JOHN BRUMMETT: Last man standing: the woman - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Jul. 29, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

JOHN BRUMMETT: Last man standing: the woman

JOHN BRUMMETT
MORE COLUMNS

Presidential races come down to attrition, which leaves a lone standing candidate voters can most comfortably see as their leader.

On the Democratic side, only three candidates have ever actually stood. Those are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and, on one unsteady leg, John Edwards.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

EDITORIAL: The time is right

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

GEOFF SCHUMACHER: UNLV needs new stadium

EDITORIAL: Pay cuts

Forget the other Democrats except Bill Richardson, who is running mate material. Joe Biden makes good points, but has become a self-caricature. Chris Dodd has Peter-principled himself. Dennis Kucinich is fringe. Mike Gravel is the least serious man running, and that counts the three evolution deniers and the two or three other wing nuts in the Republican field.

On Monday evening in that instructive YouTube debate of Democratic candidates on CNN, there came a revealing, perhaps defining, moment.

Obama fell. Edwards went ahead and teetered on down. That left only one man standing. It was the woman.

It happened when candidates were asked whether they would commit to sitting down without pre-conditions for talks in the first year of their presidency with leaders of such hostile countries as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

In rapid succession: Obama revealed the Achilles that tempers his considerable talents -- the over-eagerness resulting from his youth and inexperience. Clinton displayed her savvy, moderation and judgment. Edwards said "me, too" in reference to what Hillary had said, as if he were a kid brother.

Only one was presidential, and it wasn't the over-eager one or the kid brother.

Obama jumped at the question, sensing an opportunity to distinguish himself from the arrogant, insulated, undiplomatic and inept cowboy strut of the current president. He said he would gladly commit to such sit-downs with those individuals. We must talk with our enemies, he said.

Clinton, seeing fuller context in the question, said she would not commit to any such thing. She said such meetings held inside a year without good intelligence, diplomatic planning and well-established agendas could allow those enemies to use the exercises merely for anti-American propaganda. What she committed to doing instead was setting about that very kind of preparatory work for such talks, and to restore the country's good-will diplomacy that the current administration had destroyed.

Edwards said Hillary had it right. That was fair and appropriate. But he didn't have anything to say beyond that. He tried, but merely rambled to fill time about restoring America's moral authority. Something specific and substantive about the nebulous planning that Hillary had mentioned would have been, well, presidential.

So which can one most easily envision as president? The one rashly wanting to sit down with our enemies -- and, by the way, "clarifying" himself the next day? The one agreeing with Hillary about caution? Or Hillary herself, explaining the need to change Bush's way of doing things, but not do so precipitously or blindly?

It was a moment of fast-forwarded attrition, a flashed microcosm.

That's not to say Obama didn't have his moments. He's good. But, in the end, his swipe at Clinton -- saying the best time to oppose the war was before -- was not without self-infliction.

People are smart enough to figure out that it's easy for Obama to say he opposed the war at the time, since he had no authority. He was a state senator in Illinois. That serves to remind us of his inexperience.

Meantime, Hillary, perhaps not as cold and humorless as I and others have said, got off a good line. Asked about the healthiness of someone named Bush or Clinton leading the country for 28 years running, she said that wasn't good at all. She said we should not, in 2000, have put in the guy named Bush.

Look for Hillary to be the nominee, at which point the Republicans' stuff will really hit the fan.

John Brummett, an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock, is author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@ arkansasnews.com.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	8 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Triple Eight wrote on July 29, 2007 09:33 PM: that "debate" format was most interesting. youtube is to be congratulated for a very creative concept there. HOWEVER, i question the "screening" process. only easy questions... hardly anything really difficult. there was TONS of stuff not touched on. who was in charge of all the "tough" questions there.... dan rather? :-) jimpopdandy wrote on July 29, 2007 07:29 PM: nice MSM narrative going on here. Hillary is so experienced with her 1 1/4 years in the senate. obama youthful and inexperienced?? like hardvard law review, community organizer, prestigious law school professor, 2 term state senator and elected by record margin to US senate. and he was right about the iraq war. furthermore, the questioner in the youtube debate said himself that obama was the only one who understood his question and answered it honestly. your mindless tripe is hard enough to stomach, but the hillary bandwagoning is just too much to take. hope you like reporting in nevada. your talent suggests you wont be leaving the desert anytime soon Zach wrote on July 29, 2007 06:35 PM: We are at war with American men and women dying EVERY SINGLE DAY. How can Hillary even fathom the thought of waiting an arbitrary "year" to sit down and talk to our enemies?? A real leader would already know where we stand in the world and how we should be talking to our enemies. Hillary voting for the war and now opposing it, plus her one year "planning for diplomacy" phase, is just another example of the Senator not taking the time to understand the current state of the world. We have men and women dying everyday and we are supposed to wait a year for diplomacy??? This makes me sick. If we wanted a continuation of the Bush administration we might as well elect Jeb. George wrote on July 29, 2007 05:53 PM: This is a pretty silly article. You can tell that the Hillary campaign regrets the issue now, because they are spinning it as Obama's fault! She thought that she being clever when she called a newspaper to slime him with the "naive and irresponsible" label, but she herself was making a naive mistake. Wolfson must have wet himself. The frontrunner should never directly attack any of the challengers. They finally trotted out paid lapdog Vilsack to repair the damage, but the damage had been done. Politics 101: let the surrogates be the attack dogs. Obama has proven that he can hit back hard, which eliminates one of the negatives against him (not 'tough.') Hillary has proven that she can be nasty, which reinforces a negative against her. She really erred by leaving him a beautiful opening to criticize her. The Bush-Lite label is going to be what people remember out of this -- especially when we have pictures of Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. sharing the stage in march of this year for a paid ($200,000+ if past speaking fees are any indication) gig at the CTIA keynote. That it happens to be a lobby group for the telecom industry just adds to it. I think it was a mistake of overconfidence. She will not get nominated by running to the right. Bill earning $41 million in speaking fees (many from right-wing groups) does not help burnish her Democratic credentials. Now if she thinks that she can appeal to right-of-center moderates to win the general election she is not only naive -- she is insane! Cate wrote on July 29, 2007 05:51 PM: I’m trying to figure out what it means on YouTube that: H. Clinton >>> 775,373 channel views B. Obama >>> 11,022,851 channel views Any insights? Thanks… Rich wrote on July 29, 2007 05:15 PM: I like Edwards, but have been impressed with Hillary in the debates thus far, & would easily vote for her if she's the nominee... Actually, it's REAL easy to vote for the Democrat in 2008..No chance I'd vote for Rudy "9/11 9/11 9/11" Giuliani, John "Iraq is safer" McCain, & the absolute worst Republican Mitt "I voted for abortion before I voted against it" Romney.... addie crisp wrote on July 29, 2007 04:39 PM: Thanks for your thumbs up on the response Obama made about the "best time to oppose the war was before it started." Even if it was a backhanded compliment. To set you straight it was never easy to oppose the war. Regular Americans, working Americans were called unpatriotic if they said anything against the war. Someone in politics standing up for what is right even if it could hurt his chances of winning in the future. The point is she didn't vote against it, she voted for it. She thought it was a good idea. At least Edwards said "sorry" for helping to send all those brave soldiers to their deaths John wrote on July 29, 2007 02:21 PM: Mr Brummett's surely on the money. It really does look like Hillary and the seven dwarfs. I've never doubted she would get the nomination but her sheer poise and professionalism which is sustained in appearance after appearance has suprised even me. It seems to be impressing others too since the longer this goes on the longer Americans have to get used to the idea of Hillary presidency. The NYT published a poll last week suggesting that about 63% of Americans expect her to be the next president. This was a staggering statistic. Not because they are all going to vote for her because they are obviously not, but because a lot of Americans are becoming acclimatized. If she gets the nod the Republican stuff is surely going to hit the fan, but can't help feeling that in their current panicked condition there isn't going to be some over reaching that's going to help rather than hinder her.