The Schmitt family

That’s the heading on a blog entry by Dave Winer, this morning. Of the various blogs that I read, his would be the one I don’t miss, and haven’t for many years. I think he hit the nail on the head this time.

note on 4/15, his Political Notes entry, added later, expanded on those thoughts nicely.

I’ve been listening to Hillary’s statements of outrage over some not so bad things Obama said. I don’t buy into her claims of elitism on his part.

On the other hand, I do find the viciousness of her constant attacks to be amazing. Democrats don’t attack other Democrats in the primary in ways that would help the Republicans in the General. At least they haven’t until now. The only method I can see to this madness is that she’s determined that she would rather let McCain win than Obama, with the expectation that the party will turn to her in 4 years. It’s more important to her that she be the next Democratic President than what 4 more years of the same will do to the country. Isn’t that what deserves outrage?

Her current approach to getting the 2008 nomination would logically lead to a civil war in the party that would tear the party apart. Her backup plan seems to be to help McCain now so she can try again in 4 years.

What is outrageous is her inability to see anything other than a party war or a submission to 4 more destructive years simply because those are the only alternatives with her name at the top. In the first scenario, she changes enough rules to steal the nomination. But her negatives get so high that she might actually lose to McCain (particularly after alienating all those Obama fans he brought in). After starting that calamity, she still thinks the party will come back in 2012? It seems that Option 2 is to let Obama run now, as long as he loses. But if she is a major contributor to that loss, can she really expect to be asked back the next time? That’s what would outrage me in 2012.

I didn’t think it could get worse, but it did. Last week we were told that Mark Penn is lobbying for a Columbian Free Trade thing. Note to Hillary; he should have been fired not demoted. Then Hillary claimed that she was against the war in the Senate before Obama was by basing her claim on who made the first antiwar statement as a senator (a really silly criteria though even with the fuzzy math, she got it wrong).

Today, she claimed that she is the only candidate who will end the war. That’s amazing. Who knew?

Here’s the quote:

“One candidate will continue the war,” she told an audience at Hopewell High School, near Pittsburgh. “One candidate only says he’ll end the war. And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war.” — from wcbstv.com

After I put up my posting covering my thoughts on Hillary, I came across a couple of interesting postings elsewhere. Frank Rich had an excellent post called “Hillary’s St. Patrick’s Day Massacre” in Sunday’s New York Times. I hadn’t thought about it before, but he compared her story about Bosnia to the Bush administration’s buildup of the Jessica Lynch story (I wonder who she’s supporting?) and W’s flying into the aircraft carrier in full flyboy regalia.

Jon Robin Baitz also had an interesting posting on the Huffington Post yesterday called,”Not Until the Fat Lady Sings.” I don’t know if I agree with eveything he said, but the line at the end was good:

There was a time when I could have voted for Hillary Clinton. She would never have been my first choice, but I was definitely not a “Hillary-hater”. Even through the early primary campaigning, my attitude was that I could have voted for any of them. So, what changed? I’ve never missed voting in a major election. Yet, I’ve reached the point where I may rather vote none of the above if she gets the nod from the party. Why? (more…)