But when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you've got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy. Of course the Democrats are disappointing. That's what makes them Democrats. If they were any more frustrating they'd be your relatives.
U.S. Democrats have released their final health care bill.
A vote in the House of Representatives on the landmark legislation is expected Sunday.
Among the bill's highlights:
The new legislation is summarized here by AP: Democrats release final health care overhaul bill
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Update - Obama Says Bill Will Pass
US President Barack Obama led Democrats in a triumphant, fist-pumping rally Saturday and confidently predicted Congress would rise to a century-old challenge and pass his health care overhaul.
"It is in your hands, it is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow," told his allies on the eve of a cliffhanger House of Representatives vote. "Let's get this done."
...Using a blend of expanded government health programs and subsidies for millions to buy private insurance, the bill would add some 32 million Americans to the ranks of those covered for a total of 95 percent of Americans a century after Theodore Roosevelt called for a national approach to US health care.
- GJW
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG
Everything you missed, from the early stages to Iowa and Pennsylvania and beyond, in seven easy video minutes:
(h/t Red Tory)
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG
The DNC's "100 years of McCain" ad:
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG
As the campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination approaches its next crescendo, with Monday's crucial Texas and Ohio primaries nearly upon us, it certainly looks like Barack Obama's momentum is going to be very tough to stop.
Nonetheless, I am increasingly wanting to see Hillary Clinton pull it off.
I still like Barack Obama's candidacy. But nothing I have seen in this long nomination fight - and I have been watching closely - has remotely persuaded me that he is the superior of the two candidates or likely to make a better President of the United States than Mrs. Clinton.
I remain convinced that Mrs. Clinton is much beyond Mr. Obama in readiness, expertise and ultimate ability to deliver the substance and leadership America requires.
We have heard much discussion about the Obama magic - perhaps, far too much. Concurrently, there has been a paucity of genuine analysis as to why Hillary has left so much of her support behind.
I am starting to think it is because she has made the same mistake Al Gore made.
She has failed to embrace and harness her greatest potential strength - her central role as part of the extremely prosperous Clinton years. Her tenure as First Lady really is where her superior expertise and experience arose. She has failed to make the most of that.
Bill Clinton was one of America's most successful and popular recent presidents. His administration's record on the economy, race relations, domestic policy and international affairs speaks for itself.
Mrs Clinton should have attempted to capture America's imagination by presenting herself as a culmination and renewal of all that was positive and hopeful in the Democratic, Clinton past. Her candidacy's inherent breakthrough in Washington gender politics is no small part of the admirable Clinton legacy. She needs to own that.
Deepening the campaign' s problem, Mrs. Clinton has lost available potency in failing to make the not-unimportant point that it was the very enemies of the Clinton presidency - the same operatives who pushed the Lewinsky debacle to the brink of impeachment - who have in the last seven years nearly taken America to the brink
It was the same cast of characters, in fact, who subsequently gave the nation years of Republican ineptitude and turpitude. The same gang that was unanimously behind a never-ending litany of policy blunders that have left America winded, the U.S. dollar wounded and the balance of world scratching its head.
Conventional wisdom was that it would be bad for Mrs. Clinton to reopen the old wounds of yesteryear's fights by "going there" and discussing the Clinton years as a central focus of her platform.
That was and is a mistake - particularly given that conventional wisdom these days is all-too-often just a repackaging of talking points, spun by Republican strategists and planted in the collective ear of professional punditry for ultimate public consumption.
I suspect it is Republican strategists who don't relish the reopening of argument on the Clinton era.
Hindsight in America allows for the connecting of dots between Clinton's impeachers and their subsequent ineptitude in government. And recent history allows us to look back at the impeachment process as an all-too prescient indicator of the Republican hackery that was to follow.
Mrs. Clinton could have fought this campaign by forcing Republicans onto a turf that made them answer for their actions, ideologies and endless corruptions - yesterday and today.
In doing so, she may well have left Obama on the sidelines.
Beyond that, and bluntly, a genuine Hillary Clinton fight against Republican hackery would have been far more interesting to watch - and far more important for the nation - than yet another well-rehearsed and crafted Obama oratory.
Frankly, I think it still would be.
Mrs. Clinton now asks America to believe she is a fighter. But she has cowered from that fight.
Mrs. Clinton of all people - the first person to out the "vast right wing conspiracy" against the Clinton administration - is in quite a good position to say, "I told you this is who they are. This is how they act. And this is how they have nearly brought America to its knees."
She now needs to remind America that the Clinton years were good for America - and that the future can be even better - with her own version of Clinton 2.1 - a new administration ready to rebuild, invigorate and responsibly renew the modern American dream.
To date, her campaign has largely buried Bill Clinton - not just Bill Clinton the man, but Bill Clinton, the President, and Bill Clinton, the symbol.
It has seemed expedient at times, perhaps, but it hasn't worked.
She needs to borrow from the past.
As I recall it, Bill Clinton remained the one man America most wanted to hear from on 9-11, when Bush was in hiding and Cheney was still "undisclosed."
(Apologies to Rudy Giuliani)
Bill Clinton continues to have currency in America, even if he arguably has lost a bit of his fastball.
The Republicans wanted nothing more than to have Bill Clinton treated like a liability.
Mrs. Clinton has obliged.
She could have been elevated by her status as former First Lady, with her credibility sealed by her subsequent record in the Senate. Instead, she has almost entirely distanced herself from those largely-positive associations about her family's political legacy and has been left reeling by her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq - her one, sort of real point of difference from Mr. Obama.
In the process, she has also lost her inherent advantage, and fallen right back into the jaws of a media machine that has been as complicit in stoking Obamamania as it was in hyping the Lewinsky affair and cheerleading for the Bush Administration and its zeal for war in Iraq.
It is now up to Mrs. Clinton and her campaign to change the subject.
And perhaps, Bill Clinton needs to get onto 60 Minutes or Larry King this weekend for a full hour, to speak about the nuts and bolts and details of how Mrs. Clinton participated, advised and led in her own right during his presidency. He needs to vouch - in an intimate, personal voice, as only he can - for her superior experience, talent and knowledge of Washington' rules of the road.
Obamamania may be getting a bit stale.
Mrs. Clinton has very little time to turn this around.
And it really is now or never for Clinton 2.1.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
"Barack-lash" (?) - America starts to sober up from a heavy dose of Obamamania.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
If these comments by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a Hillary Clinton surrogate, are any sign of what is now to come, it is fair to say the gloves are about to come off in the heated battle for the Democratic presidential nomination:
Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.
...But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you."
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one known face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.
What gives us confidence that Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?
How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan - perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?
How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?
Contrary to the myth of the Obama campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury - or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece.
In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.
Mr. Wilson is right.
It's high time the focus of discussion on both sides transcended the current cults of personality.
America must seriously assess who is best qualified to navigate the very deep, hot waters the country finds itself in.
For my money, that person is Hillary Clinton.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
Prescient, eh? As you said, we'll see.
But here's a recap of my arguments on the optics of a Clinton-McCain debate vs. an Obama-McCain one.
The problem I foresee comes on the issue of national security which, while it is dropping south of the economy as Americans' prime concern, is still a hot button. More to the point, it is the main issue for Republicans.
Karl Rove laid out the strategy for the Bushites two elections ago - Americans trust Republicans with national security over Democrats every time so keep voters afraid. On top of that, gerrymander election boundaries and suppress Democratic voters.
So, in a Clinton-McCain match what happens?
Hillary will fight McCain in her wonkish way by arguing she has better policies. But TV debates are an emotional game and by fighting on McCain's Republican ground - who's better for national security - she loses.
While McCain may not win the general election under any circumstances - given that 2/3 of Americans think their country is on the wrong path - Hillary will have a tougher time for these reasons and the simple fact as I noted before, that she is not well liked or trusted even by many Democrats. That's why her primary support is always low outside her power base.
Match up Obama with McCain and the scene is quite different. You've got Lincoln-esque tall, lean Obama, whose height and thus appearance of stature is at least equal to McCain's.
If Obama is smart he will strategize his debate around McCain's notorious temper. While McCain is unlikely to let a woman knock him off balance in a TV debate, if Obama throwns a few well-placed jabs, McCain might just blow his cool.
If McCain reveals himself that way, he is toast. More to the point, Obama’s presence as a man who is fresh, serious-minded, but strong - strong in generosity and mind and spirit too - will show up and whither the bombastic, 71-year old ex-POW.
On a historical note, the tallest candidate wins about 80 percent of U.S. elections because the taller guy seems stronger.
And Barak, at 6’ 1-1/2” towers over McC (5’7”) and Mrs. C (5’ 8-1/2”). This won't hurt.
Everyone says Obama’s supporters want “change.” For years, pollsters have told us 2/3 of Americans are unhappy with the direction of their country. Does this mean 2/3 want change or a return to what they think of as a better time before the current change? Maybe they don’t want change, they want a direction that is less of a change than Bush’s radicalism. They agree to the word change because that’s what they are asked.
Ironically, I could argue that O’s supporters don’t want change, they want stability and an end to the White House Robespierre and his gang of radicals.
Another problem with Mrs. C as a political sell is that she is comes off as someone who is pandering. Remember, this is the team (Mr & Mrs C) that made a religion of triangulation - defeating your political enemies through divide and conquer strategies among interest groups.
The result was Mr. C's slashing support programs for the poor and deregulating the financial industry which opened the door for the current subprime mortgage chaos. So when Hillary says she wakes up every morning thinking of how she can help people, how does that jive with her several years as a Senator - saying nothing about stopping torture, warrantless arrests and wiretapping, the on-going disgrace of Louisiana, caging protesters in free speech zones, the swelling of the US prison population with non-violent and poor offenders, the mass privatizing or elimination of community-oriented government services and so on?
Even though she is memorably quoted (in About.com) as supporting voting rights, she has not stood up - to my knowledge - against the various voting frauds and legal disenfranchisement efforts that have taken place during her time as a Senator. She may be a good person but I think she defines political good as whatever is expedient and furthers her ambitions. Sort of like the Bushes when they don't count Iraqi dead, think Katrina's devastation of poor people's homes is an opportunity for them to move upmarket, and speak as if only Americans died on 9/11.
Rather than stand upon and be remembered for principle, Mrs. C didn't want to rock the boat on Iraq or other corruptions of the Bush Administration for fear of appearing weak or -in every wishy Dem's favorite excuse - giving the Republicans ammunition, like they need it, when her time came to try for the presidency.
Further, her central strategy of claiming leadership experience is somewhat farcical. Without commenting on her experience as First Lady, she showed arrogance and rigidity in her effort to reform medical care in the U.S. Her lack of leadership skills in both legislative vision and the people skills necessary to push visionary legislation through Congress and public opinion do not seem to have improved.
Like Bush, she blames others for mistakes she has made and doesn’t listen to those who disagree with her, as evidence in her dumping her campaign manager for following her queenly dictates.
So what experience is she talking about? Or have we defined-down experience to mean simply showing up for work, going to Congresional hearings on "important issues" and having a business card that says First Lady or Senator? On marketing experience vs change, Americans know there is little a president can actually do without assuming dictatorial powers as Bush has with so-called signing statements he says lets him ignore laws, the Constitution, morality etc.
Americans want a leader who can give the tired, worn down, war-weary and agitated American public a sense of hope for the future and let them get down to it. Someone who is willing to try something other than bombs, wars, threats, ignorance, sadism, lies and tax cuts for the rich that have characterized Bush's monotone psychosis.
On this point, Mr. O is like the coming of Motown in the 60s, while Mrs. C sounds like the latest retread for the disco dance floor. It may be catchy but it has no soul.
- Barry Brown, Toronto
.......
Barry Brown is a journalist and Pulitzer prize nominee with writing credits for the Washington Times, New York Times, Globe & Mail, among other publications. While he gladly offers unsolicited advice, he is not a lawyer. The views expressed are those of the guest blogger, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wise Law Blog and its authors.
......
Vanity Fair's James Wolcott:
I've never bought the national polls showing Obama would be a stronger adversary for McCain than Clinton--I think those polls are as squeaky as the ones that showed Giuliani as the frontrunner all those months. I think Obama would probably beat McCain, but I know Hillary would because the Clintons have been through the thresher before and reflexively know how to judo flip Republican tactics and media attacks, not simply be reactive after taking a shot to the chin the way Gore and Kerry too often did. For better or worse for our democracy, the Clintons "get" the gestalt, know how to read a blitz.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
From TPM:
An interesting analysis of Mr. Obama's Iowa victory from Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal:
He had a harder row to hoe than Mrs. Clinton did. He was lesser known, too young, lacked an establishment. He had to knock her down while building himself up. (She only had to build herself up until the end, when she went after his grade-school essays.) His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings. I think we were there when it happened, in the debate in which he was questioned on why so many of Bill Clinton's aides were advising him. She laughed, and he said he was looking forward to her advising him, too. He took mama to school.
And so something new begins on the Democratic side.
I'm not quite convinced it's all over yet.
The weeks ahead, culminating with twenty-two State primaries to be held on February 5th, will determine, in hindsight, whether yesterday was just a minor blip on Hillary's long road to the Presidency or the moment that progressive America began its final weaning from the long tail of the Clinton era.
If nothing else, the Iowa caucus results underscore that America's Democratic voters have essentially become both gender-blind and colour-blind in their selection of the party's Presidential nominee.
Although pundits continue to wonder aloud whether America is ready for a woman or person of colour as its President, Iowa's voters may now have telegraphed that those considerations are, thankfully, no longer to be on the table for serious discussion.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
From the Democratic Party's Presidential candidates in Iowa:
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
If there was ever any doubt about which of the Democratic Presidential candidates is best suited to lead America, tonight's debate should go a long way toward eliminating it.
Hillary Clinton, poised, prepared and confident, dramatically outshone all competitors once again, in a debate largely characterized by her opponents' awkward attempts to shake her from her frontrunner's perch.
Barack Obama looked unsteady and off his game throughout the evening. John Edwards seems increasingly transparent and staged as the campaign wears on.
Joe Biden (as noted in a prior post) provided the best comedy of the evening, but is not contending.
Finally, Governer Bill Richardson, who made a valiant defence of Senator Clinton against the attacks of Edwards and Obama, appeared to make his first public salvo for the Vice-Presidential nod.
But tonight, it was all Hillary.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, at tonight's Democratic Presidential candidates debate:
Rudy Giuliani - he's the least qualified person to run for President since George Bush. There are only three things in a Rudy Giuliani sentence - a noun, a verb and 9-11.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
