Ladies and gentlemen, the first major Clinton vs. Obama fight of the campaign has begun.

And for those of us with no dog in this fight… it’s awesome.

The short version:

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd talked to Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a former Bill Clinton backer who’s now backing Obama. Geffen ripped Hillary. He called her “incredibly polarizing”, referred to the Bush and Clinton “royal families,” speculated that Bill Clinton was still sleeping around and thus represented a scandal waiting to erupt; called the Clinton machine (their network of supporters and operatives) “very unpleasant and unattractive and effective;” called the former President “a reckless guy”, mocked his pardon of Marc Rich, declared the Clintons “unwilling to stand for things that they genuinely believe in” and that they lie “with such ease, it’s troubling.” Finally, he asked if anyone was more ambitious than Hillary.

The Hillary campaign read this in Dowd’s column and shot back, “A day after Barack Obama goes out and eschews the politics of slash-and-burn, his campaign embraces the politics of trash.” The Obama campaign responded, “We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.”

Later in Iowa, Obama himself added, “It’s not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone else’s remarks… My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with our campaign.”

At the candidate forum in Nevada yesterday, Hillary didn’t directly say whether she believed Obama was obligated to disavow Geffen’s comments, but instead, she lamented… come on, you can guess the standard-issue Clinton response to these situations… you got it! The Politics of Personal Destruction™! Yes, Geffen’s criticisms and observations amount to an attempt to personally destroy her.

Jennifer Rubin, an NRO contributor, points out that Geffen is doing my job better than I am, and notes that Geffen chose a venue (Dowd’s column) and lines of criticism (empty ambition, unprincipled, scandals lurking that could ruin her bid) that couldn’t be ignored.

Jonah notes that Bill Richardson jumped in to defend Hillary, and speculates that this is a sign that he is really more interested in being Hillary’s running mate.

I have to dissent from John Podhoretz; I don’t see anything “ugly” in the Obama response. It’s pointing out the obvious that the criticism from Geffen is hardly a member of the vast-right-wing-conspiracy; Geffen’s criticism may carry more weight because he was once buddy-buddy with the Clintons.

John Dickerson also scores this as a win for Hillary, calling the response from Team Obama “sharp” (and not in a good way) and quoting a rival Democratic campaign operative who says that both are “acting like children.”(That quote sounds like it comes from an Edwards operative, doesn’t it?)

Really? What exactly has Obama done in this whole scenario that acts childish? Hell, what has Hillary done that’s childish? And how does Geffen making these remarks – presumably without sanction or approval from Team Obama – mean that Obama’s campaign has embraced “the politics of trash”?

From where I sit – admittedly, pretty far both ideologically and geographically from Beverly Hills, Nevada, Iowa, or even Washington – Geffen pointed out the elephant in the room, the fears and irritations that a lot of Democrats feel about Hillary but don’t like to talk about. Team Hillary reacted with its characteristic whine, completely fudging the difference between a substantive disagreement (her vote on Iraq, the Marc Rich pardon) and speculation about scandals and personal defects (the idea that Bill is sleeping around). I find this line of argument completely unpersuasive, but apparently it works, because the Clintons keep using it. Obama reacted by pointing out the obvious and staying out of the fray. But so far, it’s being scored as a loss and a gaffe for Obama.

UPDATE: So I thought a bit more about Richardson and other Democrats in yesterday’s candidate forum responding as if Obama had done something wrong, and I began to wonder if the Democratic field is tired of hearing about Obama the Messiah, and how lame they are in comparison to the Illinois Senator Who Walks On Water and is eager to see him taken down a peg.

Smart Republican Guy: I thought it was one more step in the inevitable process of taking the shine off the guy [Obama]. He’s in a tough spot. If I were advising him, I’d tell him not to engage the other Dems at all. To set himself by, among other things, being apart. (Smart, for example, to blow off the debate yesterday.) But that’s tricky. Because sometimes you have to engage. And everytime he does, I think it diminishes him. Most voters will see what I saw on the today show this morning — Howard Wolfson attacking Obama. And they’ll believe it because they’re used to it. They’re used to politicians attacking each other. So this is believable. They expect it.Jim: I mean, I guess at issue here is that Joe Voter is so disengaged, pays so little attention to the details of the story, that they’ll walk away from the conversation convinced that Obama did something wrong?

Smart Republican Guy: Essentially, yes.
 

I realize I’m probably the only NROnik who has vaguely positive feelings about former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle, a condition that spurs many readers to inquire about a history of mental illness. Either way, I note that Daschle recently endorsed Barack Obama for 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement Wednesday of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who said the White House hopeful “personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country.”

Daschle said Obama has a “great capacity to unify our country and inspire a new generation of young Americans, just as I was inspired by the Kennedys and Martin Luther King when I was young.”

If Daschle were a meaner soul, he could have said, “After years of working closely with Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and seeing the way they tackle challenges and problems, I have come to the firm conclusion that Barack Obama is the leader this country needs.”

A brief update on that comment by Edwards. His campaign insists he never said that and in fact said the opposite, that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace. But Peter Bart of Variety stands by his story. Anybody got a tape of Edwards’ remarks?

As for the Wonkette thing… I thought the concept of that site was lame back in 2004 (one trick pony: off-color jokes about Washington politicians) but at the very least, Ana Marie Cox was a wunderkind genius at promoting the site and had established her niche. Whoever is doing it these days, apparently they’ve decided the “humor” of the site will come from insisting that anyone who disagrees with them — i.e, someone who rolls their eyes at the argument that of all the countries, factions, forces and individuals in the world, Israel striking Iran is the greatest threat to world peace — must be insane and apocalyptic and secretly wish for all Israelis to die. Yeah, because, you know, that’s what this site has been about since Day One.

Please, Wonkette-izers, give us more name-calling and snarky dismissal of opposing viewpoints! That’s a completely original and valuable contribution to our national discourse, and particularly the blogosphere! I can’t find that kind of writing anywhere else on the web! Keep phoning it in!

Wow, Hillary Clinton’s campaign offers some lame spin sometimes.

You’ll recall that Clinton recently said, “Some people may be running who may tell you that we don’t face a real threat from terrorism… I am not one of those,”, prompting several media outlets to ask, “Oh, yeah? Like who?”

Clinton’s web guy, Peter Daou tells liberal blogger Matt Stoller that Clinton “could have been referring to Republican candidates.”

Okay, Senator. Which Republican candidate is telling voters “we don’t face a real threat from terrorism”? Let’s hear it.

Recently arriving in my e-mailbox…

Dear Jim,

Am I enthusiastic about my wife’s campaign for president? You bet I am.

At least that’s what I’m telling her. I kind of like being the only modern two-term Democratic president — tons of fun when I run into Al and John — but I’ve got to act like I have no problem sharing the spotlight.

I know her better than anybody on earth, and she’s got the best combination of mind and heart of everybody I’ve ever known.

Must…  resist…. cheap, easy joke about other body parts…

All across the country, Hillary is campaigning with the signature wisdom, grace, and humor that make her a great candidate. I know that if we all work hard enough, those same traits will make her an even better president.

Let me clarify: An even better president than she is as a candidate, not a better president than me.

You and I know something about waging and winning presidential campaigns.

Well, mostly me.

Winning the White House takes persistence, energy and effort — not just from the candidate, but from a massive network of grassroots supporters.

And an independent bid from H. Ross Perot.

Hillary’s campaign is off to a great start.

“Iraq Position 3.0″ was unveiled last week to thundering tolerance by the anti-war grassroots! 

And this week, we’re going to help take it to another level. Our goal: to demonstrate the range and breadth of Hillary’s support by raising one million dollars in grassroots donations in a week’s time.  Will you help me get our “One Week, One Million” campaign off to a powerful start?  Click to donate:http://www.hillaryclinton.com/oneweek  

Look, with Republicans using everything in their arsenal to stop her campaign, Hillary is going to need every one of us to do everything that we can for her.

Really? Republicans are using “everything in their arsenal” already?

During eight years in the White House, Hillary and I faced a constant barrage of attacks from Washington Republicans.

You know what I mean, ”a constant barrage of attacks.” A less violent version of the ones from al-Qaeda that I pretty much ignored for eight years.

No insult was off-limits. No tactic was too low. They threw everything they could at us — but we beat them time and time again.

We beat ‘em together. Just you, me, her and a big pile of Chinese money.

The attacks on Hillary haven’t stopped, and she hasn’t stopped winning.

You saw how well she did in her 2006 Senate race against her Republican opponent whatshisname.

You know how they say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger? Well, Hillary is as strong as they come.

Vote for my wife. She is immortal.

Let’s make this a week when we demonstrate that her campaign is strong, too. Strong enough to sustain Hillary’s run for the presidency through thick and thin.

Obama scares us.

Strong enough to win.

“Strong” went over very well with the focus groups this week. 

Believe me.

and a brilliant born leader, and I have no doubt the American people will make her our first woman president.  Over the next week, you’ll hear from some other friends and admirers of Hillary. I hope you’ll join them in making our One Week, One Million campaign a success. But, most importantly, I hope you’ll act right now to get this dramatic display of grassroots support off the ground with a big outpouring for Hillary on the first day.  Click to donate:http://www.hillaryclinton.com/oneweek  Thank you so much for your support. Hillary and I couldn’t do it without you.

Sincerely,  

Bill Clinton

Eh… think I’ll pass.

Hillary laments, “some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism,” prompting ABC News to ask… well, who?

Sports Illustrated’s Peter King has a feature in his column, “Things I Think I Think This Week.” In that vein – a half-thought out idea that might be worth chewing on – here are two conclusions…

1. Pretend you’re a Democrat for a moment. (If you are a Democrat, then, well, as you were.) The three candidates in the field who you could say, with a great deal of certainty, that are most ready to be president; who could step in with the least amount of learning on-the-job are… Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Al Gore. I’m not saying you or I necessarily agree with these guys. But Richardson’s got the widest variety of experience (two-term governor, United Nations ambassador, cabinet secretary). Biden’s been around Washington forever and chaired some of the most influential committees (Judiciary, Foreign Affairs) and is widely regarded as a lawmaker who takes his issues seriously (even if he sounds nutty when he rants about 7-11s, etc.). Al Gore was a heartbeat away from the presidency for eight years, and a senator for a long time before that. He’s already won the popular vote.

Naturally, the three frontrunners at this moment are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards: a one-term senator and change, a less-than-one-term senator, and a one-term senator.

(Yes, I know I’m not counting Hillary’s years as first lady, and her marriage gave her an insider’s role in her husband’s administration, blah blah blah. And yes, Al Gore has indicated he is not running.)

But for some reason, at this moment of great foreign threat and great domestic change, the Democrats strongly prefer a fresh face to someone who a majority of Americans could readily see stepping into the role of Commander-in-Chief.

2. Right now, the country wants change, and if the mood is the same on Election Day 2008, that appetite seems likely to favor the Democratic candidate. But for any of the big three of the Democrats, it’s plausible that they could blow it.

Hillary? She just about guarantees 100 percent Republican turnout. Maybe my sample is a bit small, but a lot of the older folks I know act as if she’s still the vengeful, power-hungry ultra-feminist radical of, say, 1994. Older women resent the “should have stayed home and baked cookies” line from way back when. As a politician, she’s clumsy, heavy-handed, has a tin ear (banning video games and flag-burning amendment, etc.). She brings the baggage of eight years of partisan warfare and scandal (and there’s no sign her presidency would mitigate the furious passions), her Iraq positioning gives off an overpowering odor of opportunism, and she ensures the era from 1988 to 2012 and perhaps 2016 will be known as the American Dynasties with our presidencies going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

It’s easy to imagine a majority of Americans – say, all the red states – looking at the prospect of President Hillary and saying, “Eh, let’s try that McCain/Giuliani/Romney guy.”

But…

Boy, he came out of nowhere. Thin record to evaluate – what is this guy like in a crisis? How will he handle a dangerous world? Is he talking about abstract concepts like hope and bipartisanship and empathy because he doesn’t want to spell out what he would do in the Oval Office?

And it’s a shame that the most likeable Democrat to come down the pike in a long time has to – so far, at least – be offering such a standard-issue liberal policy agenda, with a dollop of “audacity of hope” Bela Caroli you-can-do-it-America enthusiasm. Clinton had welfare reform and a rejection of Mondale-Dukakis liberalism. Will Obama be an exciting reformer in any area? Will he take any position that right-of-center voters would find intriguing?

And, of course, he’s black. I think the country’s ready, but I know that many smart people disagree with me.

Add up those doubts, and maybe Americans say, “eh, we’re not ready for that guy.”

John Edwards? I try to see the appeal of candidates who I disagree with, but the upsides of Edwards are lost on me. Right now, I look at him and see a more transparently phony version of Bill Clinton, an unremarkable legislator, didn’t add much to the 2004 ticket, almost self-parodying in the hypocrisy of his Mega-McMansion, hired the lunatic bloggers, changes his tune on Israel depending on who he’s speaking to…

Ezra Klein of the American Prospect described Edwards as a modern man’s William Jennings Bryan in a recent Blogging Heads chat, and I just scratched my head at the thought that “WJB2k8” was what the country was looking for at this moment… but then again, I’ve been out of the country for the past two years or so.

Over in the Washington Examiner, I have a book review of Peter Wood’s A Bee in the Mouth, and some thoughts on anger in American politics.

I’m beginning to suspect that anger really isn’t as effective as its practitioners believe…

Hillary’s raising money in South Florida; Obama’s raising money in Hollywood.

An old boss of mine followed New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to New Hampshire, and says the reception was polite, but with tough questions, from what is descibed as good-sized crowds:

Noting how Richardson has at times described himself as a conservative, a progressive and a moderate Democrat, Arnie Arnesen, the host of a local public access cable TV show, asked him: “It’s 2007. What the heck are you now?”

“I’m a New Progressive,” Richardson said, without quite explaining what that meant.

For the next 20 minutes, Arnesen dared Richardson to get more specific in his answers; challenged his gilded portrayal of his record as governor in New Mexico; and grilled him about taxes, health care, immigration, nuclear energy and foreign policy…

“I’m still working on my shtick,” Richardson said a few moments later. “I’m not perfect. I’ll make mistakes.”

As a sign of how… bizarre this Democratic primary is getting (and it’s still early!) the latest dust-up between Obama and Hillary surrounds David Geffen’s fury over Bill Clinton’s failure to pardon Leonard Peltier.

If you had asked me to list 500 major issues facing the next president, that would not have made my list.

Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart’s column on John Edwards’ comments in Hollywood:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?

Or, you know, perhaps not.

William Beutler makes the case that Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of the candidate, was behind the hiring of the two controversial bloggers who resigned. The piece is a little speculative for my tastes, but if anyone’s wondering “why didn’t they vet those two more thoroughly,” Beutler’s theory might explain things.

So I asked why New Mexico governor Bill Richardson hadn’t made much of a splash yet, and a reader pointed me in the direction of this story from 2004:

Ten years after the U.S. Air Force closed its books on the claim that a UFO crashed in Roswell, N.M., in 1947, a top Democratic Party figure wants to reopen the investigation into the cosmic legend.

Despite denials by federal officials, many UFO buffs cherish the notion that in early summer of 1947, a flying saucer crashed in rural Roswell, scattering alien bodies and saucer debris across the terrain.

Now Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who chaired the recent Democratic convention in Boston, says in his foreword to a new book that “the mystery surrounding this crash has never been adequately explained — not by independent investigators, and not by the U.S. government. … There are as many theories as there are official explanations.

“Clearly, it would help everyone if the U.S. government disclosed everything it knows,” says Richardson, who served as Energy secretary under President Bill Clinton. “The American people can handle the truth — no matter how bizarre or mundane. … With full disclosure and our best scientific investigation, we should be able to find out what happened on that fateful day in July 1947.”

The passage appears in a paperback titled “The Roswell Dig Diaries,” published in collaboration with TV’s SciFi Channel by Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster. The “dig” of the title refers to an archaeological dig at the supposed crash site.

A Richardson aide, Billy Sparks, confirmed the governor’s remarks. Richardson “is interested in either debunking the story or (encouraging) full disclosure” of any unreleased records on the case, Sparks said.

My, that’s… unusual. The story also notes that the then-executive director of the New Mexico Republican Party, Greg Graves, is a native of Roswell who suspects the crashed object was “something more than a weather balloon,” wants to know what really happened.

It’s hard to see this unusual interest on Richardson’s part single-handedly hindering his bid. But it is easy to picture this stand spurring some scoffs among his rivals. What’s that old saying, hang a lantern on your problem? “Bill Richardson: A President For Americans of All Colors, Including Little Green Men.”

(Dear readers: While I am a skeptic, I do not want this posting to launch a big debate on whether aliens exist; please do not send me your “I was abducted” stories.)

The Los Angeles Times looks at a story from Barack Obama’s memoir… and concludes it stretches the importance of his role in a fight over asbestos, and ignores the contributions of others.

And while most memoirs place their authors at the center of events, critics of “Dreams From My Father” say it is unfair in omitting the others who were responsible for the successes of the asbestos campaign, an event that Obama portrays as central to his maturation as a political leader. For example, [Hazel Johnson, a longtime Altgeld resident who worked with Obama] is not mentioned, and no character in the book appears to resemble her, even though she was already a prominent Altgeld activist and her presence in the anti-asbestos effort is confirmed by interviews and news accounts at the time.

An Obama spokesman said that the memoir was never intended to be a complete account of Altgeld or an attempt to portray Obama as a hero, but merely the recollections of one activist. Published in 1994 and re-released in 2004, the book primarily tracks Obama’s journey to racial identity as the child of a black, Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas.

“This is making a mountain out of flat land,” said Robert Gibbs, the Obama spokesman, referring to inquiries from The Times. “The book isn’t a history of social efforts to help the area. It was about what he was involved in.”

This quote makes Obama look… well, like a typical glory-hogging politician:

Today, Johnson, now 72, is particularly disturbed that Obama’s memoir portrayed the tenants as meek and confused, highlighting one parent who was illiterate. Johnson had been quoted on many occasions in the press by the time she met Obama. She had persuaded city officials to request the tests that found hazardous materials in local drinking water.

“Why would he paint us as so pathetic?” asked Cheryl Johnson, Hazel’s daughter, who now runs the Altgeld group her mother founded. “Isn’t a memoir supposed to be accurate?”

“There’s no way that you could have done anything out there without knowing that this little old lady had been in Altgeld forever,” said Jones, who was working for the city health department at the time.

Jonah is haunted by a “poltergeist” that says the nation may be better off if Democrats win the White House in 2008.

Let me throw out the really worrisome scenario… suppose the Democrats win the White House, and keep control of Congress in 2008. And in 2009, in the midst of a “reaching out to the world” public diplomacy campaign, the Democratic-led nation is reminded, once again, that we live in a dangerous world. Suppose additional terrorist attacks on our soil. Suppose Iran sets off a nuclear weapon. Suppose there is a coup in Pakistan and the resulting defensive maneuvers by India, or Karzai is assassinated in Afghanistan, or attacks on the oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia (and/or the royal family flees), China makes a move on Taiwan, an urban intifada in European cities, or the Islamists really make a push in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan or the Gulf states. Or, if we’re really feeling gloomy, all of the above.

Would the Democrats “learn their lesson” and become more realist/hawkish/ serious/aggressive in the defense of the country?

Or would they find it more convenient to blame the previous administration for “poisoning the well” so badly that they couldn’t fix it? Is a quasi-isolationism really that unthinkable?

Would even a hawkish president find himself or herself hemmed in by a dovish legislative majority, like Tony Blair finds himself in the Labour Party?

Hillary shared her thoughts on Iraq with me… and thousands of other folks on her e-mail list. 

Right now, there isn’t one of us who isn’t thinking about Iraq. That’s why I went there recently: to meet with the commanders on the ground, to talk with Iraqi leaders, and to speak to the men and women who are fighting this war so heroically.

They’re fighting this war heroically… which is why we must stop.

When she spoke to the Iraqi leaders, did she happen to mention, “And hey, don’t get too comfortable with those bodyguards, Nouri”?

I came back even more determined to stop the president’s escalation of troops into Iraq and to start the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. So I outlined a plan, and on Friday, I introduced it to Congress as the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act.

My plan accomplishes a number of goals. It stops the president’s escalation.

“In related news, General David H. Petraeus, who I voted to confirm, does not exist.”

It protects our troops by making sure they aren’t sent to Iraq without all of the equipment and training they need. It puts an end to the blank check for the Iraqi government.

I find myself in the odd position of approvingly quoting the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman: “From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

It calls for an international conference to bring other countries together to help forge a stable future for Iraq.

Good news, Senator. The Saudis are talking about supporting the Sunnis, the Turks still periodically talk about invading the Kurdish region, and I’m sure you’ve heard about the help and equipment that the Iranians are sending across the border. The whole region is on board!

(Jim’s really cynical observation: Oh, sure, now everybody in the region wants to send funding, troops and military equipment to Iraq. Where was this attitude back in 2003?)

Finally, my plan would begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I’ve been pushing for this for almost two years.

Coindidentally, this is exactly when a majority of public opinion started shifting against the war.

For more details about my plan, please watch Friday’s HillCast, the first of what I hope will be a regular series of web broadcasts.

On ordinary campaigns, this is called a webcast, but hers is special.

The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the president takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office. But let’s not kid ourselves. From everything we’ve seen, this president is going down a very different path. He’s fighting to escalate the war, not to end it.

Why does Hillary speak as if the Commander-in-Chief can unilaterally end a war? (I suppose you can, it’s called “surrendering.”) A war ends when one or both sides give up. And the escalation is a two-way street. If the insurgents would put away the bombs and get real jobs, then the killing in Iraq would be over real fast.

I know we’re at the start of a presidential campaign, but I think all Democrats should be focused on working together to push the president to change course. We have to end this war in a smart way, not a Republican or a Democratic way, but a way that makes us safer and gets our troops home as soon as possible. That’s what I’ll be fighting for.

What about the Iraqis? To hell with ‘em? 

But let me be clear, if George Bush doesn’t end this war before he leaves office, when I’m president, I will.

Because, as she said earlier, she resents that she might assume the presidency of a country at war. It’s very inconvenient, and bothersome.

He hasn’t had any bloggers on his staff get him in trouble, his position on Iraq isn’t loathed by the base of his party, and no one is asking if he’s “Hispanic enough.” Yet Bill Richardson has, so far, been forgotten, or is at least an afterthought so far in this young campaign season.

I admit, I don’t quite get it. Richardson seems like the guy best-positioned to catapult to the top tier. Two-term governor of a state that went red in 2004, former Secretary of Energy, former Ambassador to the U.N. … generally respected around Washington. We’ve talked about the rumors of skeletons in his closet, but it still doesn’t quite explain why he’s gotten so little attention, and generated so little buzz.

He’s expected to raise $2 million at a fundraiser in Albuquerque.

Maybe being in the background is a wise move right now…

Nader’s thinking he might run again.

It’s a bit hard to see him playing his 2000 spoiler role again. He was essentially a non-factor in 2004, getting one half of one percent; I suspect he would have a hard time matching that, unless the Democratic nominee had some sort of major flaw to the liberal base. If John Kerry could keep the Deaniacs, Hillary, Obama, or Edwards seem likely to keep the Green-leaning Democrats.

In related news, Pat Paulsen ran five times; this would be number four for Nader… No, wait, he got about 6,000 votes as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire primary in 1992.

You read stories like this, and figure Bill Clinton would have figured out how to do this in a subtler, less obvious manner:

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) — A key black Democratic leader in South Carolina has negotiated a $10,000 per month consulting contract with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, a development that came to light when the lawmaker endorsed the presidential hopeful.

The contract with state Sen. Darrell Jackson’s firm, Sunrise Enterprises, is not yet signed but will run through the first Southern primary here next January, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee confirmed Thursday.

Elleithee denied there was any deal made for Jackson’s endorsement.

“Not at all. … We told him, ‘We’d love your support as a community leader and love your help as a respected political consultant inside the state,”’ Elleithee said.

Jackson did not return messages on Thursday. He has told several media outlets that he turned down more money from other candidates.

You know, what gets me about this is the inherent belief that we, the public, are really, really stupid. “Okay, he says there’s no quid pro quo. I guess that it’s just a coincidence that he endorsed someone who’s paying him a monthly retainer that could add up to about $200,000.”

Yesterday, Wolf Blitzer had Bay Buchanan and Donna Brazile on to discuss the political ramifications from the following shocking statement from Hillary:

BLITZER: Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, making a major statement today on the situation in Iraq and the implications involving Iran. Joining us, our two CNN political analysts. Donna Brazile is a Democratic strategist. Bay Buchanan is president of American Cause.

She was on the Senate floor, and she had this message for President Bush. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: If the administration believes than any — any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, Donna, what’s her strategy behind this?

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there’s no question that the Senate believes that the president must come back — if he — if he decides to do anything in Iran, he must come back and get a new resolution.

And I think Senator Clinton is echoing what other senators, like Harry Reid and Mr. Wyden on your show this weekend — they believe that the Senate must come back to the United States Senate and the Congress to get authorization.

BLITZER: What do you think?

BAY BUCHANAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: There’s no question the president has to go back to the Congress to get authorization.

A couple of thoughts:

1) Barring some sort of provocation, we’re not going to go to war with Iran. Bush has said so, Gates has said so, Tony Snow has said so.

2) What’s so “major” about Hillary’s statement?

3) So what’s Hillary’s policy on Iran? Her latest floor statement is here; some excerpts:

Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime’s request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah’s attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran’s malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I’ve also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.

All good stuff. Despite all that, it appears Hillary supports reestablishing diplomatic relations with Iran. Maybe I’m putting words into her mouth, but her statement is rather vague:

The President owes an on-going consultation to this Congress and owes straight talk to the country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward our adversaries. I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. I think that can give us valuable information and better leverage to hold over the Iranian regime. And if we ever must, with Congressional agreement, take drastic action, we should make clear to the world that we have exhausted every other possibility.

Also, interestingly, Senator Clinton is pretty much applauding the deal with North Korea.

I welcome the agreement announced yesterday between the United States and North Korea. It demonstrates the central value of using every tool in our arsenal to achieve our objectives. I only wish the Administration had pursued this course six years ago when an agreement with North Korea was within reach. The wasted time has allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons in the interim. Failure to use diplomacy has damaged our national security interests. The important step forward our country has made with North Korea raises the obvious question: Why will the President refuse to have any kind of process involving Iran as I and others have urged? The United States engaged in talks with North Korea within a multilateral process, but also had ongoing bilateral discussions. We should have such a process of direct engagement with Iran, as recommended by many, including the Iraq Study Group. We need friends and allies to stand with us in this long war against terrorism and extremism, and to contain and alter the regimes that harbor and support those who would harm us. During the cold war, we spoke to the Soviet Union while thousands of missiles were pointed at our cities, while its leaders threatened to bury us, while the regime sewed discord and military uprisings and actions against us and our allies. That was a smart strategy used by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, even though it was often a difficult one.

I’m undecided on the merits of the latest deal – I’m still wary about whether there is enough verification, and fear that it will be interpreted as the latest capitulation to extortion – but regarding Hillary’s criticism, what, exactly, have we lost in the intervening six years? How has our national security really been harmed in the past six years by North Korea? Isn’t their nuclear arsenal rather shaky? Wasn’t the big boom of last year an extraordinarily low-yield? In fact, hasn’t the saber-rattling by Kim Jong-Il actually managed to bring China closer to our position? Aren’t our relations with South Korea and Japan actually strengthened by facing this emerging threat together? Aren’t we better off if Japan begins to take its own national security seriously?

Again, I get irritated when people speak as if our lack of diplomatic relations with Iran is the result of us being in a snit. Our lack of a formal relationship with Iran didn’t happen in a vacuum! It’s because they raided our embassy and took our citizens hostage for 444 days!

UPDATE: Completely unrelated to anything, this vision of the future – specifically January 21, 2009 – made me laugh.

Governor Tim “The Eyebrow” Kaine of Virginia is endorsing Barack Obama.

All of these endorsements seem awfully early… but I guess they have to be early to be meaningful; a candidate might remember a key early endorsement, but not all those who jumped on the bandwagon.

This seems like a 2008 issue waiting to happen:

Bank of America found itself at the center of the nation’s immigration controversy following a report on the front page of Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal that it’s offering credit cards to illegal immigrants in Los Angeles.
 
In the wake of the media firestorm, the nation’s second-largest bank told the Los Angeles Times today that it complies fully with all banking and antiterrorism laws governing customer identification, which permit the use of individual taxpayer identification numbers, or ITINs, issued by the Internal Revenue Service.

Critics say that it’s too easy for undocumented immigrants to receive ITINs.

“At face value the program seems to be problematic,” Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Times. “It seems to be lending itself to possibilities of perpetrating identity theft or creating more risk for money laundering.”

One doesn’t need a U.S.-issued form of identification to get a Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. As the IRS states:

ITIN applicants are not required to apply in person, and IRS does not further validate the authenticity of identity documents. ITINs do not prove identity outside the tax system, and should not be offered or accepted as identification for non-tax purposes.

So let’s say I have some sort of documentation from a foreign government that says that I am “John Doe,” even though that’s not really my name. Maybe the documentation is fake, or maybe I’ve committed identity theft. I fill out the IRS form, send in a pay stub for John Doe (the name I gave my employer), and get my ITIN. I go to Bank of America, fill out forms with my temporary residence here in the U.S., open a checking account with the minimum balance and don’t bounce any checks for three months. If I do that, I get a credit card with a limit of $500; which I promptly blow and use. And then I go home to my home country, which I was going to do as a temporary migrant worker anyway. And the Bank of America and the IRS are looking for John Doe, who doesn’t exist, other than on a piece of paper issued by some foreign government.

I mean, really, did we just have a major national bank offer a line of credit to individuals with A) no U.S.-issued form of photo identification B) no permanent address and C) a desire to depart to a foreign country in the near future? Does anyone else see a problem here?

UPDATE: Hillary Spot reader Peter writes in with some good news:

I called Bank of America to politely voice my concern over their plans to offer credit cards to illegal immigrants. The customer service rep made it clear that I wasn’t the only customer who had been calling and emphasized that this was “a test” (i.e. something that BoA might shut down without losing face.) He seemed particularly interested in my concerns that existing, legal, BoA customers would be incur extra costs to cover the high fraud rate on this cards. In short, this may not be a done deal. Thanks for reporting on it and helping to keep the pressure on BoA.

I run a small community bank in a rural area. There is no law that prevents a citizen from another country from opening an account in or borrowing money from a U.S. bank. It happens all the time.  Sometimes the new customer resides overseas but does business here, sometimes he resides overseas but wants to put some money in a U.S. dollar account in a U.S. bank because of currency risk and or political risk. Sometimes he resides here.  As I think about it, what should the banker do?No one has told us that it’s our responsibility to determine if our customer has a valid visa or to make sure they haven’t overstayed the time limit on their last entry.

The idea that my credit card costs are going to be affected by higher fraud costs associated with illegal alien cardholders is absurd.  If we truly believe in free markets and this occurs, low risk cardholders will gravitate to lower cost programs. Secondly, bank card programs are sophisticated enough that pricing is related to risk.  No successful program(and Bankamerica’s, formerly MBNA, is unquestionably, without exaggeration,  the most sophisticated in the world) would charge  a very low risk credit the same as a higher risk credit.