A Gentle Denial from the Speaker; Hillary Agonistes

It wasn’t the “pound sand” response they deserve, but Nancy Pelosi responded to the Clinton donors’ blackmail by repeating her position that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters.  The response came through her spokesman, Brendan Daily:

“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August,” Daly said. “That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

All-in-all, this is about as strong of a response as could be expected.  Pelosi refused to back down from her comment that instigated the letter and even used the occasion to repeat it.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton sat down for an interview with Greta Van Susteren, one of the oddest looking people on television.  Hillary says she’s in it to win (sort of like W is in Iraq to win).

“Nobody should be writing obituaries on this race, because it is a long way from being over,” [Clinton] said. “What I’ve seen in my last 14 months on the campaign trail is that every time people count me out — you know, pundits say it’s over, it should be over — the voters bring me back… because they believe that I will actually get up every day in that White House and work my heart out for all of our people.”

“Our people?”  WTF?  She went on to desribe the primary season as a long job interview:

“Because, you know, when you’ve been on a campaign for 14 months, you know, there’s all other kinds of distractions, but at the end of the day this is like a hiring decision. Who will people hire to get this country moving in the direction it should move in?”

There’s no indication in the article as to whether Clinton’s demeanor showed any recognition of the irony in this statement.  You see, Clinton’s comparison of the primary season to a job interview came in response to a question about  her Bosnia lies; lies she put forward to embellish her experience.   I’ve had the chance to make a few hiring decisions and I would never consider hiring someone who lies about their experience.

Did Pawpaw Say That Again?

When we last left John McCain, he was talking about how Iran and al qaeda had set up housekeeping together despite the enmity between Sunnis (al qaeda)  and Shiites (Iran).  Joe Lieberman gently corrected McCain in front of an international press contingent, but it seems that his campaign hasn’t gotten the message.  According to an article linked at Talking Points Memo, McCain’s campaign has decided he was right, before he decided he was wrong that is.

I don’t know how Obama (or god forbid, Hillary) raises the issue, but it seems pretty clear that if McCain is elected, he’s likely to strike Iran militarily.  He seems pretty inclined in that direction to begin with and I cannot imagine that any Iranian regime would be willing to sit across  a negotiating table from him. It would be difficult in the best of circumstances to get some meaningful agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, but a difficult task turns impossible if McCain is elected. After all, McCain turned war with Iran into a ditty.  “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

McCain has a patina of gravitas and competence, but scratch that surface and you find a reckless, uninformed, grumpy old man.