The unhappiest man in New York....

Non-currrent commentary on current affairs.

"When we look back into the past, we recognize a moment in time which was decisive, at which the pattern of our lives changed, a moment at which we moved irrevocably off in a new direction. The change may be a result of planning or accident; we may leave happiness or ruins behind us and advance to a different happiness or more thorough ruin; but there is no going back. The moment may be just that, a second in which a wheel is turned, a look exchanged, a sentence spoken – or it may be a long afternoon, a week, a season, during which the issue is in doubt, in which the wheel is turned a hundred times, the small accumulating accidents permitted to happen."

For___________, it was_________________.

Irwin Shaw

Peggy Noonan sure hates Hillary

Man, that Peggy Noonan sure hates Hillary. She writes 'What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!" '


//////////////////
From the Wall Street Journal.

DECLARATIONS

Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?

By PEGGY NOONAN
February 8, 2008

If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, "I concede" and go on vacation at a friend's house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait?

Is it possible she could be so normal? Politicians lose battles, it's part of what they do, win and lose. But she does not know how to lose. Can she lose with grace? But she does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance.

She often talks about how tough she is. She has fought "the Republican attack machine" that has tried to "stop" her, "end" her, and she knows "how to fight them." She is preoccupied to an unusual degree with toughness. A man so preoccupied would seem weak. But a woman obsessed with how tough she is just may be lethal.

Does her sense of toughness mean that every battle in which she engages must be fought tooth and claw, door to door? Can she recognize the line between burly combat and destructive, never-say-die warfare? I wonder if she is thinking: What will it mean if I win ugly? What if I lose ugly? What will be the implications for my future, the party's future? What will black America, having seen what we did in South Carolina, think forever of me and the party if I do low things to stop this guy on the way to victory? Can I stop, see the lay of the land, imitate grace, withdraw, wait, come back with a roar down the road? Life is long. I am not old. Or is that a reverie she could never have? What does it mean if she could never have it?

We know she is smart. Is she wise? If it comes to it, down the road, can she give a nice speech, thank her supporters, wish Barack Obama well, and vow to campaign for him?

It either gets very ugly now, or we will see unanticipated--and I suspect professionally saving--grace.

I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward. For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game.

The day she admitted she'd written herself a check for $5 million, Obama's people crowed they'd just raised $3 million. But then his staff is happy. They're all getting paid.

Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda. One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.

And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

* * *

Mr. Obama's achievement on Super Tuesday was solid and reinforced trend lines. The popular vote was a draw, the delegate count a rough draw, but he won 13 states, and when you look at the map he captured the middle of the country from Illinois straight across to Idaho, with a second band, in the northern Midwest, of Minnesota and North Dakota. He won Missouri and Connecticut, in Mrs. Clinton's backyard. He won the Democrats of the red states.

On the wires Wednesday her staff was all but conceding she is not going to win the next primaries. Her superdelegates are coming under pressure that is about to become unrelenting. It was easy for party hacks to cleave to Mrs Clinton when she was inevitable. Now Mr. Obama's people are reportedly calling them saying, Your state voted for me and so did your congressional district. Are you going to jeopardize your career and buck the wishes of the people back home?

Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

* * *

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

Romney throws in the towel..

Breaking reports indicate Mit Romney is "suspending" his presidential campaign.
According to text of his forthcoming speech, he says:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.''

So. A vote for Obama or Hillary is s surrender to terror? I don't think so.

Peggy Noonan's commentary on Hillary vs. Obama.

As noted previously, my choice of referring to Senator Clinton by her Christian name and Senator Obama by his surname is not indicative of anything, just as it never meant anything that Mile Davis was always referred to as "Miles" and John Coltrane was always referred to as "Coltrane" or simply, "Trane"
DECLARATIONS

A Rebellion and an Awkward Embrace

By PEGGY NOONAN

February 1, 2008; Page W14

In the most exciting and confounding election cycle of my lifetime, Rudy Giuliani, the Prince of the City, is out because he was about to lose New York, John Edwards is out, the Clintons are fighting for their historical reputations, and the stalwart conservative New York Post has come out strong and stinging for Barack Obama. If you had asked me in December if I would write that sentence in February, I would have said: Um, no.

If there is a part of you that loves politics, loves the sheer brunt force of it, the great game of it, you are waking up each morning with a spring in your step. "What happened last night?"

Both races continue to clarify, if not resolve. On the Democratic side, a great rebellion, a coming together of former officials, members of the commenting class, and the Kennedy family to stand athwart the Clintonian future and say, Stop. They are saying, as Jack Kennedy did when pressed to endorse a hack for governor of Massachusetts, "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much."

On the Republican side an embrace, but an awkward and unfinished one. It's like the man-hug the pol at the podium now feels he must give to the man he's just introduced. They used to just shake and say, "Thanks, Bob," and go to the podium. Now they embrace, with an always apparent self-consciousness. Can you imagine JFK doing this? Or Reagan?

It is this kind of embrace many in the Republican party are giving John McCain. He has real supporters. He keeps winning. But he's not getting even close to half the vote, as the presumptive nominee should. And he has been at odds with his party on so many things.

* * *

As much attention as the decision of the stars of the Kennedy family to endorse Sen. Obama received this week, it has still not been given its due. This was a break with the establishment and from the expected, and it may carry a price. The Clintons are deeply wired into their party, they run many money lines and power lines, and Hillary Clinton is still, in the Super Tuesday states, in the lead. Will the lives of those who rebelled against her be made more pleasant if she wins? The Clintons have never had the wit to be forgiving.

But all parties, all movements, need men and women who will come forward every decade or so to name tendencies within that are abusive or destructive, to throw off the low and grubby. Teddy's speech in this regard was a barnburner. He went straight against the negative and bullying, hard for the need to find inspiration again.

He is an old lion of his party, a hero of the base. But people do what they know how to do, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest, and Teddy has long led a comfortable life as a party panjandrum who knew to sit back and watch as the dog barked and the caravan moved on. In a way he seemed to rebel against his own tendencies. He put himself on the line.

"I love this country," he said, "I believe in the bright light of hope and possibility. I always have."

As a conservative I would say Ted Kennedy has spent much of his career being not just wrong about the issues but so deeply wrong, so consistently and reliably wrong that it had a kind of grandeur to it. So wrong that I cannot actually think of a single serious policy question on which I agreed with him. But I remember the night President Reagan spoke of Sen. Kennedy's brother at a fund-raiser for the JFK Library, and I remember the letter Reagan got from Teddy. "Your presence itself was such a magnificent tribute to my brother. . . . The country is well served by your eloquent graceful leadership, Mr. President." He ended it, "With my prayers and thanks for you as you lead us through these difficult times."

Liberals are rarely interested in pointing out, and conservatives by and large may not know, but everyone who knows Teddy Kennedy knows that he holds a deep love for his country, that he feels a reverence for the presidency and a desire that America be represented with grace abroad and stature at home. He has seen administrations come and go. And maybe much of what he's learned came forward, came together, this week.

His principled and uncompromising rebellion seemed to me a patriotic act, and adds to the rising tide of Geffenism. When David Geffen broke with Mrs. Clinton last summer, and couched his disapproval along ethical lines, he was almost alone among important Democrats. It took some guts. Now others are joining his side. Good.

* * *

The Republican contest may well end on Tuesday, but I sense little relief and much unease. In terms of avowed programs, policies and approaches, Mitt Romney was the more conservative candidate, and his even-keeled air won many friends. He offered executive experience and business acumen. As for how he came across, here is Mike Deaver on Ronald Reagan: "This is a face that when the baby sees it, the baby smiles."

His supporters tell me he will fight to the end. The conservative establishment still has hopes. But the great unruly base may be doing some redefining.

If you go by the Florida returns, maybe this year positions aren't everything. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who suffered 5½ years in the Hanoi Hilton. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who has endured a lifetime in the rounds in Washington and survived as antispending, antiabortion and pro-military. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the old fighter jock who'll keep the country safe in a rocky time ahead. And maybe Republicans on the ground are saying: He earned it.

The conventional wisdom is Mr. Romney can't win it while Mike Huckabee's in it. If Mr. Huckabee dropped out, Mr. Romney might pick up his conservatives. But Mr. Huckabee seems very happy running, and perhaps happy thinking of his future as the Mitt slayer in the party of John.

Mr. McCain seems to me to have two immediate problems, both of which he might address. One is that he doesn't seem to much like conservatives, and never has. They can't help admire him, but they've disagreed with him on so many issues, and when they bring this up his demeanor tends to morph into the second problem: He radiates, he telegraphs, a certain indignation at being questioned by people who've never had to vote in Congress and make a deal. He's like Moe Greene in "The Godfather," when Michael Corleone tells him he's going to buy him out. "Do you know who I am? I'm Moe Greene. I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders." I've been on the firing line, punk. I am the voice of surviving conservatism.

This doesn't always go over so well. Mr. Giuliani seems to know Mr. McCain is Moe Greene. Mr. Huckabee probably thought "The Godfather" was kinda violent. Mr. Romney may be thinking to himself, But Michael Corleone won in the end, and had better suits.

Ellen Goodman's commentary on Hillary vs. Obama.

Incidentally, my choice of referring to Senator Clinton by her Christian name and Senator Obama by his surname is not indicative of anything, just as it never meant anything that Mile Davis was always referred to as "Miles" and John Coltrane was always referred to as "Coltrane" or simply, "Trane".


/////////////////////////////////

ELLEN GOODMAN

The split in the Kennedy clan

By Ellen Goodman | February 1, 2008

EARLY IN the week, someone showed her the headline that blared, "Kennedy Endorses Obama." Kathleen Kennedy Townsend responded by asking wryly, "Which Kennedy?"

Not that there was really any doubt. On the East Coast, the Kennedy A-list - Ted and Caroline - had just dubbed Barack Obama the heir apparent to the family legacy. Within hours, however, the eldest daughter of Robert Kennedy, along with her brother Robert Jr., and sister Kerry, reiterated their support for Hillary Clinton in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece.

Caroline endorsed Obama as the candidate who offers a "sense of hope and inspiration." Like her father. Kathleen, her sister, and brother describe Clinton as a "leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed." Like their father.

This was not the stuff of a vast family feud. Indeed there are Kennedys of each generation in both camps. But there are echoes here of a larger divide. Now that John Edwards is out of the race, you can find split families lurking in the polls and demographics. You can see undecided voters balancing the attractions of "inspiration" and "battle-tested."

The Kennedys have won attention by virtue of service and tragedy. The most striking part of Ted Kennedy's speech was his palpable pleasure in reconnecting with youthful idealism, maybe even his own.

For many years, Ted was the most polarizing figure in American politics. This torch was passed to Clinton. His own race for the presidency in 1980 stumbled over a softball question lobbed by CBS' Roger Mudd, "Senator, why do you want to be president?" He had no answer.

From that time on, Kennedy became the consummate legislator, one part insider, one part torchbearer. He made alliances across parties, got a whole loaf when he could and a slice when he couldn't. Was he dismissing his own experience as he dismissed Hillary's? "What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision," he said in his old-fashioned stemwinder. This classic liberal called on us to get "past the stale ideas and stalemate of our times."

We all get to pick and choose the pieces of history that please our current appetite. The 1960s made their appearance at the Obama rally as days of hope not confrontation, of common purpose not cold war. The JFK evoked was the JFK of Camelot not the Bay of Pigs, of PT-109 not Vietnam, of the moon not Marilyn Monroe. Indeed, the elegant, cool, cerebral Jack at this rally fit their post-polarization frame of mind better than his younger, hotter brother Bobby.

As Caroline said, "I've been deeply moved by the people who've told me they wish they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president." As both a daughter and mother, she resonates to the "longing" for those days and feelings.

But what Kathleen remembers learning from her father is something else: "Number one, you have to fight." On the phone, she said, "Obama's appeal is that we can all get along. My father challenged people." She remembers him quoting the ancient graffiti on the slave-built pyramids: "No one got angry enough." And her support for Clinton contains this sentence: "The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues."

This election is about the future not the past. How many more times can we hear that? It's not about who will be the next Kennedy, but rather the next president.

Bill Clinton threw a monkey wrench into the campaign and Ted Kennedy turned it into a boomerang. But on Tuesday it's Hillary versus Barack. The hair's width of difference in their beliefs has turned into a pitched battle between "inspiration" and "battle-tested." The hope that some regard as tangible, others see as helium. The experience some believe is invaluable, others call old politics.

You can hear it all in the family clan. Rory Kennedy, a documentary filmmaker born after her father, Bobby, was killed, says, "I feel we're in a very dark period in our history and Obama has the potential to get us out of it." Oldest sister Kathleen says, "In a time of crisis like this we want someone who knows what she is doing when she gets there."

What do you do in a family that's split? In the Kennedy family, says Kathleen, "We keep loving each other, talking to each other, and arguing with each other. . . . We wake up the next morning raring to go."

As we roar into Super Tuesday, the Democrats better keep that morning after in mind.

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.

Kind of reminds me of a Billy Strayhorn tune...