Who Should Progressives Trust?

Yesterday, I posted about a heated exchange that took place between Madame Clinton and Mr. Randall Rolph in Iowa over the weekend. Apparently, this story is gaining attention as even Dan Baltz at WaPO is reporting on it.

Blogger Wade Norris picked up the WaPO story and created a diary at the Daily Kos about it. It's still on the recommended list. Norris was accused of channeling Drudge, supplying misinformation.

Hillary Murdoch posts the same WaPO story at Taylor Marsh. Taylor, in her analysis, uses the "sexism" angle, even though conceding that Andrew Sullivan might have a point about Clinton's arrogance in this instance. Since arrogance from Clinton is interpreted as "she's very working hard", Marsh contends that if a male candidate had reacted to the attendee as Clinton did, the media would see it as a sign of strength instead.

Did Taylor overlook that the first link to the exchange was reported by a woman? Does that mean the woman journalist is also sexist? I found two women who first reported on this heated dialog yesterday. I think they were just doing their job.

But look at the next commentary that Taylor probably has not seen yet.

Kos, whom you all know has infuriated me about calling Edwards weak for accepting public funds for the primaries, took a different approach and quoted from the Union-Leader (NH) a retired woman general who about who supported Clinton for this reason:

A retired U.S. Army general visiting [New Hampshire] to campaign for Hillary Clinton said yesterday she does not oppose the Iraq war -- and she said she's never heard Clinton oppose it, either [...]

Kennedy said, "I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership." And, [Retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy] added, "I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.' I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal under a plan led by the military and defense secretary. I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq. That is a very important idea and the point of that group is to create incentive and assurances that will keep the neighboring countries from becoming involved and entering Iraq. That's a much more sophisticated thing than saying, 'I oppose the war.'"

Yes, I am supplying a link to Kos because he gets the hat-tip for finding the information and pointing out that Clinton is not anti-war, and validates what Norris was reporting. Then there's another glaring problem Clinton will be dealing with: having Sandy Berger as an advisor. Great, a guy who stole classified documents from the National Archives a few years ago, and got caught.

What everyone is missing, except Pioneer and Montana Maven who posted here yesterday, is something Mark Schmitt penned at TAPPED back in mid-February about Clinton's view of executive power.

However, we have just gone through a period of the most staggering expansion of executive power in history, and I suspect that we don’t know the half of it. The setup that was the Iraq resolution, the manipulation of the executive branch itself in order to deceive Congress was one example of it. The next president will have to comb through a mass of undisclosed executive orders, secret legal opinions, bizarre theories, manipulative structures, embedded political appointees, excessive classification, and let some daylight back in. The last thing we need at this moment is yet another president who "believes in executive authority and Congressional deference." We need a president who respects separation of powers and democracy. After all, the next president will not be our last.

At the Yearly Kos, Jeffrey Feldman fielded a question to John Edwards about the unitary executive, an issue that loomed large in the pool of questions he and others collected from bloggers:

"The current administration has done so much to consolidate power to the Executive branch at the expense of the other two and in violation of the Constitution. As President, what will you do to restore balance amongst all three branches of government?"

Edwards response is better to be watched and heard rather than retyping the script:





I don't see that Clinton is going to be much different from Bush. And no matter what anyone says, her arrogant attitude with Mr. Rolph, a former Deaniac, is going to get noticed, and it should, if you are a progressive. And I trust John Edwards to do as he says he will, which is restoring the trust of Presidency as our founding fathers (and their wives who supported them) intended.