The Man Who Wouldn't Be President

If Hillary Clinton does not win this thing, she will fail to become the first woman to be president. She will also become one of the more accomplished candidates -- male or female -- to fall short of the presidency.

Her 20-year resume is unrivaled among the current candidates: First Lady for eight years, U.S. Senator for eight more, and Secretary of State for four years.

But where does she stand in U.S. history? Has anyone with more impressive credentials sought and failed in multiple attempts to be president?

The answer is yes and most definitely yes.

Henry Clay is arguably the most impressive American politician never to be president. A lion of the U.S. Senate, Clay also served multiple stints as Speaker of the House and also as Secretary of State.

A lawyer and highly skilled orator, the Kentuckian negotiated some of the most famous legislative compromises of the pre-Civil War 19th century. From 1811 to 1850, few major events happened in American politics without Clay's input.

If ever a person seemed destined to be president, it was Clay. And he wanted it very badly. But Clay ran three times -- in 1824, 1832 and 1844 -- and lost each time.

I haven't read any biographies of Clay, but recently read several biographies of the men who served with him and bested him. Sometimes that can give a better read on a person.

He made one major miscalculation, otherwise, Clay was bedeviled by circumstances. Simply put, if it weren't for bad luck, he'd have had no luck at all.

"I am the most unfortunate man in the history of parties," he reportedly said after the Whigs bypassed him for the elderly William Henry Harrison in 1840.

The 1840 contest represented Clay's best chance at the presidency. President Martin Van Buren was on the ropes due to the Panic of 1837. Inexplicably, the Whigs settled on the 67-year-old Harrison, who won and died one month into his term.

But the President Clay plan went off the rails much earlier. In hindsight, it's fascinating to consider just how close Clay came to becoming not just a POTUS, but possibly an all-time legendary American figure.

By 1824, the 47-year-old Clay was an established power in Washington, D.C. He was elected freshman Speaker of the House in 1811 and used his forceful personality to remake the largely ceremonial position into the powerful post it remains to this day.

One anecdote tells the story: in one of his first acts as speaker, Clay banned Rep. John Randolph's dog from the House. Members feared the prickly and pugnacious Randolph and Clay was the first who dared confront him on the issue.

Fast forward to 1824 and Clay's plan seemed sound. In a four-man field -- Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and William H. Crawford were the others -- Clay rightly assumed that none of the four would get the required number of electoral votes.

In that scenario, the 12th amendment calls for the House of Representatives to choose the president. Clay needed only to finish in the top three in electoral votes and then let his House influence do the work from there. He finished fourth.

It is likely that, at 47, he was viewed as too young by the standards of 1824 America. What Clay did next would burden him politically for the rest of his life.

In his defense, Clay only did what he did best: he struck a deal. As the three candidates fished for support in the House, sectional loyalties led to gridlock. Already a foe of Jackson's, Clay held a lengthy meeting with Adams one evening.

Soon after, Clay delivered the votes of the three states he won -- Ohio, Missouri and Kentucky -- to Adams. Five days later, the new president named Clay as his secretary of state.

The Jacksonians howled about the "corrupt bargain." For all his gifts, Clay was an intractable sort and no match for the Jackson touch. Clay's political compass failed him one last time during the 1844 campaign, when he vexed many by opposing annexation of Texas.

By this time infirmed and nearing death, Jackson smugly observed that his old adversary was "a dead political duck."

There are many similarities between Henry C. and Hillary C. Both were and are skilled Washington insiders who chased power their entire lives and lusted after the presidency.

Clinton hopes to write a different ending.

Inside Baseball: On to Cincinnati!

When the Phillies play their first game in Cincinnati April 4, they will be tied for first place.

It's the closest to contention they will get all season. With that in mind, the most urgent business on skipper Pete Mackanin's to-do list seems to be deciding an opening-day starter.

In one corner, we have Aaron Nola, acknowledged by all to be the most talented pitcher in the organization. In the other, we have everyone else.

The latter group includes Charlie Morton, and I think he should get the ball April 4. Is he better than Nola? No. Jerad Eickhoff and Jeremy Hellickson might be a better, too.

But Morton doesn't have to be the best pitcher to fill the role I think they have in mind for him.

For sure, Morton was brought on because the Phils needed a starter and he was available for nothing. The Pirates were more than happy to offload his $8 million 2016 salary.

At 32, Morton is what I'll call a "young veteran." He's been around for a long time, but he's only thrown 875 innings.

The rest of the 2016 starts will go to Nola, 22, Eickhoff, 25, Hellickson, 29, Vincent Velasquez, 23, Brett Oberholtzer, 26, Jake Thompson, 22, Mark Appel, 24, and Adam Morgan, 25.

Many of these names show up on various prospect lists. Yes, the Phillies are young and talented, with a bright future -- emphasis on young.

I believe Phillies chief Andy MacPhail looked across town and saw the young 76ers wandering aimlessly through loss after loss. After stumbling through an embarassing couple of months, the Sixers talked Elton Brand out of retirement to babysit the striplings.

Morton as coach on the field is not a crazy thought. In a largely anonymous career to date, he's made minor news a few times. Once for mimicking the legendary Roy Halladay's delivery. Hopefully, he adopted Doc's work ethic as well.

But the thing that stood out to me is Morton's fondness for pitching inside. Nobody in baseball hits more batters than Charlie Morton, one per 11.2 innings. He led the National League in hit batters in 2013 and 2014, despite missing more than half a season's worth of starts over the two years.
 
The point, of course, is not to bean anyone. All that does is add another baserunner. What it tells us is Morton is fearless about pitching inside.

I see a lot of young pitchers seemingly afraid to throw inside. Or maybe they don't know how. The end result is giving up half of the plate, and it makes the hitter's job a lot easier.

"Pitching is the art of instilling fear," Hall of Famer Sandy Koufax said. In another interview, he was more blunt: "Show me a guy who can't pitch inside and I'll show you a loser."

Harsh? Perhaps.

I probably saw all of Nola's Major League starts last year, and my recollection is he prefers staying away from hitters. The numbers back it up: he hit three batters in 165 minor-league innings.

Eickhoff and Thompson pitched a combined 117 innings in the Phillies' organization after coming over via trade last year. Neither recorded a hit batter.

Again, it's about pitching inside. Hitting batters is merely a byproduct of that skill. The Phillies have a stable of talented young pitchers, and they need to learn to become complete pitchers.

I believe Morton is here to serve as mentor, coach on the field and leader of the staff. Can he fill that role starting the second or third game of the year? Of course.

But I think the Phils will be all in on this, and they should be.

Obama's Jacksonian Legacy

"This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" -- Mitch McConnell

Barack Obama's presidency most reminds me of Andrew Jackson.

While it may seem illogical to compare anything about America's first black president with an avowed racist who smashed any abolitionist acts, there are similarities.

Above all, Jackson was a supreme political tactician. Despite his lack of formal education, few leaders have ever handled political opponents more deftly than The General.

And Jackson did not lack for quality opposition. Sens. Henry Clay and John Calhoun, as well as the brilliant Nicholas Biddle, were just three of his formidable foes.

Sen. Thomas Hart Benton is the Hillary Clinton in this analogy, an early adversary who quickly learned the political value of not holding grudges.

The former trio never overcame their stubborn opposition, and Jackson made them pay at every turn. His proficiency in trouncing Clay and Calhoun forms much of Jackson's presidential legacy.

In battles over administration appointments, nullification and the national bank, Jackson bested opponents via a series of shrewd moves. Opponents were left to claim Jackson desired to be king of his kingdom.

For a nation just a generation or two removed from the abuses of King George III, the charge was a serious one.

These days, Obama's serially vanguished opponents claim he "wants to act as if he's a dictator," as Gov. Chris Christie said recently. Dictator is the new king, apparently.

The modern-day roles of Clay and Calhoun are filled by Sen. Mitch McConnell and former Speaker John Boehner. McConnell even hails from Kentucky, the state where Clay held sway. Like Calhoun, the first vice president to resign, Boehner also gave up a power post after losing several confrontations with the White House.

McConnell welcomed the Obama presidency thusly: "My number one priority is making sure President Obama's a one-term president."

That didn't work out so well. Through healthcare, gay marriage, government shutdowns and elections, Obama seemingly emerges stronger each time.

And that brings America to the final epic showdown over the Supreme Court. Republicans would do well to stop underestimating their opponent.

Or at least set their expectations low. The Washington Post has already theorized that even if Republicans succeed in batting the nomination forward, Obama wins anyway.

The Jackson years ended with one final battle to erase an early Senate censure from the record. In the ensuing debate, Clay, Calhoun and Benton gave fiery speeches for and against as all recognized the historical importance of a final fight that closed an era.

Even as Calhoun spoke in oratory fury, Jon Meacham writes in "American Lion," "like Clay ... he knew that his was a futile argument."

Will McConnell & Co. recognize the same?

Time to Bern? Not likely

Relax Right America, Bernie Sanders isn't going to be president.

His time is going to run out, much like it did for William Lloyd Garrison and Lucy Stone. The former was an early abolitionist, while the latter led the women's suffrage movement.

History will remember Sanders, too, once the United States completes its transformation to a complete social welfare democracy. Yes, it's inevitable.

If you're scoffing at this point, please consider the history of the American psyche. We are progressive, as all humans are. But we are the scared, suspicious, white-knuckle-freedom-clinging kind of progressive.

And that usually means the rest of the free world is likely to evolve long before we do. We like to scuffle over an issue for a few decades before we grudgingly give change a try.

Consider slavery. By the time Lincoln issued the Emanicpation Proclaimation, we were one of the last first-world civilizations still sanctioning the foul practice. It took decades, and the loss of 620,000 lives, for Americans to overcome their deep fear of change and renounce slavery.

Consider Social Security. Signed into law by FDR in 1935, the U.S. program trailed many European nations by 30-40 years. The need had existed for much longer. American ex-presidents Madison, Jefferson and Monroe all died penniless, or in significant debt, in 1825 and 1833. One can imagine how ordinary elderly citizens (if they lived that long) suffered through their final years throughout the 19th century.

Still, it would take another century and a calamitous depression to produce an old-age pensioners program. And it wasn't exactly hailed by all either. Another two-year battle would rage before the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Roosevelt and Social Security began.

Not before Sen. Alf Landon voiced the specious fears of the change-haters: "It will impose a crushing burden on industry and labor [and] establish a bureaucracy in the field of insurance in competition with private business."

Yeah, about that...

So that brings us to the current issues of health insurance and gun control. On both, we are once again trailing every significant country in the world. We are much further along on the former than the latter, but it will take some time yet before we get to the single-payer system that is all but inevitable.

The concept of President Sanders will move the boulder a few meters up the hill. But there's still too many right-winging, bitter-clinging, proud clingers out there to make it a viable option in the foreseeable future. 

Those folks will again mask their fear of change in references to the Founding Fathers and "limited government." 

In reality, those Fathers (minus Jefferson) recognized fairly quickly that there are things a strong central government can do better than the private sector. Adams, Washington, Madison and others endorsed hasty changes to give the government power to make treaties, levy taxes and build roads.

Washington sought to crush a rebellion similar to the nonsense in Oregon.

So no, Bernie isn't going to be president. But get used to his ideas. He's giving you a glimpse into the future.

My Favorite Seinfeld Moments

Not everyone gets Seinfeld -- and that's not a bad thing. It was a quirky bit of nothingness that blazed across our TV screens like a Tony Danza workout video.

And then sitcoms returned to doing what sitcoms do, with a few more cameras and a bit of multi-plot storytelling thrown in.

Seinfeld was an original. It remains TV's most original comedy. As such, the list of memorable scenes is rather lengthy.

Bill Wolfe won't agree, but these are my top five. All are Kenny Bania-approved. Giddyup!

1. He took ... It out.

I love this scene because it involves all four characters and they all have hilarious turns at the material. And let's be honest -- it's a great concept and a great line. Anybody that you can't immediately bond with over a "He took it out" quip isn't a true Seinfeldian.

This is quite simply a masterpiece of comic genius from JLD. Julia owns the scene from start to finish. In fact, if she were to expire tomorrow and need a one-minute audition tape to get into comedy heaven, this is all she needs.

My favorite part is Elaine fogging up her glasses in the middle of the money line.

"He took (blows on glasses) it out."

Now Jerry is a comedian and not an actor. But as he often did, he raises his game here. I never felt Seinfeld was acting in these scenes. He's just a funny guy riffing with a funny girl.

"So you're talking, having a pleasant conversation, and all of a sudden..."

"It."

"It."

"Out."

"Out."

Throughout this marvelous exchange, Julia delivers several clever comebacks in modulated tones. Then Kramer enters and, unlike Jerry, needs no explanation at all.

"Well, maybe it needed air. It can't breathe in there!"

The topic is on such a wonderful roll, it continues in the ensuing scene -- with Jerry recounting the events for George. And George gets his great line.

"I spend so much time trying to get their clothes off, I never thought about taking mine off."

2. The Opposite.

This is here because "The Opposite" is my Seinfeld nirvana. Larry David and Jerry at their Mt. Everest of nothingness. I picture Larry coming up with this premise and then writing the entire episode in 20 minutes. It practically writes itself.

The story arc is perfect Seinfeld quirkiness: the ever pessimistic, neurotic George concocting a scheme to reverse his lifetime curse by simply ignoring his base instincts.

This is Jason Alexander's tour de force. There are so many great lines ("Why shave every day; It just grows back") and scenes here that I want to just list the entire episode. But to narrow it down to one scene leaves only one choice: the opening.

To watch George seize on this wackadoodle idea is hysterical. Of course, Jerry is there to do what Jerry always does to his pal, that is, egg him on. Elaine provides wonderful nonverbal reactions that keep the scene moving along nicely.

It all ends up at the usual place -- comic gold -- as George approaches a woman at the coffee shop, something he would never do.

"My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

"I'm Victoria. (big smile) Hi."

What makes the episode and scene work so marvelously is how George's crazy idea is actually quite sensible. We believe what we are seeing because we know the secret George doesn't know. That his belief in this hairbrained scheme has given him a belief in himself. He has confidence and that is why he gets the girl, and a job with the New York Yankees.

Of course, George doesn't see it. He wouldn't be George if he did, right?

3. She's Bald!

Another ensemble piece with everybody chipping in. This one is here because (obviously) it's a very funny scene. But it's also a landmark moment in the series, the scene where George's unending obsession with his baldness reaches its pinnacle.

But first, a comment on the writing. Superb as usual. One reason I give few sitcoms a chance is the lame writing. I know it is a lot more difficult than it seems, but if I can guess your lame punch lines in my head, then I'm not going to watch.

Few shows can write lines like this: "Let me tell you something. No one walks into a beauty parlor and says 'Give me the Larry Fine.'"

The scene rachets up when Elaine calls George out for his shameless hypocrisy.

"You're rejecting somebody because they're bald."

"So?"

You're bald!"

Elaine is a classic sassy broad and she's having none of George's bullshit. The confrontation is just what George needs to deal with the bald issue once and for all and go on to a happy life. Well, not necessarily happy, per se, but he's back to being George.

"You're like a bald again," Jerry quips.

4. Worlds collide.

This was a tough one between worlds collide and "we're not men." This is from our Seinfeld for Singles collection. Single men, that is.

Let's face it, Seinfled is a guy's show. The majority of characters, regular and recurring, were male. Even Elaine is the type of gal who is more likely to have guy friends than girlfriends.

 As a guy's show, the Seinfelders covered relationship issues mainly from a guy's perspective. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Whenever I see the episode with Marcy yada yadaing sex, I think "a guy wrote that line." Doesn't make it any less funny.

The world's collide concept once again puts George in the lead. Guys recognize this as one of those quirky concepts that make perfect sense to us. But only Seinfeld would tackle it in a TV show.

It's out of character for Jerry not to know the worlds concept, but necessary for plot purposes. George's impassioned explanation is what makes this scene memorable. Scenes like this won Jason regular Emmy nominations.

"If Relationship George walks through that door, he will kill Independent George! A George divided against itself cannot stand!"

"It's all just slippin' away... and you're lettin' it happen!"

5. Super Bowl sex romp.

The last spot is the hardest and this is the third time I am rewriting this section. "The Marine Biologist" (my second-favorite episode) was initially here, then I considered terrific scenes from "The Contest" and "The Pilot."

In the end, I could not leave off what I consider possibly the greatest single line in Seinfeld history. You know the one:

"I don't trust this guy. I think he regifted, and then he de-gifted, and now he's using an upstairs invite as a springboard to a Super Bowl sex romp."

This is Seinfeld in one sentence -- why people either love it or hate it. I get that some people find it a little too smart-alecky, but those of us who love it, love it for the clever originality.

It was never banal. It was never trite. And I doubt we'll ever see anything like it again.

Adams and Jefferson

David MCCullough's famed biography "John Adams" should really be called "Adams and Jefferson" since it is very much dominated by their relationship.

Understandably so as they were linked for decades, bound by respect, divided by differences. In a timeline that is well known, Adams and Jefferson ceased speaking for many years before Benjamin Rush nudged the pair toward a reconcilliation.

Their ensuing correspondance that filled their retirement years with a delightful exchange of ideas.

I have not seen the miniseries based on McCullough's book, but it rightly raised Adams' profile. Past presidents are frequently judged and rejudged, with their grades adjusted accordingly.

After reading the book, I don't think Adams gets enough credit as a great man. No doubt his foibles did him no favors. He was at various times a petty, vain sourpuss who was quite simply high maintenance.

His counfounding decision to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts confirmed his leading role in one of the most embarassing laws in U.S. history.

But there is far more good than bad. Adams was a man of impeccable character. His character and integrity were of legendary standard. As a young lawyer, he defended British officers knowing it would make him highly unpopular.

Adams did extraordinary work in Paris and London during the 1780s. His diplomacy was crucial for the young nation in a time of need.

As a vice president, Adams had little to do for two terms. But when he ascended to the presidency, war with France seemed inevitable. Much of the nation was torn, with pro-French passions high.

It was here that Adams showed his considerable intellect, diplomacy and political skill in keeping the young country out of what surely would have been a devastating war. At one point, Adams wrote an amazing letter to Congress reversing an earlier position on sending ministers to France.

It was a courageous act, one that made him scorn from supporters and ridicule from opponents. But it was the right move for the country.

Adams later appointed the great John Marshall to the Supreme Court, a monumental move. These wins should burnish the reputation of a great president, and while scholars generally give Adams good marks, his legacy seems more meh.

No doubt the man himself deserves blame for this. He did things like leaving town at 4 a.m. the day of Jefferson's inaugural. That is not a good look. Adams was definitely a mercurial man.

But he was also a great president.

George Washington

I am in a few weeks into a project to read bios of all 44 U.S. presidents. After a detour to read a pair of excellent Theodore Roosevelt books, I started at the beginning with George Washington.

I am now up to Lynne Cheney's 2012 bio of James Madison and I wanted to jot down a few thoughts before they escape me. It is fascinating to look back on our infant nation and the astonishing ways things were so different and yet very much the same.

Let me explain. The differences resulted primarily from lack of precedence and the technology of the time. Still, these things are interesting in hindsight. For example, Thomas Jefferson didn't learn until months later that he had been appointed secretary of state by Washington.

Some behaviors have changed greatly, too. In the 18th century, to show ambition for public office was considered a faux pas. So great men like John Adams were required to wait to be asked to serve.

And the presidential timelines were seriocomical. Washington decided a few weeks before the fall election to accept a second term. The evolution of competitive presidential campaigns with Adams v. Jefferson in 1796 is interesting to review.

The ways things remain unchanged is equally fascinating. We are an interesting people, and our groupthink response to Syrian refugees, for example, echoes our earliest American ancestors.

In 1798, Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, an unfortunate set of laws in response to the pressing French crisis. The former gave the president the authority to immediately expel any French-American suspected of conspiring against America.

Sound familiar? It's worth noting that Adams never expelled anyone, and it's highly likely no Syrian refugees will turn up as future terrorists. Seems probable that a better study of history might elicit a better response.

More thoughts on Washington:

1. Washington: He's been called the perfect man for the time, and it's hard to argue with those sentiments. The patience and foresight exhibitied by President Washington is remarkable. He had a special ability to elicit not just respect, but devotion from those around him, strangers and confidantes alike.
We recognize this as leadership, of course, but Washington had something more. His compassion and integrity (and probably his physical stature) made women want to be with him, and men want to be like him.
While he enjoyed a honeymoon of sorts during his first term, Washington frequently found himself between Federalists and Republicans during his second term. He was attacked by the press, and more often, from his own double-dealing cabinet officials.
Washington almost never responded, an incredible display of discipline and probity that carried him calmly through the fiercest of political crisises. It turned out to be a vital display of courage in leadership for a young nation that, despite winning independence in 1783, was under almost continuous threat of attack for the next several decades.
Washington's extraordinary heroism and leadership extended to his deathbed, where he kept a team of the best doctors informed on his progress ("It won't be long now") and instructed a trusted aide to delay burial until "three hours after death." The old general was concerned he'd be buried alive.