On those rising to power and those losing it

Wait a sec. Rudy Giuliani is running for president? Mayor Rudy Giuliani? What type of practical joke is this? Yes, he was the head of New York City. But he's also more liberal than his title affiliation would reveal and is beyond corrupt and shady. Yet, he just happened to be in office on September 11, 2001. Suddenly that makes him an expert in crisis handling and terrorism? Give me a break; are Americans really that naive?

(I happened to see his NH ad on CNN last night. It consisted of a number of frightening, fear-mongering images closing with a shot of the burning World Trade Center before it cut to his face. America should be more outraged over his use of these tactics.)

The New Hampshire debates (sponsored by Facebook?!) were two nights ago, and I watched some of it again yesterday. Overall, Edwards had the best performance. He had solid answers to the questions, showed passion about what he was talking about, and generally looked awake and alive. He appeared rested while his challengers came off as exhausted. Next up was Gov. Richardson. His main flaw was that he kept repeating himself; every answer involved his superior foreign policy experience or his tenure as secretary of energy. That's great and all, but I wish he had some other material.

Sen. Obama was, as usual, a little lackluster. Although his responses were not half-bad at all, he isn't as electric in real-time debates as he is in planned talks. But he admits this--he feels that these issues are too large to discuss in only 30-seconds. A cop-out? Perhaps. Yet it's a valid excuse.

As for Hillary? Her attempt to play the negative card shows a lot about her campaign at the moment. She acting like she's being pushed into a corner and has to fight her way out. Edwards siding with Obama was classic at that it showed her cattiness, but I was also amazed that they didn't bite back. That is key; voters have showed during the 2008 primary phase that "going negative" is not as desirable as it may have been in the past. Hillary's reluctance to see this will be her downfall.

One criticism that Obama has been getting is that although he's an excellent speaker, he is empty on the issues. This is a ridiculous claim. First off, Americans are dumb, but they aren't that dumb. They're not going to let a candidate who's all fluff and no substance win them over. It only takes a simple Google search to find where Obama stands on the so-called "issues." Secondly, he was very clear about his policies and methods during the NH debates. He may not have been as exciting as Edwards, but he outlined plans for foreign policy, health, energy, and a few others. He was also able to defend them amidst attacks from his rivals. If that's not having "substance," I don't know what is.

But this issues debate is vastly overrated, anyway. Details aside, all of the democratic candidates have the same views on almost everything. And whoever gets the nomination will change his (or her) views in order to get more moderate on the national scale. Even after all that, in the White House, Congress and advisors will completely shake up any plans created during the nomination phase. So who cares about issues? As cynical as it sounds, perhaps the differentiating factors are looks and charisma, after all.

And in closing:
"I've been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this! [...] There will be plenty of time to get negative with the Republicans." ~ Gov. Richardson on the attack on Hillary during the NH debates.

----

Brian Cashman was invited to Fenway Park a few days ago and said the following in front of a full crowd:

"The dynamics are changing with us. When I signed up with this current three-year deal, and this is the last year of it, it was with full authority to run the entire program. George [Steinbrenner, the Yankees’ owner] had given me that. But things have changed in this third year now with the emergence of Hal and Hank Steinbrenner and that started this winter."

This is bad news for the Yankees organization. Cash has been the reason why we have Joba and Hughes, and why the farm system is no longer being raped. If he's not allowed to have the autonomy he should have, not only will he probably not return for 2009, but good ol' Hank will trade our youth away for older talent, resulting in the 80's all over again.

This is no good. The new Boss needs to realize his role, look at history, and step down.

Roger Clemens was on 60 minutes last night defending himself. I haven't watched it yet, but somehow I don't expect my opinion to be changed. Talk about a fall from grace, eh? He and Hillary should get together.