Must read!

Frank Rich's column this week, "Hillary Clinton’s Mission Unaccomplished." Highlights/the gist:

[Clinton] was blindsided Tuesday night, just as Mr. Bush was, by an unexpected gate crasher, the rookie senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Though he’s not a candidate for national office, Mr. Webb’s nine-minute Democratic response not only upstaged the president but also, in an unintended political drive-by shooting, gave Mrs. Clinton a more pointed State of the Union “contrast” than she had bargained for. ...

... Mr. Webb is standoffish. He doesn’t care whom he offends, including in his own base. He gives the impression — as he did Tuesday night — that he just might punch out his opponent. When he had his famously testy exchange with Mr. Bush over the war at a White House reception after his victory, Beltway pooh-bahs labeled him a boor....But this country is at a grave crossroads. It craves leadership. When Mr. Webb spoke on Tuesday, he stepped into that vacuum and, for a few minutes anyway, filled it. It’s not merely his military credentials as a Vietnam veteran and a former Navy secretary for Ronald Reagan that gave him authority, or the fact that his son, also a marine, is serving in Iraq. It was the simplicity and honesty of Mr. Webb’s message. Like Senator Obama, he was a talented professional writer before entering politics, so he could discard whatever risk-averse speech his party handed him and write his own. His exquisitely calibrated threat of Democratic pushback should Mr. Bush fail to change course on the war — “If he does not, we will be showing him the way” — continued to charge the air even as Mrs. Clinton made the post-speech rounds on the networks....

... Compounding this problem for Mrs. Clinton is that the theatrics of her fledgling campaign are already echoing the content: they are so overscripted and focus-group bland that they underline rather than combat the perennial criticism that she is a cautious triangulator too willing to trim convictions for political gain. Last week she conducted three online Web chats that she billed as opportunities for voters to see her “in an unfiltered way.” Surely she was kidding. Everything was filtered, from the phony living-room set to the appearance of a “campaign blogger” who wasn’t blogging to the softball questions and canned responses....

... After six years of “Ask President Bush,” “Mission Accomplished” and stage sets plastered with “Plan for Victory,” Americans hunger for a presidency with some authenticity. Patently synthetic play-acting and carefully manicured sound bites like Mrs. Clinton’s look out of touch. (Mr. Obama’s bare-bones Webcast and Web site shrewdly play Google to Mrs. Clinton’s AOL.) Besides, the belief that an image can be tightly controlled in the viral media era is pure fantasy. Just ask the former Virginia senator, Mr. Allen, whose past prowess as a disciplined, image-conscious politician proved worthless once the Webb campaign posted on YouTube a grainy but authentic video capturing him in an embarrassing off-script public moment.

And don't miss this part:

As we’ve been much reminded, the most recent presidents to face Congress in such low estate were Harry Truman in 1952 and Richard Nixon in 1974, both in the last ebbs of their administrations, both mired in unpopular wars that their successors would soon end, and both eager to change the subject just as Mr. Bush did. In his ’52 State of the Union address, Truman vowed “to bring the cost of modern medical care within the reach of all the people” while Nixon, 22 years later, promised “a new system that makes high-quality health care available to every American.” Not to be outdone, Mr. Bush offered a dead-on-arrival proposal that “all our citizens have affordable and available health care.” The empty promise of a free intravenous lunch, it seems, is the last refuge of desperate war presidents.

Comments

[Charles Scott]

Mr. Huberman--I really enjoyed your book, but thought you were far too nice to the 101 jackels you wrote about. I have an idea that I hope you will pass along to the Democratic leadership. My wife and I are retired and living on a fixed income, but occasionally donate money to Democratic candidates. Our generosity is rewarded by an avalanche of additional letters asking for more money that we can't afford and will not send. Here is the idea. The Democrats should publish a monthly magazine for political junkies like me who contribute to Democratic causes and candidates. The magazine would explain issues and ridicule conservative dingbats, as you did so well in your book. It should have lots of political cartoons. The size and format of The Week is a good example of how it might look. It would be a counter to the right wing media like Fox Network and Rush Limbaugh. Advertising could pay the cost of producing it. (Do I really think businesses would advertise in such a magazine? Well yes, maybe.) If such a magazine is well done, individuals like my wife and me might donate a little more. Please let me know what you think of the idea.

[Bob]

[url=http://1156.studentzoneonline.info/map.html]academic freedom student[/url]
[url=http://1152.studentzoneonline.info/map.html]academic enroll role student user[/url]
[url=http://1016.studentzoneonline.info/map.html]abnormal fundamentals psychology student workbook[/url]
[url=http://1115.studentzoneonline.info/map.html]academic action book ielts module plan self student study[/url]
[url=http://1109.studentzoneonline.info/map.html]academic achieve bound college helping student success[/url]

[George E. Schzta]

Please be kinder to the term "agnostic." It is Not a matter of indecision, it is only because I believe "Certainty" is the ultimate obscenity: the "reason" some invent to justify killing other humans. So,
although I'm totally atheistic, I moderate that designation only for that rationale: science and nature reveals wonders beyond human comprehension, so maybe its a rational modesty. (Thanks for your very accurate and needed book). ges