This makes no damned sense whatsoever:
Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”
There is no way to account for this lack of judgment other than sheer arrogance. There is a reason why, over the past six years, when I have been trying to caution Republicans not to expand certain executive powers I have asked them to think how they would feel about President Hillary Clinton with that authority. In my opinion, Hillary will openly embrace the Bush policy of “Doing Whatever the Fuck I Want.” This is just more confirmation of my perception.
*** Update ***
According to this, Berger has no role in Hillary’s campaign:
At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY’s Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.
Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?
“He has no official role in my campaign. He’s been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn’t have any official role,” Clinton said.
But he’s an unofficial adviser, Susan asked?
“I have thousands of unofficial advisers,” said Clinton, “and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign.”
A few points:
1.) Apparently, refusing to disavow an old friend means that Hillary is using Berger as an advisor. That is unfair and a load of shit. If anything, standing by her friend raises my opinion of her.
2.) It is still, apparently, incredibly easy for the right-wing blabosphere to regurgitate and circulate any bullshit they find, and with a great deal of speed. Within hours a reporter is asking about rumors spread. Pretty efficient and effective in the hands of people with no scruples.
3.) I am still a gullible sap, and as honed as I think my bullshit detectors are, still can not figure out to instinctively not trust a damned thing the usual suspects are linking to feverishly.
4.) I still have a deep-seated distrust of Hillary and will unload on her at a moments notice. Whether or not that is fair is a topic for a different discussion, but the distrust is still there, and I need to learn to be more cautious when it comes to news of Hillary.
*** Update #2 ***
Clinton campaign downplays Berger’s role
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign downplayed a report in the Washington Examiner Monday that former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is advising the New York Democrat’s White House bid.
“Like many people he offers advice, but he has no official role in the campaign,” a Clinton aide told CNN’s Candy Crowley.
*** Update #2 ***
From the comments, Jonathon Adler:
I agree with washerdreyer that it was odd for the Examiner to characterize me as a Clinton admirer just because I said I found her to be the most impressive Democratic candidate. That said, I do not think this was an over-hyped or false story. As I note here, today’s Examiner story was not the first report that Berger has been one of those most relied upon by Senator Clinton for foreign policy advice.
Yes. Clinton downplayed his role by pointing out he has no role whatsoever.