You left out one fact of the Bush Presidency: the Republicans attacked the Democratic opposition as illegitimate. In their mind they can't rule and they can't criticize the ruler.

Oh, and the Bush admin did lie, cheat, and abuse power.

Ah! The old "one is true and the other isn't" argument.

Maybe when we see Bush in The Hague, a few folks will get a clue.

Gotta hand it to the Repugs -- they definitely know how to play the media. They know they can do / say anything, and the MSM will leave it as "he said / she said," etc.

At least Krugman didn't roll over - he pushed right back. We may learn yet how to play this game.

Hilzoy, you and Dr. Krugman must have heard me -- and everyone else -- who yelled at Cokie Roberts "they're NOT the same!" or variations on that theme.

At least Dr. Krugman was there to say the polite version of "Bullshit."

This from the woman who wondered about the wisdom of Obama taking an exotic vacation to Hawaii.

I say by this time next week, Roberts and her ilk will be claiming the Obama campaign has been as divisive and dangerous as McCain's.

Cokie Roberts is rapidly degenerating into a joke (Hawii is 'exotic'). Even GEORGE WILL during that same conversaion indicated that what McCain and Palin were doing crossed a line and were not the same kinds of attacks that Obama makes.

I guess I'm a bloody dummy thinking that a blow job in the Oval Office wasn't as tragic as economic ruin, an illegal invasion of Iraq and the crippling of the republic unlike that geniuz the apply named Co(o)kie Roberts.

Of course, part of the problem is that there really ARE crazies on both sides of the aisle. There will always be those who can rationalize their crazy hatred of the opposing party in the Whitehouse, who will find some sort of excuse for why they're not legitimate. The big difference being that there are a whole lot more of the crazies on the other side, largely because they're being pushed into thinking these things by more influential voices.

We have no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh saying that Bush is a murderer or should be impeached. We don't have a "news" network devoted to crazy propaganda. And so the right will just search until they find liberals who are as deranged as the standard wingnut is, and insist that they're even crazier than their team is. It's absolutely impossible to ensure that there aren't crazies on our team. But it's only on the right that they've made being crazy a strategic goal.

I get so sick of Cokie Roberts. In every interview where she gives commentary she legitimizes GOP talking points of dubious truth.

He father might have been a big-time Democrat, but she's clearly a "Villager" with little concern for any objective truth.

Cokie just wants to stay on the in-crowd's invite list.

I can hardly stand Cokie's voice anymore. Every time she starts talking, I know she's going to be playing the false equivalence game.

I am all for both parties being held to the same standard. But false equivalence means you are holding them to two different standards and pretending they are the same. Thanks for hammering this over and over. Eventually, more people will start to clue in.

I also think most people hear things like what Cokie said and just shake their heads like "that lady doesn't get it." Kind of like when McCain kept saying Obama didn't understand at the first debate, even though he clearly did. People don't believe everything they hear on TV.

Also, there was a time, immediately after 9/11, that President Bush was in fact popular and, in the words of the poet, the nation turned its lonely eyes to him. This country was ready to rally (and largely did for awhile) to a president to show some leadership. Even Bush. Then he told us to go shopping, called everyone who didn't agree with him a traitor, behaved abominably in so many waves, stoked the cultural gaps for partisan gain, filled the Federal government with hacks, etc etc. Had he showed an ounce of competence and national reconciliation, he might still be above 50% approval.

I know of few people who think Bush is not legitimate compared with the nastiness of the 90's. But almost everyone thinks he is incompetent.

There is a difference.

Clinton was unfaithful to his wife, while Bush was unfaithful to his country. Although both men would surely claim that the history would show they were true to their loves, despite the appearances to the contrary.

How do you know that Bush never held up a convenience store?

The Republicans would have howled if Gore had won in 2000. There would have been violence. And Cokie would have said they were right to be aggrieved.

Steve, I never accepted the SCOTUS right to adjudicate Bush v. Gore at the moment it did in the process. Nor did I accept the "need for haste" lies, even though many Democrats (you included?) apparently did. (Of course, I'm not a registered Dem -- blecch -- too centrist for me -- so I don't count anyway.)

I knew the history of 1876 before most the MSM had a clue, and knew that it literally went down to just 2 days before the inauguration; there was no rush. See Wiki for details.

The top three reasons I no longer give to NPR
3 Juan Williams
2 Mara Liason
1 Cokie Roberts

Perhaps when presented with such false equivalences, we should say, as Frederick Douglass did on Memorial Day, 1878, when discussing similar sentiments in regard to the Civil War, that "there was a right side and a wrong side."

Where I live, way back in a way back red state people not only fly Confederate flags in cemeteries and front yards of old plantation houses, etc., but are fond of re-enactments of their folly--all in honor of their so-called "heritage," as if the south were just the flip side of the north.

But Douglass reminds us even today that "there was a right side and a wrong side." And these people cavorting about the countryside as phony re-enactors and insulting the rest of us with Confederate flags are on the wrong side.

@SocraticGadfly

You are addressing Steve, but this post was by Hilzoy. Her stuff shows up in a different font, at least in my browser.

Discussion of the 2000 election must be absolutley confined to the "Brooks Brothers riot", which proved *intent* to steal the election by force and thereby invalidated the result. All of our institutions failed to respond to that event; that failure effectively abrogated the Constitution and terminated the regime of 1789. In the aftermath, none of our institutions have any legitimacy. There has been no government since, only a de-facto regime. A future government can only attain legitimacy by a total, clean break of institutional continuity.

The Democratic Party should have spoken to no other topic and in no other terms but these, on each day since, but it has instead preferred to continue participating in a charade of defunct instutitions.

Every movement has crazies. However, the modern conservative movement is the only one I see that gives them the microphone and tells them they're normal.

Whenever one of these Publican shills spouts this nonsense, not only should the claim be rejected but the spouter should be attacked as well for being in the Publican's hip pocket. Damn it, they must be trained to be afraid to even consider making claims like this. Cokie Roberts should have been verbally slapped so hard her ears should still be ringing. That's what the Publicans do and it's well past time that the Democrats learned that that's how the MSM wants to play the game. They claim they like the sharp attacks. We'll see how well they like them when their stenography of Publican talking points is attacked for what it is.

I snapped the TV off in disgust right after her little "both sides do it too" blather, so I missed Krugman's salutary comeback.

I also thought Balz engaged in a little of that smarmy false-equivalence, but Cokie I just don't understand: what on earth is she doing on Steph, on Charlie Rose??? I'm not aware of anything she's ever done that qualifies her for shows like this. She's like a High Priestess of some bizarre religion, who gets trotted out on ritual occasions to remind the faithful of core principles. Am I missing something here?

Cokie is a nice person, but her political judgments and acumen are downright pedestrian. I'm surprised that NPR keeps her as a morning political analyst, since she adds almost no insight, and mostly deals in tired cliches and equivalency, as noted.

And the decision in Bush v. Gore was very hard to explain as a principled decision...

No one noticed even before Bush v. Gore the language Scalia used when he ordered the recount in Florida halted. His rationale was that to continue the recount would be to undermine the legitimacy of the future administration.

Now, how in a democracy does the act of counting voted undermine the winner -- unless it shows that the winner did not win.

Essentially, Scalia acknowledged Gore's victory in halting the recount.

So, yeah, I think we're well within our rights - if not duty - to hold that the Bush administration was illegitimate.

Krugman had a great deal of work to do on that segment. He didn't catch the second howler which was the idea that it would be a good idea to appoint Republicans to head up Treasury and Defense. This idea has been floating around the village and someone needs to really give it a severe mocking. SNL, Colbert, or the Daily Show could probably do the job. Republicans have completely trashed both the economy and all aspects of our national security apparatus. It is possible that current Secretaries of Defense and Treasury are among the best of some horrific options. Democrats should note that a desire to serve the Bush administration should disqualify anyone from future public service. Repair of our economy and national security systems is impossible until Republicans have been completely removed from positions of power.

Hilzoy,

I think that was the wrong false equivalence to talk about. The one that mattered was the attempt to portray McCain and Palin's rallies as equal to Obama and Biden's. This Week did a terrible job regarding that, as have most of the MSM.

In reality, what Mr. Lewis said was factual. McCain and Palin--but especially Palin--have been stoking the fires which may well lead to violence. The Wallace example was apt, because he didn't actually come out and say anything blatantly racist either. It was mostly talk about "law and order" and so forth. Palin is flirting with the same tenor, tone and code . . . and, in some cases, is actually being even more direct.

When she lies about Obama supposedly "paling around with domestic terrorists", she's going further than Wallace's own rhetoric. Given the history in this country of recent events -- 9/11 -- and the history of blacks being lynched or black leaders being assassinated (MLK). . . I think Lewis was fully within bounds for his comments.

The Republicans are going for the trifecta here. Something that even Wallace didn't have in his quiver. They're trying to paint Obama as a Muslim, a friend to communists AND a terrorist.

I actually find it reprehensible that MSM pundits have not come out forcefully against this without any hedging. Rather than doing that, they're saying Mr. Lewis was "over the top."

They should be ashamed.

Ah yes, it's good to see the willful blindness by you folks in the lefty bubble. Of COURSE you reject the equivalence. It might require you to look in the mirror and have an occasional moment of perspective & reflection. And as any thinking nonpartisan has seen clearly for the last 8 years, that's simply unthinkable.

And as any thinking ,nonpartisan has seen clearly for the last 8 yearsChris

I think you may have been spending a bit too much time looking in the mirror.

the idea that there's some sort of equivalence between doubting the fairness of the 2000 and 1992 elections is absurd.

Ah, Cokie Roberts uses pretzel logic to be "fair and balanced" in her tortured mind. This has nothing to do with the 1992 election per se except for the outcome, Clinton won. Yes, it is completely absurd to try to make an equivalence here because there is none. Liberals hate Bush because his presidency, his war, his torture, and his spying on Americans is illegal and illegitimate. He's also ruined the country. The fact that he is an inept, contemptible, petulant little fuck is just a bonus. Conservatives hate Clinton because he's a "liberal".

Well, I'll confess. During the reagan years I got as unhinged as any current republican. But much to my shock, while we didn't emerge unscathed, we did survive those years. Since that happened, I've made a much more concerted effort to controll my rage at bush et al.

My partner teaches social studies and history at a local San Francisco high school, and he offers the perfect analogy to liberals' collective frustration with the mainstream media and cable TV news stations over the previous decade or so.

When I once voiced my own particular disdain for the consistently inferior quality of political debate over which the late Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press once presided, he mused aloud about what his own classroom might sound like if he were to either limit or curtail the ability of his best students to participate in the discussions, and instead called primarily upon those with C and D averages for their thoughts and opinions.

Question: Does David Schuster understand what the word erratic means? All weekend he has asked every Obama surrogate if erratic is a code word meaning old.

Okay, maybe he got the wrong definition: a large glacial boulder. Of course that is a noun, as in "John McCain is an erratic."

Most rocks are old, so could be.

Some consideration also needs to be given to the ultra right wing militias and abortion foes during the Clinton years. There was some connection between a lot of extreme right wing rhetoric and real acts of terrorism and assassinations including the Oklahoma City bombing, Eric Rudolph, and assassinations of abortion doctors. The details are too far in the past for much more recall than that but I think we could put together a long list of violent acts. False equivalency is a huge understatement.

I have also given up sending money to NPR and Cokie Roberts is only one of the many reasons.

All weekend he has asked every Obama surrogate if erratic is a code word meaning old. tomj

It's not just Schuster, but Chris Matthews as well. What's funny is the thought that "old" is worse than "erratic". I wish Obama's spokesmen would say, "No, it's just a nicer way of saying he's a hypocrite, who's so desperate, he will say anything to win an election, when he should be thinking about his country first."

Republican Plan A. Govern. (or 'Govern', if you prefer.)
Republican Plan B. Make it impossible for the Democrats to govern.

They'd rather sit in the ruins of a once-great Republic -- because that's what stasis and gridlock are going to get you, in the present circumstances -- than to see it run by people who, at the end of the day, are not an occupying enemy, not some barbarian horde from beyond the Rhine or Danube, but their neighbors.

This is profoundly not right.

I really like the title of this blog.

There are so many false equilivalencies being tossed around that it's just insane so kudos to Krugman for even acknowledging that it's apples and oranges.

As others have eluded to, I too am outraged that there is not enough outcry over what has transpired with the hate speech and inciting of violence. And not only is the outcry already subsiding, it seems so many are eager to now minimize the atrocities.

McCain should have emphatically denounced all of it immediately. He waited way too long and he only did it cause he had to.

And then to come back and pounce on that one comment which broached the George Wallace example, to suddenly demand an immediate denouncement from Obama was just utterly absurd.

It was clear the comments were used as a cautionary tale of what can and does transpire when such hate speech is allowed to thrive.
-----------------------------------------
BTW,, No-one is questioning if Palin will do another interview anymore--have the entire media given up on this?

Chris: "Ah yes, it's good to see the willful blindness by you folks in the lefty bubble. Of COURSE you reject the equivalence. It might require you to look in the mirror and have an occasional moment of perspective & reflection..."

In what 'bubble' do you exist?

"...And as any thinking nonpartisan has seen clearly for the last 8 years, that's simply unthinkable."

Maybe you can 'think' about and explain the 'equivalence' between a legitimately won election on the one hand, and 2 thefts on the other? Why don't you break free of your own 'bubble' and watch 'Stealing America: Vote By Vote' first, and THEN apply your superior insight on the comparison?

I'll take on the (cough) challenging task of explaining why there is no equivalence between saying that Clinton was a murderer and saying that George W. Bush is a war criminal.

That is very true.

However, you can make a very strong case that Bill and Hillary should have gone to jail for their $100,000 cattle futures bribe.

You can also make a strong case that Clinton should have been removed from office for perjury. After all, Clinton is no longer able to appear before the Supreme Court.

It was great to see an actual liberal, Paul Krugman, on one of the Sunday talk shows, rather than the usual housebroken variety which we usually get. At least he was there to reject Cokie's reflexive and untrue attempt to slide by with the usual statement that they all do it. If one of the "usual suspects" had been on instead of Krugman, all the heads at the round table would have simply bobbed their automatic approval when Cokie made her customary comment.

The hate from the right seems to be much more dangerous than vice versa.

Think about what Clinton was impeached for.

Did the left impeach GWB?

The left has agonized over the direction of our country these past 8 years, but we have not incited riots.

Believe me, the right is coming awful close to doing just that.

Let's see, McCain runs ads that equate Obama with terrorism, and Obama runs ads that critique McCain policies. The former is based on nonsense, the latter is based on McCain statements, and the press calls those equivalent? Ridiculous.

However, you can make a very strong case that Bill and Hillary should have gone to jail for their $100,000 cattle futures bribe.

Well you can't make a strong case for this. You might believe it, but only if you don't know much about the trades in question. The fact is there was never even sufficient evidence to establish that the futures trader had assigned profitable trades to her account. For it to be a bribe not only do funds have to exchange hands but there has to be some action performed by the recipient of the funds. No such action as ever been established.

One of the many reasons I'm praying for a Democratic landslide on Nov. 4 is that after we send the GOP packing, we can also start the task of cleaninig house in the national media, and get rid of the Cokies and the Broders and the Friedmans and their ilk...

Isn't it likely that we make most of our decisions with our emotions, and then use our smarts to rationalize what we've decided? Instead of coming to conclusions on the basis of reason and evidence, and then persuading our emotional sides to root for the rational decisions?

Let's face it, most Republicans simply want their side to win, and probably most Democrats, too. They just think of reasons to support their leanings.

Hillary made $100,000 very quickly from reading the Wall Street Journal. Well, she is one up on Sarah Palin who probably has never even seen a copy of the Journal.

Obviously, they didn't indict the Clintons.

We are left with two choices.

Choice 1: Clinton got lucky and decided to stop.
Choice 2: Someone "gave" Clinton the money.

Now, I have never met ANYONE who made $100K legitimately, quickly and easily and decided to walk away and never try it again. Have you?

I have met people who have taken bribes.

I am not asking about legal proof.

I am just asking if you think there is ANY legal explanation that passes the smell test.

Talk about living in a different universe:

But, if the combination of gazillions of dollars in illegal foreign donations, Acorn's Dig-Up-The-Vote operation, a doting media that would embarrass Kim Jong-Il and the Republican nominee's inability even to speak up on issues where he was right all along (like Fannie Mae), if all that is now unstoppable, I will be proud to have lost with Sarah Palin, who (unlike Brooks and Buckley) runs a state bigger than most European Union nations, has fought an honorable campaign, and has been responsible for such energy and enthusiasm as the ticket can muster.

--A boy at the Corner

Actually, Cokie's presence on these shows is valuable, giving us an unparalleled insight into the musings of the small town provincials of Washington City, a Southern mill town about to visited by the new management--people who wouldn't be allowed in the front door when Daddy was running things.
And soon we can enjoy the panic on her face and in her voice as she tries to fit in with all these young people who are now in charge--all those women who went to a real college.

OMG! Krugman is a real trouble maker for this group of incompetent insider pundits. Most of the conversation (except Krugman's interventions) was pure hackery. I bet he won't be invited back if Cokie has anything to say about it. She looks even dumber than usual when contrasted with Krugman.

OMG! Krugman is a real trouble maker for this group of incompetent insider pundits. Most of the conversation (except Krugman's interventions) was pure hackery. I bet he won't be invited back if Cokie has anything to say about it. She looks even dumber than usual when contrasted with Krugman.

Mr. Wilson: You stated that "you can make a very strong case that Bill and Hillary should have gone to jail." I showed that this statement was incorrect. You now state that you consort with criminals and that based on your experiences and what you read in the Wall Street Journal you are skeptical that the transactions were legal. I can't account for your associates or your failure to adequately research the events in question. The facts are well-known and summarized in my original post. Best wishes.

Besides her sickening role on Sunday talk shows, Cokie is also a regular on NPR.

I get pretty pissed when I think of my donations going to hear her say:

"Both sides are playing this for a political advantage"...

Yeah no shit, and the sky is blue. I wonder how much money she makes by being a twit.

Hey, has anyone else noticed that all the far right trolls that used to stink up the place when Kevin was running the show here have magically disappeared?

Now we just have to concentrate on disappearing them across the country after the Obama victory.

The best place to start is by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and putting it into law. The right wing talk radio phenomenon will be dead within 90 days of such a law. Druggie Lipdick will have to run to the Dominican Republic and surround with his 10-year old sex partners and his lifetime supply of hillbilly heroin. Michael Savage can be dropped from an airplane. And all the lesser trolls and devils will have to go back to the obscurity they so richly deserve.

The far right is as it is because it gets red meat thrown to it daily. Cut off the supply of red meat and they'll go back to being the losers everyone laughs at behind their back at work.

There's a reason why Mencken came up with the term "the Booboisie" to describe these droolers.

With respect to the 1992 result, it is reasonable to keep in mind the vagaries of the electoral system. With 43% of the vote, Clinton secured secured, as you correctly say, 370 electoral college votes, whereas with Bush with 5.3% less votes got 168. Ross Perot who attracted 18.9% of the vote, a significant minority, achieved no electoral college votes.

What can be concluded is that 57% of voters - a majority right? - had no effective say in the election of the president.

Oops I was so busy checking my facts, I was ignoring what I had written.

It occurs to me there is another factor, voter suppression, remember Florida 2000. If compulsory voting is too radical, what about compulsory registration. You know it works in other democracies.

WHY A TRIAL LAWYER SHOULD MODERATE A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

TRIAL LAWYER (TL): Senator McCain, you are a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, isn't that true?

Senator JOHN McCAIN (JM): Yes, my friend, I did. By the skin of my teeth, I'm sorry to say. (quick, nervous grin and mild dry chuckle).

TL: When you were there, the Academy had an honor code which stated something to the effect that:

"Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right. They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie."

JM: (Looking puzzled). Yes, we did. In fact, it was Ross Perot, who graduated a few years before me, who drafted the first code. (quick smile, looks furtively at the audience for signs of approval that he knows this fact, which was drummed into him and the other thousand midshipmen during his plebe year.)

TL: Senator, you would agree, wouldn't you sir, that if that honor code were applied to your presidential campaign, you would have to withdraw in shame, isn't that correct?

JM: (looking nervous and angry at the same time). Absolutely not! I am a man of honor and integrity, and I stand by my statements during this campaign!

TL: Senator, isn't it true that the person you picked to be your Vice Presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, said, and I quote: “Our opponent … is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country..."

JM: (hesitates). I'm not sure of her exact words...

TL: Senator, is there any doubt in your mind that Governor Palin was attacking Senator Obama for his alleged ties to Bill Ayers?

JM: Well, no...

TL: And Senator, your campaign ads have accused Senator Obama of being linked to Bill Ayers for one reason and one reason only: because at one time, Bill Ayers was a member of the 1960's radical group called the Weathermen, isn't that true?

JM: Yes, and he was linked to Ayers, and we have to question his judgment for associating with someone like that...

TL: Senator McCain, are you stating as a fact that Barack Obama is a terrorist?

JM: Of course not. I said just the other day that he's a decent man, a family man, with whom I have disagreements...

TL: Senator, are you saying that Barack Obama associated with Bill Ayers when Mr. Ayers was planning to bomb federal buildings?

JM: Of course not, I never suggested any such thing...

TL: In fact, Senator Obama was a child during the Vietnam War when these violent protests occurred, isn't that true?

JM. I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you on that.

TL: Senator, are you saying that Senator Obama is "palling around with domestic terrorists?"

JM: No, I'm questioning his judgment...

TL: Because Governor Palin didn't use the past tense, she said "he's palling around" as in something that is happening currently. Isn't that true?

JM. (stuttering) I, I, I already said, that I wasn't sure of her exact words...

TL: Senator, are you saying that your campaign can legitimately attack Barack Obama and try to link him to domestic terrorism because he served on a school charity board founded by Mrs. Walter Annenberg, wife of Ronald Reagan's ambassador to London and former publisher of TV Guide? A board on which numerous notable Republicans also served?

JM: Of course not. (turning to audience). My friends, I would never... I didn't... but his judgment in who he chooses to associate with is legitimately in question...

TL: Are you saying that associating with persons who committed violent acts against the United States and killed American citizens disqualifies a person from the presidency?

JM. (relaxing a bit). Now I think you're starting to understand. I don't attack "that one's" character, I'm just questioning his judgment...

TL: So if a presidential candidate associated with persons who killed over 58,000 Americans, would that disqualify him from the presidency?

JM: (getting angry, again). Wait a minute, now, are you suggesting...

TL: Senator, you met over seven times with terrorists who killed thousands of Americans, who tortured Americans, who kept some of them in tiger cages, and you tried to pal around with them, tried to do business with them, isn't that true?

JM: Now you just hold on. If you're talking about my trips to Vietnam...

TL: So you admit it, you don't deny that you consorted with and associated with known foreign terrorists who had targeted Americans, killed thousands of them, during the same time Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground were committing violence against Americans, isn't that true?

JM: (sputters)

TL: In fact, you also associated with a known criminal who targeted America's financial industry, isn't that true?

JM: No, no way (visibly angry again).

TL: You took hundreds of thousands of dollars from a man who went to prison for defrauding the investors in Lincoln Saving's and Loan, isn't that correct? The man who was part of the last American financial disaster, the Savings and Loan scandal? And that man was Charles Keating, isn't that true?

TL (not waiting for an answer): And that man got you to personally visit and lean on federal regulators who had intended to look into the schemes Mr. Keating was running with his Savings and Loan, isn't that true?

TL: (still not waiting for an answer): And the Senate investigated you and four other senators who attempted to use illegal influence on behalf of your friend, Charles Keating, the man you vacationed with in the Bahamas, your godfather who got you started on your road to congress in your first election, isn't that true?

JM: (finally getting a word in edgewise, and taking a page from Sarah Palin's VP debate handbook). I want to talk about the economy, about our energy plan, so I may not answer the question the way you want me to or the way "that one" wants me to....

AUDIENCE: "BOOOOOOO!!!"

Well, according to Human Rights Watch 1.2 million Iraqis died during the Clinton-Gore administration because of their illegal sanctions and incessant bombings. Neither Clinton or Gore have ever acknowledged these deaths or indicated they thought there was anything wrong with it. And about 1.2 million Iraqis have died during the Bush-Cheney administration. And neither Bush or Cheney have ever acknowledged these deaths or indicated they think there was anything wrong about it. Both sets of deaths were the direct result of war crimes. Both administrations actively worked to block any investigation or prosecution of their war crimes. Sounds pretty equivalent to me.

BTW, there is ample evidence that the Clintons were engaged in drug-running and drug dealing, especially during the Iran-Contra affair. Arkansas was their base of operations in the US. Sam Smith at prorev.com has extensively documented this. There's no question about it.

The Clintons are as corrupt as the Bushes or anyone else in the country. There is plenty of well-documented proof of this. To deny it at this point is just bizarre.

Mike is apparently another member of the moron brigade pretending equivalence where none exists. Yes, Clinton's continuation of Bush's sanctions was an atrocity. And, no, he did not do enough to reverse the course of the sanctions. On the other hand, the deaths you cite are all because even the mitigation steps Clinton took - in defiance of the Republicans - weren't enough.

Bush's body count, on the other hand, is almost exclusively the result of his unprovoked assault on the people of Iraq. Nitwits like you used the specter of children dying of malnutrition to murder them with bombs. Bush took the improved situation given him by Clinton and went out of his way to make things worse. Clinton took a horrific situation given him by the previous Bush and made things better.

A doctor whose emergency surgery fails and whose patient dies is not the same as a hit-man who successfully murders his victim.

Only a total fucking moron with an ax to grind against Clinton would find these things "equivalent."

BTW, there is ample evidence that the Clintons were engaged in drug-running and drug dealing, especially during the Iran-Contra affair. Arkansas was their base of operations in the US. Sam Smith at prorev.com has extensively documented this. There's no question about it.

mike, honey, are you really sure you want to bring up Iran-Contra in any way, shape or form? Personally, I'm happy to discuss McCain's clear and documented ties to an Iran-Contra front group instead of your delusional rantings about the Clintons, but I have a feeling you might not feel so good at that prospect.

mike: "...BTW, there is ample evidence that the Clintons were engaged in drug-running and drug dealing, especially during the Iran-Contra affair. Arkansas was their base of operations in the US. Sam Smith at prorev.com has extensively documented this. There's no question about it..."

I just looked for this "extensive documentation," and all I found was a poorly written maze of articles lacking citations/references. It is impossible to determine what is true or what is imaginary dot connecting in that mishmash.

"...The Clintons are as corrupt as the Bushes or anyone else in the country. There is plenty of well-documented proof of this. To deny it at this point is just bizarre..."

Again, it is impossible to determine that from the source you suggested.

While many Democrats or at least leftists, myself included, have said some nasty things about Bush, all of these happened in response to actions Bush did whether it was in response to Bush's efforts to steal the Florida election or invading Iraq. Perhaps my memory is bad, but I do not recall any unusual vitriol on the part of Democrats before Election Day 2000. Perhaps Obama, much like Bush, will one day do something to deserve the Republicans' anger but right now all he's done is run for president.

I bet Cokie faps to pictures of Levi and Todd P.
She's as much a journo as Cindy Adams or Liz Smith- go back to the gossip pages Coked-di!

I know this is late and probably nobody will be reading, but I wanted to respond to Neil Wilson re: Clinton comodities profits.

I consider it very likely that the trader who was managing their comodities investments, assigned a disproportionate share of the profitable trades to the Clintons after the fact. However, if this is true, it this does require that the Clintons were aware of this or that the trader wanted any official actions on their part.

It is an unfortunate fact that if you give your funds over to someone else to invest for you at their discretion, that you have almost no way to know if your are benefitting or being victimized by that kind of behavior. I doubt it was ever common, but it was well known to happen for some brokers to engage in this kind of behavior. Not to bribe the beneficiaries to perform any specific actions but to make themselves look good to someone who either had a lot more of their own money to invest or were prominent enough to influence others to invest with that trader/broker.

Note that if the trader did assign successful trades to the Clintons retroactively (which, as noted above, has not been demonstrated), and it was for the motives I described in the last post, then it would specifically be in their interest to NOT let the beneficiaries to know what happened.

After, the goal of such a scheme is to get more business by making the trader look like a skillful investor, not a dishonest one.

Adding to wmmbb's observation that questionable legitimacy haunted Clinton's reign, he got 48% of the vote amidst a booming economy.

Oddly, the DLC convinced most Democrats that sucking up to big business was the only way to win.

Clinton never ruled with a majority to back him.
Not just Republicans questioned the strength of his claims to be our leader.

The REAL difference isn't the elections at all. Republicans accuse Democrats of being nothing but criminals. Asked for the name of a Democrat they could see being a good president, they might name Joe Lieberman on reflex.

We might name Penny, Hagel, Whitman, Specter (okay, maybe I'm alone on that one), Powell.

Maybe many Dems wouldn't be HAPPY with such an outcome, but we wouldn't question their competence or doubt their capacity to excel.

Rush O' Hannity is training the base to reject Democrats as a brand. Registering as a Democrat is proof enough that you are diseased. Such dogma leads to tolerance of the criminal nature of the GOP because the only alternative to criminals that run your government are the maligned, unthinkable DEMOCRATS.

Yeah...I remember arguing with a friend in 1992/1993 over the Clinton "legitimacy" thing. "He only got 43% of the vote," my friend kept screaming. "More people voted against him than voted for him."

Finally, after about 10 minutes of back and forth, I simply pointed to the fact that Richard Nixon won 43% of the vote in a 3-way race in 1968. That essentially shut him up.

Then, eight years later, this guy had the gall to be shocked when I questioned the manner in which Bush was put in the White House.

Yeah...I remember arguing with a friend in 1992/1993 over the Clinton "legitimacy" thing. "He only got 43% of the vote," my friend kept screaming. "More people voted against him than voted for him."

Finally, after about 10 minutes of back and forth, I simply pointed to the fact that Richard Nixon won 43% of the vote in a 3-way race in 1968. That essentially shut him up.

Then, eight years later, this guy had the gall to be shocked when I questioned the manner in which Bush was put in the White House.

"I reject the equivalence." Love that line -- will have to find a way to use it someday.

She's like a High Priestess of some bizarre religion

The Roberts-Broder Church of Unthinking, Deferential Centrism. Services every Sunday at a Georgetown townhouse, featuring the transfiguration of the cocktails.

And now that Krugman has won the Nobel Prize for Economics, it's not as if Cokie can wipe him off the guest list.

Finally, while I agree the Republicans hijacked the 2000 presidential election, it would have been moot if Florida Democrats had been more aggressive in getting out the vote in the black community that year (voting percentages in heavily black districts were far below other areas). But the old guard didn't make an effort, figuring it was just too much trouble. Had Obama been a community organizer in Florida in 2000, chances are Al Gore would now be in the White House.

Today's stupid fake equivalency comes from Cokie Roberts on ABC'S This Week

Interestingly, you could also phrase it "Today's stupid fake equivalency from Cokie Roberts comes on ABC'S This Week."

Query to those who can stomach listening to Cokie...Has she ever once said anything positive about Obama or Biden? Every time I hear her she's making a derogatory comment about one or the other of them.

In the summer, I happened upon that pundit roundtable show on ABC, can't remember the name. There she was blasting Obama for being a "celebrity", "presumptuous" and "arrogant" for that European tour. Then went on to tout McCain as a "Maverick." Nodded her head when George Will said it was unfair to point out McCain's gaffes. What about Obama saying there are 57 states?

The next week she talks about the exotic vacation to Hawaii.

Then I hear her on Charlie Rose making fun of Biden for using the term Bosniaks, which of course is entirely the correct term.

Now this false equivalency.

Maybe because I only get Cokie filtered through liberal blogs. Has anyone actually heard her say anything positive about the Democratic ticket?

BTW, my understanding was that the Troopergate Report got zero play on the Sunday political shows. After two weeks of back and forth Ayers, that's hard to believe. Now we have disapproving clucks over Lewis's remarks. Unbelievable.

Hilzoy, with regard to Cokie Roberts:

I refer you to your other post about Andy Martin and Sean Hannity's extended, sleazy character-assassination attack ad for the McCain campaign on Fox News, disguised as a "documentary" about Obama.

And I would point out that Cokie Roberts is little more than a Sean Hannity for NPR listeners.

She is a blatant Republican partisan presented as an impartial "political analyst" by a corporate-owned mass media that is propagandizing the American people in furtherance of its own agenda -- in particular the $1.44 BILLION in tax cuts that John McCain has promised the giant media corporations, PLUS millions more in tax cuts for their ultra-rich CEOs, plus a continuation of the Bush administration's deregulation of media ownership so that those corporations can gobble up the last remaining independent TV and radio stations and networks.

The biggest scandal of this campaign -- as of the last two -- is that the mass media corporations have a powerful financial interest in the outcome, and are propagandizing the American people to vote for the candidate who will serve the media corporations' interests.

In effect, the corporate media is giving millions of dollars of illegal corporate campaign contributions to the Palin-McCain campaign, just as if they were giving them free airtime to run their sleazy attack ads.

And the corporate media's propaganda is actually far more valuable, since so many Americans still believe that the media corporations are an "impartial" -- or even "liberal" -- source of information, rather than a wealthy corporate sector using its power over information to advance its own interests and agenda.

Doctor Biobrain,

"We have no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh saying that Bush is a murderer or should be impeached."

Well, then I'll say it. Bush is a murderer by any meaningful moral definition of the word. Starting an unjustified war of aggression makes him a murderer because it was inevitable that innocent people would die as a direct result. And he does deserve to be impeached. The fact that it's not going to happen doesn't mean he deserves it any less.