The Beltway Tuesday Blues

Today the Beltway votes. Half the supposedly "strait" news staff and most of the chattering bobbleheads that populate the political round-tables on on Fox and MSNBC and CNN have zip codes in North-West, Georgetown, and Chevy Chase - the tonier neighborhoods of the states and districts that are participating in today's Chesapeake Tuesday.

This is my home territory. Prior to relocating to Ohio I grew up in 'DC' - the natives almost never call it Washington, except when making categorical statements about it's unique culture - and I make it back there a few times a year. In many respects I call Ohio my home now, but there are often times when I'm reminded that, at heart, or perhaps by virtue of my disposition, I'm an East Coast guy.

As I've been watching the coverage today I've noticed a certain soul-searching tone. David Gregory looks a little less spry, and Andrea Mitchell seems to be wringing her hands more about Hillary's ultimate prospects. It occurs to me that these folks have had, or will soon have, a moment of truth in the intimate confines of the voting booth.

And the media blues may be related to the fact that we've been grinding away on the same stories for a while. To the extent that the media can muster any interest in the GOP side, there are two tired memes: McCain versus talk radio (Part LXXVII) and the likely-meaningless Hucakbee protest vote.

Everything else is Obama and Hillary. The Clintons have set very low expectations. This is done so that they can either chide the media for wrongfully covering a non-story - because Obama was supposed to win anyway - or they can chide the media for getting the story wrong, because she pulled off an upset. The common feature of both tacks is that the Clinton campaign has a choke collar on the fourth estate and a spiked heel on their back (just ask David Schuster).

One thing is for sure - this temporary stasis pattern cannot be tolerated. The media cannot abide the same political story for more than a week. Momentum has to shift in ways that make a headline. That means Obama pulls far ahead, or Hillary retakes the lead, or Huck somehow solves the math problem. Or a celebrity dies, or a bomb goes off. Something. The beast must be fed.

These February doldrums cannot be allowed to last.

Pronouns, Money, and America

Barack Obama is up against a mighty opponent. The Clinton machine is a network of mafia-like dues and obligations that has had thirty years and a presidency to extend itself. Obama has effectively side-stepped this, and gone right to the heart of our political process. The people.

It may seem like some weepy, romantic concept along with the hype about "hope" and "change" - but it's a concept that's on track to deliver 30 million dollars a months into the coffers of the hope-monger's campaign - all with, potentially, the nomination itself, while Hillary upends the cushions at the Chappaqua to look for cash.

Can you imagine any Republican anywhere fueling a bid for the White House on $25 and $50 checks? One reason campaign finance reform is anathema to Republicans is because the grassroots model would never work. If your world is mostly corporations, from your employer to the sub-development to your home full of products - it's a natural assumption that the culture of GOP politics would include big donors and corporate special interests.

The small-scale donors that have fueled the Obama effort are in line with the rhetoric that is emitting from the podium, which relies heavily on the first person plural. Unlike the first person singular, "I will do everything FOR you" bromides of his opponent Hillary - which have grown increasingly tiresome (not to mention condescending) in the past 40 years - Obama asserts the national "we" as the only means to accomplish anything politically.

Against "yes we can" the GOP is sending in John McCain. Even his detractors will admit he's a fighter, although usually against his own team. He certainly seems to own his pronouns, "us and them" per the (say it with me) transcendental challenge of our times, militant Islam.

Obama's first person plural might seem like socialism to some people, who may think such let's-do-it-together concepts should be banished to harmless, impractical places like Kindergarten or Church. Ours is a world where one must man up and carve out a slice of the American pie - and if our rivals lose a finger or two in the process, those are the breaks. Hate the game, not the player (said Shakespeare, I think).

There's much about Obama's politics that I find alarming, and even dangerous. But it seems to me there's much appeal in the notion of an inclusive, uplifting "we" at this time in our history. And it wouldn't be the first time, either - come to think of it, if I recall correctly, it's the first word in the Declaration of Independence.

Reagan and Darth Vader

Jack Kelly observes the carnage and brutality that have occupied the Republican field lately and concludes:

Both Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney are too flawed to reunite and reinvigorate a dispirited Republican party. There is only one candidate who can do that. And she might lose to Barack Obama.

As one who has followed the Obama campaign very closely, and as the son of a family of Kennedy Democrats who came to their senses to vote Reagan in 1980, I can say with certainty that something fundamental has changed again this year. The only question is how it plays out.

There are plenty of 50 somethings on autopilot, with hazy, thoughtless memories of the 1990s. If they show up to vote en masse next Tuesday - if nothing else has interrupted the dial tone politics - then there's every chance that Hillary continues her Vader march to the nomination. And anyone of a certain age can hum that tune.

But the rebel coalition is gaining strength, and unlike the faceless troops of empire , it's comprised of wookies, independents, idealistic farm kids, Admiral fish-guy, and boozer old semi-wise men from Nantucket (hey, even his staunchest opponents will admit Ted's a legislative genius). It's a motley crowd, and the odds are long, and there's a certain amount of believing in airy concepts like the Force that seems to be involved.

If Hillary wins the nomination she will be substantially weakened, because everyone will have been reminded so acutely of the smash-mouth partisan era to which we will be returning. If Hillary wins the nomination it will be the Republicans race to lose - but don't put it past them. With all of the seething anger over who makes the best pseudo-conservative, there will almost certainly be a segment that stays at home.

But that's later. At this point, the choice still exists between Obama and four to eight years of Death Star politics.

The Next President and Iraq

The standard rejoinder among Democrats, including the candidates, is that despite Iraq's increasing safety there are few signs of political reconciliation. In response to the critique, Bret Stephens observes in the Wall Street Journal:

Have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with nothing worse to overcome than their Republican opposition, done better in their first year in the majority than Mr. Maliki, who must run a government besieged by al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias?

This is an important point. Legislative impotence and political standoffs are common features of democracy - whether it's practiced in Washington D.C. or a former dictatorship.

And we - not to mention the Iraqi people - still in very big trouble if that country goes downhill. The lessons of precipitous withdrawal after war are scattered all over the 20th century, for anyone bothered to learn them.

And furthermore, by nearly unanimous agreement, the surge has shown success. It would have been much easier to simply pull out the troops before, when the violence level was much higher - since any resulting uptick in bloody chaos could have been written off as more of the same. Now whoever initiates a troop withdrawal will own the consequences, especially if the level of slaughter begins to rise.

The irony is that Hillary is alone among Democrats in making the grown-up argument, that you can't simply pack up and leave without regard to the consequences. And after George W. Bush leaves office Iraq will still be our problem, and it will be the responsibility of the next president to make sure things don't get worse - and if possible, continue to improve.