The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Twenty-Three

In what became a decisive and disastrous move, President Bill Clinton commissioned the putting together of a well intended plan, headed by First Lady Hillary Clinton, to expand the country's health care coverage. When released, the large and complex plan was highly popular for about a week or two, as Republicans and insurance companies picked the plan apart and successfully scared the hell out of Americans with a barrage of negative ads. The attacks on the plan were given a great deal of coverage by the media, which only fed into the narrative of the plan's opponents that there was just no consensus about reforming such a large sector of the American economy, which caused further erosion in support. The whole matter brought intense scrutiny to Hillary Clinton. Polls showed the plan's popularity fell like a rock, and eventually it couldn't make it through Congress, even though Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. The whole issue gave Republicans a boost in morale and energy going into the midterm election of 1994, whereas dispirited Democrats faced the coming election with mounting concern.  

Then came the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known by its initials, NAFTA, an idea for a free trade zone among North American countries, which was first given note by Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign for president. The agreement was highly complex, but it essentially made a trade bloc of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico by eliminating trade and investment barriers between those countries. On this issue, Clinton and all the living former presidents supported passage,* but the bill terribly divided Democrats, and it took free trade Republicans to provide the votes in Congress to pass it. It also brought Ross Perot to the fore again, as the former presidential candidate opposed the agreement. In a highly touted television debate with Vice President Al Gore, watched by millions of Americans, Perot made points, but he had difficulty explaining many things, especially where money was coming from to oppose the agreement and in refuting the charge by Gore that Perot stood to make financial gain from the defeat of the agreement. A congressional vote came in November 1993, and here is how members of the House of Representatives in former Confederate states voted, with the measure passing in the overall House vote by 234 to 200: Alabama: 2 Republicans for, 1 Republican against, 4 Democrats against; Arkansas: 2 Republicans for, 2 Democrats against; Florida: 7 Republicans for, 6 Democrats for, 6 Republicans against, 4 Democrats against; Georgia: 2 Republicans for, 4 Democrats for, 2 Republicans against, 3 Democrats against; Louisiana: 3 Republicans for, 2 Democrats for, 2 Democrats against; Mississippi: 3 Democrats for, 2 Democrats against; North Carolina: 3 Republicans for, 5 Democrats for, 1 Republican against, 3 Democrats against; South Carolina: 1 Democrat for, 3 Republicans against, 2 Democrats against; Tennessee: 3 Republicans for, 6 Democrats for; Texas: 9 Republicans for, 15 Democrats for, 6 Democrats against; Virginia: 4 Republicans for, 3 Democrats for, 4 Democrats against. In the Senate the overall vote was 61 for and 38 against, and in the former Confederate states the vote was: Alabama: 2 Democrats against; Arkansas: 2 Democrats for; Florida: 1 Republican for, 1 Democrat for; Georgia: 1 Republican for, 1 Democrat for; Louisiana: 2 Democrats for; Mississippi: 2 Republicans for; North Carolina: 2 Republicans against; South Carolina: 1 Republican against, 1 Democrat against; Tennessee: 1 Democrat for, 1 Democrat against; Texas: 2 Republicans for; Virginia: 1 Republican for, 1 Democrat for.   

A contentious social issue also heated up. President Clinton supported allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military, provided they kept their sexual orientation secret, but the military could not ask about their orientation either. Clinton's stand satisfied few, but especially on the political right, where any attempt to allow gay people to legally serve in the military was opposed. The provisions came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

* The living former presidents in 1993 were: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush (Sr.).

WORD HISTORY:
Ask-This common word goes back to Indo European "ayesh," which had the notion "to search for, to seek." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "aiskojan," which meant "to ask for, demand, request," all with the notion of "seeking something by asking." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ascian" (to ask for, inquire) and the variant "acsian" (to this day, some English speakers say "I want to aks ("ax") you something," so this basic pronunciation goes way back in English). "Ascian" then became "asken," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "heischen" (once also spelled without the "h," a word not highly common, but still in use for, "to ask for, request, demand"); West Frisan "easkje" ("demand"); Dutch "eisen" ("ask, demand"). Swedish "äska" ("demand, request") and Danish, "æske," seem to have been borrowed from Low German, which once had, "eschen," but no longer uses it. Apparently forms of the word generally endured only in West Germanic (English, German, Dutch, Frisian), as the North Germanic languages use other words to express this meaning.

It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Seven

The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown, Part 4

Before getting into further information on the financial crisis that was then developing, the political situation was not at a standstill. 

The 2008 Democratic Party nominating process: the two main Democrats involved were Hillary Clinton, a U.S. Senator from New York, and Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator from Illinois. Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, started the race with a decided advantage, as she was well known, and both she and her husband remained popular among traditional Democratic constituencies, like many labor unions, non-union working class voters, older white voters and moderate Democrats. Bill Clinton had been very popular among black Americans, but the draw of a highly viable man of black heritage, Barack Obama, was a difficult challenge for the Clintons, and it cut into what would have likely been a staunch Clinton group of supporters, and Clinton's likely nomination, had Barack Obama not run for president at that time. On the other hand, many Democratic women voters were immensely excited about Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Besides black voters, Obama had a good deal of support from highly educated voters, younger voters and many liberals. Supporters of both candidates were encouraged by the rough political landscape for their Republican opponents, so that if they could get their candidate nominated, they felt there was a good chance that candidate would win the presidency in November, given the unpopularity of George W. Bush, the then Republican president. Further the 2006 election had given Democrats control of both houses of Congress, leaving Republicans reeling. It would get worse for Republicans.

The early results gave Obama a surprising win in the Iowa Caucus, which temporarily gave him a major boost in the nation's first actual primary election, New Hampshire. In the end, Clinton won a close race in New Hampshire, and the tough quest for the Democratic nomination between Clinton and Obama accelerated. A big endorsement for Obama came from Senator Ted Kennedy and his niece, Caroline, who was the daughter of John F. Kennedy, the president assassinated in November 1963 (Ted Kennedy was the brother of the former president). As the primary and caucus season drew to a close, Barack Obama had a lead of less than a hundred delegates over Hillary Clinton, but Obama then got pledges of support from further delegates, giving him sufficient delegates to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August.

On the Republican side, the major candidates were: former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani (a former Democrat, and then independent), Mitt Romney, who was just leaving the governorship of Massachusetts, John McCain, a U.S. Senator from Arizona and Mike Huckabee, who was just leaving the governorship of Arkansas. When the Republican nomination process actually started, Giuliani melted down, then Romney faltered, while McCain and Huckabee became the main remaining candidates. Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, and McCain won the primary in New Hampshire. After a mixed showing by both Romney and McCain in the following states, McCain pulled out a narrow, but big win in Florida, bringing Giuliani to withdraw from the race. McCain gained major momentum, and Romney soon quit the race, leaving only Mike Huckabee to contest McCain, but the Arizona senator won enough delegates by early March, and the nomination was his.

McCain had been able to draw from various parts of the Republican Party, but more traditional type Republicans increasingly favored him. Giuliani's "major" candidacy never materialized, and Romney's loss to McCain in New Hampshire (neighbor to Massachusetts) hurt him and gave McCain a big boost. Mike Huckabee was supported by many evangelical Christians and very conservative elements, including many Southerners, who fit into both of those categories.

Barack Obama chose Senator Joe Biden of Delaware for his vice presidential running mate, and John McCain chose Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. Biden, long a member of the U.S. Senate (elected in 1972!), helped Obama with long time Democrats, especially white working class Democrats and independents, and his long experience in government and foreign policy in the Senate, helped to balance Obama's short time in government and on the national stage. Palin proved to be controversial, although she helped McCain with more conservative elements of the GOP, including evangelicals, and she likely also helped with women voters. Palin, however, was not well known nationally, and her introduction to the country made a negative impression on some, and a majority of Americans either felt she was not qualified to assume the presidency if need be, or they felt uncertain as to her qualification to do so. Two significant things happened when Palin did interviews. First, when interviewed extensively on television by Katie Couric, then with CBS, Couric asked Palin what newspapers and magazines she read. Her general response, that she appreciated the media and that she read all of them, brought Couric to ask her to name some, but she couldn't do it. That scene and her seeming lack of knowledge even about John McCain during the interviews, including about his views on the economy, which was reeling at that time, left a negative image of Palin. Secondly, while comics took this out of context, Palin was asked by Charles Gibson (ABC) about what she had learned by living so close to Russia,* and she mentioned that Alaska and Russia were neighbors and that you could actually see Russia from one of Alaska's islands. Comedians, to the delight of Democrats, quickly turned this into Palin claiming that the fact that she could see Russia from Alaska gave her foreign policy experience, something she did not claim, although her answer did seem to say that being able to see Russia was important, but without further explanation.           

So the stage was set for the election of 2008.  

* Alaska and Russia are very close in places, something many people may not know. 

WORD HISTORY:
Parable-"Parable" is related to "parlor" ("room for sitting and talking") and to "parley" (to speak, to converse"). The first part of the word, "para," goes back to Indo European "per/pr," with the notion of "forward, off, away from, beyond, beside." "Para-" is distantly related (through Indo European) to English "for," "for-" and "fore-," all from native English forms from Old Germanic. The main part of the word, distantly related to "ball" (the form meaning, "a dance"), goes back to Indo European "gwele/gwela," with the notion of, "bubble up, rise up, overflow, throw outward or upward." This gave Ancient Greek "ballein," ("to throw"), which produced, "bole," meaning, "a throw, a toss," and the two parts gave transliterated Greek "paraballo," meaning, "a toss beside;" thus, "side by side;" thus, "a comparison." This was borrowed by Latin as "parabola," also meaning "comparison," which then passed into Old French, a Latin-based language. English borrowed the word during the 1200s, initially as "parabol," which became "parable" about one hundred years later, with the meaning, "a story used to compare to another story in meaning." The word has often carried a religious component to it from translated Biblical usage.   

It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Six

The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown, Part 3

As the nation continued to struggle with record oil and gasoline prices, the best we could get from the Bush administration and many Republicans was how this was all part of the free market at work. On top of this, reports of escalating foreclosures began to scare the hell out of many people, including people who worked on Wall Street, or who were in some way connected to Wall Street, as they began to wonder when the financial consequences of large numbers of foreclosures would become more evident. The consequences began to show up.

In March 2008, large investment bank "Bear-Stearns" teetered on the brink of insolvency, largely as a result of the then developing mortgage and foreclosure crisis. Bear-Stearns could not get loans from other banks, as confidence in the old bank (the bank dated from the early 1920s) went out the window, and financial markets were shaky over the whole situation. The Federal Reserve (aka, "the Fed") stepped in and through a complex deal, including bailout money, orchestrated a deal whereby Bear-Stearns was acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed's decision to intervene was made in order to prevent a spill over into the rest of the economy if Bear-Stearns went down. The "free marketers" nearly had a collective stroke, as this whole process went against their vaunted principles of "free market capitalism;" known to some of us as "dog-eat-dog capitalism." I also explain the concept as, "We can do ANYTHING to the public, and we mean ANYTHING, and they can't do a damn thing to us. We don't a give a good damn about people, only about money!" I actually think the public should return the "favor," and not a give a good damn about these miserable, insatiable merchants of greed.*

The Fed intervention didn't come close to righting the miserable shape of the American financial system, but it calmed things briefly. A few months later, it became more and more evident the American banking system, and, therefore, the entire American economy (and the world's, for that matter), was on the ropes, and that the predicament with Bear-Stearns had not been an isolated incident. We waited for the other shoe to drop. Lehman Brothers, another large investment bank, dating to the mid 1800s (yes, 1800s!), was next to suffer the consequences of irresponsible capitalism. After serious declines in its stock price and announced layoffs of personnel, clients abandoned the bank in droves, withdrawing their money and assets almost instantly. The bank announced it would file for bankruptcy, and the DOW dropped 500 points in one day, with further staggering losses to follow. The Fed did not intervene, thus giving the "free marketers" their wish. With Lehman's collapse, the situation became so serious, the Bush administration, that bulwark of "free market capitalism," having oft essentially said about American economic problems, "we can't do anything about anything, because its a free market economy," announced, along with the support of the Fed, that they needed a special fund of $700 billion (with a "b") to shore up the financial system or that the country faced a new DEPRESSION, perhaps worse than the one dubbed "the Great Depression." With that name taken, what the hell would we call it?

Folks, having principles is one thing, but carrying principles to an extreme is lunacy. Driving off a cliff doesn't make you pure, it makes you NUTS, and then DEAD!

With the economy unraveling before our very eyes, the nominating process for candidates to succeed George W. Bush was taking place. On the Republican side, John McCain, who had made a run for the nomination in 2000, faced a number of candidates, most of whom dropped out of the race early on, with only Mike Huckabee of Arkansas posing any real challenge to McCain until March 2008. On the Democratic side, New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton made a strong bid to become the first woman to secure a major party nomination for president, but she was challenged by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a powerful speaker and a man of mixed black and white racial background. So Democrats had two choices, one of which would be for the history books: the first female presidential candidate or the first African-American candidate. 

Next, the economy plunges and the political coalitions of the election of 2008 ...    

* The basic argument by the "free marketers" is, capitalists take risks hoping to make a profit on something. If that risk blows up on them, they should suffer the consequences, and government should do nothing to help them out. I would dare say, most of us probably agree with that whole concept "on paper." The problem is, these banks had become so big (remember "too big to fail?"), the failure of any one of them posed a threat to the entire economy and people's livelihoods. Further, suspicions were then rising that Bear-Stearns was not the only big bank in serious trouble.

WORD HISTORY: 
Melt-This word, closely related to "smelt,"^ and related to "malt" and "mild" (all from Germanic), goes back to Indo European "meld," with the meaning, "to soften, to make soft." This gave Old Germanic "meltanan," which meant "to melt, to dissolve." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "meltan," meaning, "to melt, to turn solid to liquid with fire, to dissolve;" thus also, "to digest." This then became "melten," before the modern form. By the way, the adjective "molten" is simply the adjectival use of the archaic past participle of "melt." The relatives of "melt" in the other Germanic languages tend to be directly connected to the closely related "smelt," and, as far as I can find, only English has both forms, "melt" and "smelt," with the latter being borrowed from Low German or Dutch, and more typically applied to the process of melting metal; whereas, in the other Germanic languages, it means the more general "melt." Icelandic has "melta," which means "digest;" that is, "the dissolving of food in the digestive system."  

^ This is the word meaning "to melt metal." English also has used the same spelling for a form of the past tense and participle of "smell," more common in England and other parts of Britain, although not uncommon in "spoken" American English. 

The Struggles For Change Are Timeless

This was first published in April 2014.


I suppose way, way back in time, one group of early humans yelled over to another group of early humans in the next tree and said something like, "You know, if we go live in that opening over there in the side of that big clump of soil and rock, we could have protection from the weather, we won't have to worry as much about lightening and forest fires (after all, there was no "Smoky the Bear, as yet), we'd be safer from predators and we could go out to get our food right from there. Being on the ground, maybe could actually put some of the seeds in the soil and grow some of our own food." The other group likely gasped and replied, "Oh my, we've been swinging through the trees for years, if we were meant to live in such a place, we'd be there. We've survived all this time, we don't need to go changing anything. Don't go rocking the tree" (I guess they said that, because boats hadn't been invented yet), and besides, there are bats in that place. And you want us to go live in there? Why they'd come flying in, scaring the Neanderthal right out of us. No wonder our neighbor three trees down* told us you are dangerous with all your newfangled ideas. Yep, Rushes Limbbough warned us about you. He said no one's going to get him off his ass in a tree to climb down and go putting seeds in the soil. He only charged us a handful of nuts and a handful of berries to tell us that, too."

Change is tough, the bigger the change, the tougher it becomes. The struggle of women to even begin to fully integrate into American jobs didn't happen because a bunch of old, white businessmen suddenly woke up one day and said, "Gee, we've had a revelation, and we're going to hire more women, and we're even going to give some a chance at leadership positions." It took work and, yes, some confrontation, although World War Two provided women with the opportunity to enter jobs long seen as the preserve of men. While much of the prewar mentality returned when the war ended, things have never been the same, and women have made a long, slow climb into many jobs, including top corporate jobs, although they still lag behind men in many areas, as well as in pay in many jobs. In 2008 Democrats had an epic presidential nomination battle, pitting former First Lady Hillary Clinton against then Senator Barack Obama, a man of mixed black and white race. With Republicans in deep trouble at that time, the Democratic nominee was likely to be the next president, bringing either our first woman or first person of (known) black heritage to the presidency. While this thought was tantalizingly positive to some, it scared the absolute Neanderthal, ah, I mean, hell out of others. A guy I knew back then, a life long Democrat, was terribly upset over the choice in the Democratic primary, saying, "Some choice, a b----, or a n-----." His racism trumped his disdain for women, and he voted for Hillary in the primary, only to switch to McCain in the general election. I'm pretty certain he officially became a Republican after the election. Obama's election mobilized the racists and bigots who became determined to bring him down, even if it brought the country down in the process. Had Hillary Clinton been elected, it would have mobilized the Clinton haters, and those terrified of women in high places, to seek her demise.** We already had a prelude to a Hillary presidency, as Republicans relentlessly pursued both of the Clintons in the 1990s. Change scares some people because of its uncertainty, but it scares others, because they're afraid it will succeed.

* Compare that to the modern music group, "Three Doors Down."

** Not all opponents of Obama are racists or bigots, nor are all opponents of Hillary Clinton anti-women, but it speaks volumes that many of those who are such have gravitated to one political party.

WORD HISTORY:
Limb-This word is of uncertain heritage, although an Indo European root form, "elei/lei," with the notion ''bend, flexible," is a possibility. The Germanic forms seem, however, to be exclusive to Germanic, as there appear to be no known relatives in other languages, including those of Indo European derivation. Old Germanic had "lithuh," with the meaning of "extremity, appendage, body part." This gave Old English "lith," which meant "appendage, tree branch, joint, body part." A variant of the Old Germanic word, "limuh," emerged, but why the change to "m" from "th" is unknown, but it too meant "body part, extremity, tree branch." This gave Old English "lim," a form which lasted for hundreds of years, before the ending "b" began to be used circa 1600, but with no apparent reason, although the same happened to "thumb" prior to "limb." Could it have been, in both cases, a dialect where the ending came out with a "b" sound pronounced? Or, in the case of "limb," it could have been a spelling influenced by Latin "limbus," and the derived "limbo," neither of which is related to English "limb." In most cases, the other Germanic languages have words resembling Old English "lith," a word no longer used in English, as "lim(b)" became the prevailing word, but Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all have "lem," for "limb,' and Icelandic has the compound "útlimum," for "limb."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Six

"The Republicans Come Roaring Back-1994"

Republicans went after Bill and Hillary Clinton early on and sometimes the First Couple (or their appointees) provided them with ammunition and painted large targets on their own backs. I'm just going to touch briefly on a few so called "scandals" during the Clinton administration,* although some are highly complicated, but there are many sources you can check for further, more detailed information. Several employees in the White House Travel Office were fired not long after Clinton took office. The office managed travel and communications for the White House Press Corps. The very nature of the office made it close with the travel industry, and of course, also with the Press Corps.** Republicans charged the employees were fired so that Clinton friends could take the positions or get business through the office. The White House claimed the FBI had found some possible improprieties and so the White House fired the staff. The suspicious thing was, people from a company from Arkansas, with ties to the Clintons, were the replacements for the fired staffers, and an airline run by a strong Clinton supporter (used by the Clinton campaign during the election) wanted the business for transporting the Press. As with so many legal situations, the matter dragged on for years, but Independent Counsel Ken Starr later absolved President Clinton for any wrongdoing, and Hillary Clinton was found to have made incorrect/false statements relating to the firings, but there was insufficient evidence to prove that she knowingly lied. The whole matter was much more complicated than I have laid out, but the point is, the administration's judgment and ethics, early on, came under fire.

Vince Foster, a highly respected attorney, was a long time friend and associate of the Clintons. He became a member of the administration when Bill Clinton took office. His personality and temperament, however, were not suited to the public role and personal attacks so common in politics, particularly in Washington, and he became increasingly depressed. Some missteps in background checks for appointees to the administration,*** and then the Travel Office controversy, brought critical comments and articles from parts of the media. Foster's depression worsened until he went to a park and took his own life. With the strife surrounding the early months of the Clinton administration in full swing, and more developing almost every day, especially over the Whitewater Development Corporation (see below), conspiracy theorists, including right wingers and some Republicans, essentially put out the idea that one or both Clintons had somehow been involved in Foster's death to keep him quiet, since he had done legal work on their behalf, besides his work in the White House. While early investigations into Foster's death concluded he died by his own hand, the conspiracy mongers would not stop. So, you had the President of the United States being called a "murderer" by some, and not in the context of military actions. Later, Independent Counsels Ken Starr and Robert Fiske both investigated the matter and determined Foster's death to be a suicide.

Late in Clinton's first term, information surfaced about hundreds of FBI files on individuals having been delivered to the White House, without the consent of the individuals involved. Many of the files were about Republicans, some even dating back to Reagan administration personnel. The matter quickly heated to a boil as Republicans, eyeing the coming election, hoped to unseat Clinton, but also because it represented such a breech of privacy. Republicans speculated (or accused) the White House of putting together a Nixon-like list of enemies and then gathering FBI information on those individuals. Hillary Clinton's role also came into question again, as Republicans wondered if she had actually seen some of the files, as they believed Hillary to be responsible for the hiring of Craig Livingstone (who resigned over "Filegate," as it came to be known), the man who requested the files from the FBI. The matter was passed onto Independent Counsel Starr for further investigation, and later Starr cleared the Clintons from involvement in "Filegate," and also announced that there was no indication of any use, let alone misuse, of information contained in the files.

The "Whitewater" matter is highly complex and would require several articles to explain and to list the principle "players." For those interested there are many articles on the subject, so check online, or better yet, check your local library, but of course, opinions on the subject are colored by politics from both sides. The controversy centered around a land deal in the late 1970s and early 1980s involving the Clintons as investors. The deal failed and the Clintons suffered financial losses. One of their partners in the deal then went into the banking business and was subsequently investigated for another land deal, which then brought the Whitewater matter to attention, as he also helped raise money for Clinton's Arkansas political campaigns and Hillary Clinton, then a practicing attorney for a law firm, did legal work for him. Another banker alleged that then Governor Bill Clinton leaned on him to provide a loan to this Clinton supporter and business partner (in the original Whitewater deal) for the later land deal (the Clintons did not invest in this), which prompted the investigation. This investigation helped lead to the collapse of the man's bank and its takeover by the government to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Hey, I told you this stuff was complex AND I'm only scratching the surface. Anyway, a special prosecutor asked the Clintons for documents which they said they couldn't find, but which were later turned over. To be as concise as possible, the Clintons were cleared of wrongdoing, but several of their associates were prosecuted and convicted on various charges. The Clintons and their supporters more or less said that some involved were being targeted to implicate the Clintons and that the investigation was about more than a land deal and a failed bank, but was rather more political. The wife of the banker of the failed bank served time in prison for not cooperating with the investigation of the Clinton role (if indeed there was one). The whole matter became part of an American soap opera starring the Clintons, a soap opera which also involved sex (I'll cover this aspect later).

Meanwhile, crime was a major focus of the electorate and congressional Democrats proposed "midnight basketball" as one of its solutions. The country was not impressed, and the combination of the various scandals, the failure of the health care proposal, and what the public felt were ineffective measures to combat crime, led to a huge Republican election wave in the 1994 midterm election, and the GOP took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades. Now, could Republicans, Democrats and the White House work together to address the concerns of the American people?

Next... "The Government Shuts Down and Clinton Runs Again"

* I say "so called  scandals," because accusations against politicians in either party doesn't make the accusations true, and political affiliations often color the view about any such accusations.

** The employees technically served at the pleasure of whomever was President at the time, but in fact, the office was really staffed by people who had been there from previous administrations. The office was part of the federal budget, but the actual accommodations for the Press were billed to each separate news organization.

*** The Clinton administration had difficulties with several appointments, as opponents found openings to discredit the appointees, bringing some in the media to dub the White House, "the White House that can't shoot straight." Investigations into the backgrounds of the appointees was under Vince Foster's supervision.

WORD HISTORY:
Cleat-This is another word related to "clot, clod, cloud, clout, cloth, clothes, clothe, and clad." Like its relatives, it goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere," with the further sense, "form into a ball, mass." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings. The sense "form into a ball or mass" helped give Old English "cleat" (which was likely pronounced clee-aht), which meant "lump, mass," with that idea then progressing to "wedge," the meaning which lasted for centuries, until by the 1800s, it came to be used for a "wedge of wood or metal attached to a shoe for support on turf." The Old English form "cleat" later became "clete," with a likely pronunciation of "clee-tah/clee-teh," before the modern version.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Five

"The Democrats Return To the White House: Bill Clinton"

Bill Clinton took the oath of office in January 1993. To deal with the Federal deficit, Clinton decided to increase revenues; that is, taxes, mainly on the highest incomes in the land. This went totally against the conservative Republican idea of supply side economics that had been pushed since Ronald Reagan had taken office. Republicans predicted the end of the world to be near, but President Clinton stuck to his general plan. By the summer of 1993 the plan had passed and been signed into law, all without the vote of even one Republican in either house of Congress. Politically folks, this is very risky business, for if the end of the world scenario developed, Republicans could all say, "We told you so," but on the other hand, if no such demise appeared on the horizon, and if the deficit shrank and the economy picked up,* Republicans could not claim to have had anything to do with it, El Zilcho.

The plan passed and signed into law raised taxes on the top 1.2%, added about four cents to the gasoline tax, while cutting taxes for millions of lower income Americans and small businesses. President Clinton had difficulty holding enough Democratic votes to get the measure passed, as some Democrats defected, but pass it did, by just two votes in the House and by one vote in the Senate, that margin provided by Vice President Al Gore, who was permitted by the Constitution to break a tie vote in the Senate. Wealthy Republicans undoubtedly awaited the end of the world scenario by thinking along the lines of Thurston Howell III, of "Gilligan's Island" fame, who, when faced with what he believed was their imminent demise, implored his wife to help him figure out a way to take their tremendous wealth with them. More on the economy later.

Then Clinton took on another contentious issue, health care. Hillary Clinton headed a committee to put together a plan to provide national health care to Americans. The large and complex plan was highly popular for about a week or two, as Republicans and insurance companies picked the plan apart and successfully scared the hell out of Americans, and the whole matter brought even more scrutiny to Hillary Clinton. Polls showed the plan's popularity fell like a rock, and eventually it couldn't make it through Congress, even though Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. Politically, the lasting effects of the failure, plus scandal charges against the Clintons, hurt Democrats in the upcoming midterm election. (I'll cover the scandals in the next part.)

Gun control was also a hot topic and Congress passed the "Brady Bill," which required background checks on gun purchases. The bill was named for Ronald Reagan's press secretary, who was seriously wounded during the assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981. The former president wrote an editorial supporting passage of the bill, although the National Rifle Association strongly opposed it. So Ronald Reagan supported some gun control.

Then the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known by its initials, NAFTA, became the next heated discussion. The agreement was highly complex, but it essentially made a trade bloc of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico by eliminating trade and investment barriers between those countries. On this issue, Clinton and all the living former presidents supported passage, but the bill terribly divided Democrats, and it took free trade Republicans to provide the votes in Congress to pass.** It also brought Ross Perot to the fore again, as the former presidential candidate opposed the agreement. In a highly touted television debate with Vice President Al Gore, watched by millions of Americans, Perot made points, but he had difficulty explaining many things, especially where money was coming from to oppose the agreement and in refuting the charge by Gore that Perot stood to make financial gain from the defeat of the agreement.

In the midst of all of these hot-button issues came another, a social issue. Clinton supported allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military, provided they kept their sexual orientation secret, but the military could not ask about their orientation either. Clinton's stand satisfied few, but especially on the political right, where any attempt to allow gay people to legally serve in the military was opposed. The provisions came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." 

Next, "Republicans Come Roaring Back"

* The recession of 1990-91 may have officially ended in 1991, but the recovery was painfully slow, with layoffs continuing for quite some time. The slow growth and relatively high unemployment contributed greatly to George Bush's defeat in 1992 at the hands of Bill Clinton, who was more than happy to remind voters of such with one of his campaign slogans, "It's the economy, stupid," 

** The living former presidents at the time were: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush (Sr.). The complexity of the measure would require an article of its own just to begin to explain it. In the vote in both houses of Congress, more Republicans voted in favor than Democrats, many of whom were correctly (in my opinion) concerned about the impact on American manufacturing jobs. Unions generally strongly opposed the agreement. 

WORD HISTORY:
Cloud-This is another word closely related to recently covered "clod, clot, clout, cloth, clothes, clothe," and also to "clad," by the way, which I didn't cover separately, but which was the past tense and participle form of "clothe," although it is still used today as in, "The lady was well clad in a brand new dress," and often in combination with "scantily," as in "The scantily clad sunbathers shocked some people."  Like its relatives listed above, "cloud" goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere," with the further sense, "form into a ball." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings.The sense "form into a ball or mass" helped give Old English "clud," which then meant "mass of rock/stone." By the 1200s the word was beginning to overtake the English word for "cloud," which was "wolcen" (German still has "Wolke," Low German Saxon has "Wulk," Dutch and West Frisian have "wolk," and English has the archaic "welkin"), as the English saw the resemblance of rock formations to be like "clouds," and to my knowledge, English is the only Germanic language to have that meaning. Old English "clud" then became "cloude, clude," before the modern version.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Four

"The 1992 Campaign and Election" Part Two

Bill Clinton, the Democratic governor of Arkansas, won the Democratic presidential nomination and he chose Senator Al Gore of Tennessee as his vice presidential running mate; the two men were both in their mid 40s, which was perhaps a plus to some younger voters. Clinton's reputation for word play began in earnest when he admitted to having tried marijuana, but "I didn't inhale." Then he caused some Republicans to have a stroke when he told voters, "Vote for one, but get two," in reference to his activist wife, Hillary. This brought scrutiny to Hillary's life too, especially her business dealings and legal representations (she was an attorney), something that would continue for years. Questions of Bill Clinton's infidelity became rather common, but he went on national television to deny such. This too was an issue that would continue to haunt Clinton and the country in the coming years.

Meanwhile, the talk of the nation still centered around Ross Perot, who still was riding high in the polls, although a bit less so as spring turned into summer. Perot appeared to be thin skinned as the media checked into his life, and by July, Perot announced he would not run, citing the potential for the election to be so split in the Electoral College, that it would have to be decided by the House of Representatives.* Later Perot said he had dropped out as Republicans had planned dirty tricks to disrupt his daughters wedding. Later, Perot asserted that the CIA was involved in trying to destroy his campaign by tapping into his stock trading program to prevent him from financing his campaign, and there were other unsubstantiated charges of assassination plots, etc. The White House and the Bush campaign leaders called it all nonsense. Perot's poll numbers tumbled and Bill Clinton's rose, putting the Democrat ahead of the field. Later Perot decided to get back into the race. On top of the display of paranoia, Perot had selected retired, highly decorated Vice Admiral James Stockdale as his running mate. During the vice presidential debate, Stockdale, who had had little time to prepare for the debate, looked into the television cameras and asked, "Who am I? Why am I here?" Stockdale's apparent confusion and lack of focus throughout the debate produced a series of one liners from comedians and it further called into question the judgment, if not the very sanity, of Ross Perot. The thing was, Perot's paranoia and conspiracy theories played right into the minds of a number of Americans obsessed with such things, and to whom Republican tricks were assumed to be commonplace, no proof required.   

President Bush struggled throughout the campaign and his poll numbers remained in the upper 30s. The economy weighed on Bush, and his numerous public appearances after the Gulf War may have taken the edge off of having a presidential visit, as some Bush rallies were sparsely attended, and the campaign took to using celebrities, and up and coming conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh to draw people in. By the time election day arrived, the Republican coalition had melted to a great degree, as so called "Reagan Democrats" often returned to the Democratic fold, and even some southern states returned to the Democratic column after a substantial absence.** In the end Bill Clinton won 43% of the vote, but a large margin of 370 electoral votes, while George Bush received only 37 1/2% of the popular vote and 168 electoral votes. While Perot did not carry a single state, he got nearly 19% of the national vote, and he received more than 20% of the vote in some states. The Republicans had controlled the White House for 20 of the past 24 years at that point (only Jimmy Carter's four years broke the chain). The question now was, could Clinton put together a new Democratic coalition to gain 50% or more of the vote?

* Just to be clear, the process of getting Perot onto the ballot in all states was still in the process, although it was becoming pretty much of a certainty. 

** There's no question that having Clinton and Gore, two Southerners, on the Democratic ticket helped in the South, but still the election showed how much the South had changed politically, as Bush carried most southern states, even with the two Southerners running against him.

WORD HISTORY:
Clothe-Like its close relatives covered here recently (cloth, clothes, clout, clod, and clot), this verb, meaning "to put on clothing, to dress, to put clothes on someone," goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere." This then gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," and then "klutaz," which meant "piece of material," and also, "material used to cover something." and the derived variant "klaithan," with the meaning "material used to cover something," thus "clothing, garments." This gave Old Germanic a verb form, presumed by some to be something like "klaithonan," meaning "to clothe, to put on clothing, to dress." This gave Old English "geclathian," meaning "to clothe, put on clothes." This later dropped the prefix and became "clothen," before the modern version. German has "kleiden," Low German Saxon and Dutch have "kleden," West Frisian has "klean" (notice the "d," "t" or "th" sound is gone), Danish has "klaede," Icelandic has "klaetha," Norwegian has "kle" (notice the absence of an ending present in the other Germanic languages), Swedish has "kläda."

The Rules Should Apply To All

The 2008 presidential campaign, which started....ah.... like 24 minutes after the polls closed in 2004, has given us some dramatic changes in the political landscape. These changes have made it difficult to follow the "rules" of campaigning, and I guess we're still feeling our way, although to a somewhat lesser degree than a during the primaries. What do I mean? Let's see if I can sort this out....

The primary season kicked off with a very strong woman candidate, Hillary Clinton, being the front runner on the Democratic side, and a strong possible winner in the general election . Now, the rules for her seem to have been somewhat different than for recent GOP vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, until very recently, anyway. Why? Clinton supporters may not like to hear this, but Hillary was an EXCEPTIONAL candidate (they'll like that part), but by being a former First Lady of eight years, and also having been an adviser, or at least perceived to have been a close adviser to her husband (something they used in the 1992 campaign-"Vote for one and get two!), she had taken some hits from the media and the public over various things, perhaps most notably over her heading the secretive government health care reform committee. Later, when she ran for the Senate, she was in a campaign that, at least initially, got pretty tough. When she ran for president, she was already an experienced public figure. Knowing her as they did, the media didn't always cut her a hell of a lot of slack, and that's fine with me (Hillary supporters, please read further, before you get all excited).

When John McCain announced that his pick for a running mate was Sarah Palin, many people, even many people who paid attention to politics said, "Who?" It took several days for news and talk show people to get the pronunciation of her last name down pat. The McCain campaign proceeded to insist that Palin was highly qualified, but they essentially hid her away from public interviews. At first she was highly popular, perhaps because she was a fresh face, and I would argue because very few Americans really knew much about her, including the conservative base she was supposed to appeal to. Her digs at the media did nothing but give her a further boost in the public's eyes. At first, this "hide the candidate from the media" strategy seemed to work. But after a couple of weeks, Americans seemed to want to know more about this person who might not only become vice president, but potentially president. When the interviews came, they were NOT always very pretty. Despite the McCain campaign's insistence, Sarah Palin was NOT qualified, at this point, to become vice president, and certainly not president. Living near Russia is not a qualification, and when the comedians got hold of that line, Palin took some serious hits to her credibility. The interview with Katie Couric was a disaster, and since that time, Palin has seemingly been a drag on the Republican ticket, as far as the broad cross-section of the American electorate is concerned, although even some conservative columnists have recently tossed her under the bus.

A few years ago, Barrack Obama won a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. He gave a much lauded speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and I guess along about the latter part of 2006 he made it clear that he would be a candidate for president in 2008. As events unfolded, it seemed that Obama's run for the presidency would be doomed to fail, as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were seen as the top Democratic candidates, early on. When Obama stunned the political world, and definitely his challengers, in the Iowa caucuses, he was off and running, and became a viable candidate for president. Now, you can argue with the overall details, but he went through the process and wasn't hidden away from questions by the media. His qualifications were challenged, and that's all fair game for a person aspiring to any office, let alone THE office. There's no question in my mind that many in the media took a liking to him, and the fact that he was giving Hillary a run for her money endeared him to many more, both media and non-media. For the media, this was THE story, and with the media, THE story trumps any liking they may have for a particular politician. I'd argue that many in the media probably liked Bill Clinton and agreed with many of his policies, but when the scandals erupted, they went after him with great fervor.

The problem with all three of these high profile candidacies is that they presented problems for their challengers and for the media, at least in the minds of the pundits. We've heard such rules as "You can't talk down to her," or "You can't be condescending to her," or "You can't seem to be dismissive of him." The whole point was/is, during the primaries, many women, but certainly not all, wanted Hillary to win, because she is a woman. Some claim otherwise, some even adamantly so, but let's lay the cards on the table. That was one of the reasons. The thing is, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. We vote for, or against candidates for any number of reasons that weren't part of our high school Civics class. Further, many African-Americans want Obama to win because he's black (the fact that he's half white doesn't seem to matter, to pro-Obama or anti-Obama folks). I suppose there's also an element of support for Sarah Palin because of her gender, but I'd say far less so than with Hillary. On the other hand, there were/are people AGAINST Hillary, Palin, and/or Obama because of their gender or race.

When the vice presidential debate was about to take place, the pundits started about Biden not being able to say this to or about Palin. To me, the pundits can say what they want, but in the end, it is up to voters to listen and watch and then decide what they thought of each candidate. Our views of such can definitely be influenced by our gender (or in the presidential debates, by our race). Let's not be naive here. It was pointed out that when then vice president George Bush (SENIOR) faced off against the first woman vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, in the debate in 1984, that she zinged him with a comment that he didn't have to "explain" things to her; with the implication being that he was doing so because she was a woman. The media loved it and this incident has oft been shown in recent news/talk shows. What seems to have failed to register is, SHE LOST! The Mondale-Ferraro ticket lost 49 states, and damned near lost the fiftieth by only a couple of thousand votes!!!

None of us likes everything the media reports, that's why overall the media is fairer than we realize, or at least that we care to admit. The media wants a story, any story. Any reporter wants to get the scoop of his or her life and win some prestigious award for journalism. The individual reporters and anchor people may favor one candidate over another, but in the end, the story is almost always what matters, even if it hurts "their" personal favorite. In more recent times, all points of view get an airing in the media, and while I may not like it when my candidate or an issue I feel deeply about gets knocked, in the end my candidate and my precious issues do get coverage in the media. I just wish they'd always AGREE WITH ME! Folks, that's what much of this stuff over the media is really about. We want them to give our views or candidates favorable presentations, and while we may not always wish for it, we'd probably like it just as much if they'd lambaste the other point of view or candidate to the point of destroying them. On any given day, there may well be a point where candidate X got a raw deal from "the media," but chances are, the next day or two that same media will give that candidate a boost. Republicans frequently whine how the media favors Democrats, but let's see, who usually wins the elections? ..... Republicans! (Now there's a DOUBLE win: victory in elections AND getting to play the victim.) To the defenders of Sarah Palin, I don't recall hearing much whining when she was the talk of the town, only now that the scrutiny has taken hold.

My personal belief is that "usually" the media is too timid with many candidates or office holders. The candidates need to be pressed, ala the way former ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson used to do, on what they really mean about certain issues and policies. I'm NOT advocating that race, gender, religion, or such be brought in by the media, but if it is, even subtly, the American people will react against such behavior, even if they don't necessarily agree with the attacked person's policies. All of this stuff about you can't ask this, and you can't ask that, or you have to ask it this way is a bunch of nonsense. We're talking about people seeking public office, and in the case of those mentioned above, HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE. The hell with their feelings, we need to know things. In the case of presidents and vice presidents, tough foreign leaders will not treat their feelings so kindly. In campaigns, candidates love to portray themselves as victims. I say, "Enough already! The standards applied for Hillary should be applied to all!"

Response To Hillary Comment

In the previous blog, Linda posted the following comment: "Hillary said what she had to say and she certainly wants her party to win. That said, like many, she is well aware that Obama's shine began to fade soon after the South Carolina victory - and he is perilously close to letting the presidency slip away. He barely gained the nomination and now he is falling in the polls every day.Obama got where he is by having 99%positive press coverage until Hillary was out of the way. Then, as soon as Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc. came out, he started to fade - and his many flip-flops have revealed him to be a politician, not an once-in-a-lifetime agent of change.If nothing else contradicted his CHANGE theme, the selection of BIDEN for VP certainly did. - The consummate Washington insider and a huge disappointment.John King on CNN said one day that some in his campaign call Obama - OBAM-E, the E standing for ego. Even for the sake of his party, he would NOT nominate Hillary for the VP - and he never considered her.So, Hillary did her thing last night - so magnificently - and he can never match her.In the end she has won the hearts of MOST Democrats, even those now suffering from Obama Buyer's Remorse. However, she has lost what she wanted most: to have her party in power so the lives of Americans can be improved."


My verbose, I mean, informative response:

Your point about media coverage is certainly valid, although I find it ironic that in 2000, the media had a love affair with John McCain.


"Washington" takes a hit from virtually every American, and many times deservedly so, but the reality of politics is much like the weather, "Everybody complains about it, but nobody does anything about it." Without gaining power in Washington, neither party can attempt to enact their respective agendas. Biden has been a Washington fixture since I was...well...a long time. He brings lots of experience to the ticket, especially in foreign policy, something Obama lacks, but also in Washington savvy. Jimmy Carter tried to be the outsider and reform Washington candidate, but as president, we all know how that ended. Change is usually incremental in American society, barring some dramatic event, like the Great Depression, which gave Roosevelt the opportunity to push through lots of legislation in his famous "100 days" and "The New Deal." When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they had a huge agenda, and what they perceived to be a mandate for change. What they found was that change is easy to talk about, but not so easy to implement. In all due respect, they helped to change America in that time, along with Bill Clinton.

Early on in the primary campaign, I must admit that I was "leaning" ever so slightly to Hillary. There is something amazing, however, in that many Democrats seemed to be looking elsewhere for an alternative to her. Obama's win in Iowa brought a large number of supporters to him, and it certainly gave him lots of favorable press coverage. Let us not forget, many Democrats were looking for an alternative to Hillary. These weren't Republicans.

For Hillary (and Bill), their years of experience also had a negative side. I guess you could say, their strength was also their weakness. To their favor was the fact that EVERYBODY knew Hillary, and she had no problem with name recognition. Further, they had loads of contacts and friends within the Democratic Party power structure, including the ability to raise lots of money for her campaign. On the other side, being so well known has its negative side, as polls all showed Hillary with the highest negatives of any Democrat in the race. Part of that, in my opinion, transferred to her from her husband, fairly or unfairly (no one has ever claimed that politics is fair). By winning in New Hampshire, Hillary seemed to stop the bleeding, but the open wound was really just beginning to fester. The Clinton campaign seemed knocked off stride, and what had seemingly been a march to the coronation... I mean nomination, became a brutal slug fest. Bill Clinton seemed to have run off the "bridge to the 21st Century," as he failed to comprehend that with 24 hour news and the Internet, virtually anything and everything said or done by high profile individuals, like himself, will be reported in the media.

There's no need to go over the rest of the campaign, as we all know what happened, but there's no question that Hillary made Obama a better national candidate, and that he made her a better candidate. And she did get better! Much better! Thus the campaign dragged on as Obama, while leading continuously, was unable to put the race for the nomination completely away.

Hillary's speech to the convention was certainly a great one, and I, too, wondered if Obama could top it, BUT HE DID!!!

To kind of finish up here, there's just something about the Clintons that make people suspicious of their motives; that they always have their own interests first and foremost. Maybe "Clinton fatigue" plays a part, but again, these feeling aren't just out there among Republicans, but many Democrats, too.

Hillary Clears The Bases

I've never been much of a Hillary fan, but I've got to tell you that her speech to the Democratic Convention was absolutely tremendous!!! She's really come a long way in her public speaking performances, as was evident in the later primaries, but for her though, it came a bit too late to overtake Obama in the delegate count; although, in typical Clinton fashion, she and Bill tried to make the primaries about popular vote when they couldn't get the delegate count on their side. All of that is now past, and she gave a truly astounding speech in support of the Democratic Ticket. She even gave John McCain a couple of smacks upside the head. Of course, she didn't fail to give her husband a pat on the back for the 1990s. I kind of think that if she had left that out, Bill would have gone into pouting mode. She talked about health care and supporting working people, something dear to this old guy's heart, as you may already know, if you read this blog on any kind of regular basis. Her husband, Joe Biden, and indeed, Obama himself have their work cut out for them to equal what Hillary did. I'm sure many of her true supporters will take heart and support Obama. There will always be some who will go their own way.

The only criticism I can give to the speech was that Hillary didn't exactly wrap her arms around the Obama-Biden ticket in a personal way. Her support was given because of shared goals and concerns. So many Americans are always at least a little skeptical about anything the Clintons are involved with, and I'm one of them. She cleared the bases for Obama, and I'm sure that both she and Bill will campaign for Obama, but there's always that lingering suspicion in my mind about who they will end up actually voting for.

Can They Pick The Lock?

Lately we've had "The Hillary & Bill Show," which used to be called "The Bill & Hillary Show," trying every creative way to say how they can still be nominated by the Democratic Party for president (notice I said "they" ). Now I believe in the slogan, "Keep hope alive," but this has gotten a bit ridiculous. Sure, anything could happen between now and the nominating convention in August, but Obama has a substantial lead in delegates, and there aren't enough delegates still to be elected to help the Clintons catch Obama, even if they won all of them. Then of course, there are those "super delegates." Now, there are enough of those delegates still undeclared to help the Clintons, if they won like most of the elected delegates and then got like all of the super delegates. I'm not sure, but maybe Democrats then have "super duper delegates," and I don't know how many of those folks are available. Since the delegate count is not very promising for the Clintons, they have decided to roll out a different standard, declaring victory in the "popular vote" total. I saw a clip of Hillary in Florida saying that the "popular vote" was really what counts. And here I thought it was about convention delegates! I'd better take a refresher course in Political Science. Further, the Clintons have declared that the Florida and Michigan primary votes should be counted, even though their own supporters on the Democratic National Committee (and presumably with the nod of the Clintons) voted to "punish" both states for moving their primaries forward. Of course, that was when the Clintons were considered to be "locks" for the nomination. Since that time, the Clintons lost the "key" to the "lock," and they've been searching desperately for some way to pick the lock.

The problem for the Clintons becomes, if they pick the lock, but the lock on that door rightfully belongs to someone else, will they do irreparable harm to themselves and, more especially, to the Democratic Party, at a time when the country needs to boot the Republicans.

The explanations that the Clintons want to stay in the nominating race in case "something" happens, so that they will then be asked to head the Democratic ticket is nonsense! "If" there were to be "something" happen to Obama prior to the convention, or June, or whatever the time period of the moment is, just who would Democrats turn to as a presidential nominee, the Mayor of Cleveland? Let's see... what's his name?

Looks To Me Like The Dems Have A Nominee

I'd say the Democratic race is now over, barring some major revelation about Obama, or something physically happening to him. It has been difficult, because as the other candidates fell to the wayside, it left the first Black presidential candidate with a realistic chance for the nomination vs. the first woman with a realistic chance for the nomination. (Do you remember Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican senator from Maine? I always liked her!!!) It has caused problems for the two campaigns, as they had to feel their respective ways so as not to offend supporters in the other camp. With few major differences on policy between Obama and Clinton, the race became more about their personalities. The pundits kept asking two questions, 1) "What has happened to Hillary, who less than a year ago was the presumptive nominee?" 2) Once Obama took the lead, "Why can't he put her away? He's had several chances, but he can't close the deal."

To me, the answers are generally obvious, but when you're on cable television 24/7, you've got to fill the time with any nonsense... I mean "news" that you can. So, as to #1, the Clintons are not everyone's cup of tea. It is interesting (I'd say "telling") that a good number of former Clinton Administration members, and Democratic Party officials endorsed Obama!!! If you recall, when Bill Richardson endorsed Obama, he bore the brunt of some very nasty remarks from Clinton people. The thing that I've noticed so many folks have said is, that the Clintons are for the Clintons. Now you may disagree, but I think there's a good deal of truth to that. Remember too, Bill Clinton did NOT receive a majority of the vote in either of his presidential wins. Throughout his presidency, public opinion polls consistently showed poor marks for his being "trustworthy." As I recall, even people identifying themselves as Democrats gave him relatively low marks on this issue. A husband and wife I know, both very staunch Democrats, were even outspoken about their uneasiness over Bill Clinton's shading of the truth (others would say his "lying," but I'll leave my comment stand, as you get the drift) and what they both felt were his attempts to manipulate the Press. Now, all presidents and administrations try to manipulate the Press, but maybe Bill and his folks were just a little better at it. I do remember the wife bluntly telling me that she was afraid that Bill would start a war to divert attention from his other problems, and that she just didn't trust him. Her husband didn't say whether he agreed with his wife or not, but the point again is, these were die hard Democrats, not Republicans, or even independents saying these things. Okay, my point here, tortured though it may be, is that Hillary Clinton brought along a lot of baggage when she decided to run for president. You can't be part of the team ("Vote for one and get two") and not carry along the negatives felt toward the Clinton Administration by some over certain issues. During this campaign, in my opinion, Hillary has tried to pick and choose what she says she supported or opposed in her husband's administration. If you want to take credit for the sunshine, you gotta take the blame for the rain. Too much fancy footwork for me.

Along came Obama, who was a gifted public speaker (Hillary has improved immensely!) a fresh face, and a possible alternative to Hillary. Young folks began to flock to his banner, and the next thing you knew, he was winning some primaries and caucuses. The Clinton team seemed taken by surprise, and in my opinion, it hasn't been until the last six weeks or so that they seemed to have regained their footing, but it has been too little, too late.

Now, as to #2, laying aside all that I've mentioned above about #1, Obama has had trouble putting the nail into Hillary's coffin (figuratively speaking, of course) because of the reciprocal of #1. Presidents and First Ladies have core supporters and are well known. In this case at one point, if you recall, Obama asked, and with good reason in my opinion, who he was actually running against, Bill or Hillary. The Clintons have many, many contacts across the country. They were able to raise money and stay in the game just because of who they are (ah, or is that, who she is? I told you it's tough to separate these two!). For those of you old enough to remember, Ted Kennedy found out how difficult it is to defeat an incumbent president in your own party, when he ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Now I know you're saying, "But the Clintons aren't incumbents." Technically you're right, but in my opinion, it is like they are indeed running for a third term.

Does This Experience Count?

This is an interesting article about Hillary Clinton's "experience" as First Lady. I hope you'll read it and form your own opinions. Naturally, as people run for office, any office, they try any and every angle to draw votes; "Vote for me for dog catcher! Why? Because I own a dog!" This article begins, or continues, to assess Mrs. Clinton's role as First Lady, and that role is certainly fair game in presidential politics. Every candidate should receive scrutiny, and this is just part of the scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22395503/