That special Clinton consistency

As usual, Frank Rich gets it. What conservatives don't understand is liberals/progressives dislike the Clintons. For progressive, the Clinton administration was a disaster of unfulfilled expectations by a president who governed like a Republican. Most progressives I know support Obama.

Aaron: "Has he gone back to using his security detail to pick up chicks, like he did in Arkansas with the state troopers? How many more Kathleen Willeys and Paula Joneses are there now? Any drug dealers stopping by his house after trips to South America, like happened at the governor's mansion?"

These arguments did not work against Bill Clinton in either 1992 or 1996, so why do you think they would work in 2008 against his wife? There are PLENTY of good reasons to oppose the Clinton's in their efforts to regain the White House without resorting to conspiracy theories and 10+ year old stories.

Face it, the public has shown that it is quite willing to elect a draft dodger, drug addict, and imbecile to the White House in each of the last 4 Presidential elections. Harping about womanizing and drugs will not stop the Clintons.

What might stop them is Obama...maybe.

"The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia."
I agree that it's troubling. I believe with all my heart in public financing of public elections.
Probably 95%+ of the electorate is left out of important policy decisions because the majority of people that work for a living can't bankroll campaigns.
Imagine how much pork/special interest pet projects would be eliminated. That would vastly outwiegh what the public would put in the campaign kitty.
I actually raise money for the DNC. At least Democrats have a reasonable base of small donors. But still.
In light of the fact that the Bush family actually does business with the bin Laden family, I think Republicans need to take a good look at there own party.
"“The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate."
I am very curious about who is blocking that legislation in the Senate. Remember that the House (legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House) has a wider Democratic margin.

"The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia."

And this is different from the Bushes' past - HOW exactly?

"(Hint: it ain't the spouses that are running.)"

Hint: You get Hill, we all know we get Bubba.

Will New York Follow Detroit Into the Dustbin of Mediocrity?

New York may not have been the right place for Hillary to follow her Yellow Brick Road back to the White House... as Senator of the home State of Wall Street what's her excuse for the sorry state that our fiscal house is in? (hat tip Karen DeCoster @ LRC blog) www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018926.html

"Oppressive taxation and regulation, a devalued dollar, and declining private property rights: Peter Schiff on why Wall Street can no longer attract the lion's share of new capital, and why it will follow Detroit's path to self-destruction. Schiff correctly points out the moral hazard problem of Wall Street's newfangled model for investment banking:"

Note bene: If you've never been hit by an uninsured driver and aren't sure why you should give a damn about the fiscal repercussions of "moral hasard" check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard ... watch out America, we're about to get hit by the uninsured drivers cruising the Global Gravy Train...

"(Hint: it ain't the spouses that are running.)"

Not true in the case of the Clintons. As before, buy one, get one free. Or as I believe they said in 92, "Get two for the price of one."

Face it, the Clintons are horrible people. That there are horrible Republicans doesn't change that fact.

As a conservative I don't want a liberal for president, but I would much rather see Obama than the Clintons. I would much rather see most anyone than the Clintons. Hell, even Algore for that matter.

"So, which of the little voices is speaking louder now--misogyny or Machiavellianism? Who knows. I stand to win either way. First black President--yay! First woman President--yay! Perhaps George Bush WAS an instrument of God, after all. ; )"

Sig,

All the conservatives I know could not care less about the sex or race of the candidates. Though it's telling that the liberals I know are obsessed with both; to the point of yelling yay! even.

This may come as a shock to some, but those who DON'T pay attention to race and sex (what some confuse as gender) are not the misogynists and racists. It's the IDEAS in the head, and the strength of character and morality that matter.

This may surprise you Sigaliris, but this conservative disagrees with Obama about most things, but would not be particularly dismayed if he manages to win. Character matters. Billary, on the other hand, would induce deep depresssion, even though Billary is relatively conservative, as far as Democrats go. Character matters. And your electoral speculations are off-base, as well. Obama would be a much tougher candidate for a John McClain to beat. (If the Republicans nominate Romney I might have to start drinking again.) I have not seen such energy and enthusiasm for a politician since Bobby Kennedy ran in 1968. Obama is a formidable opponent, especially for a 71 year old Senator whom is deeply distrusted by much of his party's base. And please, stop with the attribution of racism or misogeny to conservatives. That particular ad hominem is getting tired. There are conservative racists, and there are liberal racists. There are conservative misogynists, and there are liberal misogynists. Someone who writes with the insight you often display should know that.

Scott Walker, see my response to Max and MargaretE, above. Right you are--there certainly are liberal misogynists. I can vouch for that. ; ) And, as I said, there are individual conservatives of sterling character. I would not place the currrent leaders of the Republican party and the so-called conservative movement among them, however.

Possible Obama comebacks in the next debate:

1. I'm not the White House travel office, Hillary; you just can't call up your goons and fire me.

2. In my White House, the president will know what interns are for, and so will the president's spouse.

3. Hillary, perhaps the archives that interest so many of us are in the same place you left the Rose Law Firm billing records.

4. Hillary, do you realize that your husband has taken more shots at Obama than he did at Osama?

5. Hillary, if your daughter's boss treated interns the way your husband did while he was Monica Lewinsky's boss, would you ever consider offering Chelsea's boss a White House administrative appointment?

6. Hillary, you, like President Bush and President Clinton, believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, many in our party are calling President Bush a liar. If that charge is justified, why can't we call you and your husband liars?

7. Your husband is sometimes called the first black president. That's odd, since your name is not "Mrs. Obama."

I don't want to be picky, MargaretE, but a hypocrite is not someone who does not practice what he preaches. It is someone who does not believe what he preaches, even if he practices it. There are many reasons why someone may not practice what they preach. It may be because they don't believe it (which would make the person a hypocrite). But it may be because they believe it, but have weakness of will, or they may have become corrupted for a variety of reasons. My point is that the term "hypocrite" has a meaning, and that meaning ought not to be confused with other moral failures that are not hypocrisy.

For example, Rick Majerus, the basketball coach at St. Louis University, claims to be a Catholic, but he also believes that the wider community has no moral obligation to protect the unborn through its laws, and hence he is "prochoice." He is a hypocrite, since he claims to believe in Catholicism but really doesn't. He puts on an act--attends Mass, accepts the financial and religious accouterments of being an employee of a Catholic institution, etc. Suppose another Catholic, who is prolife, procures an abortion because of personal pressure. She is not a hypocrite. She has weakness of will, since she never really disbelieved what she claimed to believe. She has failed morally, but is not a hypocrite.

"we need to be careful not to confuse his administration with the conservative movement"

We DO? Why? Bush himself doesn't; why should we?

It's nice to hear Frank Rich speak reason and agree with what I've been saying.

where's the carping about the hundreds of millions that scaife handed out? The problem seems to be in the Senate which is bottling up the bill that would require disclosure. There's the story, not that the Clintons [or whoever else, e.g. Reagan library, bush library] are not disclosing what they are not required to disclose. i favor disclosure as much as the next person.--- equal disclosure and equal demands for disclosure.

The Clintons have Barrack in the "black box". In SC the 89% black vote put him there. The Hispanic voters are Clinton supporters. Watch super-duper Tuesday when Mrs. Clinton will win 16 of the states with the most delegates from the largest states. Also, a Clinton/Obama ticket would crush any Republican candidate out there. The republican flip flopper, the noun-verb-9/11er, and an Iraq war monger...... I don't think so. THE PEOPLE will reject them.