Wha--?

I certainly don't have, and don't expect to have, any regrets about voting for Barack Obama (or at any rate, against the GOP). I figured that I would get mad at them soon but I didn't expect it to be quite this soon. But look at today's news:

• The auto bailout. Okay, it is not an Obama initiative. But it looks like it is going to happen, and it looks like Obama won't be able to stop it and perhaps won't want to stop it. Ironic that most of the opposition is coming from just those Republicans I would most like to see sent packing out of town. Just one more demonstration that ideas have a truth value independent of those who hold them.


• Hillary. That's the wha--? part. With so many others, it is hard for me to see why she would want it. But unlike so many others, I can't imagine why he would want her. Yes, yes, Team of Rivals, Lincoln and Seward, a smart guy hires smart guys to work for him. But foreign policy? It has never been her brief, and I don't know of any evidence that she is specially good at. I admit my admiration for Hillary has always been somewhat less than unlimited. But I concede her talents, and she has certainly earned herself a place in public life. But Secretary of State? What am I missing?

[For clarification--my own first choice is still Chuck Hagel. I saw somewhere that three percent of voters currently characterize themselves as "moderate." Lonely out here.]

The McCain Platform

Elizabeth Edwards asked Join McCain a question about health care and “preexisting conditions.” She also made the point that he’d had pretty good government health care, i.e., through the U. S. Navy. McCain called it a “cheap shot.” Carpetbagger did a serviceable job of taking him apart on that one (link), but I want to look more closely at the precise language of the response: He said:

“MCCAIN: It’s a cheap shot, but I did have a period of time where I didn’t have very good government health care. I had it from another government.”

So, this is going to be the all-purpose answer, is it? Senator, where is your wife’s tax return. I was a prisoner of war. Senator, do you want to privatize social security. I was a prisoner of war. Blah blah.

I know: it’s early in the campaign yet, but I say, if this is his approach, then bring it on. I assume everyone admires John McCain for the courage and grace with which he sustained his experience as a POW. But even on this one, I suspect that voters are likely to get bored after a while. Recall Bob Kerry, who lost a leg in Vietnam (link). Hi, I’m Bob Kerry and I lost a leg in Vietnam” – may be a conversation-starter, but as a campaign program, it got nowhere.

Aside from becoming a bore, I’m not at all persuaded that McCain’s perspective as a former pilot and POW is good prep for the Oval office. As others have pointed out, his Senate colleague, Chuck Hagel, might have gotten a far better understanding of the war from his role as an infantry grunt.

But set that aside. The immediate point is that McCain seems to be angling for some sort of affirmative action card here. McCain no more “deserves’ to be president because he was a POW than Clinton “deserves” to be president because she is a woman, or Obama “deserves” to be president because he’s black. Oh and by the way, I assume he McCain is getting VA care now, too. Again, I think he is welcome to it, but he’s living testimony to the fact that government health care can achieve a high degree of consumer satisfaction.

Department of Now Cut That Out

Okay, I admit I’m not for Mitt Romney: he reminds me too much of Robert Morse in “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.” But I kinda liked his father when, for a moment, back before most bloggers were born, it looked like he might become the non-Goldwater—that is to say, back before he destroyed himself in a radio interview with an ill-chosen word.

But I have to say I don’t share the current outrage over discussions of the Romney family history—outrage not just from the usual suspects but from people who ought to know better. It’s not exactly breaking news that Romney is a Mormon. And I share the general amusement at Kate O’Beirne’s quip that he may be the only GOP candidate with only one wife. But that’s the point: we are all products of our history, and history is irony. It’s a fascinating story, Mormonism, and knowing how Mormons became what they are is just as much a part of the story as the story of what they are today. And it’s not as if the family has been hiding anything; there is a Pratt Family Society, with a website, where you can find a list of Parley Pratt’s twelve wives (one of them is named Hanahette Snively, which is just too cool for words).

It’s a great story, and should not be off limits. But I’m still leaning to Chuck Hagel: I’ve got to feel good about the only candidate who doesn’t smile.