Apparently, Paul Krugman experienced the past 25 years of the Media's Clinton Rules:

[I]s this just the return of “Clinton rules”? If you are old enough to remember the 1990s, you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above all — all of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didn’t seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all.

So, is this time different? First indications are not encouraging; it’s already apparent that the author of the anti-Clinton book that’s driving the latest stuff is a real piece of work.

Again, maybe there’s something there. But given the history here, we’d all be well advised to follow our own Clinton rules, and be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo.

Pierce with a tour de force:

It appears that the "exclusive" ratfking arrangement entered into by The New York Times and Washington Post has brought us all back to the Mena Airport again, and that it has done so by strict application of the Clinton Rules, first devised in the mid-1990's, as the nation's elite political press turned laundering oppo research into a smoothly running machine. The very first Clinton Rule, established by most of the original reporting into the Whitewater non-scandal, is that if you can blow enough smoke, you can say there's fire.

More . . .

Hillary Clinton will be the Dem nominee for President. Now Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb may not agree, but, will, she is.

That said, if Webb or O'Malley want to make a splash, there is 1 issue that might work - opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP.) I'm not going to pretend I have a substantive opinion on it, have not seen the terms (I'm generally pro free trade), but I recognize the political potency.

Greg Sargent's interview with Labor Secretary Thomas Perez highlights the difficulty of arguing for trade agreements:

CNN Poll:

Marco Rubio fares best against the former first lady, trailing Clinton by 14 points, 55% to 41%. Bush trails Clinton by 17 points, 56% to 39%. Christie and Paul fall 19 points behind Clinton, each putting up 39% to Clinton's 58%. Huckabee, Walker, Carson and Cruz each trail Clinton by more than 20 points.

eGhazi!!!

Hillary Clinton arrives in in Monticello, Iowa today to make her first campaign appearance. She's been driving there in her "Scooby Doo" van, chatting with diners and folks at gas stations on the way.

I put the lion in her photo so she remembers to roar on occasion. She needs to share her passion and her strength. They are two of her most inspiring traits.

Hillary Clinton announced via video today she is running for President.

When I clicked on the video, I thought I was watching a You Tube type commercial and shut it down. On the third try, I realized this was her announcement, not a commercial. Not an auspicious start, in my view. I would much rather she have made a live appearance somewhere to make such a big announcement.

I'm also not crazy about the "middle class" theme. Obama uses that too much. Middle to me means middle America, middle of the road, neither here nor there. It doesn't sound progressive. It's tired. Do I have any better suggestions? [More...]