I'm tired of Obama and Biden and everyone else prefacing every criticism of McCain with the respect they have for McCain's service to the country, blah, blah, blah. Anyone who is going to vote for McCain because he was a POW has already made the choice.

Its time to make the case that "honor" is not only earned in a five-year stint in the Hanoi Hilton. It is earned over the course of a lifetime (and earned honor can in fact be squandered). When one looks at the entirety of his life, McCain is not a particularly honorable guy.

Just a few examples: He entered the Naval Academy only because of  a legacy; he performed less than poorly while there; he stepped out on the injured wife who waited for him to return from the war; his new girlfriend (probably not coincedentally)became his political benefactor; on entering the Senate he became quickly embroiled in the Keating scandal; while preparing for his first Presidential run he made a horribly disparaging joke about a young defenseless Chelsea Clinton from a prepared text to a group of GOP funders (this at the young age of 61);and now, as the GOP nominee, he has taken Rovian politics to its near absolute nadir (I say near only because I can't say he won't take it lower).And I'm sure I'm missing other salient moments in his background.

Couple these facts with DeConcini's comments about his erraticism, the history of intemperate behavior, and the irresponsibility of his Vice-Presidential selection and an accurate picture of the man becomes clear. John McCain has not lived an honorable, decent life. We just need someone of stature to take the gloves off and say it. Any nominees? Because at this stage McCain is not a patriot, and he is dishonoring his country

Its easy to feel outrage at the spurious nonsense issued by Republican talking heads since the Palin nomination. But imagine how they feel. Forced to make bogus claims of  command authority by virtue of Palin's titular role as leader of the Alaska National Guard; required to fabricate international diplomatic experience due solely to the geographic proximity of Alaska and Russia; obliged to take moral umbrage over imagined sexism when Palin's job qualifications are legitimately questioned. Who would want that job? Yet, that is the unfortunate lot of these Republican surrogates. Like it or not, they, like their Democratic counterparts, are tethered to the party, are committed to it, and, in most cases, pay the bills based to some degree by its success. Don't for a minute think they don't realize they sound ridiculous. Can you imagine how angry they are with the McCain campaign? The Noonan/Murphy live-mic moment manifests it.

In the end, the selection of Palin underscores the dire straits of the GOP. Apparently, its Presidential nominee thinks this is the best it can offer. Is it? From an electoral standpoint, possibly, though not likely. Nevertheless, I suspect that this will create enormous morale problems and dissatisfaction within the party that will damage it on election day.

As with so much of the post-Super Tuesday intramurals in the Democratic presidential race, identifying the truly instructive aspects of an "issue" from the plainly meaningless or exasparatingly silly or the intentionally destructive components of that issue can be difficult. So to with the sturm und drang surrounding Barack Obama's bitterness comments. Yet, a close look at the comments and their aftermath sheds much light---on Hilary Clinton.

Let's be honest. What Obama said was not all that controversial or even particularly insightful. It certainly wasn't novel. Books have been written with that very premise. Commentators have argued the same point. Presidential candidates (dare I say the husband of the other Democratic contender) expressed virually the exact contention 17 years ago. So his opinion does not inform us in any significant way about him or how he would govern.
Hilary Clinton's response, on the other hand, provides more than a small glimpse into the manner in which she will govern. And, in my estimation, that is what is truly instructive about this circumstance.

Hilary Clinton immediately chastitised--and continues to chastise Obama--for elitism and for being out-of-touch. Although she claims that this should matter to Democratic voters because Republicans have succesfully exploited fears of  Democratic elitism in voters in the past, her real purpose is to destroy through any means the likely Democratic nominee for her own personal gain. In other words, her personal success matters most--though its dressed in words of party concern.

This is not a new strategy; one that began, as Josh seems to suggest in his thoughtful blog on the subject, with the Jeremiah Wright affair. Remember in mid-December, long before the Obama threat had even materialized for her campaign, the HRC New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen was forced to resign because he publicly raised the specter of Obama's past drug use in the context of Obama's electability once the Republican's got a hold of it. (As an aside, I somehow bet Shaheen is as out of her campaign as Mark Penn is). This strategy of destroying the opposition even if it may not be in the best interest of her party or even her own long-term interests is what is significant. And the fact that she is willing to do this in a circumstance in which she and Obama are basically mirror images (wealthy, senatorial political elites) speaks volumes.

This episode demonstrates, then, the core governing principles we can expect from an HRC presidency. She will govern not with an eye toward an electoral mandate, not with an eye toward the will of the people, not with an eye toward broad progressive policies or fundamental change. At her core, HRC will  govern to win, govern to succeed in the short term.  She will be hypocritical when necessary, vindictive when helpful. She will most certainly not make an effort to change the tone in Washington since that tone is the one that will have brought her to power. A Hilary Clinton presidency, at its best, will be one step forward, two steps back 

In policy terms, recall the litany of policies, issues and arguments that HRC has promoted to position herself for the presidency as a window into her potential administration. The 2005 anti-Flag burning bill she sponsored was a made-for-Fox TV moment. Her use of the fear card (somewhere Karl Rove must have been smiling) with the now infamous 3:00 a.m. phone call advertisement was indicative of a willingness to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. And, of course,  most disturbingly, her support of the Iraq war. That was a bad bet on the popularity of that conflict--a no-doubt mistaken belief that she would look unpatriotic if she took on the wisdom and legitimacy of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.     

Based on his comments, I don't know whether Obama is an elitist or out-of-touch. I doubt it, but this controversy sheds no light there. It does, though, demonstrate precisely how HRC will govern as president. She will move inexorably and instinctively and unapologetically to the right.

I agree with Josh. I think Obama clearly had his "A" game today. This was not a political rally that justified dramatic couplets and soundbites followed by raucous applause, so it cannot be measured in the same way as a speech in that forum. This was a measured, thoughtful account of his life in a racially divided country. It was noteworthy for its intelligence, sincerity and insight. Its hard to imagine another politician giving this speech let alone delivering it with such grace. It was truly moving for me. While I recognize it was a "campaign" speech and its impact on the campaign matters, at this particular moment I choose to evaluate it in isolation for the uniqueness of its message and the high quality of its messenger. On that score, it was a magnum opus for Obama--and a great moment for our country given its context.