Bill Clinton rips Barack Obama

At a townhall meeting of sorts, President Clinton goes after Barack Obama.

His major point is this: Obama claims he is the only candidate who opposed the War in Iraq from the get-go, but this is factually incorrect. Hillary Clinton and many others voted for a resolution granting President Bush the power to go to war if and only if Iraq didn't cooperate with weapons inspectors. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who has been a vocal opponent of the war from the start, authored the resolution and was assured by the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. would not do to war if Iraq cooperated. Iraq, in the end, did cooperate with weapons inspectors... but we went to war anyway. So Hillary Clinton's support of the resolution, Bill claims, is not the same as her supporting the war.

But the Obama campaign spun it so that it seemed like Hillary supported the war at its start, and thus Obama was the only candidate who was opposed from the beginning. Bill takes exception not only with that, but with the media giving Obama a so-called free pass during the debates: Bill claims that no moderator of any debate asked Obama about, for example, the time in 2004 when he said he was unsure about whether or not he would have voted for the resolution; the other time in 2004 Obama said there was no difference between him and President Bush on the war; and that no one has pointed out that since his time in the senate, he and Hillary have nearly identical voting records.

Bill goes onto lay into the questioner for attacking Mark Penn, Hillary's top campaign strategist, in light of Obama's attacks on the Clintons.

He finishes with this: People criticize the Clintons for running a negative campaign and applaud Obama for running a positive one, when in fact it's the opposite.

Say what you want about the former president, but he remains one of the best public speakers in this country.

--Wyndam

McCain lays the smackdown on Hillary

From Lexington's column in this week's Economist:

"John McCain, who spent that late 1960s as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has chided Hillary Clinton for earmarking one million dollars for a Woodstock concert museum ("I wasn't there...I was tied up at the time")."

I don't know how we missed it, but that's just about one of the greatest political put-downs I've heard in my lifetime, and certainly on par with the wit of many of Winston Churchill's digs. How do you come back from that?

Thanks to Mike for the heads up.

--Wyndam

Mitt Romney and his staff need to grow up

Mitt Romney has run perhaps the most negative presidential campaign of my lifetime, and we're not even to New Hampshire yet. He has attacked his Republican foes, from Mike Huckabee. to John McCain. Those are just a few of many ads--he also trashes his opponents every chance he gets. He even went after Barack Obama here, here and here--taunting of candidates in other parties is usually served for the general election, unless they are an incumbent for which the primary is nearly meaningless.

This is all fine. I don't approve of it because I think negative advertising brings down the country's political debate, but to each his own. But if you insist on defaming your opponents, you can't cry and claim the victim when they throw it back to you.

Apparently, there was a confrontation between John McCain and Mitt Romney's staffs after yesterday's debate.

...members of the Romney and McCain camps said the things their bosses might have been thinking but did not dare utter onstage.

McCain delivered “cheap shots,” said one Romney adviser. Another called McCain’s criticisms of Romney “snide remarks” and “name calling.” Yet another said they were “unbecoming.”

Again: this from the staff of the guy running the most negative campaign of the year. The hypocrisy is through the roof. This isn't terrible scientific, but look at Romney's YouTube page: he prominently features his latest attack ad, and the others permeate the rest of his videos. Anyway, at least someone called him out on his double standard:

All of which caused Mark Salter, McCain’s closest aide, to go off.

“Come on, Mitt, tighten up your chin strap,” Salter, standing just a few feet away from the Romney team, told reporters. “Of all the ludicrous suggestions – Mitt Romney whining about being attacked, when he has predicated an entire campaign plan on whoever serially looks like the biggest challenger gets, whatever, $20 million dropped on his head and gets his positions distorted. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than a guy who dishes it out from 30,000 feet altitude and then gets down in the arena and somebody says, O.K. Mitt, gives him a little pop back, and he starts whining. That’s unbecoming.”

And what, you might ask, was the reason for the staffs' confrontation? Negative campaigning...by Mitt Romney!

What had McCain aides particularly heated was Romney’s exchange with McCain on the issue of McCain’s immigration proposals and the question of amnesty. “The fact is, it’s not amnesty,” McCain said during the debate. “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.”

“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”

With that, the issue became not whether McCain’s plan was or was not amnesty but whether Romney had or had not called it amnesty. And jaws dropped at McCain headquarters.

“What got us all going was when Governor Romney said, ‘We never called what you did amnesty,’“ said McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “Look on TV. Look in your mailbox in New Hampshire. John’s been pounded by Governor Romney with that charge. I was just dumbstruck.”

Indeed, after the debate, McCain aides produced a Romney mailing which said “John McCain: Supports Amnesty.” An e-mail from the Romney campaign earlier in the day referred to McCain’s “amnesty plan.” And a new Romney TV ad featured Romney supporters saying McCain “supported amnesty for illegal immigrants” and “wrote the amnesty bill.” In light of that, it is hard to see how Romney was being straight when he said he didn’t “describe [McCain’s] plan as amnesty.” After the debate, Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, choosing his words carefully, said McCain favored “an amnesty-like approach.”

Add "liar" to "hypocrite." There's a reason you're dropping in the polls, Mitt.

--Wyndam

What is Mike Huckabee Thinking?

Lots of Mike Huckabee news, and though the former governor/minister is leading in Iowa, he continues to display his naivety, intolerance and disorganization. Thanks to the Carpertbagger Report for all the tip-offs.

First, an update on his stance on LGBT issues. Huckabee, who can't decide if homosexuality is a choice or natural, is for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the quarantining of AIDS patients, and is against civil unions and gay marriage. He is now expressing his displeasure with gay sex. On "Meet the Press," he said, "But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior…."

Well...why? I assume Huckabee is speaking as a moral leader--he can't possibly legislate against gay sex, as that is forbidden under Lawrence v. Texas. Does he know that? He may not enjoy the idea of sodomy, but since it's behind closed doors, it's none of his business. Since he's about as anti-gay as any candidate, it's assumed that he's against participation in the gay lifestyle. He's intolerant, and he wears it on his sleeve--another way to prove to the Republican base that he's the true conservative, "moral" candidate. He went out of his way on "Meet the Press" to explain his disgust with gay sex. It was unwarranted, and a cheap political tactic, especially because he dodged the question asked of him ("Do you believe you’re born gay or you choose to be gay?"). How does this benefit him? It doesn't. I doubt he's going to get any converts because of his stance on gay sex--those so opposed to it are probably in his camp to begin with. It doesn't hurt him though, despite it being outrageously stupid. As CBR says, "So, Huckabee doesn’t actually care if someone is gay, he cares whether or not gays are celibate. “Tendencies” don’t matter to Huckabee, whether gays act on those tendencies is what counts."

Then, Huckabee ran into disaster when he held a press conference ostensibly to denounce the negative campaigning from the Republican front runners, and to emphasize that he would no longer participate in it. You might recall that, in a move to discredit Mitt Romney's beliefs, Huckabee wondered aloud if Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Anyway, at this same press conference, Huckabee had five easels up and a clip prepared that all attacked Romney. I'll let the Huffington Post take it from here:

In what is likely to be remembered as one of the more bizarre moments of this campaign season, embattled GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee renounced negative campaigning today by unveiling an attack ad to a ballroom full of reporters and dozens of TV cameras.

Standing before a banner reading "Enough is Enough" and flanked by five large charts attacking the record of rival Mitt Romney, a haggard-looking Huckabee said that the fight to win Thursday's Republican caucus had gotten "out of hand" and "out of control" and that he would refrain from any more negative campaigning.

Huckabee's unorthodox media event comes as a barrage of new polls has battered his lead in Iowa and put his campaign at risk of crash-and-burn. Some of those surveys now show Romney regaining a lead he had maintained over most of the year until Huckabee began to surge ahead in recent weeks...

Huckabee explained that he, indeed, prepared and produced a TV spot attacking Romney, sent it to local TV stations but had just given the directive to pull it from airing. "This morning I ordered them to hold the ads," Huckabee said. "From now we will run only ads that say why I should be president not why Mitt Romney shouldn't be president."

Then, amid loud gasps and laughter from the more than 150 reporters on hand, Huckabee announced he would show the assembled press the same ad. As dozens of TV cameras whirred, and after two false starts, the 30-second spot assaulting Romney's record was shown in full. The tag line of the spot ended with the narrator saying of Romney: "If a man's dishonest trying to get the job, he'll be dishonest on the job"

The room then exploded into a cacophony of questioning from the press memorializing this event as a moment that might be remembered as campaign meltdown for Huckabee.

What is going on in the Huckabee camp? And if these two issues aren't bad enough, Huckabee still has yet to recover from showing his blatant ignorance in regard to foreign policy when asked about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. I was in the midst of finals and papers that week (early December), and wasn't paying much attention to the national media, but damn, all I had to do was go to any news service's main page and I could view dozens of articles about it. This naivety from a presidential candidate is inexcusable.

I've said it many times in private, and I'll say it publicly: Although Bill Richardson is my main guy, by far, if it came down to it, I'd be fine if one of the front runners from either party became president. Some I like more than others; few are great. But I don't think most would make any monumental mistakes. Huckabee is the exception--these are three of a multitude of examples why (others include FairTax, the most ridiculous modern tax plan I've heard). That man absolutely can not become our president.

--Wyndam

Lessons from "Empire"

I recently finished Orson Scott Card's book "Empire," which details a modern day civil war between progressives and conservatives. The country has been so torn apart by partisanship that words can no longer suffice--a violent battle must be waged.

While the book is a work of fiction, Card includes an Afterword titled "Keeping Things Civil," which is a narrative on the current state of the American political arena, and how we are at a time when partisanship is at its height.

It should be required reading for all Americans.

As you can see from my earlier videos and posts, partisanship is a major issue for me. To rehash a bit, I think the current political scene--where parties spend more time slinging mud across the aisle than they do legislating for the good of the public--is despicable.

And Card agrees: we are fully polarized as nation. He can express this better than I can, so I implore you to read "Keeping Things Civil." Do with it what you wish, but keep it in mind the next time a party's partisan actions come to light.

Here is my favorite passage:

We live in a time when people like me, who do not wish to choose either camp's ridiculous, inconsistent, unrelated ideology, are being forced to choose -- and to take one whole absurd package or the other.

We live in a time when moderates are treated worse than extremists, being punished as if they were more fanatical than the actual fanatics.

We live in a time when lies are preferred to the truth and truths are called lies, when opponents are assumed to have the worst conceivable motives and treated accordingly, and when we reach immediately for coercion without even bothering to find out what those who disagree with us are actually saying.

In short, we are creating for ourselves a new dark age -- the darkness of blinders we voluntarily wear, and which, if we do not take them off and see each other as human beings with legitimate, virtuous concerns, will lead us to tragedies whose cost we will bear for generations.

Or, maybe, we can just calm down and stop thinking that our own ideas are so precious that we must never give an inch to accommodate the heartfelt beliefs of others.

--Wyndam

On Principles...

The manner in which a president conducts himself is important. Are they condescending? Elitist? Do they view others--no matter their ideological background--as equals? While we shouldn't necessarily be choosing the candidate we would most like at a dinner party, it is important to explore the morals of the candidates, because they will surely influence the way each person conducts themselves in office.

In this new video, Wyndam and Mike (a special guest host) discuss Bill Richardson's moral background and the way he has handled himself as a public figure, no matter the office he has served in.

On Partisanship...

We are faced with many issues in today's America, one of the biggest being partisanship, and the ever-growing rift between the two major parties. Our current political forum is in ruins: no day passes without one idealogical side bickering with the other. Politicians find it hard to cooperate even with others in their own party, and elected officials disregard their mandates in favor of vicious attacks that are not only political in nature, but personal. Our political system has thus suffered, as the best recipe for success is a bipartisan atmosphere where Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else can work together to better our country. This, obviously, is not happening, and it shows: Congressional approval ratings hover at around a pathetic 25%. Americans no longer trust their representatives.

Bill Richardson would right this terrible wrong. Bipartisan in nature, the governor commands respect from both sides of the aisle. He never resorts to partisan tactics to accomplish his goals, and would rather work with the other side than defame them in the public arena. He is the one candidate from either party who has committed to a positive campaign. America needs Bill Richardson; America needs this change.

In this video, Wyndam & Alex discuss the problems with a partisan atmosphere, and Bill Richardson's record of combating it.

On the candidates' vision

We often question whether candidates have (or lack) vision. Are they ambitious and idealistic, or are they more pragmatic, and realize that they can only do so much? Which is better, then: a visionary, or a realist? The former would surely introduce revolutionary proposals in regards to foreign, domestic and economic affairs. But they would be prone to devastating failure. The latter would be a good steward of government: they would not push for far reaching changes in policy, and would instead work within the current system to help America at home and abroad. But this is also their downside: they aren't going to "change the world" or leave as much of a lasting legacy as their ambitious counterparts.


In this new video, Wyndam and Peter (a special guest host) discuss the historical and current implications of a visionary president, and where Bill Richardson falls on this spectrum.

Why I support Bill Richardson

There's a video going up in the next couple days in which Alex and I discuss the role partisanship is playing in American politics. Essentially, my view is that our elected officials spend too much time trying to make their opposition look bad, and not enough time working with their political opponents to pass meaningful and effective legislation. And this, more than anything, is the biggest problem afflicting our nation. Inevitably, the political process becomes a high profile game of "he said, she said." More and more, it doesn't matter who we elect to federal-level positions, because as soon as they reach office, all the promises of change and progress are disregarded in favor of partisan tactics which, in the end, do little but get a 30-second sound byte on the news and continue the downward spiral of American politics. That doesn't mean there are no politicians doing meaningful work--there are. But they are few and far.

I support Bill Richardson because I believe he is one of the few public servants from either party that is above such petty actions. He has refused to involve himself in the mud-slinging, and recently called on his fellow Democrats--people he has never, and will never attack--to stop bickering. He has maintained a purely positive campaign, and is arguably the only presidential hopeful to do so. I find this particularly striking, especially because other candidates have called themselves bipartisan and yet cannot elevate themselves past fighting within their own party. This must change and the only way it will is if we elect a chief executive who is a unifying, and not a dividing figure.

Check out this article from ABC.com. In it, Governor Richardson calls on his fellow Democrats to stop their bickering. It's a good start, and we must ensure that we elect the one candidate who will fix our reprehensible political climate.

The New Mexico governor, who joined "Good Morning America" today from Concord, N.H., criticized the past week's "nastiness," saying the Democrats have gotten into "irrelevant food fights about who said what in kindergarten."

"This is demeaning the process and I think Democrats hitting each other now, it's just going to be ammunition for the Republicans in the fall campaign," Richardson said.

This partisanship is a good reason why voters don't go to the polls--only 50% of eligible citizens vote. In the end, Governor Richardson may benefit from such fighting, as voters recognize that he, and only he has pledged to be above these childish actions.

"My campaign is moving up," he said. "I'm getting huge crowds here in New Hampshire. I got big crowds in Iowa. I'm in and out of double digits. This race isn't over."

It is clear: we, the American public, are sick of our current leadership. We don't want more of the same: we want someone who can rise above and bring together political opponents. We are, without a doubt, the world's greatest and freest country. Our elected officials should reflect that.

"Attacks are not what voters want," Richardson said.

Damn straight.

--Wyndam