EPIGONIC

Mark Halperin Explains the Clinton Argument for Staying In

Basically, sounds to me that Clinton's hope is that people are too racist to vote for Obama...

Pathetic.

from veracifier.vodpod.coposted with vodpod

TPMtv: Summa Bosniatica

Excellent summary of the Clinton Bosnia heroics from TPM.

Thank god Sinbad was there to help.

from tpmtv.vodpod.composted with vodpod

Why is Hilary Acting Like Sean Hannity?

Yesterday, in an interview with Right Wing Nutjob Richard Mellon Scaife (who bankrolled various investigations into Whitewater in the 1990s, and whom the Clintons have been courting the past 12 months), Hillary Clinton said:

"I think given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor."

Contrast that with what Martin Marty, a distinguished scholar writes this week in the Chronicle of Higher Education about Wright (via Andrew Sullivan, who provides excellent context):

Trinity focuses on biblical teaching and preaching. It is a church where music stuns and uplifts, a church given to hospitality and promoting physical and spiritual healing, devoted to education, active in Chicago life, and one that keeps the world church in mind, with a special accent on African Christianity. The four S's charged against Wright — segregation, separatism, sectarianism, and superiority — don't stand up, as countless visitors can attest. I wish those whose vision has been distorted by sermon clips could have experienced what we and our white guests did when we worshiped there: feeling instantly at home.

So, we have Obama who criticizes Wright's specific, adhorrent remarks but courageously refuses to throw him under the bus and reminds us of the broader context for those comments. ANd we now have Professor Martin Marty who makes more considered, thoughtful comments about Wright.

 

And we have Hilary. Talking, with Mr. Scaife and his minions, like Sean Hannity. Tells us something, doesn't it.

UPDATE: I was curious to see what Hilary supporters thought about her comments in front of right-winger Scaife yesterday. So I had to head over to Taylor Marsh. Thought there might be some sheepishness, a grudging acknowledgment of the irony at least. Maybe even a token expression of sadness, disgust. Nope.

Obama's Speech on Race in America

The most brilliant speech on race in America in my lifetime, by anyone.

Watch it if you haven't.

from my.barackobama.composted with vodpod

Hillary in the House

Hillariously funny, if unintentionally so.

Watch and weep.

from www.politico.composted with vodpod

Kinda Like Nancy Reagan?

Hillary Clinton has been trotting around the country touting her foreign policy experience these past twelve months, claiming credit for many of her husband's signature achievements.

Fortunately, the press are finally starting to wake up and dig into this a bit.

It's clear Clinton didn't do anything significant or of real substance, despite her crowing.

Perhaps her strongest argument is that she shared a bed with the sitting President, and offered him advice and counsel. No doubt about that. But so did Nancy Reagan, whom many credit for pushing Ronald Reagan to take aggressive steps to negotiate an arms control agreement with the Russians.

His partnership with Mikhail Gorbachev was perhaps the most significant foreign policy success of any President in the last 30 years. And Nancy Reagan undoubtedly played a role behind the scenes as important at that played by Hillary Clinton.

But did anyone ever suggest with a straight face that that made her more qualified than others to be President?

A Question of Her Character, and Yours

As many pundits have noted the past 2-3 days, Barack Obama is in a bind. Hillary Clinton is distracting the ref ("the press is unfair to me!") and then throwing punches below the belt when they're not looking, or after they've been made too timid to respond.

And Barack Obama, having pledged to fight fairly, would look like a hypocrite if he too started throwing punches below the belt. Or biting off her ear, to torture the analogy further.

But a totally fair -- and appropriate, and perhaps winning -- response is to point out to the world (and to the refs) that she is throwing punches below the belt. And to ask: "What does that say about her character?"

And: "Haven't we had enough these past eight years of politicians (Bush, Cheney, Rove, Delay) who will do anything to win, including not playing by the rules?"

It's totally fair to ask voters to declare where they stand on this -- do they really support a candidate who will do anything it takes, even if unfair or wrong, to win the election?

It's totally fair to suggest: a vote for a boxer who hits below the belt is also a test of your character.

For even if you think Senator Clinton is marginally better prepared to be President (despite the lack of evidence to support that view), do you really want a person of her character occupying the White House? 

Happily, Senator Obama seems to be doing this today.

Finally, I'd note this: if Obama played by the Clinton rules, he'd ask people this:

"I've proven through a lifetime and experience that I have the good character necessary to be a good President. Senator McCain has proven that he has the good character necessary to be a good President. Senator Clinton? You'll need to be the judge of that."

Of course, Obama won't say this. But it kind of proves the point, doesn't it?

What Has She Done Again?

Would love to know: what would Hillary Clinton name as her most substantive, substantial accomplishment?

Kinda Reminds Me of Bush-Gore

Hillary Clinton's win-at-all costs approach to the campaign has brought up emotions I last felt in November and December 2000.

Remember that time, when we witnessed the Bush campaign's effort to win at all costs, and snatch the Presidency, by any means necessary.

That involved making sure certain votes didn't get counted in Florida. Clinton's parallel effort has just involved stealthily appealing ("don't leave any fingerprints") to the baser nature of some folks (i.e., their racism) by darkening images of Obama; assaulting Obama on "Nafta-gate" when in fact it was her campaign that double-talked Nafta to the Canadians; claiming that the opposition-party nominee is better prepared to be President than your own party colleague (maybe because he and Clinton both so strongly supported our misbegotten war in Iraq), thus helping to make it more likely that person will get elected (sorry, folks, but Senator Clinton won't be able to unring that bell).

I suspect some Hillary and her supporters expect and hope that many of us will come through for her in the Fall if she is the nominee. After all she's done the past few weeks, she would be wise not to count on that. Her actions have reminded many of us not of Democratic greats, but other folks -- like George W. or Nixon. And we just can't support that kind of candidate, as much as we love our party.

Clinton's Hypocritical and Detestable Rezko Attacks

As a Democrat and ardent supporter of Bill Clinton, I was disgusted by the Republican hatchet job (abetted by the Wall Street Journal and Jeff Gerth at the Times) to manufacture a scandal with Whitewater in the early days of the Clinton Administration.

It was an era long before blogs, by I personally expelled plenty of hot air defending him to friends and colleagues.

But while Whitewater was ultimately shown to be mostly political theater orchestrated by the Republicans with help from sloppy reporting (see Gene Lyon's detailed deconstruction -- favorable to the Clintons -- here), those pushing the attacks and line of inquiry could claim there was a potential of real wrongdoing.

The Clintons' Whitewater partner -- Jim McDougal -- owned a savings & loan in Arkansas that was regulated by Bill Clinton's state government. McDougal raised money for then Governor Clinton -- just before he got approval from a state regulator to raise money for his failing bank. His bank was represented by none other than Hillary Clinton before the state regulator.

It was possible McDougal could have gotten approval from the state regulator as some form of quid pro quo for raising money for Clinton. Nothing was proved of course, but it was theoretically possible.

In the Rezko case, something like this isn't even theoretically possible.  As a U.S. Senator, Obama wielded no regulatory power over anything involving Rezko or his business -- and is not alleged or suggested by anyone. It's pure political theater, done solely for the reason to make Senator Obama look dodgy, to put him on the defensive before tomorrow's primary.

So of all the things done in this campaign to date, I find the Clinton campaign's relentless pushing of the Rezko issue particularly disgusting.  They, of all people, should know better.  They were slimed by the Republican attack machine with Whitewater. So it's pathetic and sad that she's reprised the same techniques and applied them to a fellow Democrat, especially given where there isn't the same potential for of wrongdoing as there was with Whitewater.

Last week Senator Clinton chided: "Shame on you Senator Obama." This definitively proves to me she has no shame, and she doesn't deserve the vote of any self-respecting Democrat.