Saturday, January 12, 2008

I can barely believe I heard this,

but David Brooks, a guest on Tim Russert's CNBC talk show, just said that the Bush white house firmly believes that Hillary Clinton "would be the best guardian of the Bush legacy" of all the democratic candidates, and better than many of the republican candidates as well. That casts Rove's anti-Obama editorial last week in the WSJ in an entirely different light, doesn't it?

It also puts an even more sinister light on the recent coziness between Bill Clinton and Bush senior.

I'll look for a youtube clip or a transcript to post. But WOW.

Another story running parallel to this and making me equally queasy: The Field quotes the Washington Post:
    The Nevada State Education Association, some of whose top leaders have individually endorsed Clinton, filed the suit and is using a law firm with close ties to the onetime front-runner, Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Former congressmen James H. Bilbray (D-Nev.), a lawyer at that firm, has endorsed Clinton and is stumping for her in the Silver State…

    The state party quickly dismissed the lawsuit. Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details. “This is a fair, legal and proper way to choose delegates under established law and legal precedent that has been reviewed by attorneys….The time for comment or complaint has passed,” the party said in a statement.

    The union was more blunt, contending the arguments are only a political effort to muddy the waters in case Clinton loses. “It’s strange [the suit] is coming after our endorsement,” said D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of the local labor group, told the Washington Post in an interview last night after an Obama rally in his union hall.


Anonymous said...

Why are you people so gullible? It is so easy to suck you into Republican dirty tricks. After all of this, why do you still believe anything the Republicans say?

Diane said...

I'm not sucked into anything.

I have had a visceral distrust of the Clintons for over ten years, and see nothing coming from them that causes me to rethink that distrust. I see them as manipulative and desperately addicted to power.

They made it clear - if you were paying attention when they thought they were losing in NH - that they will say anything they think will put her on top. That is way too close to republican for me.

Anonymous said...

Have you read Bill Clinton's autobiography? It might change your attitude. The meme of the desperate, power-hungry Clintons willing to do anything (even off Vince Foster) is pure Republican hate speech. You've bought it hook, line and sinker, apparently.

Diane said...

Perhaps you're the sucker for falling for Bill Clinton's line of horseshit. He's as self-involved and self-promotional as any politician I've ever seen.

I do my own thinking, thank you. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I can observe for myself. Bill Clinton campaigning in NH, when he thought Hillary was going to lose, flailed and blamed and yelled like the entitled blowhard I believe he is. That was their chance to show class and grace under pressure, and instead they both completely blew it.

As for the celebrated HRC "crying moment"...I believe she was overtired and stressed. I also believe she was emotional because she felt she was LOSING. Boo hoo.

Diane said...

I just want to add that when Clinton was in the white house I defended him at every turn. But just because I defended him I necessarily fell for his smarmy, cheap-psych, lip-biting fake empathy schtick. I don't like being manipulated, and he is a master manipulator. Hillary tries too, but her problem is that she is a bad actor and every spin and swipe is patently obvious.

Anonymous said...

You have a huge double standard that applies the worst possible motives to the Clintons while absolving others when they do the same things. Obama has said and done ugly things too, as has every candidate, and they all want to win. Why are the Clinton not permitted to feel that way but others are? And why are their ambitions somehow manipulative while Obama writes a book about the Audacity of Hope and people like you swoon? Your skepticism is highly selective, Diane.

Diane said...

I know you're just trying to piss me off, so I'm not going to give you the pleasure.

You don't know a thing about what I think. I'm not swooning over Obama; at this point he's simply the least objectionable candidate. I was actually going to vote for Dodd.

If her royalness gets the nom I will hold my nose and vote for her in the general, but I will certainly not vote for her in the primary. Don't like her. I don't care what you call that; it's the truth.