Dybul Trouble: HRC

Remember Mark Dybul, and Bush Admin Global AIDS Coordinator who was asked to stay on for an interim period by the Obama folks, only to be sent suddenly packing (literally) two days after the inauguration? What happened?

The answer appears to be: Hillary.

Something Nice about Hillary Clinton

Someone challenged me to say something positive about Hillary Clinton. No problem:

I think she's done a good job in the U.S. Senate. I hope she has a long and successful career there.

Chelsea Clinton and the Combat Zone

Assume, for a moment, that Hillary Clinton spoke the truth about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia (I know, the very thought of linking "truth" and "Clinton" requires a suspension of disbelief).

What rational parent would take their minor child into a combat zone to face sniper fire?

Forget about those sleeping kids at 3 a.m. -- does Hillary have enough horse sense to keep her own daughter safe?

Bill Clinton: Hillary too senile for 3 a.m.

Bill Clinton is supposed to be one of the most seasoned politicians, like since Caesar but you couldn't prove it from his behavior in his wife's campaign. He hurt her with his misstatements and racially charged comments in South Carolina. Last month his wife "misspoke" about being under sniper fire instead of attending a welcoming ceremony in Bosnia, a "misstatement" easily shown to be wrong when video emerged of her being greeted by a little girl at the airport, politicians and army brass. Leave it to the Clintons to elevate a misstatement into a self-serving lie.

The media derision of that lie (sorry, I misspoke, I meant misstatement) has subsided, so why is master politician Bill Clinton bringing it up again? In Indiana he mentions it in a speech, and says:

"But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that.

Yes, we saw it.

Okay, she was tired and it was late at night. Only, it wasn't -- it was actually a mid-morning speech. I guess it depends on what the definition of "time" is. Not to mention the fact that she made this "misstatement" on more than one occasion.

If bringing the whole thing up was mistake one, misstating the facts was mistake two, mistake three was the excuse Bill gave for her: she was too tired and aged to it right. He says (of reporters):

And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."

Crisis in the world? 3 a.m. anyone? Geritol?

Poor Hillary

Well, maybe not so much.

The Results

On the Dem side, it went pretty much as expected and we leave Super Tuesday without clearly victorious nominee, though Hillary still has the edge.

We seem to be going through a seesaw. First Obama wins big (Iowa) Hillary ekes out a response victory (NH). Then Obama wins big (SC), then Hillary ekes out another victory (FL, big supter Tuesday states). And I'm getting dizzy...

I would have liked Obama to have picked up a surprise victory in the NE or California. Still, his narrow win in "bellwether" Missouri was something.

Gays went for her two to one in California.

The one thing that will unite Republicans behind John McCain will be Hillary's nomination.

Stupidest thing I heard on the coverage last night: Keith Olberman: on Tennessee going for Hillary: "It was too early to call, but now it's later." No kidding.

And it's later than you think. And my fear is the Dems will nominate the retread.

But next week it's my turn to vote. Does anyone know where I can get my Obama yard sign?

Michael's Meltdown

Michael of Musing's Musings and I have been trading arguments on this blog and his over Obama. I love him and he hates him though thousands of words later I'm still not sure why.

But a recent comment I left on his blog has sent him over the edge, to the point of putting words in my mouth and uttering profanities. Tsk, tsk, Michael, can't we disagree and be civil?

Anyway, he wrote this a few days ago:

Four weeks ago, the Democrats had a great field of candidates for the presidency. Now we're effectively down to two--and neither one is all that terrific an option, in my estimation. And that's depressing the shit out of me.

I felt that comment to be dismissive of two accomplished candidates like Barack and Hillary and so out-of-hand as to be out of touch with reality, I said so, we traded a few comments and ended with this one from me:

What slays me is how you dismiss out of hand both Clinton and Obama. True enough, I detest what Clinton stands for. However, I recognize the historical "first" represented by her candidacy. If she wins the nomination and election it will be because of her skill, her fluency with the issues, her tirelessness and commitment. You know my reasons, though for not supporting her. I haven't seen yours.

Michael can't actually argue my points so he invents new ones and attributes them to me:

This posting is sorta-kinda in response to this comment on a recent posting. In that comment, Scott alleges (without ever saying it in as many words) that I have no good reasons for being disenchanted with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as potential Democratic nominees for president. I of course, am calling that comment pure bullshit.

Well, as Michael himself points out, I really didn't say that.

He goes on:

I'm fully cognizant that if, as seems quite likely from current polling numbers, trends, and other indicators, either Barack or Hillary wins the 2008 presidential election, he or she will make history as either our first black president or our first woman president. I would have to characterize voting for either one of these candidates solely or primarily on the basis that s/he will make history if elected as being among the more fundamentally galactically stupid ideas I've ever heard. And believe me, I've heard some pretty stupid ideas in my time.

I did point out that a Hillary or Obama win would be a historic first. I didn't say that you should vote for either because of their race or gender. In fact one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama is he seems to want to move us away from identity politics. Who could have imagined that a black politician mostly black audience would spontaneously chant "race doesn't matter" at a black candidates victory speech? Fantastic stuff.

Michael goes on to bloviate about who is more liberal. He doesn't think Obama is liberal.

I'm not going to play that game. Again, I think the whole point of Obama is to move us past arguments of liberal vs. conservative, or even liberal vs. liberal.

In fact, if Obama gets the nomination the Republicans will go to town telling everyone how liberal he is, and I'll gladly let Michael jump to his defense to say he is not.

Bill Clinton -- Front and Center

In today's Washington Post, front page, above the fold, below a headline "The Battleground" -- this picture:











How can there be any doubt that we'd be electing not one Clinton but two, that a Clinton win would not only be a historic first but a restoration of what was.

The Clinton Roundup

Here's what some people have been saying about the Clintons in the past few days. And these are Democrats.

Let's start with Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's former labor secretary:

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it

Colbert King:

Item: Billary loves to whine about the "politics of personal destruction." But Billary's campaign has taken to the low road, running ads falsely accusing Obama of supporting federal deficits and private Social Security accounts, and distorting his position on hot-button issues such as abortion. Newark Mayor Corey Booker, who branded the attacks "outrageous" and "dishonest," told Newsweek's Jonathan Alter: "We're trying to offer an alternative to the Republicans' fear and smear campaigns, and now we're being dragged down to their level by the Clintons."

William Greider

The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy....

...The [Clinton] style is very familiar to official Washington, not just among the Clintons' partisan adversaries, but among their supporters. The man lied to his friends. All the time. They got used to it. They came to expect it. I observe a good many old hands among the Senate Democrats are getting behind Obama. It would be good to know more about why they declined to make the more obvious choice of endorsing the power couple.

Voiceless for 35 Years

I got an email from Senator Clinton that begins:

After my humbling victory in New Hampshire last Tuesday, I said that New
Hampshire had helped me find my voice.

What? With that vaunted 35 years of experience she's just now finding her voice?

An Email from Hillary's Campaign

This was part of an email in my inbox tonight, asking me to go to Hill HQ and help out with the phone bank:

Using a combination of new technology and targeting we have been able to quadruple the impact of every hour you spend in the office. It allows you to talk to four time more voters and win four times more votes.

I guess all that vaunted experience doesn't extend to proofreading.

She REALLY Doesn't Get It

Good Lord...Has the woman no shame? Okay, that was a rhetorical question. The Associated Press catches the Chameleon Clinton in the act:

It wasn't long ago that Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign scoffed at the notion that young voters would deliver an election. How quickly thing can change.

Just seconds into her speech Friday morning, Clinton was declaring herself the candidate for America's youth,,,

That's why after her third-place finish in Iowa, Clinton got off her plane in New Hampshire and declared: "This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won't just call for change, or a president who won't just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I've been doing for 35 years."

Obama had the prescience to note last night in his victory speech that his message has stayed the same all along.

I have confidence the New Hampshire voters will know a phony when they see one.

And when is someone going to ask Hillary what "change" she is talking about? And if she's been doing it for 35 years then isn't she part of the establishment? She's trying to have it both ways.

Oh, but she is a Clinton. Of course she is trying to have it as many ways as she can get it.

Wasn't eight years of that enough?

Dissing Clinton

Noonan:

She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.

Action and Tangible Commitment, Not Political Correctness

A reader writes that Obama's inclusion of rabidly anti-gay ex-gay Donnie McClurkin on a gospel tour disqualifies him as credible on DOMA repeal. I was hoping someone would bring up the McClurkin thing, as it's an old controversy and I have been thinking about it.

I would rather support a candidate who will bring about real, beneficial change even if he or she hangs out with people I don't like or agree with. Hillary is very politically correct, goes to the right dinners, hangs with the right crowd and obviously has won the well, support I guess (you can't call it affection) of a great deal of the establishment, including the gay establishment (read: HRC). So she may not have ruffled any gay feathers but she won't stick her own neck out either on behalf of the gay community.

Obama has and is -- by telling the black religious establishment that they are wrong about their homophobia.

Obama is not perfect and he has flaws like any other candidate or human being. I'm not nominating him for saint (I happen not to believe in them). But I am considering giving him my vote (I still have until Feb. to make up my mind).

Here's Obama in his own words defending his record on gay issues as well as stating plainly that he will legalize federal marriage benefits for gay couples in civil unions. I cannot imagine Hillary being so direct.

The Email Campaign

I signed up for both Obama's and Edward's campaign a while ago. I had been thinking that I was deluged with constant emails from Edwards. But a tally for the past week shows Obama: 4; Edwards: 3.

I just signed up for Hillary. We'll see where she comes in on this.

The Advocate Article and Hillary

Is out. The earlier portrayal was accurate.

Hillary's Sopranos Video

Pretty clever, methinks...it got me, an anti-Hillaryite...to watch it twice and post it on my blog.

But...Celine Dion?????!!?

Reax to Dem Debate

Well, no light shed on the candidate's position on achieving the equality for gays they all profess. I didn't really expect it.

Hillary did better than I expected as she didn't come off like the fake, polished automaton I expected. If she believes we need to do more to combat violence like at Columbine and VA Tech I wish Williams had followed up and asked her why she isn't now during more as Senator to toughen gun laws and why the Clinton Administration -- excuse me, "Bill" -- didn't take the opportunity after Columbine.

Obama kind of stumbled some although he looked poised throughout and is the only candidate I would have wanted to kiss to after the debate. But I don't think he really helped himself in this performance.

The one candidate I thought came out looking good was Bill Richardson. He seemed the most genuine of the lot...he looked at times anxious, at times annoyed. I loved his "that's how I felt" response to the Gonzales question: why was he the last person to call for the AG's ouster? Richardson said he wanted to give a fellow Hispanic the benefit of the doubt until he had a chance to testify. "That's how I felt." Good answer. And when he saw Gonzales' awfully testimony, the benefit of the doubt was gone. Of all the candidates, he's the one I'd want to go sit at a bar and talk politics with while knocking back a few.

I hope they keep that Gravel guy around. He was fun.