Posts
Pennsylvania Is The Heartland Of The Nation (Of Islam)
By Daniel Koffler / April 22, 2008
On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, video of the state's governor Ed Rendell heaping praise on the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, went viral through the blogosphere yesterday. The context is a 1997 rally for racial reconciliation that Philadelphia NoI leader Rodney Mohammed and Rendell co-organized and Farrakhan keynoted, back when Rendell was mayor of Philadelphia. Given the prominence the six-degrees-of-Louis-Farrakhan gambit has taken during this campaign, it's a bit jarring to watch as Rendell thanks the "Nation of Islam in Philadelphia…for what you stand for" and goes on for a full six and a half minutes extolling the NoI for its promotion of family values, its efforts at curbing drug use, its various projects in support of education, and its mission of "ending racism and bigotry…throughout the United States" [my emphasis, though you could infer it from the speech]. Rendell gives Farrakhan as heartfelt an encomium as one can expect from a Philadelphia politician, explaining how "my respect for him has grown, for the intensity of his beliefs, for the decency of his soul, and for the strength of his courage." And he climaxes by specifically striking back at those who criticized him for attending the NoI rally, arguing that anyone serious about healing "the central problems facing our country" should have shown up to "talk about our differences and make progress."
POST A COMMENT
I don't know how you get from me stating six times that what Lott said was terrible to me defending Lott's statements–other than you don't really speak English. I don't know how you read statements about the behavior of the elderly and how it affects you–and think this is some kind of joke, unless you don't speak English.
I said before that you think I'm a racist, I think you lack compassion. I still think you lack compassion.
I also don't see how anyone can write a paragraph like your second paragraph unless they don't speak English as a first language.
Shall we examine your life–see how pristine it's been filled with good deeds, shall we see how clear your heart is, not at all filled with hatred our callousness? I've got news for you, humans have flaws. And if you think it's your job to continually point those flaws out to other folks–that's the problem of your relatives and friend. You can say what you want about Lott, you want to say he's a racist–fine. You want me to say he's a racist, fine, he's a racist. But the bad news is that the emotional blood of hatred that you say flows through him, that you insinuate also flows through me, also flows through you.
One big brotherhood.
Uh, defending Lott's pro-segregationist sentiments on the grounds that this or analogous approaches are a good way to appeal to the neurologically impaired is, like, the lamest justification for anything I've ever heard – even on the internet. But hey, whatever works for you man.
Yep. Honor thy parents.
Extol their sins. Pass the gravy.I don't understand how someone can take the most retarded defense of pro-segregationist sentiments and say that they can't understand how Obama's been treated fairly for repeatedly
notdenouncing the statements of others with whom he's close but disagrees. In Naftali's world, any unconditional attributes of a relationship are more important than mental autonomy and the cognitive activity that comes with it. Suffice it to say that at least as many people have relationships that they value because there's room for disagreement – even with relatives. Too bad he doesn't seem to understand that. But hey – his older and/or neurologically impaired relatives demand that he keep his own mind in a mason jar beneath the sink – lest they feel less loved by the possibility of his having his own mind. Again Naftali, you have my apologies. I was not aware that this sort of submission still existed. Most parents have a different definition of love.So Naftali, if your mother-in-law had stolen something, or assaulted her nieghbor or roommate at the old folks home, at her next birthday party extravaganza you're going to praise such acts? Just wondering.
Naftali, you ask why I object to stopping Saddam. The answer is that we didn't do it to send the message that Genocide is bad. No genocidal dictator today looks at our inaction in 1987 and our subsequent action in 2003 and says to themselves, Oh, I better not commit Genocide, because America will come after me if I do. Why? Because our inaction in 1987 (and also in Rwanda and now in Darfur) makes it clear that America will do nothing to stop Genocide or punish those who commit Genocide for committing Genocide. We didn't attack Iraq and kill Saddam Hussein, because he committed Genocide. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that, and the administration doesn't even try to pretend that that's the reason why we got rid of Saddam. And attacking Iraq hasn't made us or the world any safer; not safer from Genocide, and not safer from terrorists. If anything, it has made things worse.
for not supporting Obama. That's called a straw man.
You don't seem to understand that old men don't get a pass on their advocacy of racism. Or that younger men (Obama, Lott) can befriend or even be mentored by someone with questionable racially-oriented ideas (Wright, Thurmond), and either appropriate those sentiments (as Lott did) or repudiate them (as Obama did).
There's a difference.
The rules of logic are the same regardless of who hears them. Apparently Lott didn't think he could logically make a defensible case for his statements, and stepped down. And senators have to communicate much more effectively than I would guess you have to. Regardless of your resistance to consult any credible authority on the matter.
There. I addressed both age and race in a comparitive context between Lott and Obama. I think this is over. Although I can't resist repeating, for the record, the statements regarding segregation as a presidential platform that Naftali finds redeeming based on the person they're addressed to:
"And if the rest of the country had followed our (segregationist) lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
You're not a racist, Naftali. You're just an apologist for expressions of admiration for segregation when addressed to "cute" little old, former segregationist men. Or words to that effect. Big difference to any non-thinking person. Do you really think you're going to make yourself look any better the more you keep this nonsense up? Lott had no choice but to use these words in praising a senator? Lott didn't mean them? If you buy that then you'll believe anything. At least, you'll believe anything you're saying to a dying man.
Dude, I'm writing in English. Did I not say that what Lott said, in any other context would be terrible. Didn't I say that? Didn't I say that when Thurmond was younger he was dangerous? Didn't I say that?
You want me to get an English Professor, I want you to get an gerontologist, how about that?
I know all that you're hearing–that's my point. You can't hear everything else I'm saying. You're ignoring just about everything I say. You tell me what you want to hear. Go ahead, just say what you want me to say. And then read everything I wrote and see if you can find it–because you will.
You insist that the rules of communication and meaning are the same regardless of a person's age or infirmities. I say they are different. You're talking about race, I'm talking about age. So let's do this. You want to talk about race, lets talk about race and leave out age. Pick another topic. You want me to have your understanding of racism–and I think mine is pretty good, pick another topic.
Or are you saying that if I'm not head over heels for Obama, then that's racism? If so, one of us is racist, and it's not me.
Apparently you have dialectical predispositions that cannot be reconciled with objectivity and reason, Naftali. Or with my own predispositions or those of many others. Find me one English professor who thinks that Lott's endorsement of the Thurmond's Dixiecrat run is not a positive historical judgment simply because it was addressed to a decrepit Thurmond at a later event in his honor, and I'll try to listen to why they would propose that to be true. Because right now all I'm hearing is your spinning. You know – the kind of spinning that you hate Obama for not exhibiting. The kind of spinning that you must find aggravating to know that a majority of the American public doesn't care for. The meaning of Lott's words hardly change because of the company, and I think you know that. Your disagreement is almost not even worth responding to it's so extreme. And probably meant to save face, not to make a case.
It seriously takes a deficit of reason to think that you can't admire an old person, understand the different historical currents behind their actions long ago, and praise their gumption or character now or previously without stating that their immoral follies would have made us all better off had they been successfully implemented. It's delusional to think otherwise and a repudiation of Thurmond's much more easily redeemed (and praiseworthy, if the adjective still fits) political evolution and subsequent renunciation of that stuff to say so. But go ahead, feel sorry for him and tell him he was great for being an idiot. And tell a grown man he was great for (insert reprehensible childhood act here). It'll bring back fond memories. Assuming you want to coddle whatever delusions you assume him to have.
Did you read any of what I wrote after you went to sleep?
Of course segregation–I said, I wrote that when Thurmond was young he was a dangerous man. I said he may have been an evil man. What else can I say? Well, I said a few more things–that at 100 years old, nothing you can say can be more poignant that what nature does to a man.
Of course, I also said that I don't want you to understand my point, because it's a hard understanding–but if you insist on misunderstanding me, I will insist you volunteer at an elderly care facility. That experience can be both powerful and fearsome.
No, segregation is not praiseworthy–ever. If Lott was standing by himself making this speech it would have had a completely different meaning. My interpretation is that Lott's comments were directed towards a 100 year old man. That's it. You think he's making some overall policy statement. That's where we disagree.
You see me with some type of latent racism, I see you as having no compassion for your elders who are sick and infirm, and my not have all of their mental faculties remaining. Now, you will end up seeing my point–because time has a way of doing this.
There is no greater 'ism' in this country than the division between rich and middle class or rich or poor. When these folks are young and vital, there are negative judgments, social restrictions–it's ugly, and it cuts both ways. But in the home, whether a man made 100 million dollars or if a man can barely pay the monthly bill it evens out, especially if the multi-millionaire can't control his body anymore. It all goes away. If you and I were in the same home–it would all go away. They look out for each other, because they know that no one understands them but them. Sure the caregivers help, but no one can really understand where they are but them. Many folks hold on to their old mishigas, but many just don't have the strength to be their old selves.
I cannot overemphasize what a powerful experience this is, and I believe Lott is old enough to have experienced it. It doesn't matter if one person is listening or a thousand are listening, or if the world can hear it. When you look at that old man, you are going to talk to that man only–and you are going to say things to comfort and be kind to that man as much as possible. It just happens.
I know no one that takes Eric Yoffie seriously outside the media.
Jeffrey, I have to disagree with you on Yoffie, he's a shrewed and deep leader…the best the Reform has ever had.I'm hardly Reform, but he is one of the few real Jewish leaders out there.
Phantom, you wrote,
"Don't look 10 or 20 years down the road, just give us the quick fix for
today (or do nothing different at all), even if it hurts our future. I
don't see that with Obama."
How do you see comparative advantage on this issue with Obama? What is this based on? He frequently sounds almost pollyannish. Maybe that's why I trust Clinton's dour demeanor more…all the candidates should be in a bad mood from what we as a nation and world are truly facing.
You don't have to take me seriously Jeffrey, you obviously take what I wrote seriously – which is all that matters. And you should take seriously what the newspaper of record in Hillary's home state and the city of Bill's office had to say about Hillary's much greater responsibility in making the campaign as negative, and unsubstantive, as it now is. She's had a longer and greater role in the national spotlight, she was the favored front-runner for the better part of a year. She didn't have to bring her party and this race down in flames. But she did.
The funny thing is, even if Obama's stance on Israel is opportunistic, it's one he could hardly abandon as President. Contrast that w/Hillary's opportunistic stances on virtually everything and your single-issue litmus test on opportunism becomes risible. But at least Hillary promises to obliterate Iran while ignoring the Palestinian contribution to obliterating a peace process that even Bill's outrageously horny lust for a Nobel prize won't credibly resuscitate. Meanwhile Obama's harsh statements to the Palestinians while in Ramallah speak volumes about his "opportunism".
I can much more easily look past endorsements by revolutionary, even criminal firebrands early in one's political career than I can someone who actually appropriated a willingness to stoop to the ethical benchmarks of such supporters' methods. But I understand if you can't. Given what's happened in this campaign, I have no choice but to.
Pick a pseudonym with which to more easily identify me and I'll be glad to respond to it.
Naftali, none of the candidates have presented the kind of detailed policy plans that you seek. Not Obama, not Hillary, and leas of all McCain. And to be frank with respect to McCain, I would be more comfortable if our choice was a more traditional conservative rather than McCain. Because then I would at least feel that he would get it right in terms of benefiting people who are already wealthy. So in the face of having to choose between Hillary and that kind of Republican, I could say to myself, Self, Hillary and Romney (for example) are both liars and neither is trustworthy, but at least I know that even if Romney screws the whole country, he probably won't screw me, whereas, Hillary may end up screwing everyone. With McCain, it becomes a bit more difficult, because he isn't a traditional Republican, and he may end up screwing it up for both rich and poor alike.
The reason why my life becomes less complicated with Obama as the Democratic candidate, is that I at least trust him. He hasn't said one thing here and another thing there on the issues that matter most to America (healthcare, economy, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, foreign affairs (e.g., genocide), condition of minorities). This is a candidat that could have easily flip-flopped on the Armenian Genocide resolution, and why not, everyone else, including Clinton, did. It would have been easy to do, and it wouldn't have cost him anything politically. But he stood on principal and what he perceived to be in the long-term best interest of America, just like he did when he voted against the war in Iraq. He also appears to be more thoughtful and calculated in his response to the spiraling demise of our economy, whereas McCain seems to want to do nothing at all, and Clinton has knee-jerk reactions encapsulated in sound-bites designed to fool the American people into thinking there's a quick fix. McCain and Hillary are the embodiment of what's most wrong with America today: myopia! Don't look 10 or 20 years down the road, just give us the quick fix for today (or do nothing different at all), even if it hurts our future. I don't see that with Obama. Everything he says and has done suggests that he is forward-thinking and thoughtful. I can support that without too much anxiety. The others, McSame and Hillary, cause anxiety in me.
David, you and Jeffrey may have formed the same conclusion, but not for the same reason. You seem to be caught up in the rhetoric and irrelevant (at least in terms of running this country) and extremely deceptive character assassinations, whereas Jeffrey is voting solely on the best candidate for the interests of Israel. He doesn't give a shit who is best for America, and is too paranoid (possibly justified) to recognize that the best candidate for the interests of both America AND Israel is the one who is most honest with the people of both countries.
David, I love your spin on "resistance to Obama's candidacy" especially in the face of reality, which is that Obama is winning this race. So why not be honest with yourself and ask why there is so much resistance to Hillary's candidacy? This was supposed to be the year of Hillary, wasn't it? Why do you think she waited until now rather than running in 2004? She thought it was a slam dunk, and now look! She's so far behind in both the popular vote and in the delegate count that it would take an unprecedented comeback (or shenanigans, which is what scares Americans most) to defeat Obama at this point. Finally, I'm no fashionista, but that outfit would look better if you paired it with some gold-rimmed glasses! Just my 2 cents.
Jeffrey wrote,
"I do not trust Obama, he has done nothing to earn my trust and has
actually used up any good will I felt towards him. I have lost a lot of
respect for his water carriers, because they know and we know it is
simply because of the cult of personality surrounding Obama."
Jeffrey, a lot of Jewish Dems feel the same way.
I saw his ad emphasizing how he won't accept money from Big Oil, and I was sad I didn't trust him. I hope I am wrong. But I don't think there would be such serious resistance to his candidacy if there weren't…questions.
Bad Faith all around, and sheer BS. Phantom, you say that we cannot find a character flaw of telling two crowds divergent things in Obama, yet that is what the man is about. All of his friends speak about his anti-Israeli/Pro-PLO stances, yet whe it is time for the big game, he jettisons (sort of) that rhetoric to be more presidential. Obama gives conflicting and naive answers to many questions (when he even bothers to answer) yet he has people bending over backwards to wash away anything they find embarrassing, like the long string of associations that are downright despicable like Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dorhn, and various Black Panthers that have yet to hit the media at large.
I think what troubles many of us "anti-Obama" people is the sheer hypocrisy and mendacity that his supporters engage in. As I said in another thread, if it were anti-abortion terrorists cavorting with Obama, he would be toast from many on this board. Yet, they excuse the cavorting of a murdering domestic terrorist like Ayers, and although I have my suspicions, I cannot publicly guess why that is the case. I do not trust Obama, he has done nothing to earn my trust and has actually used up any good will I felt towards him. I have lost a lot of respect for his water carriers, because they know and we know it is simply because of the cult of personality surrounding Obama. I doubt they would go to such great lengths to protect Hillary.
So segregationism is praiseworthy if spouted off years ago by a man who is now 100 years old? What makes you incapable of understanding the distinction between praising Thurmond as a 100 year-old senator who has exercised leadership by learning and changing and growing over the years versus expressing regret that his Dixiecrat party hadn't won? Did you even read the quote?
I find it ironic that your inability to "spin" Obama whatsoever is precisely what annoys you. Words seem to matter to everyone else. Especially to those who can read this quote and realize its innappropriateness in the mouth of any senator in 2002, let alone majority leader:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
Out of all the things to praise about Thurmond, Naftali, you really don't see a problem in going out of one's way to praise his segregationism? If you don't understand that there is something wrong with you for not seeing that, then you really don't understand America. Or racism.
I think I'm saying that I can't do much with what Obama gives us. I can't spin it forward, backward, any which way. I can't say it's good, can't say it's not. There just isn't much to go on, and yet he wants me to make a decision.
Defending Trent Lott? Please examine how you interpret that, talk about spin. I said, one criteria–Thurmond was 100 years old. You treat 100 year olds differently–it's like nature. You just do. Even if the 100 year old was an evil, rotten 50 year old, there's nothing you can say that even approaches the attack of nature.
If Daniel Koffler would be effusive about Clinton, yes I would ask for details. I just want details. I hear Hillary's speeches and think the same thing. How is she going to fix everything–or is she going to screw everything up so terribly we end up in a depression? It's possible, when folks start talking about trade in negative ways–do they mean tariffs? Tariffs mean trouble, as I understand economics and history. Is anyone going to say the word 'tariff'? I doubt it.
Read what I wrote again. The food crisis is an example of a plan that goes seriously wrong. Plans have a way of doing that. That's why I want to know the details of plans.
And you're right about this plan to put a moratorium on foreclosures–that's my point about how bad plans can be.
You want to know where I was in 1987 and 1988? I wasn't paying attention to much of anything. And I'm not particularly proud about that. And before that, when I was paying more attention, I was usually wrong–history has shown. I voted for Carter. My stomach usually turns when an administration does something that James Baker would think is a good idea. Right now, yes, I will speak out about any genocide anywhere. But I don't know who exactly to speak it to, since the political class doesn't work along moral lines, except in very rare instances–determined, usually, by non-moral events.
What's your definition of a neo-con? My definition is someone whose youth is spent on the left, then at some point wonders why all of these grand plans at social and economic reconstruction never seem to work. So, you just unhug the idea that you can plan your way to utopia. It ain't much, but that's my definition. I don't go so far as to embrace or register as a Republican.
I won't disagree with anything you said about Hillary.
This is an important election, and the choices are not optimal–and I may join you in your vote for McCain.
You wouldn't happen to have a good idea sitting around for dealing with the economy, would you?
is what things are like in assisted living. Do you visit the assisted living community often? Do you help out there?
There is a certain age where all of the BS that we believe when we are young just doesn't matter anymore. There isn't a lick's worth of difference between anyone in a wheelchair, it hurts both body and spirit and skin doesn't matter. For many who reach that age, all they do is think about how foolish they were when they were young.
I don't know if Lott would have said that to a man who was fifty or even sixty, but when someone is 100…it's just different. I hope you never find this out. I hope your folks never become feeble or in constant pain. I hope you never reach a position when in your prayers, you don't know what to say because living is just as bad as dying. Or when you look at a person you've known your whole life, but that person just isn't that person anymore. They are barely even there. I hope you don't experience any of that, or your children.
But I think Lott saw a 100 year old trembling man, not some swaggering racist. And Thurmond was indeed a swaggering racist when he was young and stupid and dangerous.
No one believes the Dixiecrat nonsense anymore–that era is gone. It's not coming back.
Now, hopefully, we can look at people as just people–aside from this all too human tendency to be astoundingly judgmental–which will give us so much to regret when we are in wheelchairs.
This election is not about the Dixiecrats, it is not even about race. What the candidates need to do is define what this election is really about–that's part of the job application. If Obama says it's about change, then I want to know lots of details. I want to know if he's thought things through. Here is a non-racial example–the coming food crisis, which came about as people were trying to deal with the problems of fossil fuels. Ideas and plans have a way of not working out the way folks think they will. I've seen this over and over again. So I want details. And that's really about all I want.
The problem is that politicians don't like to give details, they like to talk about character and judgment–and if that's what they want to talk about, then they better have strong character and good judgment. Like it or not, for Obama, those traits are not clear for quite a few people, especially when he campaigns in Pennsylvania and then goes to San Francisco and tells the San Franciscans how two-dimensional the Pennsylvanians are–with the primary one week away. Should I ignore that?
this stupid or this willfully obtuse.
Trent Lott said that the country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. This means that his segregationist platform, which was the only remarkable thing that distinguished his Dixiecrat party from the others, was a good thing. When Lott mentioned that he was praising a position that Thurmond supported, not Thurmond as a person in general.
If you have this much of a problem comprehending that, then there's not much use in trying to explain to you why Obama can explain where he stands on something without being further confused as to what's important to him as a person. That's because, unlike Hillary, he maintains consistency on those stands.
Maybe I'll have to come back to this later and further remediate, but it's getting late and I'm tired and done explaining the difference between praising a person and praising the segregationist direction in which that person would have taken the country, and what integrity means. Good luck. Try the Wikipedia and GOOGLE for starters if that helps get you up to speed. You might yet make some progress, and these links can provide valuable lessons on how to not sound like an idiot in the meantime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott#Resignation_from_Senate_leadership
I'm not looking for evil, I'm looking for something, as in anything. I grant you that he is just about the most talented public speaker I've seen.
But I want to know what he thinks and feels when Wright is using hatred to build his new house. I want to know what he talks about with Ayers and Dorhn, and how he chose McPeak, and Malley. I want to know why he thinks Afghanistan is a good fight, but stopping Saddam from persecuting and starving his own countrymen and women is not a good fight. I want to know why his capital gains tax increase, in his mind, is not a tax increase on middle America. I'm not saying Obama is nefarious, I'm saying that many people don't know who he is, that there are many contradictions that keep coming out, and these aren't being resolved. He is running for the Presidency of the US, not applying for a CEO position at GE.
Just this evening, in his speech he distorted, completely distorted what John McCain stated about the economy. Did he do this on purpose? He's done it several times. Does this count, can I use this to make a judgment on his character? Can I use any of the above?
If not, tell me the rules. What can I pay attention to and what should I ignore and why? Do you want me to see him as a human being or a black human being? And are there two different sets of rules? You tell me. Here are my preferences, I want to see him as a human being, and use the same criteria of trustworthiness that I use for every person that I meet. Is that okay? I'm not saying that I don't trust him because he's somehow bad, I'm saying that he's not giving me enough information. He might be the nicest guy in the world–but this is a job interview, he's not calling me to tell me he has an extra ticket to the Cubs game, would I like to go.
I know who Strom Thurmond was, and I know he was just about gone during that tinsel and sparkle dinner. He was what, 100 years old at that point? I understand quite a bit about the history of racism in the US. I know exactly what it feels like to be the minority in a culture, and what it's like to be rejected on the basis of appearance, or religion, or finances.
In fact, I know exactly how it feels to be judged on the most superficial data possible, because, Anon, you just did it to me.
Because you're looking for an evil that isn't there. That's why it's a chore Naftali! We all know that Hillary is a liar, and a flip-flopper. Pick any issue, and you'll see that she'll say whatever that audience wants to hear. To give one small example. She has told the Armenian community that she is absolutely and categorically for recognition by Congress of the Armenian Genocide. But she tells the Turks the exact opposite and takes large sums of money in campaign contributions from both communities. And last year when we finally thought the Genocide resolution had a chance, in the 11th hour, she was one of the voices that flip-flopped and sided with those who wanted to put it off some more.
You can't find this character flaw in Obama. So what do you look for instead? You exhaust yourselves looking for some evil that isn't there with the type of paranoid zeal that only a fanatic can have. The worst thing about it is that you know that Obama isn't a racist. And you know that he is the most decent of the three candidates that we have left. But in your self-inflicted paranoia, you are going to do your best to rob yourself of having a leader like that.
Do you two know each other, Daniel and David, as in you see each other at a favorite nite spot occasionally and talk things over.
Because I don't see anything wrong with David's response. Obama has an issue with Reverend Wright–not what Wright thinks, but what does Obama think when Wright is doing his thing. Obama answered this three different ways. That's an issue. And if a white candidate had a racist pastor for 20 years, that candidate would be dead in the water. Look what happened to Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond as Strom was slipping into the Big Sleep. That was just one sentence.
I just listened to Obama's speech tonight, and there's no there there–in the speech. People want to know who this guy is, and for some reason this is becoming very difficult. No one is getting caught is 'distractions', they are looking for evidence of the man's inner qualities and deepest beliefs. It shouldn't be this much of a chore.
I'm with naftali, the thing that makes Obama supporters that much more insufferable than Clintonites is their refusal to admit ANY skeletons in his closet.
At least the Clinton backers can do that much.
You wrote a straightforward piece the other day–didn't that feel better than these contortions you go through for Obama? This stuff has to hurt. There has been a steady stream of Obama associates whose political judgments have been, shall we say, questionable. I'm not saying Hillary is clean on this matter–but you've got to admit, if folks are asking 'what's with this guy?', it's now a legitimate question. We already know what's with Hillary. Been there done that for eight years.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!