This week's panel managed to be mildly insightful and this column's expectations were quite low. It seems like this is the panel, Meet The Press calls on Thursday night before the e-mail newsletter goes out on Friday to inform viewers of the week's guests. These panelists are the MTP establishment, three phone numbers (two for one when you call fric and frac) constantly at the ready.
However, these panelists stepped up this week, obviously psyched for Super Bowl Tuesday. (This is like a quasi-leap year with the Super Bowl and Super Tuesday in such close proximity.) The thing with Shrum and Carville is that we're always told who they were instrumental in helping win. But let's put it this way (keeping with the football spirit), Brett Favre has the most touchdown passes in NFL history, but what is not acknowledged as much is that he also has the record for career interceptions. Carville and Shrum, in particular, have been responsible for some serious democratic defeats and bad judgement - John Kerry hunting a week before people go to the polls was just downright idiotic.
With that said, Shrum did make a good point (incredibly) that when Clinton plays the experience card, it's a double-edged sword. People want the experience, but they are tired of hearing the same name that goes with that experience. This whole notion makes it more difficult for Clinton to defeat McCain in the general election if, in fact, they are to be the respective nominees.
Much of the conversation with regard to Democrats was in terms of Senator Clinton - what she does/says or doesn't do/say. But Mary Matalin was right when she said that Clinton has the machine set up for Super Tuesday whereas Obama only has name recognition. This would seem to be a problem, however, in American presidential politics, it has been shown that the less people know about the candidate, the better for electability. This brings us to the opening comments about the Kennedy endorsements. This column does not feel that those endorsements are that significant. The Kennedy name is a tower in the Democratic party, yes, but does that name help with bringing someone over the top? Hardly. And speaking of the Kennedy name, Mr. Russert mentioned that this campaign's themes and rhetoric are very much like when JFK was running and that experience isn't the biggest factor. But realistically, many would agree that JFK's presidency was failing down - Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs.... Experience, like everything else, is what the individual perceives it to be.
And going back to Shrum, he said that Senator Clinton should have just said that her vote on the war was a mistake and that she should have just apologized for it. Mary Matalin commented how it looks like to be duped by a dope (meaning President Bush). We realize that we're taking her statement a touch out of context as Ms. Matalin did not and would not call President Bush a dope, but it is fun to hear the words 'dope, Bush, duped' all in the same breath coming from her mouth. However, Bob Shrum's advice to apologize for the mistaken vote, is a mistake in and of itself. She can not apologize, nor should she, for that vote. Going to war with Iraq was a mistake, we all know this. But if she reverses on the one vote, there is no possible way she would be elected. Not only would she be piled by Democrats, but Republicans as well. If Mr. Shrum were involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign he would have advised that - remember all Brett Favre's interceptions....
On the other side of the break, the Republican conversation is much dicier. Mary Matalin was trying desperately to hide her vitriol for John McCain. She should just give it up. She said that she's not against McCain, but it was one of those times when you hear a straight denial and nothing but the exact opposite is the truth. She doesn't like Huckabee obviously as she constantly referred to his 'man-crush' for McCain, which leaves Romney who she seems to support. There is the Republican Conservative base and then there's a Republican establishment. The establishment wants Romney, but as she said, the Republican party is one of primogeniture so with that, McCain is the only choice. The other Republican voice on the panel, Mike Murphy, is always a bit more analytical with his answers, remarking today that the Republican base appeasing strategy will simply not do and is not a winner. Also, Mr. Murphy always seems quite amicable, but with him being a campaign strategist, a Republican strategist, one can't help but wonder what Mr. Murphy turns into when the moon is full.
All this brings us to the general election and who the nominees should be. This column feels obligated to make presidential recommendations before Super Tuesday. Not weighing in before is like picking the Super Bowl on Monday.
For Republicans, this column has been very transparent on who their nominee should be - John McCain. Huckabee is very personable, but anyone who recommends that the Constitution should be amended to more reflect the Bible's teachings, is out! Country of laws, not men. With Romney, this column's humble opinion is that people are tired of a politician who will say anything to be elected. McCain's not a perfect Republican candidate, but he's their best shot for November and any Democrat who underestimates John McCain in the general, is living dangerously.
For the Democrats, frankly this column has been a bit more demur about it's recommendation for the general election. This column believes that the players in the party will continue to be players whether or not he or she is the nominee. The operative example here is John Edwards, not in the race but still a voice of considerable clout. He will be a party of the process as would the candidate who does not get the nomination.
With this said, it is time for new names and new faces, therefore this column recommends that the Democrats lift Barack Obama to be their nominee. The Republican machine would be firing on all cylinders against the Clintons and Hillary Clinton would still play an instrumental role in the governing of the country under a Democratic president. Senator Obama's hopeful vision comes up against many cynics, but that has never been this country's self-description. We do not consider ourselves that and never have. There is no reason to be afraid of change and a new vision and a new cast to fulfill it.
No comments:
Post a Comment