Hillary Clinton Steps In It
Posted by tgirsch

Via commenter Ted and Obsidian Wings, we find this:

Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton’s self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she’s taking much grief on the campaign trail.

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the “scariest” part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat next. “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’”

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. “They said there might be sniper fire,” Clinton said.

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn’t remember that, either.

“I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I’m going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.’”

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.”

Say what? As Sinbad put it: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ’cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’”

Whoops!

I mean, all politicians engage in BS of some sort or another. But how bad does it have to be that you would resort to something that’s so easily — and so embarrassingly — refuted?

Quoth Hilzoy:

Honestly: there was no need for Clinton to do any of this. She did play a serious policy role in her husband’s administration (even if she didn’t help pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, as she claims.) The only reason for her to inflate a trip with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow into a serious diplomatic mission, and a trip to Northern Ireland involving “a visit to a women’s drop-in centre and two business parks” into helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, is that by pretending to have been more involved in foreign policy than she really was, she can pretend that while Barack Obama isn’t ready to be commander in chief, she is.

March 24th, 2008 | Politics, News & Current Events | 31 comments

A Recipe For Eternal Flame
Posted by tgirsch

Let’s mix a gun control debate with a semantic debate, and see what happens. At issue here: Whether a pro-gun ruling in Heller would recognize a “new” Constitutional right. I’m still slogging through the comments, but so far this one is among the best (after the fold):

March 24th, 2008 | Legal Issues, Bloggin, Weekend Flame Bait | 2 comments

Edwards Should Not Endorse
Posted by Kevin

There is a lot of talk floating around about whether or not Edwards is going to endorse before North Carolina’s primary. It doesn’t appear that he is going to — he seems to like both Obama and Clinton for different reasons and is having a hard time deciding. If I was him, I would tkae the same route that Gore has taken and not endorse anyone.

Al Gore has turned himself into the Democratic Party’s resident wise man on climate and environmental issues. Gore is very well liked within the party and has built himself a reputation for knowledge and insight about environmental issues that is unrivaled in official Democratic Party circles. That combination of popularity and knowledge has put Gore in a unique position: for the rank and file, his position is the least acceptable position for a national Democratic politician to take. People can go farther than Gore, but no one with national aspiration can dismiss his positions on the environment. His position has become the default position of the party. But that only works becasue he is not seen as an active player in the quest for office. If Gore were to come out for someone, then the other condidate would be compelled to minimize or even attack Gore’s positions and the followers of the non-endorsed candidates to take sides: him or their choice for national office. Instead of a unifying force, he becomes a divisive one.

Edwards has the opportunity to follow much the same path. He is well liked among the Democratic base. Like Gore, he is the leading champion of an issue where the rank file membership is more progressive and fart-thinking than the current Democratic leadership. Like Gore, he has the knowledge, the mini-celebrity, and the financial base to create an effective platform for creating change. But all of that changes the moment he endorses. Gore, in fact, becasue of the last few years of goodwill he has built up, might actually be better positioned to endorse and come out of the process with his position as Democratic Environment Guru intact. Edwards has barely started on the journey. If he endorses now, then he throws away any possibility of becoming the Al Gore of poverty and economic injustice. I, for one, would hate to see that happen.

March 24th, 2008 | General, Politics, Economics | 20 comments