Why Democrats lose

Our most reliable witness Bob Somerby explained. Go read his entire post, "WHY YOUR PARTY LOSES! We won’t take it, the GOP said. Dems and libs constantly do," to comprehend the situation. The gist:

Press corps inanity to the side, has the media greeted Palin’s selection with sexism and elite condescension? Yes, there has been some of each–and there has been some exaggeration of same by major Republican honchos. But in all the events of the past few days, the major difference between the two parties has been made abundantly clear. It’s captured in this Politico piece by John Harris (for the record, the headline is grossly deceptive). If you want to know why your party loses, consider the highlighted passage:

HARRIS (9/4/08): As the controversy over her qualifications and McCain’s vetting process overwhelmed events here, hypocritical rhetoric was flowing at full tide on all sides of the debate.

Many conservatives, who spent a generation ridiculing the politics of victimhood and group identity, are now zealously invoking both in the Twin Cities. A common GOP talking point here is that Palin’s gender and experiences as a mother should be counted as an asset among her qualifications. At the news conference, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift condemned “an outrageous smear campaign” against Palin, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said, “The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks.”

Let’s repeat what Fiorina said: “The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks.” Remove the limiting term there–“sexist.” Thus adjusted, Fiorina’s statement explains our electoral politics over the past twenty years.

The Republican Party will not stand by while its candidates get attacked. The Democratic Party, and its major affiliates, have done just that. For years.

Fast forward to Somerby's conclusion (after he exposed the Democratic non-response to 1999 smears that President Bill Clinton was a murderer):

Now! Go back and reread Fiorina’s statement, and consider the conduct of the past several days. If you still don’t understand why your party loses, then let’s face it–you never will.

By the way, what else transpired as these Dem/liberal elements kept their traps shut in August 1999? On Fox, a gang of male pundits went on the air and mocked the way Hillary Clinton looked back in the 1970s. (They had a photograph, and it looked very funny. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/6/08.) And of course, all across the political landscape, the RNC and the MSM kept inventing new, bogus tales about the vile Candidate Gore. The Democratic Party never said boo about those matters either. Neither did those liberal journals. Nor those liberal columnists.

How does your political world work? Here’s how:

Sally Quinn and Maureen Dowd played the fool about Palin–and the Republican Party fought back hard. They’ve played the fool about Big Dems for years–and the Democratic Party said nothing.

Yep! There was some sexism in the coverage of Palin–and the Republican Party fought back hard, exaggerating as it did. But then, during this same campaign, a major Democratic woman was gender-trashed from December 2006 on. Eighteen months later, Howard Dean explained why he didn’t speak up. I don’t watch that much cable, he said.

As recently as last evening, some of our fools continued to say that they feel “insulted” by Palin’s selection. If they had an ounce of sense, they’d instead feel insulted by Dean.

Insulted by Howard Dean? Yeah, he thinks we're dumb sweeties. Point taken.

What should have been a Democratic cakewalk into the WH this year now rests on convincing swing voters in the upcoming debates.

The best debater the Democrats had was Sen. Hillary Clinton. She could have beaten McCain handily during the debates and in November because no one--no one--articulates the Democratic brand with more strength and persuasive conviction than Clinton.

No matter how much Obama turns to Hillary and female surrogates "to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain," the problem is...

Hillary Clinton is not on the ticket.

Media and Republicans: BFF

Must-read column every Friday: Jamison Foser at MediaMatters.org.

Yesterday's column headline sums up the present state of media bias...

The media render the RNC obsolete

The media favor Republicans. What you need to know when you watch, listen, and read... The media favor Republicans.

A side note: Tony Snow, former Faux News anchor/Bush's WH press secretary, has joined CNN. Wolf Blitzer must get exhausted acting as a press agent for John McCain.

Image bias?

What is Reuters attempting to communicate with this photo series of the three presidential contenders?

REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

REUTERS/Tim Shaffer

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

What emotions? What attributes? Who's depicted least to most favorable? Thoughts?

Hillary leads in swing state polls

The results of the latest Quinnipiac University Poll (with emphasis):

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a 50 - 41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters and runs better against Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 53 - 41 percent lead in a March 18 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds.

• Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;

• Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;

• Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

The primary vote between Obama and Clinton splits sharply along racial lines, with her advantage coming from stronger support in every contest from white voters. For example, Clinton leads 59 - 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters, while Obama leads 73 - 11 percent among black Democrats.

"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."

More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage.

"Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown.

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

"Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate." Pennsylvania

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 - 37 percent with women, and ties Obama 46 - 46 percent with men. Obama leads 51 - 42 percent among voters under 45 years old, while Clinton leads 54 - 37 percent among voters over 45.

By a 48 - 42 percent margin, Pennsylvania registered voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Obama gets a 49 - 31 percent favorability and McCain gets 47 - 31 percent.

"Sen. Clinton's imaginary snipers, Rev. Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, these events have taken only a small toll on Sen. Clinton's lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Her strength is her clear advantage among white voters - blue collar whites, less educated whites, economically hurting whites, that group known famously as Reagan Democrats in the Keystone State. Obama is marshalling all his forces, but despite his eloquent dialogue on the race issue, Pennsylvania Democrats are unmoved. So Far."

The economy is the most important issue in their vote, 46 percent of voters say, followed by 23 percent who list the war in Iraq and 14 percent who cite health care.

Looking at the most important quality in a candidate, 30 percent want a strong leader and 26 percent want someone who is trustworthy.

Being black is an advantage for Obama, 32 percent say, while 15 percent say it's a disadvantage and 47 percent say it makes no difference.

Being a woman is an advantage for Clinton, 26 percent say, with 25 percent saying it's a disadvantage and 45 percent saying it makes no difference.

For further details, click the link to the full analysis.

The Hillary Clinton edition

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



Clinton and Scaife... Uh oh! Josh Marshall, Kos, and the Boy Blogz, who have contracted a terminal case of CDS, won't be happy. As eriposte warned, Hillary Clinton meeting with Richard Scaife could stimulate the "sound of several heads exploding" in the netroots Obamasphere.

See snips from The Left Coaster of an article by Scaife on "Hillary, reassessed." One comment from Scaife: "But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed. . . Call it a 'counterintuitive' impression." Now eriposte's closing, "Very troubling indeed. Sen. Clinton has this ugly and detestable habit of impressing people who get to know her well - especially independents and Republicans! The result? A powerful Republican and media magnate who hated the Clintons came dangerously close to endorsing her! We certainly can't have that! After all, according to The Clinton Rules and The Obama Rules it is only acceptable if Republicans endorse Sen. Obama - he who has courted them aggressively - in support of his campaign of hope, unity and change."

The Goddess will git you for that! Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women on McCain's veep pick: "I've seen a number of stories this week suggesting that Condi Rice wants to be John McCain's VP. If the old guard Democrats were to succeed at pushing the woman off the Democratic ticket only to face a Black woman on the Republican ticket, that would mean there really is a goddess and she really is pissed. And it would mean that Democrats might well be waiting another 50 years for their next 2-term president." Go read the rest from Egalia. Truth meter: 100%. M'yeah, the Goddess is pissed!

Destroying Hillary in the press. . .and: Susie Madrak shared notes from EschaCon that included Media Matter's Eric Boehlert, who said, "...it goes back to Gore’s press in 1999 which was 'really unfair and really weird.' What’s happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, 'gotcha,' and so on — there’s a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there’s a portion that has encouraged that." Ya think?!!!! No disrespect intended, but the Boy Blogz have smeared Hillary relentlessly and turned a blind eye to Barry's faults and exaggerations. And what about Hillary bloggers? Boehlert has been "interviewing Clinton bloggers for a book... how bloggers are affecting the 2008 presidential campaign, and was 'shocked' to hear again and again that people felt they could no longer speak freely in the blogosphere. . . bullied into silence." More.

Sexist attacks on Hillary hurts all women! Read and learn: "Why calling out misogyny matters" by zuzu at Feministe, a superb, in-depth post and worth your time. Intro graf: "I’ve gotten a lot of criticism lately whenever I do a post about the primary, and, specifically, about misogynistic language or sexist framing used to tear down Hillary Clinton. Invariably, someone accuses (and it’s always an accusation) me of being a Clinton shill, or grills me about why I don’t write a whole bunch of balancing posts about racist language and framing being used against Obama, or tries to dismiss what I have to say because Clinton did X, Y or Z that the commenter found offensive." Highly-recommended reading. (H/t Susie)

Hillary can seat MI and FL! Barry's BFF Donna Brazile is wrong and Clinton is right. "Clinton can actually gain a majority on [the Credentials Committee], and thus seat the existing Florida and Michigan delegations." Of course, it depends on Hillary winning enough delegates in the upcoming contests. Details at TalkLeft. I wonder if my blogger friend Bryan in Florida has heard about this? Best solution is a revote but Obama's opposition, DNC bias, and those pesky Republican state legislators... Still.

The dream ticket: Mentioned earlier in an update to "Hillary Clinton will go all the way," but worth repeating: The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan. I'm biased thinking that Hillary should top the tick' for many reasons, but bring it on!

Clinton fact checks Obama and the senator from Illinois has some explaining to do. Nine exaggerations ranging from taking "credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed" to "his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'" Why am I unsurprised?

A compilation of sources making the case for Hillary from admirals, generals, Ambassador Joe Wilson, Krugman on the economy, lowering taxes on the middle class, veterans, job creation, and more.

Who's the best candidate for fixing the economy? It's not wackydoodle "Let them eat cake" McCain or "cautious and relatively orthodox" Barry. C'mon, you know the answer. Hillary! If you watch the video at the link, notice how Donna Brazile repeats an Obama line about "crisis on main street." M'yeah, she's a DNC shill for Barry and a total disgrace for her cock-up involving the MI and FL primaries. But I digress. If you're worried about the economy, then Clinton is the best choice for prez. "[H]er policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive."

The McCain economy

Krugman, Monday, March 24:

[McCain's] chief economic adviser is former Senator Phil Gramm, a fervent advocate of financial deregulation. In fact, I’d argue that aside from Alan Greenspan, nobody did as much as Mr. Gramm to make this crisis possible.

Krugman, Saturday, March 29:

Seriously, the Gramm connection tells you all you need to know about where a McCain administration would stand on financial issues: squarely against any significant reform.

When Republicans talk about free markets and how good deregulation is for competition, just remember, it's a scam.

McCain. Bush III. Fleecing the middle class. Economic doom.

Go read Krugman, March 24, for why Clinton and Obama must address "the need to reform our out-of-control financial system." Troubling how "the securities and investment industry is pouring money into both Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s coffers."

Did Obama read Krugman's Monday column? He expressed similar points in his Thursday speech. Slick recovery to blunt criticism, eh? Or maybe a coincidenk. M'yeah.

Clinton vs. Obama on national security

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson:

Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton’s historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon’s feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.

Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush’s war into Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.

Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama’s public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.

Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of "fear." One of Obama’s fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn’t about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.

See The Daily Howler on the racially-concocted dumb-assery of Patterson. Pro-Obama fans, surrogates, and Villagers have screamed race/race/race so often that the accumulated expulsions require a dumpster-sized pooper scooper. The Clintons have played the race card! Oh, puh-leeze, spare me. Think about it: "[I]ndulging in racial politics would be a sure-fire way for the Clinton campaign to shatter its own coalition," a tactic that defies logic, that would invite political suicide. For someone who allegedly "would do anything to win," the accusation makes zero sense.

What does make sense, what matters in a national security battle with John McCain for the White House:

There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain -- the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient -- several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?

The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.

I'm confident in the intelligence of Obama, that with more experience and demonstrable leadership, he can answer the call. But not yet. Not in 2009, when so many challenges--both economic and foreign crises--will remain in limbo or compounded until the current Incompetent vacates the Oval Office. But Hillary Clinton can answer those 3 a.m. calls. And she will in marked contrast to the disastrous Bush policies that a McCain presidency would continue.

As Wilson said, "She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so." With "two wars and a global economic crisis," now is not the time to test someone unseasoned.

(H/t Lambert)

The late, late edition

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



Oh, my Goddess! Townhall hosted an loony professor's anti-feminist rant about what appears to be his deep-seeded fear of castration. His obsession? Feminists' objections to the word, "mankind." My personal opinion: How dumb is he to write a derisive column when he's been "named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging first amendment retaliation"? This guy is a professor?! Wow.

At Hoyden About Town, tigtog wrote about women keeping their maiden names when they marry. She cited a thesis by Lisa Cuprio, who, seemingly confused by discombobulated brain synapses, failed to see the feminism link in the trend. Crikey.

Oxymorons -- The principled, honest House Republicans and their machinations on the FISA bill by Glenn Greenwald.

Debate hate -- Clinton and Obama agreed to debate in PA and NC. But the groaning and loathing over yet more debates perked up at one of the Boy Blogz. As Lambert noted, "Mistah Kurtz, he whine." After scanning the comments at Greg Sargent's "no-rest-for-the-weary-of-debates department," two words for TPM whiners: Don't watch.

Merchant of death -- That's how Paul Krugman described the core competency of the Carlyle Group. However, since the corp plunged into investment banking as Carlyle Capital, "...the bond fund affiliated with private equity firm The Carlyle Group, is on the verge of collapse after failing to agree a new financing deal with lenders... The fund said late Wednesday that it expects lenders will soon take possession of 'substantially all' its remaining assets after it was unable to meet surging margin calls on its portfolio of residential-mortgage-backed securities." Details.

The cobra hand motion: You're fired! John Gibson's Faux News show gets the boot. Logan Murphy can escort you through Gibson's "memory lane of shame."

GOP media mogul impact -- "Republican billionaires set about buying up our entire mass media. They succeeded. The result has been catastrophic for America, creating people like these, who bask self-righteously in their own gross ignorance and narrow-minded bigotry," said Howie Klein. Now we have to contend with McCain myth-making and revisionist history. Go read Howie and then roll up your sleeves, bloggers. Lots of work ahead.

Liberal media's reading habits from Atrios: What's the No. 1 blog they read? Sully's Daily Dish. Ugh, no wonder. View the whole list and media definitions at the No. 7 blog, Eschaton (No. 10 for media elites).

The Daily Howler -- Bob Somerby weighs in on Tweety (the "cosmic fraud"), the Geraldine Ferraro kerfuffle, Barack Obama, and Keith Olbermann with his incomparable fair-minded and eye-opening style. From my POV: Yes, Obama is a "brilliant person" and I personally don't think he is a "bad" candidate. He's just not my preferred candidate nor was he my second or third choice when the campaign kicked off. I nod in agreement with Somerby's assessment: "[O]n balance, we don’t think it’s a great idea to nominate someone so new." And finally, speaking of the Clinton-Obama race, Somerby articulated the Democratic nomination dilemma, "It’s a shame that one has to lose."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright can espouse whatever beliefs and opinions he wishes according to his First Amendment rights. Our dubious press corps, however, associated Obama with Wright's controversial 9/11 statements by using selective, sleight-of-hand reporting, neglecting to mention Obama's disavowal. Those rascals! But wait a minute... There's just one teensy-weensy problem: "Wright is a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee." Uh-oh. Any news on Wright's resignation from the Obama campaign? CNN has been running and re-running the video of Rev. Wright's tirade. Can't you see it used in a McCain October attack ad? Advice to Obama: Jump on this ASAP.

Now for a non-political, personal message -- Wishing you the best, Twisty.

UPDATE: At this time, Clinton has yet to agree to the CBS debate April 19 in NC.

UPDATE II: Rev. Wright's controversial video.

Late night election edition

Sen. Hillary Clinton wins big in the Democratic primaries: Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama wins Vermont. Republican John McCain clinched the GOP nomination. The numbers via CNN:

OHIO -- 92% of precincts reporting
Clinton 55%, 1,112,204 votes, 62 delegates
Obama 43%, 867,072 votes, 46 delegates
McCain 60%, 602,380 votes, 79 delegates
Huckabee, 31%, 313,060 votes, 0 delegates
Paul 5%, 46,481 votes, 0 delegates

RHODE ISLAND -- 98% of Democratic & Republican precincts reporting
Clinton 58%, 106,471 votes, 12 delegates
Obama 40%, 73,609 votes, 8 delegates
Uncommitted 1%, 1,012 votes, 0 delegates
McCain 65%, 17,342 votes, 13 delegates
Huckabee 22%, 5,766 votes, 0 delegates
Paul 7%, 1,761 votes, 0 delegates
Uncommitted 2%, 565 votes, 0 delegates

TEXAS -- 90% of Democratic precincts reporting
Clinton 51%, 1,364,045 votes, 16 delegates
Obama 47%, 1,262,137 votes, 10 delegates

TEXAS -- 93% of Republican precincts reporting
McCain 51%, 681,405 votes, 70 delegates
Huckabee 38%, 500,451 votes, 0 delegates
Paul, 5%, 67,293 votes, 0 delegates
Uncommitted 1%, 16,952 votes, 0 delegates

TEXAS Democratic caucuses -- 34% of precincts reporting
Obama 55%, 19,197 votes, 0 delegates
Clinton 45%, 15,480 votes, 0 delegates
Uncommitted 0% 32 votes, 0 delegates

VERMONT -- 86% of precincts reporting
Obama 60%, 82,498 votes, 9 delegates
Clinton 38%, 52,839 votess, 6 delegates
McCain 72%, 25,070 votes, 17 delegates
Huckabee 14%, 4,867 votes, 0 delegates
Paul 7%, 2,332 votes, 0 delegates

No candidate who has won the White House has walked into the Oval Office without winning Ohio. Maybe Obama should bow out of the presidential race for the good of the Democratic Party, eh? Of course, I jest but in the Obamasphere, the shrieks that Hillary should drop out have been unseemly and unDemocratic. So, suck it up. Hillary will fight all the way to the convention.

The biggest loser tonight--all the media hacks who have written Hillary off how many times now?

McCain the stooge

Oh, great. Another Republican stooge who's a presidential contender:

Sen. John McCain, a likely 2008 U.S. presidential contender, blamed former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday for failing to stop an unfolding nuclear threat from North Korea in the 1990s.

The Arizona Republican also took a swipe at Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York senator and possible Democratic rival for the White House.

"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other critics of the Bush administration policies that the framework agreement of the Clinton administration was a failure," McCain said in a statement, referring to a 1994 deal under which North Korea agreed to halt work on a plutonium-based nuclear facility, partly in exchange for free fuel oil deliveries.

"The Koreans received millions of dollars in energy assistance ... and what did the Koreans do? They secretly enriched uranium," McCain said.

"We had a carrots-and-no-sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn't work, we offered another."

So explain, why did Bush give North Korea $95 million in 2002 without the Framework "requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it [had] not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors." ??? And why did Bush antagonize North Korea by violating the Beijing agreement? McCain conveniently didn't offer any explanations because that would be completely truthful. He's another Republican who's not too swift on facts but full of bull... um, propaganda. Just what we don't need--another GOP kook. Digby has more:

What were they thinking? Now you have McCain out there talking total nonsense about North Korea and since he's been portrayed not only as an expert, but as a highly moral and decent man whom everyone including the president should trust, the media and everyone else are raptly listening to his crazy utterances like a bunch of fangirls.

The problem is that he's going to be an even worse problem than Bush in many ways as he emerges as a presidential contender. He's just as much of a warmonger, and just as wrong about everything, but he's got this phony bipartisan "credibility" that's going to make the slam dunk run-up to the Iraq war look like a a serious foreign policy debate. Which Democrats are going to be able to summon the nerve to oppose the great McCain when he tells tells the country that in his "expert judgement," we need to launch WWIII?

The country just can't afford any more of these kooks running the government --- and McCain is as kooky as any other Republican, possibly even more than most when it comes to national security. Unless the Democrats start yanking him off that pedestal soon, it's going to get more and more difficult for them to do it.

For the real scoop on the North Korea situation, this article by Fred Kaplan remains the gold standard. Hint: Massive screw-up, and it wasn't Clinton's.

Doesn't the GOP have anyone better that McCain? Nah, they don't. Too much red Kool-Aid rots the brain to the point that the reflexive response is to serve up another "It's Clinton's fault" red herring. Despite all the finger-pointing at Bill, he's still way more popular--before he left office and even now--compared to Bush. Democrats need to jump on McCain ASAP to unmask Curly before the GOP forces another stooge on voters trumped up as a viable candidate in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth. Na-ah-uh-ah-uh-ah-uh-ah.