Here and There

As I set out to learn more about this financial crisis, something caught my eye. Republicans have been claiming it was deregulation under the hands of Bill Clinton that caused the whole thing.

While we watch McCain’s presidential campaign bear the weight of his experience, I wonder how, if Hillary were the Democratic candidate, she would fare considering her husband’s hand in the matter and her claim on experience.

I think it would be a much closer race at this point if she had been elected. She and Bill are putting a lot out there for Obama, some of it mildly controversial. However, it is fairly safe to assume she is waiting her turn to be President. I wonder if this will affect her chances? In any case, she is very lucky it didn’t work out for her this time around. Maybe in 2016, though.

All we can do is count our blessings Obama is running the capable campaign he is. Now, let’s hope (for all of our sake) he knows a thing or two we don’t about economics.

- Scott

I’m not Michelle Obama, so I have impunity in saying it: I am ashamed of my country.

I mean, what do I have to be proud of? Our record on international relations? Our economy? Our entertainment industry? Our environmental record? Schools? Banks?

I used to be okay with the United States. The 1990s were, taken as a whole, pretty great. There were plenty of bumps in the road, but income disparity shrank, innovation exploded, and we were well-liked the world ’round. Work was easy to find, and Seinfeld was on.

Now, what?

Anyway, the way I’m feeling about the upcoming election hinges on this question of pride and shame. If Obama-Biden pull it off (or, more accurately put, if the American voting public pulls it off for Obama-Biden), pride will be restored. It would be a mea culpa, a rejection of the bad policies and divisiveness of the last eight years.

But for McSame-HockeyMilf to win would serve as a stamp of approval for the dismal job Bush-Cheney have done. I cannot be proud of that, and instead, my shame will only harden. It may become permanent.

It was a great speech, yes. And it was well delivered. I’ve got to hand it to him — he electrified the crowd.

And I have to get over how pissed I was at him during the primaries. This despite a few lines in this speech, directed at McCain and Republicans, could’ve been applied to him and his wife and her campaign team and supporters months ago.

Alas.

I am ready for the next president’s speech, coming up tonight.

A semi-new blog I set up because Hillary pissed me off.

I’m so pissed I could Blog. Let it out.

According to 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

One. Two. And, well, not sure where the others come from, but it was time for me to catch up with some better counters.

Obama will not win enough Tuesday in Kentucky and Oregon to secure the nomination. He will move to clinch a majority of pledged delegates that day, however. And even Bill Clinton is starting to sound like he’s accepting that it’s over. Clinton in Nevada yesterday:

“Don’t you forget why you came here. You did not go to all this trouble to have an argument with each other. The argument is necessary so we can pick the best president and the most electable one. Those are the only two things that matter … After that, we have to get the show on the road, folks. We have a country to change and a future to secure.”

I want to say out front that I am not a Democrat. I am officially registered as a non-party independent voter in the state of California.

But I typically vote for Democrats because, while never perfect, their politics tend to be closest to reflecting my beliefs. I am liberal, and that’s never been a bad word.

But when I read that a former president, one whom I admire, makes foolhardy and erroneous statements such as this:

It is shocking and somewhat embarrassing to me to see the Republicans in a more progressive position than the Democrats

it strikes me that the proper reaction would be to question that former president’s fitness to remain a member of that party.

I’d like to know if it’s possible to bar Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party. He is clearly not intent on restoring any “Democrat” other than his wife to the presidency, nor to help Democrats at the state and local level get their governments back into responsible hands.

I still haven’t sold my copy of My Life and given the proceeds to Barack Obama, but I will. I can now say, with no hesitation, that I no longer have a shred of admiration left for Bill Clinton.

Richardson endorsement — check
Superdelegate lead — check
Turn toward general election strategy/campaigning — check
Edwards endorsement — check
Concession by Clinton — …

(This post in no way anticipates nor expects Hillary Clinton to concede. Ever. It merely wishes to illustrate the obvious — that the Democratic Party has a nominee, despite the disbelief/refusual to admit as much by one or two of its members.)

According to Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic, John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama in Michigan tonight.

I figured it out: Bill Clinton turned so mean, so vindictive, willing to stoop so low, because his wife won’t have sex with him till she’s president (memo to Bill: it ain’t gonna happen).

Now, wait, wait, you might say. Bill has never had trouble getting nooky on the side. My response? He’s too busy campaigning for a lost cause.

Okay, so we’ve got massive amounts of Republicans voting in the Indiana primary, almost certainly coming out “for” Hillary.

This is what it’s come to.

In a pointlessly drawn-out campaign season, with unnecessary millions spent on advertising, travel, and other aspects of 24-hour campaigning … with a candidate supposed not to have “sealed the deal,” despite having put together the largest coalition of political contributors ever (1.5 million and counting), despite having registered what will surely amount to a record number of new voters … despite having, month after month, outraised and outpolled his opponent … despite the fact that, as early as February, this could’ve been over and all the money and energy and attention could’ve been focused on John McCain, THIS WHOLE TIME … despite what has been the mathematical near-certainty since February (that she couldn’t regain the lead in delegates) … despite Obama’s having come back from more than 100 down in superdelegates to the latest count of around 15 in a few months … despite having netted 28 superdelegates to his opponent’s 11.5 since he lost Pennsylvania and the press has kept the Reverend Wright affair alive for its own cynical bottom line…

Despite all these factors and more, Hillary Clinton remains defiant.

They say Barack Obama can’t close the deal. Well, actually, he can. He could’ve a long time ago if Clinton believed in math (or economists, for chrissakes).

But has anyone ever questioned whether she can close the deal? Has anyone asked her, directly, how exactly she plans to even come close to Obama’s delegate count? And, as a follow-up question, what good such a tactic would do for the country, the party, her own career and legacy?

If I could ask Senator Clinton one question, it would be this: “Isn’t it possible that this is the closest primary race in a long, long time, but that, even then, there’s no way for you to win it short of destroying the party and your opponent?”

Al Giordano does a way better job of explaining the madness than I could ever hope to do. I turn you over to Al.

By none other than Keith Olbermann. Give this man an Emmy already:

Thx: Sullivan.

Former DNC chairman, appointed by Bill Clinton, and former supporter of Bill’s wife, a native of Indianapolis, Joe Andrew will announce today from that town that he’s switched his endorsement to Barack Obama.

Going a step further, the AP reports, Andrew will call on other superdelegates to get off the fence, back Obama, and begin to “heal” the party. Amen.

Last week, South Carolina’s James Clyburn told reporters that he had heard prominent people say that the Clintons were potentially sabotaging Obama’s chances of winning in November, setting themselves up for Hillary to run again in 2012.

Conspiracy theories aside, this is the third-highest ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not some lowly blogger.

But many have interpreted Clyburn’s remarks to mean that he believes this to be true.

He explains his comments to Keith Olbermann: