In Her Own Words

Experience in action. Watch in amazement as Hillary Clinton specifically cites her experience as First Lady as confirming her view that Saddam Hussein has links with al-Qaeda and active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs (and no she didn't read the classified intelligence that might have cast some doubts on her Bush administration talking points) that we had to address through war:

I, for one, look forward to a general election campaign in which every time Clinton starts making a persuasive critique of the Bush-McCain approach to world affairs she winds up getting tagged as a flip-flopper. It's time to get our heads out of the sand and have a Democratic Party that can make a clean break from this nonsense.

Comments

Matt -- point taken. But has Obama impressed you with his treatment of the war issue? Hillary is right that her record in the Senate is identical to Obama's (post authorization, of course), which doesn't seem to jive with Obama-as-war-opponent. I don't think Obama has articulated a clear alternative to Kerry/Hillary flip-flopping (the "judgment" thing was a good start, but it hasn't gone anywhere in months and I'm sort of looking for something new). Combine that with the (admittedly untested) notion that Hillary will be much better than Kerry at combating the flip-flopping meme, and I don't think is completely clear who's better to take on McCain on the issue.

Posted by Ryan | March 4, 2008 1:16 PM

I put together a similar video which juxtaposes some of these comments with the Clinton 3am ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OyYDzWkPeQ

Posted by umbrelladoc | March 4, 2008 1:23 PM

Ryan— that characterization is unfair. Matt's been here before. Read this post http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/clinton_obama_iraq.php and click the link. Stop spreading disiniformation. It does not become you.

Posted by Gregorio | March 4, 2008 1:23 PM

Ryan:

Giving the President authorization to use military force against Iraq is a completely different issue from not voting to cut off funding in an attmept to force the President to withdraw troops from Iraq. Once we had invaded, there were no good options. The decision to invade was the crucial decision - Obama was on the right side and Clinton was on the wrong side.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 1:25 PM

Combine that with the (admittedly untested) notion that Hillary will be much better than Kerry at combating the flip-flopping meme

But why would she be better at it? Both Kerry and Clinton flipped for the war, but Kerry never really flopped against it until after he'd already lost the election. Clinton in this primary campaign really has flip-flopped away from her pro-war record. I don't think that's the greatest sin in the world -- I flip-flopped on this very issue myself -- but I'd rather have someone with the Obama record run this election than someone with the Clinton/Yglesias record.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 4, 2008 1:25 PM

Yeah, but it doesn't sound like that's what she's saying.

Sounds like she's saying her experience tells her to put the President in a strong position when dealing with these types of "challenges", not that her experience confirms Saddam's links to anyone.

Posted by Naveen | March 4, 2008 1:26 PM

Ryan - you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Obama's "judgment" stance is based on his claim that we would not have gone to war if he were the one making the decision on whether to go. Using his analogy, once the bus is in the ditch, questions of how he choose to get out of it is not relevant to whether he would have driven it in. There is no "flip-flopping" on his part. He said he would not have gone to war and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Eric | March 4, 2008 1:27 PM

Ryan - you fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Obama's "judgment" stance is based on his claim that we would not have gone to war if he were the one making the decision on whether to go. Using his analogy, once the bus is in the ditch, questions of how he chose to get out of it is not relevant to whether he would have driven it in. There is no "flip-flopping" on his part. He said he would not have gone to war and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Eric | March 4, 2008 1:29 PM

And speaking of making a break from nonsense, how about a democratic candidate who doesnt have to justify what he was doing during vietnam - and if you think Hillary is immune just because she's a woman, you're wrong. To quote myself,

"with Hillary as an opponent, [mccain] gets to be perhaps the last Presidential candidate who gets to ask his opponent, "Oh yeah? Well what did you do during Vietnam?" - because "I worked for the McGovern campaign" is, in the minds of a certain segment of the voting population, a lot more damning than "I was fourteen years old, grandpa.""

Posted by the mighty reason man | March 4, 2008 1:30 PM

Ryan: "Hillary is right that her record in the Senate is identical to Obama's (post authorization, of course), which doesn't seem to jive with Obama-as-war-opponent."

Well, once the bus is in the ditch, there are only so many ways to get it out. HRC's vote for war helped put the bus in the ditch.

If HRC hadn't voted for the war--if she had done as Obama and many other Democrats urged and voted against the war--the dreadful choices presented since would have been moot.

"don't think is completely clear who's better to take on McCain on the issue."

Bullshit. How about this: 60-70 percent of Americans HATE this war. Let's have a Presidential election where both candidates didn't support the war initially (Kerry, Bush, McCain, Clinton all acted Pro-Iraq-War no matter what their justifications say now). Obama's the only one who was saying not to vote for it and who called it a "dumb war."

He also can present a contrast to the whole crazy quicktrigger Republican-led "war first" policy that HRC enables (with votes on Iraq and Iran, specifically).

Posted by riffle | March 4, 2008 1:31 PM

And speaking of making a break from nonsense, how about a democratic candidate who doesnt have to justify what he was doing during vietnam - and if you think Hillary is immune just because she's a woman, you're wrong. To quote myself,

"with Hillary as an opponent, [mccain] gets to be perhaps the last Presidential candidate who gets to ask his opponent, "Oh yeah? Well what did you do during Vietnam?" - because "I worked for the McGovern campaign" is, in the minds of a certain segment of the voting population, a lot more damning than "I was fourteen years old, grandpa.""

Posted by the mighty reason man | March 4, 2008 1:31 PM

And speaking of making a break from nonsense, how about a democratic candidate who doesnt have to justify what he was doing during vietnam - and if you think Hillary is immune just because she's a woman, you're wrong. To quote myself,

"with Hillary as an opponent, [mccain] gets to be perhaps the last Presidential candidate who gets to ask his opponent, "Oh yeah? Well what did you do during Vietnam?" - because "I worked for the McGovern campaign" is, in the minds of a certain segment of the voting population, a lot more damning than "I was fourteen years old, grandpa.""

Posted by the mighty reason man | March 4, 2008 1:32 PM

"Both Kerry and Clinton flipped for the war, but Kerry never really flopped against it until after he'd already lost the election. Clinton in this primary campaign really has flip-flopped away from her pro-war record. I don't think that's the greatest sin in the world -- I flip-flopped on this very issue myself -- but I'd rather have someone with the Obama record run this election than someone with the Clinton/Yglesias record."

I'm not sure why you think Obama's flip/flopping to support funding the war and opposing timetables for withdrawal once he got into the Senate will give him an advantage here...

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 1:32 PM

Why I am for Barack Obama!

Posted by Jennifer | March 4, 2008 1:35 PM

oh hell, sorry about that. my scriptblocker doesnt like the atlantic, apparently.

Posted by the mighty reason man | March 4, 2008 1:36 PM

Probably not relevant, but I was against the war and supported Dean in the '04 primaries. I guess my point is that there was an *extremely clear* difference between Kerry and Dean in '04. It looks to me as if in this campaign, Obama started out hard against the war, then the more the media started spinning the surge a success, the more he backed away from *specific* criticism of the war and retreated to the more general notion of "judgment." This is absolutely fine, but I think it means that the differences between Obama and Clinton are a matter of degree and not kind. If I'm going to be honest with myself, I feel such a gut-level connection with Hillary that she probably could have advocated nuking the Middle East and I would have wondered, "maybe she's onto something here!" But nevertheless, I reject the idea that against McCain, Obama will be resolute whereas Hillary will have to flip-flop or hedge. I don't see Obama passionately defending an anti-war position; I think he's unfortunately like most other Dems and a little scared, frankly, of taking it too far.

Posted by Ryan | March 4, 2008 1:37 PM

Petey: "Obama's flip/flopping to support funding the war and opposing timetables for withdrawal once he got into the Senate will give him an advantage here..."

That's not a flipflop

Saying "Don't light the curtains on fire" and trying to prevent it does not mean that it's a flip flop to call the Fire Department when some idiot sets the house aflame.

Posted by riffle | March 4, 2008 1:38 PM

I'm not sure why you think Obama's flip/flopping to support funding the war and opposing timetables for withdrawal once he got into the Senate will give him an advantage here...

Probably because Yglesias's not an idiot, he can identify the "meaningful moment" points, and he knows that being against the war is a bigger, more salient point for the sake any argument than anything else. Must be the Harvard education. Or not being a congenital idiot. Whichever.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 4, 2008 1:39 PM

Of all the things in that video, the scariest is Clinton's preferring "national unity" over "making the right decision".

Posted by william | March 4, 2008 1:42 PM

"Probably because Yglesias's not an idiot"

I'm not so sure about that at the moment. Did you read what he wrote earlier today about low family income not being a serious impediment to college graduation for academically able kids?

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 1:43 PM

One of the rationales for HRC running in NY instead of Arkansas or Illinois was that the NY seat was a "quasi-national" office from which HRC could use her national profile to be a leader in the party and for issues and causes Democrats cared about. She wasn't a leader in the Senate. Never has been. Her entire Senate career has been about positioning herself for this race, and it's been cautious Clintonism from the AUMF vote to Kyl-Lieberman.

Obama has only really become a national figure since his Senate campaign took off. I'd've liked to see him do more, but the fact is his national profile wasn't near what Clinton's was until the last year.

Posted by Jim | March 4, 2008 1:44 PM

Or, to put it another way, you may vehemently diagree with the idea of having a child, but once you've fathered one, refusing to responsibly pay for proper care just makes you a schmuck.

Posted by Jon H | March 4, 2008 1:45 PM

Opposing timetables? You do realized that he proposed one over a year ago, right?

Posted by Tony | March 4, 2008 1:48 PM

"with Hillary as an opponent, [mccain] gets to be perhaps the last Presidential candidate who gets to ask his opponent, "Oh yeah? Well what did you do during Vietnam?" - because "I worked for the McGovern campaign" is, in the minds of a certain segment of the voting population, a lot more damning than "I was fourteen years old, grandpa.""

Except she wasn't supporting George McGovern!! She was actually supporting Nelson Rockefeller(according to a Matt Taibbi piece). And we all know she supported Goldwater in '64.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 4, 2008 1:48 PM

But has Obama impressed you with his treatment of the war issue?

Umm... yes.

Posted by shecky | March 4, 2008 1:49 PM

If Obama is the nominee he wins big. If Hillary is the nominee she loses to McCain. Obama's position is that the war is a terrible mistake and is the position of large majority of Americans (approx 65%). He can continuously beat down McCain with this and that is why independants and young people are behind him. Hillary's argument is that the war was necessary and it was fought incompetently. This is essentially Kerry's argument and he lost and it was painful to watch because he not fighting from the standpoint of the majority of Americans and overwhelming majority of Democrats. I do not want to go through this again but Hillary has the same idiots who ran Kerry's campaign doing the same thing over and over again. Idependants go for Obama in the general but if Hillary is the nominee, iedependants break for McCain.

Posted by Hot2na | March 4, 2008 1:52 PM

the bottom line is this:

> if HRC gets the nomination, her "experience" argument gets shattered to pieces against John McCain.

> the GOP base, still at this point fractured, will coalesce with the vigor and heat of a Nova star to defeat HRC. Just look at the massive sums of money that were raised for her opponent in the 2006 NY Senate race. People were fundraising against her in California.

> the GOP will just keep playing speech after speech, statement after statement, of HRC - in her own words - defending this war; and littering the airwaves with her hawkish statements made before the war became unpopular.

> and, if HRC gets the nomination, by then her tax returns will have (hopefully) been released, and that will open a can of worms the likes of which we can't even imagine at this point. Links to millions of dollars from Bill's Dubai dealings; claims that she has lost touch with the middle class since becoming a millionare, 20 - 40 times over, but tried to hide that fact from voters in the Dem primary, et cetera. Fact is, we don't know what's in those tax returns, but we do know that HRC doens't want us to find out until she is our nominee. That way, she can defend from the posture of The Clintons vs. the Right Wing Attack Machine, which is a script with which she's very familiar, but we (voters) will grow very tired of.

> her presidential schedules will also be released (hopefully) by then, and the GOP will have a field day highlighting the number of ceremonial events on her calendar (NOTE: in and of themselves not at all shameful, indeed one of the functions of a First Lady), but they will draw bitter contrast between the pomp and ceremony and the SPEECHES she made, vs. the claims to a co-presidency and deeply entrenched decision/policy maker which she's campaigning on now.

> And they'll bring up all the indicted or corrupt financers, bundlers, and scandalous people from her and Bill's past; not only since she became Senator but going back 20 years. And they'll do it in a nasty way.

But all of this, and more, HRC is prepared to defend (against a Republican) because she has the script. The fact is, the 3 most telling aspects of her campaign, in my view are this: the lack of attention given to her corrupt financers; the lack of attention given to her insistence on non-transparency regarding her tax returns; and the lack of interest in her First Lady schedules, which would actually show us what she did during those 8 years to justify her claims of experience.

All the skeletons will come out, she and Bill just think the Clintons can once again come out on top vs. the GOP. the problem is, I am sorry to say, Hillary is not Bill on the campaign trail, nor in debates.

Obams is far from perfect. He NEEDS to do a "till you drop" presser on Rezko. NOW. He didn't do anything wrong so he needs to take a page from McCain in this respect.

But we know what the GOP attack on him is going to be: Muslim; anti-Semetic; unpatriotic; corrupt (Rezko); inexperienced; naive; weak on national security.

I would take these lines of attack against BHO over the litany of vulnerabilities with HRC (including her sky high unfavorables) any day.

Too bad the voters of Ohio and TX are going to deal BHO a death blow tonight.

Posted by Enough | March 4, 2008 1:54 PM

Not to mention, HRC has no chance to win independents in any significant number. As McCain moves further to the right, I defy anyone to argue that HRC could take more Indy's than BHO in a general election.

Posted by Enough | March 4, 2008 1:57 PM

Not to mention, HRC has no chance to win independents in any significant number. As McCain moves further to the right, I defy anyone to argue that HRC could take more Indy's than BHO in a general election.

Wait for Petey to show up. He'll make an argument for any asinine proposition.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 2:00 PM

Too bad the voters of Ohio and TX are going to deal BHO a death blow tonight.

In order to deal BHO a death blow Hillary needs to win by +15 in Texas an Ohio. I don't think that will happen.

Posted by bjd | March 4, 2008 2:06 PM

"Wait for Petey to show up."

You might want to actually read the thread to see if Petey has already shown up before saying that, blah...

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 2:12 PM

THere will not be any death blow tonight from either side tonight. It will only swing a few delegates either way. If it goes Hillary's way she gets some momentum. If it goes BHO's way, he moves closer to the nomination. It all depends on how it gets spun.

Posted by hot2na | March 4, 2008 2:15 PM

"Except she wasn't supporting George McGovern!! She was actually supporting Nelson Rockefeller(according to a Matt Taibbi piece). And we all know she supported Goldwater in '64.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 4, 2008 1:48 PM"

Some people were making a point earlier that she worked for the McGovern campaign in Texas, but I have no idea if that's true. Then again, her switch from Republican to Democrat just opens her up to flip-flopper charges again. She can't really pull out the "I didn't leave the Republicans, the Republicans left me" charge against McMaverick (TM). The idea that we should nominate a rather centrist Democrat who at least half the nation believes is just to the right of Pol Pot is silly and is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 2:20 PM

Round about 2002, I saw State Sen. Obama (D-Hyde Park) stand up in Federal Plaza and cite his experience in not opposing all wars, just dumb wars waged for political gain.

If only he had been First Lady, he would have known better than to question the Republicans' inherent national security advantages. Doesn't Obama know that Dean Acheson lost China?

Posted by David B. | March 4, 2008 2:26 PM

bjd,

What I meant by "Too bad the voters of Ohio and TX are going to deal BHO a death blow tonight" is this:

BHO has ceded the spin war to Wolfson and Penn this entire campaign, in my opinion. Virtually every Clinton talking point has been reported as "fact" by the MSM: BHO is not experienced; HRC is vetted (not true if you consider the corrupt financers, tax returns and First Lady schedules); HRC is "tougher" than BHO (not true when considering that she has NEVER had a tough opponent in a primary where she was on the ballot by herself, without Bill); et cetera. Even the expectations game has been set according to Wolfson and Penn's agenda...as it is today when people will ask: "Why did Obama lose with all the $$$ he poured in..." Exactly no one will say: "Look at the gains he made in less than 2 weeks."

So what I mean by death blow is: she will take Ohio and Texas, and we'll hear nothing but "comeback kid" all the way to Pennsylvania. Add to that, HRC will try to kill BHO by 10,000 papercuts through innuendo regarding Rezko, the sum total of which will cause HRC to win Pennsylvania.

Voters don't care about delegate math; that's an insiders thing. Voters will be more swayed by "HRC won the 'big states,'...she won blue collar Dems." And this will, in turn, influence superdelegates. And this will be a death blow to BHO.

His people have to get back on message. And HRC's "I'm tougher than you" + negative campaigning is resonating with voters in blue collar America. Voters who don't pay attention like we do.

They go with what's familiar. All HRC needs to do is paint BHO with "reasonable doubt." If they can do that, why not go with the known commodity? that is her strategy.

Posted by Enough | March 4, 2008 2:29 PM

It sickens me that we're going to lose another general election to none other than St. John the Apostate.

Posted by Phil | March 4, 2008 2:34 PM

"Voters don't care about delegate math; that's an insiders thing. Voters will be more swayed by "HRC won the 'big states,'...she won blue collar Dems." And this will, in turn, influence superdelegates. And this will be a death blow to BHO."

Bingo.

She's got no margin for error, but if she wins where she needs to win, that's precisely how it's going to play out.

Obama is the favorite because he can stop her with a single win in a state she needs to win. But if he can't do that, as said, bingo.

(And don't forget the fact that Clinton has won a substantial popular vote majority among Democratic voters so far in 2008. That is going to be part of what allows her to become the nominee if she can win the states she needs to win.)

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 2:34 PM

Voters will be more swayed by "HRC won the 'big states,'...she won blue collar Dems." And this will, in turn, influence superdelegates. And this will be a death blow to BHO."

This explanation doesn't make much sense. The voters will have already voted, so how are they supposed to "influence superdelegates" in your explanation? No doubt individual superdelegates will be mindful of how their constituencies voted, but this doesn't necessarily favor Clinton in the superdelegate count.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 2:38 PM

And don't forget the fact that Clinton has won a substantial popular vote majority among Democratic voters so far in 2008.

Prove it.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 2:40 PM

Petey:
So what? The rules are the rules. The DNC in conjunctions with the states made those rules. Are you going to day those rules are no good now that Am whole lot of independents and Rethugs supposedly voted for Obama(because they registered the day of the primary as Dems, or whatever the deal was/is)? Obama was playing by the rules. Being a fellow Edwards supporter, I hope you don't get all crazy here.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 4, 2008 2:41 PM

The other person in America who REALLY wants Hillary to be the nominee is George W. Bush.

That way, both major candidates supported his disastrous war, and he will use it to try and prop up his legacy.

Yet one more reason to vote for Obama.

Posted by swarty | March 4, 2008 2:42 PM

blah, obviously Obama supporters will be impressed by Clinton's wins in places like California and unvote. Specifically, they will be so impressed they will build time machines to go back in time to kill themselves before voting for Obama, thus negating that time line and all of existence, thus ending the world before we can celebrate Bush leaving office. Damn Obama supporters!

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 2:44 PM

Just in case there are any doubts read this Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.

Posted by bjd | March 4, 2008 2:49 PM

"Being a fellow Edwards supporter, I hope you don't get all crazy here."

I respect Edwards supporters who went over to Obama.

Picking Edwards in 2007 was a no-brainer. Deciding between Clinton and Obama in February was more difficult.

But at the end of the day, I think the Democratic Party should nominate the choice of the popular majority of Democratic voters. And that's Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 2:50 PM

I hope the above is correct about Obama. The sooner he is soundly defeated the quicker we can unite behind Hillary Clinton for the general election.

Obama cannot win against McCain. That is becoming clearer with each passing day. His cult of personality is just disgusting and is a total turnoff to us real old time liberals. When we cannot call a man by his full given name without being accused of a thought crime then we are in a country liberals no longer recognize. We've seen cults of personality leaders elsewhere in the world and it has never come to any good. Many of us will not vote for Obama in November no matter what.

Posted by ken | March 4, 2008 2:51 PM

--And don't forget the fact that Clinton has won a substantial popular vote majority among Democratic voters so far in 2008.--

Good thing only Democrats vote in the general election.

Posted by bdevil02 | March 4, 2008 2:54 PM

the choice of the popular majority of Democratic voters. And that's Clinton.

Prove it.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 2:55 PM

His cult of personality is just disgusting and is a total turnoff to us real old time liberals.

If you find his campaign style "disgusting" to you as an "old time liberal," then it may be that the problem is with YOU. Seriously, it was old time liberals who flocked to Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, and it strikes me that "old time liberals" might want to reconsider their instincts. If you find a candidate who succeeds in developing a new group of new activists that hadn't been involved before, then the fact that you find this off-putting is probably a deficiency in your own political instincts, not Obama's.

It was when I realized that Obama's campaign was not about sucking up to me and about building a new liberal Democratic ruling coalition that I put my personal preferences for what campaign I wanted a politician to run aside in favor of supporting a politician who brought in the voters.

Posted by Tyro | March 4, 2008 2:58 PM

"Good thing only Democrats vote in the general election."

Everyone gets to vote in the general election. But Democrats get to pick the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 3:01 PM

But Democrats get to pick the Democratic nominee.

Except in the states where the Democratic Party decided to hold an open primary.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 3:03 PM

In light of HRC's war vote, and both the Clinton's love for presidential prerogative, I would wonder how the Clinton's would explain this from Jack Keane, co-author of the surge and Clinton advisor:

...he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq.

http://www.nysun.com/article/72209

The only thing we need to open our eyes to is that some candidates will say or do anything...forget those young souls losing their lives...to get elected.

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unity, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | March 4, 2008 3:06 PM

Just to be clear, I was saying that Obama's campaign was not about sucking up to me, but rather about building a a new liberal Democratic ruling coalition. And maybe I'm not the target demographic of the specific people he's turning into new voters and new Democrats, but so what? Voting and supporting a candidate isn't an exercise in self-actualization, it's an exercise in self-interest.

Posted by Tyro | March 4, 2008 3:09 PM

Except in the states where the Democratic Party decided to hold an open primary.

yeah but they don't count, because they'd never vote for a Democrat in the G.E., or something.

Posted by cleek | March 4, 2008 3:10 PM

I admit that I have a problem with someone who I cannot call by his full name without being accused by the rabble of a thought crime. I am, after all, a liberal and liberals don't take kindly to being told what they can and cannot think or say about someone. The folks who support what Obama is doing are not good Americans as far as I am concerned, let alone good liberals. I do not like them and I do not like their candidate. Many of us liberals feel this way. So if you force Obama down our throats many of us will vote for McCain. He is a known moderate to liberal republican so he is basically acceptable, especially when the alternative (Obama) is unthinkable.

Posted by ken | March 4, 2008 3:49 PM

"Voting and supporting a candidate isn't an exercise in self-actualization, it's an exercise in self-interest."

I'll agree with you on that, Tyro.

I'm not particularly fond of Senator Clinton. But I do think she'd do the most for the Democratic coalition.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 3:57 PM

Ken,

If by "liberal" you mean "Republican troll" than, yes, I agree with your post, 100 percent.

Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by Enough | March 4, 2008 4:07 PM

ken, I fail to see what your problem with Obama is. He is too charismatic? His supporters are too enthusiastic? Whould you like him better if he were boring and nobody was that emotionially invested in him?

As for using his full name, I think it's pretty obvious that the only problem with that is to the extent that it is used by his opponents in an attempt to scare low information voters into thinking he's a Muslim or what have you. That, you see, is race baiting. As an old time liberal, do you see a problem with race baiting?

If Jesse Jackson used his full name, I don't think it would be considered a problem. If Ann Coulter does it, it is. Th difference is all in what is motivating it.

Posted by Shochu John | March 4, 2008 4:08 PM

ken, the key to being a well-acted long-term troll is not tipping your hand so blatantly. You have to be just plausible enough that people will want to argue with you. You were doing ok with your first post but blew it completely with your reply.

Posted by Tyro | March 4, 2008 4:13 PM

Petey: "'Probably because Yglesias's not an idiot'
I'm not so sure about that at the moment."

Have to agree with Petey on that one - read Matt's last post on Iran where he said they have to "disarm" their "military weapons program".

One truly pathetically ignorant post. How anyone could put the word "disarm" in the same sentence with "Iran" just completely boggles the mind.

I suspect Matt can't even find Iran on a map, based on that statement.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 4, 2008 11:37 PM