OBAMA, KENNEDY OUT SHINE BUSH'S LAST STATE OF THE UNION
In previous years I have blogged, at great length, I might add, on the predictable outrages of GeorgeW. Bush’s various State of the Union Addresses. It seems to be required duty if one dare to enter fray of competitive political blogging. And I meant to do it. I really did. I sat in front of my TV-and promptly dozed of minutes into the stultifying performance. Some how I don’t think I was the only one.
Even the talking heads on network and cable coverage (for which I did wake up in time to monitor) seemed bored by and dismissive of the product delivered by the lamest duck of all Presidents in recent memory-public approval ratings of about 30%, the House and Senate in opposition hands, his own party in disarray and its coalition dissolving, the next president widely assumed to be a Democrat. The delivery was lack luster and most of the content re-cycled from earlier SOA, including a saber-rattling claim that an evil rogue state-this time Iran-may be developing weapons of mass destruction.
As far as I can tell the only tidbits of “news” came out of the speech. First was an almost missed aside that after troop levels in Iraq are brought down on account of “victory,” American armed forces will remain on the ground in a new “protective overwatch mission”-Orwellian code for the long cherished NeoCon dream of maintaining vast military bases in Iraq from which to dominate the entire region.
Second was a somewhat garbled threat to veto funding bills that do not include a 50% reduction in “Congressional ear-marks” and to order cabinet departments not to act on earmarks “not voted on by Congress”-those noted only in memoranda of agreements in the committee stage. But like many other Bush initatives, he comes to the table week and soft on the issue. He used complicity with earmarks to buy support of many of his unpopular positions through the years, or allowed his congressional allies to do it for him. These pay offs contributed to the soaring deficit, albeit not more than Bush’s own out of controle spending on the war. And the new executive order is of questionable Constitutional legality because final language in most bill includes blanket adoption of off committee agreements on earmarks inseperable from the rest of the legeislation.
But I am slipping into an analysis of the speech, something I swore I would not do.
Instead, like just about everyone else, I was stunned by another development yesterday that seemed to darf the SOU and the shrinking midget who delivered it. Of course I am refering to the “pass the torch” endorsement of Barack Obama by Senator Edward Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, and Representative Patrick Kennedy.
As usual, the media, always aware of the drawing power of the Kennedy name and legacy, were in hyperbolic overdrive. Over on MSNBC Chris Mathews was so over the top he needed to be hosed down. Yet it is almost possible to forgive the over reaction. This was not just another political endorsement. It was both a vicious slap at Bill Clinton (pointedly not at Hillary) and an anointment, for the first time, of an heir to Camalot outside the Kennedy family. Now, by any strech of the immagination, that’s news.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told aids that she was “tranfixed”and “stunned” by the development. Other heavy weight endorsements have followed and will increase in the days aheard stripping Clinton of her mantle as choice of both “real Democrats” and the party establishment. The affects of the endorsement are already being seen in Massechusets and California, where Clinton was confident of big leads. She may still win those states, but Obama will carve deeply into the alotment of Convention delegates from them.
The Clinton camp is said to be in dismay and a bit of disarray over the endorsements. They are also seething with anger. Look for Clinton surroates to begin to attack Ted Kennedy-a dangerous game given the Senator’s popularity in the party. In an early sign of of this New York National Organization for Women (NOW) leader Marcia Pappas unleashed a scathing atack on Kennedy for “betraying women.” Look for semi-anonymous and/or untraceble reminders of Chapaquidick and the Senator’s marital and love life woes to begin perculating on the web and in this season’s favorite tactic, forwarded e-mails. No Kennedy foible will be left unturned. My guess is that the Clintons will accept the risk of blow back-particulary in veiw of Bill’s own past-if they can personaly distance themselves from it. Even Caroline, the beloved Princes, might find herself under an unflattering microscope.
There is a well oiled “hate the Kennedys” machine out there. Fueled by generations of conspiracy theorists and a fervant right-wing base, it is always ready to gin up. The only problem is that most of these same people hate the Clintons even more than the Kennedys. What is a wing-nut to do?
But of course the bigest drawback to this annointment, remains largely unspoken, but hangs as a dread in the hearts of many. Just a few days ago Obama spoke at Martin Luther King’s Atlanta church and was pictured as the fruit of Dr. King’s Dream. Now he lays in the line of John F. and Robert Kennedy. Can he survive and ascend to the presidency without becoming a new verse to “Abraham, Martin and John”? Is America-or unseen forces in its elite-ready for either change or hope?
I am trying not to get overwhelmed by all of this. To keep my persepective. To recognize that endorsements or no, a long struggle lies ahead for Obama in a grining state-by-state ground game that will play out largely base on local concerns and on the relative strength of two organizations. Yet I am a baby boomer. I recall the thrill of John Kennedy’s works on a cold January in 1961. They inspired me, as they inspired a generation. I also know the pit of the stomach dispair of shots ringing out in Dallas, Los Angeles, and Memphis. These are the foundation events of my life.
I, too, am moved. And once again dare to hope.