Arianna On Hillary's Triumphant Defeat

A front page story in today's New York Times wonders whether Hillary Clinton's flagging run for the presidency is "a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few [women] pursue high office in the first place."

Let me quickly weigh in with an unequivocal vote for "historic if incomplete triumph." And the only thing I find depressing is that the answer is even in doubt.

I have regularly criticized Clinton over the course of her campaign (and long before it, starting with her vote to authorize the war), but there is no question that she has forever altered the way women running for president will be viewed from here on out. In the words of the Times, Clinton has established "a new marker for what a woman can accomplish in a campaign -- raising over $170 million, frequently winning more favorable reviews on debate performances than her male rivals, rallying older women, and persuading white male voters who were never expected to support her."

She has also forever demolished the question mark hovering over the issue many (wrongly, in my opinion) have felt would be a woman candidate's biggest weakness: the ability to be seen as a plausible commander-in-chief.

It is to her great credit that very shortly into the '08 race, when you saw Clinton on television, you didn't think, "Oh, there's the woman running for president." That is no small feat for a woman trying to break into a male-dominated arena. So the next time a woman -- or two or three -- runs for president, it won't be seen as a novelty act. Because Hillary certainly wasn't.

But the greatest triumph of Clinton's campaign -- a complete triumph -- is the example she has set for the next generation. And not just for young women; her dedication, perseverance, and indefatigable drive make her a role model for young men as well.

Much has been made of the generational divide in the Clinton-Obama battle, with older women rallying to Clinton and younger women drawn to Obama. But the impact of her candidacy transcends this division. I've seen this very clearly in the reaction of my oldest daughter.

She voted for the first time in this year's California primary, casting her ballot for Obama. Yet hardly a day passes without her speaking with admiration, almost awe, about Hillary Clinton -- how she manages to get up every morning, no matter how hard things get for her, and keep following her dream.

I've written a lot about fear and fearlessness, and how fearlessness is not the absence of fear -- it's the mastery of fear. It's all about getting up one more time than we fall down. Has any public figure embodied this more powerfully and compellingly than Hillary Clinton?

Last week I was in a hotel room in Las Vegas preparing to give a speech. Checking in for a political update, I turned on CNN and saw Wolf Blitzer interviewing Hillary. But instead of a debate on who is more electable in Appalachia, or a Talmudic discussion about Michigan and Florida, there was this incredibly human moment.

Blitzer asked Clinton about what it's been like having Chelsea on the trail campaigning with her. Clinton, choking up, replied: "Well, it's one of the most incredibly gratifying experiences of my life, as a person and as a mother. I get very emotional. She is an exceptional person, and she's worked so hard, and she's done such a good job that I'm just filled with pride every time I look at her."

And just as Hillary started tearing up, I realized I was too. This has been an election where, even more than usual, the personal and the political have been constantly overlapping. And my feelings as I watched that interview were no exception.

It was clear that the 17-month campaign had taken a toll on Clinton, but at the same time has been incredibly transformative. She famously announced after winning New Hampshire that she'd found her own voice. But, in fact, she has kept finding it and refinding it -- until now, finally, she seems to be more in touch with her own message, instead of the message Mark Penn's poll numbers told her to adopt.

And in doing so, she has redefined and taken over the Clinton brand. Forget welfare reform, free-trade uber alles, and third-way DLC-economics. Since hitting her stride in Ohio, Hillary has transformed the Clinton brand into one that represents working-class Americans. Because of this, she is the Clinton who will now be most relevant to the country's future.

I see Hillary returning to the Senate with a newfound sense of purpose -- and power. With the presidency no longer in her sights -- at least for now -- she could become a commanding progressive force in the Senate.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania in early April, Clinton compared herself to Philadelphia icon Rocky Balboa. "Let me tell you something," she said. "When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up."

The comparison was meant to reinforce her image as a tireless warrior -- but it was more accurate and prescient than she intended. Because Rocky actually lost his initial fight with Apollo Creed. After 15 punishing and bloody rounds, he was satisfied just to have gone the distance.

"Ain't gonna be no rematch," says Creed amidst the post-fight pandemonium. To which Rocky replies: "Don't want one."

Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too. Once the disappointment fades and the cuts and bruises heal, the lasting impression will be one of glory, accomplishment, and profound impact.

Hers will have been a game-changing defeat.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

A Few Wise, Insightful Words From Digby

How To Play The Game

by dday

This is honestly the saddest news item I've seen in the whole of the Bush Administration.

So the Congress has taken the Bush Administration to court to enforce subpoenas of officials involved in the US Attorney purge. The Administration's lawyers have laid out, in an 83-page document, their opinion of the case, which (surprise) rests on the notion that the judiciary branch should stay out of a political dispute between the other two branches. And they conclude that the legislative has plenty of cards to play in such a battle against the executive.

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote [...]

As part of their argument, the administration lawyers cited Congress' considerable leverage as the more traditional means of getting what it wants. This is from the motion:

And the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers Congress has under the Constitution.

Here's the thing. These may be Bush Administration lawyers doing the talking here, but they're absolutely right. The Congress has all sorts of tools in their arsenal to force compliance from the executive branch. They can shut down the nomination process. They can eliminate any and all expenditures for the President and staff or executive agencies. They can refuse to enact spending bills for programs and policies prized by the executive. They can constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court that may investigate the executive. They can use the power of inherent contempt to try those neglecting a Congressional subpoena, and imprison them. And they can, you know, vote to remove the President from office, or all civil officers of the United States, for that matter.

There are dozens of ways for this Congress to get the attention of the President, as the Justice Department's own lawyers recognize. But of course, they won't do that. They worry about their image, their perception by the voters, what the Republican noise machine would say about them, and all the rest.

I'm certain that this reminder by the DoJ wasn't an effort to get the Democratic Congress to recognize their own power, or even an effort to get the courts to rule in their favor. It was an effort to get Republicans to recall what tools they can use in the event of a Democratic President. A committed minority in the Senate can make life more miserable for the incoming executive than this majority has ever made it for George Bush; executive power rollback is in some ways simply a matter of Congressional will. One thing is clear; the go-along-to-get-along nature of the Democrats over the past eight years will not be reciprocated.

And it's deeply embarrassing that it takes a bunch of Regent University grads or whoever they've got on the case at the Bush Justice Department to point this out.


.
There Is No They There

by digby

Steve Benen points to more self-serving media navel gazing:

Harwood explained that the McCain campaign, in a move that “many Republicans would find ironic,” is pushing the line that the press is friendlier to Obama. Harwood said, “John McCain’s benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he’s going to try to argue, which will have corollary benefit of rallying conservatives, if he can pull it off, of saying, ‘The press wants Obama to win. I’m pushing back, too.’”

Tim Russert added, “In 2002, John McCain referred to the press as his base.” To which Harwood responded, “They were his base.”

I guess somebody should have reminded them that the name of the show they were on is called ---Meet The Press. They are the "they" of which they speak. But then Russert spent two years pontificating on the same show about Scooter Libby pretending he wasn't a major playing in the investigation, so this isn't exactly new. He's the Village High Inquisitor, charged with ensuring that the one true conventional wisdom is adhered to for the good of all. He isn't a member of the press at all.


.
We're Chillin'

by digby

I realize that a good many people think I'm living in cloud cuckoo-land, but apparently a large majority of the Democratic party is drooling and delusional right along with me:

Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there's no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

Despite Obama's advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama's supporters, 42 percent say so.

That's not a majority endorsement of Clinton's candidacy; Democrats by a 12-point margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that's held steadily in ABC News/Washington Post polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out contest will hurt the party's prospects. Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent).

Those views correspond with opinions on Clinton continuing her candidacy. And in a related result, 85 percent of Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) are confident the party would come together behind Obama as the nominee though fewer, 45 percent, are "very" confident of it. That underscores the importance of the endgame for the party's prospects.

The second slot is one possibility: Clinton continues as the preferred choice as Obama's running mate, with 39 percent of Democrats saying they'd like him to pick her if he's the nominee. That peaks at 59 percent of African-Americans, 47 percent of Clinton supporters and 42 percent of women (vs. 34 percent of men).

I'm not necessarily endorsing the Unity ticket, but I don't see a lot of hate and division in those numbers. If nearly 60% of African Americans prefer Clinton on the ticket, it's fair to say that the party isn't irrevocably broken.

And McCain just looks sad;

In other signs of difficulties for McCain, Obama leads him in trust to handle the public's top issue, the economy, by 10 points; in trust to handle gasoline prices, by 20 points; and in trust to handle health care, by 24 points. On personal attributes Obama leads by wide margins as being better able to bring needed change, having the better temperament for the job, better empathy and a clearer vision for the future.

McCain also could suffer from the broader public discontent, generally and with George W. Bush in particular. Public disgruntlement neared a record high in this poll, with 82 percent of Americans saying the country's seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the past year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And Bush slipped to his career low approval rating, 31 percent.

In a related result, the Democratic Party in general leads the Republicans in trust to handle the main issues the nation faces, by 53-32 percent the biggest gap in favor of the Democrats in data since 1982. The question, again, is whether that fades in Bush's wake.

It won't unless the Democrats allow McCain to be a different kind 'o Republican. It's not a big window for him, but it's a window nonetheless:

There are significant areas in which McCain can push back against Obama. After a five-year decline prompted by the unpopular president and the war in Iraq, there's been a recovery this year in Republican affiliation possibly the precursor of post-Bush politics. The change is slight but bears watching: On average in ABC/Post polls this year 28 percent of Americans have identified themselves as Republicans, compared with a 24-year low of 25 percent last year. It peaked at 31 percent in 2003.

As you can see by the numbers, the Democratic party is doing fine. They have the most exciting politician in the country running for president at a time when the opposing party is falling apart. But they should not get cocky. McCain's base, the media, will help him distance himself from Bush with everything they have and that's his best hope.

It would be wise for everyone to heed this warning:

McCain has a credible brand with the public, who see him as a maverick and a reformer. If McCain succeeds on his current path, he may be able to use his own popularity to infuse the Republicans with new life and a new narrative--the "Change Republican." The risk is amplified because there are 34 open House seats and 5 open Senate seats. Unlike incumbents, these Republican candidates--who aren't from Washington--could seize onto McCain's "Change Republican" brand and ride his coattails to a Republican comeback. Democrats could lose the House and Senate, and the White House would be out of reach.

It wouldn't be all "change." They'd combine this with the usual scare tactics and terror-mongering--tired old tactics that failed in 2006.

Lest my fellow Democratic partisans worry, I'm not giving away any secrets that the Republican strategists don't know. In the last few days, a strategy memo on this same topic has been circulated by Republican strategists.

There is a big Achilles heel to this strategy. On the issues that the public will judge McCain he is not change. McCain's tempered approaches on immigration and climate change are small bore stuff compared to the defining narratives on the war and the economy. On the issues central to voters, McCain is not change. The media pundits who think the public will view him as a maverick still don't understand this vulnerability.

In many ways the emergence of a Democratic majority rests on whether John McCain gets away with becoming a "Change Republican."

The answer is probably "no" but let this serve as notice to all of us: the ball is in our court.

The Republican party is George W. Bush --- there is no daylight. They acclaimed him as the second coming of Winston Churchill and Alexander the Great just three years ago. They put him back in the White House and then swaggered around calling Democrats neutered farm animals.

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

They can run from that but they can't hide. Bush and the conservative movement he represents need to be tied around McCain's neck so tight he can't breathe.

AMEN!
.
digby 5/12/2008 04:09:00 PM

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

It's Over For Hillary

It's been over since South Carolina. What's more, it's over for the Clintons and possibly the DLCers, period, if not the Democratic Party as we have known it.

ABC News Video: Obama Wins in Every Metric. It's Over for Hillary.



The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

NYT Graph Of Obama's Superdelagte Pickups

The super dels know what we all know: A Clinton White House will mean more of Bill Clinton, who has been behaving in a most bizarre fashion.

A NYT Graph that Reveals the Tone Deaf Mismanaged Clinton Campaign "Appeal" to Superdelegates

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Clinton Supporter Threatens Pelosi

Something tells me that this was a very wrong-headed move. What's more, it says a lot about what a Clinton presidency would be like.

Clinton supporter pressures Pelosi over White House battle

Posted: 10:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON — In a heated phone call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi late last month, Hillary Clinton supporter Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut off campaign money to congressional Democrats unless Pelosi embraced a new plan by the movie mogul to finance a revote of the Democratic presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan, according to three officials who were briefed on the contents of the conversation.

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Denial, Denial, Denila; Clinton and the Media

In describing -- or dismissing -- Hillary Clinton’s "endgame" as "a fond wish wrapped in a desperate hope," The Politico's Roger Simon granted her a narrow opening and closed it at the same time.

His piece following Hillary's North Carolina and Indiana losses -- admit it, buckaroos, Indiana was a loss -- "Clinton desperate for super turnaround," was written in the present tense; so when he ventured that "she needs momentum, spin and fear" to transform the quixotic to realistic, I can only assume he foresaw that trio's remaining possibilities.

On the other hand, as he indulged all this foresight, he was drawing the curtain and mumbling last rites.

It was the damnedest thing. And, with all due respect to Mr. Simon, whose veteran opinion I do indeed respect, it was damned typical of the way the media at large have failed, since February, to finally euthanize the mortally wounded Clinton campaign.

Part of that failure, no doubt, springs from John McCain's Lazaruslike return to the field after the media had stacked the last stone on his political grave. It was rather shabby of Mr. McCain to come bounding back, what with all the embarrassment it caused the print and network prophets of our time. One senses that after that startling turn of a worm, they said, No more, never again, from here on out we'll always insert a qualifier into each of our political prognostications -- no matter how much of an extraordinary outlier that qualifier may be.

Another part of the media's failure to declare the Clinton campaign's time of death has been, I think, a borderline-unconscious conspiracy to keep her public hopes on life support. Not all conspiracies come packaged in evil intent, you know -- and let's face it, notwithstanding the considerable angst that Clinton has caused her party internally, her neverending quest for ultimate power in 2009 has been just plain fun for all to watch.

Please, please don't let it end. 'Cause then we'll be stuck with covering McCain as the only opposition to the new politics of hope, a man whose mind, vision and originality are as arid as his home state. One shivers at the thought of five months of such grueling, grinding crap.

But wait. Hillary Clinton isn't complete toast yet, no matter what the New York Post bellows in largest of type. Yeah, that's right, recall the media. We always have Hillary, just as long as she has access to her joint checking account. Lordy lord, praise the loopholes in campaign finance reform, for unto the non-elitist filthy rich there is always the healthcare option of costly intervention and resuscitation.

This realization among the media isn't really a conspiracy in the conventional use of the word; that is, secretive mass huddling in dark, foggy alleys in which grand designs are hatched and then executed with tight, organizational and malevolent efficiency. It's more of a happy, great awakening that droppeth on media members individually and coextensively like the gentle rain. The result just looks organized.

So it was, I think, that Mr. Simon was merely operating under the oppressiveness of having blown McCain's nomination and the liberation of any number under 2025.

Sure, she still has a shot at this thing, although she doesn't -- and that is precisely what Simon and, by now, many, many others have written and, for reasons enumerated above, will persist in writing.

Let us return to that passage expressed in the present: "she needs momentum, spin and fear." Good enough. After which, however, Simon pretty much demolished all hope on each count.

Her momentum, he said, "was dealt a setback Tuesday night" -- a "setback" elsewhere deemed the equivalent of the effects of a neutron bomb. And yep, her "pretty predictable" upcoming victories in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico will still leave Barack Obama with a bankable lock on pledged delegates. Try spinning that, in addition to downspinning Obama's equal number of upcoming victories in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.

That leaves the fear card that Clinton operatives have been slapping on superdelegates; the dangled fear that Obama could still be full of unwelcome surprises. But, so could Hillary, conceded Simon, and the superdelegates know this as well.

Hence the long of it, the short of it, the up, down and lateral every which way of it is this: Hillary is indeed toast. Yet Simon insisted on wrapping his piece with, "if she doesn't get the nomination this time."

Well, Roger, if I don't win the state lottery today I'll be disappointed by tonight. Now, would you harbor any hesitation in predicting my mood?

Come on, Roger Simon & Media Friends. Be men about it. Just say it and be done with it: It is over. Official time of Hillary's political demise: midnight, May 6 -- and may her suspended campaign rest in peace.

Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hillary Plays The Crazy Card

Or Is She Playing?

By Joe Conason

In this protracted and often dispiriting prelude to the general election, few remarks have been as poorly chosen as Senator Hillary Clinton’s threat to “totally obliterate” Iran. What she obliterated with just those two words were her own boasts of superior diplomatic experience—and she managed at the same time to tar America’s international image with all the subtlety of the man she hopes to replace.

Context cannot excuse her, even though she uttered that gaffe in response to an intentionally provocative question: What would she do, as president, if the Iranian regime ever strikes Israel with nuclear weapons? First she could have noted that the question’s premise is wrong, at least according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran neither possesses nuclear arms nor is likely to acquire them anytime soon. Then she might have answered as all presidents (or aspiring presidents) should when asked about such hypothetical military scenarios: “Our adversaries know very well that we have the power and the resolve to respond if one of our closest allies is attacked.”

Alluding to the potential use of justified force is far smarter than blustering about an act of genocidal brutality. So why wasn’t that distinction obvious to Mrs. Clinton? There are only two likely reasons, neither of which reflects well on her.

It is possible that she believes martial bluster will make her sound more like John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate whose macabre refrain of “bomb, bomb Iran” still echoes around the world. It is also possible that she truly believes threats of genocide are the best deterrent to Iranian misbehavior, as she told George Stephanopoulos last Sunday on ABC’s This Week.

Instead of clarifying or muting her aggressive blunder, she reiterated it, leaving transcripts that can be stripped of all qualification to make her sound still more bloodthirsty. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. … I think we have to be very clear about what we would do.”

Of course, opportunism is the political offense Mrs. Clinton is most often charged with. Should she ever return to the White House, we will probably be more secure and prosperous, if her belligerence toward Iran is mere campaign posturing. On other occasions she has advocated greater engagement with Iran, and that is certainly the view of her wisest advisers, so perhaps this is all wind without substance.

But that again raises the question of how far she will go to win, regardless of the damage she inflicts upon herself, her party and even her nation’s interests. Her remarks gave Tehran an easy chance to seize the moral initiative, which they instantly exploited by denouncing Mrs. Clinton’s comments in a public letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and a violation of the U.N. Charter.

Evidently, the Iranian complaint won at least a modicum of sympathy, because the secretary general’s spokesman later said that if Mrs. Clinton “becomes president and she keeps saying that, then we’ll have to react.”

Were we not so inured to the most savage rhetoric by now, it might be considered ironic for a presidential candidate to endorse such a monumental crime against humanity in defense of the Jewish state. Does Mrs. Clinton not understand the difference between the mullahs’ regime and the people of Iran? Does her notion of military strategy contemplate the incineration of millions of innocents?

And most pertinently, does she think her threats will convince the Iranians to empower the liberal reformers in Tehran rather than the reactionary extremists?

The Iran experts chosen by Mrs. Clinton to counsel her campaign think not. Their well-informed and not terribly surprising assessment is that when we talk about wiping out Iran, the mullahs feel a more urgent need for nuclear weapons (and a stronger impulse to drive us out of the region). She has brushed off their analysis, just as she disdains the consensus of economists against the gas-tax holiday advocated by her and Mr. McCain.

Voters who might consider supporting her have confronted this Clinton conundrum more than once this year. Does she believe what she is saying, or is she saying what she believes we want to hear? Which is worse?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hillarys Connection To Another Slitgherin' Energy Company.

Hillary Clinton: The Entergy Connection

by Philip Baruth

Everybody has obsessions. Very occasionally those obsessions intersect, which can be very good news, or very bad news. And once in a blue moon, those obsessions don’t merely intersect but overlap, in a way that alters the world entire. That’s the way we felt yesterday, when a stray line in a reader email prompted us to run a standard search, linking the terms “Entergy” and “Hillary Clinton.”

We’ve written hundreds of thousands of words here about both those subjects, independently of one another: Entergy’s corporate shell games and linguistic obfuscation; Hillary’s disingenuousness on the campaign trail; Entergy’s poor safety record and ham-handed corporate spin; Hillary’s manufactured outrage, her willingness to change the rules of the game, her win-at-all-costs approach.

But what we ran across was an article that appeared originally in the Guardian, an article that links Entergy with the Clintons going way back, deep into the Clinton years.

And it was like someone fired off 50,000 flashbulbs with no warning. Everything was illuminated.

Turns out that Entergy began in Arkansas; only later did it expand into Louisiana, to take advantage of large deposits of natural gas there.

Turns out that during the 80’s, Hillary and her firm successfully defended Entergy in court against a major drive to curb their rate increases — a drive mounted by Bill Clinton, who used the issue to win a tough race for Attorney General. Not the first time the couple would mix aggressively populist campaign rhetoric with dexterous corporate outreach.

Turns out that by the 90’s, all was forgiven and forgotten: during the Clinton Presidency, the power company developed deep ties to the infamous Indonesian Riady family. In fact, they were partners and worked hand in glove with Ron Brown, Bill Clinton’s Commerce Secretary, to secure a billion-dollar power contract with China.

The Riady family, of course, would also pony up $100,000 for Web Hubbell when his ongoing legal troubles stopped his personal income stream.

You can read the article, which has been fairly widely distributed, for yourself. It’s a bit lurid, and not as impeccably sourced as we’d like. And it’s worth noting that since becoming Senator of New York, Clinton has talked tough on Entergy and their Indian Point facility, which sits just over the horizon from the Clinton residence in Chappaqua.

But man, did it rock our world.

It was like Batman suddenly discovering that the Joker and the Penguin were actually one guy, or like running a routine search for “Rick Santorum” and bringing up a single grainy, black-and-white photo of the ex-Pennsylvania Senator leaving an “RU12?” dance in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco with an anonymous white-haired gentlemen who turns out, under closer inspection, to be a leather-clad Joe Lieberman.

God love Google. For the cheap thrills, if nothing else.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Dems Quietly Send Word To Clinton: It's Over

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Wed May 7

Apart from George McGovern, a plainspoken man who knows something about losing elections, not a single Democrat of national stature publicly urged Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday to end her campaign for the White House.

They didn't have to.

There was no shortage of other ways to signal, suggest, insinuate or instigate the same thing. And certainly no need to apply unseemly pressure to a historic political figure, a woman who has run a grueling race, won millions of votes and drawn uncounted numbers of new Democratic voters to the polls.

Instead, many Democrats preferred to say softly what the party's 1972 presidential nominee said for all to hear. Barack Obama has won the nomination "by any practical test," McGovern said.

"Hillary, of course, will make the decision as to if and when she ends her campaign," he added. "But I hope that she reaches that decision soon so that we can concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November."

Its campaign quarry finally cornered, the Obama high command gave it space. The Illinois senator was on track to become the first black presidential nominee of a major party and aides produced a small trickle of superdelegate supporters. But there was nary a word about hastening Clinton's departure.

"I think that it would be inappropriate and awkward and wrong for any of us to tell Senator Clinton when it is time for the race to be over," said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, speaking on a campaign-sponsored conference call with reporters.

"This is her decision and it is only her decision. And we are confident that she is going to do the right thing for the Democratic nominee. We are confident she will help work hard to unite our party."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a staunch supporter of his fellow New Yorker, said, "It's her decision to make and I'll accept what decision she makes." Asked about her chances of still capturing the Democratic nomination, the normally loquacious Schumer fell silent.

Other Democrats preferred to speak more freely, but only on condition of anonymity. They, too, said that Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana had effectively sealed the outcome.

They predicted an acceleration in the pace of superdelegates to his side — he gained four during the day, to two for Clinton. And wondered about her ability to raise sufficient campaign funds — she disclosed having loaned herself another $6.4 million in recent weeks, despite an earlier boast that 80,000 new donors came to her aid after she won the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Clinton's arguments for staying in the race were disappearing.

Obama lengthened his overall lead in delegates in the two states that held primaries on Tuesday, and by day's end, had drawn to within about a dozen of the former first lady in superdelegate support. He had 1,846.5 in The Associated Press' count, to 1,696 for Clinton, out of 2,025 needed for the nomination.

Additionally, his 240,000-vote victory in North Carolina, coupled with her narrow, 18,000-vote triumph in Indiana, all but assured Obama will finish the primary season with a lead in the cumulative popular vote.

Five more states and Puerto Rico are yet to vote. But alone among them, Oregon figures prominently in any Democratic plan to amass 270 electoral votes in the fall, the number required to win the White House. Her persistent attempt to claim the unprovable, that she would more easily win in the fall than Obama, faded for reasons beyond her control.

For members of Congress, in this case Democrats, electability begins and sometimes even ends at home.

Which is why it did not pass unnoticed last weekend — with Obama trying to fend off controversy stemming from his former pastor — that a sustained conservative attempt to derail a Democratic House candidate in Louisiana by linking him to the presidential contender had fizzled.

Democrat Don Cazayoux is "with Barack Obama for a big government scheme" for health insurance, said a television advertisement run by Freedom's Watch. "Their plan raises income taxes and raises taxes on small business."

Cazayoux won anyway, and now holds a House seat in the Baton Rouge area that had been in Republican hands for three decades.

A separate ad, aired by the North Carolina Republican Party, showed Obama and his former preacher, as well as a brief video of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "He's just too extreme for North Carolina," the narrator says in the 30-second spot.

Because the commercial was aimed at both the Democrats in the state gubernatorial primary, its impact was unclear.

Clinton vowed to press on, planting her flag in West Virginia, site of next week's contest, and announcing plans to visit other upcoming primary states on Thursday. She said controversies over the delegations from Michigan and Florida must be resolved.

"I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee and obviously I am going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee," she said.

That sounded fine to Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, an uncommitted superdelegate.

"I think most of us out of respect for her are content to wait a little longer," he said.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — David Espo covers presidential politics for The Associated Press.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hillary: The Dems Tricky Dick?

It's for damn sure, she is no RFK.

"She has learned how to be ruthless."

Thus spoke Robert Reich of Hillary Clinton, and I don't think he meant it in a complimentary way -- the way, for instance, in which friends and colleagues of Robert Kennedy spoke of him as being ruthless.

When applied to RFK, the term carried with it a certain wafting admiration for his singularity of mind in achieving some vast social goal of justice or point of honor. His determination to win, at almost any cost, was an inner compulsion directed upward and outward for a higher purpose, whether it was cornering labor racketeers as a Senate counsel, furthering the presidential policies of his brother as attorney general, or advancing the cause of fundamental sociopolitical change in the years before his death as a U.S. senator and presidential candidate.

And then there was the contemporary ruthlessness of, say, a Joseph McCarthy or Richard Nixon; pols who would do or say anything to advance nothing but themselves. Their compulsions began from within and in purpose traveled no farther. Their major battles were always about them -- their egos, their success, their power and its extension. Everything else was secondary.

It was in that sense that the "ruthless" tag sprang to the fertile mind of Robert Reich, a man who has known Mrs. Clinton since their college days and served her husband as secretary of labor. He conceded that hers was probably not a congenital condition -- "I doubt that it came to her naturally, but she has learned" -- as it commonly is with the McCarthys and Nixons of this world. But whether congenital or not, it is what it is, and it is, in fact, upon us.

"We need a president who’s a fighter again," exhorts Clinton at rallies, while remaining comfortably afar from any intelligent explanation as to what in hell that means. Just when was it that we lost a "fighting" president? One may not admire what George W. Bush has fought for, but in him there's been plenty of fight. Pugilistic tendencies and the immoderate need to suppress any sign of weakness or compromise have not gone wanting in the political personage of President Bush.

I am not, however, closely comparing Mr. Bush to Mrs. Clinton. For at least the former has always retained a sense of political direction. As wrongheaded as his policies have been -- around the world and at home -- and as tragic as their consequences are, Bush has steadfastly adhered to whatever he somehow manages to believe is right.

With Clinton, on the other hand, it's something of pot luck night, every day. One simply never knows what she'll be willing to put her political reputation on the line for, until, that is, the polling is done.

Oh, that's popular? She's for it. That other thing, the one not so popular? She's dead agin it.

At least we can laugh at her sudden and gallant enthusiasm for that noblest of unprincipled causes: the gas tax holiday. Two weeks ago she wouldn't have known it from a winter retreat at Aspen, but, within hours, quite literally, it became the grandest salvation for working-class Joes everywhere, and its rude denial became America's greatest scourge.

She's a woman possessed. Anything for the little guy -- that's her motto -- even if it's colossally stupid.

What's not so humorous, however, was her similarly opportunistic support for something far more grave (also quite literally): the Iraq war. That vote set the pattern, the one she, hubby and other strategists outlined as the smoothest path back to the White House: just blow wherever the popular winds may carry you.

That vote was, of course, also colossally stupid, but only in the superficial sense of human lives lost and the national treasury wasted. Its deeper importance lay in what it could do for Hillary. War, peace, diplomacy or invasion, they were all the same to her; the only difference was which might play out to her singular advantage. As to that, she was all for it.

Conviction is for beginners; indeed, losers, should conviction run up against personal triumph. And Hillary, as we know, is no beginner, and her life's only mission is now to prove that she's no loser.

Not at all. No, she's a fighter -- you know, like George W. Bush, only without the conviction.

Or those other names now enshrined in the Political Hooliganism Hall of Fame, such as Messrs. McCarthy or Nixon, whom you may or may not have had the unpleasant experience of knowing, unbiblically speaking, firsthand, although they were always prepared to screw anyone who stood in their way.

So, more often than not, was Robert Kennedy. Yet some, such as he (who once even worked for McCarthy until disillusionment set in), acquire the quality of ruthlessness in the pursuit of a higher cause, while others possess it solely as an instrumental stepping stone.

You tell me, from your heart of hearts, in which camp you believe Hillary dwells.

Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

CNN's Anticonstitutional Abomination

No matter what else happens between now and November I'll give John McCain credit for at least one act of wisdom: He refused to attend that anticonstitutional abomination -- the misnomered "Compassion Forum" -- on CNN last night. It was the closest thing yet to a religious test, which the U.S. Constitution does not specifically ban, but does frown on pointedly: none "shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

We are treading on perilous ground. We have, for the first time to my knowledge, now lined up major candidates for the U.S. presidency and grilled them on personal, religious faith. The founders would have been appalled, and for good reason. It is precisely the kind of church-state entanglement that severed and factionalized Europe for centuries -- something the founders hoped to avoid by establishing the world's "first wholly secular state," as one scholar of the early American republic has put it.

But you wouldn't have been reminded of our secular founding from watching the "Compassion Forum," sponsored last night by Pennsylvania's Messiah College and characterized this morning by the NY Times as "an exercise in earnestness on pressing moral and social issues, a 90-minute break from the political thrust and parry of the presidential campaign trail" in which "candidates ... address[ed] religious beliefs in at times starkly personal terms."

And Brother, did they ever. They had to. That was the whole point. They had to wear their Christian religion on their sleeves (an act I could swear Christianity's founder admonished) so as to gather up as many Christians-cum-Democrats as possible.

It was more than an embarrassment; it was an insult to the Constitution. It was also -- and this is just one more reason the founders declined that whole religious-test business -- an embarrassment and insult to religion itself, since it dragged the theologically fanciful down into the mud of earthly infighting.

For instance right before Mrs. Clinton took the opportunity to assure us, "You know, I have, ever since I’ve been a little girl, felt the presence of God in my life," she took the opportunity, you know, to slam Mr. Obama as an "elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing." She was nevertheless quite hesitant to call him an elitist, as she assured us, saying the elitist would have to speak for his elitist self. Far be it from her to speak for the ... elitist. That would be unGodly. So ask the elitist. Her lips were sealed.

When asked about the possibility of God's personal role in her political career, Clinton jokingly replied: "Well, I could be glib and say we’ll find out, but I — I don’t presume anything about God." Which was an excellent answer, which leads one to the more excellent question of why, then, they were sitting there seedily trying to answer these unanswerable metaphysical questions to begin with.

To the same question Obama replied: "It takes a certain self-righteousness where we think we have a direct line to God. The public square is not the place for us to empower ourselves in that way." Precisely. That's what the founders thought, too.

It's also apparently what John McCain thinks, as once did his ideological predecessor, Barry Goldwater, who nevertheless was responsible for getting this religious kickball rolling.

Keeping questions of "social morality" out of political campaigns had always been Goldwater's creed -- until he ran into the impenetrable 1964 juggernaut of Lyndon Johnson. Suddenly, raising questions about America's "moral decline" seemed to be catching on with large segments of the electorate, so, just as suddenly, Goldwater decided that further pressing these questions wasn't such a bad political idea after all.

Before long the New & Religious Right -- which grew out of the Goldwater movement and which he despised -- was holding his party hostage. He ultimately lamented his '64 comingling of religious morality and politics, since politics, as he later wrote, is nothing more than the necessary art of compromise, while religionists are all about "absolute moral right and wrong." That inherent conflict presented a "challenge to democratic society [that] is too great. It's simply unworkable."

McCain's refusal to take last night's religious test on cable-network television is at least an indication that he, too, understands this. But now, and largely because of McCain's reluctance, Democrats are chasing the religionists with fervor anew. As the Politico reports: "Many Democrats believe that with McCain as the GOP nominee, the ambitious prospect of narrowing the religion gap is within their grasp."

Hence two Democrats' willingness last night to take a religious test, which -- will these marvels never cease? -- they both passed with flying colors.

In the short term, that undoubtedly is a good bargain. In the long term, however, as presidential candidate Goldwater and many others discovered too late, it's a foul one. And it's why Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says what it says.

For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Just As We Suspected; Sabatage Is Afoot!

But, it seems that Barack is still beating Hillary, even with her getting huge Rethug help. I think that they are scared witless of Obama.

Many Voting for Clinton to Boost GOP
By Scott Helman
The Boston Globe

Monday 17 March 2008

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.

But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.

Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."

Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.

Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.

"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."

Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."

In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.

"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."

Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.

"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."

Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.

It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."

"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.

"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.

"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.

--------

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Domocratic and Republican Lead toward the Abys

As the article below points out, the resignation of Adm. Fallon is like a blow to the solar plexus for all of us who keep up with such things as Bush Co. insanity when it comes to military misadventure's and war crimes.

I seem to recall that my words were, "Oh God! Here we go!" I've been nauseated ever since.

News reports denying that there was so much a a bump in the road, when it came to The Busites' good relations with Adm. Fallon from the MSM and press are cold comfort, as they are only reporting what the White House says, which means nothing anymore, if it ever did. I'm not sure why it's even reported, unless we just want them on-record lying again and again to the American people, about anything and everything.

I'm not sure that Robert is paranoid enough when it comes why Fallon left. I doubt that it was over being asked to draw up a new plan for war against Iran, unless that was just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Don't they draw up plans all the time?

In my mind it is one of two things. Junior and the Dick are planning to hit Iran before they leave office and Fallon sees the writing on the wall and wants no part of it. Even though they do have Hillary as a back up, they would not be wise to trust her to do what they want done. If Hillary, a Democrat, even if in name only, bombs Iran without unsinkable reason (maybe even with it), she had better be out of the country when she does it and she would be wise to stay out. Her rank and file supporters would turn on her like a vicious, huge pack of Dobermans and that would be nothing compared to how Obama supporters would feel. She would be, at the very least, no longer be considered a Democrat, there would be howls for impeachment, if not worse.

She may be willing to carry on a war, once started by them, instead of shutting the damn thing down and handing George and half his administration over to the World Court at the Hague immediately. Of course by then, the U.S. will have exploded into a fury that we I.U.'s have felt rumbling right beneath the surface for over a year now. People are going to get hurt, right here in the streets of America, on college campuses; it is gonna be a huge mess. The people of the U.S. are continuing to do this whole thing legally, though many of us find our patience worn thin after the Dembulbs took Congress and did nothing to bring these people to justice. Oh yes, there have been a few hearings but has anything come of it? Has anyone been held accountable for criminal acts? No. (We can certainly expect that to continue even if the Dems take back the W.H. under Hillary and have over-whelming success on the Hill. ) No one in Washington is going to make any real attempt to bring anyone in the Bush administration to justice, ever.

There is one other reason why Fallon may have resigned. He is now free to say whatever he pleases. He is out of the monkey's command structure. He is a civilian. (I have often wondered why and how Fallon remained head of centcom as long as he did, given his almost mutinous behavior in the spring of 2006, when Junior wanted to shake-up the Iranians by seeming to put three carries groups in the Persian Gulf, when all that was really happening was a carrier group swap, one headed home the other coming in. Fallon refused to put the third carrier group in the gulf at the same time. One had to leave before the third would be deployed into the Gulf. Bush was trying to incite the Iranians to do something stupid that could be considered an act of war. Fallon said, No. That takes guts; far more than Junior ever had in his life.)

Has he managed to walk out of the Pentagon with the kind of information that would shut the NeoCons down permanently, if it became public. Could be. Is he going to blackmail them into peace?

If so, rave on Admiral.

Do us all a favor and consult with Obama and no one else.

That might be enough, right there, to cause McCrackers to implode on camera and make Hillary highly paranoid.

Suddenly, a Dangerous Turn

By Robert Parry
March 14, 2008

Two seemingly disconnected events have created a suddenly dangerous turn regarding the future of U.S. wars in the Middle East.

One was the abrupt resignation of the person who has been the biggest obstacle to a U.S. military strike against Iran, Admiral William Fallon, the chief of Central Command which oversees U.S. military operations in the volatile region.

The second is the ugly direction that the Democratic presidential competition has taken, with Hillary Clinton’s campaign intensifying its harsh rhetoric against Barack Obama, reducing the likelihood that he can win the presidency – and thus raising the odds that the next president will be either John McCain or Sen. Clinton, both hawks on Iran.

Throughout the campaign, Clinton has mocked Obama as inexperienced for his desire to engage in presidential-level diplomacy with Iran and other adversarial states. And she recently judged him as unqualified to serve as Commander in Chief, while declaring that both she and Sen. McCain have crossed that “threshold.”

The cumulative effect of Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s qualifications – combined with her campaign’s efforts to turn many white voters against him as the “black candidate” – has buoyed Republican hopes for November.

By simultaneously marginalizing and dirtying up Obama, the Clinton campaign also has tamped down the excitement of many Democrats, especially the young, for a candidate that they see as offering a refreshing message of hope and change.

Replacing Obama’s message of reform and reconciliation is a Clinton message of resentment and victimization, as voiced by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro who claimed that Clinton confronts “sexist media” bias as a woman while Obama gets an easy ride because he’s black.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ferraro, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate, told The Daily Breeze of California. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”

The idea that a black man in America, who was raised by a single mother and who bears an exotic foreign-sounding name, would be deemed “very lucky” struck many Americans as a bizarre choice of words. But it fits with a key sub rosa theme of the Clinton campaign, that an unqualified black man was cutting line in front of a better qualified white woman.

Clinton gingerly distanced herself from Ferraro’s comments and Ferraro resigned from Clinton’s finance committee. But even political analysts who are fond of Clinton found the larger picture of her campaign strategic demeaning of Obama offensive.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said he decided reluctantly that he must speak out against the Clinton campaign’s behavior.

“As it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president,” Olbermann said in a “Special Comment” on March 12.

“Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president. … You are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies.”

Into the Abyss

If followed to its logical – yet crazed – conclusion, the madness also might be leading the United States into the ever deepening abyss of Middle East wars.

After all, both McCain and Clinton were staunch supporters of the Iraq War, now nearing its fifth anniversary with no end in sight.

McCain remains an Iraq War advocate, even he says if the U.S. occupation must last a century or more. Clinton only reversed herself on the war as she prepared to run for the Democratic nomination, realigning herself with the anti-war views of most Democrats, but she refused to admit that her 2002 war-authorization vote was a mistake.

Both McCain and Clinton also favor a hard line toward Iran.

During a South Carolina campaign stop in April 2007, as the Bush administration was pounding the war drums with Iran, McCain veered off into a musical rendition, changing the lyrics of an old Beach Boys song to “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

In September 2007, Clinton supported a Senate resolution co-sponsored by neoconservative Sen. Joe Lieberman that sought to have Iran’s Revolutionary Guard designated a “global terrorist organization,” a move that Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, warned could be tantamount to a declaration of war.

A month later, however, President George W. Bush opted for a less extreme position than the one Sen. Clinton favored. He designated only the Quds Force, a special operations branch of the Revolutionary Guard, as a “global terrorist” group.

Now, however, the abrupt resignation of Admiral Fallon, who had publicly challenged the saber-rattling toward Iran coming from the White House, removed one of the chief obstacles to the use of military force against Iran over its nuclear program.

Intelligence sources have told me that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were eyeing possible air strikes against Iranian targets in 2007 before they encountered Fallon’s stiff opposition.

The White House hardliners also met resistance from the U.S. intelligence community, which released a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had shut down a key element of its nuclear weapons program.

Since Fallon’s sudden resignation, intelligence sources have said they do not foresee an imminent U.S. assault on Iran, although one source said Fallon quit, in part, over a new White House demand for an updated attack plan.

More likely, the sources say, the issue of how to deal with Iran will pass to the next president. In that regard, McCain and Clinton promise more tough talk and belligerence, while Obama vows to speak directly with Iran’s leaders over how to reduce tensions.

Yet, the combined events of the past several days – the sudden ouster of the chief military opponent of an expanded war in the Middle East and the apparent decline in the political fortunes of the most dovish candidate – suggest that the Bush-Cheney belligerent strategies may well outlast their terms of office.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

How Dumb "Does She Think We is"

by P.M. Carpenter

Probably my most cherished memory of the many talk-radio callers I've heard over the years is that of an intensely fatuous regular who asked one morning in the 1990s of Hillary Clinton (who, as I recall, had just committed some now-unremembered political sin): "How stupid does she think we is?"

That caller was always immeasurably good fun, but after the Clinton administration retired he retired as well, from the airwaves, to delight me nevermore. Yet the other night -- primary night -- his words that morning came back to me in a flash as I listened to his old bugbear, Hillary, address a victory rally in Ohio. As she spoke I found myself asking, How stupid does she think we is?

Her first brazen insult to electoral intelligence came early, loud, and wrapped in the following implausible laundry list: "You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio. And that is what we've done. We've won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee."

Her stately recitation reminded me of the teenager Toad in "American Graffiti" who casually added a bottle of hooch to a lengthy list of items requested at a liquor store, hoping the clerk wouldn't notice the illicit incongruity. Right, I'll have some gum, hair tonic, a pint of Jack Daniels, Florida, Michigan and a comb, please.

When you want to get away with political larceny, just act like it's nothing out of the ordinary. And sure enough, Hillary's crowd went wild in violent agreement.

Another non sequitur that Hillary even more chronically serves up is that in the primaries she alone has won the "big" states, the "important" states, such as California and New York -- states, she goes on to say, that Democrats must carry in the general if they're to have any hope. Ergo her primary victories and Obama's losses in these states, she implies, prove that she alone can win them in November.

Again, it's a kind of underhanded, bullying assumption of the electorate's stupidity -- trusting that few stop to realize how solidly blue these states are; that sure, in a contested primary some Democrat must lose, but that loser would slide home in the general as easily as the primary victor.

I don't really blame Hillary for retailing these insults to what passes for the multitudes' intelligence -- after all, 62 million of us voted for George W. Bush in 2004 -- but it does irk that the reportedly harsh and Hillary-hating media don't stop her after each and every campaign conclave and press the question: Were you honestly saying, just now, that you don't believe Obama can carry the Republican-repellent state of California? Oh, and by the way, how did Florida and Michigan primary victories in the non-competing non-primary states of Florida and Michigan get in there?

Also nonchalantly slipped by the electorate is Hillary & Co.'s screeching U-turn on the momentum vs. math superhighway. Originally the Clinton campaign insisted with businesslike solemnity that the race is all about math, not momentum. That was when they believed the math was on their side. Now, whoosh, they insist with equal solemnity and without a dram of self-aware shame that the race is actually all about momentum, not math.

Simultaneously they've tried to muddle what is, in fact, the rather straightforward matter of math. And based on the plentiful emails I've received from Clinton supporters, they've been robustly successful in their muddlement.

This really, as they say, isn't rocket science. For the inescapable basics are these: True, neither Clinton or Obama will reach the magic 2,025 delegate count by convention time. Obama, however -- barring unimaginably staggering victories by Clinton from here on out -- will still hold a plurality of those pledged delegates by convention time. Which is to say, simply, he'll go into the convention with more delegates derived from voters than Hillary. That reality is as close to an absolute certainty as absolute certainties come.

And from this further derives some rather unassailable logic -- basic democracy stuff, you know, wherein the majority rules. If, among two candidates at a nominating convention, one holds more votes popularly won than the other but is still short of a needed 2,025, it would seem, democratically speaking, that the leading candidate deserves the deciding votes cast by superdelegates. To argue otherwise -- that the second-place candidate is more deserving in a (D)emocratic forum than the first-place candidate -- is a real head-scratcher.

Appearing on "Hardball" yesterday, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe was asked about the democratic virtue of even a single-vote majority, with Chris Matthews adeptly quoting the Democratic Party's founder, Tom Jefferson: "the majority of a single vote as [is] sacred as if unanimous." What said Terry to this democratic axiom? Not much, for he bobbed and dodged the question by trying to cite legalistic rules and technicalities as the ultimate authority. But in other, plainer words, he was saying no, the Clinton campaign gives not one whit about all that democratic fussiness stuff. He also clearly believed that if he just dispensed with it quickly enough, no one would notice.

How stupid, indeed, do they think we is?

I should like to not altogether whimsically float, however, a possible resolution to the prevailing madness that faces no end in sight, except a severely and debilitatingly divided party. And the solution, not a speech, is this: If the party is intent on abusing democracy, then it can nominate neither Clinton or Obama.

If, that is, it looks like sufficient superdelegates are about to steal the popular will by siding with Hillary, then, in league with his pledged ones in addition to as many supers as he can muster, Obama could throw his support to, say, a Senator Russ Feingold or Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky -- anybody who denied authorization for Bush's idiotic and illegal war. Joe Biden would have been an appealing natural, but, alas, he committed the same unconscionably opportunistic sin as Hillary.

Such an escape route might convince enough superdelegates to pull in the reins before careening over the divisive edge. If it's democracy denial they seek, they might as well go whole hog and at least nominate a potential unifier, and not a certain divider.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Rush Limberballs Has It All Figured Out....God Help Us.

It seems that people from both sides of this election keep grasping for historical straws in order to explain 2008.

The thing is, there is no historical precedent for this election, unless it is, maybe, 1968. But in order for that to be a sure fit, there would need to be bullets, not ballots. We must be over that, by now.

Limbaugh, the clown, seems to think that it will take Clinton to bloody up Obama for McCain to win. Sorry statement on the GOP; that they need Hillary to do their bidding for them. Huh, maybe they do and maybe she is doing just that. After all, the two of them are good buds, from what we hear.

Perhaps the GOP has to have McCain v. Clinton. Either way, the sins of Bush/Cheney will be forgotten quickly, swept under the rug, whatever. We remember that is exactly what happened when Bill was elected. Iran/Contra was forgiven and forgotten quickly.

Sometimes, forgiveness is not the best thing for the country.

This is definitely one of those times. There can be no forgiveness, nor can we forget what Bush and Cheney have done....to innocents in foreign countries and to our own country.

Published on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 by The Nation

Now It Gets Dangerous for Democrats

by John Nichols

Here is what conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said about the prospect of a continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination on the eve of the Ohio primary and the Texas primacaucuses that have - with “good enough” finishes for Hillary Clinton — assured the race will go on:

“We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically.”

Limbaugh explained to fellow right-wing gabber Laura Ingraham - yes, they are now interviewing each other — that Obama has gotten this far in his race for the presidency with most of his popular appeal intact. As such, he would be hard to beat as the Democratic nominee in a race with Republican John McCain.

“I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They’re in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s all going to stop if Hillary loses,” Limbaugh argued, as he suggested that Republicans in primary states should cross party lines to vote for Clinton.

Only by keeping Clinton in the race, Limbaugh explained, will it be possible to “sustain the soap opera” that might ultimately diminish Obama sufficiently to secure an undeserved Republican win in November. Well, the soap opera has been sustained.

With her big Ohio and Rhode Island wins and a narrow victory in Texas, Clinton can do more than just carry on. She can say, credibly, that, “We’re going strong and we’re going all the way.”

Tuesday night belonged to Clinton, and she owned it.

As Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising” played, the senator claimed the victory she needed with the line: “Ohio has written a new chapter in the history of this campaign, and we’re just getting started.”

What is getting started is an edgier, rougher Democratic presidential race.

And don’t think that the New York senator will pull any punches.

If the Clinton campaign has learned anything from the two-week campaign that preceded the Ohio and Texas votes, it is that Hillary Clinton will not win unless Barack Obama loses. The senator from Illinois must be damaged, badly, or so the theory goes, in order for the senator from New York to grab the Democratic nomination from his clutches.

Make no mistake: The candidate and her Clintonistas have sought to inflict that damage.

This campaign moves so fast that it is easy to forget everything that happens in a two-week timespan. But, since Clinton lost Wisconsin’s February 19 primary, the hits really have kept coming. There was “Barack stole lines from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick” hit. There was the “Barack stole a page from Karl Rove when he sent out negative mailings” hit. There was the “Barack dresses like a Muslim” hit. There was the “Barack’s campaign told the Canadians one thing about trade and Ohio another thing” hit. There was the “Barack’s not the guy you want answering the phone in the White House” hit. There was even the “Barack’s defiling the memory of Ann Richards because she would have wanted Hillary to have a clean shot at the nomination” hit. And always, always, always, there was the steady drumbeat from candidate Clinton that: “”I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech (against authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq) he made in 2002.”

Now, the strategy has been sufficiently-if-not-completely validated.

So Clinton will go on, and chances are that she will go on rough. Will it be enough to secure her the nomination? Clinton and her aides think so. Their calculus goes like this: Obama is really just another Democratic presidential “flash-in-the-pan” who started strong but will ultimately wear thin- like Gary Hart in 1984, like Paul Tsongas in 1992, like Howard Dean in 2004 - and Clinton can slowly but surely take advantage of uncertainty about Obama until she “closes the deal” at a convention where she arrives with momentum from late primaries and caucuses, maybe even re-vote victories from Michigan and Florida, and a clear advantage among super delegates.

The scenario is not a likely one. More likely is a repeat 1972, when South Dakota Senator George McGovern seemed to have the nomination secured by early spring but former Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s campaign kept “raising doubts” about McGovern to the very end. The Humphrey campaign and its allies pulled no punches. They suggested, with none-too-subtle encouragement from incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon’s surrogates, that a McGovern candidacy - and, presumably, a McGovern presidency — would be all about “acid, abortion and amnesty”: legalizing drugs, attacking moral values and forgiving military deserters.

Democrats did not buy it; they gave McGovern more primary wins and the nomination. But McGovern and his campaign were done severe damage. A World War II hero with a stellar Senate record on serious issues like providing food aid to the world - so stellar that Bob Dole and George Bush would ultimately celebrate his work in this particular area — was redefined as what Republicans and their amen corner in the media now refer to as a “McGovernite.”

Clinton’s campaign has been given a new lease on life.

It will continue.

But she and her supporters - as well as Democrats who may still be undecided about this contest — need to think long and hard about the kind of campaign will now run against Barack Obama. If the Clinton camp runs the right campaign on legitimate issues, and if it does so with dignity, they will not harm Democratic prospects in November - no matter who the nominee turns out to be. On the other hand, if they run wrong, and seek to destroy Obama by any means necessary, they could be responsible for two defeats: Clinton’s for the nomination and Obama’s for the presidency in November.

Those are the stakes as the long campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination now enters its most dangerous stage.

John Nichols’ new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”

Copyright © 2008 The Nation

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.