Is any fact-checker in the Mother Jones San Francisco office able to lend Bill Clinton a hand? On the campaign trail recently, he echoed the Clinton campaign's argument that the pressure Hillary Clinton is facing to quit the Democratic race is "unprecedented" and that primary races routinely last into June. It's particularly odd because Bill was part of a race where also-ran candidates were pressured to get out and the frontrunner, Big Dawg himself, had the nomination wrapped up in March.

Here's the NYT fact-check that disproves all this. Look, I love Bill as much as the next guy, and I'm weary of the Clinton pile-ons (the RFK assassination stuff was nonsense and we didn't touch it here on MoJoBlog), but Bill is either deliberately misleading Hillary's supporters or he's completely resorted his memory and convinced himself of something that isn't true. And this is far from the first time he's done this. Remember when he defended Hillary's sniper fire comments? He made so many errors that ABC had to footnote them. He claimed after South Carolina that the Obama campaign had played the race card on him, then denied that he had ever said that.

While Hillary Clinton gets something wrong, the press usually debunks it immediately. But Bill Clinton largely gets a pass. Something's going on here. Possible explanations are below. Give us yours in the comments.

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

On Sunday, Karl Rove gave students of spin a prime example of a non-denial denial. He was a guest on ABC News' This Week and after discussing the presidential campaign, he was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the Don Siegelman controversy. Siegelman is the former Democratic Alabama governor who was convicted and imprisoned for corruption and who charges that the Justice Department prosecution against him was part of a secret campaign mounted by Rove and other Republicans. Last week, the House judiciary committee subpoenaed Rove in connection with the Siegelman case and the firings of U.S. attorneys.

One has to wonder if Siegelman has been trying to save himself by pinning his case to the U.S. attorneys scandal, but the way Rove answered (that is, did not answer) a question from Stephanopoulos about the Siegelman affair was quite suspicious. Look at the entire exchange:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: As we know and our viewers probably know you were subpoenaed this week by the House Judiciary Committee to give testimony on any involvement you may have had with the prosecution of the former Alabama governor, Don Siegelman. He's claiming there was selective prosecution. He's out on bail now even though he was convicted. He said your fingerprints are all over it. Here's what the House report said.

It said, "In May 2007 a Republican attorney from Northern Alabama named Jill Simpson wrote an affidavit stating that in November 2002 she heard a prominent Alabama Republican operative named Bill Canary say that Karl Rove had contacted the Justice Department about bringing a prosecution of Don Siegelman. The question for Mr. Rove is whether he directly or indirectly discussed the possibility of prosecuting Don Siegelman with either the Justice Department or Alabama Republicans."

Did you?

KARL ROVE: Let me say three things, first of all, I think it's interesting -- everybody who was supposedly on that telephone call that Miss Simpson talks about says the call never took place. I'd say...

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Guess who his step-son is voting for?

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

There's been lots of chatter lately suggesting that Barack Obama should promise Hillary Clinton a seat on the Supreme Court as a sort of runner-up prize and inducement for her to finally get out of the presidential race. Bloggers have debated her fitness for the job, whether she'd want it, or whether it would even be a good idea. But all of this is much ado about nothing. There is no way Hillary, or her husband for that matter, will ever warm a seat on the high court, for one major reason: She is simply too old.

Like the rest of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court justices serve for life. That's why Republicans over the past 15 or 20 years have made a very active and conscious effort to fill those seats with the youngest possible candidates as a way of preserving their influence for generations. The average age of GOP nominees for Supreme Court justice since 1981, including O'Connor, is 50, a full decade younger than Hillary. (Indeed, there's not a person on the court today who was older than 60 when nominated.)

Democrats haven't had a chance to pick as many candidates, but they clearly haven't made age as much of a priority. No doubt that will change should they retake the White House in the fall because, as Republicans have shown, the math is simply too compelling. Consider that when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas in 1991, Thomas was only 43 years old. If he hangs on as long as the court's current veteran John Paul Stevens, 88, the country will be stuck with nearly a half-century of Thomas jurisprudence.

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet