Daily News Roundup, 1/14/08: The War And You

This weekend, CNN ran a lengthy election issues analysis piece beginning with a question: "Whatever Happened to the War?" Not long after that story was published, Clinton and Obama brought the war back to the forefront.

The campaigns have begun battling in earnest for primacy on the issue, and it gives one the impression that this conversation isn't like to be over soon. Clinton was on the offensive yesterday on Meet The Press...

Rubin's statements came just a few hours after Sen. Clinton unleashed her latest political offensive during an hour-long interview on NBC's "Meet The Press." Clinton used the network platform to accuse Obama of waffling in his war opposition, noting that the Illinois Democrat had given an anti-war speech in 2002 but voted for funding resolutions while in office. "That is inconsistent with what he is now running his campaign on," she said. "The story of his campaign is premised on that speech."

...and Obama organized a tough response immediately:

The Obama campaign was quick to return fire on Clinton's charges by organizing its own Sunday conference call rebuttal. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) suggested that the new Clinton campaign attacks on Obama were similar to those used by right-wing groups to deflate John Kerry's 2004 presidential run.

You can expect more punditry which tells you that now the gloves have come off, but I think the heat in this campaign will only increase as each contest comes to be worth even more to the competitors.

On the other side of the spectrum, it seems Republicans can't even work with Republicans. They would probably be all better off if they hadn't started messing around with an idea as ridiculous as the border fence, but they did, and now they can't agree on it. Kay Bailey Hutchison is not apologizing for her amendment that threw a wrench into the works on the border fence, but rather arguing that the characterization of the amendment (by ridiculous people like Duncan Hunter and Peter King) as "a midnight massacre" is incorrect, or at least dishonest.

It is no wonder, then, that reports about the GOP casting about for an identity for this generation continue to stream in. Consider for a moment the popularity of the idea of faith-based government activism, or the rise of the "Pro-Government Republican" who view social issues as more important than keeping income taxes low. I dare you: just think about it.

And the lack of strength in the field doesn't help:

Much of this chaos is attributable to the fact that this is a very flawed field, or at least one ill-suited for the times we're in. If a camel is a horse designed by committee, then this year's Republican field looks downright dromedarian. This slate of candidates has everything a conservative designer could want -- foreign policy oomph, business acumen, Southern charm, Big Apple chutzpah, religious conviction, outsider zeal, even libertarian ardor -- but all so poorly distributed. As National Review put it in its editorial endorsement of Romney (I am undecided, for the record): "Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything -- all the traits, all the positions -- we are looking for."

And so it is. Of course, as soon as I discuss Romney's potential problems in Michigan, the polls roll out that he's got definable leads. It is truly a year in which we aren't sure — and can't be sure — what will happen.

Lastly today, I have some choice words for Republican State Senator Kim Brimer, who keeps resorting to silly tactics to avoid a campaign against Democratic candidate Wendy Davis: Walk it off, Kim. You just look silly. I mean, were you not aware that campaigns were a part of being an elected official? We'll report more on this later.