My God, a politician guilty of acting to get power. The only thing wrong with this observation is calling any Clinton admirer, supporter, ally, a "shill." Are you a Republican, or just a person whose sense of self-righteousness exceeds their common sense?

The Clinton years have to be claimed as a Democratic legacy. Sure, Bill failed in the Monica thing, but he succeeded brilliantly in a lot else.

Posted at August 25, 2008 3:45 PM in response to Howard Wolfson Confirms Rift Between Bill Clinton And Obama

This story, if true, is completely understandable. You're being pretty poor representatives for Obama right now. Obama did run against "the Clintons," which was risky, but he had enough backing from youse guys, and there were some big opportunistic cries of racism laid at Bill's feet during that time. If his feelings are hurt, he's right. But now, YOU get over it. Obama shows every sign of being a good politician, and he's accepting the Clinton faction back into the party. They're desperate for returning, if you'd only get off your own self-righteous, empty Clinton hatred.

As for not "claiming" the Carter legacy, well, Bill did have good relations with Jimmy over the years, often asking him to act for him. The other part of the Carter legacy was and is radioactive. High oil prices, Iran, all those things that were soundly rejected by the people. I mean, in some cases it's too bad, but that's political reality.

Posted at August 25, 2008 3:39 PM in response to Howard Wolfson Confirms Rift Between Bill Clinton And Obama

There's a huge difference here. ANY politician running against a talented newcomer would try to make people think the opponent was a neophyte while they are a known quantity. There's no idea of coordination, or the Clinton advisers (a band of clowns, and the best reason to think it's a good idea she lost) forging some kind of original (or successful) campaign that the McCain people suddenly had some a-ha moment about. Clinton was urged to do what McCain has done, and go really negative. Clinton refused.

What's negative? Look at Corsi. Look at any ad with a subtextual racism in it, or absolute lies: "Obama's going to tax anybody making over 42 grand!" "Obama neglected the troops because he's a celebrity, presumptuous camera hound." The Clinton campaign said nothing like that. Penn wanted to. Hillary didn't.

So, I think it's time to grow up a little, realize you won, and that the opponent is George Bush's legacy and John McCain. Hillary's a Democrat.

Posted at August 15, 2008 6:54 AM in response to McCain Recycling Hillary's Old Attacks Against Obama

I hate to say it, but HuffPo has been yellow journalism since its founding. There may be some difficulty recognizing it here because, well, Obama's ox was not getting gored. I think the clue is, look down the right side of their page. Remember back to the dreadful, spread-wing VTech killer photo on their front page. And, in some future time when we can be objective, look at every single picture of Hillary over the primary campaign, and reflect that she's not really that unattractive, but the HuffPo found every possible unflattering shot, tight angle, close-up on wrinkles and prominent teeth to illustrate the fact that they didn't like Hillary. Sure, there's lots to criticize it, but the photo editors and the headline writers, and quite a few of the political writers, are attack dogs pure and simple. It really is a British tabloid with, because of the female editor-in-chief, no page three girl.

Posted at July 22, 2008 6:33 AM in response to New Yorker banned from Obama press plane??? Huffpost gets it wrong.

Remember, of course, that this is from when we all believed the official story. A phony story was being retailed about Tillman, his parents were kept in the dark, and they thought they had gotten away clean. Above all, they never would say that Tillman was growing increasingly skeptical of the war he was being sent on.

For all that, Tillman was a hero, just not in the way Rove was making up and Fournier was believing.

Posted at July 14, 2008 8:49 PM in response to Fournier to Rove: "Keep Up the Fight"

My best wishes to the gentleman. However, we shouldn't immediately start up the sacramental sniping about guns. Neither guns for everybody or guns for no one work. Where do they actually have lower levels of civic violence? Don't look at gun ownership. It doesn't mean much. Look at the level of medical services available. Look at equity in pay, look at a history racism, suburban flight -- multi-factorial causes that really don't have much to do with guns, though the sacramental nature that they have for the right and the left is a huge distraction. I don't see the situation changing if the Brians of the world were packing and started blasting at every opportunity. You end up with Deadwood that way.

Posted at July 2, 2008 4:28 PM in response to Well Known Liberal Blogger Shot In Washington, D.C.

He said exactly what you say he didn't. It was evident from the first time that Schieffer jumped at him that Clark was going to get the big lie treatment. Which, surprise, he did. Welcome to 2008.

Posted at July 1, 2008 6:23 PM in response to McCain Campaign Accuses Obama Camp Of Coordinating With Webb To Attack McCain

Feingold for Veep? Great idea. Too bad Obama isn't a progressive.

Posted at June 27, 2008 7:58 PM in response to Bill And Hillary Max Out To Obama, Giving $4,600 To His Campaign

I'd suspect it reflects nothing much. People were tired. A loss is tough, and then to join with the victor -- well, you search your heart. About any larger "meaning"? I doubt it. I've had enough of overinterpretation this campaign, from the press mostly, but from everybody else, too.

And nobody remembers, but I was on the comments boards at HuffPost about a year ago, and they were full of Obama supporters threatening that, if Hillary won, they would vote for McCain. I kid you not. In both cases, it's a little nuts but understandable.

Posted at June 25, 2008 3:41 AM in response to Obama Campaign Installs Hillary Communications Staffer In Key Ohio Post

"I think what she did was horribly irresponsible (largest campaign debt. ever.)"

I'm a recovered Hillary supporter, putting my shoulder to the wheel for Obama, and quite happy about it, but this kind of remark seems calculated to scrape fingenails on the blackboard. Do you know how arrogant and ahistorical you're being? Historically, candidates stay in it as long as they can raise money, and a little longer besides. There's nothing new about it but the debt -- but is Obama "irresponsible" to spend more than $200 million for the nomination? NO! He spent what contributors gave him, and had Clinton edged ahead, I have no doubt he would have gone into debt too. They're competitors, for God's sake. They're a little tougher than you or I, and they certainly don't spend their time worrying about the crap that was thrwon Hillary's way this campaign. It's over. You won. Shut up for once and let's beat McCain.

Posted at June 25, 2008 3:34 AM in response to Obama Asks Donors To Help Hillary Pay Off Her Debts