Yes, and apparently her "Followers" have no issues with this, which points out the huge moral bankruptcy that is her campaign.

"Shocked, shocked that there is gambling in this establishment."

My goodness.  The Clintons cavorting with undesirable characters to advance their political agenda.  The Clintons throwing the Democratic Party under the bus for (re)election.  The Clintons adopting unprincipled positions for electoral gain.  Well, I never.  

Let me just say I am neither a Republican nor a support of Mr. Obama, nor do I suffer from any sort of Schadenfreude, even though I do feel like uttering an "I told you so" sixteen years after the Clinton I wormed and wiggled and charlataned his way to the White House.  You do remember that Bill rushed back to Arkansas to execute a mentally challenged black youth?  You do remember that he pardoned that odious Mark Rich character?  You do remember that for many years his chief political adviser was a prostitute-toe sucking scumbag who would make a lobster's skin crawl?  You do remember that earnest Tammy Wynette moment even as one bimbogate was erupting after another?  You do remember the finger wagging "that woman"?  You do remember Bosnia?

What did anyone expect Mrs. Clinton to be like running for officer in her own right?  Mother Teresa?  Actually, Mother Teresa was good friends with Keating and other unsavoury characters.  Mrs. Clinton courting Scaife for political gain?  What a shocker!

tee hee, what I love most about this is how there was this theme, which was stronger earlier on in the campaign, of people who supported her chiefly because of the people who hated her - people like Scaife.  The whole thing was so Crips 'n' Bloods - kneejerk emotional tribal reactions. And, like the Crips 'n' Bloods, it turns out they have so much more in common than they do with anyone who doesn't live and breathe that kind of vilification politics, such as, oh, Obama. Or Mike Huckabee, for that matter. It has nothing to do with your position on abortion or guns.

Yes, this is terrible.  I agree with Obama.  We should meet with Ahmaneijad, Castro, and Chavez, but NEVER with Sciafe, Fox News, and Drudge.  Bipartisan meeting with your enemies should stop at the water's edge.

that is right, the reason why we talk with our enemies abroad is to try to prevent a situation where actual lives can be lost (or do you favor Iran having nukes?), also we do buy oil from Venezuela, which is in reality far less loathsome a country than Saudi Arabia even though Chavez is a loonie. And since Castro is near death isn't it about time to consider the aftermath and meet the next generation.

But no Democrat is obligated to meet with Scaife or Rush. No lives will be saved nor any agenda advanced. Rush has no desire to meet anyone halfway but will use people for his own purposes.

For that matter, how or why is Scaife or Rush even worthy of being met, David Duke has a large constituency, should Dems meet with him as well?

The purpose of bipartisanship is to find common ground, not to advance the other parties agenda for marginal political gains of one candidate.

bigm,

The exact parallel would go much farther than simply meeting with said folks, it would be if Obama had sucked up to Ahmadinejad and Chavez for their support of his foreign policy positions, or at least to have them mock the other side on his behalf.  

The analogy doesn't make any sense.  We don't chose the leaders of other counties, and national security is the issue when deciding whether or not to meet with Achmenidinnerjacket, Castro, or whomever.  In contrast, at home we *can* choose with whom we associate.  A minimal sense of decency is at issue when deciding whether or not to play with Sciafe and Drudge and their ilk.

Of course the stakes in meeting with one's political enemies is far smaller than meeting with national enemies.  But putting aside whether it is advisable to meet with foreign thugs without preconditions (and I don't believe it is, as two generations of Assads have demonstrated by gaining the prestige of these meetings but failing to ever deliver anything during them), it appears that the Clintons' strategy has been very intelligent indeed.

First, most of the "overtures" to enemy posts are wildly overblown.  It is rather tenuous to pin the Drudge Somali picture on them as Chris' hedging initial post makes clear.  (The best that can be said is that it has not been denied.  Probably because it is impossible to deny something like this when it very well could have originated from some low-level staffer without approval or knowledge.)  As for Pres. Clinton appearing on the Limbaugh show, it was not with Limbaugh himself.  This is a pretty large distinction.  And the Fox News statement, when seen in context, makes clear that Rendell (who obviously speaks extemperaneously quite a bit) is chiding Fox News for being against both Democratic candidates.

So that leaves Scaife.  Scaife has apparently changed his mind significantly about her and Clinton has therefore partially, if not totally, defused a powerful deep-pocketed enemy.  She did the same thing with Rupert Murdoch and the New York Post as Senator.  I'd say this is pretty good work and a good example of her toughness and ability to work with people she disagrees.

Christopher, you're joking, right?  The Obama in Somali garb thing was disavowed by the campaign.  Clinton appeared on the show on a day that Rush was not there.  And you once again truncated teh Rendell quote, where right after "the most objective" he says "you hate both candidates," so clearly he was kidding.  The fact that the staff sent out a piece on Tony McPeak, who, it bears reminding, has embarrassed the Obama campaign a lot, does not exactly make them part of the vast right-wing-conspiracy.  

But I find it amazing that Hillary is in this perfect damned if you do, damned if you don't situation--she can't get anything done because she's too partisan, but then when she has any interactions with the far-right, she's just engaging in hit jobs.  Which is it?

sprechs it's both - she cozys up to them only to take down a common enemy. The worst of both worlds!

ironyroad: "We don't chose the leaders of other countries,"

No word yet from Patrice Lumumba, Salvadore Allende, Saddam Hussein, or Muhammed Omar,

Oh, I agree with you, I'm just a jackass.

sprechs, Rendell was NOT joking. The entire quote makes clear that he really did believe that Fox -- the network that gave credence to the "the Clintons murdered Vince Foster" narrative -- has been the most objective.

sprechs,

Rendell joked that Fox hated both candidates, but then went on in "But seriously ..." mode and praised them for being most balanced news organization, and whined that Obama gets all the good pub and Clinton all the negative pub. So "truncating" the Rendell quote, as you say, does not change the context one iota.

bigm, Hillary is playing the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but since when has Obama become the enemy? People like Rush and Scaife are indeed enemies, partisan, vicious, greedy, if she were to win the nod they would turn against her and she against them in a second. If Hillary were to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and give a speech, good for her, same if she gave a speech to a YAF convention. But to call this pathetic display pretty good work and a good example of her toughness is to truly go off the deep end. This is what I never understand about the Clinton supporters, the inability to tell the empress she has no clothes, in fact to not even see that she has no clothes. It seems that Hillary can take a huge dump on your table and you would treat it as a gift.

4 years ago during the whole swift boat nonsense I was beside myself with anger at Kerry for not ripping Bush a new a-hole about this issue, if he had he might have won. Hillary enabled Bill, and now her supporters are enabling her. When will the cycle end? Oh right, June 4

I will certainly criticize Obama when he screws up (which hasn't been often). I criticized her wife, but since she has been out of the news they learned their lesson.

Chris: you write really fabulous film criticism.  No worthy movies lately?

Can't you all see that Hillary's gesture toward Scaife - which was nothing but a gesture - is just plain smart?  He's been a major pain in her ass forever, he's always a potential source of aggression, and he influences a lot of opinions.  He's a person she needs to defuse.  Its not like she's offered him a place in her administration, or anything at all.  

I think this is a glimpse of the much-better campaign Hillary had hoped to run before being sideswiped by the appearance of Obama.  Remember the whole 'introducing Hillary' theme from way back in 07?  I think if Obama's emergence hadn't stirred up the flames of Hillary-hatred among Democrats and the press (inadvertently on Obama's part, I assume for politeness), she would have had a decent chance of overcoming Hillary-hatred among a lot of Republicans.  Oh well.  

This is in no way an "Obama-stole-Hillary's-nomination argument" by the way.  

No, its a 'lets-throw-my-Democratic-opponent-under-the-bus-to-save-my-political-skin' argument.  She just threw Obama to the lions so that they wouldn't attack her.  My goodness, she sold out.  Completely.  Utterly.  

Obama ran a campign implying that Hillary is a racist. He deserves what he gets back from her.