The word on the street is that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is on the short list for the position of Obama’s Secretary of State.

Part of me wonders if the name is just being floated as a sign of respect for her but that she’s not really in the running.

I think she’s worth careful consideration for the post. She’s experienced, and she has a deep and fundamental understanding of the dynamics and issues.

And, she’s a rock star.

“You can send John Kerry or Chuck Hagel,” said one adviser, mentioning some other candidates for secretary of state, “or you can send Hillary Clinton. That’s totally different.”

I agree. Other problems aside, the Clintons have always been welcomed and respected abroad.

But, there are downsides to choosing Senator Clinton as well.

First, filling up the White House with former Clinton staffers – or Clintons themselves – is likely to irritate both the left and center-right folks.  The lefties will be afraid that the choices of Emanuel and Clinton indicate that Obama will be ruling from the center rather than staking out a progressive platform, and independents who might otherwise have voted for a Republican will be disappointed that the Change Candidate’s cabinet looks suspiciously familiar.

Second…wait, I’m having trouble thinking of a second downside.  The only other thing I can think of is that HRC might be also very well-suited for a host of other positions, from Attorney General to some sort of health care role, or even as a Supreme Court justice.

I don’t fear that she will outshine or subvert Obama like some on the left do. I think she’d be a pretty good Secetary of State – especially compared to the other snoozetastic names that have been floated.

What do you think?

Last night both McCain and Obama attended the annual Alfred E Smith dinner, a charity event put on by the Archdiocese of New York that benefits underprivileged kids. By tradition, the speakers are supposed to be intentionally funny, and they both came through. The comments were sharply barbed, but really funny.

Take a few minutes out of being outraged by your candidate’s opponent and from worrying about your retirement funds to have a laugh:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irXS4Q7mUKQ

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg

Best lines of the night, in my opinion?

McCain: “I’m the underdog, but there are signs of hope. I can’t shake the feeling that some people here are pulling for me. I am delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary.”

Obama: “Contrary to rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth.

Barack is actually Swahili for ‘that one.’ And I got my middle name from someone who obviously didn’t think I’d ever run for president.

My greatest strength is my humility. My greatest weakness is that I am a little too awesome.”

Nice job, guys. But Barack, I’d watch my back around Bloomberg, if I were you!

We now return to our regularly scheduling ass beatings and backstabbings.

Last night in Philadelphia, the home of the Constitution, ABCNews hosted a debate between the two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Just six days ahead of a crucial primary, the debate could have been a final opportunity for voters to see key differences in the candidates’ platforms and visions for the country.

Instead, moderators Charlie Gordon and George Stephanopoulos chose to spend over half of the two-hour time slot throwing out gotcha questions about gaffes and implications of guilty by association. Not a single real policy question was asked until past the one-hour mark.

The first 9 questions (over an hour of the debate) were about the following topics:

• Each choosing the other as VP candidate
• Obama’s “elitist” remarks
• Clinton telling Bill Richardson that Obama can’t beat McCain.
• Rev. Wright: why Obama didn’t distance himself sooner
• Rev. Wright: does he love American as much as Obama?
• Clinton viewed as dishonest because of Bosnia misstatements.
• Flag lapel pins
• Obama’s ‘relationship’ with terrorist William Ayres

After each commercial break, ABC showed articles from the Constitution, accompanied by a serious, deep voiceover. Each time they followed these solemn statements with an inane question about things like lapel pins, it was hard to decide whether to laugh or howl in frustration.

At long last, after these gems came a more serious discussion – of Iraq, Iran & Israel, taxes, gun control, affirmative action, gas prices, and how each would find a role for soon-to-be former President Bush to play (this one got a bit of a chuckle out of both of them).

After the debates, the Internet and talk radio were abuzz with many journalists, bloggers and talk-show hosts excoriating the moderators for shoddy journalism. At the time of this writing, abcnews.com had over 16,000 comments from viewers, most of them appalled by the debate.

Update: evidently, ABCnews.com has deleted the vast majority of the comments.

Many Obama supporters cried foul, saying that the debate was like a 3-to-1 tag team effort against their candidate. Clinton supporters were more calm, smugly noting that it was about time that somebody asked some tough questions of Obama, whom they regard as the object of media adoration.

Regardless of which candidate they supported, most of the disgruntled took aim at the topics covered by the hosts. Rehashing old gaffes or associations that have already been covered ad nauseum isn’t helpful to anyone trying to make up his or her mind about the primary.

Granted, the two candidates agree on most issues, so at some point the moderators run out of ideas for keeping the debates fresh. But they should be more concerned with advancing discourse than with pandering to ratings-hungry producers who expect bloodbaths.

As for the candidates themselves: it appeared to me that each was growing irritated with the line of questioning, though they each grabbed the opportunity to add to the mess rather than rise above.

For example, after Clinton was asked about the Bosnia sniper-fire “issue” and she agreed that her statements had not been “as accurate as they could have been”, Obama began to hint that the media should lay off, that we all make mistakes. It sounded great until he used, as an example, her infamous 1992 quote which sarcastically asked the country whether they thought she should have stayed home to bake cookies instead of having a career. He indicated that he remembered the furor over that remark and thinking that Hillary was being wronged. Of course, in his “defense” of her he’s reminded us all, once again, of the statement.

Clinton was very coy in her ad hominem attacks, getting in her digs but couching them as things the Republicans will use against him. It was all really “Oh, me? No, I wouldn’t say anything bad about Obama. But let me tell you a few things I think those nasty Republicans will use against him…..”

The candidates did shine a bit when they finally got a chance to talk about policy. It’s just too bad they weren’t given more of a chance to do it. Nothing was said about alternative energy, NAFTA / trade agreements, the Olympics in China, the FAA – and that’s just off the top of my head.

So, who won the debate? Probably the McCain campaign, though McCain himself hasn’t tended to stoop to the level of badgering Obama or Clinton for gaffes.

And who lost? Judging by the reaction of viewers and bloggers, the big loser was ABC News in general, and Charlie Gibson & George Stephanopoulis. Oh yeah, and the voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina. They deserve better.

We all deserve better than this.

(The full transcript of the debate can be found here.

Update: for a much funnier recap of the debate, check out The Colbert Report take on it.

As the dust slowly settles from last week’s tornado of political happenings, it seems that Richardson’s endorsement of Senator Obama last Friday might tell us more about the Clintons than it does about either Richardson or Obama.

Or, at least, that’s what political experts would like us to believe.

While Richardson’s show of support was well-worded and probably helped score some points for Obama by itself, it probably also provided a boost simply because of the discussion that followed.

What?!, the news slyly gasped. Richardson, a loyal Clinton ally who appeared at times to be begging for a VP or cabinet spot, was jumping ship?

This is media gold, folks. In a year where the pundits have made erroneous prediction after prediction, and where the nomination SNAFU is likely to drag on at least another two months, these characters have got to be thrilled about the story It has all the hallmarks of a ratings giant: a redemption story, a betrayal, and a snide villain.

The Redemption:

Last week was a bit of a rough one for the Obama campaign. The Wright comments, the speech, and the aftermath were discussed, picked apart, and speculated about for days – indeed, it’s still going on.

But one thing the Clinton campaign has correctly (in my opinion) pointed out is that the media seem to have a huge crush on Obama. So, it was a double treat for these people: a huge ratings bonanza when there was a “scandal” and then a sigh of relief that Obama has seemingly managed to weather the storm. A good time was had by (almost) all.

Finally, at the end of a very long week, Bill Richardson swooped in to help revive lagging morale and to give Obama a boost both in the general polls and, ostensibly, with the so-called Latino vote. Richardson praised Obama as a “once-in-a-lifetime leader” and cited The Speech as what finally put him in the Obama camp. Whether this is true or simply conveniently timed politics doesn’t matter since the sound bites are so great.

The Betrayal

Immediately after Richardson’s endorsement, the conversation naturally turned to talk of betrayal. Oh my, gasped the talking heads. Can you believe he turned on the Clintons like that? followed quickly by Godfatheresque implications that doing so isn’t a smart idea.

Somehow the fact that Richardson had spent Superbowl weekend with former President Clinton, his old boss, was especially noteworthy to the gleefully mock-horrified media.

Richardson himself helped feed the frenzy; when asked whether he’d told Senator Clinton personally about his decision, Richardson said that he had and that “Let me tell you…we’ve had better conversations.”

If you look carefully have eyes, you can almost see the BOOYAH in Chris Matthews’ eyes.

The Villain

As you might imagine, the Clintons haven’t said much publicly about Richardson’s endorsement of Obama. Certainly it wouldn’t help them to discuss it, and I’d guess there’s a certain amount of hurt feelings going on as well.

But plenty of other people involved in the campaigns have jumped into the fray. Loony Cajun James Carville had perhaps the most shocking denouncement of Richardson’s Good Friday proclamation: “An act of betrayal. Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”

I’ve seen Mr. Carville in action for long enough to guess that he’s probably chuckling to himself about the great line he got off and high-fiving his shiny reflection in the mirror. It’s probable that he doesn’t really have this level of vitriol for Mr. Richardson; Carville’s a political animal through and through, and I’m thinking it’s probably all about the game to him. Normally, I find him a bit funny and more than a bit brilliant, but this comment is pretty disgraceful.

And, speaking of irony, Mr. Carville, I have a few things to say:

The type of irony Mr. Carville is referring to is usually known as situational irony, where something happens that’s the opposite from what the audience expects.

But in this scenario, nobody was really surprised by the Richardson nomination except perhaps the Clinton camp itself(and Mr. Carville, if he is to be believed). So perhaps Mr. Carville was instead appealing to the notion of tragic irony, defined by Merriam-Webster as:

incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play.

One thing I find a little hypocritical (and, all right, a little amusing) about the whole thing is that many of Senator Clinton’s more intense supporters have decried the Obama supporters as a cult who is all but ready to declare him some sort of messiah. But if you follow Carville’s statement to its logical terminus….

I think you know what I’m saying.

It’s probably a bit early to gauge whether or not Richardson’s support will give Obama a boost against Senator Clinton.

But if does, I hope it’s because the American public respects Bill Richardson and his endorsement of Obama’s message, not because the gossips have worked us into a lather over the back story.

Ohio paper gets exclusive interview with Hillary, but the wrong one

Well, today’s another day after a forgettable Tuesday for the Tribune Chronicle in Warren, Ohio. The paper published an exclusive interview with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discussing a variety of issues of interest to Midwestern voters.

The eager reporter, who may be changing his name now, called the local office of Rep. Charlie Wilson, who was having one of his regular public meetings with his eastern Ohio constituents. “This is Hillary,” came the answer.

So, knowing the New York senator had visited the area previously, the reporter proceeded with the interview and Hillary, who’s very accustomed to answering questions from the news media, kindly gave him helpful and quotable responses.

Obviously, he didn’t ask how to spell her last name; he knew that already. So the reporter wrote his story on the candidate’s latest visit with voters in the Mahoning Valley, which the Tribune Chronicle printed.

Alas, the reporter had actually interviewed Hillary Wicai Viers, the congressman’s communications director. Another Hillary, last name Clinton was in Washington, D.C., that day. Under the headline “Information attributed to Clinton was incorrect,” the paper published a correction today with the editor saying the situation is being reviewed.
Let me get this straight:

1. This guy calls his representative’s local office to interview said representative.
2. Woman named “Hillary” answers the phone.
3. The assumption made by the reporter is that, since Senator Clinton was recently in the area campaigning, this was clearly her on the phone. What luck!
4. Guy conducts interview with Hillary.
5. Newspaper prints interview.
6. Hilarity ensues.