Scott McClellan's everyone but Mea Culpa

I realize that essentially there is nothing new in Scott Mclleland's new book and that it will probably end up as a footnote to the eventual histories of the Bush/Cheney years. From everything I've gleaned about the book, from news reports, it's all been said before. We know about the selling of the war from frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold and much else about the administration's "war on Terror" from among others Richard A. Clarke's Against All Enemies. I have a shelf of books on the inadequacies and the impeachable offenses of the Bush/Cheney administration.

But I've been thinking about whether Scott McClellan needs to go into the witness protection program. After all, as my favorite political columnist Mike Lupica says,

You are inclined to say that Scott McClellan is like the first one out of The Bada Bing Club, scurrying into the light and looking for redemption, except that it has become clear by now that even the hoods from "The Sopranos" would be out of their weight class with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

And you know what the mob does with turncoats. So we should probably protect McClellan before the Bush, Cheney, Rove mob gets to him. Don't forget the war crimes indictments have not come down yet.

Well anyway when you finish reading Mike Lupica's excellent take on the Bush mob, here's the first part of Keith Olbermenn's interview with McClellan:

More thoughts on Hillary's unfortunate comment

From Andrew re: Thoughts on Hillary Clinton's assassination remark

I agree that the technicalities of Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy's campaigns argue against Hillary's claim, Keith Olbermann's diatribe seemed overboard. He claimed one word, though tragic, is a word that implies she is waiting for someone to assassinate this black guy. That is blatantly not true, or at least I hope it is not. She seems to really only be attempting to invoke the only democratic party's campaigns that lasted until June. The fact that one of those is one of the most tragic moments in our nation's history is not something that can be held against Hillary. She could not have said assassination, but it is a fact that Bobby was assassinated. Words are words, Bobby Kennedy was on his way to being one our country's most inspiring leaders before he was assassinated or killed or his campaign "ended"...She was trying to make a point. A thin and wishful point, but a point using facts nonetheless. To say she is invoking tragedy...is taking it a bit too far...Olbermann invoked more tragedy by going on in his report than she did.

From Dan:

Of course Olbermann's "comment" is over the top. That's Keith Olbermann. But I think much of what he has to say is worthwhile.

I don't pretend to know what's in Hillary Clinton's heart of hearts, but I do believe that as you said "words are words" and using the word "assassination" was a stupid mistake and people have to take responsibility for what they say, tired or not tired, mistake or intentional. Words once spoken have consequences. Remember that Clinton commercial about the mythical 3AM phone call? I think that we need a president who won't misuse words when it counts.

Thoughts on Hillary Clinton's assassination remark

It is extremely difficult, not to say scary as hell, to attribute to any politician - no matter what the stakes - what seems on its face to be the import of Sen. Clinton's remark on Bobby Kennedy's assassination. So one wants to take her barely-there apology as the truth. On the other hand she may simply have lost it and be displaying more of what New York Gov. David Patterson called her desperation. I simply don't know. Mark Shields pointed out on the PBS News Hour that in addition to the inappropriateness of her assassination comment her history is flawed:

I mean, her history is absolutely faulty. Robert Kennedy's first primary,...was in May 7th of 1968. He was murdered four weeks later. She's talking about a long campaign.

This campaign began the first week in January. She's still talking about June. So, I mean, it's faulty there.

And others have pointed out that Bill Clinton may not have actually gone over the top until June, but he solidified the victory in March. The senator seems to say whatever she thinks works at any given moment.


Here are her original comments defending her staying in the race.


Here's Keith Olbermann's take on the controversy.

Clinton rattles her sabers at Iran

It may, at this point be beating a dead horse. The Clinton campaign may be history, but I still think it's important to check out this Keith Olbermann interview with Hillary Clinton, particularly the section on "obliterating" Iran. After all how much different is Clinton's attitude toward Iran from Bush's "axis of evil"? And we know how far that has gotten us. Do you really want someone who echoes the politics of Conn's Sen. Joseph Lieberman answering that mythical 3AM phone call? Someone who has already been rattling her sabers at countries who are only an enemy in her (and McSame/Lieberman's) mind. Also remember this was all said just before the Pennsylvania primary. Was it primarily (no pun intended, well maybe) intended to influence the Jewish vote?


(For more on Clinton and Iran, see Robert Weitzel "Hillary Clinton's 'final solution' to the Persian Problem")

Media buoys Clinton chances

I think this brief discussion on the Democratic race, which took place before the results of yesterday's Pennsylvania primary were known, highlights the negative role the media has played. It's between Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Although they don't actually say it, I think that the media has played this role because they need a good story to get ratings, they really don't care about democracy. (video first posted on YouTube)