In a New York Times op-ed John F. Kennedy’s daughter, Caroline Kennedy - a direct link to an era nostalgic Dems wistfully refer to as “Camelot” - endorses Barack Obama (D-IL) in the presidential primaries:

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country - just as we did in 1960. …

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Without a doubt, Obama’s candidacy has been inspirational to Americans across the political spectrum. He makes a convincing case that cynicism has held this country's aspirations hostage for too long – and the sleazy, divisive campaign tactics used against him by Bill and Hillary Clinton illustrate his point all-too-well.  But when you compare their stump speeches and voting records, the real difference between Obama and Hillary is style, not substance. JFK would be aghast at the Dem dogma that the party’s presidential candidate dutifully - and uncritically – recite by rote, especially on matters of national security.

For instance, would JFK have opposed going to war against Iraq as Obama has? Based on the available intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s WMD program, probably not. On the other hand, JFK would also give careful consideration to initiating military action in Pakistan if there is reliable, actionable intelligence on al Qaeda’s movements and Usama bin Laden’s whereabouts, as Obama has advocated.  

Any similarities between Obama and JFK are superficial, and a stronger case can be made that George W. Bush is more JFK-like.  

Throughout his political career, JFK was a staunch anti-communist. In 1954 he was the only Dem senator who did not vote to condemn Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade; running against then-Vice President Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election he (falsely) accused the Eisenhower administration for falling behind the Soviet Union in stockpiling ballistic missiles; as president, his foreign policy initiatives were focused on resisting the spread of Communism in Latin America and in the Western hemisphere (the “Kennedy Doctrine”).

Indeed, the Bush Doctrine is eerily evocative of the foreign policy vision that JFK laid out, if one substitutes “radical Islamic terrorism” in place of “Communism”:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. … Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? … And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

- JFK’s inaugural address, January, 20, 1961

“There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. … So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. … Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom.  … Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.”

- GWB’s second inaugural address, January, 20, 2005

And while Dems have oft decried Bush’s “imperial presidency,” his views on the scope of the Chief Executive’s powers does not differ much from JFK’s:

"(The next President) must above all be the Chief Executive in every sense of the word. He must be prepared to exercise the fullest powers of his office -- all that are specified and some that are not.... He must reopen the channels of communication between the world of thought and the seat of power... must know when to lead the Congress, when to consult it and when he should act alone.... It is the President alone who must make the major decisions of our foreign policy.... Even domestically, the President must initiate policies and devise laws to meet the needs of the Nation. And he must be prepared to use all the resources of his office to ensure the enactment of that legislation -- even when conflict is the result.... The White House is not only the center of political leadership, it must also be the center of moral leadership.... We will need in the sixties a President who is willing and able to summon his national constituency to its finest hour -- to alert the people to our dangers and our opportunities -- to demand of them the sacrifices that will be necessary."

The JFK liberals think they remember never existed. Were he alive today JFK, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman would likely have been friends and political allies.

Obama Takes SC By Storm

SC voters reacted to the Bill Clinton mudslide by giving Barack Obama (D-IL) a landslide. The margin of victory for Obama was 2:1 over Hillary (55 percent v. 27 percent) – significantly larger than pre-primary polling had indicated. And his appeal proved biracial and dual gender. 

The estimated turnout was a record-setting 530,000 people - 100,000 more than the number voting in the Republican primary week ago.

Exit polling showed that more six percent more black voters turned out this year than in 2004 (53 percent vs. 47 percent), and 8 out of 10 of them voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers. In contrast, six percent fewer white voters went to the polls as compared to 2004 (45 percent vs. 51 percent), and they split between Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Edwards (D-NC) with each getting 38 percent of these votes. But Obama still got a quarter of the white vote – in part, because he remains the most popular candidate amongst younger voters.

Because of the overwhelming support from black voters, Obama also won more women’s votes overall than Hillary (53 percent vs. 30 percent). Only 19 percent of black women voted for Hillary, suggesting that her “woman problem” may have morphed into a “black woman problem” (she got twice as many votes from white women as Obama, 44 percent to 22 percent). It remains to be seen whether this pattern bears out on Super Duper Tuesday.

To underscore his desire to be an agent of change, Obama’s campaign in SC departed from “politics as usual,” reports The Washington Post:

Obama virtually swept the African American vote despite rejecting typical tactics deployed in the South; aides said they hadn't paid "street money" to local leaders and community organizers to get people to the polls. Obama campaign officials had bragged about bucking this long-entrenched system, but they weren't certain until Saturday whether it would work.

The WaPo attributes his success to a superior ground organization made up of “9,000 volunteers and nearly 150 voting-day staging areas” that provided “an extra boost” for him at the polls.

The New York Times characterizes Obama’s victory as “a test of mettle” that showed “he could not only endure everything the Clinton campaign threw at him … but also draw votes across racial lines even in a Southern state.”

Obama’s soaring, lilting, graceful victory speech gave The Stiletto goose bumps:

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new - who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina. …

I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

But he also took care of some business – without ever mentioning the Clintons by name:

We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington - a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against. …

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

With Hillary and Obama each having won two primary states (NH and NV for her, IA and SC for him), FL is the tie-breaker. A victory for Obama in the Sunshine State will put him in a strong position in AL and GA and could blunt Hillary’s expected wins in CA, NY and NJ on February 5^th.

Fool Me Once …

A Texan with the initials “RP” is running for president. There is a Bush in the White House, the economy is in recession, American soldiers are dying in Iraq and many Dems think their best chances of recapturing the presidency is a candidate named Clinton.

Ron Paul in 2008? No, Ross Perot in 1992.

On Saturday, Fox News “Weekend Live” anchor Brian Wilson interviewed (video link) Jim McTague, Washington Bureau Chief for Barrons, who postulated that making the wavering economy the Number One issue in the campaign will benefit Paul more than any other GOP candidate: “Ross Perot’s message [was] Get out of Iraq, he was anti-free trade … he was for raising taxes on the rich, and that message resonated with the middle class. Ron Paul has nearly the identical message so if the economy gets worse and he stays on message, he’ll attract a lot of votes,” especially in states with open primaries.

The moral of the story:  Don’t vote for anyone with the initials “RP” when there is a Clinton running for the White House.

The Kiss Of Death?

In its endorsement of John McCain in the NY Republican primary on February 5^th  the New York Times reminded many Republicans exactly what it is they don’t like about the AZ Senator: “[O]ne of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed … stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture … recogniz[ed] the threat of global warming early … work[ed] with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking [campaign finance reform] legislation … worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.”

As if the liberal paper’s endorsement wasn’t damaging enough, Bill Clinton was running around SC crowing that McCain and Hillary are “very close” and that they “like and respect each other."

Several recent polls suggest that McCain would edge out Hillary in the general election, so Bill must have decided to divide his time between slowing any momentum McCain may be building and discrediting Obama (it’s patently clear by now that the Clintons are trying to kill Obama seven different ways to make sure he stays dead).

Health Insurance: Use It And Lose It?

Townhall.com columnist Rich Tucker tells a tale of private health insurance haves and have-nots:

Recently, a colleague discovered he had kidney stones. He was diagnosed on a Sunday. On Wednesday doctors tried unsuccessfully to break them up with sound waves. On Thursday they used lasers. Because of complications, the doctors had to put in a stent and wait a week before finally breaking up the stones seven days later.

Compare that with the experience an Iraq/Afghanistan war vet had in 2003. He waited six weeks to have his kidney stone removed at a VA hospital. No stent. No speedy, state-of-the-art procedures. Just week after week of extreme pain.

The difference? The first man had private health insurance, while the other depended on a government-run, single-payer health system. Socialized health care doesn’t work, and the VA system proves that.

The first man had thousands of dollars of procedures performed to break up the stones, and resolve the resulting complications. His insurance company may unexpectedly refuse to shoulder the financial burden of some or all of the costs of his treatment. Not to make light of the inexcusably sub-standard medical care that too many vets receive, while the soldier was forced to endure physical pain for several weeks, Tucker’s colleague may ultimately be forced to endure financial pain for months or years to come.

The Stiletto generally doesn’t favor government regulation or government-paid health insurance for all, but the callous - some, like attorney Mark Geragos would use the term “criminal” – disregard private health insurers have shown customers who paid premiums year after year in good faith has created the healthcare crisis that makes any alternative attractive to so many Americans. Clearly, profits not patients matter to health insurers, but it’s blood money they’re making. Before taking the drastic step of adopting government-paid health insurance, why doesn’t the government first issue sensible regulations to stop some of the slimier practices health insurers use to deny coverage?

In many cases, those who are left in the lurch by their private health insurers are parents who have children with congenital disabilities or malformations. They could have aborted these children, as so many other parents in their circumstances have, but they chose life. The federal government needs to support that choice in order to make abortion “rare” – not through hand-outs, vouchers or government-mandated and paid-for insurance, but by fixing the healthcare system we already have. Mike Huckabee comes closer than his rivals in understanding that healthcare is not just a Democrat issue, and he should make it a focus of his campaign.