After 33 years and three months, I have officially moved out of Washington, D.C. Clichés come to mind (“it’s been a good run/ride” seems the one most popular lately. But I hate that cliché. So, let me go with the “it’s a new chapter” cliché.).

I don’t mean to make this all about me, but then again what is a blog if it isn’t all about the person writing it? So, indulge me. I moved to DC in March 1981 to work for Malcolm Baldrige when he became President Reagan’s secretary of commerce. I leave DC in May 2014 in the process of co-authoring, with my wife, a book on Malcolm Baldrige. Bookends in a way.

In between were a few different, and great, jobs. Many good, and many great, friends. Some once-in-a-lifetime experiences.  Much fun. Some sadness. No major regrets.

But indulging me is one thing, turning totally narcissistic is another. And I’ve known a few of those types in DC too (put them under the “some sadness” category). Now we live in a home we’ve been making ready for 10 years in Marion, Mass., a lovely little town on Buzzards Bay which is close enough to Cape Cod that some think we live on the Cape, but far enough away that we have none of the traffic or over-pricing.

Retirement, a place I’ve been for nearly six months, has been busy enough. The move is one piece of the busy (and when the boxes arrived with the movers yesterday the myth that we live minimally was busted. Now, though, that is an aspiration. So, unpacking is now another task to be done.) I’m doing some writing though not enough in this space lately largely because of move tasks. I’m on a board that’s been busier than I anticipated. I play my first-of-the-year round of golf tomorrow, weather permitting. There are six grandkids within two hours of here, and three daughters. All people I hope to see more often now.

Life is good. And, I must admit, it has been a good run/ride. And I’m hoping that continues for many years to come.

Why is it that the Republican Party nominates presidential candidates who take a harder right position than they truly believe, lose and then come out after their candidate-hood is over and support more progressive approaches? We all know why, but, I mean, WHY??

Mitt Romney, whose political philosophy has always been hard to decipher, is the latest. He came out for an increase in the minimum wage the other day. Why?  “Because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay,” he said. I agree, but that's not how the party runs its candidacies lately. Candidates move right because that's where the base is, they say, and that's how you win nominations. Of course, you win the primary and lose the general election. Kind of like being all dressed up with no where to go.

I hear my right-er wing friends already. George W. Bush won, twice. True but he also made some pragmatic decisions, as all presidents must. His dad did. Everyone read his lips and then he raised taxes. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. Not politically, because it's part of what cost him his re-election. But it was, for the country, the right thing to do. And 41 was always, in my book, a pragmatist, which is NOT a four-letter word, my righter-wing friends.

Then there was, cue the harps, Ronald Reagan, darling of today's right wing. The candidate and president most GOP presidential candidates and Members of the House and Senate cite as their guiding light. Would that were true. As someone once said, kind of: "I knew Ronald Reagan. I worked for Ronald Reagan. And, you non-compromising, holier-than-thou right wingers of today, you are no Ronald Reagans."

Reagan held true to his general principles: smaller government, lower taxes and a strong military. All of us who lived in his time can recite his mantra. And he held to it.  Those were his goals, his aspirations, and he marched, sometimes slowly, toward them. And, he knew when to compromise. He liked to say to his party-mates on the Hill, you get me 70 percent of the way there now, and we'll get the other 30 percent next year. Today, they say "all or nothing." And the latter is what they get. 

Truth is, I partly make up my mind on which way to vote based on: who do I think really think is not telling the truth about his/her views? Who is willing to forgo his campaign sound bites and do the right thing when the right thing should be done? For me, last time around, that was Mitt Romney. I figured, he doesn't believe everything he's saying, so he won't follow through on everything he's saying. In other words, I hoped he did not keep his promises, nor did I think he would.

I was right. But he's also now all dressed up with no place to go.

Mel Brooks famously said, in "History of the World: Part 1", "It's good to be the king." 

Today, that could be paraphrased into "It's good to be Hillary Clinton." Remember when it wasn't good? Back in the first year of the first Clinton term when she was leading on health care reform?   Didn't go well. It wasn't good to be Hillary then.  

Then there were all those hair-dos when she was First Lady. A critical media always  had a go-to story because it could recap all the hair-dos and  hair-don'ts.  

But that was then. Now, Hillary is a star on the lecture circuit getting well into the six figures for giving, basically, the same speech over and over. Her mostly every  utterance is headline news. She is the front-runner not just for the Democratic nomination for president, but to win the presidency and follow President Obama into office. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some started a campaign to name Hillary queen!  

And, she's written a memoir which is making headlines before it's even been published.  The lead story in the Style section of the Washington Post today is the media critic reviewing the stampede that's going on by bookers on every TV show on every network, and probably some that would launch if they could land The Big First Interview with Hillary when the book IS published soon.  

It's HillaryMania which is a far distance from where she started, lo those many years ago.  

I've never been a fan of memoirs by politicians in office or seeking to be in office. They, obviously, are positioning documents written to lay out the author's positions in the most favorable light or raise issues to get attention before they announce a candidacy and test themes. Now Mrs. Clinton, you may say correctly, is different because she has served as First Lady, secretary of state and a U.S. senator. True, she has stories I'd enjoy hearing. But I doubt we'll get many of those in this book which is a preview, really, of what a Hillary candidacy would look like. The ultimate trial balloon. And, it doesn't hurt that the publisher reportedly paid her $8 million for the book. A win-win for her. And it doesn't hurt that a book swing will be held, inaugurated (pardon the phrase) by that first TV  interview, the Big Get, as the networks would say.  

The publisher had to be expecting something in the book that was "news" and would cause folks to line up for it, and my guess a strategically planned series of "leaks" is about to happen about the book, called "Hard Choices," and those leaks will include some interesting stuff and great teasers to spur sales. But my guess is that stuff will only be things that could help a potential Hillary candidacy. Any criticisms of Obama, for example, will be those  that help a Hillary run.  

I'm not a Hillary hater. I have a problem, as do many, with the "dynasties" that seem to be trading the White House, including the Bushes (and I am a HUGE FAN of George Herbert Walker Bush and served in his White House). I have a problem with Bill being back in the White House. I think, though, that if a Hillary vs Jeb Bush race developed, it has the potential to be one of the better (and I mean issue-based) campaigns we've seen. They both are that good.

Meantime, those who are so inclined can enjoy "Hard Choices." Honestly, not sure if I'll read it or not. While I don't like these kinds of books for the reasons given, I have made exceptions along the way.

It's another White House Correspondents Association Dinner weekend!! The glitterati are arriving in town. The parties have begun. The bold-faced names are inhabiting restaurants and hotels. And, you might even find an ink-stained wretch among the guests....just not as many as some years ago. The bold-faced types are taking up more seats, which means fewer for the reporters.

But, that's okay as long as Lindsey Lohan can get a seat! Personally, I'm okay with Lupita attending because, if I actually was in attendance, I would like to see her.  I don't oppose celebrities attending the dinner (not that I have any say) but I have a problem with so many attending. Years ago, the only celebrity was the guest comic. Now it's Lindsay, Gaga and whoever finished 4th on American Idol five years ago. And a red carpet! Are you kidding me?? A red carpet? For a journalist dinner? They are oh-so-important. Then again, you see few journalists walking the red carpet. That's for the celebs, and Wolf Blitzer.

Anyway, it's good celeb-watching in the District the next few days. You may be eating at Cafe Milano and, if you can score a table this weekend, you might look and see sitting next to you the vice president -- Kevin Spacey.

On an unrelated topic. kudos to new NBA Commissioner Adam Silver for swift, just and decisive action against soon-to-be-ex Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for his racist comments in a private conversation with his ex-girlfriend who, if you look up gold-digger in the dictionary, you can see her picture.

For all those yelling "First Amendment, First Amendment," please remember the government isn't restricting Sterling's speech. He, of his own free will and $13 or so million dollars, bought an NBA team and agreed to the rules of the league for his conduct. While "thou shalt not be a racist" isn't a specific rule, it certainly is an expectation, especially since slavery ended years ago, racial prejudice is against the law in hiring and employing, and, well, let's just say it -- racism is wrong, people.

So, Adam  Silver did the right thing. He did it quickly and after speaking with the accused and others. And, along with the fine and the ban for  life, Commissioner Silver is asking the league's other owners to force Mr. Sterling to sell the team. For the record, that $13 or so million Sterling paid for the team many years ago, will garner him a profit of about $1 billion!! So, not such a hardship.

And for a guy who has been accused of prejudice before, both with his team and in the housing projects he's owned, not much of a reputation hit either, since he's earned that over his 80-year lifetime.