Does Obama lack it? I could never find anyone who could explain to me why his “race speech” was so courageous, though it was acclaimed as such in the media.

As one commenter notes, he’s no Ward Connerly.

Kimberly Strassell writes that Snipergate is a proxy for all of Hillary!’s lies and crimes that the press refused to cover properly in the 90s:

The real beauty of Mrs. Clinton’s Tuzla torture is that it’s self-inflicted. Up to now, Team Clinton had done a surreal job of keeping the scandal genie in its bottle. Think about it: Most of 1990s politics was defined by the Clinton White House, which in turn was defined by the Clintons’ endless ethical firestorms. The American public remembers this, one reason why a majority consistently says in polls that Mrs. Clinton is “untrustworthy.” And yet even as the former First Lady has lobbed ethical accusations at Mr. Obama — slamming him for “plagiarizing” speeches, hitting him for his relationship with “slum landlord” Tony Rezko or the Reverend Jeremiah Wright — her own past has remained a no-go zone for most of the press and for her rival.

This is hangover from the remarkable job the Clintons did in painting themselves as the victims of the so-called “right-wing attack machine.” They, and their devotees, have carried that victim mentality into the present, and have made clear that anyone who revives the issues of billing records or cattle futures is little more than the second coming of Ken Starr. They’ve done such a remarkable job of portraying any investigation into their undeniable shenanigans as a “partisan” venture that even the press has looked away and whistled.

I think that as time goes on, and we get more distance from it, the Clinton administration is going to look an awful lot like the Harding administration, in more than one way.

[Update a few minutes later]

Peggy Noonan, Strassell’s Journal colleague, has further thoughts:

I think we’ve reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don’t. There’s no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don’t. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don’t, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: “Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.”

Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, “I get it.”

Well, some of us have gotten it for a long time. Glad to see that at least some of the country is finally coming to its senses.

Some thoughts:

It’s often overlooked — thanks in large part to the Clinton “legacy” — that such misbehavior is almost always accompanied by corruption in other spheres. Insistence by Clinton’s defenders that his various lady troubles were “personal matters” succeeded in obscuring the moral connection between Big Bill’s follies and the endless bribes, kickbacks, suicides, illegal mass firings, and vanishing files that made the “most ethical administration in history” so entertaining to watch.

So it needs restating as a simple truth that a man who cannot control his sexual impulses is unlikely to succeed in more complex matters. In little over a year, Spitzer threw away the goodwill engendered by his landslide victory through a series of petty conspiracies and dirty tricks, bringing New York state government to a standstill in the process. While McGreevey was a better governor than he’s ever likely to get credit for (he solved the longstanding auto-insurance “crisis” that made New Jersey a laughingstock for half a dozen previous administrations), his penchant for putting his muscle boys on the state payroll undercuts any other claims for his record. The same can be said for Paterson. Though, being both blind and black, he may likely survive, revelations concerning his practice of awarding jobs and positions don’t bode well for the future.

These men are clearly representative of the post-Clinton Democratic Party. They set out to follow in Bill’s footsteps, have ended up much the same as he did, and have dragged their party and political doctrine along with them. (At this point somebody will bring up the names Foley and Craig. But neither stood anywhere near the center of American conservatism in the way that the Northeastern governors do with liberalism as a matter of course. Foley and Craig were rotten apples. With the Democrats, it’s the whole barrel.)

That’s sure the way it seems lately. And it’s taking its toll on the superdelegates.

Some thoughts:

It’s often overlooked — thanks in large part to the Clinton “legacy” — that such misbehavior is almost always accompanied by corruption in other spheres. Insistence by Clinton’s defenders that his various lady troubles were “personal matters” succeeded in obscuring the moral connection between Big Bill’s follies and the endless bribes, kickbacks, suicides, illegal mass firings, and vanishing files that made the “most ethical administration in history” so entertaining to watch.

So it needs restating as a simple truth that a man who cannot control his sexual impulses is unlikely to succeed in more complex matters. In little over a year, Spitzer threw away the goodwill engendered by his landslide victory through a series of petty conspiracies and dirty tricks, bringing New York state government to a standstill in the process. While McGreevey was a better governor than he’s ever likely to get credit for (he solved the longstanding auto-insurance “crisis” that made New Jersey a laughingstock for half a dozen previous administrations), his penchant for putting his muscle boys on the state payroll undercuts any other claims for his record. The same can be said for Paterson. Though, being both blind and black, he may likely survive, revelations concerning his practice of awarding jobs and positions don’t bode well for the future.

These men are clearly representative of the post-Clinton Democratic Party. They set out to follow in Bill’s footsteps, have ended up much the same as he did, and have dragged their party and political doctrine along with them. (At this point somebody will bring up the names Foley and Craig. But neither stood anywhere near the center of American conservatism in the way that the Northeastern governors do with liberalism as a matter of course. Foley and Craig were rotten apples. With the Democrats, it’s the whole barrel.)

That’s sure the way it seems lately. And it’s taking its toll on the superdelegates.

Some thoughts:

It’s often overlooked — thanks in large part to the Clinton “legacy” — that such misbehavior is almost always accompanied by corruption in other spheres. Insistence by Clinton’s defenders that his various lady troubles were “personal matters” succeeded in obscuring the moral connection between Big Bill’s follies and the endless bribes, kickbacks, suicides, illegal mass firings, and vanishing files that made the “most ethical administration in history” so entertaining to watch.

So it needs restating as a simple truth that a man who cannot control his sexual impulses is unlikely to succeed in more complex matters. In little over a year, Spitzer threw away the goodwill engendered by his landslide victory through a series of petty conspiracies and dirty tricks, bringing New York state government to a standstill in the process. While McGreevey was a better governor than he’s ever likely to get credit for (he solved the longstanding auto-insurance “crisis” that made New Jersey a laughingstock for half a dozen previous administrations), his penchant for putting his muscle boys on the state payroll undercuts any other claims for his record. The same can be said for Paterson. Though, being both blind and black, he may likely survive, revelations concerning his practice of awarding jobs and positions don’t bode well for the future.

These men are clearly representative of the post-Clinton Democratic Party. They set out to follow in Bill’s footsteps, have ended up much the same as he did, and have dragged their party and political doctrine along with them. (At this point somebody will bring up the names Foley and Craig. But neither stood anywhere near the center of American conservatism in the way that the Northeastern governors do with liberalism as a matter of course. Foley and Craig were rotten apples. With the Democrats, it’s the whole barrel.)

That’s sure the way it seems lately. And it’s taking its toll on the superdelegates.

OK, so Hillary dissed the military when she lied about being shot at. I’m sure that it was just a slip of the tongue–surely she didn’t mean to.

Well, actually, since she’s running for president, I am sure that she didn’t mean to. But it’s indicative of her cluelessness about the armed forces over which she viciously ambits to become Commander-In-Chief. When he came into office, her husband was similarly clueless. It took him a long time to learn to salute properly, and he never really got it down (though it should be noted that there is no requirement that the President salute to the troops–that was a tradition started by Ronald Reagan, and one that both Clintons no doubt wish that he hadn’t). But this goes beyond simply basic lack of understanding of how the military works. Underlying it is a contempt for the military, and authority itself, other than their own.

Consider this passage from Unlimited Access:

Another close source, this one in the Secret Service, told me that she had ordered her Secret Service protective detail to “stay the f–k away from me!” and to keep at least ten yards of distance between her and them at all times.

The Secret Service agent told me that it was much harder to protect her from a distance of ten yards, and she was told this, but she didn’t seem to care what the Secret Service said. He also told me that she had a clear dislike for the agents, bordering on hatred, in his opinion.

Along those same lines, another source told me that two Secret Service agents heard Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, refer to them as “personal trained pigs” to some of her friends. When the friends were gone, the senior agent tried to scold Chelsea for such disrespect. He told her that he was willing to put his life on the line to save hers, and he believed that her father, the president, would be shocked if he heard what she had just said to her friends. Her response?

“I don’t think so. That’s what my parents call you.”

As is noted there, if true (and frankly, I certainly have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve it in light of their general history*), it makes sense, because Bill and Hillary were sixties campus radicals, and did indeed come from a culture that considered law enforcement officials “pigs.”

And we know, going all the way back to the first Clinton campaign that, no matter how he chose to spin it at the time or now, his letters about his draft deferment indicate that he did indeed “loathe” the military. There’s no reason to think that Hillary felt differently, then or now. And when you loathe something, you’re unlikely to invest much time in learning about it, or becoming familiar with it. The military culture is completely alien to this woman, and this incident is just one more bit of evidence for that.

And beyond that, even for someone unfamiliar with the military, it would seem obvious that when you tell a tale of running under fire on an air base where the people are dedicated to providing for your safety, that doesn’t reflect well on their performance. Obvious to anyone but Hillary Clinton. And she probably thought that showing her bravery under fire would be politically advantageous someone who probably knows nothing about the military other than action movies (many of which depict American troops as depraved) by her Hollywood pals.

But insulting the troops? Telling blatant and repeated lies? What does it matter, as long as she gets back into the White House? The hilarious thing is that it has blown back so badly on her.

The most brilliant woman in the world.

Right.

*Yes, before the trolls drop by and tell me that Aldridge’s book has been thoroughly discredited because of the story about Bill Clinton being sneaked out for trysts through a White House tunnel, I give that argument about as much weight as that OJ was innocent because Mark Furhman made some racist remarks–you don’t throw out an entire body of evidence because some of it has proven to be suspect.

And, of course, for those who are going to argue that I’m being unfair in ignoring Pastor Wright’s good works in condemning his lunatic remarks, I’ll just say that the two situations are not in any useful way equivalent, and if you’re too dim to understand why, I’m not going to waste time attempting to explain it to you.