I think you can read the last few posts and have your answer. Maxine Waters is a machine politician who would be right at home in Chicago. Add to that some outlandish conspiracy theories and you've got a person that no mainstream candidate wants to be seen with.

In the end I think this will be a wash because really, who cares about Maxine Waters, but it definitely does not help Sen. Clinton's attack on Obama that has been in cahoots with crooked types in Chicago.

All in all it just looks like a cynical move by a scared campaign who will do anything to get elected.

At this point I am wondering if Al Sharpton might be the next call on the Clinton phone tree.

Hmmm, I think I would put out a statement that said something like:

"in a cynical move by the campaign for the status quo, the Clinton campaign today touted the rousing endorsement of a member of congress who has been cited as one of its most corrupt"

Of course it would be great to add

"we will not even bother to ask whether or not Rep. Waters race was an guiding factor in touting the endorsement, however we are curious to know if Sen. Clinton had to pay Rep. Waters' daughter her usual appearance fee or was it comped in favor of some payment in the future"

giggle.

All the HRC supporters might want to get their outrage ready for tonight when the press runs their "so who is Maxine Waters piece" and comes up with this (from Wikipedia):

"Waters was named in 2005[4] and 2006[5] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, "Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son." They said that Waters' daughter Karen charges other politicians to appear on mailers sent to constituents in Los Angeles showing her mother's support for the politician. Karen has received $450,000 in fees from this endeavor and Waters' son Edward has received $115,000. Waters' husband Sidney benefited from his wife's connections with his hiring as a political consultant by a firm, Siebert, Brandford, & Shank, seeking government investment. Sidney Williams earned $500,000 from this consulting, which consisted of introducing Siebert to politicians his wife had supported. Sidney and Edward Williams also benefitted when they won a contract to run a Los Angeles golf course, with the decision made by a county supervisor who had won a close race after Waters' endorsement and from which they made financial gain of between $140,000 and $400,000.[6] Citizens for Ethics says this violates House ethics rules for family members' financial gains."

Wow, Hillary, way to take some bite out of your Tony Rezko attack. You must be very worried about the black vote in California to take on gift horse like this. You know I hear that both Al Sharpton is still neutral. You could get him too.

That Hillary could stalk and eat a homeless person on live television and 70% of these message boards would support her. I can't see how anyone can say that this move isn't weasely. And I would wager that it might hurt her more than it helps because she already has the issue of weaseliness.

God, it's gonna be hard to vote for her in November. (Yes, I am now assuming that the Clintons will somehow get her nominated through some kind of deal with the party that involves super delegates, potential cabinet posts and the blood of 13 virgins.)

Sorry if this has already been addressed but I would like to hear the Clinton partisans defend it.

Just posted on another story on this but AG is perfect for Edwards. He would go after polluters, scumbag HMOs and Corporate criminals like no one has ever seen. it is a role perfectly suited for him

I wrote this about two weeks back (when the writing was on the wall for Edwards). Could you imagine after the joke that was Ashcroft and the disaster that was Gonzalez! Edwards would be one of the best AGs since Bobby Kennedy.

I would love watching him go after the weasels who denied a dying girl a liver transplant and basically ended up killing her.

Whether Obama or Hillary wins, I think Edwards for AG is probably one of the biggest reasons to make sure the Dems get the presidency.

The democrats need the black vote and young vote to turn out, No democratic candidate is going to win with just the hard core white democratic vote.

I expect that Bill Clinton was expecting that he would be able to turn out the black vote for Hillary in November. I am wondering what kind of damage he did to himself in S.C.

If we know anything about Bill (who by the way, I am fascinated with and who I completely respect as one of our most brilliant presidents) its that his need to win can sometimes cause him to screw up in utterly spectacular fashion.