Profile in Courage









(meeting with Seniors for Hillary)

Last night during her televised debate with Obama, Hillary contrasted her "denouncement" of the Independent Party in NY with Obama's "rejection" of endorsement by Louis Farrakhan. TPM Cafe throws a light on that Great Moment in History -- The Clinton-Buchanan Clash of 2000 with this old report from the NYT:
The two candidates for United States Senate sought the endorsement of the fractious Independence Party here today, but Hillary Rodham Clinton used her speech to attack the group for what she said was the ''anti-Semitism, extremism, prejudice and intolerance of a few shrill voices on both the right and the left.''

Mrs. Clinton added that she welcomed the endorsement of the party, but said emphatically that she would not accept it if the party supported Patrick J. Buchanan for president. ''I cannot and will not as the price for any endorsement embrace or excuse those who use hateful rhetoric that separates and divides,'' she said. ''So let me be just very clear: I will not run on a line with Pat Buchanan on the top of the ticket.''

As TPM Cafe points out "It doesn't sound like denouncing and rejecting to me." And in any case, it doesn't take a lot guts to challenge "anti-Semites" (real or imaginary) in NY.

Steve Sailer puts all the Hillay-Obama debate over Farrakhan in an interesting context here. He raises an important issue: The problem with "Minister" Farrakhan is that he is a black racist and an anti-Semite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pundits who screw-up: No big deal...

Image
Matt Barganier desconstructs Andrew Sullivan's mea sorta culpa on Iraq in Time magazine (Sullivan seen above in a thoughtful pose on Bill Maher's "Real Time"). There have been many of those in recent weeks (including by WFB and Fukuyama ). In an commentary published last year, Oops! I helped start a War which was about one of the earlier apologizing-war-aplogists, I pointed out to the contrast between the way the losers who operate in the market (including financial analysts) are punished and the reality in which the losers in the political game (including foreign policy analysts) rarely get punished: Imagine: for a few years you were investing the money you had saved for your daughter's college education in one of those moderately conservative plans that provided some increase in the value of the investment without exposing it to major risks. But then your financial planner – let's call him Ken P. – got in touch with you and came up with a really great ide...
Read more

When will Israel attack Iran?

Image
I'm not an "Intelligence analyst" and I don't play one on television. But I urge you to study the following items: 1. Seymour Hersh new piece in The New Yorker, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" 2. Tony Karon's "Israel's Domestic Political Games Raises the Danger of a U.S.-Iran War." 3. Aluf Benn's "Olmert's Drums of War" in Haaretz . 4. Bush:I would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran. 5. Michael Oren's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on November 16 which is only accessible to subscribers. So here are a few interesting quotes: Much like 1967, Israel faces a Middle Eastern leader who has repeatedly sworn to wipe it off the map, and to that end is assiduously trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Nasser, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can cripple Israel economically by keeping it in a state of alert, driving away foreign investment and tourism. In the absence of interna...
Read more