Except Clinton is a world-class hypocrite when it comes to race. For example, Sister Souljah, Rickey Ray Rector, welfare reform, Rwanda, etc. etc.

For grins, please note that Eugene Volohk recommended the op-ed.

As regards Siter Souljah, I recommend this discussion over on Atrios. unless you have specific evidence to the contrary, I think we need to retire that particular charge.

There is some good discussion there on the Rector execution as well.

Oh, guys, Thernstrom was only trying to point out that global AIDS funding is on the NAACP scorecard but is not obviously a "civil rights" issue. Her other example, if I recall correctly, was something about extending unemployment benefits to aviation workers.

I happen to think increased aid to those fighting AIDS in Africa is a good idea, but it is not a US civil rights issue, and it doesn't belong on a US "civil rights scorecard."

As for the "coding," if you can find a single instance of a Republican citing this vote in campaign literature, I might believe that's what's going on. But if you don't trumpet the fact that you've voted against something, the electorate doesn't ordinarily notice, unless of course your opponent chooses to broadcast it -- in which case we can safely assume your no vote is not a vote-winner, yes?

Has anyone anywhere, in either party, proudly boasted of voting against global AIDS funding? How are those troglodyte voters supposed to read the code if no one's even transmitting it?

The idea that this just trolling for the "No Money To Fags!" vote is just . . . sad. As if such folk regularly check the Senatorial roll call. As if anyone who did have a clue how his/her Senator votes wouldn't know that AIDS in Africa is almost entirely a heterosexual disease. As if . . .

Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot recently called Clinton's comments on Trent Lott's racist statements "misleading" and "divisive rhetoric."

"This is another tired example of Bill Clinton misrepresenting the facts and misleading the American people to gain political advantage," Racicot said.

Hello...what political advantage!? Clinton is a private citizen now. To use the same language as Mr. Racicot, this is but another tired example of republicans attacking the individual rather than refuting the position. This was a primary tactic during the entire Clinton presidency. If you can't beat the politics and/or the ideas, beat down the person so he or she cannot be effective. Lott's resignation is just an example of republicans eating their own, after he spoke what was in his mind and heart. I'll believe republicans truly care about racism and equality, when they stop dividing people according to how much money they have to buy influence in Washington. Our society is becoming more and more divided according to socio- economic class and montetary (corporate) influence.

The recent elections were decided by fewer than 22,000 votes nationwide - no kind of mandate for this president and rest of the far right-wingers to shove their agenda down our collective throats.

In my opinion, this country is headed in the wrong direction as fast as it can get there. I used to vote for members of either major party, as long as they voted with integrity of purpose. I could respect the fact that they believed in their position, and were not just parroting the national party. These days, politicians seem to be marching in lockstep with whatever is the prevailing party agenda. This is not representative democracy, but I am convinced that the electorate will wake up to the reality of this tyranny before it is too late.