the movie

Zoning Out

As soon as I saw the dour and humorless moderator hosting today’s Democratic Presidential debate I wondered just how quick the Bush bashing would begin. I didn’t have to wait long. The very first sentence delivered by the candidates involved throwing president Bush under the bus. And as I watched softball question after softball question, all met with the same sort of bush bashing answer, I started to zone out.

It wasn’t until later that I paid attention. I was semi stunned out of my stupor by the shrill tone of Hillary Clinton. She was giving a generic enough of an answer but I noticed how she seemed to me to be yelling. “Why are you yelling?”, I said to the TV as I considered just how loud in terms of decibels she must have been speaking. I concluded that she wasn’t necessarily that loud, yet listening to her voice made me very uncomfortable. It was that angry, grating tone that made me leap up to turn down the volume of my TV.

Hillary doesn’t seem to be able talk quietly and/or calmly very well. She seems to slowly build in shrillness to a crescendo which usually has the phrase “Bush administration” in it. Later in the debate, she had a revealing moment in which she cackled loudly when Obama appeared to be uncomfortable having been asked the one and only non-softball question of the entire debate relating to his experience. And on that matter, Obama’s resume may be paper thin, but Hillary’s modest senatorial experience is hardly something to draw too much attention to let alone make it the lynch pin of your campaign.

The Democratic candidates, have you zoned out yet?

Clinton waltz

Baggage Train

In the MSNBC Democratic Debate the other night, Hillary Clinton stumbled badly when attempting to parse her position on whether or not illegal immigrants should be issued drivers licenses. During the debate, within the span of a a few minutes, Ms. Clinton proclaimed adamant support for both polar opposite sides of the issue.

Beyond her unscripted gaffe which much has already been made of, the debate represented the first time that other democratic candidates actually scored winning hits upon the HMS Hillary. Obama and Edwards are beginning to drive home one of the most compelling reasons why Hillary should not be president. The argument is simply this, do we really want to go back to the Clinton 90's with all of the baggage that would accompany a Clinton presidency?

On both sides of the aisle, a constant theme is that tired cliche, "change". However pedestrian the theme may be, it does seem to be universally desired to bring in fresh blood to the presidency. And here we are being asked to entertain the possibility of a Clinton Presidency? Please...that's so 90's.

New Year, New Politics?

Happy New Year to all parts of the political spectrum!

I'd like to share with you the latest column authored by Dick Morris that is easily one of his best. In his latest poignant and historically minded E-blast, Morris wonders whether or not the New Year may be characterized by political consensus rather than partisan division. Morris points out that this may be the beginning of a new cycle of consensus that inevitably comes about after a period of division and rancor. This is something that I have hinted at a few months back in my post “Powers Point”. It is definitely a less dramatic and arguably not as much fun set of circumstances to find myself agreeing with Democrats who find themselves agreeing with conservatives on some issues, but perhaps in the end, it may prove to be more productive if Americans can move beyond the bitter political divisions born out of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Anyway, here is Morris' thought provoking article:

Is there something cyclical, but nevertheless extraordinary, happening in American politics these days? Are we moving from a period of partisan confrontation and division, to one that values consensus and seeks more unity among our public figures?

Otherwise, how can we account for the unusual persistence with which moderates like Rudy Guiliani and Senator John McCain are holding their large leads in the Republican primary electorate? Or, the surprising surge of perceived-moderate Senator Barack Obama into second place in the Democratic field?

The conservative right is trailing ignominiously in the polls for the Republican nomination, while Hillary is tied with the combined vote share of Obama and Edwards in the Democratic field. Never mind that the Republican voters don't realize how liberal McCain and Guiliani really are, or how left-wing Obama's voting record — all two years of it — indicates he might be. The fact is, that moderates in both parties seem to doing very well.

In 2005 and early 2006, it seemed that the partisan divisions would continue and exacerbate. The right was energized by the debates over gay marriage and illegal immigration, and the left licked its chops after beating Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. But Lieberman ended up winning, anti-immigration zealots like J.D. Hayworth lost, and moderate Democrats won most of the House seats that switched parties in 2006. The center showed new energy.

American politics, of course, alternates between periods of division and consensus. Because our democracy works, we explore new political issues and challenges through polarizing debate (such as would never happen in Japan, for example). After the debate has raged for a while, we come to a national consensus embracing the best of each side and move on (unlike Italy or France).

A brief review of the past thirty years tells the story of this oscillation, usually clear only in retrospect. Because of Vietnam, partisanship and division reigned supreme in the 70s and early 80s, and consensus figures like the late President Gerald Ford lost out while polarizing politicians like Nixon, McGovern and Reagan emerged to lead their parties. But by the mid 80s, we had returned to consensus, seeking a formula for smaller government with a safety net offered by Reagan as he ran for re-election in 1984.

The recession of 1991 shattered that consensus, and we opted for the left with Clinton in 1992, and the right with Gingrich in 1994. But after the debate had raged through government shutdowns, we ultimately settled back into consensus, as Clinton worked with the Republican Congress to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. That consensus was torn apart by the Lewinsky scandal and the post-2000 election recount battles. As, a result, partisan divisions ruled the political scene. The terror attacks of September 11 brought us together again, but the Iraqi invasion broke the consensus as the left and the right pursued their respective conspiracy theories.

Could it be that, after listening to the debate over homeland security and Iraq for the past five years, America has come to a consensus — a new incarnation of triangulation — and wants its politicians to get on with enacting it?

The elements of this possible "coming-together" are clearly etched in the polls: less partisanship, wiretapping to thwart terrorism but with civil liberties protections, aggressive questioning of terror suspects but no torture, continued international presence in Afghanistan but a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, a move away from oil dependency, serious action on global warming, a more liberal attitude toward illegal immigrants already here, but with tightened border security to stop new arrivals, and strong action to stop North Korea and Iran from becoming nuclear powers.

Barack Obama may not be the man to embody this new consensus, but Americans seem to think he is. Listening to his speeches but not to his voting record, his surge against Hillary Clinton clearly exploits the perception that the New York Senator is the epitome of partisanship while Obama transcends it.

Can Obama pull it off? With only a two year Senate record to defend, he is largely devoid of partisan baggage and may be ideally positioned to move to the center and become the triangulation candidate embracing the new consensus.

Can McCain pull it off? It might be that his brand of centrism — social conservate, populist, and strong on defense — may appeal to newly pragmatic Republicans licking their wounds from 2006.

It may be that as we enter the New Year, we are entering a new era of moderation after five years of raging debate. Let's hope so.