The Dish

Arianna on independents and McCain. Not the most self-aware metaphor.

Jonah makes an obvious point rather well. So why aren’t conservatives angrier at the president himself? That’s the interesting question. My own view is that Bush is insulated by evangelical backing on religious grounds. Which means to say that there is a messianic, religiously-inspired phenomenon in American politics right now, and it isn’t Obama.

A reader vents:

Can we please put this Hillary myth to a rest:

"She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner," Mr. Penn said. "Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger."

And exactly when did Hillary face a serious Republican challenger? Giulanini backed out early in 2000. Rick Lazio? Please. I don’t even remember the name of the person in 2006. If I remember, the GOP had trouble finding someone. And. Bill’s. Victories. DON’T. COUNT!!!

Perhaps more telling is that Obama has had to face tough challenges to get the Democratic nomination, both at the state level and when he ran for the Senate.  Hillary?  Never.  Why?  Because the senate nomination was handed to her.  Perhaps that is the reason she and her campaign are so clearly having trouble dealing with a challenger in the primary – she’s never faced one before.

This campaign is slowly revealing Hillary Clinton’s not-too-stellar record in fighting elections, even with massive nepotistically-acquired advantages. She isn’t Bill. If that weren’t self-evident by now.

A uniter or a divider?

Not so much a political statement as a fact revealed when fear recedes:

According to a report released recently by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, the number of same-sex couples living in Kansas increased almost 60 percent from 2000 to 2005. …

But Tom Witt, chairman of the Kansas Equality Coalition, said the couples have always been here. That figure is just the number of "same-sex couples who are willing to answer that question." "(The report) is inaccurate and misleading," he said. "It makes it look like the gays are moving to Kansas. We live here. We were born here, raised here. We are part of the community."

It gets confusing. Is Hillary Clinton saying this is a restoration of the same White House team from 1992 – 2000. Or is she not? Was she a co-president, or not? Will her husband be able to say "we" about her term of office the way she now uses "we" to describe his? Just listen:

CLINTON: Well, John, I think it depends upon what you think the fights were really about. You know, I never thought they were personal; I thought they were about the positions we took.

You know, standing up and fighting for universal health care drew a lot of incoming fire. Taking on the NRA over the assault weapons ban and, you know, the Brady bill, that was certainly not a popular thing to do.

Standing up and fighting for fiscal responsibility and getting the deficit down, you know, trying to get a balanced budget and a surplus, I mean, there’s a big difference between infighting fights over nothing, you know, just for the sake of fighting, as the Republicans have often done to score political points, you know, to really get that partisan advantage, and taking on the fights that are worth fighting over.

You know, it is important that we cooperate whenever we can. But there are a lot of principles and values at stake here.

You know, when President Bush, coming off his ’04 win, came in and said, We’re going to privatize Social Security, I’m really proud that I was one of the leaders who said, No, we’re not going to let that happen. You may have this new capital because you’re now the re- elected president, but this is a fight worth having. We’re not going to let this occur.

So when I hear Senator Obama talk about that, I wonder which fights he wouldn’t fight. Would he have not fought to get to a balanced budget and a surplus and help create 22 million new jobs? Would he have not fought to get assault weapons off the street and get them out of the hands of, you know, criminals and gang members?

          

---

A good sign that the Bush binge may be coming to a close.

Some white Democrats are openly arguing that America is too racist for a black president:

"You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."

Bill Clinton speaks his mind on Obama.

If you were a Christianist, and you knew McCain had the nomination in the bag, but you still got to vote, what would you do? And if you’re an independent, and you know McCain has got the nod, and know that tonight could be the night the Clintons realize they have lost this campaign, who would you vote for? We’ll find out tonight.