David Geffen is WRONG.

David Geffen should stick to what he is very good at - making money - and shut up about politics. He is WRONG. The Libby trial is a window into to the circle jerk of Washington politicians and "journalists". Geffen railing against Clinton through Dowd of the NY Times is emblematic of why politicians treat L.A. like an A.T.M. Liberals in Hollywood should be treated like A.T.M.'s That is what they are good for.
Hollywood cash cows, like Geffen, certainly should not be given dead tree space in the New York Times for political rants. Especially with the Hollywood track record. Since 1960 "Hollywood" has picked exactly one winner - Bill Clinton.

A random list of Hollywood's choices:
Howard Dean,
Gary Hart,
George McGovern....I could go on...but why? oh, Dukakis...and Jerry Brown...someone should write a song. "Hollywood picks a loser...or two..."

Why Geffen is wrong:
1. This bullshit that Senator Clinton should "apologize" for a vote that 70% percent of the country supported at the time is childish and stupid. Why should she apologize? To make David Geffen feel better? To give all us liberals who knew all along the war was wrong A HIT OFF THE SMUG CRACK PIPE? I love the smug pipe, too. It is what we fall back on - like conservatives fall back on fantasies and anger. But it has not, does not, and will not win elections. Geffen does not want her to apologize for BEING wrong. He wants her to apologize to feel superior. Yes, David - you, me, and a lot of other people were correct all along about Iraq. Clinton saying "ooops, sorry" proves nothing - except she would then lose in 08 and you would feel smug about it. Believe me Brit Hume is aching to intone "Will she apologize to the Iranians NEXT? CAN we afford a 'women are from Venus Presidency!!!???"
In reality land - where the majority of people who vote live - here is a truth: The first woman with a real shot at becoming a U.S. President cannot make the first major talking point of her campaign an apology. This is politics 101. Politics is the art of the possible. A purely anti-war candidate is simply not going to win in 2008 like it or not. It would be grand if it happened, but it won't.
Geffen is wrong part2:
2. The GOP thinks Clinton is the easiest candidate to beat. HOLY CHRIST I AM SICK OF HEARING THIS PIECE OF HORSESHIT REPEATED AS IF
A. IT IS TRUE.
AND
B. IT IS EVEN BASED IN REALITY.
It is neither. Repeating like a mantra "Clinton can't win" is exactly what the far right wants us to do.
Facts on the ground: a. She has won two elections handily. b. Her husband is the best politician of his generation and more popular than ever. c. She can raise gobs of money. d. She polls even or ahead of her major G.O.P. opponents NOW - and we already know all her crap. She would beat McCain and MAYOR Rudy G. is a house of cards.
Romney/ Mormon. Nuff said. (that is unfair, unpleasant, but true.) The Right wing is quite clear that Clinton is the candidate to beat. Unlike Hollywood liberals these people have learned to spend their money wisely - and they are not spending millions right now cooking up ways to defeat Obama. They know better. They are after Senator Clinton, because they know a real threat when they see one.
Unless a better crop of GOPs get in the race, Clinton will be President. I would love Obama to be President. I would vote for him with joy if he gets the nomination. He could. But I doubt it. Potential is not going to trump experience in 2008. David Geffen is wrong.