The Dish

A reader writes:

Over the past several days, you’ve described Hillary as a “sociopath” (who knew you were a psychologist and had interviewed Ms. Clinton in such depth), agreed with the term “monster”, continued to publish exclusively anti-Clinton commentary/assessment, and presented us with testimonials from individuals who’ve had the “scales fall from their eyes” in her regard. 

Your blog is beginning to resemble nothing so much as a born-again Christian website reducing the whole issue to good vs. evil, the benighted vs those who have seen the light.  This is the antithesis of the careful, fair-mind conservatism you have so consistently promoted.  I, for one, cannot wait until the Democratic nomination is decided – hopefully for Obama – so that I can begin again to read your blog without having to skim over so much venomous commentary.  Assuming, that is, that you can recover perspective.

A Greg Craig Obama memo on Clinton’s foreign policy record this morning sums up the facts pretty well. One highlight on Rwanda:

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

So much insomnia, so little time:

The phone rings. Hillary Rodham Clinton picks it up.

"Yes?"

"Hillary, it’s Silda Wall Spitzer. Sorry to call so late. Eliot’s still not home. Based on your experience, what should I do?"

Insert hysterical laughter here:

With all the talk about possible June primaries or caucuses in Michigan and Florida – the two states that violated Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling primaries prior to February 5 – The Field has learned that, had the two states originally scheduled their votes for May or June, they would have been entitled to a "bonus" of 30-percent more elected delegates.

"The road to Denver, as it currently exists, is dotted with intra-party explosive devices (IEDs) with the potential to blow away our party’s very real chance to capture the White House. The Michigan and Florida predicament . . . could explode at the convention and cause more casualties than we could imagine," – Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver writing to Howard Dean last Thursday.

Orlando Patterson believes there is a racial sub-text to the Clintons’ red phone ad. The more I think about it the more I can see his point. It strikes me that the ad was primarily aimed at white and Latina women. It makes no sense as a national security experience ad; it is all about very powerful memes of mothers and children, danger and security. And yes, plenty of Latina and white women may harbor inchoate fears about black men at large in the middle of the night.

I cannot know the motives of those who made the ad. I do know the Clintons are perfectly capable of subliminal or subtextual use of bigotry and racial fear. More significant, it’s a purely emotional appeal. The idea that the Clintons are the rational ones in this campaign, that they are the mature adults capable of managing the country soberly and reasonably, has been detonated by this campaign and by the emotional roller-coaster the Clintons always force us to ride with them.

There is still no explanation for the delay and plenty of reason for people to ask questions of the Clintons:

Since 1999, the couple’s net worth has increased from somewhere between $1.25 million and $5.7 million to between $10 million and $50 million, according to filings… Clinton earned an unspecified amount as a consultant for InfoUsa, a data company run by longtime friend and fundraiser Vin Gupta, according to the filings. The forms also showed ten of thousands of dollars invested in funds with the Yucaipa Companies, a private equity firm run by another close friend, Ron Burkle.

Lisa Marie Presley sues the press.

David Weigel on the future of the Ron Paul rEVOLution:

Can the Paulites make lasting change? Eve Fairbanks of The New Republic described Paul’s supporters as “the closest thing this race has to the Deaniacs of ’04.” Those Web-savvy, young, and excitable supporters of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean may not have powered their man to the White House, but their influence remains a potent force in Democratic politics. Dean’s Web team, including Matthew Stoller and Jerome Armstrong, became some of the loudest voices in the lefty blogosphere and go-to gurus for all Democratic Internet campaigns. Ex–Dean staffers populate the Courage Campaign, a liberal activist group in the MoveOn.org mold. And Dean himself has run the Democratic National Committee since 2005. If Paul’s people wanted to copy a movement, they could do a lot worse.

Many readers expressed disbelief at my claim that the Clintons ran anti-gay ads on Christian radio stations in 1996. Did I have proof? Actually, John Aravosis recently provided a very extensive round-up of what happened back then. It’s all true. Here’s an excerpt from a Log Cabin briefing at the time:

In an article in today’s Washington Times, entitled "For Christian Radio, Clinton Changes Tune on Gays, Abortion," it was reported that the Clinton-Gore campaign "shrugged off" angry calls to shelve the radio ad. The article cited reports from gay and lesbian groups that the campaign might delete the portion of the ad which boasts of Clinton signing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but "Clinton campaign spokesman Joe Lockhart said there are no plans to alter the radio ads, which will run for ‘a few more days.’"

After boasting about Clinton signing the anti-gay DOMA, the ad concludes with the line: "President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it."

John also notes that Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to triangulate against gays in 2004. Kerry refused. But the Clintons have used gays in two ways since their careers began:

to get money (an untapped resource that the Clintons shrewdly figured out early on), and to pivot to win red-state votes. Remember that the Clintons used this tactic in 1996 – not a close election, or one in which they even needed to gay-bait to win. But they did. It helped a little. And they knew the gays were pathetic enough to keep supporting them.

Why do I remember all this so vividly? Because I had a front-row seat at the time, having endorsed the Clintons and trusted them for five minutes. I learned my lesson. My most vivid memory was testifying against the Defense Of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the day of the hearings. We were going to lose; we always knew it. But the Clintons told the press on the morning of the hearings that they didn’t believe there were any constitutional problems with DOMA, cutting us off at the knees. Yes, that was politics. I understand. All I want to remind the next generation of gays about is: don’t ever expect anything more than "just politics" from the Clintons.