Madame President?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:26 AM

The endless campaign, in my view, could wind up helping Hillary Clinton.

Put aside all the other questions about her record, her divisive image, Bill's role, the alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties. There remains one immutable fact, the reason why John Edwards (lamely) made fun of her coral jacket: she is a woman. (Or what Post columnist Ruth Marcus calls a "person of cleavage.") And in that capacity, she would break the ultimate glass ceiling.

That's where the length of the campaign comes in. With most people thinking Hillary is the inevitable Democratic nominee--and believing as well that the Dems are more likely to capture the White House this time around--we have plenty of time to get used to the idea of HRC as commander-in-chief. After awhile, it no longer seems so foreign. If she stays ahead in the polls, she almost starts to feel like an incumbent. So by the time the actual voting starts, the notion of a female president is practically old news, factored into the stock price, as Wall Street would say.

(The same might be said about Barack Obama--the better we get to know him, the more many voters are going to think of him like Tiger Woods, meaning that race isn't the first thing that comes to mind. But with Obama trailing in the polls, he seems less like a probable president at this ridiculously early stage.)

Suddenly, though, a new factor is being trotted out: Hillary can only succeed if other women on television succeed. I'm not sure what that's got to do with a presidential race, but consider this Hollywood Reporter piece:

"Cherry Jones has been appointed president on the upcoming season of '24,' sources said . . . Their decision to go for it adds another wrinkle to the closely watched Democratic Party's presidential race, in which Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner."

And the Politico makes the tie even more explicit:

"The ratings of both the struggling 'CBS Evening News' and the now-canceled ABC drama 'Commander in Chief' call into question one of the premises of Clinton's political strategy: that women are eager to reward role models who break down gender barriers. On TV, at least, it hasn't happened."

Isn't this nothing but stereotyping? If viewers don't like Katie Couric as an anchor, they are more likely to blow off Hillary Clinton as a candidate? Can you imagine that being said about, say, a Hispanic anchor and Bill Richardson? An Italian-American actor and Rudy Giuliani? I'm not buying.

Okay, time for a serious story:

"The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines on Wednesday to hold President Bush's chief of staff and the former White House counsel in contempt of Congress," reports the New York Times.

"The issue now goes before the full House, where the Democrats who control the chamber suggested it would not be taken up until after the August recess."

What? Congress is following the lead of the Iraqi parliament while our constitutional democracy burns?

"In the debate before the 22-to-17 vote to pass the contempt resolution, Democrats on the committee firmly rejected the White House argument that the invocation of executive privilege blocked Congress from obtaining information from Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, or Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff."

McCain Meltdown Watch, Volume 27, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

"Sen. John McCain's well-known media team has resigned, an indication that his campaign shake-up is continuing to backfire and imperiling the Arizona Republican's presidential candidacy.

"Political ad-makers Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, veterans of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, on Monday emailed the new campaign manager -- lobbyist and longtime McCain adviser Rick Davis -- to say that they were quitting. The two men told friends they had considered leaving for days, as they hadn't been paid and the campaign's financial straits raised questions of when and how much they would be."

McCain did a call with some conservative bloggers, and here's a tidbit from Ryan Sager:

"He fired back at Newt Gingrich, who said yesterday that Mr. McCain would drop out of the presidential race as soon as he collects his matching funds. Mr. Gingrich has no idea what he's talking about, Mr. McCain said, unless he has 'listening devices' installed in McCain headquarters. Instead, Mr. McCain argues, any decision to accept matching funds would be about winning . . .

"All in all, Mr. McCain sounded about as worn and beaten down by this campaign as he always does. I've not labeled this post as a Death Watch item, but this remains a campaign on life support."

There is lots of chatter out there about the Hillary-Obama dustup that began in this week's South Carolina faceoff:

"Obama screwed up big time in the CNN-YouTube debate on Monday night, by leaving the impression -- during a response to a crucial foreign policy question -- that he would not be sufficiently tough-minded when dealing with America's adversaries," says Dick Polman.

"That's a fatal error for any Democrat, given the party's traditional image. And it's a potentially special problem for Obama, because he is still new on the national scene, and is stuck with the task of demonstrating to skeptical voters that his commander-in-chief instincts might at least compensate for his lack of experience. But he might've hurt himself on Monday might, when he left the impression that he would be Bambi in a forest of predators . . .

"Obama, by his own words, is a naif who would be rolled by the bad guys. Gee, do you think the Republicans would have a field day with something like that, if Obama won the nomination?"

But Nation Editor Katrina van den Heuvel challenges the mainstream media narrative:

"From a foreign policy point of view was Obama's response so wrong and Clinton's so right? Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea --while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father's. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably."

Hillary's trying to make hay, reports Mike Allen:

"The Clinton campaign -- hoping to nurture the notion of a gaffe, and reminding everyone that its arsenal has many classes of weapons -- rolled out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for a conference call where she said the debate "showed that Senator Clinton, when all is said and done . . . knows that being president is about protecting the country and advancing national security interests."

I wonder how much of Bill's Cabinet will eventually be tapped on her behalf.

At the New Republic, Katherine Marsh says Hillary won the exchange--but not her heart:

"Hillary, once again, was impressive whereas Obama's lack of experience still peeks through--his plan for a diplomatic surge in Iraq was nearly "Department of Peace"-like in its pie-in-the-sky idealism--and his remark about talking to Cuba was a teachable moment on how to lose the Miami vote in one fell swoop. But, that said, there's something about Hillary's pitch perfect answers that unnerved me . . .

"I can't shake the sense that she enjoys giving the teacher-approved right answer more than giving an unpopular answer she believes to be right. And when she makes a rare fumble, it's not--unlike Obama--because of a lack of experience but because of a lack of honesty. Consider the question about whether the candidates sent/ send their children to public or private schools: Hillary reiterated an old Clinton line: that the reason Chelsea went to Sidwell was to protect her privacy--otherwise she would happily have sent her to Ballou right?"

Fred Barnes consistently manages to find bright spots for the GOP, and he doesn't disappoint:

"The biggest surprise in Washington in 2007 is who's turned out to be the strongest force in town. It's not Democrats, though they control the House and the Senate. It's not a bipartisan alliance of moderates, who often imagine themselves as pivotal but never are. And it's certainly not a conservative coalition, if only because there aren't enough conservative Democrats in Congress to fill a closet at the Heritage Foundation. The most powerful group is President Bush and congressional Republicans . . .

"True, Bush and the Republicans aren't dominant. They're a minority, but an unusually effective one. One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January. Another: Democrats have momentum on no domestic issue, not even health care. A third: Senate Republicans last week defeated an amendment urging Bush not to pardon former White House aide Scooter Libby and won overwhelming passage of another that says terrorists jailed at Guantánamo shouldn't be transferred to U.S. soil."

You can't dispute Fred's math on one point: Only one of the Dems' Six for '06 pledges--the minimum wage boost--has become law.

By contrast, Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum feels he's being spun silly:

"The Washington Times reports on the latest campaign strategy from the Republican Party:

" Senate Republicans are preparing to take aim at Majority Leader Harry Reid over the August recess for being 'all talk but no action' . . . 'We really ought to be asking why this Democrat leadership won't allow Congress to move forward on serious policy debates,' [Sen. John] Kyl said, when asked about the talking-points memorandum he is circulating.

"You have to give Republicans points for consistency. They bring the Senate to a halt and then blame Democrats for not getting anything done. They destroy FEMA's ability to respond to natural disasters and then hold it up as an example of why you can't trust government to do anything right. They lose a war via unparalleled military incompetence and then claim that liberals are defeatists for pointing it out. They spend 20 years claiming that Social Security is going bankrupt and then use the resulting public insecurity about Social Security as an explanation for why the whole system needs to be privatized."

Mitt has had a few oddballs working for him, as this Boston Herald story makes clear:

"An aide to former Gov. Mitt Romney who was linked to the campaign's alleged use of phony badges has created personal Internet pages where he boasts that he's a top secret 'special ops' employee who toils in the "underbelly of politics."

"Will Ritter, who helps plan Romney's presidential campaign events, included the bizarre, Jason-Bournesque job description on Internet networking pages that also contain boisterous pictures of him hoisting a champagne bottle in a hot tub and other party shots."

It's worth a click, just for the picture.

As the controversy over "Scott Thomas," the New Republic's Baghdad diarist, continues, Orlando Sentinel columnist Kathleen Parker tries to tie his writing to an entire ideology:

"In the case of Scott Thomas, the 'truth' that American soldiers are woman-hating, dog-killing, grave-robbing monsters confirms what many among the anti-war left believe about the military, despite their protestations that they 'support the troops.' We tend to believe what we want to believe, in other words. Whether Scott Thomas is real and his reports true remains to be determined. In the meantime, it is tempting to wonder: What if we believed in American honor and victory in Iraq? What would those dispatches look like?"

In fairness, this is just one guy--and a soldier, according to the New Republic, not a journalist.

Blogger Ed Driscoll says the L.A. Times spiked a column suggesting that the paper join up with older artists to give away free music. And he's got the goods.

Finally, remember the endless iPhone hype? Now that some people are finding flaws, you don't hear about it much. Chris Case is taking it personally:

"I must admit that things between us had a great and beautiful start. I was in love with your bag before I even saw you. And when I logged onto iTunes for easy activation, I was enthralled with your sleek beauty. Remember our first night together? We stayed up all night getting to know each other and then you went to sleep in my arms. God, you were gorgeous.

"Yet, a few weeks later, it seems that none of the promises that we planted in those fields of hope has flourished. In fact, after a brief and torrid first few days together, things have gone steadily downhill, making me realize that it's best to sever ties now while we still both have our dignity and I have not smashed you on the sidewalk in frustration.

"Unfortunately, simply put, it just didn't happen for us. Nothing remains of what looked like a growing love, besides some memories and a few dozen photos that are now safely tucked away in my iPhoto, images of a love that once burned white hot, but now are just a flicker of sadness. How did everything lose its enchantment so quickly? All that remains is a bitter taste of what once tasted like such sweet candy . . .

"It seems that you've fooled others before me and they are willing to ignore your obvious flaws. But they are shallow sheep! I need more. The fact that I have to hit three keys to make a phone call and I can't dial out of my contacts just by typing is unacceptable to me. I don't want to scroll through all of my S's just to call Steve (I have like 80 contacts in 'S' alone - five Steves! -- sorry, but I have a life outside of you). The last straw for me was when I found that if you are sick or hurt, I have to pay Apple 99 bucks a day for a replacement while you're in the hospital. That is so unfair."

CC: Steve Jobs.