David Corn

"She's happy to discuss that do-gooding, but not her entire past."

And for good reason.

Sometimes it is as important what they don't want to talk about as what they do.

UGH - politicians.

David:

Let's see: Obama was snorting cocaine while Hillary was serving on the Wal-mart board. Is this Obama's "street cred" to which you are referring?

What about Obama's 20-year friendship with Rezko, the out-on-bail slum lord and influence peddler, who was just re-arrested for receiving $3.5 million from a wealthy Iraqi colleague? This was news that came to light this week. Unbelievably, you don't even mention that while you jump on Hillary. What gives?

"Obama was snorting cocaine "

AND he was smart enough to inhale.

THAT is mad street cred.

Obama has an excellent record of grass roots public service in positions that would never have made him wealthy.

Imagine the editor of the Harvard law review passing on every lucrative job offer - and you can be sure there were many - to work in the neighborhoods of Chicago on social problems. Whatever his reason, he did not choose a path that would make him wealthy.

'Street cred' is a bad choice of words but I know what you mean. It’s about how Obama's career choices reflect his values.

Hillary's career trajectory is notable in the choices that she made. They demonstrate her recognition that her ability to help others is premised upon her access to power.

Her year at Children's Defense Fund is admirable work and an admirable use of her legal skills and her fine education. Her move into government is also admirable work – Nixon thought he was above the law and Hillary did a job for Congress. Hillary’s work for a private law firm is not a knock but it is a choice.

Her position on the board of Wal-Mart however, unless she argued for a living wage for employees, is a huge opportunity forgone and an opportunity forgone in direct conflict with her liberal values.

This is going to be an interesting election.

Will it be 1964, where a conservative Republican lost the election but the Republicans regrouped under a more moderate Richard Nixon?

Will it be 1976 for the Republicans, where a moderate Republican lost the election but the Republicans regrouped under a more conservative Ronald Reagan?

Will it be 1968 for the Democrats, where a moderate Democrat lost the election but the Democrats regrouped under the more liberal George McGovern?

Or will it be 1988 for the Democrats, where a liberal Democrat lost the election, but the Democrats regrouped under a more moderate Bill Clinton?

As the Chinese say, "May you live in interesting times."

In 2006, Obama bought a house worth over $1 million, where he got a discount of about $300,000 that can't be explained, except we know that Rezko and/or wife was involved (Rezko's wife purchased the neighboring property on the same day). At some later date, Obama purchased a strip of property from Rezko's wife to enlarge his new property. Obama says he regrets the purchase of the strip of land because Rezko was under investigation at the time.

My point is that, based on this home purchase, I don't think Obama lives like most people on the south side of Chicago! Not to mention that his wife is a Dean at the University of Chicago! Obama clearly hasn't take a vow of poverty, and I certainly wouldn't expect him to, nor would I praise him for doing so. I'm not as rich as Obama, but I don't automatically assume that people who want to make money are bad.

For comparison, the Clintons never actually owned a home until leaving the Whitehouse. They were flat broke before the book deals and lecture circuit.

I still wonder why Obama needs friends like Rezko! Does anyone have and ideas about this?

I still wonder why Obama needs friends like Rezko! Does anyone have and ideas about this?

Obama doesn't even come close to Hillary;

Whitewater & cattle futures- personal wealth

Lippo Group -John Huang-Norman Hsu-Sikhs-Chinese rest workers- Hubbles,etc.-campaign wealth

I wonder how much of her 50 million in wealth she's going to give back to the government when Obama wins. I would love to see that tax return. Can anyone say offshore account?

Let's see: Obama was snorting cocaine while Hillary was serving on the Wal-mart board. Is this Obama's "street cred"

Hillary should be more sympathetic to Obamas past discretions since her husband pardoned her brother for being a coke dealer. I wonder how many kids her brother got hooked on drugs and overdosed? All while she's working for the civil rights of children.

Can the Democrats Afford an Obama Movement?

The Democratic race has become a race between Hillary Clinton's campaign machine and Barack Obama's political movement. But which one has a better shot against the Republicans?

*****

A pretty good piece on the dynamics and history without devolving into insults and accusations.

Al-Qaida Web site was hosted in Phoenix

Robert Anglen
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 1, 2008 12:00 AM

A Web site used by al-Qaida to recruit car bombers, encourage war on the West and provide a forum for Islamic militants went online from Phoenix this week.

The site, a well-known and popular forum for Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers, was the first to report the death of senior al-Qaida leader Abu Laith al-Libi in Pakistan this week.

*****

Does the CIA/NSA want us to believe the wiretaps aren‘t enough? Yet this goes on in AZ under their noses?

Incompetent doesn‘t begin to describe.

Can the Dems afford an Obama movement?

Pretty interesting article. But the answer is in the first paragraph. If voters want change, it is not going to come from the "political machine." Obama had a point when he was discussing Ronald Reagan. Reagan appealed to a lot of people across the political spectrum because he made people feel good about themselves. He made them understand that they were what is great about this country, not their government. Obama has that appeal. Hillary obviously doesn't have it or she would have almost 50% of the electorate having an unfavorable view of her. Edwards did himself in with the "two America's" because say what you will about this country, we are one America and an America that strives for the best for all. Poor as one may be, they all strive to be richer than they are and there is no better country to achieve that goal.

My question would be if you are not ready for the Obama movement now, will you ever? I will never vote for John McCain but if he is pitted against Hillary in the general election, half of his battle will have already been won due to the number of people in this country who just do not like Hillary, period.

A side note: If Hillary is elected, it will not take long for Bill to pull an "Al Haig" moment. I can see it now, Hill and her V.P. are indisposed during a semi-semi-national emergency and Bill steps to the podium. "I'm in charge." In reality, the people who would even consider voting for Hillary is actually banking on that happening. The voters will not pay attention to the Hillary on the ballon, only the Clinton.

Ann Coulter: Hillary Clinton-campaign ready

*****

An endorsement nobody wants.

Since Baramaniacs are so swept up in the emotion of listening to Barama reading speeches on a teleprompter and grateful that Hillary took the high road in the most recent debate, try to imagine their shock and dismay when the Republican attack machine hammers him on his cocaine use and the admission that he would have tried heroin if the needle had been cleaner, as well as the self-serving deal he conveniently engineered with Tony Rezko, who's going to trial late in February. These facts don't paint a picture of the selfless community activist that Barama has sought to sell early primary voters. If Frank Luntz, the top pollster for the right wing, seriously wants you to believe that the Karl Rove's of his party really have no avenue of attack planned for the Great Black Hope, you know they view him as a paper tiger. Barama was recently named the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate, and eight years of George W. Bush won't have altered the vulnerability of that position!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005103.php

Here's one report of the funds in wait for the attack.

"recently named the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate"

By the "National Journal" - do you have a second or non-partisan source? The National Journal is not the last word on anything to anybody.

Furthermore;

If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." ~ JFK

Nothing wrong with being a liberal, the wrong thing to be is a neocon.

Bush and his cronies are neocons - people will welcome the opposite of Bush. Abject failure is apparent and undesirable.

Obama: #1 Most Liberal Senator?

[...]

First of all, we should point out that the numbers are ridiculous. According to the NJ press release, "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes." So he took the liberal position less frequently than Clinton did, and less frequently than a number of senators. But because he was out campaigning, he only returned for big, divisive votes where the Democratic Party needed him. He only cast one vote against the liberal position, meaning he was usually content to skip votes where he would be voting against his party. As B.B. points out, "a senator who takes the 'liberal' position 95 times out of 100 is somehow less liberal than his colleague who takes the liberal position 48 times out of 50." In years past, when Obama voted as many times as a normal senator, he was the 10th and 16th most liberal senator. That is likely a truer representation of his politics. Does anyone really think Obama and Joe Biden are more liberal than Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders (a socialist)?

And let's not forget that John Kerry was identified by the National Journal as the most liberal senator of 2003 just as Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. (Probably because he missed votes due of campaigning, as Obama is doing now.) Not a bad system for publicity, huh?

Liberal Senators

Megan McArdle wants to know something:

Okay, so Obama’s not the most liberal senator. But who is?

One answer can be found here, in Lewis and Poole’s Optimal Classification ranking of voting patterns the 110th Senate. Here’s a description of the method. This measure isn’t quite “liberal vs conservative” but it does tell you which senators are most alike, as based on their voting records and boiled down to a single dimension. For the Democrats, Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd and Bernie Sanders are on one side, with Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson on the other. In the 110th congress, there are 10 senators who are closer to Feingold than Obama is. (Of course, the 110th session is only half over.) In the 109th, for which there’s complete voting data, there were 20. In the 109th session only three places separated Obama and Clinton—they were ranked 21st and 25th respectively. So far in the 110th session, eight places separate them. It’s Obama who has moved.

110th Senate Rank Ordering

A bit more accurate - reasonable and includes all the metrics.

Demorats and Repugs!

Which is Tweedlededum and which is Tweedlededee?

Same for Rodham and Obama...

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds.
"

H L Mencken

DB,

That'd make Ron Paul the mad-hater and 9ui11iani the Cheshire rat?

For telly watchers:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/index.html

Six Degrees is a well researched potential (very scary) future. The book is now available in the U.S.A.

National Geographic Channel is always good.

WAY better than any news-o-tainment program.

A "DO NOT MISS" in my book.

You know, perhaps if the National Geographic Channel and the History Channel had been in existence when I was a kid, I might have learned something. A lot more interesting than Mrs. Stevens for fifth grade studies!!

Nat Geo is better than filmstrips.

I dare say better than the "Wonderful World of Dinsey" (in color).