"I know that we're very close to an election," Clinton told CNN. "I want to just take a step back here and say from my own experience, we are at our best as Americans when we pull together. I've done that with Democratic presidents and Republican presidents."

You see, here's the difference between real, serious leadership and pretend leadership right here: The Obama Administration, including the State Department has trying to manage the situation in Libya, and the GOP leadership is trying to politically exploit the situation in Libya.

You see, beating Obama is the top priority for them, so instead of letting the investigations continue, or coming up with real solutions to deal with consulate security, they pounce on every perceived political advantage. It's beyond shameful, and there weren't a hundred other reasons not to trust them with power, this would be reason enough.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that mistakes weren't made, and people shouldn't be held accountable, but it's clear to me that the primary motivation of the Republicans here is to shift all blame to the President, as to help Mitt Romney. Like I said, shameful.

A Real Scandal Behind The 2007 "Race Video?"

The right (namely Fox and the Daily Caller) has been making all kinds of fuss over the 2007 speech then-Senator Obama gave at Hampton University, with Rev. Wright in the audience, in which he supposedly engages is dirty racial politics. This was interpreted by the Right as proof of his racial animus and radicalism, and the media's refusal to hold him accountable. Most of the nonsense behind this has been shot down, although there is one substantive issue in the tape, brought up by Thomas Sowell (HT: Althouse)

Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.

As to this alleged hypocrisy of his vote, Sowell's leaving facts out: Senator Obama voted against the final bill, but supported an earlier version which included an Iraq withdrawal timetable. FWIW, I would've voted for the final bill, because I opposed a timetable for withdrawal, and I also find it bad form to vote against something that important, even without a timetable. I suspect, as with similar bills, Obama knew the bill would pass, and voted against it as a statement about the war. It's a typical politician move, but I can defend that.

The problem is, he knew the bill would pass, and that it did pass, so it appears that he was lying when he told the audience at Hampton that it didn't pass. I'm not really sure how you square it any other way. Now, as to the racial politics of this, I suspect Obama was making a larger point about frustration in the black community--and used the Stafford Act as evidence. Now, a great number of conservatives were convinced before this "revelation" that Obama is an evil race baiter, and will judge him as such no matter what. At best, he was making a legitimate point using untrue facts. At worst, it was a cynical and deceptive pander.

Deal-breaker? Hardly. Disappointing? Yeah. This is a typical politician move, and I can't really defend it. Not much else I can add. Even if I were to somehow abandon Obama over a few political lies, who would I turn to, Romney? The man who lies as a matter of course? The man whose entire campaign is based on panders, hype, personal attacks and bullshit? I think not.

"I blame John Kerry. I'll bet he was a terrible practice partner."

Yeah, maybe that's what went wrong. Needless to say, this debate has to go to Romney. On the substance, Obama was right on all the policy points, but he just let Romney launch attack after attack, distortion after distortion, and they all went unchallenged. The thing is, Romney didn't even come off angry or contemptuous-- he seemed confident, while the President looked mellow and passive. He had moments of stride, but he let too many arguments go unchallenged. Romney had personal anecdotes, and Obama really didn't. To use a football analogy, Obama never got to the quarterback, and posted a disappointing lack of offense.

Ideally, the fact the Obama told the truth and Romney lied repeatedly should count--but in a debate you have to press the issue, and the President didn't do the job. Methinks he might have been too focused on not making gaffes, so he played it safe. Maybe it was his lack of a real debate challenge prior to this. Either way, he needs to readjust, and bring the heat next time.

Not that this changes things as much as certain people think it will. Let's not panic.

"Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly."

You can say that again. 



Here's the thing Ann, The way I see it, they've never had perspective on these things. Obama hatred has clouded their judgment. Anyone who looks at that clip and thinks that this somehow hurts Obama in any significant way has lost perspective. Anyone who remains unburdened by the deluge of deceptions coming from Team Romney--about welfare, Medicare, taxes, redistribution, Obama's Israel policy, etc, has lost perspective. They lost perspective years ago. They never had perspective when it came to Obama. It's Obama Derangement, plain and simple.

"To present that as some sort of secret revelation of emotional problems is just wrong."

Yeah, you know it really sucks to have your words taken out of context like that. You know, to take out a single line from someone's remarks, ignore the context-providing comments attached to that line, and make it seem like you said something you didn't actually say. That really has to sting.



 For the record, I'm not defending CBS. It's wrong to do what they did as a matter of principle.

I'm Back...

I've been away awhile, but I'm back, and I'm really trying to keep up a consistent schedule, at least up until the election.

"An incumbent President running for reelection should not unleash his executive powers to hound his opponent with a criminal investigation. That is not preferable."

I agree with this:

An incumbent President running for reelection should not unleash his executive powers to hound his opponent with a criminal investigation. That is not preferable. There's no decent "put your money where your mouth is" argument for that. It's not his money, it's the authority of the United States government, and that must not be appropriated for political gain. Within the political arena, he can make whatever arguments he wants over any evidence that's out there about his opponent, and he incurs the risks that people will judge his arguments weak or even disgusting and dishonest. That's the process and it's working. Don't push the candidate into some other, abusive process!

Despite Glenn Kessler's fact-checking, I'm still not convinced this issue is settled, but the idea of the chief executive using the executive power to punish his opponents for the purposes his reelection is not a good look. The President has not considered such a move, and that is good.

"Who will defend these people, these truest heroes of modern freedom? That is the only question."

One of those people is liberal Muslim freedom fighter Irshad Manji, who was attacked by Islamists in Indonesia, for promoting reform within Islam. For all the talk about the "war on women," the idiotic base politics of foolish Republicans may be worthy of scorn, but let's put things in perspective, folks--actual fascists are waging a full-scale war on women, which is a part of a larger war on free thought. If you mad about a ban on contraception, but not about Irshad Manji being attacked with iron bars, then you're not serious... HT: Michael Totten