Obama as the new Reagan?

In an interview with a Nevada editorial board, Barack Obama did something rather unique for Democrats, praising and associating himself with Ronald Reagan. From Politico blogger Ben Smith:

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not,” he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, “We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism nad entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

So now is it going to be Romney?

Three different GOP winners in three different races, and now Romney is being hailed as the front-runner. But he may be. Remember that these primaries and caucuses are not sporting events, despite the way they are treated by the press. Someone might “win” with 39% of the vote, but the “losers” are also picking up delegates. Because Romney finished second in the other races (plus won the inexplicably ignored Wyoming caucuses), he has more delegates than any of the other candidates: Currently, he has 52; Huckabee has 22; McCain has 15; Thompson has 6; and Giuliani has 1. (For the numbers, go here.

Now LOTS could happen, and if Giuliani wins Florida, with its big population and delegate haul, I’m sure he will be anointed the front runner. Still, let’s run a mental experiment. Though many of us had trouble with Romney’s Mormonism, do you think he’s a wise enough Turk to vote for him? Would you vote for Romney or Clinton? Romney or Obama?

The Pastor who helped topple communism in East Germany

Here is an interesting story about a Lutheran pastor who played a key role in the overthrow of communism in East Germany. That country, with its bloody and seemingly omnipresent secret police, the Stasi, was probably more hard-core than the former Soviet Union. The Reuters story about Rev. Christian Fuhrer was occasioned by his recent retirement from his congregation.

HT: Darren Jones

The Great White Hope

The Clintons are pulling some racial jui-jitsu on Barack Obama, using a different racial argument through the mouths of establishment black leaders (see below). The argument is that Obama is “the Great White Hope.” That is, a “safe” black man that will assuage white people’s guilty conscience, allowing them to continue to ignore black people’s concerns.

Just to correct the allusion, the “great white hope” was a white boxer, James Jeffries, who came out of retirement back in 1910 in a vain effort to dethrone Jack Johnson, the first black heavy-weight champion. The term does NOT refer to a black man who white people like! If white people turn to Hillary Clinton to try to keep a black man out of office, SHE would be the great white hope.

Anyway, this rhetoric strikes me as very low, an effort to undermine racial progress with racial mistrust.

Establishment enemies

Why many in the Civil Rights establishment do not like Obama. (Short answer: political patronage.)

Why many in the Republican establishment do not like McCain. (Short answer: his role in exposing the Abramoff scandal.)

Playing The Smoke-Filled Room: Democrat edition

[For rules and set-up instructions, see yesterday's post.]

We’re the big Democratic honchos meeting in a Denver hotel room, designing a winning ticket for a deadlocked convention. . .

OK, Carville, Begala, settle down. Let’s get started. Wait! I’m personally offended. We don’t have enough women or minorities. Donna, pull in that cleaning lady from the hall. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t speak English, since her kind is anti-abortion anyway, but we have to stand on principle. Wait! I’m personally offended again. You union bosses, put out those cigars! The Democratic caucus does not allow tobacco. Sean, give me a hit from that joint that is passing around. Anyone else personally offended about anything? Good. Let’s get started.

We have two really good candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But which one would be stronger at the top of the ticket? Or would the two together be weaker than either one of them separately. Might having the first woman AND the first African-American be derided as the politically-correct ticket that would put off the general public?

No, Donna, we cannot have two vice presidents. I know, a Clinton, Obama, and Richardson ticket would also let us add the first Hispanic. The constitutions doesn’t allow for that. I know, it’s an evolving document suited to the needs of the time, but I don’t think we could this through the courts in time. Maybe for our second term.

I’ve got it! A slate consisting of Clinton and Clinton! That would be perfect. The 22nd Amendment keeps anyone from being ELECTED to the office more than twice. If the vice-president had to take-over because the president died, that would be OK, wouldn’t it? And if the Supreme Court doesn’t go our way, even after we will have packed it, if Hillary dies, Bill could resign, and NANCY PELOSI would be our new president! How perfect is that?

[Your move. . . .You can be serious if you want to.]