It's about time somebody stood up

An anonymous commenter pointed out a great video in response to my earlier post about Mr. 9/11. I didn't want it to get lost in the comments.



How's the 9/11 slash "don't campaign" strategy working? Giuliani's in fourth place nationally now.

Reagan politics

This is getting absurd. As you may have read, Obama, during an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal said that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." He also said, "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Edwards jumped on the comments yesterday, and now Clinton has given her two cents.

Edwards used Obama's remarks to point out that Reagan "openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people." Fine. He can make that point. It fits in line with his campaign and it's fair.

But this is what Clinton said: "I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."

I've read Obama's comments several times and I don't see how Clinton can possible argue that he was saying "Republicans had better ideas than Democrats." He said that "Republicans were the party of ideas ... in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom." The difference is huge.

I don't have a strong feeling about Obama's comments. They probably weren't the smartest things to say in the middle of the primary season, but they certainly didn't turn me off. Had he said what Clinton said he said, however, I would think he was better suited for the Republican Party. It's an unfortunate distortion on her part.

Mr. 9-11

Don't ever forget. I'm running for president because of one day. But it was a really important day. And I was really awesome then. Remember?



I'm September 11th and I approve this message.

Equal outrage?

Huckabee's comments are apparently drawing mainstream attention. CNN is reporting that he is "tak[ing] heat" for his remarks in the Beliefnet interview that I posted earlier. The outrage so far seems to be coming from the left. CNN quoted a spokesperson from the Human Rights campaign. That is all well and good, but wouldn't it be refreshing to see him criticized from the right? I don't agree with those against gay marriage, but I understand their point. Everyone, though, Republicans and Democrats, should be able to come together to denounce comments that compare homosexuality to bestiality. I wouldn't expect one of the candidates, immersed in South Carolina, conservative politics to say anything, but hopefully someone else will explain that these kinds of comments are unacceptable in any state.

Michel Gondry

There's not much out there today that comes close to the absurdity of Huckabee's comments, so kick back and enjoy a Michel Gondry video. Be sure to watch all the way through.



By the time you figure this out, I'll have something to say about something else.

Men and animals

Greg Sargent reported today that during an interview with Beliefnet, Mike Huckabee was asked about his comments that the Constitution should be amended to meet "God's standards." The questioner noted that many would find that to be a "dangerous undertaking." Here was Huckabee's response:

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

As Sargent correctly noted, Huckabee was clearly equating gay marriage with bestiality. This is Rick Santorum territory. I have a feeling this won't get any traction, but these are the kinds of things that could, and better, get attention should Huckabee make it to the general election.

Leahy for Obama

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committe, endorsed Obama this morning. Had he endorsed Clinton, it probably wouldn't mean much, but the fact that a guy who has been in the Senate since 1974 chose Obama seems to put a dent in Clinton's message that her experience is the most important thing. According to Ben Smith, during the conference call announcing the endorsement, Leahy said, "We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world – and actually reintroduce America to ourselves." He also apparently compared Obama to RFK.

Update: I made Leahy sound older than he is. He likened Obama to RFK, not JFK. I've changed the post.

Civil war

MSNBC hosts are digging themselves a deep hole this morning while discussing the Republican primaries. I didn't see it, but Chris Matthews was on The Tonight Show last night, where he attempted to clarify remarks he made about Hillary Clinton. Those comments got Matthews in trouble with Media Matters.

But during his appearance, Matthews went off on the Republicans, saying it's like the situation in Iraq. He said Huckabee is like a Sunni, McCain and Giuliani are Shiites and Romney is like a Kurd. Forgive Matthews, he can't help himself.

Well this morning, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster were discussing Matthews' unfortunate analogy when Shuster suggested that Ron Paul is the al Qaeda in the race.

Moments like this are why 24-hour news stations are a bad idea. I have a feeling this one will be on youtube before too long.

Backwards

Over at The War Room, Time Grieve highlighted a Washington Post headline from this morning that said, "44 Percent Vote Against Clinton." The article was about Clinton's meaningless win in Michigan yesterday (meaningless because no delegates were rewarded and Obama, et al were not on the ballot) where 44 percent voted for "uncommitted."

It is an absurd way to refer to her victory. It reminded me of Chris Matthews's comments before the Iowa caucus, when he said "if you look at the numbers as they're shaping up, it looks to me like even if Hillary Clinton does manage to squeak it tonight -- I don't think she will -- she's been rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party."

To recap, Clinton lost 61 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Bill Clinton lost 67 percent of the vote in 1992. And I'm guessing that with this logic, W. won 48 percent of the vote in 2000. Got it.

How's that strategy looking, Rudy?

Maybe lost in the hair gel celebration/McCain defeat news was Giuliani's pathetic showing. He told Fox's Wendel Goler that he isn't "nervous," but Mr. 9/11 can't even beat Ron Paul.

Giuliani insists his strategy will pay off. He is waiting for Florida, then he will pounce. But just think of all the press and, dare I say it, momentum he is losing to everyone else, including Ron Paul.

This reminds me of Maverick's strategy in Top Gun. "We're gonna hit the breaks, and he'll fly right by." (For some reason that scene doesn't seem to be on Youtube.) But I'm curious if anyone outside the Giuliani campaign -- not named Maverick -- thinks this strategy can work. Thoughts?