Lanny Davis Fans the Flames

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried an explosive, devastating editorial by Lanny Davis, one time counsel to Bill Clinton, regarding Obama's minister problem.


Davis is an explicit Hillary acolyte and campaign supporter.


Rather than let the Obama minister issue go, and potentially allow the Democratic party to get it behind for the general elections, Davis is signaling that Hillary will go to the mat now and until the final bell for the nomination.


Here are the key passages from Davis' editorial,


"Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?


As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.

In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.

But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.

Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?

If he did not want to withdraw from the church – and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so – then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "No – this is unacceptable."

Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?


Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election."

This is great stuff, and especially coming from a liberal Democrat like Davis. If a Republican continued to make these points, he'd be accused of race-baiting and simply trying to prolong the coverage of a campaign non-issue for Obama.

But Davis makes the point that Democrats haven't really taken the time to consider just how weak this example of appalling bad judgment may make Obama in the general election.

And how implausible Obama's 'explanation' is, even to other Democrats.

Further, Davis carefully separates Obama's views on race, etc., from his ministers', so that he, Davis, can zero in on the real issue- Obama's bad judgment. And questionable choice of advisers, lieutenants and would-be appointments.

It is, in my opinion, a masterstroke.

Of course, Davis' editorial is, in some sense, a measure of how desperate Hillary's campaign is to derail Obama. To have an unofficial campaigner, a Clinton veteran at that, carry this water for Hillary would really seem to raise the stakes on this issue, and the Democratic nomination fight, in general.

When all is said and done, Hillary's 'take no prisoners' quest for the Oval Office is tearing her party apart, and she and Bill obviously could not care less.

For conservatives, this is free entertainment with a special kick.

Cashing In- The Clintons' Tax Returns

This past Friday's publication of the Clinton tax returns for 2000-06 pretty much completes the picture of the former First Couple as a pair of hypocrites. But of the two, I think it's fair and timely to paint Hillary as the worse of the two.

For someone who keeps referring on the campaign trail to 'poor working families,' 'hard working families,' and, alternatively, 'the rich,' she has a lot of gall.

She and Bill earned over $100MM in the time period covered by the published returns. Most of it- some $80MM- came from his speaking fees and books. Talk about 'unearned' income.

In Hillary's new world of the working poor and a gloomy America, what possible 'value' could she and Bill have created with all of his hot air and their joint scribblings? Neither of them ever did anything material in the private sector, and Bill made a mockery of the Presidency.

Coming from the Midwest, I have to wonder how many of the centrist, Reagan Democrats now on the fence regarding voting for John McCain, will lean harder in his direction as they learn that the woman who rails against Wall Street has a husband who was paid $15MM by venture capitalist Ron Burkle for 'investment advice.'

What advice? Buy the blue dress- it has investment potential?

And how about when those voters learn that Bill essentially monetized the Presidency in his afterlife to the tune of some $80MM. Would anyone have cared what Bill thought or said if he hadn't become President? Doubtful.

Then there are two other interesting tidbits. The woman who is running on a platform to soak the rich- paid $33MM in taxes for the period of the tax returns!

That's substantially more paid in taxes in six years than most voters will earn in a lifetime.

Then there's the typical Clinton self-dealing in the form of 'charity.' By 'charity,' the Clintons mean lining their own tax-free pockets by contributing to their own charitable foundation.

This foundation then becomes a sinkhole to which their 'friends' can also contribute, and/or the Clintons can use, as they did in South Carolina, to make donations which become quid pro quos for non-economic favors in the political arena.

Pretty nice deal, if you can get it, eh? Of course, you have to come up with the $10MM to fund the personal charitable foundation, first.

It doesn't get much better for a conservative than to watch a grasping, ambitious liberal like Hillary rail against the very thing she then demonstrates herself- and her husband- to be. That is, white-collar rich folks making money with their connections and wits, rather than stocking shelves, fixing cars or welding metal out on 'the line.'

You'd like to think that Hillary might write a big check to the US Treasury, in order to demonstrate her common cause with the poor on whose behalf she alleges to campaign. Fat chance.

If these tax returns don't make middle Americans think twice about the hypocritical witch from New York, I guess nothing will.