First off, we in the newspaper business -- and especially those of us on editorial boards such as yours truly -- should thank Hillary Clinton for acknowledging the awesome power of an endorsement as she did repeatedly today when mentioning the Des Moines Register nod to her. Her enthusiasm for the endorsement -- the political equal to Sally Field getting an Oscar and claiming "You like me!" -- was shown in how she used it as a blanket answer to everything during her morning talk show blitz.
Such as:
Q: Sen. Clinton, what about that NIE?
A: Read the editorial about how much I'm ready to lead on day one.
Q: Sen. Clinton, are you afraid to "roll the dice" because your husband certainly is?
A: I'm tested, vetted and the editorial board has confidence in me.
Q: Is former President Clinton becoming a sly attack dog on your behalf?
A: It's all in the editorial. I inspire confidence because what I lack in inspiration I more than make up for with confidence that I'm ready to go.
Q: What about that general election strategy?
A: The editorial captures the essence of me.
Who know editorial boards or editorial writers could spread so much joy?
Thank goodness Hillary Clinton got that endorsement...otherwise she really would be in the dumps only left with a rebooted "change" (as in "change agent" and expert in change who bathes in change) message that would have all the sincerity, as I've mentioned before, of a chastened George W. Bush -- who woke up one morning and became a "Reformer with Results" after getting his butt smacked by John McCain in the New Hampshire primary in 2000 (McCain ran as a establishment-slaying reformer). It's quite amusing to watch Clintonites rally around the change banner and attempt to trademark the political definition of change: you know, there are the annoying demanders of change (Edwards) and the wussy hopers for change (Obama) and then there are the hard workers for change (you know who) who can tell the difference between the change phonies and the real experienced change deal.
Funny how when I asked Richard Holbrooke the former Ambassador to the United Nations who was in New Hampshire stumping for Hillary -- iearlier today f he thought Obama was a risky, "roll the dice" kind of candidate who might put U.S. foreign policy in peril if he was, gulp, elected. Holbrooke, ever the gracious diplomat, wouldn't go near that question with a ten-foot pole and instead told me the Dems had put togeher a very solid slate of candidates. Then he really stumbled from the party line when he talked about what it would take to restore some sense of credibility to the country international's image. When he started talking about experience, he said he didn't want to go there (the defining part of experience) because there were many types of experience. Not exactly what the two campaign minders accompanying Clinton wanted to hear but it was honest. Holbrooke talked about Clinton's considerable talents to be president -- especially her service on the Armed Services Committee which Holbrooke believes give a candidate commander in chief gravitas if they are smart enough to embrace it -- and that Clinton has an esteemed international reputation. He told me the foreign policy differences between the Dem candidates have been "overdramatizied" and are rather minute. He wondered sort of out load why they (the campaign) didn't talk more about the relevant stuff like her Armed sErvices Committee work or that she knows how to "fight the bureaucracy" to get things done.
Why indeed? Perhaps just perhaps, when you're no longer the inevitable queen at the top of the polls, it's better to talk change and "roll the dice" than about what you might actually be good at.
Speaking of Obama , in my daily link, there's an interesting perspective about his candidacy and what it means by Gary Younge of The Nation. It helps explain why clinton and Obama are talking two very different versions of change -- and experience has everything to do with it.
ADVERTISEMENTS 
