) hit more Kennedy chords than the live Obama did. Still, his best performance to date, positioning him to return in later forums to the change-change-change contrast he wants (and needs) to define his candidacy.
I often wonder why these people find it so hard to be themselves. Then again, honesty is not their best policy not is the term in their actual vocabulary.
Recently, the NY Post has it the closest in The Kow-Tow Club.
The Democratic presidential race has devolved into a no-holds-barred battle between the two front-runners on an utterly bizarre point: Should the next president personally sit down with the world’s worst despots?
Of course not. That would be absurd.
But Sen. Barack Obama last week displayed an astonishing lack of depth – giving Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a chance to show again that she’s capable of taking five positions on just about every issue.
Too bad for Clinton that she missed a perfectly good opportunity to show her relative experience and intelligence – given that she was correct in her reaction to Obama’s verbal miscue.
It all happened during Monday night’s debate, when the candidates were asked whether, as president, they’d be willing to meet personally – and without preconditions – with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.
Obama’s response: Absolutely.
Indeed, he added, “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.”
Clinton, ever the instinctive pol, recognized a gopher ball when she saw one – and proceeded to lift it out of the park.
Obama’s response, she maintained, was “irresponsible and, frankly, naive.”
“I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” said Clinton. “We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”
She’s right, of course: Such impulsive acts can wind up backfiring – emboldening enemies and embarrassing America (as they have in the past).
Indeed, Obama’s apparent willingness to rush into sitdowns with America-bashing tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Chavez makes us wonder if he knows just what it is a president does for a living.
For his part, Obama quickly backtracked: “I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said.
And then he hurled what for Democrats is the ultimate insult: Clinton’s position, he said, is just like President Bush’s.
Which is nonsense, of course.
But here’s where it gets complicated.
Even while ridiculing Obama’s position, Clinton repeatedly has ripped the president for saying “he will not talk with bad people.” Indeed, she complained, “you don’t make peace with your friends – you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don’t agree with.”
She’s even admonished Bush for refusing to deal directly with the leaders of Iran.
Even though, as president, her own husband never spoke directly with the leaders of any of those five countries either – and for good reason.
Clearly, both candidates need to do a little more homework if they have any hope of being taken seriously on the foreign-policy front.
Seeing that NEITHER on has ANY experience in this regard, how can they EVER be taken seriously?
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt weighs in…