I had to get right to the computer this morning to defend my good name; I don't know what I was smoking last night when I blathered on about Hillary being "right." I certainly don't think she was right about the war in Iraq or her hawkishness in general. On flag-burning etc., she certainly isn't right, but we all know she doesn't believe it, either. That's just pandering, and while most of us can't stand it, we also realize it's how people get elected.

I think I had just been impressed with her performance in the debate--she really is "correct" in a lot of her answers, in that they can't be targeted on sites like factcheck.org or politifact.com. Something like that. I certainly liked her better after the debate than I did beforehand.

Well, off to work. I haven't had a chance to read any of the letters in between what I wrote last night and just now; I'm sure I got reamed. In general, I was agreeing, and still do in some kind of way, with the idea that Obama is "heart" and Clinton is "head." Edwards may be a little of both, and he's a whole other (excellent) story.

The high school analogy thing...

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I'm always so frickin' late to every conversation that I don't have the time, heart, or inclination to read every one of the 20 or so pages that have posted before me, so I'm not sure if someone else pointed this out--that David Brooks did this a couple years ago. I think we can all fit in a bunch of politicians in his metaphor as well.

Mitt Romney is their John Kerry, at least according to Shearer's analysis in TIME.

Speaking of David Brooks, I saw him on Charlie Rose, and he gave a generally excellent analysis of the current political horse race. It was post-Iowa, so the discussion centered on Mike Huckabee on the Repub. side, and he said with complete authority that Huckabee will not be the Repub. candidate. I was stunned at his total self-possession in making the remark, and it occurred to me that if I were a Repub., this would actually influence my thinking on the situation. Kind of like..."If this guy knows so much, and he thinks so highly of John McCain (whom he plugged as the antidote to Obama), and if he's so SURE that Huck's out, then maybe I should go for McCain b/c I sure don't want Rudy (or whomever)."

But then, is David Brooks a real journalist? I'm not sure there's such a thing. I am asking that straight: how do we know who are the pundits and who are the journalists? I mean, people like Howard Fineman, for example, who are "reporters" are all over the TV and radio doing analysis. I know you,GG, are a journalist if there ever was one, but even people like Paul Klugman do analysis on radio, don't they? And even you,GG, in this very post said something about McCain being one of the most uncontrollably angry politicians out there, or something to that effect, without any evidence to back it up. Now, isn't that editorializing? I love you, but, really, isn't that exactly what you're complaining about? It really has a harsh and emotional ring to it and seems like it could be potentially damaging. Help me tease this out. (anyone who is still listening :))

Wow--I just read a bit about The Temper, and GG is right--it's legitimate and documented. Look at newsmax's archives for a fairly comprehensive story about how the media covers his anger:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/10/182118.shtml

To the last poster (militarypatriot?): Now that I'm well-read on the subject, it seems clear that McCain's temper is not used wisely but rather irrationally and immaturely. In fact, it seems that his public persona v. private persona runs polar opposite to Hillary: Where he is seen as charming and chummy (thanks to that "cool" factor with the press) by the public, those who know and work with him don't like him and worry about his stability--there are direct quotes to that effect from former Senators, at least one of whom is named. And he is apparently famous for sending apology notes for having lost his temper. Now contrast that with Hillary, who is known publicly as heartless but whose friends (quoted frequently--sorry no link here) comment about how warm she is personally. I read a news story somewhere once (before this presidential election) that the best kept secret in Washington was how well Senators from both sides of the aisle get along with and admire Clinton.

So is this a press thing, Glenn? It's clear that the media hate Clinton and love McCain. I have always thought that the truth always rises somehow. Can these two people really be so different in real life than their public personas?

Finally, isn't this anger thing a real story? I mean, from what I've read, this is actual news. What do you think, Glenn? Like most people, my only exposure to this temper thing was when it was used by GWB in 2000, and I guess we all thought it was "dirty tricks." Maybe there was some substance there. According to newsmax, the MSM worries about access, so they bury the stories about McCain's volatility. He apparently makes rude comments that are as or more out of line than George Allen's "maccacca" remark. (specific examples given). So why aren't they covered? My belief as to why some of us never took this story seriously, besides the fact that it came to our ears originally directly from Karl Rove, is that the media has been afraid to use specific examples.

I think this matters. I think he has a strong chance at the nomination. (LOL--I'm still influenced by that damn David Brooks's confidence)

Yes. Scary.