Just some stuff I ran across

Catching up a little on my reading, I ran across a few interesting articles.

First, there is this piece from TNR (emphasis mine).

The issue of negative campaigning and its proper bounds is now dominating the Democratic campaign. In recent weeks, the neck-and-neck race has degenerated into a miasma of trivial flaps–the source of that photo of Barack Obama in Somali garb, the “gaffes” of Samantha Power and Geraldine Ferraro, and so on–only tenuously related to the question of whether Obama or Hillary Clinton would be a better president. Each side, angling for any edge, gins up pseudo-controversies. In response, each feigns indignation, claiming the other is hitting below the belt.

These skirmishes have yielded no discernible advantage. But the bickering has, troublingly, validated a piece of conventional wisdom among a liberal commentariat that was already tilting heavily toward Obama: that Clinton is “ruthless,” “vicious,” even “Nixonian”–an unscrupulous appendage of her husband’s “machine” (a word seldom used about the far better oiled Obama apparatus). As Obama’s guru David Axelrod would have it, “They are literally trying to do anything to win this nomination.” You hear it said everywhere, from blogs to high-toned op-ed pages. But this virulent meme is untrue, and–quite apart from the current contest–anyone who cares about liberalism and its future should be worried by its spread.

It’s a lengthy article but worth the read. And check the comments, too.

From the Washington Post is this article on the way both candidates have embellished their roles.

After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the “President’s Room,” just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators — including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: “Hey, guys, can I come along?” And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate — a list that included himself.

“I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who’ve actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out,” he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment.

Then there is this one, from Matt Gonzalez, who is running as Ralph Nadar’s vice president. Gonzalez looks at Obama’s record and concludes:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Finally, there’s this AP story:

They may bicker daily over issues, character and innuendo, but both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama appear to agree on one thing: Democratic voters will coalesce around a nominee and carry him or her to victory in November over Republican John McCain.

Back to work 😦