I just finished reading an amazing L.A. Times story by the news photographer who made the so-called Marlboro Marine famous, and then found his life linked to the soldier in ways he never could have imagined. If you have the time, read part one and part two. It's worth it.

In the Times this morning there's a story about how the state's top three Democrats, Gov. Christine Gregoire and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, have not endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. That didn't bother Clinton when she was in town recently and said she loves being in the state because we're not afraid of "strong women."
The argument that women politicians need to stick together has not convinced any of the state's top three politicians to back Clinton, though none have endorsed anyone else, either.

Gregoire reiterated her position that she doesn't want to endorse in the Democratic primary while fellow Gov. Bill Richardson is in the race.

"I don't think many Democratic governors have endorsed anyone," Gregoire said, adding that once Richardson either drops out or wins the nomination, more governors will announce their preferences.

So far nine of 27 Democratic governors in the country have endorsed either Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton has won backing from Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer duh, not Richardson. Obama is backed by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

As to what happens when Richardson "either drops out or wins the nomination," Gregoire has already made it clear that she thinks Clinton will win the nomination.

David Broder went to the National Governor's Association in July when only a handful of governors had endorsed in the presidential race. He pointed out that the governors' reluctance was far different from their rush in 2000 to back Al Gore and George W. Bush.

He found a variety of excuses.

John Lynch, a New Hampshire Democrat, says he is concerned about protecting the primacy of his state's primary, so he wants to assure everyone a fair shake by staying uncommitted. Bill Ritter, the freshman Democrat in Colorado, says that because he will play host to the Democratic National Convention he does not want to offend. But Ritter rejects the notion that Richardson has some claim to Colorado's support because he comes from a neighboring Mountain West state or because he is a Hispanic with ties to that important Colorado constituency.

...

In reality, the governors' neutrality speaks to the failure of anyone in either party to put a clear stamp on this election.

...

Some see the governors' coyness as a way of positioning themselves for possible vice presidential nomination, while others suggest that neutrality is a polite way of saying no to peers or former peers who are running — Richardson, Romney, Huckabee and former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson.

Isn't it nice to know politeness isn't dead in politics today?

That's what famous California liberal, and former radical, Tom Hayden says. Ordinarily something Hayden says may not seem very important in a presidential campaign. He's the former California state senator who was once married to Jane Fonda. But his name was mentioned by Barack Obama and he responded in a piece at Huffington Post.

Hayden was ticked off by this quotation from Obama in a recent New York Times Magazine profile:

The Democrats have been stuck in the arguments of Vietnam, which means that either you're a Scoop Jackson Democrat or you're a Tom Hayden Democrat and you're suspicious of any military action. And that's just not my framework.

Hayden took it personally.

Barack, I thought Hillary Clinton was known as the Great Triangulator, but you are learning well. The problem with setting up false polarities to position yourself in the "center," however, is that it's unproductive both politically and intellectually.

What jumped out at me most in Hayden's post was his argument that Obama is running based mostly on his race.

Your problem, if I may say so out loud, and with all respect, is that the deepest rationale for your running for president is the one that you dare not mention very much, which is that you are an African-American with the possibility of becoming president. The quiet implication of your centrism is that all races can live beyond the present divisions, in the higher reality above the dualities.

First off, what would happen if it was a conservative Republican, not a liberal Democrat, who said Obama's deepest rationale for running was his race? I can tell you what would happen, there'd be outrage followed by calls for the now-de rigueur apology. But more substantively, is race the reason for Obama's centrism? What then is Clinton's? She after all runs most as a centrist. Is it her gender that underlines her call for Americans to live in the "higher reality above the dualities?" If you read Hayden's full post you see he doesn't like to be thought of as a point on anyone's triangle. He doesn't want to be an extreme.

But he has a point about Obama running against triangulation at the same time he uses it to position himself within the Democratic party. Just yesterday in Iowa, Obama railed against campaigns like Clinton's where candidates "don't answer directly tough questions. You don't present tough choices directly to the American people for fear that your answers might not be popular. You might make yourself a target for Republicans in the general election.

"Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do it."

I wonder what Scoop Jackson Democrats think of being another point on Obama's war triangle? Thoughts?