VP Hillary

It appears that Barack Obama will announce his choice for vice-president in the next day or two. I will go out on a limb and say that the three finalists being discussed in the media - Bayh, Biden and Kaine - are all a smokescreen. I think it will be Hillary Clinton.

Not that I care one way or the other, of course. Obama will never got my vote for dogcatcher, much less president, unless he has a truly remarkable conversion. His VP pick is irrelevant in that regard.

Dick Morris thinks that the Clintons have hijacked the Democratic Convention from Obama. But whatever else Obama is, he's not stupid. He is giving plum speaking spots to both Bill and Hillary for a reason. What better reason than the fact she is on the ticket? The plan was probably hatched months ago. It will be unveiled with great drama, and the media adulation will be amazing to behold.

If I am proven wrong on this, I'll gladly eat my words. But if I'm right, I expect lots of incoming links. :)

Truly Awful Video

Forget Obama's Preacher. Hillary Clinton must immediately denounce this man and his sick, evil campaign methods. Four more years of this will destroy America.

You may want to have a barf bag ready before watching the video.



Hat tip: Mark Shea

Look Who's Behind Hillary

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

Potemkin Press Conference

I just saw Shep Smith report this story on Fox News this evening, and I see Texas Fred and MikeVotes are already all over it. More publicity will follow. It's too good to ignore.

Earlier this week FEMA held a press conference about its response to the California fires. For some reason they did it on short notice and no actual reporters were present. FEMA hacks therefore populated the briefing room with their own staffers posing as reporters. To no great surprise, they lobbed a variety of softball questions at Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, the agency's deputy director.

FEMA has now apologized and the White House says it knew nothing about it beforehand and did not condome FEMA's deception. That's probably true; only FEMA could do something so boneheaded. Did they actually think the real news media wouldn't wonder who all those newcomers were?

This will probably blow up into a big deal and give FEMA yet another black eye. For all of Bill Clinton's faults, his man James Lee Witt kept FEMA running like clockwork. I don't get why Bush can't do likewise.

The Thinking Look

I sincerely hope Barack Obama is not our next president. Peggy Noonan probably feels the same way, but she does find one appealing quality in him. From her column today:

Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.

Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."

You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.

READ THE REST

Bill Clinton Makes Sense

Now there is a headline I never expected to type. Still, I must give credit where credit is due. On the matter of torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques," or whatever you wish to call it, Bill sounded remarkably intelligent and thoughtful when he appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The subject came up because a few days earlier Tim Russert had trapped Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate by quoting what Bill had said about torture in the past [Video here]. He had said that the U.S. should normally not use torture but there should be provision for the president or other officials to grant exceptions in extreme situations - the "ticking bomb" scenario.

Bill has since changed his mind. Now he doesn't think there should be any exceptions in the law. Here's his latest:

... I think America’s policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it’s almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they’ll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture.

You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t. But I, I loved how she handled this whole thing. I guess you want to show the rest now.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but not [have a] formal exception.

MR. CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t think you should now. The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences. And yet, ironically, if you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better. [Full transcript]

It is entirely possible Bill will change his mind again, and there is no guarantee his wife will think this way if she becomes president. Nevertheless, for now he has a far more reasonable and realistic torture policy than any candidate of either party has taken, other than Ron Paul.

What Clinton says about exceptions is absolutely true: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That universal principle is the reason we have a Constitution that is not easily changed. President Bush, on the other hand, sought to grant blanket immunity for those who torture prisoners, all the while denying that they do any such thing - a claim we cannot verify since he steadfastly refuses to define what he means by "torture."

With such power in hand, it should be no surprise that some agents of the government will abuse it. Mr. Bush says we should just trust him, similar to the way we trusted him about Iraq having nuclear and chemical weapons. Sorry, sir. I won't be fooled twice. On this one, your predecessor is a lot closer to the right. You might want to listen to him.

Related posts:
Tortured Logic
Colin Powell on Guantanamo
Petraeus on Battlefield Ethics
Adventures in Fog
Defining Torture

Conservatives For Hillary

I used to think that Hillary Clinton had the proverbial snowball's chance of ever living in the White House again. Now, I'm not so sure. What changed? People on the right, seeing the dismal selection candidates the GOP is offering for 2008, are starting to make their peace with the idea of President Clinton. Andrew Sullivan explains why:

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency.

Keep in mind, Hillary doesn't need every single conservative in order to win the general election. All she has to do is peel off enough of them to make a couple of closely-divided states like New Mexico and Ohio swing back into the Democratic column. It's not impossible. (I'm assuming, of course, that she will get the Democratic nomination, but that is looking more inevitable all the time.)

I think back to the odd pairing of former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in relief efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Katrina in 2005. They seemed to get along very well and the two are now close friends, by all accounts. So I think there is something to the "royalty" theme Sullivan mentions. If Hillary is elected in 2008, we will have 24 and possibly 28 years of continuous Oval Office occupation by people named Bush and Clinton. Mark Shea thinks partisans on both sides will get what they deserve:

It will be an exquisitely just comeuppance for all the consequentialists on both sides of the aisle if Hillary is elected (as Bush seems to be telegraphing) and she winds up embracing Mr. Bush's War. All the whores on both sides of the aisle who have loathed one of them and praised the other (while making every excuse in the book for their prostitution of basic principles of natural law in the name of their respective ideologies) will get the last full measure of betrayal from each of them as they walk off, hand in hand, having given us a state fully committed to salvation through leviathan by any means necessary *and* to the sacrament of abortion. Hillary will be the perfect Bush legacy. A classic example of the system doing what we designed it to do, not what we want it to do.

Scooter Walks

I am greatly annoyed at the President's decision to commute Scooter Libby's jail sentence, and even more annoyed at the hypocrisy of those on the right who think it is a wonderful idea. Some are even angry that Libby isn't getting a full pardon. Be patient - you'll get your wish if his appeals are not successful or the day Bush leaves office, whichever comes first.

The reason Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison is that he intentionally lied to a grand jury. This fact is really not in dispute. Even Libby's defenders concede that he did commit the crime of perjury. Consider what one law enforcement official had to say about the case.

... a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

This completely correct statement came from President Bush himself. He nonetheless decided that the prosecutor he appointed asked for, and the judge he appointed imposed, a sentence that was much too harsh. He therefore overruled them, having forgot what he said in 1999 when he was governor of Texas and running for president.

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair." Source

Now one could quibble by saying that Bush didn't technically overrule the jury's verdict. Fine. Want to bet that Bush won't go all the way to a full pardon if Libby's appeal isn't successful? Anyway this is a distinction that makes no difference. Bush doesn't do this sort of thing for regular people, only his political cronies.

Some argue that there was no underlying crime. So what? As the president says, our system of justice relies on people telling the truth. We cannot allow people to lie under oath to law enforcement officers and grand juries, for any reason. Period, end of story. Libby lied. Now he should pay the price.

Republicans had no problem understanding this back in 1998 when Clinton lied to a grand jury about his sex life. There was no underlying crime then, either, but it was enough to get him impeached. Even some of Clinton's defenders argued that he could and should face criminal justice after leaving office. Only now, when it is a GOP stalwart in the crossfire, do they decide that perjury is no big deal after all.

The whole affair again reveals what a lawless monarchy the Bush Administration has become. Here's a nice summation:

Tell the American people the core narrative of this monarchical presidency: this president believes he is above the law in wiretapping citizens with no court oversight; he has innovated an explosive use of signing statements to declare himself above the law on a bewildering array of other matters, large and small; he has unilaterally declared himself above American law, international law, and U.N. Treaty obligations in secretly authorizing torture; he has claimed the right to seize anyone in the United States, detain them indefinitely without trial and torture them; his vice-president refuses to abide by the law that mandates securing classified documents; and when a court of law finds a friend of the president's guilty, he commutes the sentence. Source

Once these kind of precedents are established, they don't disappear. Our next president will claim the same privileges. If it's President Obama or Clinton, look for Republicans to suddenly become devoted to the rule of law again. Power is now the only principle left in politics.

Fred Thompson Unplugged II

See Fred Thompson Unplugged for the beginning of this story.

So what about the issues? Is Fred Thompson really as conservative as we are told? Failing that, is he at least better than any of the other candidates?

First, it needs to be remembered that in 2000 most people, including me, thought George W. Bush was at least mildly conservative. We were wrong. I, for one, am determined not to be fooled again. For this reason I am not inclined to give anyone benefit of the doubt this time around. Rudy Giuliani has already taken himself off the list for a variety of reasons.

As regular readers know, my top two issues are Life and War. So we'll start with these then move on to some other subjects.

Abortion: Thompson says he wants the Roe vs. Wade decision reversed and abortion regulation returned to the states. He likes Supreme Court justices such as Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and would appoint others who are like them. As Senator he voted a consistent pro-life position, including in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.

This is, I think, the minimum we should demand from a presidential candidate. But I'd also like to go beyond the bare essentials. I want a president who respects life enough to oppose abortion morally as well as legally. Here Thompson's record is a little murkier:

• On a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, he checked "opposed" to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protecting the sanctity of human life."

• He included a handwritten clarification: "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

• In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled "N/A." Source

From this it appears that Thompson is anti-Roe but not personally pro-life. As recently as 1996, he wasn't willing to say that life begins at conception. Maybe he's changed is mind since then but I haven't heard about it if so.

Furthermore, the combination of his statements about reversing Roe and that abortion should not be criminalized is troubling. If Fred Thompson were a governor or state legislator, he would apparently want abortion to be legal in his state. He hasn't said this explicitly, as far as I know, but it is the only conclusion I can draw from his record.

My impression is that Thompson is more interested in preserving state's rights than in preventing abortion. This was, of course, the same argument made by 19th-century politicians who wanted to preserve slavery in the South. Fortunately for black Americans, Abraham Lincoln felt otherwise.

Thompson's zeal for Federalism also seems selective. He didn't make any great efforts to, say, eliminate federal highway funds for Tennessee. In the Senate he happily voted for all kinds of intrusions by Washington into matters that properly belong to the states. He seems to bring out the federalist argument when he needs political cover for being on both sides of an issue.

Given all this, Thompson is not exactly what I would call "pro-life." He is certainly preferable to Giuliani in this department, but that's not saying much.

Iraq War and Foreign Policy: Thompson generally supports President Bush on Iraq and terrorist-related issues. In 2003 he was strongly in favor of pre-emptive war against Iraq, and he has not backed down from that position. He now seems eager to move on to Iran.

Just this week Thompson gave a speech in London that nicely outlined his foreign policy beliefs. Daniel Larison has a masterful deconstruction of the remarks so I will not go into detail. Suffice to say that if you like the global situation Bush has got us into, you can count on Fred Thompson to deliver more of the same.

Campaign Finance reform: Thompson supported the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation that did practically nothing to reduce the role of money in political campaigns. It did, however, make it more difficult for citizens to promote their political views publicly and is regarded by some as a major infringement on first Amendment rights. McCain-Feingold's main accomplishment was to give billionaires like George Soros unprecedented political influence through "527" groups.

Clinton Impeachment: At President Clinton's impeachment trial before the Senate in 1998, Thompson voted to acquit on the perjury charge. He issued a long statement explaining his reasons, which I find unpersuasive. Here is a good summary. Basically, Thompson agreed Clinton lied to the grand jury but did not think it was grounds to remove him from office.

Thompson seems to have a soft spot for perjurers, since he's been lending his name to fund-raising efforts for the Scooter Libby defense. The best I can make of it is that Fred Thompson thinks it is fine for government officials to lie under oath, at least sometimes. It is unclear on what basis he decides which lies can be excused and which should not.

In any case, Thompson's vote in the Clinton impeachment resulted in a 50-50 tie on the perjury charge. Clinton was in no danger of being removed from office, which takes 67 votes. But the even split prevented even the partial victory of a majority finding that the president had committed perjury.

Other issues: There is a lot more I could say but I think you get the idea. The closer you look, the less Fred Thompson resembles the "next Ronald Reagan" image he wants us to accept. I'm listing a few links below with more background.

In the next installment of Fred Thompson Unplugged, we will look at his interesting personal life. Click here.

Fred Thompson On The Issues
Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions
The Thompson Factor
Wikipedia Entry: Fred Thompson

The DC Madam

This will be interesting. The so-called "DC Madam", Deborah Jeane Palfrey, is threatening to reveal her customer list and the first of what may be many highly-placed cads just resigned.

Palfrey is alleged to have run a prostitution ring for 13 years before her retirement in 2006 and supposedly has records reflecting "transactions" with thousands of highly-placed officials.

Palfrey has denied she ran a prostitution ring. Her company, Pamela Martin and Associates, was simply a "high-end adult fantasy firm which offered legal sexual and erotic services across the spectrum of adult sexual behavior and did so without incident during its 13 year tenure," she said.

Palfrey contends her escort service provided university educated women to engage in legal game-playing of a sexual nature at 275 dollars an hour for a 90 minute session, the Washington Post reported.

But Palfrey has also hinted that she has a record of the phone numbers of thousands of more than 10,000 customers that could embarrass more the a few of the US capital's high-fliers.

Friday, the US State Department announced that Randall Tobias, the embattled head of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), was resigning for unspecified personal reasons.

However ABC News, which said Palfrey has provided it with a record of the numbers of calls to her private cell phone, reported that Tobias stepped down after they spoke to him about his allegedly contacting her number.

Tobias since 2003 also was President George W. Bush's first global AIDS coordinator, a job which drew criticism for his emphasis on faithfulness to partners and abstinence over condom use in trying to prevent the spread of the AIDS virus.

Before entering government he was chairman, president and chief executive of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, and also, from 1997-2000, chairman of the board of trustees at Duke University. MORE

Mr. Tobias sounds like a very wealthy and powerful man. ABC News has a little more detail on the "services" he purchased from Palfrey.

On Thursday, Tobias told ABC News he had several times called the "Pamela Martin and Associates" escort service "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage."

Tobias, who is married, said there had been "no sex," and that recently he had been using another service "with Central Americans" to provide massages. MORE

Hmmm, "no sex," Mr. Tobias says. Where have we heard that before? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is being truthful. It still seems pretty stupid to call an escort service that offers "legal sexual and erotic services across the spectrum of adult sexual behavior" and have a woman come to his home for a private massage. What does he expect people to think?

Here's the problem, and I said this same thing in my pre-blog days about Bill Clinton and Gary Condit: People who live double lives like this make themselves vulnerable to blackmail. This is very dangerous for government officials who possess national secrets and are in position to make important decisions that affect many people. Even if we forget the morality of it, those we place in high office need to above reproach for purely practical reasons.

Mr. Tobias at least did the honorable thing by resigning. I feel sorry for his family and others that will be torn apart if more names are revealed by Palfrey. I also have to wonder why the background checks that are supposedly done on administration appointees did not reveal his proclivities - this sort of activity probably did not start recently. Either the FBI is doing incomplete investigations, or the White House know about it and appointed him anyway. Neither possibility is good. Another good question is whether the boards at Eli Lillyand Duke University knew what their chairman was doing to relax.

The saddest part is that I'm probably in the minority in being bothered by this. When other men are exposed like Tobias, the public reaction will probably be a big yawn. The Clinton scandal demonstrated that most of the American public doesn't really care if the president fools around as long as the economy is booming and his wife stands by him.

I look at it another way: any man who will lie and cheat on his own wife will not think twice about doing the same to the rest of us, whether he is the president of deputy undersecretary of whatever. People will say "he's only human like the rest of us." True enough, and I don't expect perfection. Still, is basic honesty is too much to ask of our leaders? Apparently so.

Hypocrisy Rules

Aside from, hopefully, ridding us of Alberto Gonzales, the current controversy about his firing of U.S. Attorneys serves an additional purpose: exposing hypocrisy on all sides.

Defenders of the Bush Administration are working overtime to remind everyone that the incoming Clinton Administration fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993. This proves, they say, that other presidents have exercised their right to fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason they wish. In other words, “It’s okay for us to do it because Clinton did it too.”

Wait just a minute here. I distinctly remember the mass firing of USAs in 1993, and I can assure you that Republicans at the time did not like it one bit. There was a great deal of speculation that Clinton did it to head off investigations of the scandals that were already enveloping his presidency even in its opening days.

The dishonesty on all sides is amazing. The same Republicans who screamed about “rule of law” when Clinton was president now claim “pleasure of the president” when their own guy does the same thing. Likewise, Democrats who had no problem with Clinton firing USAs are up in arms about Bush doing it.

The same thing goes for the forthcoming battle over executive privilege. Democrats were outraged when the GOP forced Clinton aides to testify before Congress in public and under oath. Now they want nothing less from Bush staffers. Republicans who demanded “accountability” from the Clinton Administration think the Bush Administration should be left alone to do whatever it wants.

Bottom line: it’s all about power – getting it and keeping it. When truth and consistency get in the way of power, these principles will be ignored by both parties. That is the one thing they all agree on.

Eyes For Newt

I have to admit a certain fondness for Newt Gingrich. No one is better at expounding conservative ideas and their historical background in ways that the average person can understand. I like watching him on talk shows.

On the other hand, Newt's personal life is far from consistent with the ideals he expresses so eloquently. Here is a nice summary from Wikipedia.

In 1962, Gingrich married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old; she was seven years his senior at 26 years old.^[4] They had two daughters together.

Anne Manning - who was also married - had an affair with Gingrich in 1977. Manning stated in a 1995 Vanity Fair article: "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say: 'I never slept with her.'"^[5]

Gingrich divorced Jackie Battley in 1980. Battley has charged that Gingrich discussed the terms of their divorce settlement while she was in the hospital after cancer surgery.^[6] He refused to pay alimony or child support.^[7]

Gingrich married Marianne Ginther in late 1981.^[8] Marianne was quoted in a 1995 article in Vanity Fair as saying: "I don't want him to be president and I don't think he should be."^[9] They divorced in 1999, the same year Gingrich had another extramarital affair with a then 33-year old member of his Congressional staff, Callista Bisek. He refused to discuss the affair until he admitted it in March, 2007.^[10]

In August 2000, Gingrich married Bisek. Gingrich resides in Virginia with Bisek, who appears with him on the back cover of his book "Winning the Future".^[11]

It is interesting that Newt was apparently using the oral-sex-isn't-really-sex argument long before Clinton in trouble for the same thing. So however correct he may be about many things, Newt isn't someone I would trust with a lot of power. Men who can't even keep wedding vows often find it easy to break promises to those who elect them.

This being the case, I was distressed today to hear that Gingrich admitted his infidelity in an interview with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. This comes coincidentally (or not) with an invitation from Jerry Falwell for Gingrich to deliver a commencement address at Liberty University.

It looks to me like something is going on behind the scenes. It's no secret that the religious right doesn't yet have a good candidate for the 2008 presidential election. It is also no secret that Gingrich would like to be president. Most political pundits think he fully intends to run but is waiting until later this year to formally enter the race.

Was the Dobson interview and Falwell invitation a coordinated attempt to anoint Newt Gingrich as "their" guy in 2008? It sure looks that way. Knowing that the affair would come out eventually, Gingrich wanted to admit it now, on his own terms. Dobson provided the forum for him to do it.

If this is what is happening, I'm very disappointed in Dobson and Falwell. They should know better. In 1998 we were told, in regard to Clinton, that "character counts" and he should be removed from office. I agreed then and still do. But if character is so important, we can't excuse it when "our" guy is the one with skeletons in the closet.

Hillary Smackdown

One of my greatest fears is the thought that Hillary Clinton could once again take up residence in the White House. Not too long ago there appeared to be a good chance she could make it. She may yet, but last week Barack Obama took her down a notch.

I will summarize in case you missed the news. Hollywood mogul David Geffen, who was a solid supporter of Bill Clinton, recently joined the Obama camp. Hillary let her displeasure be known through intermediaries. Geffen fired back with some biting comments about both Clintons to a New York Times gossip columnist. Instead of laughing off the story and letting it die, the Hillary camp allowed it to blow up into a major story. Why? Peggy Noonan has a theory.

Mrs. Clinton has never gone after a fellow Democrat quite the way she's going after Mr. Obama, and it's an indication of how threatened she is not only by his candidacy but, one suspects, his freshness. He makes her look like yesterday. He makes her look like the old slash-and-burn. I doubted he could do her serious damage. Now I wonder. MORE

Bill Kristol also has an interesting column about this. The race has a long way to go and Hillary is by no means out of it. Nor is Obama a shoo-in for the nomination. Kristol talks about a scenario where Clinton and Obama destroy each other and Al Gore swoops in to pick up the pieces. It could happen.

Meanwhile today's New York Times has a story about how none of the Republican candidates are proving very attractive to Christian Right leaders. I can easily believe it - none of them are very attractive to me, either. Any of them are probably preferable to Hillary.

Billary Clinton

Sorry to ruin your day but this is too good not to share...

Pro-Life or Pro-Me?

Steve Chapman has an excellent column today about politicians conveniently changing positions on abortion when it fits their needs. He focuses first on Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who was strongly pro-choice as recently as 1994, when he ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy. His position on life issues, and actions as governor, became more conservative just about the time he began attempting to court conservative GOP primary voters. Coincidence? You decide. Romney is in good company:

It's a little unfair to single out the Massachusetts governor, since he is not the first presidential candidate to outgrow a youthful set of abortion beliefs. Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law in California before reversing himself. George H.W. Bush, once a supporter of abortion rights, took the opposite position as Reagan's running mate in 1980. The current president had a liberal position when he ran for Congress in 1978.

But Democrats have proven equally open-minded. Jesse Jackson, who once denounced legal abortion as "a policy of killing infants," morphed when he ran for president in 1984. Al Gore, who once voted for a measure stipulating that life begins at conception, made an about-face before becoming Bill Clinton's running mate in 1992. As governor of Arkansas, Clinton said, "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortion." As president, not so much.

You will notice the common element: Each of these shifts, however morally sincere, perfectly fit the political needs of the candidate in question at that point in his career.

Does that make you feel you can't trust politicians on this subject? It shouldn't. The record shows clearly that you can trust almost any politician to champion the abortion policy that serves his or her immediate interests, and to sincerely place his own political prospects above anything else.

Clinton Population Initiative

Our former president apparently did his part to replenish the earth. Consider this class photo from a DC-area school, six years after Clinton left office.