Republicans debate in Florida... Four things of note...

Tim Russert is a tool. Mike Huckabee seems like a nice fellow. Mitt Romney is not a robot. Republicans do have a Clinton obsession.

I watched the Republican debate last night (full transcript here), even though the odds on me voting for any of the R candidates is currently set at 1,993 : 1 at Mandalay Bay (surprisingly, Caesar's has me at only 1,100 : 1).

I'll spare you a recap of the 90 minute affair. Many of the arguments presented deserve discussion and a single debate can give a critical person like myself a few billion excuses to launch into a rant. I'm going to pass on that, though. Instead, I'm just going to share Four Things I Noticed. Not all of them are new developments or groundbreaking insights, but all were clearly illustrated during the Boca Raton talkfest.

ONE. TIM RUSSERT IS A TOOL. I'm sure that co-moderating a debate with Brian Williams is a Herculean challenge, so I don't want to be too critical. However, Tim Russert is a piece of shit in that role. Period. Did you hear his questions of the candidates? Sweet baby Jesus on a fixed income, they were pathetic.

"Do you trust Candidate X to be a tax cutter?" He tossed that one out to every candidate. Why would anyone ask that question? The answer is utterly predictable. The respondent will either ignore it completely before talking about his own position vis-a-vis taxation or the respondent will graciously commend his competitor for wanting to keep taxes down before launching into his own "I'm gonna cut 'em" speech. It's elementary. I suppose someone COULD say, "No, I think the guy is an untrustworthy POS", but the odds of that happening are probably hovering near the odds of me voting for Rudy911. Slim to fuckin' none.

Oh, and Russert also had the "Here's a long list of things that sucked during periods of Republican governance. Why should anyone trust a Republican and will you run on this record of abysmal failure?" thing. Look, I'm as anti-GOP as the bastard child of Keith Olberman and Cynthia McKinney. I think it might actually be sort of fun to beat Sean Hannity around the head and shoulders with the severed leg of Rush Limbaugh. Yet even I recognize that the Russert questions were too editorial and far too loaded.

Another great Russert moment: "I want each of you to take 30 seconds. Will you go to the country... and say the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, and we will stay?"

Thirty seconds. Was the war a good idea? Was it worth it? Will we stay in Iraq? Thirty seconds. The clock is ticking. Don't try to make any distinctions between the value of the objectives underlying the war and its actual execution. Don't bother discussing the difference between shorter terms costs and potential long term costs and benefits. Don't even try to figure out what the hell "will we stay" means in a nuts and bolts kind of way. You started with thirty seconds. Tick tock. You are out of time. The lights are blinking. Boy, aren't you flustered!

Tim Russert is a tool.

TWO: MIKE HUCKABEE SEEMS LIKE A NICE FELLOW. Hey, I'm not going to vote for Huckabee. I don't give a shit if Chuck Norris summons the ghosts of Bruce Lee and Charles Bronson and then comes to my house ready to "persuade me", but he seems like a genuinely nice guy.

I'd guess that I wouldn't feel comfortable with about 99.9% of Baptist preacher dudes who used to cook up squirrel in popcorn poppers. Huckabee, though, might be an exception. He'd be an okay neighbor.

He has a certain earnestness about him and he at least attempts to have a sense of humor about things. The whole deal about giving Romney's kids a better world and a larger inheritance with a Huckabee vote was over the top, but it was still funnier than Rudy911's attempt at humor (note: if you have to explain that you were joking, you are not funny).

I currently have a list of 369 reasons NOT to vote for Huckabee. Personality, however, is not among them.

THREE: MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A ROBOT. Much is being made about the magic whisper of "he raised taxes" that was audible just in time to help Mitt with an answer to a question about Ronnie Reagan's behavior in 1983. In case you missed it, Tim "the Tool" Russert mentioned that Romney (like every other Republican) had mentioned a love of the Gipper. He wondered if Romney would follow in His 1983 footsteps.

That was a sneaky little Russert trick because '83 was the year Reagan hopped up a few taxes in an effort to keep Social Security rolling along.

A voice out of nowhere appeared to help Romney, just in the nick of time. "He raised taxes", the magic voice uttered. Romney ran with the hint, giving a "I won't raise taxes" answer.

Some have maintained that a Romney aide blurted out the clue. Others think it might have been one of the other candidates chatting into an open mic. I'm sure someone thinks the answer emanated from Romney's magic underwear. Here's a post about the whisper that has over 100 commenters offering opinions. I tend to believe that it was Brian Williams or someone else on the MSNBC production team.

Based on my not-so-careful review of the matter, it was a network hand who piped up with a little extra information in order to create a (hopefully) more meaningful Q&A. That makes a lot more sense than believing Romney had a midget aide hiding under the lectern.

John Brown concludes that the magic whisper to Romney is a non-issue. Romney may be many different lame things, but he is not a cheating robot debater.

FOUR: REPUBLICANS DO HAVE A CLINTON OBSESSION. Did you happen to notice how many times Hillary Clinton's name was invoked last night? Seemed like plenty. Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal says that Hillary received a whopping 29 mentions. My favorite was the "General Hillary Clinton" crap Romney was slinging.

Meanwhile, there was little or no discussion of Barack Obama. The individual who counted 16 "Clintons" came up with ZERO "Obamas". What does that mean?

Personally, I think it demonstrates that the Republicans believe raising the specter of Hillary is the best way to get their base all riled up and active. It also shows me that the Republicans have been planning on facing Clinton for awhile and may not be as ready to take on Obama.

Both of those notions could be considered reasons for Dems to back Barack, from a strategic sense. John Brown believes in selecting candidates on the merits of their positions and skills, as opposed to doing so on the basis of "electability", but the Republican hate of all things Clinton is an interesting point to ponder.





Technorati Tags: Romney, hillary clinton, huckabee, republicans, Politics, debates, Tim Russert, media Del.icio.us Tags: Romney, hillary clinton, huckabee, republicans, Politics, debates, Tim Russert, media Furl Tags: Romney, hillary clinton, huckabee, republicans, Politics, debates, Tim Russert, media

Hillary Clinton won't defend her own remarks... Who are "some of us" and why is Tim Russert so freaking nice?

This is about the way Hillary Clinton said something that everyone in the whole fucking world heard (and saw) and now refuses to back the comment. This is about the kind of sleazy dishonesty that pervades American politics generally, but seems to be particularly thick in Clinton country.

If you're going to say it, defend it. Easy concept. An honest one, too. Hey, Hillary Clinton, I'm talking to you.

Right after Hillary had her (in)famous "moment of humanity" in New Hampshire, she quickly reiterated a key concept underlying her bid for POTUS. She said:

"Some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought it through enough."

She said it right after choking up a little bit, too. That somehow made the comment "newsworthy" enough for every television and radio station in the world to run it at least a dozen times. Everyone in the world heard it.

And they knew exactly what she meant when she said it.

"Some of us are ready and some of us are not."

Clearly, Hillary thinks she's ready. We know that much. So, to whom was she referring when she mentioned those who "are not" ready for the White House?

Okay, we all know it was Obama. BO is her only real opponent and he's the only one who has a potential experience issue. "Not ready" = Obama.

We sure as hell know it wasn't Bill Richardson, who was still in the race at the time. His CV is longer and more impressive than Hillary's. I think we can feel safe that the comment wasn't really directed at John Edwards, either. He's been in the Senate, he's been through the grinder, Clinton endorsed the ticket he shared with Kerry, etc. Maybe Hillary feels that her experience trumps Edwards'. If that's the case, there is a remote possibility that he was part of the "some of us" in questions. There's no doubt, however, that Obama was the primary target of that barb.

Now, before we get into the meat of my disgust for Hillary's unwillingness to defend that remark, let me say that I'm not dismissing the argument. There is an argument to be had about experience and how it might matter when deciding how to cast one's vote. This post is not an Obama defense. It is not a response to the experience argument.

This is about the way Hillary Clinton said something that everyone in the whole fucking world heard (and saw) and now refuses to back the comment. This is about the kind of sleazy dishonesty that pervades American politics generally, but seems to be particularly thick in Clinton country.

Fast forward from The Magic Teardrop of New Hampshire (it might have been even more magical had it ever actually left her eye) to this morning. Hillary Clinton took a seat next to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press".

Let it be known that Tim Russert can be a somewhat ineffectual interviewer. He refuses to push any line of questioning that might cause a guest significant discomfort. He understands who butters the toast in the Russert breakfast nook and isn't about to create a situation where people might decline his invitations to get up early on Sundays and hang out on TV.

Tim does, however, ask half-decent questions once in a blue moon. Today, he asked Hillary Clinton about Barrack Obama and the experience factor. He moved from a discussion of The Great Display of Humanity in New Hampshire to the comments she made about experience. He asked her if Obama was ready to be President.

STOP!

Right after she choked up she basically said he was NOT READY. "Some of us are ready and some of us are not". She didn't say "Obama isn't ready", but it was intimated. I take that back, she pretty much fucking said it. "Obama isn't ready".

So, when Russert asks her if Barrack is adequately prepared to tool around in Air Force One, Hillary Clinton says:

“This is up to the voters of our country to determine, but I want them to have accurate information about our respective records, what we’ve accomplished, the work that each of us have done when given a chance to serve.”

Of course the voters will make the call, Hillary. Tim asked you if YOU thought Obama was ready. Remember, you've already said he wasn't. Now you don't have an opinion?

Russert, and this is about as tough as Tim gets, actually asked her again. She said:

“That is up for voters to decide.”

Well, I don't know what voters will decide about Barrack Obama's experience, but I do know what this voter has decided about Hillary Clinton.

She doesn't have the guts to make and maintain a real argument. She fears political confrontation so much and has so little nerve that she's afraid to either retract or defend her own public statements.

She could've said, "I don't think Barrack has sufficient experience. The voters will have the final say on that, but in my opinion he doesn't have the history".

She could've said, "Yeah, I alluded to this notion that Barrack lacks experience. Upon further reflection, I don't think that was fair to say. I have more experience and I believe that's important, but when I implied that he wasn't ready it was a mistake on my part".

Hillary Clinton has the guts to say her opponent is inadequately seasoned while surrounded by supporters with no risk of a follow-up question or a confrontation. When teddy bear Tim Russert asks her, she ducks. She avoids. She doesn't back up her own comments. She won't stand by them.

It's not like she's the only person to do this, but I found this example particularly pathetic. That's because it's a sleazy free shot. One day you go with the "my opponent sucks ass" tactic. A few days later, after that's worked for you a little bit and has seeded the argument in the media and elsewhere, you run back up to higher ground, letting the voters decide and emphasizing your own strengths as part of a "positive campaign".

Russert could've asked her another follow-up.

"You said 'some of us aren't' ready. If you weren't referring to Obama, to whom were you referring? Oh, and don't tell me about the voters. I'm asking for you to expand on your own personal opinion--the one you were willing to share with supporters in New Hampshire the day before the primary".

He didn't. He let her off the hook. You gotta take a little heat on "Meet the Press", but not enough to freak you out about being a guest again later.




Technorati Tags: Tim Russert, hillary clinton, Obama, Politics, Television
Del.icio.us Tags: Tim Russert, hillary clinton, Obama, Politics, Television
Furl Tags: Tim Russert, hillary clinton, Obama, Politics, Television