Barack or Hillary: either one will do

After Barack’s brilliant speech in South Carolina and after Hillary’s strange decision to go down and campaign fundraise in Florida, I’ve decided that I can no longer be confident as to who is the better of the two candidates. Since either Barack or Hillary would be almost infinitely better than any of the Republican candidates, I now intend to leave it up to the voters and simply support whoever wins. For this reason, I have changed the name of the blog! If Hillary wins the nomination I plan to return to the blog’s original name.

Hillary’s 35 Years: Truth or Lie?

Nick Kristof of the New York Times recently described Hillary Clinton’s claim to 35 years of experience as “spurious.” Similar skepticism has been expressed by Timothy Noah, Colbert King and countless others, but Hillary’s claim has been especially derided and ridiculed by right-wing bloggers and pundits.

The fact is that Hillary’s detractors on the right want to have it both ways: they want to insist that she is a woman of negligible experience who owes all her influence to her husband’s position, but they also assert that she has an almost four decades long history of radical activism. According to the right-leaning New York Sun, as early as 1971 Clinton was working at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, “one of America’s most radical law firms”:

Partners at the firm said it was likely Mrs. Clinton also worked on politically sensitive cases involving a Berkeley student activist denied admission to the California bar over incendiary rhetoric, Stanford physician interns fighting a loyalty oath at the Veterans Administration, and men claiming conscientious objector status to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. Mrs. Clinton's only public recollection of her work at the Treuhaft firm is that she handled a child custody matter. Link.

Let us do the math! Okay, that’s 2008 minus 1971, which equals 37! But that was just for one summer. What did she do the next year? In 1972 Hillary worked on Senator George McGovern’s campaign. Last year he endorsed her for President:

"I think that if we can elect her president, she'll be a greater president even than her brilliant husband," McGovern told the crowd gathered in a hot barn at the Johnson County Democrats' annual barbeque.

Organizers estimated 1,800 people showed up for the event, calling it the biggest crowd in the barbeque's history and noting they had to run out twice for more food.

McGovern talked about the challenges Clinton and her then-boyfriend Bill Clinton faced when they helped run his organization in Texas during his 1972 presidential campaign, predicting he would have an easier time selling her in Iowa than she did selling him in Texas.

He praised John Edwards and Barack Obama and said he hoped to live to see America elect a black president, but said," We have an old rule of courtesy in the United States: Ladies first.” Link.

Naturally, if we really want to be strict about the 35 years, we must look at 1973. In that year we find the young Hillary going door to door in New Bedford with the Children’s Defense Fund, uncovering the plight of children who were being denied an education because of disability or socioeconomic circumstance:

On the campaign trail, Clinton focuses on the least-edgy aspect of what she did, cataloguing discrimination against children who were disabled. Much of what the fund did, though, was to advocate for victims who were less than picture-perfect: teenage mothers, minority youths who had been expelled for disciplinary infractions, and juvenile delinquents.

In her book, Clinton briefly describes traveling to South Carolina to interview 14- and 15-year-olds who were being housed with adult criminals. Several of her colleagues recalled finding boys who had been raped in jail. The organization took at least one case to court.

The project that brought Clinton to New Bedford eventually became a much-publicized report, "Children Out of School in America." With volunteers as well as its own staff, the fund spoke to 6,500 families across the country, concluding that 2 million school-age children were being excluded from public school because of segregation, special needs, or poverty. Link.

So, why did she give such important work up? She was one of 43 lawyers handpicked to work on the impeachment of Richard Nixon:

During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974. Link.

What part of the work described above does not count as “experience”?

Crossposted to Daily Kos

Bill discusses Hillary's white-haired buddy

The Clinton-Obama ticket: she’d be a fool not to offer and he’d be a fool to refuse

Barack Obama will probably win South Carolina, but it won’t give him enough momentum to defeat Hillary on Super Duper Tuesday.

Hillary can win the election no matter whom she picks as her running mate, but only a Clinton-Obama ticket could secure an overwhelming mandate of the people powerful enough to transform Washington and usher in a new era in American life. The time to start pushing hard for a Clinton-Obama ticket has come.

A Clinton-Obama presidency would give the United States a domestic policy that invests in human capital, protects the poor and the neglected, and encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. It would pursue a morally responsible foreign policy that would foster allies instead of resentments and deploy medicines instead of mercenaries while simultaneously keep the US military strong instead of overextending it.

I quote Ellen Goodman:

The common wisdom says that we need a balanced ticket. But these are both senators, one from New York and one from Illinois. Moreover, the Democratic Party already has racial and gender gaps. Want chasms?

But what if "there's no such thing as false hopes"? - thank you, Obama. What if "what we need is somebody who can deliver change"? - thank you, Clinton.

What if a new, improved idea of a balanced ticket goes beyond demography and geography? What if balance rests on different personal and political strengths? Link.

A Clinton-Obama ticket would afford Hillary a golden opportunity to realize all of the reforms that she has pursued throughout her adult life because it would likely carry in its wake the mother of all coattails by generating tremendous excitement that would spill over into the senatorial and congressional races too. It would also position Barack as her political heir and potential successor as President.

As Joseph Collins perspicaciously pointed out over a year ago, a Clinton-Obama ticket would bring together two powerful constituencies, help soften Hillary’s image, provide a stepping stone for Barack to the presidency, and harness two powerful intellects for the common good:

She understands the value of his fresh star power and he appreciates the vastness of her experience and political network. Together, they could represent the most formidable presidential ticket Americans have seen in decades. From a historic perspective, it would be unprecedented. The keys will be leveraging each other’s strengths, working together behind closed doors and not allowing the media to draw them into a bloody contest for the nomination. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the opportunity to do great things with a historic partnership in difficult times. More importantly, they are both smart enough to make it happen. Link.

Collins’ point about a “bloody contest” is of course well taken, but I don’t believe that either of these candidates are thin-skinned enough to let the argy-bargy of the past couple of the weeks destroy any hopes for future cooperation, even for close cooperation. There is no other running mate that Hillary could choose who would generate anywhere near the enthusiasm that Barack would, and I find it hard to believe that he would reject the VP role if it were offered. Imagine the groans that will be heard around the world if Hillary announces Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson as her running mate. Oh the weeping! Oh the gnashing of teeth! Please don’t do it to us, Hillary!

Given the weakness of the Republican field, the mere announcement of a Clinton-Obama ticket would put the world on immediate notice that a new and renewed America is imminent. It would instantaneously proclaim that Iraq will soon be free to determine its own destiny, that Guantanamo Bay will be closed, that torture will be stopped, and that the United States of America will be reclaiming its soul and returning to its historical role of upholding the lamp of liberty before the nations.

Hillary and Barack have an awesome opportunity to create positive change the extent of which we cannot even begin to fathom. I hope they don’t let us down.

Crossposted on Daily Kos

The Four Horsemen of the Republican Apocalypse

Am I the only one who has noticed an uncanny resemblance between the Republican frontrunners and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Horseman 1, riding the white horse of Pestilence, is Mitt Romney, the man who was in favor of healthcare before he was against it.

Horseman 2, riding the fiery red horse of War, is Rudy Giuliani, who promises to go out of his way to offend all Muslims everywhere all day every day, except when he’s going after illegals.

Horseman 3, riding the black horse of Famine, is Mike Huckabee, whose proposal to tax food at 30% makes his identification with this particular Horseman a no brainer.

Horseman 4, riding the pale green horse of Death, is John McCain who suggests that the United States could stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

But when they all come charging into Florida simultaneously will they destroy one another?

It is quite possible that the Republicans will emerge from Florida and mega Tuesday with no clear front runner and will instead continue to retain three or even four possible options. This could produce a devastating scenario in which the GOP could start to disintegrate from infighting and ideological confusion (diversity isn’t really their forte after all).

Woe unto the Republicans on the great and terrible day when they must put their money on one of these ill-omened steeds.

More: I hope you didn’t miss this excellent column on the Republicans from Gail Collins.

David Brooks: even the Bush White House prefers Hillary

It is so obvious that Hillary is the most competent candidate that, according to Bobos In Paradise author David Brooks, even the folks in the Bush administration are starting to realize it:

How Fox News created Clinton-Obama race row

Fox News engineered the Clinton-Obama race row by deliberately mischaracterizing comments made by Hillary to their reporter Major Garrett. Here’s what Fox reported:

Clinton also said Obama and Edwards have acted like hypocrites during the race and appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movements, saying it wasn’t hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law.

However, if you watch the actual video of Clinton’s discussion with Garrett, it is quite clear that she did not refer to Obama as a hypocite, nor did she downplay the significance of King’s work. Fox created the whole sorry story by deliberately misrepresenting Hillary’s statements in an insidious attempt to divide the Democrats along racial lines.

Conciliatory Obama keeps hope alive for a Hillary-Barack dream ticket

Obama injects some common sense into the race:

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”

He continued, saying: “They are good people, they are patriots. They are running because they think that they can move this country to a better place.” Link.

Is it too much to hope that Barack will end up as Hillary’s running mate? The main argument in favor of the possibility is that it just makes so much sense. Such a ticket would be all-but invincible. These are two very intelligent people so we surely can’t completely rule out the possibility that they will do the smart thing. If Obamas’s supporters can just follow his lead and keep it positive until Super Tuesday . . .

ABC investigates Obama home purchase

I don't know how seriously should we take this, but it's kind of disturbing - like that pile of unpaid parking tickets he amassed at Harvard:

More here

Hillary interviewed on Meet the Press

"I think what people who are concerned about electability should be looking at is number one, who can be the best president, the best president from day one, who is prepared, who has taken tough positions, because you're going to have to take them. You know, Senator Obama voted present 130 times in the state Senate. When you're president, you can't vote present. You have to make a decision. Sometimes it's a split second decision. You don't have time to, you know, think about it. You've got to actually decide. So I'm going to take the case to the country as the nominee that I've been tested, I've been proven. I have the experience we need to make the changes we want and I think that's a winning case." Transcript.

Hillary says US should emulate the new Germany (not the old one)

While those two palefaced jihadis Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continue to advocate torture, widespread detention without trial, international kidnapping, and other measures that would essentially transform neo-conservatism into neo-fascism, Hillary suggests that we look instead to the new Germany for inspiration:

"Take Germany," Clinton told supporters near Los Angeles on Friday. "They have put nearly 300,000 people to work in a much smaller economy installing solar panels."
She said the United States could create tens of thousands of "green-collar" jobs by doing the same thing, boosting the economy and protecting the environment at the same time.

"These renewable energy jobs are high-wage jobs that cannot be outsourced," she said to applause. "Other countries are ahead of us. But that doesn't mean anything because we can catch up in a hurry if we put our minds to it."

On Friday, Clinton proposed speeding up $5 billion in investments in energy efficiency and renewable technology as part of a plan to stimulate the U.S. economy and avoid a recession. Link.

Ardent Obama supporter gets a reality check

Robert Farmer served as treasurer of Kerry’s 2004 campaign. Here’s what he said just last August:

And I sent out a letter on behalf of Obama to 400 of the top fundraisers in the country, and I said, “I am going with Obama,” and I gave them my reasons. I got 100 responses that said, “We’re interested.” And I sent those to the regional finance directors of his campaign and to the finance chair and to the finance director. And a lot of those people they converted into [fundraisers]. Link.

Here’s what he says now:

. . . late last year I realized I had made the wrong decision. The opportunity for the Democrats to recapture the White House is real. The Bush administration squandered much of the goodwill toward America after Sept. 11, 2001, and, given the events of the past four years, it would be tragic if we selected a nominee who falls short in the general election. And Obama is still largely untested and inexperienced. Even looking at his success in Iowa, which should provide momentum in today's New Hampshire primary, I think that Hillary Clinton is more electable. Obama is attractive, but he would be the object of an unbelievably negative advertising campaign. Hillary has already been vetted beyond imagination.

It was not easy for me to conclude that I was wrong. Over the past several months I've talked to many people who also initially had doubts about Hillary but now think that she is the strongest candidate. Hillary Clinton has run a terrific campaign. She has been knowledgeable in the debates. She has the experience of having lived in the White House for eight years, and her husband -- the best president of my lifetime -- would provide excellent counsel. I believe that hers would be the strongest and most effective voice on education, the economy, energy policy, health care and foreign policy. She would be best at preserving Social Security. And she would hit the ground running. Link.

Actionable intelligence: Obama’s magical thinking versus Hillary’s realism

Obama seems to have peaked too early. The next few months will show that Hillary has more depth, intelligence, common sense and commitment.

In last night’s debate, Obama and Edwards seemed to have formed some sort of unholy alliance aimed at getting Hillary voted off the island. It won’t work though, and it’s pretty obvious that Obama or Edwards would stab the other in the back in a heartbeat. If one of them gets the nomination, don’t expect the other to be selected as running mate. They both know that Hillary is the best candidate but they both desperately want to be president. She is the main obstacle. What was Hillary thinking? “I can’t believe they stuck me on a podium with these lightweights.”

Obama engaged in Kerryesque magical thinking. He seemed inclined to disbelieve the notion that Musharraf will still be Pakistan’s president should Obama be elected. The more dangerous illustration of Obama’s magical thinking is that he still apparently wants to attack Pakistan as soon as he has “actionable intelligence” of Bin Laden’s whereabouts. It was “actionable intelligence” that got us into Iraq. The “actionable intelligence” turned out to be wrong.

Will “actionable intelligence” be foolproof under an Obama presidency when it will be coming through the same channels that it did under the Bush presidency? It is an invitation to Al Qaeda to disrupt and destabilize Pakistan even further by dropping false information to the Americans (one of the few things that Al Qaeda seems to be good at). A US strike on Pakistan would make Al Qaeda ecstatic because Al Qaeda wants to promote chaos so that it can forcibly impose its own extremist cult on ordinary Muslims. Hillary had to point out to Obama that an unannounced strike on Pakistan could inadvertently set off a nuclear war with India. If time were not a factor, she could perhaps have explained the relative population size of Pakistan and Iraq and the difference in the weaponry possessed by the two. She might also have mentioned the hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and thousands of Pakistani civilians who have already died in the war on terror. It is magical thinking for Obama to insist that the “actionable intelligence” will miraculously become more accurate just because he has been elected.

If Clinton wins New Hampshire, it will probably be impossible for Obama to regain his momentum. If Obama wins New Hampshire, the next several months will provide plenty of time for people to realize that Hillary is a much safer choice. I don’t think that the Democrats are stupid enough not to choose Hillary. They can’t risk another nebulous Kerryesque candidate that isn’t committed to anything except change itself. Is Obama for invading Islamic countries or against it? Is he committed to universal healthcare or not? What deeply felt principle makes it okay to take lobbyists’ money at a state level but not on a national level?

More from blogHILLARY