David Lat

David Brooks on the Kennedys' Endorsement of Obama

I usually find myself in agreement with David Brooks, who's one of the most insightful political and cultural commentators out there. But I don't agree with his sunny view of the Kennedy family's endorsement of Barack Obama.

I have a less charitable interpretation. The Kennedys, for decades the "First Family" of Democratic politics, don't like the prospect of being supplanted by the Clinton dynasty. So they are using Barack Obama as a vehicle for smacking down an uppity diva and reasserting their hegemony over the American left.

The Kennedy Mystique [New York Times]

If you've ever been the 'uncool' kid, you should be pro-Hillary.

Check out this interesting piece by Howard Kurtz, explaining that Barack Obama doesn't really court the press - which is surprising, considering all the adoring press coverage he gets. The operatives of Hillary, in contrast, court the news media assiduously (despite being dumped upon constantly).

If you've ever been the "uncool" kid, the kid to whom things didn't come effortlessly, the kid who was picked last in gym class - yup, that was me - you should be pro-Hillary. See also "Hillary As Tracy Flick" (video drawing parallels between Hillary Clinton and Tracy Flick of "Election," who's similarly frustrated by the effortless campaigning of a more popular and "cooler" rival).

Barack and Michelle Obama are just so... perfect. They're beautiful, and brilliant, and benevolent. Hillary and Bill Clinton are also brilliant, to be sure, but imperfect - and deeply, publicly so.

This is why Bill and Hillary are, to my mind, better celebrities than Barack and Michelle. I like my celebrities fabulous, but flawed. I want to put them on a pedestal, yet still be able to relate to them. I want to look up to them and down upon them, all at the same time.

This is why Barack and Michelle aren't to my liking. They aren't mere mortals; they exist in some realm of inaccessible perfection. In contrast, and just like the boldface names who populate the pages of US Weekly, the Clintons (and their marriage) are simultaneously ordinary and extraordinary.

Team Obama Is Courting Everybody But the Press [Washington Post]
Hillary's Inner Tracy Flick [Slate V]

Are successful people bigger a**holes?

If you haven't done so already, check out Matthew Scully's fascinating essay about former White House speechwriter Michael Gerson. It's from September 2007, but it wasn't freely available online until last week, when The Atlantic's paywall came down.

Most people would say that Gerson comes across rather poorly in the piece: self-involved, self-promoting, and downright dishonest. He hogs credit for success and sticks colleagues with blame. He craftily courts media attention, while keeping his fellow writers out of the limelight. In short, he's a bit of an a**hole.

But I have to confess to no small admiration for Gerson, as well as the many other highly successful people who have risen to the top of their fields by being nasty, ruthless, and Machiavellian. E.g., Anna Wintour of Vogue, Hollywood producer Scott Rudin, super-agent Ari Emanuel of Endeavor (the model for Ari Gold of Entourage), and numerous Biglaw partners (Dennis Block of Cadwalader immediately comes to mind).

I often wish that I could be more like these people. Unfortunately, my weakness for the affection and approval of others -- i.e., my overwhelming desire to be liked -- prevents me from rising to their level of fabulous d-baggery. [FN1]

Of course, how much their personalities contribute to their success is open to question. Do such people succeed because, or in spite of, their a**hole-ishness? Is it that they're really great at what they do, so people will tolerate their being less-than-nice? Or are their conventionally unappealing traits -- nastiness, underhandedness, disregard for the feelings of others -- a critical part of their success? I lean towards the latter theory, but I'm open to persuasion.

[FN1] To be sure, I'm sometimes snarky when I blog. But occasional irreverence online is a far cry from rampant, in-person, face-to-face a**holery.  I can't pull off the latter; I'm "too nice" in person. I smile, I laugh, I avoid argument and confrontation. People are often surprised by how my online persona diverges from my in-person persona.

Present At the Creation [The Atlantic]

Could this be Hillary's anti-Scream, her anti-Macaca moment? Could this video clip save her faltering campaign?

If enough people watch this remarkable video clip, perhaps Senator Hillary Clinton can regain her footing and momentum as a campaigner, and vanquish Barack Obama.

In the clip, a fatigued Senator Clinton answers a voter's softball question about how she keeps it together on the campaign trail. As she gives her heartfelt response -- talking about the opportunities she has received from this country, and her desire to make a difference -- HRC appears to be on the verge of tears. She doesn't actually cry; she is a strong woman. But she comes quite close, perfectly close, and to powerful effect.

I'm reminded that Hillary Clinton is at her most effective politically when she's at her most personal. Remember how her political career was launched, after she was humanized as the wronged woman in L'Affaire Lewinsky?

Before I die, I'd like to see a feature film based on the successful campaign for the Oval Office of President Hillary Rodham Clinton. It would be like a sequel to Primary Colors, based on Bill Clinton's dramatic quest for the presidency.

After her loss in the Iowa caucuses, Hillary is on the ropes. It looks like all is lost. But then she has The Breakdown -- and turns everything around, immediately and miraculously. She wins the American people back from Barack Obama. She trounces him in New Hampshire, sweeps South Carolina and Nevada, and sews it all up on Super Tuesday.

And what about The Breakdown? We learn near the end of the film that the apparent choking-up and barely suppressed sobs were a mere ruse: a brilliant performance by a female politician more devious, calculating and Machiavellian than any man.

P.S. In the film, HRC should be played by one of the great screen actresses -- maybe Meryl Streep or Annette Bening. This actress goes on to win an Oscar for her portrayal of President Clinton. And when she shows up at the Academy Awards, they use the movie version of the video clip as her Oscar clip. Perfection.

Teary Hillary: 'Very Personal For Me' [ABC News]

Quote of the Day

From an NYT article by Patrick Healy and John Broder, about the Hillary Clinton campaign retooling itself for New Hampshire:

Denny Gallaudet, an investment manager and undecided Democratic voter from Freedom, N.H., who attended a rally in Rochester on Friday with Mr. Clinton, said he sensed “a little Clinton fatigue” among voters. Mr. Gallaudet, who supported Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996, said he was skeptical that Democrats were still in the thrall of the former president.

“I got really mad at him about the Monica thing,” he said. “It really creamed the party.”

Among other things.

A Campaign Retools to Seek Second Clinton Comeback [New York Times]

No Way To Treat A Lady

The Iowa caucuses are over. The order of finish: Barack Obama (37.6 percent), John Edwards (29.8 percent), Hillary Clinton (29.5 percent). My reaction to the results can be summed up by the immortal words of Paris Hilton: "It's not right! Mom!"

Okay, seriously -- I'm sad for my girl Hillary, but not at all surprised. Bill Clinton was right when he said it would take "a miracle" for HRC to win in Iowa; her loss in the state, which some in her campaign suggested she skip entirely, was a foregone conclusion. So I'm surprised that Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy, two political reporters whose work I generally admire, are making such a big deal about it.

In any event, Iowa is just the first step on a long journey. I have faith in La Hillary, a battle-tested fighter, who declared when she launched her campaign that she's "in to win." Obama supporters, you haven't seen the last of this delicious diva.

The silver lining of the Iowa cloud: the inevitable demise of the Edwards campaign. He bet his entire presidential candidacy on winning Iowa. He lost.

Oh yeah, Huckabee won among the Republicans, with about 34 percent. Yawn. We'll see how much that matters.

Obama Takes Iowa in a Big Turnout as Clinton Falters [New York Times]
2 Newcomers Jolt Parties’ Status Quo [New York Times]
Obama Wins Iowa's Democratic Caucuses [Washington Post]

How Did This Get To Be #3 on the NYT Most Emailed Articles List?

Usually it's easy to figure out how articles make their way on to the Most Emailed Articles list of the New York Times. But the presence (and #3 ranking) on the list of this column, by Bob Herbert, has me puzzled. Whether you agree or disagree with the substance of his argument, the piece itself is completely banal. One would be hard-pressed to find a single original thought in it.

To be sure, many NYT columnists -- including some of the most wildly popular, like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich -- write columns that are less than completely original, drawing heavily on their past work. But at least Dowd and Rich are often scathingly funny. Herbert's column is devoid of humor and frighteningly earnest. One would expect to find it in the pages of a Long Island high school newspaper, penned by a guilt-ridden teenager from an affluent background -- not in the pages of the Gray Lady.

Nightmare Before Christmas [New York Times]