Paul Waldman is wrong. On Monday, he wrote, An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton. Basically, he’s asking that Clinton prove to liberals that she isn’t going to squander what looks like a pretty clean run at the presidency. I don’t disagree with this. But the way he thinks she ought to earn that trust is all screwed up. I want Clinton to show me that she isn’t going to be just another New Democrat. And frankly, I don’t think she will ever convince me of that, because she has every intention of being just another new Democrat. Waldman wants her to prove that she won’t be a magnet for scandals.

I don’t think that the Clintons were scandal magnets. I think they were simply on the leading edge of the Republican lunacy that sees any Democrat as fundamentally invalid. Thus, any Democratic president — or potential president — must be involved in something nefarious to destroy America itself. If there was any doubt about this, it should have been clear in 2004 with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That’s where Republicans showed that there is no level that they wouldn’t sink to for political gain. They smeared a military hero for no other reason than to gain a slight advantage in a political campaign. It was shameful.

But what have we been living through for the last six years? Has this not been one scandal after another? And really, who on the planet is more squeaky clean than Barack Obama? Waldman claims that with the Clintons there was always a “kernel of truth.” But that’s only true in the most ridiculous sense. The “kernel of truth” that ended in Bill Clinton’s impeachment was that Hillary Clinton actually did lose money on the Whitewater investment? This is what we are supposed to think the Clintons should have managed better? I don’t think so.

Waldman also wants Clinton to be more open with information. But wasn’t that also what led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment? Isn’t it always the case that if a determined critic digs deep enough for long enough, something will turn up? Ken Starr started with Whitewater and ended at a blowjob. He could have started anywhere and ended at that. The Clintons were probably lucky Starr didn’t come up with treason or at least sedition. I just don’t see this as being the Clintons’ fault. And the fact that they are worried about this stuff is not surprising.

The biggest problem with Waldman’s letter is how “inside the beltway” it is. When liberal voters think of the Clintons, they do not think of the scandals. Certainly, they remember them. But mostly, they remember that the Clintons survived them. The takeaway, however, is that the last time the economy was good was when Bill Clinton was president. Also, I think liberal voters are still disappointed that they couldn’t vote for both the African American man and the white woman in 2008. So for the last six years, they’ve been itching to have their second cake.

Like I said before, there are things that I want Clinton to show me. And I also hope that she can run a decent campaign. But scandal is going to follower her just like it is going to follow any Democratic presidential candidate. The GOP and Fox News will make sure of that. And if that reminds reporters of the 1990s, well, there’s a reason for that. And it has nothing to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton.

There is one thing that really amazes me about the open letter (pdf) from the 47 Republicans (who I hope will all commit seppuku at the end of this term because of the shame they have brought on the nation). It is the level of hubris that it is based on. What they all want to convey is that America is simply right and all other countries should fall in line. Their message to the Iranians is that the United States could back out of this agreement at any time. But that’s true regardless. And more to the point, it is also true of the Iranians.

What do the 47 Republicans think these negotiations are all about? Do they think this is just an exercise where the P5+1 countries are trying to figure out the best way to give Iran everything it wants? This is a deal that will be good for everyone involved. The only people this deal is not good for are those people who want Iran to get a nuclear weapon and those people who want to go to war with Iran. Obama was right to compare the 47 Republicans (and their leader, Benjamin Netanyahu) to the Iranian “hard-liners.” And what they want is not inconsistent: we could go to war with Iran and they could also get a nuclear weapon. All the right wing freaks could get what they want!

Brian Beutler made a compelling case on Monday, Republicans’ Attempt to Sabotage Obama’s Iran Negotiations Will Backfire. But I doubt that this letter is really intended to make any difference to the negotiations. This is what the 47 Republicans think is governing. This is the Senate equivalent of yet another vote to repeal Obamacare. You know the old saying: if you can’t do something constructive, do something that makes a lot of noise and embarrasses you. The Republicans are incapable for doing something constructive.

Another aspect of this embarrassment is the condescending tone of the letter. It reminds me of a recent episode of The Simpsons, “The Princess Guide.” In it, the Nigerian king[1] comes to Springfield to sell Uranium to Mr Burns. During the negotiations, Mr Burns keeps offering goats in exchange for the Uranium, which the king takes offense at. It’s funny when Mr Burns does that. When the 47 Republicans make roughly the same mistake — assuming that the Iranians are ignorant of our political system — it is just embarrassing.

But this just highlights the fact that the letter was not intended for the Iranians. And it was not intended for the president or any of the P5+1 countries. The 47 Republicans — like the Iranian leaders — are sophisticated people. They don’t actually believe that the Iranian leaders are primitive people who deal in goats. But they don’t mind the world thinking they do. And that’s because their base most definitely thinks that. And their base most definitely thinks that every country should just bow and fall in line behind America. And the base is who this letter was intended for: people filled with so much hubris that they think they are humble. And I doubt the 47 Republicans care that Brian Beutler is right: hurting their supposed cause doesn’t matter to them. The only thing that matters is that they win their next primary. Isn’t it time to vote to repeal Obamacare again?

[1] For the record, Nigeria has a political system modeled on ours; it has no king. But it was necessary for the plot so they could make jokes about the Nigerian prince who keeps ripping people off.

Max Fisher wrote another thoughtful article over the weekend, The Murder of Ahmed Al-Jumaili in Texas Should Be a Front-Page Story. It’s about the mysterious murder of a recent Iraqi immigrant. But I think Fisher was being a bit sarcastic when he wrote, “But it seems odd that Americans, who pride themselves on inclusiveness and tolerance, would be so blithe and so uninterested [in this story].” As Fisher’s article documents, Americans embrace their intolerance. While Americans may pride themselves on their tolerance, they don’t practice it. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. During World War I, we persecuted Germans, so we took a pass and moved onto the Japanese in World War II. Now it is the Muslim’s turn. In fifty years, we will be onto some new group having not learned any general principles.

No one knows if Al-Jumaili was killed because he was Muslim. He seems to have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time — but it could very well have been a premeditated act. The fact remains that Dallas — where he had immigrated to just three weeks earlier — is a hotbed of Islamophobia. Fisher described recent anti-Muslim protests over a program designed to foster tolerance, “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate.” This brought out people who said charming things like, “We don’t want them here” and, “We’re here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us.” Just like them Japs, am I right?!

But let’s suppose that Al-Jumaili was just killed in a random act of violence committed by a small group of men. What does it say about our country that a man flees violence in Iraq and gets gunned down outside his home within three weeks of coming to America? It is ironic that Americans are so concerned about the Islamic State when it poses effectively no threat to them. At the same time, they are absolutely fine with people roaming the streets with guns. In 2013, over a thousand people were murdered in Texas. (Generally, about 75% of all homicides are committed with firearms.) But these people not only want to go to war with the Islamic State, they want to kick Muslims out of the country. Maybe that would be doing the Muslims a favor.

Fisher put this particular murder into modern American media context in a way that I find frightening:

In this particular case, I don’t mind that it hasn’t gotten much coverage because it is more bizarre than anything. But it does bother me that Fisher has nailed this. If a Muslim had killed some non-Muslim as he stood outside his house with his wife taking pictures of freak Texas snowfall, the media would be all over it. It wouldn’t matter that we didn’t know the motivation of the shooter. It wouldn’t matter if there was no indication of motivation at all. It would be big news. Obama would be expected to make a statement about it. The right wing would be going crazy.

And that’s my takeaway from all this. The problem is not that the media don’t care when Muslims get killed. The media in general don’t care when anyone gets killed — there are almost two per hour: dog bites man. The problem is the media freak-out whenever a Muslim kills someone. This is the very definition of prejudice: being skeptical of a particular group of people. Given the freak-out when a Muslim does kill someone, we know that it is actually rare. But it isn’t reported that way. Instead, it is reported as if it were the leading edge of an invasion. We’ve seen this before: again and again and again. And every time, Americans have had their reasons for why it was the right way to think. And we have our reasons now. And they are no better than they were in the past.

Jonathan Chait published an “exit interview” with Dan Pfeiffer, On Learning to Ignore Republicans and How the White House Gave Up. It contained some interesting quotes that I’ll get to in a moment. But despite Chait’s claim, the interview wasn’t that revealing because it only reinforces something I’ve known for some time: that the Obama administration got all the way to the Debt Ceiling crisis of 2011 before realizing that they couldn’t negotiate with the Republicans. I thought they were naive to ever think that. But certainly after all the Obamacare negotiations when not a single Republican voted for the law should have told Obama and his team everything they needed to know.

Instead, they had to wait until the Debt Ceiling crisis to learn this. And think about that. If we had (and I certainly don’t rule out our doing it in the future), it would have done untold damage to the world economy. Keep that in mind as you read the following quote from Pfeiffer about what he now thinks about the Republican leadership:

I think this is entirely correct. And these are the guys that the Obama administration allowed to almost crash the economy. And we are still living with this. It isn’t just Boehner who is worried about solving the immediate problem. I’m already thinking of the next time that Boehner and his hoards are going to hold the world hostage over the debt ceiling. Coming this Fall at a capitol near you!

Pfeiffer contrasts what people who have worked in the Obama administration have learned compared to what former Clinton staffers took from his presidency. The Clinton people came into the administration thinking that the Republicans could make deals. Well, that was doubtless true in the mid-1990s. But this also shows why it might have been a good idea if Obama hadn’t filled his administration with a bunch of Clinton New Democrats. After all, they are all people who — when they are alone with them — agree with Republican politicians on economic matters. They are all one big happy neoliberal family, even if the Republicans claim to be something else to their voting base.

And this relates to the ultimate lesson that Obama has learned: that it is a fool’s game to try to appeal to the supposed middle between Obama’s moderation and the Republicans’ proto-fascism; going progressive is what works best. Here’s another great quote from Pfeiffer:

But then one has to wonder why the administration was ever listening to the Villagers? I’m not brilliant and I haven’t followed politics closely for very long. But regardless of what side, it has been clear to me that these Very Serious Fools don’t know anything. I was saying the same thing after the 2012 election when they were all claiming that the Republicans needed to change. I wrote again and again that there was no reason for the Republicans to change and in the end, the Republicans did not change — at least not in the way that the Villagers wanted them to.

The Villagers are involved in a kind of dream magic. They think that if they talk about their dreams of Tip and Ron having drinks together, their collective “centrist” — actually socially liberal, economically conservative — wet dream will come to pass. What kind of naivete does someone have to have to think that the world actually works like this?

Well, there was one telling quote:, “[Obama] had hopes of being able to change the polarization, not just in the country, but in Washington.” So changing polarization in Washington is harder than in the country? Washington isn’t part of the country? I think it is that kind of thinking that is the root of the problem with the Obama administration. They are involved in their own kind of dream magic. But I’m glad they’ve grown up a bit.