OBAMA MAKES HIS CASE

"There's so much I can teach you."

Last night my pal Matt said that the Democratic primary battle is the 2008 presidential election. There may not even be a majority of Republicans that think Bush should get a third term-- and each of the pathetic pygmies™ has offered a vision of nothing more of less than exactly that: four more nightmarish years. Among American voters, possibly even southern voters, that's a no go.

The least trustworthy pundits and DC Establishment Insiders-- the crew that helped usher in 8 years of Bushism-- have gathered round Hillary. Either they feel she is the weakest Democrat-- one who will enable Republicans to hold on to red House districts and some of the iffy Senate seats-- like a Texas, North Carolina or Oklahoma, if not a Minnesota, Maine or Colorado, which are already lost to Republicans, and/or they feel she will be the Democrat most likely to govern in their interests. Far more than Obama or the born-again Edwards, she is, after all, one of them, maybe even more so than Bush, who got a little carried away.

Dan Balz, in this morning's Washington Post, explores the sharp contrasts between Hillary and her closest rival, Obama. He spent time talking with Obama in New Hampshire and reports that the Democrat who at least appears to be offering the freshest vision of a new America says he "has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called 'ideological gridlock.'"

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running... "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington. That's going to be a good choice for the American people."

Obama then went where most Democrats are petrified to go-- but should. He does acknowledge that President Bill Clinton was good for America-- and compared to the Bushes on either side of him, he was-- but adds "The question is, moving forward, looking towards the future, is it sufficient just to change political parties, or do we need a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington...? Do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the '90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the '60s?"

One of Clinton's vicious Inside the Beltway attack dog hacks, Howard Wolfson, immediately went after Obama. He is likely to be joined by all the Clintonian insiders, from job seekers like windbag and would-be Secretary of State Joe Biden to the Beltway punditocracy and lobbyists who are all firmly in the Hillary camp. My guess is that it's too late to stop Hillary from winning the nomination and the presidency but I wish Obama well. I think he'd make a better president. So would Edwards. Hillary? Better than Bush or any of the pathetic pygmies™.

Is she a captive of the Beltway Establishment? I have no iron clad proof she is but my gut sure tells me so. And Obama? Well, there's some chance, despite the fact that Lieberman was his mentor, that he's not going to be as beholden to them and at one with them as the Clintons have long been.

"The insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table in our health-care debate; they just can't buy all the chairs," he said. "My argument is not that they are the source of all evil. My argument is that things are out of balance in Washington and that their influence is disproportionate."