redblueamerica.com

Wow, there's a lot of anger at the Clintons out there.

That's always been the case, of course, but now a lot of it's coming from Democrats. People like Ted Kennedy, who of course endorsed Barack Obama on Monday because he didn't like how the Hillary Clinton campaign was operating.

And Kennedy's endorsement brought forth rapturous praise from ... David Brooks? Why yes! Brooks is technically one of the New York Times' house conservatives, but he'll no doubt cause headaches amongst the National Review types today with lines like this:

After his callow youth, Kennedy came to realize that life would not give him the chance to be president. But life did ask him to be a senator, and he has embraced that role and served that institution with more distinction than anyone else now living — as any of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you.

Heh.

Ted Kennedy isn't the only link to Camelot, though. In today's L.A. Times, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy go to bat for Hillary:

She has been an uncompromising and loyal ally for each of us in our battles to protect the environment and to promote human rights around the world and juvenile justice in America. Hillary is a problem-solver, listening to people and then achieving solutions by changing attitudes.

Once again: I'm not opposed to a Clinton presidency. But "changing attitudes" doesn't seem to be her strong suit. I don't think the Clintons think that either -- there's always this quote from Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal: "It’s not a question of transcending partisanship,” he said. “It’s a question of fulfilling it."

Maybe that's why three of the Washington Post's columnists -- right and left -- decided to chastise the Clinton campaign today. George Will, Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne all took their shots. Robinson had the angriest take:

It pains me to refer to the Clintons in the plural, since Hillary's campaign is indeed a milestone. But after South Carolina, it's hard to claim that this candidacy is entirely about her. At the very least, it's about them-- and if you listen to Bill's speeches, you get the distinct impression that he thinks it's all about him. Does anyone believe his sense of entitlement will somehow dissipate if the Clintons move back into the White House?

All this Clinton crankiness is examined by John Harris in today's Politico. The Clintons, he says, are utterly convinced of their own good motives -- and angry when they aren't taken at face value.

From Washington’s perspective, to judge by the most common criticism heard over the years and again in recent days, the problem is not that Bill Clinton is Bubba but that he is Eddie Haskell — smug, smarmy, self-absorbed.

There is, aside from Robert Kennedy's children, one small bit of praise for Hillary Clinton in the major op-eds today. Would you believe that it comes from two former directors of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? It does! They think the initiatives will survive George W. Bush and even do better under the next president -- no matter if the next president is a Republican or Democrat. But they seem to have a soft sport for the senator from New York:

Their final paragraph in today's Times:

On Jan. 19, 2005, Mrs. Clinton, speaking before clergy members in Boston, captured the spirit that is likely to prevail in the White House, no matter who is elected: “But I ask you, who is more likely to go out onto a street to save some poor, at-risk child than someone from the community, someone who believes in the divinity of every person, who sees God at work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left-behind of our children? And that’s why we need to not have a false division or debate about the role of faith-based institutions, we need to just do it and provide the support that is needed on an ongoing basis.” Amen.

A couple of other notes from my morning reading:

* (NYT) Question of timing on Bush's push on earmarks: "In the last seven years he has signed spending bills containing about 55,000 earmarks worth more than $100 billion for projects like a new lane for a local road, a new facade for a town landmark or a weapons contract for a company that happened to be a big donor to an influential lawmaker. ... Mr. Bush was notably silent on the subject until after his fellow Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. And, now that his power has waned, his threats are almost certain not to matter. As lawmakers know, earmarks, which make up less up less than 1 percent of the federal budget, have incalculable political value."

Wait: 1 percent?

* (WaPo) Senate to Offer Own Stimulus Package: "The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday unveiled a rival plan to stimulate the economy, offering a $500 check to virtually every American -- including low-income seniors and rich financiers -- in a direct challenge to the bipartisan deal reached last week by President Bush and House leaders. 'Rebates for seniors and payroll taxpayers, extended unemployment insurance and tax relief for struggling businesses will put more cash into the American economy right away,' Baucus said. 'The White House says we mustn't slow the economic stimulus agreement down, or blow it up. I agree. We're going to improve it and get it passed right away.'"

The good part of the Senate plan: More money for unemployment insurance, which economists agree will help provide actual stimulus to the economy. The bad part: We don't need to give $500 to the rich. We really don't. They're just going to save it, not going to spend it, and it is thus going to do nothing to help the economy. Plus: They're rich.

* L.A. Times: Cold War redux is feared: "Although U.S. officials are publicly playing down the rising tension, a series of conflicts has prompted some within the Bush administration to conclude that, for domestic and geopolitical reasons, Russia is now more comfortable with the U.S. as an enemy than an ally. Underlying the mounting friction is Russia's shift in the last few years from a country that once strove for full integration with the West to one that now seeks to serve as an independent power center that can check what it views as the excessive influence of the United States. Russian leaders calculate that opposing an unpopular Bush administration will consolidate their domestic position while helping them gain leadership status abroad."

Only note: Russia really does have weapons of mass destruction. So we might want to take this seriously

* Pew: Republicans, Democrats most divided on health care: "A late January Pew poll finds a widening partisan divide on top priorities for the president and Congress; the largest gap is recorded on the issue of extending health insurance to the currently uninsured with 65% of Democrats and 27% of Republicans saying it should be a top priority."

That's my first go-round today. What are you reading?