The Customer Service Post

Thoughts on recent developments in the presidential race as I watch John McCain declare victory in Florida and become the clear frontrunner for his party’s nomination:

This is going to be a different post from what you are accustomed to reading. This is true because I am, in a sense, answering mail from the suggestion box. I have been asked to expound on the Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama. I have also fielded a request for an explanation as to why Hillary Clinton turns so many people off. Those two issues dovetail nicely, so I’m glad to fulfill the request by writing this post. However, the other difference in this post is that it must now begin with a confession, or at least a declaration: I have no idea what’s going to happen in this race. In keeping with the theme of unpredictability, I will put no planning into the composition of this post. No outline, no preconceived thoughts, no structure real or implied. I’m just gonna write, and see what happens.

As I have mentioned before, I have spent countless hours reading about the American presidency. I’m the sort of deranged individual who will read Richard Nixon’s autobiography, then go back and read it again a few years later. And generally, when I’m reading these 900 page books, my favorite parts are the recounting of presidential elections. I love them. I love the ’48 campaign between Dewey and Truman. I love 1960, when Nixon and Kennedy, two supremely gifted politicians, squared off. I love the ’84 campaign, because it’s the first one in which I mastered all the details, knew all the candidates, understood all the issues. Did I have a girlfriend then? Um, no.

Still, despite my close familiarity with the details of every modern presidential election, I have to say I am utterly stymied by this one. There are just too many variables. First serious female candidate. First serious black candidate. First time since 1936 with no obvious Republican nominee. The polls are suddenly all wrong. Conventional wisdom does not apply. I wrote in this blog about McCain’s fading chances just as they were beginning to fade. I was right, he faded. And although I sensed he was regaining momentum as the voting in New Hampshire drew near, I have to admit, I am stunned to see him on the verge of the nomination.

John McCain is following in George W. Bush’s footsteps in more ways than one. Obviously, he’s after Bush’s job and hopes to be his successor. But there’s more. In the 2000 election, at least a dozen improbable things had to happen to make Bush president. He ran with a thin resume against an incumbent vice president who was manifestly qualified to be president. He had to run against the prosperity of the Clinton years. He had to run on domestic policy, normally fertile ground for Democrats, and hope he wasn’t asked any foreign policy questions because he didn’t (doesn’t) know anything about foreign policy. All of those things broke his way. Then, on Election Day, he still came out behind in the national vote, and probably in the intent of the voters of Florida. And another series of improbable events took place that ultimately resulted in Bush being declared the winner.

That’s what’s happening with John McCain. He won Florida tonight, polling ahead of the economy candidate Mitt Romney among voters most concerned about the economy! By McCain’s own admission, he’s hardly an economic expert. He barely talks about the issue, and yet somehow he won an economic debate against a businessman turned candidate, and did it with a poorly financed campaign.

McCain has been aided by a remarkable series of events. The rise of Mike Huckabee in Iowa benefited the senator from Arizona, simply because it hurt Mitt Romney. The presence of a multi-candidate field in South Carolina allowed McCain to win the state that derailed his campaign eight years ago. In a one on one showdown with Romney in South Carolina and/or Florida, Romney probably wins. Think about that for a second. There were a whole slew of Republican candidates for president to challenge McCain’s inevitability as the Republican nominee. But the presence of all those candidates split the vote and ultimately aided McCain’s candidacy.

Having said all this, I don’t think that this race is over. While the media rushes to coronate John McCain, I think I’ll hang back before pronouncing this one done. The available balance on one of Mitt Romney’s credit cards probably exceeds John McCain’s net worth. Next Tuesday brings a wave of primaries from coast to coast, requiring expensive radio and television ads and non-stop campaigning. And, of course, there are still a sizeable number of conservatives who will not accept John McCain as their leader. Think McCain’s won over the right wing? Hold your nose with one hand and type rushlimbaugh.com with the other, and you’ll be disabused of that notion fairly quickly.

As I said, I have no reliable sense of what’s going to happen. I would only issue a prediction at this point if it came with an expiration date. Right now, and I emphasize those two words, it looks like McCain, with maybe Huckabee as his running mate. But who knows?

If I seem uncertain about the identity of the Republican nominee, I’m absolutely puzzled as to whom the Democrats will nominate. Last week I studied many state by state polls to try to break down the huge February 5 primary and identify a trend. It seemed clear to me at that time that Hillary Clinton was the likely Democratic nominee. Although I was wise enough to say anything could happen, that’s what the results of my study seemed to indicate. Now, in the wake of Obama’s overwhelming victory in South Carolina, and his subsequent endorsement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, again, who knows?

I can’t tell you on the basis of the endorsement who’s going to win. I can say, however, that if an endorsement ever mattered, this is the time. For all the hoopla over Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama, Ted Kennedy’s is more important. The Oprah endorsement was a big news story, and demographically helped Obama by boosting his support among women. However, Obama didn’t really need the publicity Oprah’s endorsement gave him; he was already a celebrity candidate attracting an enormous amount of attention. And while the support among women helped, Obama was already competitive in that area.

Kennedy’s endorsement, however, could make a crucial difference in at least two ways. First, in a demographic sense, the magic of the Kennedy name still resonates deeply in the Latino community, and Ted Kennedy can deliver votes in a demographic that Clinton has thus far dominated. In a political sense, Kennedy can move organized labor into Obama’s corner. And the Kennedy endorsement, combined with those of Senator John Kerry and Governor Deval Patrick, probably puts Massachusetts in play.

But the real importance of the Kennedy endorsement is symbolic. Kennedy endorsed Obama at American University in Washington. This is not a randomly selected location. American University is where, in 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave one of his most important and well remembered speeches. In the course of a call to reexamine our attitudes toward the Soviet Union, President Kennedy said the following:


“For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."

And so when Senator Ted Kennedy took the stage at that same institution of higher learning and all but anointed Barack Obama as his brother’s political heir, it shook the ground of Democratic politics. It’s one thing for the media to make comparisons between Obama and JFK, or for me to do so on my blog that twelve people read. This was something else. And it sent a signal to Democrats across the country, saying that Obama’s candidacy is not some fleeting cause. It’s not a quixotic endeavor like Howard Dean’s candidacy four years ago. This is a serious effort to change the face of the Democratic Party.

And, of course, this was a dramatically unwelcome event for the Clintons, because, after all, they have been the face of the Democratic Party for fifteen years. What Kennedy’s endorsement does is shatter the sense that the establishment of the party is in Hillary’s corner and that ultimately her nomination is inevitable. This is not to say she’s finished; she may well be the nominee. But she’ll have to “go Churchill” to get it – blood, sweat and tears required. She’s already put forth the tears. Will she offer the other two, and will it be enough? I don’t know.

I can tell you this: I hope not. This brings me to the other requested topic, the case against Hillary. I don’t think that there is any single reason for the hatred she engenders. Much of it is undeserved, the byproduct of hypocrisy toward strong and assertive women. Some of it is thoughtless and shallow misinterpretation of her based on her relationship with Bill Clinton. Many people have long believed that their relationship is one of convenience rather than meaning. I don’t buy it.

No, my problems with Hillary are simpler to quantify. As a politician, I find her lacking. I can’t listen to her speak without thinking how much I’d rather listen to Obama, or Edwards, or her husband, for that matter. She’s simply not an inspiring leader. I also oppose her candidacy because I don’t want a co-presidency. I don’t want Bill Clinton pulling Hillary’s strings any more than I approved of President Reagan deciding what to do based on what Nancy’s astrologer said.

Back in 1962, when Ted Kennedy first ran for the Senate, he participated in a debate with his opponent for the Democratic nomination, who said something to the effect of “If his name was Edward Moore, rather than Edward Moore Kennedy, his candidacy would be a joke.” This was probably true, but in the midst of Camelot it didn’t matter; Teddy won in a walk. Consider this, though: If her name were Hillary Rodham, rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton, would she be within reach of the Democratic nomination for president?

Hillary is attempting to restore the Clinton dynasty, and her time, and her husband’s, is past. If this election unfolds as I hope it does, her candidacy will be remembered primarily as their failure to exit gracefully from the stage. This is not an election to restore the House of Clinton in opposition to the House of Bush. Ironically, it took the last brother of America’s greatest political dynasty to crystallize this argument. The heart of JFK’s New Frontier was a passing of the torch to a new generation of Americans. It is time to pass it again, to the junior senator from Illinois, the next president of the United States, Barack Obama.

The Flip Flop Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns today with a discourse on the issue of flip flopping.

Casual observers of politics will associate the term “flip flopping” with Senator John Kerry, whose 2004 campaign for the presidency was marred by allegations of political opportunism. Speaking of the resolution to use force against Iraq, Senator Kerry said “I actually voted for it before I voted against it”, and this quote was used to devastating effect in the campaign.

In 2008, the alleged flip flopper is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has also been assailed for changing his views on the critical issues of the day. Although this line of attack is being used against Romney today, it’s far from a new tactic, as I shall soon illustrate. And, of course, there is a usually a stark difference between reality and what is said about a public figure during an election campaign. Note the use of the word “usually”.

Comparing modern presidential campaigns to those that took place a hundred years ago is an apples and oranges affair, and perhaps that’s just as well. After all, George Washington once served the Crown of England, and later led the American Revolution. Flip flopper. Thomas Jefferson was a fierce proponent of limited governmental powers, then purchased Louisiana without explicit authority to do so. Flip flopper. Franklin Roosevelt promised to balance the budget when he ran for president in 1932, then proceeded to combat the Great Depression with spending to stimulate the economy. Damn crippled flip flopper.

Of COURSE politicians say one thing and do something else. They are PEOPLE. EVERYBODY says one thing and does something else. Who among us has not pledged to rise with the sun and go exercise, only to slap the hell out of the snooze button at the moment of decision? Who hasn’t made New Year’s resolutions that are not only unfulfilled but ultimately forgotten? Who hasn’t agreed to do something, say something, write something, pay for something, only to ease an uncomfortable moment, with no real intention of following through?

Now, I do not advocate deliberate dishonesty among public figures. My point is that there is a difference between a thoughtful, reasoned change in position, and one made shamelessly for political expedience. What we have in America today is an electorate that falls into one of three categories. There are those who seek inspiration and crave leadership, and if given the chance, will take what politicians say at face value. (This is a rapidly diminishing group). Then there are those who automatically disbelieve what any politician says. And of course, the third and most populous group is of those who aren’t paying attention in the first place. What election? American Idol is on!

What we need in this country is a fourth category, made up of people who possess the virtues of those in the first three categories and none of the faults. We need a typical voter to have a certain amount of faith that progress is attainable, that government can be made to work for the people. This person would have a healthy amount of cynicism, but would be willing to invest some measure of trust in their candidate. And he or she would understand how important the choice of who sits in the Oval Office really is.

So let’s assume that not only do such people exist, they might be reading this blog. Let’s examine the modern era for accusations of flip flopping and try to separate the principled from the opportunistic. Then we’ll decide together (okay, I’ll decide myself and tell you) how important consistency on the issues really is.

In modern politics, this current unfortunate trend starts with George H.W. Bush. [Insert your own George W. Bush joke here] Back in 1980, George H.W. Bush (let’s call him 41 to avoid confusion) ran for the Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan. This seems funny now, for those who remember Bush as Reagan’s lapdog during the 1980’s. Bush 41 then ran in 1988 as Reagan’s chosen successor, and his son clearly fancies himself as Reagan’s ideological heir.

In 1980, however, Bush challenged Reagan, particularly on economic grounds, calling the Gipper’s supply side trickle down theories “voodoo economics”. Rather than wade into boring economic statistics, suffice it to say that Bush was not conservative enough to be the Republican nominee. After losing the nomination to Reagan, he accepted a spot on the ticket, and suddenly developed conservative fever and fully supported Reagan’s economic policies. He also became a full fledged pro lifer, something he had never been when he was his own man.


Bush 41 knew that for him ever to be referred to as 41, as in 41st President of the United States, he would have to run in 1988 as a genuine conservative. Those in the party were not fooled, however, and a slew of candidates ran against him for the nomination in 1988, all of them from Bush’s right. And although Bush won the nomination and ultimately the election, he did so as an ideological fraud, campaigning as the ultra conservative he never was.

Once he became president, he governed like the Ivy League moderate Republican he really is. Actually, I applaud him for doing so. As a candidate for the presidency, he was a political opportunist. As the occupant of the office itself, he turned away from his pseudo conservatism to act in what he believed to be the best interests of the country. The best example of this came in 1990, when President Bush abandoned his famous “Read my lips, no new taxes” mantra from ’88, and raised taxes. Why do I consider this admirable? Because Bush 41 recognized that taxes had to go up to address the deficit, and shrinking the deficit was vital to improving the economy. So even though he took a major hit from the red meat conservatives for abandoning his no tax pledge, he did what he thought was right, despite the political consequences.

Fast forward to 2004, when John Kerry ran against George W. Bush. I don’t think there’s any great need for me to point out yet another example of the current president's hypocrisy for attacking someone for changing positions. In 2000, Bush railed against nation building and promised a humble foreign policy, for Christ’s sake. Let’s look instead at Kerry and decide if the charge was valid.

If George Bush 41 had to exaggerate his conservative tendencies to become president in 1988, John Kerry had to moderate his liberal tendencies to win in 2004. He has been justifiably criticized for running an ineffective campaign, but he still had much to overcome. He was running against an incumbent president, one more than willing to exploit the powers of his office to win the election. (Remember the terror alerts every three days in October?) Kerry had to overcome the Massachusetts liberal image and the built in Republican southern electoral advantage. And of course, there was the issue of the Vietnam War. John Kerry, winner of medals and ribbons for service to his country, could not imagine his record would be successfully slandered by George W. Bush. After all, the only ribbon Bush saw in those years was the blue one on the Pabst can.

Kerry had to run as a moderate, strong on defense, and he agonized over whether to support the war. He thought it was the right action to take, but he had no faith in those directing the effort. So he voted for one version of a force resolution but ultimately voted against it. He fell into the classic trap that has doomed the candidacy of every senator since JFK who has run for the presidency: a congressional record is easy to distort. But he didn’t flip flop. He didn’t try to have it both ways. That wasn’t his sin. His sin was that he seized the nomination on the basis of electability, but failed to capture the imagination of the American people. He didn’t have the communication skills to beat George W. Bush. How ironic.

And now we come to one Willard Mitt Romney, candidate for the presidency.
I did not judge Bush, senior or Kerry on partisan grounds. I will not do so with Romney either. This blog aspires to be a forum for thoughtful discussion of public issues, so I apologize for this, but here’s the bottom line: Republicans and Democrats alike can unite in agreement that Mitt Romney isn’t a flip flopper, he’s just full of shit!

I have never, in twenty four years of observing political campaigns, after reading hundreds if not thousands of biographies of historical figures, after virtually memorizing the history of the American presidency, come across a candidate so universally disliked by the other candidates. Of course, the Democrats hate Romney. But the Republican candidates hate him too! Mitt better watch his words the next time he’s in a debate with John McCain. I don’t care if McCain is 71 years old and disabled; if Romney distorts McCain’s record once more, I fully expect the senator from Arizona to channel John Rambo and skin Romney alive.
And when he does, all the law and order Republican candidates for president will cheer.

Why is Romney hated? Because he’s a flip flopper? Not exactly. Hey, you can change your mind. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, after all. But Romney didn’t just change his positions. Try to follow this contortion act, if you can:

-Mitt Romney, in his first run for public office, publicly took positions on health care and gay rights more liberal than those of his opponent, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. He was to the left of Ted Kennedy, people. Only Romney and Chairman Mao have ever accomplished that.

-After losing to Kennedy in a landslide, Romney then ran for governor in 2002 as someone who could work successfully with a Democratic legislature, saying he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts and it would not be a stepping stone.

-Romney was elected and served only one term, declining to run for reelection and essentially abandoning the Commonwealth in the last year of his term to run for president.

-As a presidential candidate, Romney has adopted ultra conservative opinions and castigated other candidates for not being a real conservative like him. He has spent millions of dollars on negative advertisements attacking his opponents by distorting their records to make them look moderate or even liberal. By the way, he denies taking the liberal positions he advocated in the 1994 Senate race, even though they are all captured on video and well documented.

-Since 2005, Romney has run a campaign based on his conservative credentials and experience. Then when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa caucus as agents of change, Romney suddenly began campaigning as the real agent of change, changing his stump speech, his website and even his yard signs. He then proceeded to begin attacking Senator McCain as a Washington insider who couldn’t bring change.

Now, a confession. I am a flip flopper myself. Some time ago, I endorsed John Edwards for president on this blog, and millions of people, swayed by my learned opinion, coalesced around my candidate.

Okay, fine, not even my wife followed my lead; she volunteered for Obama. Still, I came out for Edwards. Since that time, I have considered voting for Hillary Clinton. I blame this on a prolonged illness which caused disorientation and nausea, which by the way is exactly what Hillary herself causes.

I also thought of voting for John McCain, although I have decided to rationalize that temptation by simply supporting him for the Republican nomination and we’ll see what happens down the road.

I must confess that I am taken with Barack Obama. I always liked him; I just had concerns about his lack of experience. The current commander in chief had the thinnest resume of any modern president, and we all know how that worked out. However, I am (or was, anyway) a student of history. We once elected a president whose sum total of political experience was two years in Congress. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

Apart from that consideration, I am persuaded by the shaky voice but steady words of Theodore Sorensen, who compares Senator Obama to his former employer, President John F. Kennedy. The issue, argues Sorensen, isn’t experience. Cheney and Rumsfeld had all sorts of experience. The issue is judgment.

Senator Obama had the good sense to oppose the war in Iraq when Hillary supported it, when Edwards supported it, and when I supported it. I’m no dove. But I find myself belatedly in agreement with Senator Obama, who said in October, 2002: “I’m not opposed to all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”












I do not disqualify Senators Clinton or Edwards for the presidency because of their vote for the war. But this shining example of good judgment on behalf of Barack Obama dramatically underscores the judgment over experience rationale. And it has changed my mind as well. In the last year, I have bounced around from candidate to candidate, mainly because I’m discouraged that none of them is named Al Gore. I do not retract my endorsement of John Edwards, and I will probably vote for him out of loyalty on February 5. But I am now flip flopping and supporting Barack Obama for president. In part this is because I don’t think Edwards can win the nomination, but I have another reason, one that runs deeper. My interest in politics began in 1983, when as a ten year old boy, I came across a newspaper article marking the 20th anniversary of President Kennedy’s murder. And now, a quarter of a century later, I am beginning to feel as if perhaps Senator Obama is my generation’s JFK, and I can’t turn my back on that idea.

So in the end, I have made my choice despite many changes of direction, leaving me vulnerable to accusations of opportunism. But in the end, I’m supporting Obama because doing so feels right. And that is what we need in America, not only from the voter, but from whoever is elected president.