Jerry Zeifman reminisces about Watergate:

After President Nixon’s resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, “That came from Yale.” I said, “You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, “Yes.” His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

And now she stands a good chance of becoming the next president.

I never fail to be amazed at how blind people can be to the corruption of these people. Read the whole thing.

Michael Lynch:

…how does a man of proclaimed “principle”–a proclamation bolstered by those who know him best and by a 16-year voting record–go so wrong on such consequential issues? Skeptics heap scorn on the notion that McCain has any principles. “His principle is that he should codify any prejudice he happens to have,” scoffs Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute.

McCain’s friends, foes, and biography suggest a more complicated, but no less politically worrisome, explanation. For John McCain, principle is fundamentally about honor–personal honor: about keeping his word, about doing what is right and doing it well. “Principle” combines honesty, stubbornness, and loyalty. This notion of principle is very different from adhering to a consistent political philosophy. It explains McCain’s popular appeal, especially in contrast to the exceptionally dishonorable Clinton administration, but also accounts for the distrust, even contempt, he inspires among the ideologically committed.

As Virginia notes, it’s also worth reading Matt’s book.

And as Robert Bidinotto says, we don’t need another Teddy Roosevelt–another “liberal fascist.”

Jonah’s book has provided a useful new prism through which to view the world.

[Tuesday morning update]

Jonah says that “progressives” should be careful what they wish for, and understand their history a little better:

Today’s progressives still share many of the core assumptions of the progressives of yore. It may be gauche to talk about patriotism too much in liberal circles, but what is Barack Obama’s obsession with unity other than patriotism by another name? Indeed, he champions unity for its own sake, as a good in and of itself. But unity can be quite amoral. Mobs and gangs are dangerous because of their unblinking unity.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, often insists that we must move “beyond” ideology, labels, partisanship, etc. The sentiment is a direct echo of the Pragmatists who felt that dogma needed to be jettisoned to give social planners a free hand. Of course, then as now, the “beyond ideology” refrain is itself an ideological position favoring whatever state intervention social planners prefer.

A key point of the book, that many on the left miss, is that Hitler gave fascism a bad name. Up until all the racism and the genocide and the war mongering, they were all on board with the Nazi project. When mindless and ignorant leftists mistakenly call classical liberals “fascists,” they’re not calling them as bad a name as they seem to believe. Which is a good thing, because it is their own beliefs that are truly fascistic.

John McCain is no Ronald Reagan.

Someone once said that there are two political parties–the Evil Party (Dems), and the Stupid Party (GOP). Occasionally they will band together and do something both evil and stupid. This is called bi-partisanship.

And in many such instances, it goes by the name of “McCain-SomeDemocrat.” As Levin notes, there would have been no “Reagan-Feingold,” or “Reagan-Kennedy” bills on restricting free speech or abandoning the borders. And that is why, for many Republicans (or at least for many conservatives), they will need extra strength nose plugs to pull the lever for him this fall, if they can muster the will to do it at all.

[Update on Sunday night, during half time]

Bill Quick lays out the bill of particulars against John McCain.

My father, Professor Robert Dinkin, the presidential election historian thinks that Clinton will likely emerge the Democratic Party nominee due to her organization and ties to prominent Democratic Party leaders. This despite having recently voted for Obama in the Florida so-called–delegateless–primary. Here is where they stand as of your page load in trading for who will be nominee (security of winner pays $1) on Intrade:

Clinton:

Obama: