On 4/17, the three candidates met with British PM Gordon Brown, "who tactfully declined an opportunity to declare a special kinship with any of the would-be successors" to Pres. Bush. Brown: "It is for Americans to decide who their president is going to be."
The private meetings "touched on many of the big issues in the bilateral relationship, especially Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process and the international economic slowdown, a particular concern" for Brown, "who has low approval ratings back home."
"It was the first time" Barack Obama "had met" Brown. Obama "tried to break the ice by noting that he had visited Downing Street" in '05 and "was able to sit in a chair once used" by Winston Churchill. Recalling a joking Obama, a British official: "He was very tempted to ask for a cigar and a brandy."
Hillary Clinton, "by contrast, has known Brown for years, dating back to the presidency of her husband" (Abramowitz, Washington Post, 4/18).
Wall Street Journal's MacDonald reports, "In addition to discussing the current financial turmoil, Brown learned he had many interests in common with his potential future counterparts."
Clinton "spoke about her Welsh grandmother," and Brown "informed her of Wales' recent rugby triumph. Clinton said her grandmother would have been proud."
John McCain "spoke about British World War II commanders. He expressed admiration" for Bernard "Monty" Montgomery and Alan Brooke ("Washington Wire," 1/17).
What's The Matter With Elitism?
Washington Post's Farhi writes, "Other than being called a criminal, a philanderer or a terrorist sympathizer, is there an accusation in American politics worse than being branded an 'elitist'?"
"For any politician, such an epithet pretty much stops the game in its tracks. So much of the machinery of modern political campaigns -- the speeches, the ads, the photo ops -- is calibrated to convey the illusion that the candidate is One of Us, that he or she is a man/woman of the people."
"It doesn't matter that those who run for president are almost always better educated, better dressed, more telegenic, far wealthier and more articulate -- all in all, drawn from an elite class -- than just about every voter in the country. We know it, but prefer to hear about log cabin beginnings..." (1/18).
The Catholic Delusion
Historian George Marlin writes, "Faithful Catholics may account for only" 9% of the electorate, "but they still hold the key to victory in the swing-state voting booths" of PA, OH, MI, and MO. Dems "may lose" the WH "if they appeal only to the economic concerns and labor-union allegiances of these voters and ignore cultural issues."
"In a closely contested election, votes along the margins matter. If a relatively small percentage of practicing Catholic voters get energized" over McCain's "pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military positions, it could move those states" into the GOP column.
Many Dems "scoff at this possibility, thinking it inconceivable that religious and social values can transcend economic ones. For them, values are a mere sideshow in the battle for materialistic gain: Religion is the opiate of the people." But modern history "suggests otherwise."
Many Catholic "yuppies" have found church doctrine "embarrassing and, to be accepted by the 'beautiful people' who dominated urban enclaves, had become 'cafeteria' Catholics -- keeping the doctrines they liked and rejecting those they found inconvenient."
"This split between practicing Catholics and cafeteria Catholics has caused much confusion. Pollsters and politicians have begun to wonder if Catholics can still be recognized as a voting bloc" (New York Post, 1/18).
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion