Hmm. What is wrong with this picture? How many think the Secretary of State had no part whatsoever in this effort? Since she is only the nation's chief diplomat and the spouse of the guy who went to N.K.
Also: Kathleen Wynne lead us to this at RBO. Hillary was deeply involved in this deal...duh...even if the LAT and the WSJ insist on ignoring her role.
President Clinton has arrived in North Korea to seek the release of two American journalists. Gotta love Bill and Hill. The hardest working couple in politics.
Langely Follies: Also please read Joseph C. and Cinie on Obama and the CIA. Got no idea if Barry is a Langley stooge . But let's face it, BHO being a CIA plant makes more sense than the "community organizer" claptrap and does fill in some gaps. By the by: Barry is looking to start a CIA training camps on American college campuses...
If the rise in the markets this year is credited to Obama's economic policy - is this his fault?There goes the year's gain..
NK fires again:North Korea fires another missile - Obi admin says: "I don't think that anybody in the administration thinks there is a crisis," Gates told reporters aboard his military jet early Friday morning. Is No Drama Obama actually too disinterested to be bothered since there is no upside for me Obama? Where's Bill? Check this blog out. Comment on Hot Air: Most recently NQ, Liberal Rapture, The Confluence. Mostly small liberal blogs that were hardline behind Hillary Clinton...Believe it or not the real democrats had O figured out along time ago.
So real that we had to leave the party to maintain any integrity.
The kids are alright: Don't they know the musty ol' Bible mutters some barely coherent, mistranslated silliness about it in a single word or two written 1,500 years ago in a long dead language by acidic church elders with powermad political agendas and violently repressed libidos who nevertheless wish to instruct us all how to live and love and screw? Read it all.
John goes all tiger beat:
oh the many things i love...because, as we know - those who can't do - blog...
...USC Football...Shakespeare...the sublime inanity of Green Acres...the deliciously fearless South Park...almond roca...kicky pop music....oh and Rafael Nadal's smile, uh, i mean skill...The French Open is moving along and I also love me some tennis...and come to think of it lets hear it for Shakira ..Fear no Rock en Espanol...while American pop was disintegrating into fits of increasingly crappy rap and increasingly tiresome "hip hop" driven by increasingly creepy and gooey sexual energy... Rock en Espanol was often busy keeping the fun, sexy, earnest urgency of pop alive...so Go Rafa! Go Lakers! Go Friday! Go Rock en Espanol!...Go on then...have a great weekend!
A wonderful, lengthy piece on President Clinton is linked here. Occasionally I wonder if my partisan loyalty to the Clintons is misplaced. Then I read something like this piece which confirms what went on last year - Bill Clinton : I had one minister in Texas in the general election come up and put his arm around me." This was an Obama supporter. "And he came up, threw his arm around me and said, 'You've got to forgive us for that race deal.' He said, "That was out of line."
"That race deal" - that damaged this country and demeaned millions and for what? For who? A talented teleprompted speaker who has no business running a city, much less a county.
I am left with this final answer: The Clintons are better people than the Obamas. I mean that in both a broad and narrow sense. From the reasons behind policy down to how people are seen and treated - The Clintons are better people.
Yes, the Obamas and their rabid supporters were "out of line" to put is as kindly as possible. Mr. Obama's entire career is built on being "out of line" - from the mysteries of his youth, to the lazy career in the state legislature, to the most recent "F You" to gays, and abortion rights activists.
Obama is about advancement of his ego and control over whatever he can manage to grasp - and that is all.
Advancement and control.
Advancement and control. Those two words cover his whole life.
I think - 'no, I shouldn't get over it'. I see no reason to "get over it". A "planned" mistake of epic proportions was foisted on us last year .
And I can't get around the sense that it may be our final mistake. The mistake that ends the possibility for redemption. The one who comes after Obama shoud be as big a concern now for thinking people as Obama himself.
This mistake aided and abetted in corrupting the Left to its core - with the Left being willing, deluded participants. The far Right is alive now. Alive with passion and ideas. The Left, contrary to MSM blathering, is DEAD. A bunch of lost, confused, disempowered fools.
As the results of the Chicago Rules being installed in D.C. become more and more apparent - this mistake becomes one that we will pay for in myriad ways for years to come.
There is now no issue, plank, or contingency, that Obama has not betrayed in less than 200 days. I defy anyone to find one major issue in which Obama has not waffled, doubled back or chosen to ignore what he said in 2008. We are in the midst of Bush's third term. On every major concern "hope and change" has become "What Bush said". Here is the difference - W, Cheney, and Rummy transferred wealth to the military- industrial complex, while giving financial concerns a blank check to loot. Obama is in the process of transferring wealth to the medical-industrial complex while bailing out financial concerns...with our wealth.
It is both "sour grapes" and reasonable to conclude that Hillary Clinton would be a better President. Far from perfect. But certainly better. On this point, Liberal Rapture is proudly a grievance blog and will remain one as long as it is up or until proven wrong.
New Hampshire by Wednesday? N.H. adding language to make Same Sex Marriage bill acceptable. No Shocker here: Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military Oh well, at least he's black. Would Jesus do this?We hunt people for Jesus, We hunt them down... Guess I missed that part where Jesus said "follow me and we will be hunters of men..." Now about those movies: The grinning idiot says "Nothing stops an overstimulated audience dead in it's tracks faster than an original idea." In Hollywood original is a dirty word. Vicious hatred and ignorance: I ask you who is going to hell in this scenario? Answer: it ain't the lesbians. In case you care: I will vote No on every Calif prop today, except F. I am fed up with lawmakers dodging hard choices then holding a special election every 6 bloody months. DO YOUR DAMN JOBS!!! Or pay me to legislate. And I'll be voting for Jack Weiss for city attorney. Bill and Hill: Bill in the news here, Hill in the news here. Meanwhile, Barry went out for a burger, and Michelle ordered some new shoes online... Music: It is Spring and love is skittering about....
Despite Huge Push, Support For Obama's Budget Slips A Bit (by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line) Despite the huge push by Obama and Dems to sell his budget over the past several weeks, a new Gallup poll finds that public support for it hasn't budged and may have even slipped a bit...At the end of February, 44% of national adults hold a generally positive view of the budget; now that number stands at 39%. Gallup says this shows that support for the budget has "held steady," probably because the shift is within the margin of error. But Gallup, interestingly, also says that there has been a "noteworthy" drop in support for it among moderates and liberals.
Washington Dems To Blame For Slip In Support For Budget? (by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line) - One reader writes: "Since the first poll was taken, Congress has taken steps to make this budget more conservative. And support for the budget has dropped amongst liberals and moderates. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the problem here is D.C. Democrats are listening to Republicans concerns instead of voters concerns." A second reader opines: "I am sure there are some Democrats/liberals/progressives whose view of the budget might be negative now because of the fact that Kent Conrad and the rest of the ConservaDems have watered it down and taken out the health care money and the cap and trade provisions." Given that the new Gallup poll finds that support for the budget has slipped nine points among liberals and eight points among moderates, these takes sound pretty plausible.
House GOP offers budget blueprint but scant detail (AP) House Republicans have released their response to President Barack Obama's deficit-laden budget, but their glossy pamphlet offers little beyond campaign-style talking points.
GOP Releases Problem-Laden Alternative "Budget" Preview (Dissenting Justice) Highlights from the Blueprint Politics, Politics, Politics The blueprint reads like a political document, rather than a budget (or budget preview) Questionable Statements As with most political documents, the blueprint distorts the record. Fiscally Troubling The Republican blueprint suffers from the same problem as the Obama budget: It promises to do many things with insufficient funds.
John here: We really need to start thinking about a third party.
Comparing the U.S. to Russia and Argentina (by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, Salon) Desmond Lachman - the former chief strategist for emerging markets at Salomon Smith Barney and a long-time official with the IMF (no raving socialist he) argues that the most apt comparison for the U.S. now is not Japan's "lost decade," but rather, "that the United States is coming to resemble Argentina, Russia and other so-called emerging markets, both in what led us to the crisis, and in how we're trying to fix it."
Despite the limitless gorging on public funds by the very oligarchs (government owners) who caused the financial crisis in the first place, the predominant sentiment from our establishment media now is that Obama needs to force ordinary Americans to "sacrifice more."
The Quiet Coup (The Atlantic) The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Simon Johnson, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government.
So why do we put up with this? WHY AREN'T WE TAKING THE BRIBERY MONEY OUT OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS?-Caro
Instead, Congress is working to get MORE bribery money into the political process: House Democrats Track Who's Helping Party (Political Wire) "It's never too early in election cycle to start fundraising -- or to shame your colleagues into contributing," CQ Poltics reports. "The campaign arm of Democrats serving in the House is privately circulating a tally showing members of that caucus where they stack up in fundraising for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)." "With a quarterly filing period coming to an end next week, the internal list provides an early look at which members of the majority are looking to flex fundraising muscle within the party -- and earn favor with the leadership while they're at it."
So this is good news: Parties See Drop in Fundraising (Washington Post) Between economic turmoil and a campaign that endlessly taxed donors, political giving slows.
Click here for more politics and media news headlines.
Is it too early to speculate about what Clinton's plans might be for 2012? In a brutal (and occasionally incorrect) assessment of Obama's first few months in the U.K.'s Prospect called No, He Can't this is written:
Thus the big question in Democratic circles today: "What does Hillary do about this?" Her supporters still feel that the election was stolen from her. With capital on strike, states rebelling against the president's dependency agenda, the treasury secretary probably soon to be replaced, many top jobs still unfilled, the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton's departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.
Her relationship with the president, inherently unstable personally, erodes every day that he takes his swinging axe to the remarkable bipartisan achievements of the Clinton presidency, especially welfare reform and fiscal discipline. While the biggest shocks of this presidency to date have been at home, in the foreign sphere Hillary's job as secretary of state is made more difficult by a distracted and inexperienced president.
Please note that the treasury secretary is not about to be replaced. And while Obama's poll numbers have "plummeted" since inauguration day (Low eighties to high fifties or low sixties) they have been stable for weeks. Nevertheless, the statements about Obama's domestic attack on (Bill) Clintonism - moderation that produced a stable budget and a needed and popular reform of welfare - are worth pondering.
Hillary, wisely I still believe, took on the State Department. Her alternative was to stay in the Senate. Which would have left her either going along with the increasingly questionable Obama agenda or joining with Democratic dissenters and suffering more nonsense from the Obamamedia and blogs. She would have been a target every time she questioned even a minor Obama plan.
The assumption is that Obama smartly removed her from the domestic scene - shipping her to State. The opposite may be true. Clinton played Obama. Her performance so far as SOS, while imperfect, is certainly more skilled and smooth than Obama's as President. Again experience matters. (Not to mention a strong work ethic. Hillary may have some character defects - laziness is not one of them.) Clinton has taken command of 1/5 of the the executive branch, all of it to do with foreign concerns, at the moment when domestic troubles reign supreme - leaving the home front to the "learning on the job" President. My gut tells me Clinton knew State was the perfect fit for her - and she never much wanted the V.P. slot. She has no responsibility to sell Obama's domestic agenda. Her face is not on it.
The interesting thing about foreign affairs in this Admin. is that the victories will go to everyone. Obama can not outshine Clinton or dismiss her when things go well on the foreign front. The failures, however, will land in the oval office. Obama has put his face on the most controversial and dangerous initiatives. The video he sent to Iran was all Obama. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Not her.
Of course, if the Obama years prove to be disastrous on the foreign front, Clinton will be tainted. But never discount this woman's tenacity. She did, no doubt, assume the nomination was her's until the week before Iowa. After that she became a warrior, recreating herself in the process. She became a political leader with a national constituency - no longer just a smart former First Lady - that "can't win."
Should Obama's overreach begin to give off an even stronger whiff of "incompetent" - Clinton will look increasingly attractive to Big Dems. She lost the AA vote - a natural Clinton group - however she strengthened the Clinton grip on the "Reagan", working class, white Democrats.
Also - it must be stated that the GOP contenders this far out do not appear strong. Palin is the best. Jinal is a nonstarter. The conservative delusions about him are fascinating. Newt is strong but has many downsides. Mark Sanford is a good bet. But does he want it?
Obama survived AIG - for now. What that eruption did do was galvanize a revulsion against excessive spending. The rip down the middle of the Obama Administration has been exposed. On the one hand are the liberals who want programs that cost - a lot. On the other are his Wall street handlers, exemplified by Goldman Sacks Golden Boy Tim G, who are working O.T. to save banks - not a group beloved by liberals of any stripe. Obama's response to this tension so far is to "legacy legislate" very early in his first term. His budget is larded with programs no one knew they were voting for. He got a mandate in November. It was not a mandate to move the country abruptly to the Left. He has fundamentally misread his own election. The ease with which Democrats in congress are stripping the budget of Obama's signature plans is telling. Last month we learned that Republicans had no fear of the "popular" President. In March we are learning his sway over his own party is weak.
It is way to early to call the Obama years anything - success or failure. In June of 2001 W had all the hallmarks of a one term President. Still, so far Obama looks more like Carter than FDR. Though he gave himself wiggle room Tuesday night - he has staked his Presidency on far reaching change. Change that more and more people do not want. Obots have already set up a group to attack the fledgling "blue dog" senate group lead by Evan Bayh. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.
In 1980 a huge percentage of Democrats revolted against their President who came in a few years earlier as a "bipartisan agent of change". A powerful, competent, fiscally moderate Democrat may see an opening in 2012.
Obama's Other Balls: My fav is"The Huffington Post Ball: Revellers provide all decorations, refreshments, and entertainment in exchange for the chance to be seen at the ball."
Support your local non chain book store! Saving mom and pop bookstores is non partisan! Here's a piece in P.W. on the Jan,20,2009 doings at Eso Won Books in South Los Angeles. Honeymoon over?: Already ? Not really but look for signs of frustration earlier than previously expected. Obama is bratty, like W. The press may have a short fuse with "bratty" after 8 years of W. Some proof: One of my postulates around here is that Hillary and Bill Clinton will soon be the most powerful couple in D.C. and the world - yet again. Mrs. Clinton was greeted by a crowd of more than a thousand State Department employees, cheering and whooping like a campaign gathering.
I am out tonight- but there is a spring in my step after today. There is so much to look forward to. How much fun is in store for the next 1,460 odd days??? Pull up a chair. Grab the popcorn - awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay we goooooooo!
...a funny thing happen to Barack Obama on the way to his inauguration. He became a Clintonista! ...Obama moves from one political position to another with ease. He has advanced 7 different positions on the Iraq war and, save for Bill Clinton, no one seemed to notice or care. Bill Clinton was called a racist for his efforts.
The History Channel is on another Hitler bender so last night I rummaged around the DVR. I was rewarded for earlier compulsive recording with a show called "Engineering Disasters". One of the disasters featured was the St. Francis Dam break in 1928. The St. Francis Dam was a dam in northern LA County that was one of the final stops for water from central California. The entire system was created by William Mullholland, (who morphed into Mulwray in the film version - the brilliant Chinatown.) and it, in turn, created Los Angeles. The day before the dam broke killing over 400, Mr. Mullholland visited the dam which was clearly leaking badly. He said there was no problem and went home. Go with me for a minute: Today it occurred to me that one could argue that Obama's appointments so far are to the RIGHT of Bill Clinton's in 1992. The evil centrist that the Kos Kidz bashed mercilessly all year actually appointed Robert Reich - a bonefide liberal as part of his economic team. And it is easy to argue that Warren Christopher, Henry Cisnaros and Donna Shalala were to the Left of anyone Obama has picked thus far. In simplest terms: Obama has ignored the Left wing of his own party. Clinton did not. The vaunted "team of rivals" is actually just a list of Center-Right Washington and Wall Street insiders.
So far.
About that dam leak - it did not seem like much to the builder when he viewed it - then, within hours the dam broke. The Latte Liberal Obama Dam will leak but hold until about 3 weeks after he's sworn in. That's my bet.
I remember how roundly the Left trashed Bill Clinton early on. I supported Tom Harkin and Jerry Brown - both liberals - before coming to admire Clinton. The vocal Left was miserable about Clinton's nomination in 1992. So here, in 2008, we have a leaky dam of sorts holding back the cognitive dissonance of the committed Obamaton Latte Liberals. But the leaks are visible. Criticisms of Obama's foreign policy team are if anything outstripped by indignation over his economic team.
His foreign policy team is populated by hawks and the economic team is Wall Street bred. This is not change. Many here and elsewhere have said for months that Obama will be Bush's real third term. This looks truer than ever. Obama's team will be more competent. Not hard. But the ideological differences are small. Certainly not what the most committed Pods expected. Forget about W's first term for an moment and the differences barely register with the second term. More war. More spending. A large "investment" package would be coming January 21st if McCain, W, or Mickey Mouse was President. Guantanamo would have been closed under McCain as well. (Those drunk on MSNBC continue to believe Obama will be magically ending the wars - denial on a grand scale. )
With the possible exception of Bill Richardson and Samantha Power, John McCain could have easily picked most of the same folks Obama has chosen. Even McCain picking his friend, Hillary Clinton, for something is not a big stretch of imagination. She garners grudging respect on the Right now.
Don't get me wrong, I like many of Obama's picks. General Shinseki at the V.A. is almost inspiring. And I've followed the Clintons long enough to know that Hillary will survive and thrive either by staying and serving ably at the State Department - or leaving if she needs to. Richardson goes from being useless to harmless and back in all his jobs - but he won't do any damage. Samantha Power won't win a battle with Hillary if one comes.
Obama's picks are not inspiring in the least. They are boilerplate. As for policy - expect change. It IS coming. But it won't be big change and is more the result of this historical moment than Obama. He will yank some policies back to the center - as well he should.
The only person the Obama Delusionists can pin their hopes on now - as it has always been - is Obama himself. The personality cult will plug the dam for a while. But a POTUS can only pretend to be the agent of change while administering the Washington status quo for so long.
An unexpected pre-holiday treat has been the freak out amongst the ObamaPod faithful about how moderate Obama's cabinet picks have been so far. Though, I hold many views that are called "progressive" by The Nation and their ilk (I prefer "liberal") I am happy and relieved to see so many Clinton hands on the deck of the good ship Barack. And watching the Kos Kidz head's pop has leapfrogged seeing conservative sexual hypocrites implode for pure delight in my book.
This year I never could decipher if Obama was a Wall Street stooge or a far lefty whiner. It is apparent so far that he favors Wall Street over Marx (Karl) - not the best of choices but I too prefer Wall Street over Marx (Karl) though not over Marx (Groucho). Competence and an active government inside the faux capitalist system we have now is better than shoving champagne socialism with a violent subtext down the throats of us proletarians.
Obama's goal would seem to be competence - hence all the Clinton left overs. Change is taking a back seat to Shift. Often slight shifts by the look of it. Chances are not high that I'll ever end up liking Obama - but I am growing in faith that he is not going to tilt to the far Left and cause chaos. I doubt he'll be popular in a year. He hasn't got the goods or the balls. He is the apex of the celebrity culture in the moment the society must move away from this lethal nonsense or dissolve. That depression you see in your rear view mirror is closer than it appears.
The Clinton middle ground worked wonders in the 90's. In the midst of a depression it may look more like Gerald Ford than FDR.
The media is starting to choke back compulsive adulation and will have to actually question him in a few months. By Summer the vocal Whole Foods Left will be in a state of Ophelia like insanity - throwing itself in the handiest river.
The farce that Obama represents change marches on. Mr. President-elect Barky is populating his transition with Team Clinton. A move I heartily endorse, being one who sees the Clinton years as being as close to sane as we've gotten in recent history. (Poor Gerald Ford attempted to keep the ideologues at bay - but, alas, 1976 was no time to be a GOP President.)
As for Hillary being Secretary of State-I am of two minds. As a Clinton loyalist I'd love to see her job match her abilities. Ted Kennedy, determined to the last to throw elbows at the Clintons (they had the gall to WIN!!! - twice no less!!!) kicked Hillary to the curb on healthcare Thus rendering her unable to influence healthcare in the Senate - so why shouldn't she bolt? If she is not going to be President then the State Department is a good choice. However, the best choice is as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Obama got the low down on the God-awful situation via intelligence briefings after he won and suddenly the promises he made to make Kerry and the New Mexico gas bag Richardson for the Sec. of State post are not operational.
The down side for Hillary would be her boss - a man who cannot and should not be trusted. Chances are good he will lead the country into one foreign policy nightmare after another. Breaking it to the Kos Kidz that world peace and pounding our rifles into drums for Love Circles on the campus quad is OFF THE TABLE - and that much of the errant nonsense the Obama Pods spewed about Iraq during the campaign was, in fact, errant nonsense - will go down hard on the latter day hippie saints in Cheetos Blog land.
Obama is cagey and he'll blame Hillary for every dumbass mistake he makes.
Rove will be leaving cackling messages on Donna Brazile's answering machine as the 2010 campaign heats up.
The fact that Obama has finally come to on the shores of Lake Michigan and realized he now needs ADULTS running things, not compliant talking heads and Lord of the Flies bloggers-and is therefore is tapping Clintonites-proves that, at the very least, he does not intend to fail. Though he more than likely will.
Uber Zionist Rahm Emanuel on the scene gives me some hope that Israel is not going to be ditched. As for Biden-he looks more and more like a backbencher to history. Spiro Agnew with a comb over. The more he talks the less relevant he becomes.
So GO BARRY! REHIRE the Clinton team - I liked them then and like them now. Also, I do want to see how your ass kissers at Huffington and MSNBC justify your slide over to Clinton land. They love trashing the Clinton's for no rational reason so much, after all.
Then again, the DNC might start wondering why they threw the nomination to you to be begin with - if you are just going to recreate Clinton's Admin. Coulda had the real deal...but..uh...she has no penis...so you got to jump to the head of the line.
Clinton Dems actually know how to WORK for a living. Maybe you and Michelle will learn something from your new hires.
A music choice for tonight: The True Blood Theme. Very sing-able.
Well I suppose it had to come to this eventually...liberal rapture posts a clip from that Rush fellow... ah well...such is life...even a broken clock is right twice a day...He is making a point about an answer BHO gave a 7 year old at a rally.
Obama (who may not exist. he might be a hologram...I'm looking in to it.) really isn't too good at this running for Pres. thing....Kids, someone has to say it: He ain't no Bill Clinton. Face facts Pods, without a teleprompter he is just crappy. He gives an answer which is perfectly suited for a gathering of effete Santa Monica 'I support workers since I shop at the farmer's market on thursday' liberals attending a small fundraiser at Ariana's Alimony Pad in Brentwood. The subtext is "this country sucks" which is what these people LOVE to hear. It ensures that they are not responsible...however, giving this answer to a 7 year old is just bad politics. Like Bush, unless BHO is strictly controlled he botches things. This is why he is being a coward about debating McCain in a town hall format. Rush L. gives the right answer - an answer that inspires FAITH in one's country- and an answer that would have danced of JFK's or Bill Clinton's tongue...
It is Sunday - So Ten Photos of LA is here. I added location captions this week to see how it looks. The photo of the President was taken by Wendy Werris. Send pics of your town if you like. John@liberalrapture.com. I love seeing them and will post if you want...it ain't about artistic merit it's about affection for your home town (Also- I was at wedding yesterday at my church that included a Mass so I am SKIPPING church today - STOP JUDGING ME! HA!)
I woke up this morning thinking about Sistah Souljah. Clearly I'm too immersed in politics. I thought, man, I would hate to be her. Everyone is calling Senator Obama's denunciation of Reverend Wright a Sister Souljah moment. I could not remember who she was. I was going to check the internets out and do the google but Real Clear Politics to the rescue! They linked to this story by John Heilemann:
For many months now, the political class has been wondering when Obama would get around to such a moment - an instance in which he loudly challenged a core Democratic constituency on an issue of principle, as Bill Clinton famously did in 1992 when he pilloried a B-list hip-hop act for some incendiary comments she made to the Washington Post regarding that year's L.A. riots. For those whose memories on this topic are incomplete, the comments in question were these: "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Which prompted Clinton to declaim at a meeting of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which had hosted Souljah the night before, "If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."
To start with, whatever admixture of courage and calculation that one ascribes to Clinton's maneuver, the risk he took in going after Lady Souljah was one that he took voluntarily - it was a risk of choice. The rapper, though every bit as hysterical and inflammatory as the reverend, had not become an issue in the 1992 campaign. Clinton had no relationship to her. Certainly, her comments posed no peril to his nomination. In all of this, Obama's situation was starkly different. His decision to cut his ties from Parson Wright, which might have been construed as brave if it had come a year or even a month ago, was by no means an act of political fortitude. It was an act of political necessity.
Bill Clinton, in front of the Rainbow Coalition (whatever happened to them?), denounced a black woman who said something vile. Yet he still managed to get most of the black vote. He didn't have to, she wasn't his rapper of twenty years. He didn't call a press conference to do it. He stood up in front of Jesse Jackson and said it. Hmmm, I'm going with courage.
So when I hear Obama throw Bill Clinton's presidency in with Bush, Bush and Reagan I get a bit disgusted. When I hear his supporters say it's time to have a President with a brain I get really frosted. Because the last two Democratic Presidents were anything but stupid. One was a successful President, one has had success since. Lest we forget, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist. (Just as an aside - my friend Katy's brother builds nuclear subs. One of the newest ones was named the Jimmy Carter. When they went down to show him the plans he corrected them. Roselyn also got the boys some lemonade. I love that.)
Senator Obama is not a Profile In Courage. He is a calculating politician.
And though I would hate have my name brought up in the context of Reverend Wright I think Sistah Souljah might be proud. Maybe even sell a few records.
