From 3/4/08:
"Let the seas clap hands in gladness about how wonderful I am"

Hang on for a second. I’ve got the vertigo again. Always happens when I hear the Oracle of Illinois, Barack Obama, once again give his commencement speech. For months, Senator Obama has done his thing… his well-written mash-ups of Franklin Roosevelt, Mario Cuomo, John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, with a little Thomas Jefferson tossed in.

Other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, have stood there like a stunned moose, either dazzled by his eloquence, or afraid to challenge him. Mrs. Clinton, in particular, had been seeing this as some sort of “America’s Next Model” competition, trying to prove that she could be as smooth and attractive and genial as Senator Obama. Nice try, Hill. Nobody beats Barack Obama on that score. Senator Clinton has moved on from that approach. Now we’re in a new phase. After all these months of listening to Obama’s orations from Mount Olympus, Hillary has begun to campaign as though she wants the job. First the Oprah challenge: After months of hearing that Obama’s “story” makes him the best candidate, Hillary is piercing that by talking about the actual requirements of the job.

The reaction from the Obama camp is “how dare she?” Like she’s spitting on the flag by going beyond the “story.” Then, she talks about “experience.” For a while, the Clinton campaign had been acting as though if she didn’t mention her age, everyone would think she was 41. Finally, Senator Clinton is talking about her own resume, and pointing out specific ways that she’s been tested, that Senator Obama hasn’t. I’ve heard two responses from the Obama camp: first, experience doesn’t count if you’re wrong. Second, what experience has she had?

Notice that neither of those questions responds to the issue. Because she has had vastly more experience, in a variety of kinds of service. But let’s answer those questions. The answer to the first: one of the values of experience is understanding that inevitably, you will be wrong, not infallibly “right” , that your adversaries have reasons for what they do, that might be no less noble than your own, and a grasp of the massive complexities involved in running this country. That decisions about defense, about health care, all the decisions you make, aren’t necessarily about how noble you are, but how willing you are to take a half a loaf when that’s all that’s on the table.

The answer to the second, is that she’s worked for children, for foster children, for parents, worked on laws to fight child abuse, and was on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee when it considered impeaching Richard Nixon, who left office before that impeachment could take place. She ran a legal aid clinic for the poor in Arkansas, President Carter appointed her to the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor. She improved education in Arkansas, serving on that state’s task force. She also led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, fighting against sexual harassment and for equal pay for women. All this was before the White House.

She’s done plenty since, including her service in the U.S. Senate since 2000, and she’s served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are angry about Bush’s treatment of the CHIP program. (Children's Health Insurance Program). But it seems few remember how Senator Clinton has worked to build it. You can read for yourself on her website. The point is, there’s plenty of experience there and the question is kinda ridiculous. The Clinton campaign has called attention to how often Senator Obama has voted “present” rather than yes or no, on a variety of Senate issues. Obama’s supporters say they’re nitpicking. They don’t say he hasn’t voted “present” a great many times. On the meeting between a senior economic adviser from the Obama campaign and Canadian officials, Obama’s campaign says that nobody said anything to anyone. But in fact, there was a meeting.

I don’t expect anyone to be able to openly discuss the meeting. I’d expect everyone to deny the statements in the resulting memo from a Canadian official, saying that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA was more political than actual. But we don’t know what happened. Obama supporters are quick to blame Senator Clinton. Right. Now let’s take a look at some of the punches and slices Senator Obama has dealt Mrs. Clinton. Much has been made about how savvy the Obama campaign is about new media. But check out a chat room sometime, and you’ll hear plenty. You’ll see, over and over again, how the Obamans link the Clintons and the Bushes. As though we haven’t just spent seven-plus years with the lamest president of the modern era, who followed eight years of peace and prosperity, social progress, and a far more compassionate government, with Bill Clinton. Somewhere, on his nightstand, or inscribed in the breast pocket of every jacket, Barack Obama must have the phrase, “she was for the war before she was against it.” In this campaign, the Iraq War is a loser issue for Senator Clinton, so she tries to zip through a response and change the subject. But it sure would be nice if someone would just point out what a pile of disingenuous nonsense that remark is. It worries me that someone who wants to lead the free world is that glib and facile in making political hay out of that difficult vote. And I can’t wait until he has to deal with the Senate and the House. Beyond that, we’ve heard lecture after lecture about the divisiveness of the “old politics.” That “divisiveness” is an American tradition going back to the founders of this country. In fact, even before.

If you’d have put it to a vote, historians say, you’d have been hard pressed to find a majority who wanted Independence from England. Granted, the Bush administration has created a far more vitriolic form of governing and settling scores than anyone since James Buchanan, back in the 1850’s. Where we can work together, we should. But where we differ, we should point that out too. It’s messy. It’s upsetting. But all that noise is what the pulse of a democracy sounds like. Maybe that’s why I’m able to avoid going ballistic when Obamans repeatedly call for Hillary to drop out of the race. Entering the March fourth primaries, Obama has a 160-delegate lead. Again, as always with Obama’s campaign, the tactics are perfect. Time to start selling your own inevitability. I understand why many Obamans want Clinton out. They want the new politics, where you run unopposed and are ushered into office by an omni-partisan welcoming committee of noble, gentle, people. For all this time, Senator Obama has been saying “this campaign isn’t about me—it’s about YOU!!!! It’s taken all this time for Senator Clinton to say, “But what if it IS about you? Not about your story, not about your parents, not about everyone else in America and the world, but about you, your short track record, meteoric rise, and your campaign, based not on achievements, but on the power of your personality?”