Hillary Clinton's Sybillish Personalities?

"On the Red Phone"
by Larry David

Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.

"Hey Hillary, MLK Was a Talker AND a Doer"

One of the preeminent historians of African American experience, Harvard Sitkoff, has written an interesting short piece in response to Hillary Clinton's comments about MLK, LBJ and change. Here is one nugget:

MLK was never a mere dreamer, never only a talker. He stood up for what is right, repeatedly putting his body on the line, going to jail again and again, constantly facing death threats. By such actions, King and a multiplicity of black leaders and movements at the grass-roots level mobilized black Americans as they had never previously been mobilized to collectively bring about change. King, above all, stirred African Americans’ emotions, raised their hopes, convinced them to believe in their abilities to alter history, and got them to come together to press for racial justice in a manner that could not be, and was not, denied.

To read the whole essay, click here: Sitkoff, "MLK Was Both a Talker and a Doer, Hillary"


I think all of this points out the way Hillary Clinton fundamentally misapprehends how social change occurs. You can hear it in her speeches, not only as she belittles and denigrates Obama's oratorical powers, but also in her persistent references to herself and to the idea that what we need most is a strong, experienced, centralized, supreme power. It is the constant refrain of "I," "I," "I." By contrast, Obama stresses "we" in his rhetoric. He is clear to tell his audience that real change depends on a movement, depends on the mass participation of millions of ordinary citizens, that only "we" can do this together. I think Obama has the cart and horse in the right order on this one. If real, transformative change is going to happen, the broader political context has to be different and Obama gets that. Clearly, he is the only remaining candidate that not only can win, but who might also have some coattails. Hillary is too polarizing and divisive; she may win, but she won't have significant coattails. And, if Obama were to come into office with a nice, comfortable majority in Congress, and a new coaliton of voters, that may enable him to be more bold, active and progressive that if he or Hillary is elected with a tightly split legislature.

But, back to the inspirational/empty rhetoric part of all of this. I feel strongly that charisma and visionary language actually matters quite a bit from the president. Such rhetoric can be central to cultivating the type of political context necessary to make governmental change. Clearly, Obama's rhetoric is not hollow, since it has connected with millions upon millions of citizens and turned them on to the process.

There is something amazingly condescending (cynical?) from Clinton and her supporters when they argue that Obama is full of hot air ("all hat, no cattle") and/or that Obama supporters have been somehow hoodwinked, or brainwashed by his blinding charisma. Hear the arrogance of that view? I've met hundreds and hundreds of Obama supporters in multiple states and I have yet to meet a single one who is glassy-eyed and clueless. In fact, at the events I've been to, I've been impressed by how highly engaged and conscious Obama folks are.

Anyway, check out Sitkoff's brief essay and think more broadly about what each candidate is telling us in terms of what lies ahead and what our responsibility in all of this is?

The Clinton Campaign's Disdain for Democracy

OK. It will be no suprise to readers here that I am not a fan of the Clintons, or their DLC Republican-lite philosophy of Democratic Party politics. In addition, I have found their various attempts to willfully misrepresent or distort Obama's record, and their willingness to play the race card, despicable. It is now clear, in their desperation, that the Clinton campaign is going to drag this whole process back into the mud by going negative. More disturbing, the Clinton campaign has a clear disdain for democracy and for all of the people who don't live in "important" states like California and New York.

For just a taste of this arrogant, anti-democratic attitude, read the following statement by Clinton campaign Chief Strategist, Mark "cocaine, cocaine, cocaine" Penn:

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

So, all of us in "insignificant" states clearly don't matter to the Clinton campaign. This is probably why we were not good enough for her to show up a couple of weeks ago. Yet, if she does steal this thing, I am sure they will try to romance us again in the Fall.

At this point, it is incredibly difficult for the Clinton campaign to overtake Obama in pledged delegates, those delegates determined by actual voters in primaries and caucuses. So, they are turning to undemocratic measures, particularly the super-delegates and the sketchy seating of MI and FL delegates. I doubt this will work out for them in the end, but you never know. The party apparatus is stacked with former Clinton appointees. Also, people know that the Clintons have a history of severely punishing anyone who does not support their every move. If party people think she even has a chance to win, a certain number will jump on board out of fear of reprisal if she does steal this thing. That said, there are many, many in the party who are just looking for a solid opportunity to jump ship on the Clintons and get some payback for the last 15 or so years.

So, we will see which way this thing tips, but the anti-democratic arrogance of Penn and others in the campaign is offensive. Spread the word far and wide about these anti-democratic sentiments. Don't let the Clinton campaign swift-boat Obama...

- Redouble your efforts for Obama.
- Donate a little more money to his campaign.
- Talk to as many people in your circle as possible.
- Write a letter to your local newspaper.
- Write to the Clinton campaign and tell them what you think of their slimy tactics.

Is Hillary Tracy Flick?

Beware: The Race Card is Still in Play...

For sure, it was a HUGE victory for Obama tonight in SC and he gave another spirited and moving speech. It was exactly what was needed: a surprisingly big win and a rousing, positive, transcendent speech. Obama feels back in the game. I hope he can now parlay this into some momentum going into the February 5th contests. But, beware... the race card is still in play. In fact, what happened tonight is a part of the Clinton plan to "blackenize" Obama.

"What??!!?!?" you say... "He won by 29%!! You are crazy! The SC numbers were a clear repudiation of the Clinton's divisive race strategy. Everyone is talking about it."

Indeed, Obama won by a much larger margin than anyone thought possible. Shocking, really. And, it is true, he won with a bigger than expected proportion of the white vote, particularly in some key constituencies (under-30s, white men, etc.). So, I suspect he'll argue that this victory proves that his appeal transcends race and that he can, indeed, put together a winning coalition in the fall; and he might. But, the point all along for the Clintons after Iowa, was to "blackenize" Obama. To knock him off the race-transcendent groove and reduce him to a more narrowly defined "black candidate." In recent history, it has been proven again and again that "black candidates" do not garner much white support. Now, the Clintons have known for some weeks that Obama was going to win in SC. So, their plan, by playing all this racial crap, has been to racially polarize the electorate, which they have successfully done. They have tried to brand Obama as the "black candidate" and denigrate the SC primary as essentially a narrow "black primary." Here is the twist. By Obama winning so big, and with damn near 80% of the African American vote, the Clintons can argue, subtlely and not so subtlely, that this is just a black guy winning the black vote. I already heard a report that the Clintons are banking on the fact that "in SC Democrats vote for black guys, in CA they vote for white women." The Clintons are hoping that she can win the women, white and Hispanic votes in the remaining states. Even if he continues to get 80% of the African American vote, she wins.

What, you still don't buy it? You still think tonight was a repudiation of Clinton's racial innuendo? You think he has to back off?

Exhibit A: Bill Clinton tries to minimize Obama' landslide by equating (read, dismissing) him with Jess Jackson in '84 and '88.

Or, click here, or here, for a text analysis of the same issue.

Exhibit B: According to AP, here is how the Clintons spun the massive loss in SC:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Ahhhhh, yes. Deny that you are playing the race card, but then suggest someone else might play it later... Either way, the racial doubt is put out there into the political ether. This way, the Clintons claim plausible deniability. Classic psycho-politics. Classic Clinton.

Still think they aren't playing the divisive race card?

Keep your eyes on the prize. In politics, never get distracted by the sideshow... or the smiling face and twinkling eyes.

It remains unclear which politic will carry the day, ultimately. The good money is still on Hillary. She has the structure to do well in the Feb. 5th elections and that is key. She also has polarized the electorate, at least to a degree. While not unanimous, we do see broad patterns in the SC vote: white men voted for Edwards, African Americans for Obama and white women for Hillary. She has been racking up large polling numbers among women, whites and Latinos in the Feb. 5th races. This bodes well for her. Yet, tonight's numbers suggest that this is at least a partly risky strategy. Obama did win enough of the white vote and he won overall by a decisive enough margin, that he just might be able to change the tide and...

Stay tuned. This just got REALLY interesting...

It's Getting Ugly Out There...

Looks like yet another Clinton campaign surrogate has smeared Obama. This time it was BET founder Robert Johnson who smeared him on the drug stuff and for being, well, hhmmmm... he laid down this weird Sidney Poitier stuff, so I guess he meant to call Obama an Uncle Tom. Man, this is really getting ugly...

Sad: Robert Johnson Smears Obama at Clinton Endorsement Event

Or, here: Clinton backer appears to raise Obama's drug use

The Right Hook: a bizarre-o Sidney Poitier Uncle Tom charge

“That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

The Left Hook: the drug smear

“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."

So, I want to make sure I've got this straight. Hillary is on Meet the Press in the morning blathering about how it is not her campaign, but Obama's, that is playing the race card, how she is the victim of racial politics (despite 5 or 6 instances of campaign surrogates playing the race card). Then, later the same day, one of her surrogates in the battleground state of SC, where the African American vote will be decisive in a couple weeks, makes what can only be described as a complete and utter racial smear against Obama, no TWO of them. Uuuuhhhmmm... I, uh, think that, uh, maybe..., uh, suggests that... uh, the Clintons might, uh... be... playing ... the... race... card.

Look, one or two of these incidents might have been explained away as a rogue supporter who put their foot in their mouth, but now we are up to five or six or seven or something like that...

... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

what do you think?

UPDATE: This is probably not helpful from the Obama camp:
Obama Staffer Plays Jay-Z Song at Event

Hey, Barack, DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

Desperation! Clinton Grossly Distorting Obama's Abortion Record

Well, I'm not surprised, but this is pretty pathetic. In a desperate bid to somehow get back in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton has resorted to grossly and knowingly distorting Barack Obama's legislative record on abortion. Clearly, Clinton is trying to play the gender card by scaring young women away from Obama and into her camp. (Recall, Obama bested Clinton among women in Iowa 35%-30% and drubbed her among young women)

In a mailer sent to voters in NH over the past couple of days, the Clinton campaign claims "A woman's right to choose demands a leader who will stand up and protect it." It says Clinton has a record of fighting "far-right Republicans" to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been "unwilling to take a stand on choice." It concludes, "Seven times he had the opportunity to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois state Senate. Seven times he voted present - not yes or no, but present. Being there is not enough to protect choice." The mailer, which clearly states "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President," not too subtly suggests that Obama is not a strong advocate for abortion rights and women, in general.

I call "Bullshit!" This is totally disingenuous and cynical, not to mention false. Here is the reality, according to a fact-checking piece by Nedra Pickler posted at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):

"During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents. He also joined other state Democrats in voting present on some bills."

That's right, folks, Obama gets a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for the range of positions he has taken not only on abortion rights, but women's reproductive health rights, more generally. This is silly. Anyone who knows anything about how the legislature works knows that there are times when, for strategic or political reasons, certain members of a party vote "present." This is all about political maneuvering and is almost always done in conjunction with a broader party strategy.

When called to task for the distortions in the mailer, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, in classic Clintonian fashion, "New Hampshire voters.. deserve a straightforward presentation of the facts about both candidates."

To his credit, Obama spokesman Bill Burton did not throw a chair or simply tell Hillary's campaign to "Go to hell!" when asked by reporters about the smear. Instead, in another sign of the maturity of the Obama operation, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire."

Geesh. I hope so...

This is all about Clinton's ego and ambition run amok now that her campaign is going down in flames, not about what is best for the party or the country. It is likely Hillary will NOT be the nominee, yet she is creating a false issue with which the right-wing will surely pounce. The is all downright Karl Rovian! Shame on you Mrs. Clinton. Go down with some dignity, won't you? I guess not...

Undecided NH Voters Turned Off By Hillary in Debate

Take this one with a grain of salt since it is coming from Fox News... but if their sample is even a little bit representative, if it is at all indicative of a trend out there in NH among Independents, Hillary is in some deep electoral doo-doo...

Iowa Caucus Day!

Well, here we are. We made it... the day that never seemed like it would really come. I think I speak for most of us when I say: thank our lucky stars, today is finally - FINALLY! - Iowa caucus day. This election has already been interminably long and we haven't even made it to the general election, yet! But, whoever wins tonight, at the very least, the process will be formally in motion.

That written, in case any stray, uncommitted Iowa Democratic caucusers wander into this blog, here is my final pitch:

A picture is worth a thousand words...







Even the undergraduates at Hillary's alma mater prefer Obama for the Democratic nomination...















And, for whatever it is worth, here is my prediction (admittedly, on the Democratic side, it is probably more of a fantasy than a cold, reasoned prediction, but I'll throw it out there...):

Dems:
• Obama
• Edwards
• Clinton

Repubs:
• Huckabee
• Romney
• McCain


What do you think...?

Tom Tomorrow - "The Trouble with Hillary"

(click cartoon to enlarge)

Electability: Hillary vs. Obama

Hillary Clinton has been hitting hard on the "electability" theme throughout her campaign. She has steadfastly claimed that she is more electable that Barack Obama. She has said she has been through the fires with the GOP and can stand up to them. Is this true?

First, I don't recall the Clintons standing up too significantly to the GOP in the 1990s. Rather, their entire DLC philosophy was to CAVE to the conservatives by being Republican-lite. And, during Clinton's impeachment, they didn't fight back too vigorously because BILL DID IT! So, this argument is spurrious in my mind...

Second, I'll repeat an argument I burried in a previous email: Not only does Hillary begin with a 45-47% negative rating (more than double anyother candidate in either party), it is also widely acknowledged that she, more than any other candidate, will mobilize the GOP base, which is fairly disillusioned right now. BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, every Democrat, even those who adore Hillary, know several other Democrats that are turned-off by the prospect of her nomination and who will be disillusioned if she gets the nod. These people, including myself, may in the end hold their nose and vote for her, but they sure won't fight for her, nor will they be energized to work on the campaign, which will not only hurt Hillary's bid, but also Democrats up and down the ballot. Be honest. Think about it. I know you know several of these Democrats! We all do and this should give all Dems serious cause for pause before throwing their support to Clinton.

As a specific example, I cite Jim Esch in Omaha. Esch(D) ran for Congress in '06 and nearly beat conservtaive GOP boob, Lee Terry. He came within a whisker and that is no small task out here in Red State America. Most thought he would run in '08 and might very well win, but Esch has decided not to give it another go. Why? Well, in making his announcement, he specificially referenced, among other things, the fact that Hillary looked like a good bet to be the party nominee at the top and that that would be the kiss of death in a state like Nebraska, where her presence on the ballot will bring out every GOPer possible. So, even the prospect of a Hillary campaign has already cost the Democrats one potential congressional pick-up!

Last, Robert Parry has an excellent piece over at Alternet about the extreme vulnerability BOTH Clintons have because of Secret Service records, which detail their every move over the last many years, and which are under the control of Republicans in the Bish Administration!

Even as Hillary Clinton's operatives were dropping hints that Republicans would exploit Barack Obama's youthful drug use, some Clinton insiders privately worried about her own vulnerability because the Bush administration possesses detailed knowledge of her movements -- and her husband's -- over the past seven years.

Because of Sen. Clinton's unique status as the first former First Lady to run for President - and because her husband was succeeded by a Republican -- she is the first candidate to have both her and her spouse be subject to regular, long-term surveillance by an Executive Branch agency controlled by the opposing political party...

Though Secret Service records are supposed to be closely held secrets, a source close to the Clintons told me that it is believed that senior Republicans have received regular briefings about movements of the Clintons that might prove embarrassing if released during the general election campaign.

The article then goes on to cite several concrete examples of the Repubs willingness to exploit this access.

Here is the full text:
"Is Hillary More Vulnerable to Republican Attacks?

And, in case you missed it, Maureen Dowd has an excellent satirical piece about Clinton's drug smear against Obama:

"Reefer Madness in Iowa"

More Dirty Tricks from Clinton!

It simply never ends with the Clintons. Really. Check out these latest examples of the Clinton campaign in full smear mode. This is how they play politics. Looks a lot like the Republican attack machine, doesn't it? Is this the type of person you want leading the country? Is this the type of candidate you think will bring us change?

"Clinton Camp Purchases Two Obama Attack Websites"

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival... The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

I think the use of the word cowardly is interesting since that can come with a lot of genedered meaning, particularly in politics. Recall election '04, when the Republican Party's main argument against John Kerry was that he was a "girly man?" You know, he was weak, undecisive, he waffled, he spoke French (you know those French are so effeminate they can't even stand up for themselves like real men; they're appeasers!!)! Schwarzenegger called him a "girly man" at the convention. The subtext of the whole campaign was that Kerry, despite being a highly decorated war veteran against a bunch of chicken hawks, was not manly enough to lead in the post-9/11 world. In essence, they tarred him with a bunch of associations that communicated that he was a "wuss" or "fem-y" or even "gay." Recall all the anti-gay ballot measures that were on state lines in '04 and recall Bush's rhetoric that he was manly and decisive and the "decider."

Now, interestingly, perhaps the first woman president has decided to paint herself as the manly warhawk and apparently attack Obama as soft and unsatisfactorily "tough" and "decisive."

Now, the clintons are famous for moving to the Right and coopting Republican issues and ideas (that is the DLC approach), so perhaps this isn't surprising. Why should they stop now, right? It's worked for them this long...

The question is, will the electorate buy what they are seeling this time around?

"Clinton Campaign Disguises Attacks on Obama Through Edwards"

Some of the first negative mail in Iowa on the Democratic side is out, and it's anti-Obama. A new direct mail piece from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) accuses that: "For those without insurance, Barack Obama's band-aid solution is no change at all"...

But, as it turns out, AFSCME is backing Clinton. In fact, even though Clinton and her campaign have been arguing for the past month that Obama's health-care plan doesn't insure everyone, Clinton's name isn't mentioned once on the flier. The Edwards quote makes it appear to be a slam by the Edwards team.

This tactic, it seems, could be intended to deflect the distaste that most voters have for direct attacks -- even those that are policy based. But those in the know might think that this new negative mail is Iowa Nice playing a little dirty.

Or, there is the recent attempt to smear Obama by suggesting he hasn't "stood up" for his principles and for working people because he sometimes voted "present" while in the Illinois legislature. If you read the article, it would be easy to come away thinking the guy ALWAYS voted "present." The reality is that he voted "present" .o325% of the time. Yep. .0325%! And, you know why he voted "present" this miniscule number of times? Most of the time he voted "present" as a part of a routine tactical or procedural move supported by party leaders. The Clintons know this. Anyone who knows how legislatures work knows this. Yet, the Establishment media (and even many liberal/progressive sites eager for a story)simply forwards this crap unexamined. For an excellent disection of this attack and the way the media flubbed it, click here:
"Reading The Pictures: Cocaine, Kindergarten -- And Now, The Hand"


Puh-lease, people, stand up to these dirty tricks! PLEASE EMAIL THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN RIGHT NOW and tell them you are disgusted and WILL NOT be voting for Hillary because of her campaign's constant use of sleaze, because of their win-at-all-costs mentality, because it has embraced the "politics of swiftboating."

Also, spread the word about this blog to other people. Have them come read about the reality of these sleazebags. Seriosuly, time is of the essence. Get to it. Now!

Hillary Clinton: Hawk-In-Chief?

More evidence that Hillary's claims that she is an agent of change and that she will end the war in Iraq are all a bunch of election-tailored hoo-ey.

Stephen Zunes, over at Foreign Policy in Focus, has a devastating analysis of Hillary Clinton's record on foreign policy... and unless you love militarism, it ain't pretty. In short, he writes,

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

For the full article, click here:
"Hillary Clinton on Military Policy"

Here is the main webpage for Foreign Policy in Focus, in case you want to poke around further there:
Foreign Policy in Focus

The Clinton Sleaze Machine

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

This is ridiculous. Who is going to stand up and call this for what it is: The Clinton Sleaze Machine in full effect.

Seriously, for weeks behind the scenes the Clinton minions have spread whispering fears about Obama, stating he has a "slush fund," that they have some unnamed dirt on him, that he is a drug user/dealer. Then, coincidentally I'm sure - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - as their poll numbers went into a tailspin, surrogates of the Clintons began making these slimy back door attacks publicly: Shaheen on Obama's drug use followed by Hillary's campaign chair repeating the word "cocaine" ad nauseum on Hardball; Bob Kerry at a Hillary endorsement event backhands Obama with the "Muslim madrassa" madness. Now, word that the Clintons supporters might be behind the rumors of John Edwards's "love child" with a former aid are swirling:
Hillary Supporter Heads National Enquirer

Meanwhile, as her minions are on the march engaging in the "politics of personal destruction," she and her handlers play a "softer, gentler" side of Hillary in public. Gross.

This is how the Clintons have always played their politics. Slash and burn. Personal ambition and power over all else, regardless of the damage it does, regardless of the truth of things. It is very "Rove-ian," actually, or "Carvel-ian". They know full well that the smear gets front page coverage and is pushed along through the media echo chamber. They let the hit sink in and cause a nice bruise, then they come forward and deny involvement, distance themselves from the original smear with a lot of "gee-golly-ing" and "shucks-ing," "boy, we were just as surprised as you were"... But, the damage has been done: The negative ideas are out there in the political ether to be repeated and rehashed for weeks and months through rumor and innuendo, the whole point to create a generalized negative impression in voters minds and on their emotions. It is a well-known political trick that if you throw enough slop, something is bound to stick.

So, why aren't they being more forcefully called to task for this sleaze? "Inquiring minds want to know!"

And, of course, that is not all. Bill has had to sever ties with some his most sleazy political friends. It has come to light he has a bunch of money stashed in the Cayman Islands (now why do people stash money in the Caymans??). Earlier, Clinton fund-raiser Hu was arrested for corruption. And on and on and on and on... Is this the politics of reform and change?? Hell no!

Oh, and this just in, as the Clintons were trashing Obama because of his drug use - remember, "He's not electable because the Repubs have this age-old drug use to use against him" - it turns out that the Republicans have the entire Secret Service records of the Clintons, which track their every move and detail their every corruption, private and public. Uhhhhh.. which do you think is potentially more damning, the stale Obama drug story, or the many, many revelations that are certain to be in those SS records? Which makes their candidate less electable?

Experience and Electability?

So, here we are on the cusp of the first caucus/primaries of the '08 election and a desperate Clinton campaign is pulling out all the stops, including dispatching another surrogate, this time Nebraska's own Democratic hack, Bob Kerry, to smear Obama by using coded words, like "Madrassa." Oh yeah, Hillary's husband made a big announcement last night, too, which should dispel any thought that she is a candidate of change: He said George Bush I would help a Clinton Administration regain its standing in the world. Exactly. Clinton and Bush, together again in '08! Uh, how is that change????? In that one moment, Bill destroyed any vestiges of the change argument for Hil... I thought this guy was supposed to be the ultimate campaigner. It is clear his ego and ambition have gotten the better of his sound political judgement. Bill, please remove foot from mouth and get the heck off the stump. With friends like you, Hillary doesn't need many enemies...

But I want to take on two other claims. First, that Hillary is the candidate with more EXPERIENCE. In fact, she is tied for the LEAST amount of elected experience among Dems, along with John Edwards. Here is how it breaks down on this point:

• Biden: senator 1973-present (34yrs)
• Kucinich: City Council 1970-75, 83-85, Clerk of courts 75-77, Mayor 77-79, Senator (state) 95-97, Congressman (federal) 97-present. (23yrs)
• Richardson: Congressman 83-97, Ambassador 97-98, Energy Sec. 98-01, Governor 03-present. (23yrs)
• Dodd: Congressman 1975-81, Senator 1981-present (22yrs)
• Gravel: Senator 1969-81 (12yrs)
• Obama: Senator 97-05 (state), 05-present (federal). (10yrs)
• Clinton: senator 2001-present (6yrs)
• Edwards: Senator 1999-2005 (6yrs)

Moreover, the Clinton campaign likes to claim it is the more "ELECTABLE" candidate. Again, the evidence just does not support this. For instance, Hillary clearly leads the "anti-vote." A full 40% of all Americans say they would actively vote to block a Clinton presidency, that is more than twice the second place candidate, Giuliani, who had a 17% "anti-vote." Overall, 64% of Republicans, 42% of third-party or Independent voters and nearly 20% of Democrats say the candidate they most want to keep from the White House is Hillary... again, numbers that far surpass her closest rival in this area.

Or, there's the new poll by USA Today that states

In hypothetical matchups for the general presidential election, Clinton and Obama each led Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Romney, although at times narrowly.

Obama was somewhat stronger, besting Giuliani by 6 points, Huckabee by 11 and Romney by 18. Clinton had an edge of 1 point over Giuliani, 9 points over Huckabee and 6 points over Romney.

For me, here is the clincher when it comes to ELECTABILITY. I don't have any scientific data on this point, just my anecdotal experience, but if you are a Democrat think long and hard about what I am about to write: Not only does Hillary energize the conservative base in a way no other Democratic candidate does (which is a HUGE strike against her nomination and the idea that she is electable), but also the prospect of a Clinton restoration dispirits and demoralizes a large number of Democrats, myself included. Admit it. Every Democrat knows several other Democrats who are simply and totally turned-off by Hillary and the Clintons. Sure, most will probably hold their nose and vote for her anyway given the alternative, but they won't be energized and they won't work for her or the party. In a tight race, that very well could be the losing margin. This is the most damning evidence against the argument that she is most electable.

Finally, even the prospect of a Clinton campaign is hurting the party already down the line. For example, in Omaha in '08 a good Democrat, Jim Esch almost pulled off a HUGE upset by beating Lee Terry for Congress. This is really quite incredible, in fact. There was much hope he would run again and win in '08. Again, this would have been a major pick-up. But, a few weeks back, Esch announced he would not run again. In his announcement, among other things, he cited the likelihood that Clinton would be the party standard-bearer as one of the major reasons for his decision against running. In essence, he argued that Hillary at the top of the ticket hurt his chances of electoral victory at the bottom of the ticket, particularly in moderate-to-conservative state, like Nebraska.

What do you think? Do you buy Clinton's "experience" and "electability" arguments?

Loeb: Hillary and the "Politics of Disappointment"

Paul Loeb has a new essay that is making the rounds, titled, "Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment"

Loeb acknowledges the more common argument that a Hillary nomination would re-energize a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, which might, in turn, lead to her defeat. But, his real point is that a Hillary nomination, and even a Hillary presidency, might very well split the Democratic Party, as Bill's presidency did. He writes,

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he’s looking awfully good. Much of Hillary’s support may be nostalgia for when America’s president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton’s presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary’s protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party’s newfound momentum.

Loab then goes on to offer all kinds of supporting evidence of how this split occurred during the Bill Clinton presidency. He concludes with this,

Because the Republican candidates would bring us more of the same ghastly policies we’ve seen from Bush and Cheney, I’d vote for Hillary if she became the nominee. But I’d do so with a very heavy heart, and a recognition that we’ll have to push her to do the right thing on issue after issue, and won’t always prevail. We still have a chance to select strong alternatives like Edwards (who I’m supporting) or Obama. And with Republican polling numbers in the toilet, this election gives Democrats an opportunity to seriously shift our national course that we may not have again for years. It would be a tragedy if they settled for the candidate most likely to shatter the momentum of this shift when it’s barely begun.

I share much of Loeb's perspective and am wondering what other folks think? I just can't find it in myself to be jazzed at all about Hillary. And I can't seem to find anyone else who is genuinely enthusiastic about her nomination... and I've been searchin'! Most who support her seem simply resigned to her as the standard-bearer.

What do you think?

NAFTA's no laughing matter...

I have this sneaking suspicion we're going to get fooled again...