Hillary Stumps in Columbia

The Blue South was able to get a correspondant in to the gymnasium at Allen University to see Hillary Clinton deliver her stump speech on Monday, and boy was it anticlimactic. While we generally don't expect a whole lot of substance to speeches this early in the race, we do expect a lot of applause pauses and energy. And that wasn't the case on Monday. Maybe she was just having a bad day, but the speech was about as rousing as a Zanax washed down with a pint of Thunderbird. The town-meeting format wasn't particularly compelling either (and, while we generally oppose scripted questions at those sorts of things, a bit of screening wouldn't have been such a bad idea). Indeed, it was one of Sen. Clinton's questioners that received the loudest applause as he delivered his 10-minute "question" railing in the Iraq war from a Vietnam vet's perspective. In the end, Sen. Darrell Jackson had to cut the guy's mike to give Clinton a chance to speak up.

As far as the speech goes, she hit all the normal highlights. Universal healthcare, Iraq was a bad idea, George Bush sucks, all the standard Democratic stump-speech fare. She also insists on vowing to take the profits of the big mean oil companies (how she plans to do that short of a Nixon-esque "plumber" team, is beyond me). The fact is that Clinton simply isn't a compelling candidate at this point in the race.

Oh yeah, and while we're on the topic of Hillary, the Blue South would like to send a personal boot to the hindquarters of Clinton's operative, Howard Wolfson. This guy is dirty and vicious and about as blatant a liar as we've seen in a long time. We caught him last night on Hardball calling David Geffen Obama's "campaign finance coordinator." Come on, Wolfy, you know that's not true. The fact is that his tactic of spinning Geffen's anti-Clinton remarks (that were fairly meek) into an instance of the Obama campaign utilizing the slash and burn tactics that Obama himself vows to eliminate. Not a bad tactical move, but don't reach too far, or you'll lose any shred of credibility you have left.

Obama-Rama

So I here there's this new guy running for president...what's his name...Oh yeah, Barack Obama. The guy has become as ubiquitous as American Idol in the past year or so. Obama's rise to political stardom began of course with a humble speech at the Democratic National Convention just a few years ago and since then the guy hasn't let up. All the while Obama has been gaining popularity exponentially. This somewhat rare status as a true political superstar has left the Blue South wondering...what exactly is it that makes this guy so freakin' popular?

Certainly Obama's strong oratorical skills and natual charisma play an enormous part in his stardom, but is there any substance behind it all? Obama has taken a strong rhetorical stance against the Iraq War (a fairly popular position these days) and is, in fact, the only Senator who has introduced a De-escalation plan, per the 9-11 commissions recommendations. Obama also talks a lot about healthcare. Its hard to find much he's done on that front nationally, but the word on the street is that while a state Senator for Illinois, Obama did manage to get some healthcare reform passed. Obama speaks of his days as a communtiy organizer in inner-city Chicago, as a civil rights lawyer and law professor, all noble pursuits. But his experience in the national theater is meager and, although he speaks passionately against cynicism (he even wrote a book most audaciously titled "The Audacity of Hope"), who knows what a few years in the D.C. meatgrinder will do to a guy like that.

Not that I'm a cynic but I am skeptical. The system tends to rub off on you. Obama speaks like he's going to enter the system and enact real, sweeping change. The questions are 1) whether that's even possible and 2) whether Obama's message will comport with his actions and policies.

The Troops Behind the Curtain

According to MSNBC news, our very own Congressman John Spratt has spearheaded an effort by the Congressional Budget Office to look into President Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq. As we all know by now, Pres. Bush vowed to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq in an effort to stabilize what many are now calling a civil war in Iraq. What Bush failed to mention, as uncovered by the CBO is that those 21,500 COMBAT troops will require at least as many, if not more, support troops to go to the country. CBO estimated that the effort could involve as many as 48,000 troops in all.

Despite what you think about the war in and of itself, I think we can find it agreeable on both sides of the aisle that politicians like Congressman Spratt have been standing up to the administration and reasserting their own voices in the debate. There are numerous bi-partisan non-binding resolution floating around the Senate that express Congress' reticence to escalate the troop numbers in Iraq. Barack Obama just introduced binding legislation that requires a nearly full US withdrawal (save some special forces) by March of 2008 (naturally this has largely been viewed as a posturing move for Obama given his recent entrance into the presidential race).

I say kudos to Congressman Spratt and all the other politicians who are taking a stand, particularly SC politicians (Lyndsey Graham has acted admirably as well). I'm glad to see leadership emerging in Congress and that our legislative body is once again asserting its own power and not being unquestioningly deferential to an executive office that has sought to expand its power time and time again.