A New Conspiracy Of Dunces?
Bill Clinton & the Big Plot Against Democrats!

Updated: 09/29 -- Back in the pre-Lewinsky, though post "halcyon" days, of the Clinton Administration, Time Magazine published a commentary by Bruce Handy ridiculing conspiracy theorists in general, and pointedly snickering at those who were advancing governmental theories about Bill Clinton in particular.

The title, from which this piece is derived, was a play on a similar title taken from the one-hit-wonder novel by John Kennedy Toole. Yet, a bare few years later, when stories about Clinton and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky surfaced on the news aggregator, Drudge Report, it was Hillary Clinton leading the charge, in accusing conservatives and Republicans of being involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy." By then, Bruce Handy didn't seem to recall his prior formulation. He was a bit too busy excusing the "putatively noble" President for having been a bit of a "tomcat."

For many, many years now, new media critics of what has fashionably come to be known as the "mainstream media," have prodded news outlets on the subject of bias, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt, arguing that there is now and has been a decidedly left-leaning cant to the news coverage in that amorphous place we call the media marketplace of ideas, particularly with regard to political reporting. And over the years polls have repeatedly supported the sense that there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media, though liberals are increasingly likely to identify what they see as media bias as well.

If political news reporting is about anything in a representative democracy, it should be at least focused on ideas. We frequently lose sight, in the thick and intrusive fog of celebrity and personality, that what we are observing is little more than an entertaining focal plane from which politicians and newsmakers spew those ideas in order to fuel public debate, and from which the rest of us view and evaluate them.

But Bill Clinton has now jumped back into the current murky waters of conspiratorial accusations with a novel comment made today on NBC's Meet the Press with David Gregory, alleging, as the AP has quickly reported it, that the

"vast, right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him, is now focusing on President Barack Obama."

Whoever framed the question for Meet the Press host, David Gregory, either had a sense of humor, and set the boy up, or had no sense whatsoever about the irony of the question being framed in that manner.

Here is exactly what Gregory asked:

"Your wife famously talked about the vast right wing conspiracy targeting you. As you look at this opposition on the right to President Obama, is it still there?"

The question, of course, presumes that there was such a "conspiracy." Now anyone with any memory at all will recall that Hillary Clinton made that absurd comment on NBC's Today Show in the precise context of whether her husband had committed adultery. And as we all now know, he had. And, we all know that he openly lied to the American public about it. Hillary's comment then was appropriately tagged at the time as paranoid, and once the truth came out, her comment began being openly ridiculed, just as Bill's answer to David Gregory's query today ought to be.

But that is not the way the question and Clinton's comment are being reported, not just by AP, but also by CNN, here.

They are being reported as if each -- her original accusation, and his rant today -- are both somehow legitimate characterizations of political opposition to the policies of the current President.

Here is the clip of Gregory's question and the key portion of Clinton's answer. If you wish to, you can watch the entire Clinton response to Gregory's question here.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The original Hillary Clinton comment, as you may recall, was made in the context of the breaking story in January of 1998 that then-President Clinton had had a sexual affair with young Monica Lewinsky, which affair was alleged to have taken place in the Oval Office within the White House. Hillary Clinton went on the attack, alleging that it was all false, and that there was instead, a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was fueling this and all false stories about her husband.



As the Washington Post reported at the time regarding her appearance on NBC's Today Show:

"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday launched a vigorous counterattack on behalf of her husband's beleaguered presidency, declaring that the president is the victim of a "politically motivated" prosecutor allied with a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Using a nationally televised interview as her forum, she assumed a familiar and crucial role as Bill Clinton's first defender. She said she knew him better than anyone in the world, still loved him, and fully believed his denial of allegations that he had entered into a sexual relationship with a White House intern and had urged the young woman to lie about it."

Ooops! You might have thought that David Gregory and the Meet the Press staff would have access to those old Today Show clips, and that they would have eschewed the use of the much-maligned phrase!

Over time, the most potent evidence of left-leaning media bias has come from several instances of outright objective dishonesty, rather than the obvious contextual absurdity of Clinton's comment today.

In the former category, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes come to mind.* Or, Scott Beauchamp.**

Much more recently, however, we have witnessed blatant bias involving three "top" tier news gathering organizations, each climbing all over one another in an attempt at a take-down on the two young "conservative journalists" who have exposed ACORN. As documented by Joel Mobray at Big Government, three the mainstream media, including New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press were not only late to the story -- they have now all had to issue corrections for false quotations or statements they made about James O'Keefe. Scott at Powerline has more detail about the Times and WaPo treatment of the duo. Update: Scott at Powerline has drawn a bead on the pernicious offense of the Washington Post in falsely attributing a racially-charged quote to O'Keefe. Scott links to a concise explication of the handling of the false quote by the newspaper in a piece posted by Gary Larson at Human Events.

Perhaps this latest Clinton foray is an attempt to tack back a bit from an earlier Democrat-based formulation, one advanced by another former Democrat President, Jimmy Carter -- that the "overwhelming portion" of the intense opposition to President Obama's policies is based on racism -- the fact that Barack Obama is "black."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Washington Post story by Garance Franke-Ruta summed it up this way:

In remarks decried by Republicans, former president Jimmy Carter told NBC's Brian Williams in an interview Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.

Carter's ugly and divisive characterization has since been thoroughly rejected by the American public, with a Rasmussen poll concluding that only 12% of Americans agree with him. And, though there are many (21%) who are uncertain if race is a source of the opposition, fully two-thirds (67%) of Americans outright reject that notion. Even the President himself shrewdly has put distance from that formulaic paranoia, noting on a guest appearance on Letterman that,

"First of all, I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election."

So, is this new Bill Clinton formulation just the latest Democrat effort to somehow convince the public that opposition to the President's policies is really based on a political conspiracy -- just not an overtly racist one, as Carter had claimed?

David Gregory comes across as the classic "useful idiot" for having either formulated or at least asked the question in a manner that would remind people of that old Hillary paranoia.

But you really have to wonder -- why do the "professionals" at top media outlets keep getting caught at it?

Is it genuine stupidity? Group think?

Or, is it an irreconcilable sense that it just plain doesn't matter what the public thinks? One thing is for certain -- professionalism it is not!

# # # # #

* Rather, the top newsman of his day and his producer, fashioned and aired an utterly dishonest report, based on what they knew or should have known were forged documents, ones that were given to them by an utterly disreputable source, and which had been hashed over and rejected repeatedly by other news outlets. But after working and reworking the story with an obsessive zeal, Rather and Mapes aired it on CBS with the obvious intention of politically "mortally" wounding a sitting President in the crucial run-up to the 2004 election. Update: AP reports that an appeals court in New York has dismissed Rather's suit against CBS on all grounds.

As we all know, the new media -- internet blogs and aggregators, initially a web contributor with the screen name "Buckhead" -- took the CBS report apart with a blizzard of evidence, the best of which convincingly proved that the documents on which the entire report was founded, were blatant forgeries -- proof based on close technological analysis of typeface fonts in the ostensible written correspondence, ones that simply did not exist at the time recorded on the "damning" documents.

And Rather's nearly immediate defense constituted what had to have been the most risible formulation in the history of journalism -- that the documents may have been questionable, but the underlying story was true. He might as well have said the story was false but it was true. We all had a good laugh, and Dan Rather left, only to become a pathetic, comic figure desperately trying to this day to salvage his reputation.

CBS conducted their own internal investigation, the key conclusion of which was nearly as comical as Rather's "it's false but it's true" formulation. Though the expert they hired to determine if the documents were forgeries, concluded what others in cyberspace had already done -- that no such typewriter typeface existed at the time the documents were supposedly written – the report concluded that they would leave the issue open, on the outside chance that someone at some time in the future might discover a typewriter with such a typeface. Again, we all had a good laugh.

** There was so much written about the fabulist Iraq soldier, Scott Beauchamp, who published his expose "story" in the New Republic, that it is hard to know where to begin with the exposure of his pattern of lies. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit posted a pretty concise summary of them here.

Did Hillary Clinton Violate New York Electioneering Law?
A Prima Facie Case

Mugging for the cameras this morning (embedded video, below), Senator Hillary Clinton displays her personal disregard for the New York State electioneering law, by stumping for Democrats visibly within a few feet of where people are casting ballots in voting booths in Chappaqua, NY.

New York State Law specifically prohibits any such activity within 100 feet of a polling place. A violation is a misdemeanor offense.

What would clearly seem to be the pertinent section of New York State law provides as follows:

§ 17-130. Misdemeanor in relation to elections. Any person who:
. . .
4. Electioneers on election day or on days of registration within one hundred feet, as defined herein, from a polling place. Said prohibition shall not apply to a building or room that has been maintained for political purposes at least six months prior to said election or registration days, except that no political displays, placards or posters shall be exhibited therefrom. For the purposes of this section, the one hundred feet distance shall be deemed to include a one hundred foot radial measured from the entrances, designated by the inspectors of elections, to a building where the election or registration is being held.

You can download the full election law at the New York State Board of Elections website (it is a large pdf file), or you can examine a much more convenient (unofficial) version of the specific section, §17 - 130, at the Justicia website, located here.



According to a recent piece in the NY City News Service, and reposted at Huffington Post, in New York State even "passive" advocacy for political candidates at a polling place could be a "misdemeanor" offense. The NY City News Service is a student publication at CUNY.

The writers of the piece were cautioning Obama supporters not to engage in "passive" electioneering by wearing campaign paraphernalia, such as Obama tee shirts, or buttons when they go to vote because they might be challenged. The story even notes that the New York Civil Liberties Union has said that they were going to include information about that law in their voter information packets.

The New York Civil Liberties Union plans – for the first time – to include a similar warning in its voter information materials.

Hillary's apparent violation, however, is not passive.

Here's betting, however, that there will be no charge for what seems to be her rather obvious violation of the state's election law.

Hillary Cancels Attendance At Event:
Complains Palin Appearance Makes It "Partisan"

Update: Sarah disinvited, huge controversy, below.

The Associated Press has reported that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, abruptly canceled her planned attendance at a New York City rally outside of the United Nations Headquarters set for this coming Monday, September 22nd, when she found out that Governor Sarah Palin, R-AK, might also appear.

Palin is the first Republican woman candidate on a presidential ticket. Clinton lost her bid to become the first woman presidential candidate this year, and she was passed over for any consideration as the Vice Presidential nominee by this year's Democrat nominee, Senator Barack Obama, D-IL.

The planned protest rally is aimed at Iran's highly controversial leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The event sponsors had apparently also extended an invitation to the Republicans, and the name of the Alaska governor was tentatively submitted. Palin is the Republican nominee for Vice President this year. According to the AP report, written by Devlin Barrett, several American Jewish groups, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, United Jewish Communities and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, had planned this

"major rally outside the United Nations on Sept. 22 to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Ahmadinejad, who attended a UN Session last year at about this time, is set to attend another UN session in New York next week at the opening of the new General Assembly session. Other protests are also planned for next, including another human rights protest set for Wednesday entitled the "Ahmadinejad Wall of Shame" protesting the executions of children in Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was the first non-cleric elected President of Iran in 24 years in a run-off election held back on June 24, 2005, has made a series of virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments in speeches over the years, including ones denying the historical fact of the Nazi Holocaust, and an expressed threat to "wipe Israel off the map."Just this past summer, on June 3rd, USA Today reported that Ahmadinejad said:

that Israel will soon be "erased" and that the "satanic power of the United States" will be "annihilated."

He reportedly made those latest hate-filled comments, according to the story, "at a ceremony marking the 19th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's death."

Khomeini was the "spiritual" leader of Iran during the violent 1979 over-running of the United States Embassy in Teheran by radical Islamic terrorist students -- of which Ahmadinejad was one -- during the former Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the subsequent holding of 52 American embassy personnel as hostages for a total of 444 days. The hostages were released on January 20th, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Reagan had defeated Carter in the 1980 presidential election. The Reagan election was won in a landslide, and was, in part, seen as a referendum on Carter's mishandling of that hostage crisis. In addition, the nation's economy had experienced years of considerable disruption under Carter.

Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iran has been actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, as well as delivery systems, in violation of U.N mandates.

The planned New York rally sponsors said yesterday that both Clinton and Palin would likely be attending the rally. It was so reported by several news services, including Fox. The news that Palin would likely be attending apparently then prompted the abrupt cancellation by Clinton.

Clinton's official excuse for canceling, flatly stated that the mere attendance by Sarah Palin would somehow make it a partisan political event, and that the New York politician would therefore not attend. As reported in the AP story:

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."

There was no indication in the AP story why the Clinton camp believes the mere attendance of the Republican nominee at an event in New York would somehow turn it into a "partisan political event." Just last week on September 11th, for example, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama both appeared together, and even walked together, during a 9/11 anniversary ceremony in New York at ground zero. It was billed as nonpartisan.

Moreover, the rally on Monday will also feature other public luminaries, including religious figures who are clearly not associated with partisan politics. According to a post by Colum Lynch on the Washington Post political blog, The Trail, the list of expected attendees also

includes prominent political and religious leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel . . .

And the fact is that Senator Clinton herself is an active political partisan, having unsuccessfully battled for the Democrat nomination for president earlier this year. She conceded her loss to Obama at the beginning of the summer, and is currently a political surrogate for the Democrat nominee. She has made political several political campaign appearances, including joint appearances, on behalf of his campaign for president.

A response from the Palin camp to the Clinton claim of political partisanship, was reported today on the New York Times political blog, The Caucus earlier this morning:

A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign swiftly replied that the rally should not be seen as a partisan event.

"Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics. She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat," said the spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt.

According to analysis in the earlier AP story, however, the appearance of both Clinton and Palin:

"would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters."

But as reported, there was no further indication at all of what was meant in the report meant by "potentially explosive pairing."

The AP-suggested headline for the story underscoring another possible explanation for the Clinton camp cancellation: "Clinton blindsided by scheduled event with Palin." Nothing in that story, however, indicated why Hillary Clinton would feel "blindsided" by merely appearing at the same event with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.

The New York Times post at The Caucus today did raise that question -- why the event organizers themselves had not previously informed Clinton that Palin had been invited.

It was not immediately clear this morning why or when Ms. Palin was invited to the rally, and why the organizers did not inform Mrs. Clinton that the Alaska governor would be among the line-up of speakers. Phone messages for organizers of the event were not immediately returned.

But why would they? And, why is that an issue? Surely the Times is not suggesting that the organizers had a special obligation to help protect Hillary Clinton's political sensibilities, are they?

Even if they had given her a "heads-up," would she not have canceled regardless? Otherwise, the only other possible explanation for her canceling would be her fit of pique at the organizers over their failure to warn Clinton in advance of the invitation to Palin.

So, perhaps what it really comes down to is that Hillary Clinton has suddenly became concerned with appearances -- such as that the presence of Palin would lead to speculation about who ultimately attracted the larger number of spectators, or drew the most media attention at the event.

Maybe Hillary Clinton was simply unwilling to risk being perceived as coming in second again, this time in her own backyard!

Update: Unbelievable! Sarah Palin has been inexplicably "disinvited" from speaking at the rally by the sponsors. As reported by Marcia Kramer at CBS TV in New York, the uncorroborated rumor was that the tax status of the sponsoring groups would have been "threatened" if she attended! Local New York Democrats are even quoted in her story jumping ship on this one!

The question being asked by critics is, was that from a real opinion, or from a real threat?

Allahpundit at HotAir is all over this one!

Pelosi: Testing Waters For Hillary Attack?

Is Nancy Pelosi testing the political waters for a Hillary Clinton line of attack on Sarah Palin?

An unattributed AP story in the Boston Globe , headlined "Pelosi: McCain's choice of Palin 'poor judgment'" reports that the Speaker attacked both Sarah Palin and McCain for poor judgment, while the Speaker was campaigning in Connecticut. As for John McCain, she was particularly critical of his judgment, because, as she said: "He knows better."

Nasty Nancy!

She then also conceded that her opinions about Palin's judgment were based on what "she heard about" regarding the Palin interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC. Pelosi had to admit that she did not watch the interview, as she was attending a bocce ball tournament in Hartford at the time!

In addition, the report added that the Speaker further opined:

What she wants in a female candidate, she said Friday, goes beyond gender: "It's not just a woman, but a woman who shares our views."

I wonder if Nancy includes, in that expression of "views," a willingness to personally and publicly attack someone, based only on what "she heard about" them?

The bottom line, then, is that Nancy Pelosi says that John McCain should not have selected Sarah Palin, because Sarah's views are not the same as the Democrats. And "he knew better," but he went and did it anyway!

Boy . . . that bucket sure won't carry a lot of water! Scratch that baby off Hillary's list!

Actually, Sarah Palin could decide to begin that discussion herself . . . by simply agreeing in principle with the Speaker!

Just imagine . . . Sarah could say:

"I agree with Speaker Pelosi when she claims I do not share some of her views.

For example, I know that "natural gas" is a fossil fuel. Speaker Pelosi foolishly believes otherwise -- even though she is reportedly very heavily invested in it! That is a topic I know quite a bit about, and that I also have considerable experience dealing with, both prior to, and after becoming Governor.

Energy independence is vital to our national security going forward. Maybe I'll send Nancy an e-mail about it!"

You get the gist. The list of disagreements could be a long, long list! She could call it "Sarah's List."

And Hillary could call it, "Topics to Avoid!"

Funny Comment of the Day

It is found at Ann Althouse, in the comment section of a post about yesterday's meeting of The One and The First One, regarding a meeting held by invitation only at the Harlem office of The First One, in New York, and that was entitled, "Barack Obama goes to Harlem... to spend some time with Bill Clinton."

Below is that short and sweet opinion, expressed therein by one "Swen Swenson." It clearly runs somewhat counter to our theory (expressed below) to the effect that a deal was likely cut by them in this latest version of The Two (we had previously identified The Two as Obama/Biden, but now Bill obviously has top billing) . . . a deal by which we suggested that Hillary will morph into a "Paladin" style gunslinger, and will likely now undertake the task of personally going after Sarah Palin, in exchange (win or lose) for certain, shall we say, "players to be named later" on behalf of the Clintons.

Here was Swen's funny take, suggesting that a.) Obama had gone begging to Bill, and b.) that Clinton was less than committal (with a modest "typo" correction - The for Teh):

Swen said...

I agree with some earlier posters: It is telling that Obama went to see Clinton and not the other way around. The One must be getting a bit nervous and it sounds like Clinton just voted "present".

6:49 PM

Could be. We agree wholeheartedly with his first point, but only time will tell whether a deal was cut!

A Switch in the Offing . . . Or Hillary As Paladin?

The Anti-Joementum Declaration Against Interest

Update: On 9/11, 4 pm, below.

Why did Joe Biden go out yesterday and make a big point of saying that Hillary Clinton would be a better candidate, Presidential or Vice Presidential, than he would? On the surface, it was as if Joe was saying, "Vote for me! I'm the Best Man for the job . . . just NOT the Best Person!"

A stranger year in American politics would be hard to imagine -- pun intended. That's because two relative strangers have been dominating the limelight of our national political landscape, each with rising star power -- first we had Barack Obama, and now we have Sarah Palin.

Less than one year ago, few pundits would have opined that Hillary Clinton would not end up as the Democrat nominee for President. It would have been like betting against the Yankees during Grapefruit. While Barack Obama had rising appeal within the Democrat party, who would have guessed he would snatch the nomination away from the Clinton machine? Who, other than his inside operators who recognized the inherent short-sightedness in the front-loaded Clinton plan that depended on her being "crowned" right after Super Tuesday. Hillary was simply the inevitable candidate. Oh, he might end up as a daring choice for her for the number two slot . . . but as the nominee?

Seemingly impossible. Yet he did it.

And on the side of the political coin, one year ago John McCain's political star appeared to be fading. Politics abhors a has-been, and that's what he seemed to be at the time. While others had supported the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq, John McCain had very demonstrably and personally gone out on a limb in support of the strategy, in what had become a very unpopular war with an impatient public. Hell, he even doggedly propped the "surge" up as a centerpiece of his campaign. As for his staff, he cleaned house. His campaign began to look uncomfortably like a white elephant sale.

But John came back in spades, securing the nomination surprisingly fast. Then, having become the unlikely candidate early in the primary season, who would have seriously guessed a few weeks ago that John McCain would select a woman as his running mate, let alone the hitherto largely unknown Sarah Palin, the first-term Governor of Alaska?

Finally, to me the strangest story of all was the selection of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate. What -- the pundits legitimately wondered -- did Joe bring to the ticket? And in the process, Obama had also badly dissed Hillary by not even vetting her. The stars were beginning to realign.

Which brings me back to the question. Why did Joe Biden make such a big point of saying yesterday that Hillary Clinton would be a better candidate, Presidential or Vice Presidential, than he would?

The obvious political problem with the statement is that it casts serious doubt on Barack Obama's judgment, which is pretty much all he is running on. If, in making his first major decision, Barack Obama screwed up and picked a self-admitted also-ran, why should anyone want to vote for him? Or, for the also-ran? Was it an uncomfortable reminder of Admiral Stockdale's famous opening line in the 1992 Vice Presidential debates in Atlanta, "Who am I?" . . . "Why am I here?"

If the Presidential Election were a jury trial -- which it actually resembles in a very, very general sense -- and if Joe's strange comment yesterday was a proffer of evidence in that trial, it would likely be fully admissible in evidence, even if it was hearsay.

Why? Because it has ultimate credibility . . . as, lawyers say, it is an "admission against interest." Joe Biden is not the sort of fellow to volunteer that he is not quite up to par with any other living human being. Now, remember that the inherent truthfulness of the statement does not take into account why it was said. That remains the real mystery.

Are the Democrats about to try and pull a Bob Torricelli "bait and switch" with their Vice Presidential selection? Was Joe just laying the groundwork for the final big surprise of this year's strange Presidential campaign? Or was Joe busy kissing the Clinton ring because the Obama/Biden ticket needs something.

What would cause him to blurt out that comment? Two general possibilities come to mind.

Falling on his sword: Perhaps there is a bad story about Joe Biden that is about to go to print. It would have to be a real doozy, but that is certainly not out of the realm of possibility in American politics. That would in some ways explain his willingness to go out and publicly lay the groundwork for Hillary redux. He drops out, and Hillary joins the ticket.

Having been found guilty of ethics violations by his own colleagues back in September of 2002, then Senator Robert Torricelli, who was running for re-election that year, concluded that he simply could not win against Republican Doug Forrester. It was a national issue at the time because the Democrats thought they were poised to take over control of the United States Senate.

Bob had to go, so he withdrew. The problem was that the state statutory deadline for replacing a candidate on the ballot had passed. So the Democrats went to court and obtained one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the New Jersey Supreme Court, allowing the Democrats to enter a new name, a ruling interpreting the New Jersey state law. The Republicans appealed in early October, but the United States Supreme Court declined to interfere with the state court ruling. The switch having been permitted, Torricelli's name was stricken from the ballot, as the Democrats had trotted Frank Lautenberg back out of retirement to fill the slot.

A switch now, at the Vice Presidential level, would likely require similar rulings, perhaps in a number of states. That would be an enormous hurdle to overcome. Sounds too risky.

Hillary As Paladin?: "Have Gun -- Will Travel" was the card printed motto of television's most famous western gentleman regulator for hire, starring Richard Boone. Paladin was a refined and educated San Francisco gentleman, yet quick-on-the-draw traveling gunslinger when necessary. A knight dressed in black, he was hired to resolve conflicts, and had a gift of gab that included a sharp intelligence. But he could also mete out rough justice where necessary -- including relying on a concealed derringer for close in-fighting.

So, a second, and most likely explanation for this strange praise from Biden, is that right now the Democrat ticket need help from Hillary in the form of attacks on Sarah Palin. They need a prominent female to take Sarah Palin to the woodshed, so to speak. Hillary has declined the invitation thus far, perhaps waiting for the invitation. She has preferred instead to limit her election participation to positive praise for Barack Obama. These latest words of praise from Biden could be an unmistakable signal from the Presidential team that they really need Hillary to step back onto the stage, and to help pull their irons out of the fire.

Yesterday, David Paul Kuhn and Bill Nichols at Politico laid out some opinion evidence for what they term "Autumn angst" among prominent Democrats . . . that there is real concern over the current prospects for the Obama/Biden ticket. While some Democrats described the state of the race to them in candid but tactical terms, one unnamed but apparently high level Democrat fundraiser pushed the panic button:

A major Democratic fundraiser described it a good bit more starkly after digesting the polls of recent days: "I'm so depressed. It's happening again. It's a nightmare."

Today, September 11th, is bipartisan day, as the major candidates have agreed "suspend" public campaigning, and they will appear together at a 9/11 forum sponsored by Time Magazine and CNN, to be held at Columbia University this evening. Earlier in the afternoon they will jointly appear at a memorial service at "ground zero" in New York, though neither of them will speak. John McCain also visited the Shanksville, PA, memorial site earlier in the day, and he spoke briefly. Barack Obama's campaign released a general statement earlier.

Prior to the ceremonies, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were reportedly getting together for lunch . . . at Bill Clinton's invitation, at his office, with the official line that they will be discussing the "issues." Is one topic, what "price" for Hillary's active participation in drawing a bead on Sarah Palin?

If it isn't, then "pigs have wings" . . . with or without lipstick!

One might be tempted to wish to be a fly on the wall for that meeting between the Walrus & the Carpenter, but surely one would not wish to be an oyster at that picnic!

The question naturally arises, what do they want -- these Clintons? A promise from Obama not to run again in four years if he loses? A Supreme Court appointment for Bill, or perhaps more to the point, an appointment for Hillary, should Obama win?

As for Joe Biden, he may have already thrown in the towel on running himself in four years, with that opening gambit of praise for Hillary. As for the oysters, it's a little too late to call a cab!

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

Update: Glenn Thrush and Martin Kady II posted a piece at Politico yeaterday, entitled, "Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems?" which we just noticed.

It concludes:

Clinton has said she'll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin "attack dog." Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor.

We'll see where Hillary continues to draw the line following that "issues" lunch meeting between Bill and Barack today.

Also, yesterday Ace of Spades posted the snarky view of the Torricelli switch-out scenario. (h.t., Allahpundit at HotAir, here.)

Also, Ed Morrissey at HotAir noticed something that puzzled me as well. On Greta's show at Fox, Geraldine Ferraro suddenly developed a mouth full of mush when it came to criticizing Obama's campaign for sexism. Ed has the video. That also supports the theory that Obama & Bill Clinton were getting ready to cut a deal today . . . Hillary alone can and will go after Palin.

Hillary Or Else! Say NJ Fundraisers:
Money "Bigs" aka "The Group" Pressure Obama to Show Respect

At least some members of a cadre of heavyweight Democrat fundraisers for Hillary Clinton in New Jersey -- known by their somewhat pretentious moniker, "The Group" -- have recently been throwing their weight around, trying to openly pressure Barack Obama into selecting Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

Designated by political web site, Politickernj earlier this year as big "winners" in the Presidential primary sweeps held back on Super Tuesday, they are now looking for respect -- they say for Hillary Clinton. But clearly it is also for themselves.

Max Pizarro reported the latest on Politickernj late last night, in a piece entitled, "Post primary loss, The Group waits for Obama to show Clinton 'respect.'"

Here are the first few grafs from Max's story:

Hillary Clinton’s top fundraisers in New Jersey want Barack Obama to offer their vanquished candidate the vice-presidency in a show of respect to her and her 18 million supporters.

"If I don’t see the respect for Hillary Clinton, I will vote for him, but will I be a proactive person? No," said John Graham, national co-chair of fund-raising for the Clinton campaign and one of the money men in that small and powerful circle of Clinton fundraisers in New Jersey known as "The Group."

"Respect is offering her the position with her right of taking it or not taking it," Graham explained. "He can win without her, but Hillary in the picture gives him Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida."

Naturally, they do not want the personally raised $4.4 million dollars, or the $6 million total that they helped raise here for the junior senator from New York in her unsuccessful bid for the brass ring, to be entirely flushed down the drain, given her still-born national campaign.

But publicly pressuring Barack Obama to show her the proper respect and offer her the position, while several of the members who participated in a conference call -- not just Graham -- suggested they would not be "pro-active" unless Senator Obama does what they demand?

She, of course, won the New Jersey primary battle on Super Tuesday ( February 5th) but the nationwide results, generally viewed as indecisive at the time, turned out to be the high water mark of her campaign. Earlier in the season, our Democrat-controlled legislature, along with the Governor, changed the state's Presidential race participation vote back to Super Tuesday (from early June), which ended up putting the state as merely one state among the many -- 24 states in all. What resulted was a horde-rush of returns from which she failed to cross the finish line, as had been anticipated by her supporters.

Barack Obama survived. And Hillary's campaign, lacking any real plan going forward, literally collapsed by the side of the road for a spell. She had no strategy and insufficient resources going forward. She tried to play catch-up, losing race after race for 11 or 12 weeks. Obama had lapped her in the race. By the time she started to close in again -- next door in Pennsylvania -- it was too late. Obama eventually crossed the finish line.

Our Legislature and Governor thereby wasted significant taxpayer funds changing the date, and inadvertently may have eliminated any influence the State could have had if we held the presidential primary at the regular primary date in early June. Ironically, New Jersey could well have been in a position of "king-maker" in the Democrat sweepstakes.

Now, it seems The Group wants to make up for their political loss, represented by their fundraising prowess earlier this year, by pressuring Obama into signing on Hillary for the number two slot, in order for them to be "pro-active." Are they essentially suggesting that in order for them to pay, they want Obama to play? Sure sounds that way!

It would also seem that the core members of "The Group" for Hillary Clinton may have changed a bit, as well. Cited here was the list of members as reported on Politickernj by Wally Edge, on November 20, 2007.

Back then, according to Wally, the list consisted of the following six individuals:

John Graham, Michael Kempner, Alfred DeCotiis, William Harla, Rev. Reginald Jackson, and Mayor Meryl Frank [of Highland Park].

Now, as reported on Politickernj by Max Pizarro, we learn the core membership of The Group includes "around eight people."

Here is how he put it last night:

A cadre of around eight people that includes [John] Graham, Al DeCotiis, Michael Kempner, Reginald Jackson and Zenon Christodoulou, The Group ended up personally pulling in $4.4 million for Clinton, and served as the Jersey catalyst for raising $6 million total for the New York senator’s presidential campaign.

As you can see, Zenon Christodoulou is new to the list -- at least to the Hillary-centric list. He's from North Branch in Somerset County, and a newly-elected Vice-Chair of the Democratic County Committee in that Republican stronghold, who will reportedly be busy with the local freeholder race, as well as concentrating the Congressional race of Assemblywoman Linda Stender against Hunterdon County's State Senator, Republican Leonard Lance. So will John Graham be involved on Stender's behalf.

Looking back, it was barely one year ago that at least some of those on what is now the current list of The Group were busy raising money and awareness, pulling for Mark Warner of Virginia to run for President.

Prognostication in politics is a spotty talent to be sure, as Governor Corzine and Senator Menendez also learned this year!

Times change; and frustration apparently mounts.

But Max's story only named five of eight people in The Group. The original Hillary list as cited by Wally, also included Bill Harla and Mayor Meryl Frank . . . that would make seven.

Again from Max's story today:

On Wednesday, core members of The Group participated in a conference call in which they discussed the way forward. Graham said Newark Mayor Cory Booker reached out to him at a recent fund-raiser for U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy at the Robert Treat Hotel and at least one representative from the fund-raising arm of the Obama campaign placed a phone call to him. But to date there’s been no formal meeting or armistice between the democratic presidential campaigns here.

Like Graham, several participants in yesterday’s conference call said they’d be loathe to go all out for Obama unless Clinton is on the ticket. Asked today if Clinton wants to be vice-president under Obama, Graham said, "she’ll take it."

Core members of a core group. Interesting. Did a few of the members -- say, Harla and Frank -- demur when it came to employing the obvious pressure tactics? Did they, in other words, decide not to participate in the conference call? As for the "several participants" who, like Graham agreed with the pressure tactic -- how many is "several?"

Then, too, who might be that elusive and unnamed eighth member of The Group? Could it possibly be someone especially close to one of the other members, from days gone by?

"Morning, Partner!"

*
William Harla, a law partner at Decotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Wisler, LLP, of Teaneck, a real powerhouse Democrat-leaning law firm in New Jersey, was one of the top fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Clinton here in the Garden State, during this just-completed Presidential nomination cycle.

Last fall, Wally Edge on Politickernj identified Billy as a core member of The Group, a heavy weight caboodle of Hillary Clinton finance operators here in New Jersey, who spearheaded an operation of 75 fund-raisers to raise at least one million dollars "at a December 12 event at the State Theater in New Brunswick."

A former Deputy Attorney General with a real talent for key appellate work, Harla moved from the A.G.'s Office into the Counsel's Office way back in the Florio Administration. He was the Deputy Chief Counsel to Florio, when Christie Todd Whitman surprised the State, and was elected Governor back in 1993, thus denying the tax-happy Florio a second term. Harla left State service early in '94, and went into private practice. In the interim, Bill has pretty much been a fixture at Decotiis, where he is a managing partner in the Teaneck office, representing a variety of clients as a lobbyist.

This past week, in partial recognition of his significant fundraising prowess on behalf of Hillary Clinton during the year, he was invited to personally attend the event on Tuesday evening in New York, the one where Hillary delivered her defiant I ain't going nowhere . . . at least tonight speech.

As were the other attendees, Harla was reportedly told ahead of time that he could bring one guest with him. Apparently viewing it at least in part as a business opportunity, he asked friend and law partner, Wayne Hasenbalg. Wayne was a former Chief of Staff to former New Jersey Attorney General, Cary Edwards, way back at the end of the Kean Administration. In fact, he may have had something to do with the recognition of Harla's work as a DAG, way back in the day. But in the interim, Hasenbalg has played, among other roles, a Republican partner in the lobbying firm State Street Partners, which was a hot ticket lobbying firm during the brief McGreevey heyday. He left there early this past December, according to ELEC filings, and has since joined Decotiis.

But I digress!

So, the other night, there they were -- Harla and Hasenbalg -- attending Hillary Clinton's expected swansong. Like any good attorneys, they were busy working the room, when they somehow became engaged in a conversation with a gal who was also "networking" in earnest. At one point during the brief conversation, she apparently introduced her guest for the evening to Harla and Halsenbalg.

"I'd like you to meet my partner, [name]," she said, introducing Harla and Halsenbalg to another woman, who was attending the event with her.

Smiles all around.

Bill Harla then reciprocated, saying, "And, I'd like you to meet my partner, Wayne Hasenbalg."

There was reportedly a moment of silence at that point, when the gal reportedly sought further clarification.

"Life partner?" she asked.

Another brief moment of silence.

"Uhhh , no, business partner," Harla meekly offered. The light was beginning to shine.

In spite of a mutual agreement that the story would stay with them, by the next morning, the incident had somehow gotten back to senior partner, Al Decotiis. Harla has since told a few friends that Al stuck his head briefly in Harla's office, smiled and said, "Morning, partner!"

* Spelling of Decotiis corrected throughout. We regret the error.

The Long Goodbye -- Understatement of the Year?

UPDATES, below: 5:25 pm and 9:00 pm:

In politics, like humor, timing is everything. Over the course of this campaign, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated some very bad timing.

Earlier this year, she thought quite incorrectly, that Super Tuesday was to be "her time." She simply had no campaign plan going forward -- no future campaign strategy to run on. Super Tuesday was to be a knockout. And, as a result, Barack Obama proceeded to run up an impressive string of wins thereafter that secured the nomination for him. Her partial recovery in the late rounds, beginning in Pennsylvania, was a case of too little too late.

This morning, or should I say this early afternoon, she threw in the towel. The New York Times political coverage, posted by Katharine Q. Seelye on their political blog, The Caucus, carried the ongoing story of Hillary Clinton's then anticipated speech -- which was to be delivered beginning at noon today at the National Building Museum-- bowing out of the 2008 race for the presidency.

But according to the live television minute-by-minute coverage, she had not even left the house by 12:20 pm, though her elderly mother was reportedly already waiting in the car! That was a bad image -- and bad timing. One commentator on Fox, Susan Estrich, perhaps harkened back to her "duty" of covering up for candidates, blamed it all on husband Bill. She actually said straight-faced that he was undoubtedly on the phone, thus delaying the departure -- conveniently, of course, ignoring the reality of cell phones, as well as undercutting the perception of discipline that Hillary should have had under the circumstances.

Today's piece posted on The Caucus, was entitled The Long Goodbye: Clinton to Endorse Obama.

The Long Goodbye -- likely an understatement to be sure! And, knowing the Clintons, even with the completion of today's speech, it will not end this year. Believe me, the long "conversation" she began with is not over! She may have suspended her campaign, and endorsed Senator Obama, but she did not and will not release her delegates unconditionally, at least until she gets what she wants.

The primary season this year was embarrassingly punctuated with a revealing and uneasy racial tension within the Democrat party, one initiated by Bill Clinton with his "fairy tale" comment in New Hampshire, and exponentially escalated with his demeaning comparison of Obama's victory in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson, back in 1984 and 1988. That comparison was rightfully seen, as noted at the time by Steve Kornacki in The New York Observer, as "misrepresenting history," as well as ungracious, and politically inapt. But Clinton surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro and Governor Rendell dutifully jumped on, and an unseemly scene played out in public, one that still rankles. Very bad timing!

Then, late in the campaign, both Hillary and her surrogates trotted out the victim card by charging everyone in sight with sexism, including "the media," and Barck Obama himself.

Today's speech, of course, became necessary because she failed to make it at the obvious juncture -- this past Tuesday night -- when Barack Obama won the race by securing a sufficient number of delegates, including unelected super delegates, to win the nomination.

That night, Clinton gave a singularly uncharitable speech, barely acknowledging the accomplishments of Barack Obama, and ending it in a defiant tone, saying that she was, "not going to make any decisions tonight."

Today's speech, which started over 45 minutes late, began with an opener that, given the cheers, she had to begin at least three times -- "Well, this isn't exactly the party I planned, but I appreciate the company."

And then, Hillary launched into her endless stump speech talking points, once again punctuated by her allusion to the "18 million" reminder that it was she who got the most votes.

However, she also spoke about the many accomplishments of Senator Obama, and said, suspending her campaign, and committing to "throw my full support behind him." As for the disappointment and "what if" thoughts that would inevitably arise in the minds of her supporters, she cautioned, "Please, don't go there."

But she did not say she released her delegates. She pointedly noted that in the four decades she has been in politics, Democrats have won the White House only three times, noting that the person who won two of them was sharing the stage with her -- Bill Clinton, and his record, ruefully suggesting how much better she feels the nation would be if more Democrats had been elected.

In an acknowledging nod, she did say, "I am standing with Senator Obama to say, 'Yes we can.'"

And yet, at no time during the speech today did she even breathe a single word about the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. In fact, she has had little but praise for him in the past few weeks.

Then, in an almost sing-song manner to her supporters, she uttered a few staccato line-closers, to wit, "and that is why we have to help elect Barack Obama president." Somehow, they did not sound terribly enthusiastic, or very convincing. And, perhaps picking up or her lack of emotional commitment, the lines certainly did not sit that well with the crowd of supporters around her. By that time, their enthusiasm had quite audibly abated.

Finally, her substantial focus on herself and her campaign during the speech, ticking off all the personal accomplishments and paralleling her personal quest in politics with that of all women in all fields with this speech, she appeared to be advancing a more subtle continuation of her gambit, begun the other night, to grasp for the vice-presidential nod. She also seemed to be continuing her effort to retire her huge campaign debt. It was $30 million last month, but she certainly spent a bundle in May. That means that the $12 million she and Bill lent to the campaign as of then, probably climbed somewhat.

At least in this speech, she had the grace not to tick off the web site address where supporters can go to help her retire that debt.

By only suspending her campaign, she was obviously also keeping the door open to raising the money to pay off the debt she accumulated in the closing weeks of the campaign.

And that fact, possibly more many others, may figure strongly in the calculus of Barack Obama in deciding who his running mate will be. He does not need to be financially hobbled by his running mate. But, he does not need to have Hillary Clinton openly competing with him for campaign dollars.

Perhaps in their little private chat on Thursday night at Diane Feinstein's home in Washington, D.C., Senator Obama found a way to assure the junior senator from New York that he will indirectly do all he can to help her retire that debt, without having committed to a spot on the ticket, thus prompting her polite exit from the campaign today.

Just by not naming someone else immediately, and abruptly pushing her completely off the stage, he helps her accomplish that goal. Primarily, he just wants an abbreviated goodbye, so she doesn't continue sucking all the wind out of the arena. Good luck on that one! In politics, as he knows, November is right around the corner.

And timing, after all, is everything.


UPDATE: 5:25 pm:

One also wonders if Senator Obama will request Hillary to publicly ask for a cease fire, or, in at least one case even deliver a private scolding to one of her more, shall we say, vocal supporters, Larry Johnson at NoQuarter, who has been actively poisoning the well for Obama for a few weeks now, with repeated posts about the rumor of the existence of a nasty video tape of Michelle Obama allegedly ranting on about "Whitey." As of 2:08 pm today, after her speech was delivered, Larry was showing no sign whatsoever of calling off his attack.

An Update on the Michelle Obama Rant
By Larry Johnson . . .

The recording that shows Michelle Obama saying disparaging things about white folks is for real. It is not part of some elaborate dirty trick. The people who have seen her comments describe it as “stunning” or “devastating.” I have not spoken directly with the people who have seen the tape, but I have spoken to two of my friends who are friends with those who watched the tape/dvd.

. . . .

Update II, 9:00 pm 06/07:

Five new posts on various anti-Obama topics on Larry's web site since the first one we noted, above, all put up just after Hillary's conciliatory speech. Busy now, aren't they?

Clinton Supporters: "McCain Will Win"

Harriet Christian, from New York City, an obviously frustrated supporter of both Hillary Clinton, and of the effort to count all votes of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, was reportedly tossed out of Saturday's meeting of the Democrat Rules Committee in Washington (H.T. DrudgeReport, 06/02), and she stopped to express her strong views as she left the meeting room. Her expressed views also included a comment that the Democratic Party has passed over the nomination of Hillary Clinton, "for an inadequate black man."

At the end of the video, she predicts a McCain win in the fall. You can also hear her obviously embarrassed son in the background telling someone that, "My mother gets a little exorcised." Here's betting he gets a little piece of her mind when she views this video on YouTube!



Yesterday, in one of several updates to a prior post, we also posted a link to a video (H.T. Powerline, here) of a female protester from California, also a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, and, as well, of the need to count 100% of the vote.

She said her support was for the "rights of the Democratic Party," but she did not refer in any way to race. But she opposes the nomination of Barack Obama. Her strong view that the 2.35 million votes should count 100%, is what she said distinguishes Democrats from Republicans, that "democrats are obsessed with everyone's vote counting," She also said that, though Obama looked good at first, that the controversial personalities surrounding Obama -- Reverend Wright, William Ayres "the bomber," and Rezko, the embezzler -- amounted to what she termed "food for the Republicans," that would ensure a Republican victory in the fall. And, she said she would vote for McCain as well, if Hillary did not get the nomination.

As you can see, she was outside during a demonstration on behalf of Clinton's challenge to the ruling earlier this year, that had stripped both Michigan and Florida from seating the delegates selected in their primaries. Note that she says she travelled all the way to Washington from her home on the West Coast, just for the protest. The outside protest was later interrupted by a downpour.

Here is the clip of this voter again, this time embedded in the post.



Also posted on YouTube by firedoglake is a clip of a third protester, Deborah Foster, a phys-ed school teacher from Long Island, New York, who shows bruises on her arm she said she received when she was forceably removed from the meeting for chanting "Denver, Denver!" Unlike the others, her frustration was almost exclusively reserved for the "party bosses." As she put it, "Those idiot bosses in there have given me two winners in forty years!" And then, jabbing her finger in the air for emphasis, but with a little smile on her face, "The party elite sucks!" Obviously, she believes that Obama is far less likely to win in the fall.



How typical are these voters? How strong are their views? For example, how much of their views are driven by their adherence to the principle underscoring the protest -- that every vote should count? And how much is driven by loyalty their to Hillary Clinton, who they support for the nomination?

Are we witnessing a phenomenon that will resonate to the benefit of Senator McCain in the fall general election?

As we post this, Hillary is announcing that her post-primary speech will be delivered tomorrow evening in New York, rather than in South Dakota, perhaps laying the groundwork for ending her quest for the nomination.

Will she make a strong effort to bring these voters back to the Democrat fold?

Debate in Iraq

Likely Democrat Presidential standard-bearer, Senator Barack Obama, has only been in Iraq on one occasion. And that was nearly two and a half years ago, back in January of 2006. Putative Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, however, has been there on eight separate occasions. Senator Hillary Clinton has also been to Iraq on a few occasions.

Nor, it seems, has Senator Obama been to Afghanistan at all. Both McCain and Clinton have toured Afghanistan. And, as pointed out by Sam Youngman back in early March at The Hill (H.T., Ed Morrissey, below), Obama has skipped two out of three meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held on Afghanistan, since he joined the panel. As the Chair of a Subcommittee covering Afghanistan, he has yet to schedule a meeting.

Early yesterday, Ed Morrissey at HotAir posted a portion of a Wall Street Journal WashingtonWire blog post reporting that, while very recently traveling in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton had noted at one stop that she had been to both Iraq and Afghanistan more often than Senator Barack Obama. And, she further noted that for part of the time, she had traveled with Senator John McCain, which she described favorably. In the midst of making some campaign-related rhetorical comments about the war, she added:

"I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together," she said. "And I honor his service to our country and his patriotism."

Responding to rather intense pressure heaped on him over the past few days, Senator Obama is quoted at the New York Times blog, The Caucus now saying that he is "considering" going to Iraq to see the situation first-hand. He likely did so because, in addition to the challenge put to him by McCain, over the past several days he has been subjected to intense pressure coming from ads being launched by an Iraq veteran's group called "Vets For Freedom."

Here is the link to their webpage with their latest ad, featuring Specialist Kate Norley, an Iraq veteran combat medic, who challenges Obama to revisit Iraq anew to witness first-hand the remarkable progress there, and also to agree to meet "unconditionally" with General Petraeus -- an obvious allusion to his controversially expressed willingness to meet with President Ahmadinejad of Iran (amongst a litany of bad actors). There are other media clips linked at the "Vets For Freedom" website in their Media Center.

Senator John McCain had previously suggested that Obama travel to Iraq with him. While Obama caved in to some of that pressure by giving consideration to a trip, he rejected the idea of traveling with McCain, calling that a "political stunt." His campaign did not explain why they considered it a stunt, but it is pretty obvious they fear political embarrassment.

By no means am I the first to suggest the following idea, but it occurs to me that Senator Obama and John McCain could agree not only to travel to Iraq, but also to hold the first general election debate there, in front of our American troops.

Each man aspires to be the Commander-in-Chief, and this would give to our troops an immediate and well-deserved acknowledgement of the high respect that so many of us feel for them as our defenders, regardless of our, or their, political party preferences or affiliations.

Certainly Senator Obama does not believe that holding and participating in a debate is a "political stunt," having participated in literally scores of them during the primary season, and having thereby persuaded a majority of the voters and caucus participants in his own party to favor his candidacy over that of Hillary Clinton. She was, after all, the overwhelming favorite at the beginning of the primary campaign season.

What greater legacy could we Americans leave to this fledgling democratic state in the Middle East, than to vividly demonstrate how politics can be a rough and tumble, but respectful clash of ideas, which we engage in in order to select our own leaders and choose our own destiny? When this election process is done, we will have selected a new President, House of Representatives, and a number of Senators, and we will move on in accordance with priorities chosen by We the People. The people in the other states in the region would likewise witness such a debate with rapt attention as well, no?

And, what more vivid reminder and demonstration to the American people could there be of the significant role our military, and others, including a new Iraqi security apparatus, have played within Iraq and elsewhere in fighting al-Qaeda terror?

Today, John Hinderaker at Powerline has outlined the increasingly serious dilemma faced by Senator Obama, as it becomes more and more clear to the American public that Obama's assessment of the situation in Iraq one year ago was simply wrong. Moreover, his stated solution -- to immediately begin a phased withdraw -- would most likely have unleashed a painful, and perhaps tragic social disruption in Iraq, and throughout the region, as well as a concomitant major setback in American foreign policy. Senator McCain's position, though bold and seemingly risky at the time, clearly seems to have been the correct prescription.

As John notes:

The problem for Obama is that it is hard to see how he can go to Iraq without acknowledging that the surge has succeeded, violence has been reduced, and the Iraqis are making considerable political progress. If he goes to Iraq, he has to meet with generals, soldiers and Marines, and they will tell him these things. But if Obama admits that we are succeeding in Iraq, he is admitting that John McCain was right all along. He can't do that.

and,

Obama's Iraq policy is increasingly at odds with realities on the ground, and more and more voters are becoming aware of that fact. Obama can't stay away from Iraq until November. His advisers must be trying to figure out how to fit such a trip into a narrative that will hold water through the election. For now, they may just be hoping for things to get worse. But when they do finally announce a trip to Iraq, the nature of that visit will likely hold the key to how Obama intends to handle the increasingly dangerous (for him) issue of Iraq in the fall.

Neither engaging in wishful thinking, nor having his surrogates lie about (H.T. Allahpundit, here) his pre-surge position, is any kind of plan. So in a way, he might be better off dealing with the issue and in a bold way right now. Politically, Senator Obama could show some mettle by stepping right into the lion's den" on this critical issue, and agree to a debate with Senator McCain in Iraq, in front of our troops. Otherwise, he will continue being visibly backed against the ropes by John McCain before he's even officially declared the candidate!

And after all, didn't he boldly utter the title quote to David Nason, the New York correspondent to The Australian, less than two weeks ago, in "Obama's Iraq challenge: debate me":

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have anytime, any place." (emphasis added)

A wag at this point might be tempted to say, "Okay. How's the Green Zone sound?"

Will The Democrat Rules Committee Issue A Pardon?

Updates (5), all below:

Increasingly, the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee seem to be really feeling the heat. They will be meeting this Saturday to decide the "fate" of the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democrat Convention in Denver.

The 38-page "legal opinion" by Committee lawyers, cited in this AP article by Nedra Pinkler, says that all they can do is seat half of the delegations from Michigan and Florida. That won't likely sell. From the article:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

But is there a rule, or some sort of a precedent whereby they have "pardon" authority? Or, will this contentious continue to be a huge thorn in the side of the Democrat Party as they show up for their convention in Denver -- a matter that would then have to be directly addressed in a floor fight?

And, what if that floor vote is close, giving Hillary a basis for claiming that it would have been resolved in her favor, if the entire delegations had been seated?

Maybe it would not be quite as bad if this did not involve Florida!

Florida, for crying out loud! Of all places for Democrats to be charged with nullifying election results!

Think about what kinds of comments, and signs and very active street theater will become very public this coming Saturday (a veritable YouTube bonanza, one would think). And you have to believe that it will all, thereafter, be laid directly at the doorstep of Barack Obama, no?

Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention.

DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday.

This year seems a little like 1968, but potentially could become worse in terms of public relations. Shrill charges of racism and sexism already fill the airwaves, and could be accentuated as the public pays more attention at the time of the convention.

Almost none of the street protesters in Chicago back in 1968 were actual insiders, or party activists. (I couldn't find what was to me at the time the most graphic image of the street protests -- that of the Chicago Police shoving a crowd up against a plate glass window of the Hilton Hotel, causing the glass to shatter with the shards of glass falling down directly into the crowd.)

But spurned delegations this year could easily organize, and focus their case in a very public way.

Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.

In 1968, there were a few credentials confrontations inside the hall, including an incident with Dan Rather being shoved around in the hall.

By the way, you can bet the farm that there will be outside agitators present at both conventions this year as well!

Secondly, think about some of the graphic the images of that 1968 convention, and the even greater impact that the constant replaying of YouTube clips might have had then?

Makes you wonder . . . what were the Democrat Party officials thinking when they decided -- upon penalty of complete exclusion of a delegation from the national convention -- that state parties are prohibited, before a certain date, from deciding when they may hold their own primaries?

Update: Yesterday, Roger Simon recognized the extraordinary importance of the topic -- and of the meeting in his, "Democrats Seek To Avoid Meltdown" posted on Politico. Here are the seemingly intractable issues he saw that the members of the Rules & Bylaws Committee were trying to resolve:

But finding a solution will not be easy, and one reason is that there are so many competing agendas.

First, both Michigan and Florida have mounted furious public campaigns to get their punishment lifted, saying the party really has no choice if the Democratic nominee wants to win those states in November.

Second, there is the Clinton campaign, which sees the rules committee meeting as its last, best hope to gain significant ground on Obama.

Third, there is the Obama campaign, which does not want to see the gains it has made in primaries and caucuses overturned by a committee vote.

Then, and most overlooked, is the agenda of the committee itself. It is a rules committee, its members believe in rules and that rules must be enforced, even as political realities are addressed.

There is a further complication: Not only does the rules committee have to decide what percentage of the Florida and Michigan delegations to seat (the options run from zero to 100 percent) but what percentage Clinton gets and what percentage Obama gets. Clinton “won” both states, but the contests were controversial: She was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan, and everybody agreed not to campaign in Florida.

Stay tuned!

Update II: The Washington Times reports today in "'Chaos' threatens DNC delegate solution" that the Obama campaign is now openly accusing the Clinton Campaign of trying to create a chaotic atmosphere over Saturday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington, with Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe calling it an attempt by the Clinton forces to "create chaos."

Supporter and former Bill Clinton activist, David Wilhelm, said the risk was the creation of a "circus" atmosphere.

In what appeared to be a veiled threat, Plouffe also suggested that the Obama campaign could quickly retaliate by generating "tens of thousands" of counter-demonstrators. That sounds like an unhelpful bluff if, as they say, the avoidance of a circus atmosphere is their goal. But, maybe down deep that is what they all want -- a way to let off steam at one another.

Is that the "Entrance of the Gladiators!" we can hear? Or, for those who might prefer a French version of some clown music.

From the Washington Times story:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said his boss is being charitable by compromising for some seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations even though those states broke party rules by holding their primaries too early.

"We don't think it's a helpful dynamic to create chaos," Mr. Plouffe told reporters in advance of Saturday's daylong hearing to resolve the disputed contests.

He characterized the planned protests as "a scene" and "a spectacle" while Obama supporter David Wilhelm, who ran Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, said the protesters risk turning "this thing into a circus."

Mr. Plouffe argued that the campaign has considerable support in the Mid-Atlantic region - Mr. Obama swept the Feb. 12 primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia - and said with the simple "click of a mouse" the campaign could generate "tens of thousands of people" to rally for the Obama cause.

Perhaps in a show of unity they could get together afterward and sing us the refrain from the old circus song!

We are Clowns Now

We are all clowns today
We are all clowns today
Hey Ho the derry O!
We are all clowns today

Update 3: Now, who would have guessed, at least according to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, that Lanny Davis would volunteer to take the lead . . . and lose his cool?

UPDATE 4: More here from Dan Balz at the WaPo. The Clinton campaign was incensed by the way the Committee determined the Michigan delegate votes were to be split, with Hillary getting 34.5 and Obama getting 29.5.

"This motion will hijack -- hijack -- remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton," said Harold Ickes, who oversees delegate operations for the Clinton campaign and is also a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. "This body of 30 individuals has decided that they're going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters."

Arguing that the Michigan compromise "is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," Ickes warned that Clinton had authorized him to note that she will "reserve her rights to take it to the credentials committee" later. Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later affirmed that Clinton will reserve her right to challenge the outcome.

The New York Times, per Katharine Q. Seeyle and Jeff Zeleny, reports today that the net gain in committed convention delegates for Clinton was 24, leaving the difference between the two at "about 176 delegates." The story details much of the divisive back and forth among attendees in responding to committee actions or proposals. The following occurred when an Obama member proposed splitting the Michigan delegates evenly between the two:

At that point, Tina Flournoy, a Clinton adviser and member of the rules committee, said Mr. Obama’s proposal essentially called for overriding the will of the voters.

"What is being proposed here is that you go into a voting booth and at some point later down the road, someone decides that your vote is for someone else," she said. "If we’re going to do that, let’s cancel 2012, and let’s divide all the delegates in all the states."

Party unity? Read the whole account.

Update 5: John Hinderaker at Powerline posted a piece on the demonstrations late yesteday entitled, "Recreate '68" noting the potential for similarities. In particular, watch the embeded video which gives a good taste of the strong feelings of many of Hillary Clinton's supporters demonstrating outside the Rules Committee hearing. You can also find the clip here on YouTube. Note who this woman from California says she'll vote for if Hillary is not the nominee. (Hint: It's not Obama.) Those strong feelings can only have been amplified by her victory in Puerto Rico, announced earlier this afternoon.