Thursday’s Mini-Report

November 29, 2007

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Good lord, it gets worse: “Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. ‘She used the PD as her personal taxi service,’ said one former city official who worked for Giuliani.”

* Giuliani is trying, in a pathetic kind of way, to push back against the “Shag Fund” scandal, calling the original Politico article a “hit job.” He added, “I would not accuse any of my opponents of doing it. But who knows, it could be on the Democratic side.” Either the story is true, or it isn’t. Either Giuliani can explain the scandal, or he can’t. Dismissing it is as a “hit job” won’t even persuade sycophants.

* Giuliani’s office did offer something resembling a substantive response, but it doesn’t make any sense, and side-steps all the key questions.

* Signs of easing tensions in Pakistan? “President Pervez Musharraf promised Thursday to lift Pakistan’s state of emergency on December 16, in a long-awaited gesture of reconciliation hours after being sworn in as a civilian leader. Addressing the nation on state television, Musharraf said he would restore the constitution and vowed that general elections on January 8 would be held ‘in a fair and transparent manner.’ The promise, which if carried through would meet one of the key demands of the international community, came a day after he had bowed to global pressure by stepping down as head of Pakistan’s nuclear-armed military.”

* TPMM: “It’s been an eventful week for the Lott clan. On Monday, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) announced that he’d be retiring late this year. The next day, FBI agents raided the law office of his brother-in-law, Richard ‘Dickie’ Scruggs. Yesterday, Scruggs, his son, and three associates were indicted for bribery. Scruggs is a hotshot plaintiff’s lawyer who famously cleaned up from lawsuits against big tobacco. His recent business has focused on Katrina-related litigation, especially against State Farm Insurance. He’d better have a great criminal defense lawyer, because the indictment from the U.S. attorney for Mississippi’s Northern District is devastating.”

* It could have been worse, but this is still madness: “A British teacher in Sudan was convicted Thursday of the less-serious charge of insulting Islam for letting her pupils name a teddy bear ‘Muhammad,’ and was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain. Gillian Gibbons could have received 40 lashes and six months in prison in the case if found guilty of the more serious charge of inciting religious hatred and given the maximum penalty.”

* Just imagine a political world in which campaign reporters at traditional outlets picked up the phone the way Greg Sargent does: “I have now spoken to a fourth person who has claimed on the record that Mitt Romney did in fact nix the idea of having Muslims in his cabinet, despite his claim that he never said this. Jarret Keene, a freelance reporter for a libertarian mag called Liberty Watch Magazine, tells me that he was at a private fundraising luncheon three months ago where he heard Romney say this. ‘He was asked if he would appoint a Muslim to his cabinet,’ Keene told me. ‘And he said, `Not likely.’ He said flatly that it was highly unlikely that it was ever going to happen.’ This runs directly contradictory to Romney’s defense of himself on the issue.”

* How did Time’s Joe Klein manage to get his FISA piece so terribly wrong? He listened to House Intelligence Committee member and right-wing partisan Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who, by all appearances, is mad as a hatter. I would have hoped Klein knew better, but this actually explains a lot about his errors of fact and judgment.

* AP: “Former Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who steered the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and was a hero of the anti-abortion movement, died Thursday. He was 83.”

* It’s nice of Newsweek to notice that Karl Rove was lying, blatantly and pathologically, about the 2002 Iraq war resolution vote last week.

* Glenn Greenwald delivers some good news: “The Electronic Frontier Foundation has won another significant legal battle, as a federal judge in California yesterday ordered the Bush administration to comply with EFF’s FOIA demand and disclose documents revealing its ‘communications with telecommunications carriers and members of Congress’ regarding efforts to amend FISA and provide amnesty to telecoms. Better still, the court imposed an extremely quick deadline for release of these documents — December 10 — so that ‘the public may participate in the debate over the pending legislation on an informed basis.'”

* Remember, it’s not Fox, it’s CNN: “During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: ‘General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org.'”

* One entertainment-related strike down, one to go.

* E&P: “Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust press coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new Harvard University survey, which also revealed four out of five people believe coverage focuses too much on the trivial — and more than 60% believe coverage is politically biased.”

* And finally, now that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is retiring, he’s really not holding back. In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hagel said he would give the Bush administration “the lowest grade of any I’ve known.” He added, “I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I’ve ever seen or ever read about,” before concluding, “They have failed the country.” I can’t remember the last time I’ve agreed so thoroughly with a conservative Republican.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

* It’s nice of Newsweek to notice that Karl Rove was lying, blatantly and pathologically, about the 2002 Iraq war resolution vote last week.

And then they decided to reverse their previous decision to hire him as a contributing writer/analyst. right? No….

  • OT

    John McCain is the type of guy who, if entrusted with a pure and innocent soul to guide, would mis-guide and corrupt them.

    What a disgusting worthless shit-hole.

  • * AP: “Former Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who steered the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and was a hero of the anti-abortion movement, died Thursday. He was 83.”

    Let us observe a moment of hatred.

  • What would be the Western – not to mention Republican – response if a visiting Muslim teacher here allowed her students to name a stuffed monkey “Jesus”? Would that be appreciated as just good clean fun, d’ya think?

  • So are all the men named Mohammed going to jail for impuning their prophet? Seems to me to be a fairly common name…..

  • It’s nice of Newsweek to notice that Karl Rove was lying, blatantly and pathologically, about the 2002 Iraq war resolution vote last week.

    Of course, it’s in the context of a “look at how a Democrat and a Republican both misrepresented the truth.”

    I’ll be more impressed if any MSM outlet says a Republican, or a Democrat, flat lied without bringing the other party into it to make the article “balanced.”

  • Actually Mark, I know several men named Jesus. The fact that it’s pronounced Hay-soos doesn’t change the spelling or the reference. And after you go after all the Jesuses, will you go after all the Marys next?

  • You’ve got to wonder if Giuliani really thought this stuff would not come out in the course of a presidential campaign. All I can figure is he either hasn’t been paying much attention to the last dozen presidential races or maybe he just wants to be punished.

  • I’m not “going after” anybody, and I don’t see the parallel between a man who was supposedly created in his God’s image and a stuffed monkey. I doubt there would have been a controversy if the teacher had wished to name her son Muhammad. I merely wanted to point out that religion is one of the last subjects that should be viewed for correctness through a Western prism. I’m not religious myself, so I’m not defending either viewpoint. I’m just remarking that people who go to work in countries where the population is deeply religious and trigger-happy at the same time would do well to study up on the place first. That might prevent them from randomly tagging inanimate objects with the name of the Deity.

  • * AP: “Former Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who steered the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and was a hero of the anti-abortion movement, died Thursday. He was 83.”

    You know, I’ve heard the FBI considers (or at least it did a few years ago) the animal rights movement to be the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat, or the greatest terrorist threat, after Al Qaeda. I wonder, why not the pro-life movement, which unlike the American animal rights movement, actually blows up buildings, has a much bigger movement to harass people than any animal rights group has, and actually assassinates people, over and over again? Or why not the White Power movement, which murders people and has prison gangs? What do you think the political ideology of the people making these decisions for the FBI is? Do you think we have a bunch of ultra-conservative hicks joining the FBI to fulfill their movie-inspired fantasies of fighting crime in the big ol’ city?

    It’s nice of Newsweek to notice that Karl Rove was lying, blatantly and pathologically, about the 2002 Iraq war resolution vote last week.

    Yay! Some truth got through the mainstream media filter, for once!!

    Remember, it’s not Fox, it’s CNN: “During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: ‘General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org.’”

    Any chance this show was an attempt to squelch the mixed feelings of rank-and-file conservative supporters who feel less resolute in their support of the Repubs when they see the neg ads?

    Mark at #4, that’s an interesting point, but you know we wouldn’t have a court, or even a lynch mob, threatening or empowered to lash a woman with a whip for naming a stuffed animal Jesus. And probably a lot of people here would consider naming a stuffed monkey Jesus harmless, and not having to do with an insult to the historical Jesus, either (although I’m sure you couldn’t count on everyone feeling that way, and I could certainly see someone naming a stuffed animal that as a deliberate misbehavior).

  • Hey, CalD @ #10 – you’re right. Fred Thompson looks like the doorman at the Dried-Apple Doll Museum.

  • Mark, Old Fred was definitely the scariest, but McCain’s turtle neck also gave me pause and what the hell was up with Rudy’s ear?

    I wonder if the Wall St. Journal will still employ a department full of people to sit around all day pecking out those dot illustrations on pieces of illustration board with rapidograph pens after Rupert Murdoch scraps the broadsheet format and turns it into a tabloid, as he did with the Times of London.

  • “Former Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who steered the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and was a hero of the anti-abortion movement, died Thursday. He was 83.”

    They say you should speak only good of the dead. I’m thinking…

  • I agree with Mark #4 for simply pointing out that all cultures have their religious and secular taboos, and mocking one culture because we don’t understand their point of view is hypocritical.

    Burn an American flag in front of the wrong group of people and you’ll get the living crap beat out of you, and roughly half the American people want to amend the Constitution to make it a crime to do so. That’s ridiculous, no less so than this example. And if we didn’t have the First Amendment, it would have been a crime long ago, a very serious crime.

    Use the word “ho” and you’ll get fired in this country. That’s ridiculous.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either honor their customs and try to understand them, or throw all this political correctness garbage away, here as well as there. And we all know that’s not possible.

    I’m not condoning what they do, but we’re just as bad in our own way. We just don’t see it, because it’s us, and we’re right, of course.

  • Every man should be able to date whom ever he chooses at his expense; Yeha right!! Rudy should know better!!

    I’m a practicing catholic and damn proud of my faith. The lives we live right now are just a transitional phase on our way to eternity; it’s up to our leaders, political and religious to guide us there: after all come judgment day, and judgment day is coming, they will be answerable to the supreme one; they will answer how they used the powers granted to them to guide God’s people in the right direction.

    At any rate, Huckabee had a decent debate and answered all the questions posed like a seasoned politician. The Republicans finally have a voice, a candidate who will from the next Government.

    I was hoping Huckabee would use his best ad “the fun voting machine” featured on this website:

    http://www.capitalpolitcking.com

    .

  • *****************************************************************************************

    Every man should be able to date whom ever he chooses at his expense; Yeah right!! Rudy should know better!!

    I’m a practicing catholic and damn proud of my faith. The lives we live right now are just a transitional phase on our way to eternity; it’s up to our leaders, political and religious to guide us there: after all come judgment day, and judgment day is coming, they will be answerable to the supreme one; they will answer how they used the powers granted to them to guide God’s people in the right direction.

    At any rate, Huckabee had a decent debate and answered all the questions posed like a seasoned politician. The Republicans finally have a voice, a candidate who will from the next Government.

    I was hoping Huckabee would use his best ad “the fun voting machine” featured on this website:

    http://www.capitalpoliticking.com

    .

  • Just when I was about to leap for joy that the American public has it right with the Harvard Study, a quick peak at E&P revealed this tidbit:

    “When asked if election coverage was politically biased, 40% believed it was too liberal; 21% too conservative; and 30% found it neutral. Nine percent of those responding were not sure.”

    Oh well. At least they think Big Media is getting it all wrong (which they are.)

  • “And finally, now that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), he’s really not holding back. In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hagel said he would give the Bush administration “the lowest grade of any I’ve known.” He added, “I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I’ve ever seen or ever read about,” before concluding, “They have failed the country.” I can’t remember the last time I’ve agreed so thoroughly with a conservative Republican.”

    right. and how many times have his votes really been consistent with this quote?

  • “When asked if election coverage was politically biased, 40% believed it was too liberal; 21% too conservative; and 30% found it neutral. Nine percent of those responding were not sure.”

    Well, remember, they have to be really ignorant to get the bias wrong. They have to not know what’s going on in order to not realize what the media’s ignoring, and in turn misidentify the bias as either liberal or not really there. So if anybody out there is wondering why they’re out of step with the poll break-down, that’s why, not because people who don’t read any news or blogs and just watch a little terrible mainstream media news once in a while have better judgment than you.

  • Open Thread post–an argument against Hillary Clinton that I’d love for one of her supporters (zeitgeist?) to rebut:

    …
    All of this relates to the second reason why I oppose Hillary – the Clintons are so scarred that they’re scared. Nothing bold will come from a second Clinton administration – and there’s a non-negligible chance that she’ll be pressured into doing something hawkishly stupid on the foreign policy front. Whether the flaw is action or inaction, the reason will be the same – they are intensely, neurotically afraid of appearing too liberal. The scars cut too deep.

    As Sullivan and others have noted, the Clintons came of age in a different time. In their formative political years in Arkansas, they internalized the lesson of distancing themselves from the dirty hippies. And it worked for them – both in Arkansas and in 1992. And that’s all fine – politicians have to play the cards that historical context deals them. More power to them.

    But 2008 is a new world. The modern conservative movement is both intellectually and practically exhausted. It’s still a powerful force, but the fires ain’t burnin’ like they were 20 years ago. There’s a window here to shift the course of the river – to enact not only a stable progressive majority, but to chart a lasting progressive course on the big issues of our day (health care, climate change, foreign policy).

    Frankly, I have no idea whether Obama has the potential energy necessary to seize this moment. But I do know that Hillary – and her husband – do not. They too are spent forces. Sure, they know how to get things done, but when have they tried? The one time they tried – in 1994 – they got so badly burned that I can’t imagine they’ll stick their necks that far out again. The 1994 health care debacle, after all, merely reaffirmed the lessons they learned in Arkansas. Stick close to business. Triangulate. Don’t be a dirty hippy.

    That’s why Hillary’s “old” Iraq positions are relevant to the future. The burning question on my mind is whether Hillary will be willing to at least try to take advantage of the necessarily-fleeting historical window that Bush’s collapse has made possible. Maybe she was timid in the past, but she’ll be totally different as President, right? Wrong. Iraq illustrates precisely how she’ll act. Whenever she fears her right flank is exposed, she’ll ride off with the nobles. Iraq is therefore relevant not because of what she did, but because it provides the best evidence of what she will do.

  • CalD @ #10: You’re right – those pictures are scary! I took a moment to vote for Ron Paul while I was there. What the heck, I like him as much as any of those other crazy bastards, so I might as well pile on. He’s at 66% right now!

    Henry Hyde, we hardly knew ye. So young at 83, Why, he was still having “youthful indiscretions in his 40’s!

  • Re: Dajafi #22:

    Rebuttal: It’s totally speculative and misunderstands the reasons Hillary Clinton does not always take the positions some liberals want her to take. Like a conservative trying to characterize a liberal’s strengths as vices, the person is writes so as to give the impression that Clinton only takes less extreme liberal positions out of fear of political consequences. It doesn’t even venture to consider whether there might be other reasons she makes those decisions.

    In some cases, it’s worth it to moderate yourself for politics/appearances sake in the short run, when taking a more liberal stance isn’t worth what it would gain the movement. Other times, liberals who want you to take what seems (to them) at the time to be the more liberal position are over-looking reasons why that position is just not as pragmatically smart as policy. Often, it’s a mixture of both.

    As far as being spent forces, we can’t just shoot our own people in the foot, so to speak, and call them spent forces when they fail due to opposition, Having some failures in your history doesn’t mean that you don’t have potential to be great or that you’re not the best person for the job, as any champion will tell you.

    In order for liberals to be successful in this country, we’re going to have to let our best people have chances to succeed, and not fall for Republicans’ hyperventialating and trying to make us think we got a broken toy for Christmas every time they shit in a Democratic leader’s pie and try to tell us it’s an organic train-wreck. The answer to stuff like that is better political opposition/defense against Republicans, better getting our message out, more discipline within the Democrats, rather than useless cannibalism.

  • One thing we liberals need to understand is that, practically- from a policy perspective- liberal values do not necessitate the “most liberal” looking answer to always (or even usually) be the best / most liberal answer to a policy issue.

    That is, just because there’s a badly run, illegal, or unjustified war going on, does not mean that the best answer is alway “End the war immediately! No other considerations need come into play!” Just because there is abuse in a terrorist detention center, does not mean the best answer is always “Scrap the center completely and immediately! Fire or court martial everyone who worked at the center and didn’t report anything!” Just because a conservative toadie introduces legislation to condemn the terrorist actions of a state that supports terrorism, but the legislation is a step closer to an un-needed war with that country, does not mean that the best answer is always to oppose the legislation.

    We’re adults and we should be able to think about specific problems as if they are specific, real-world situations.

    I think because of the way the Republicans run their message in this country, public politics in the United States is usually like living in a dysfunctional family, where people try to influence each other through guilt and nagging and intimidation- manipulative, dishonest measures. It makes things confusing, and makes it hard to see what should be clear in our consideration of our nations’ problems- for instance, background principles of thinking about those problems like what I describe in the first 2 paragraphs of this comment.

  • I wrote: We’re adults and we should be able to think about specific problems as if they are specific, real-world situations.

    And if you’re going to suggest and advocate extreme positions, you should be able to defend them from all angles, that is, in a practical way, etc. If something sounds nice or looks good at first but once implemented is bound to turn out to be a totally stupid thing for us to do, we shouldn’t do it.

  • “Former Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who steered the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and was a hero of the anti-abortion movement, died Thursday. He was 83.”

    Ah, another “good Republican,” as in my great grand-uncle Jim McKelvey’s dictum, “the only ‘good Republicans’ are pushing up daisies.”

    As to the CNN thing, I rather relish the thought of being an “American insurgent.” In fact, the term pretty well defines the past 43 years of my life.

    Up with the insurgency and down with the Empire!!

  • Even one of Rove’s former White House colleagues seemed puzzled by his remarks on the Iraq War vote. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard Karl say that,” said former Bush counselor Dan Bartlett.

    Even Dan Bartlett says Rove is full of shit, but there he is, writing columns to “balance out” a guy whose work is fact-checked mercilessly and passes every time.

    Someday I’d like to serve the media a sandwich that’s “only” half shit, and tell them they shouldn’t complain.

  • But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org.’”

    Um, what was inaccurate?
    Patreus was confronting Iraqi insurgents.
    Insurgents are those who oppose a current occupation or government.
    MoveOn IS liberal.
    They oppose our current government (or occupation).
    MoveOn more than anyone, confronted Patreus.

    The language is a little melodramatic, but not completely inaccurate like Faux.

  • Dajafi @ 22:

    Subject to two caveats, I’ll see what I can do. Caveat 1: I am not a committed Clinton supporter (as I told both a Clinton and Edwards caller last night, I remain undecided); I am leaning Dodd although that is meaningless because he’ll never be viable at my caucus so all that matters is my second choice. I could live with any among Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd and Richardson; there are things I like and dislike about each. So some true Clinton partisan may give you a better answer. Caveat 2 is that both the quote you cite and my response are based largely on wholly speculative amateur psychoanalysis, which tells you about all you need to know about their reliability.

    Let me first take on the underlying premise that it is a watershed time, a time when we can change the course of the river. I think progressives get overly-optimistic or greedy about that at their peril. The Federalist Papers expressly discuss the fears of the “passion of the moment” and the system is set up to avoid quick change – the arc of Neo-Con influence, while now ending, has run for nearly 30 years since Reagan won in 1980. The political center of gravity in both House and Senate will still be relentlessly centrist; Jimmy Carter tried to “change the river” and ignore the “Washington Way” and was left largely empty handed. Yes it is a critical election, yes we can end the arc of Neo-Con ascendency and start a new arc of Progressive ascendency, but this is not an election that changes things overnight. Indeed, the best first step is a steady, competent administrator. I think most of our leading candidates fit that bill, although I frankly have more faith in Clinton (perhaps Clintons plural) to fit that bill from Day One because they have been there, know the role, know the White House, etc.

    The second premise I challenge is that Obama, Edwards et al are major change agents even if one buys the idea that this is a “change the course of the river” election. While Obama is charismatic and voices progressive positions well, he more than any other candidate has premised his candidacy on being a “uniter not a divider,” on a new kind of pragmatic (i.e. compromising) politics. There is abolustely nothing in his Senate record to suggest he is a river-changer, and his recent meetings with Bloomburg and Hagel suggest he, much like Clinton, seeks to work across party lines. While Edwards is now channeling Dean circa 04, in his own 04 race he too tried to be the work-with-all-people uniter, and again his Senate record gives no evidence of trying to change the course of any rivers. Frankly, the only river-changers are Ron Paul, who would let the river destroy the town before having government help, and possibly Kucinich. The most credible river-changer, Russ Feingold, sat it out. The reality is that whether it is Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Clinton-cabinet member Richardson, on one of the life-long beltway boys Biden and Dodd, this group is highly likely to govern relatively from the center, and with any of them the progressive change will be evolutionary, not revloutionary. I do not see this as a big strike against Clinton as a comparative matter. I would add that I agree Clinton will likely tread somewhat safely (that has been her Senate record, after all). But I think Obama or Richardson would as well. They will all deny it if asked, but they cannot escape being iconic: they do not have the luxury of just being the President as Individual. Clinton, Obama and Richardson are the nation’s first experience with President as something other than a white male of European descent. At some level, conscious or not, they all understand that. They will be cautious in recognition of that — and that will be true no matter when those barriers are crossed. The second woman, second non-caucasian, second hispanic will all have much more freedom of movement. But I think it is high time we break those barriers and get those transitional issues out of the way.

    Which brings us to Clinton herself. On this, your source and I are both speculating. I do not believe the Clinton’s are “spent forces”; first, I take some solace in knowing Team Clinton are the only ones who have beat the Rethugs lately, which counts for a lot. Second, where your author sees the Clintons as worn down from all that has happened, I have more faith in their darker angels — I think they will be energized by a win in that it allows them to reclaim and rebuild the Clinton legacy lost to the impeachment and to the “Blame Clinton!” reflex of the past 7 years. I just think the author you quote gives too little credit to the drive for vindication and its motivating abilities. And in 1992, I lamented that the more conservative of the Clintons was running. At Childrens Defense Fund, HRC was seen as a radical leftist.

    So maybe it is a tepid defense of Clinton to say “she’ll be no more cautious, no more incremental, no worse than the others.” But in this case it really isn’t, because I love our field. Progressives have been way too hard on this group because none are our perfect savior. They each have a lot of good points and few weak points. In Clinton’s favor is that she’s been battle hardened over the course of more than a decade. She has been successful and earned respect from New Yorkers, talking heads, and across the aisle for her work in the Senate. She has seen how the White House works and I think that lets her get off to a quicker start. Her campaign has been well organized and disciplined, and she was very respected for her intellect as a lawyer, all of which point to attributes that would make her competent at governance. And I think having the close counsel of Bill, who has been there and actually undone some of the economic damage of Reagan/Bush 1, and built very good relations with other leaders is a big advantage as well.

    So yes, it is a different world from 1992, but in some ways — conservatism has gotten even meaner — Clinton(s) remain better equipped to deal with those new realities, and I would suggest no less able or likely to take advantage of the positive changes than Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd or Biden (Edwards may be more willing than the rest to make radical changes, but also has less proven abilities that would help in doing so; in the end it seems a wash).

    Thats the best argument I’ve got. 🙂

  • Thanks, z–much appreciated. I disagree, not surprisingly, but your best here is pretty good, and I readily acknowledge you might prove to be right.

    But I still think the core of the writer’s argument–that the Clintons are terrified of being seen as liberals and “dirty hippies”–is tough to argue against. And while you correctly point out that Obama is huddling with people like Bloomberg (who’d be my first presidential choice anyway, other than maybe the O-man himself) and Hagel, and thus might be inclined toward “centrism,” I would respond that Obama as a fresh face has more leeway to reach out to a wider circle. He’d likely ask someone like Dick Lugar to serve in his cabinet; Lugar would likely accept. Hillary Clinton is so clearly defined, and so polarizing, that she probably wouldn’t feel free to ask, and no Republican would be likely to say yes. This might not be fair, but I think it’s reality.

    His (I think it’s a he) other point, which I didn’t quote, was just being sick of the endless Clintonian drama. While that also might not be fair, I couldn’t agree more with that part of it. Bill’s latest revisionist parsing that he’d always been against the war is just the latest example. I wish they’d simply go away, and take the Bushes with them–there’s something like a mutually parasitic relationship between the Clintons and the starf*cking corporate media culture in this country, and I don’t know how otherwise we can get past that.

    Btw, I’d also really like to see Dodd shock us with a strong showing–big points for that. 🙂

  • you know, i used to be a big fan of Dick Lugar’s; when he ran for President, I even thought “not my first choice, but a Republican I could live with.” i saw him as smart, sensible and with integrity. but i have been repeatedly and sorely disappointed by his rolling over for Dubya. the few times he has said the right things, he has promptly backed down. i just dont get how Rove et al have so completely cowed even long-entrenched Republicans who once seemed to have minds (and spines) of their own. its rather sad, really, when i’m taking a break from being to angry to be sad for them.

  • dajafi,
    It might be worth pointing out that Bill Clinton himself had no trouble appointing Republicans to various positions including Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Hillary has had so much success working with Republicans that a lot of progressives list that as one of her failings.

    I lean toward Obama, but I would be quite content with Clinton as the nominee. I’m not worried about the “drama” of her personal life. I have absolutely no doubt that there would be a great deal of wingnut wailing and poo-flinging at her, but I also have absolutely no doubt that they would fling the same quantity of poo at any Democrat up to and including the Independent Democrat from Connecticut himself.

    • Comments are closed.