Maybe because she's not the smartest. She did flunk the DC bar exam. Luckily she was able to pass the Arkansas test.

Posted at May 9, 2008 11:58 AM in response to Dianne Feinstein: I'm Sticking By Hillary

I like the Clintons and spent a fair amount of effort defending them in the 1990s. And truthfully, their policies don't differ much from Obama's.

But Hill has had her day. She had 8 years of experience with a chance to save health care, civil rights, the environment and all the rest. It's time to let the next generation take center stage.

Posted at May 9, 2008 11:52 AM in response to Dianne Feinstein: I'm Sticking By Hillary

dijamo: "She has been there and done that . . ."

That's the point. She's had her time in the WH. She's had her chance to save health care and the environment and civil rights. Now it's time to let the next generation take center stage and put their ideas to the test.

You make the point that she's a woman. But she depends so heavily on Bill to carry her across the finish line. Her "experience" consists of standing beside her husband.

Posted at April 30, 2008 1:00 PM in response to New Hillary Ad In North Carolina Stars Maya Angelou

Wasn't the Pope just here, and wasn't that the Pres. praising the pontiff for his opposition to the "tyranny of moral relativism"?

Seems to me Moral Relativism is the only morality this administration knows.

Posted at April 28, 2008 1:48 PM in response to Today's Must Read

That answer I felt was clumsy. Wallace asked about "post-partisan" and framed it as if there is a Democratic solution to a problem and a GOP solution and wanted Obama to specify how he would take one from column A and one from column B. That's not post-partisan; it's more like triangulation.

The correct response, which Obama got to eventually, is that the Dem v. GOP menu is a mirage, created by partisans who want to score points more than solve problems.

When Obama talks about post-partisan politics, he refers to identifying the best solution, from whatever source, and gathering the support of the people regardless of party to push that solution through Congress. I don't know if he can,

Posted at April 28, 2008 10:28 AM in response to Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All

Is Was

There. Fixed.

Posted at April 25, 2008 1:49 AM in response to Hillary Clinton - Irrational and Unfair

"The Clintons are there when they need you"

Boy, you got that right. I worked for an organization that strongly supported Hillary's health care plan. I never met her, but worked with her staff, some of whom are still with her. What I learned about these folks was:

1. Every day is fundraiser day. You can't get past Hello with these folks without them begging for money.

2. The lying is pathological. It got to the point we could not take their word for anything, no matter how trivial. Until it was verified, it was always open to question.

3. Loyalty is one-way. They wanted unqualified support (and money), but they easily cast supporters aside if they thought they could attract someone more powerful.

It's time to turn the page.

Posted at April 25, 2008 1:38 AM in response to Clyburn: Bill Clinton's Behavior Has Been "Bizarre"

I will listen to criticism of Rev. Wright from those who have served their country as he has.

Inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s challenge, Wright gave up his student deferment and joined the U.S. Marine Corps. In 1963, after two years of service, he entered the Corpsman School and graduated valedictorian and was trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, where he graduated as salutatorian. He was selected to be part of the medical team caring for President Johnson following his surgery in 1966. Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House awarded Wright three letters of commendation. (summarized from Wikipedia)

Posted at April 24, 2008 3:21 PM in response to Wright Gives First Interview to Bill Moyers

Sorry, Hunter. Hill's little story is obviously untrue, and she has wisely stopped telling it.

The young woman was not turned away from any hospital for lack of $100. She was afraid to go to the local hospital because she owed them money, so she went to the more distant one, which cared for her.

Aside from wrong facts, Hill's conclusion was that people die when they do not have health insurance. I'm for single-payer, but this anecdote does not support Clinton's point. Even people with coverage run up unpaid bills. I suspect if she had gone to the local med center with a pre-eclampsia condition, they would have tried to work something out, particularly since she did have a job and insurance.

This was a tragedy because the woman did not try to do the best for herself and her baby. Maybe she didn't have someone who cared to help and go to bat for her. But it does not prove the point Hill used it for: the need for universal medical insurance.

Posted at April 8, 2008 10:07 AM in response to NYT's Damaging Lie About Clinton

The same thought occurred to me. Cheney's visit was billed as an effort to stiffen Malili's resolve and demand some progress to showcase when Petreus comes to Congress. Early reports of the Basra offensive stated that the Americans there were taken by surprise. Then the story became that the US didn't know the timing and the details.

Could it be that Cheney was completely off the reservation? Urging Maliki to make a decisive strike as dramatic proof that the Surge worked and the Iraqis can stand on their own? All without telling the generals on the ground, or at the Pentagon, or the folks at State, all of whom he thinks are too soft.

Posted at March 31, 2008 10:34 AM in response to Today's Must Read