zed?

zed?

Binga bonga

dos…

Singles again?

Bush/Cheney lite was an unfortunate charge to make of a fellow Democrat – unless it is true…

Where is Gore???

Zed!

OldCoastie @ 7

Zed!

You got yer zed :>

I still don’t think this argument hurts Hillary. “tough”, for her, is helpful. not retiring from a fight? helpful… “this is getting silly”? makes her “the mother”… and makes Obama look young…

nope, doesn’t hurt her at all…

Interesting that Obama is responding quickly with the ad on the right hand column. He’s pushing his answer, which says his polling must be telling him the same thing as Rasmussen.

When Hillary makes a move like this, then we know we’re getting somewhere:

The Clinton camp placed comments from her and Obama on her web site, HillaryHub.com, and provided a link to an opinion article written by conservative Charles Krauthammer that described “how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie.”

Hillary won this brouhaha. Ha Ha. Although more people agree with the “no pre-conditions” position, it is indeed niave. She gets points from me for being honest and saying the less popular thing. And she can talke a punch and counter punch. Her line about “what happened to the new politics of hope” was a winner, too.

Here Edwards takes the high road:

Former Sen. John Edwards, in third place in the polls behind Clinton and Obama to become the Democratic nominee in the November 2008 election, inserted himself into the conflict and tried to take the high road.

“If you’re looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, one perfect example is what’s been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems facing our country,” Edwards, the party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, told an Urban League annual conference in St. Louis.

LS @ 6

Bush/Cheney lite was an unfortunate charge to make of a fellow Democrat – unless it is true…

Where is Gore???

Watching and waiting me hopes. Have convinced myself we’ll have to wait for a definitive Gore commitment (or not) awaiting his expected Nobel Peace Prize award in October.

ReElect President Gore & VP Edwards 2008!

Then this:

Another Democratic candidate, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, called the conflict “just another personal argument among politicians, and that’s lamentable given the stakes in this election.”

And still another candidate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has done his share of international diplomacy as a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said he did not see what all the fuss was about.

“You know, I’ve actually met a lot of these guys already — I’ve met (Cuban leader Fidel) Castro, I’ve met (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez,” he told The Washington Post.

I maintain that Hillary’s answer is the right one. I immediately thought of the Union President negotiating directly with management on the contract. No, the president sends in the negotiating team and holds talks only with the negotiations chair until most everything has been hammered out. When the talks are close enough for the union president and top manager to fine tune things, then he/she gets involved.

If it weren’t for the Obama/Clinton discussion that went on after the debate, I’d agree with your conclusion, Jane.

At first, I thought he either wasn’t listening closely enough to the question, or decided to change the subject a bit to make points about Bush Administration policy. Afterwards, though, he seems to have confirmed that he meant to answer the question as he did.

In doing that, though, he agreed he would do something that I think was unwise. Many of Obama’s fans have been peddling the false dichotomy that either you’re for refusing to communicate with these nations or you’ll support the President meeting with them without conditions. I say there’s an underemployed department of our government that can handle the communications aspects just fine until some agenda can be worked out.

Let slip the dogs of foreign service, I say.

musical theater is much more entertaining than what these two say in public, and probably a lot more truthful.

Do you think they will ever get around to the thousands of issues that are important to Americans? Or will they spew drivel as they ignore the walls collapsing on the senate?

OT, but here’s a Newsweek article on lying DC Circuit judge Brett Kavanagh:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19…../newsweek/

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

Here’s my $0.02 on this.

In a nutshell…

Obama saw a chance for an easy answer and went for it. Every Dem knows the Bush silent-treatment diplomacy is horseshit. Clinton gave a better answer because she not only did what she wanted in terms of highlighting experience, it also signaled to independent voters that she’ll be reversing Bush policies because they’re wrong, not because they’re Bush policies.

When Bush-Cheney came in, they just decided to do the opposite of Bill Clinton, no matter what. Lousy way to run a country.

Politically, Obama might have won the day, though, because his answer is the obvious, shiny version. We saw time and time again in 2004 that Kerry had the thoughtful answer and Bush and Cheney had a field day mocking him for it. It was like Idiocracy. Will the Dem primary be like that? I’m not sure it won’t be. The general election definitely will be.

Plus, Obama scored an opportunity to hit Clinton for her AUMF vote in 2002. Ouch.

There’s also this: Obama more or less calling Hillary a polarizing figure (the favorite moniker about her) without mentioning her by name.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — In a slap at his chief rival, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday the most important asset the next president can offer is the ability to unite the country.

The Illinois senator did not mention Hillary Rodham Clinton, but sought to make the case the U.S. cannot afford a divisive commander in chief after George W. Bush’s two terms.

”The reason that this president has failed to lead this country is because he hasn’t been able to unite our country. He’s polarized us when he should have pulled us together,” Obama said in a speech at the College Democrats of America convention at the University of South Carolina. ”That’s why the experience we need in the next president is the ability to bring this country together.

”It’s not enough to just change parties,” Obama said.

Let the fur fly!

Woodhall Hollow @ 20

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

or veep

Methinks the Clinton-Obama contretemps has another subtext, as important as anything they say on the issues, and that is the intense competition between them to attract campaign dollars from essentially the same donor base. That is the real source of any animosity between the two.

You brought out the discouraging thing about all this: that Hillary’s advisors have been poll-testing and decided to jump on Obama when he left a sliver of an opening. What is disasteful about this is that it was, really,just a sliver, and a meaningless one at that. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a person who is just a few years out of the Illinois State Legislature, is not going to have a lot of foreign policy experience, not even of the trilateral committee kind that Jimmy Carter had when he came up. But he should be tested in a real debate, not this ‘gotcha’ stuff. It demeans Mrs. Clinton, just at the point where I was beginning to warm to her.

It also demeans the American public. I think our side has a better chance if our candidates take a chance and actually talk straight to the electorate for a change, instead of the Javanese shadow puppetry we get exposed to. They are all strong candidates, each with his or her particular strengths. At this point, Senator Clinton ought to be emphasizing her strengths, which are substantial and many, not running down her opponents. As a campaign strategy, it stinks.

Hillary doesn’t need to act tough. Hillary needs to soften her image. This wouldn’t be the case for most women, but the Right has painted Hillary as a radical, amazonian feminist for 15 years. She’s a lawyer and lacks natural warmth as well. Most women, I would agree, would have to sell the toughness…Hillary hurts herself acting this way.

I will agree that HRC is winning on this inexperience crap and Obama needs desperately to answer it or he may be over. It really shouldn’t be hard to do, Hillary needs to be slapped down by surrogates who point out her qualifications are almost all porking Bill. Seriously. We’ve known Hillary a longer time, but she was first lady, that’s not the sort of experience that matters.

Obama needs some feisty supporters to get on these talk shows and pound the “First Lady isn’t real experience” message time after time…then throw in the Iraq war vote to show poor judgment.

Obama has been hurt by two things so far. 1)He’s not good in sound bites (although having watched him in a one on one debate he’s a master). He needs to focus group, memorize and repeat…just like Hillary. 2)His surrogates aren’t doing him favors. He let David Axelrod go on Hardball yesterday and it was embarrassing. Axelrod is a communication’s guy too I believe, he should know enough to see how poorly he handles himself.

I’m still hoping Obama’s campaign can right itself (he does have the money to win if they do). Hillary is suicide for Democrats. It’s like all of us that told you Al Gore was too stiff, Kerry lacked passion. Well Al did win, but barely, HRC cannot win. She mobilizes the right wing like no other figure. It would be like GOP running Coulter-geist.

Obama is a shoe in for the General. He’s more likable, telegenic, better in general style debates (he’s as good as Reagan) and doesn’t mobilize the right. If only we don’t commit suicide again.

Not-Obama and Not-Hillary will ultimately win from this one.

And speaking of winners, chalk one up for MTPR–yeah, I know, hard to believe–Eugene Robinson will be on Timmeh’s round table discussion of this spat and other topics Sunday morning. Robinson’s a plain-spoken, truth-tellin’ winner in my book.

Tony Snowjob–loser. Candidate for the Easy Liar Hall of Shame with his most recent “performance” catapulting the propaganda. A sad, sad man. Hope that “Pentangeli buyoff” is worth it, Tony.

How did that go again, Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness….

As I commented in my thread, I think Hillary misjudged how Obama would respond, which went right to her vulnerability among Dems — and when she said recently that “this is starting to get silly” she wasn’t just saying Obama was silly; she meant the whole affair was making her look silly too — I interpreted that as a white flag. or hankie.

The “slugfest” term, while initially a little repulsive to me, actually makes them sound “tough”. (blink twice here – the media is referring to Democrats with language that makes them look like the tough guys, not the wimpy little whiners).

Which is why Hillary will continue to waffle on getting the fuck out of Iraq, she’s got to look tough.

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

raven @ 29

The “slugfest” term, while initially a little repulsive to me, actually makes them sound “tough”. (blink twice here – the media is referring to Democrats with language that makes them look like the tough guys, not the wimpy little whiners).

Which is why Hillary will continue to waffle on getting the fuck out of Iraq, she’s got to look tough.

Maybe Edwards can rise above all this. If there were a real 3-way horse race with no clear winner delagate-wise, hopefully Gore could be drafted as a unity candidate. That is what I am hoping.

In my humble opinion, this is Obama’s real problem:

Filed at 3:00 p.m. ET

TIMMONSVILLE, S.C. (AP) — Presidential hopeful Barack Obama faces two major obstacles in South Carolina, the first Democratic testing ground for black support: the popularity of the Clinton name and doubts among blacks that white America is ready for a minority president.

The candidacy of the 45-year-old Obama elicits genuine excitement in a state where blacks comprise about half of the primary electorate. Yet coupled with that emotion is a strong degree of skepticism about the freshman senator’s experience and whether he can win.

Obama also is up against the formidable Clinton, the Democratic front-runner who enjoys strong support in the black community and is married to former President Clinton, who is wildly popular in the community.

Hillary is leading Obama by two digits in the polls nationwideamong African-Americans. If he cannot carry this constituency, he can kiss the nomination goodbye.

It is so easy to sit on your ass and second guess everything. the fact is Obama don’t know if his judgement or ideas would work til they are apllied to real situations. Obviously Obama is boasting that because he did not vote to invade Iraq, he is the best man for the prez job.

I do want to call Obama out for linking Hillary to Bush/Cheney. Obama is better man than that. Whatever you think of Hillary, she does not deserved to be linked to Bush and Cheney. It was terrible judgemetn call by Obama. Oh we are talking about judgement?

Knut Wicksell @ 25

You brought out the discouraging thing about all this: that Hillary’s advisors have been poll-testing and decided to jump on Obama when he left a sliver of an opening. What is disasteful about this is that it was, really,just a sliver, and a meaningless one at that. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a person who is just a few years out of the Illinois State Legislature, is not going to have a lot of foreign policy experience, not even of the trilateral committee kind that Jimmy Carter had when he came up. But he should be tested in a real debate, not this ‘gotcha’ stuff. It demeans Mrs. Clinton, just at the point where I was beginning to warm to her.

It also demeans the American public. I think our side has a better chance if our candidates take a chance and actually talk straight to the electorate for a change, instead of the Javanese shadow puppetry we get exposed to. They are all strong candidates, each with his or her particular strengths. At this point, Senator Clinton ought to be emphasizing her strengths, which are substantial and many, not running down her opponents. As a campaign strategy, it stinks.

Obama said in the debate that he would do something that strikes me as foolish, and then later maintained that he meant what he said. I think that represents an important point in choosing a Presidential candidate. Clinton called him on it (as did Edwards, BTW).

Yes, I’m sure that she had all those focus group studies and so forth as motivation, but she also recognized the issue when Obama was addressing it. That showed experience and a grasp of the realities of government that Obama didn’t have.

Leahy and Specter on Face.

Schumer and Hatch on Snuffleufagus. Gack.

Republicans, what is there about checks and balances and rule of law you find so hard to accept? And truth, you got a problem with that?

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Preconditions like the ultimatums issued to Ahmedinejad?

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Eggzactement. That also doesn’t mean that the Pres could not send an envoy to meet with a rep from No Korea or Iran without pre-conditions, but no one asked that question.

brendan @ 36

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Preconditions like the ultimatums issued to Ahmedinejad?

Shape of the table.

Obama’s campaign frustrates me. You can tell he needs coaching for these ridiculous 9 people debates. Then the campaign needs surrogates to repeat repeat repeat that first lady is nice, but it isn’t experience. Then, once she got to Washington she voted for the Iraq war and won’t apologize.

She’s vulnerable as hell and Obama’s people remind of Kerry’s people with the lack of response to Swift Boat. The first positive sign I’ve seen out of Obama in months was that he’s not backing down on the meeting with world leaders. But for godsakes Obama, hire some consultants to get you debate ready and find people to attack Hillary on her “experience.”

You all realize the “inexperienced” Obama charge is a frame because Hillary lacks any. Genius on their part. Obama can’t say what needs to be said, but their campaign has to one way or the other.

Sure glad that our very own are holding true to form for Genus Politico.

After all, it is the style of their mud slinging at each other that counts with the jaudiced-eye MSM and Punditocracy rather than the substance of the mud.

I, myself, am very partial to that rather sickly yellow and runny kind of mud thrown underhanded with one’s left-hand with a dash of rebel panache.

Stock up on yer peanuts, popcorn and Cracker Jacks, ’cause the previews are over and the real Clown show is about to begin. *g*

Knut Wicksell @25:

As a strategy it makes sense, if you agree with this interpretation:

“Duncan (if I’m reading it right) saw Clinton’s statement as a nod to the always-wrong DC foreign policy elite who brought you the War in Iraq that she, indeed, knew what the rules of the game were. Whereas Obama is using the contretemps to point out that he’s not naive, merely coming at things with a fresh and much-needed new perspective since the operative rules clearly do not work.”

LS @ 6

Bush/Cheney lite was an unfortunate charge to make of a fellow Democrat – unless it is true…

Where is Gore???

Staying incognito while the two of these flame themselves out. Then guess who’s left standing! I’m really giggling right now, because I was just over at TPMemo reading about how John McCain and Romney are on Hillary’s side. Great company. Almost reinforces the charge of George Bush lite, don’t it?!!

Woodhall Hollow @ 20

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

Retired generals cannot become SecDef until 10 years after retirement from service. I believe Clark retired in 2000, essentially forced out by his nemesis, SecDef Cohen.

Cohen’s beef? He apparently believes Clark went around him to take action in the Bosnia conflict. However, as commander of NATO, Clark did not necessarily report to Cohen. Its all in the eyes of the beholder.

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Bush’s diplomatic legacy is one of failure, not because he wouldn’t have a sit down meeting with Il or Castro, but because he wouldn’t allow his State Dept. to do the slow, difficult work of engagement.

Barack’s answer is shiny enough to be pleasing, but Clinton’s promise of “vigorous diplomacy” without promising a face-to-face reveals a better understanding of what needs to be done.

What I find hard to comprehend is that anybody really thinks that having a Clinton in the White House would be a continuation of the Bush-Cheney silent treatment. Bill would be out there talking. Isn’t that obvious??

At the risk of sounding like a fool.
I think Bill and Hillary are compromised by the establishment. But perhaps no more than Mr.Gore is. There’s a whole deep issue about power I won’t get into here.
I think Obama is our last best hope. He has plenty of experience, valuable experience. Just none of the very stuff I am trying to articulate here and failing.
I guess I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say. Except if Mr. Bill Clinton has more data than I do, I must insist he does, than how can he be civil in the presence of these monsters??
There’s got to be something I’m missing? Duh?

Ann in AZ @ 42

LS @ 6

Bush/Cheney lite was an unfortunate charge to make of a fellow Democrat – unless it is true…

Where is Gore???

Staying incognito while the two of these flame themselves out. Then guess who’s left standing! I’m really giggling right now, because I was just over at TPMemo reading about how John McCain and Romney are on Hillary’s side. Great company. Almost reinforces the charge of George Bush lite, don’t it?!!

Sure, they’ll call her a socialist hawk and nobody will vote for her.

Then there’s also this:

Ashley Torrence, a 27-year-old college instructor in Greenville, S.C., is torn between voting for Obama and Clinton, and considers her vote crucial because either candidate could smash barriers. Torrence has talked to Clinton and was disappointed when all she got from her encounter with Obama was a handshake.

In the context of this AP file, I’m assuming Ashley Torrence is an African-American woman. If so, she embodies the classic identity-politics split that will be played out (that’s already playing out) between Obama and Hillary during the primaries: race and gender.

brendan @ 36

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Preconditions like the ultimatums issued to Ahmedinejad?

opening bargaining positions presented to Ahmedinejad.

dreamcatcher @ 43

Woodhall Hollow @ 20

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

Retired generals cannot become SecDef until 10 years after retirement from service. I believe Clark retired in 2000, essentially forced out by his nemesis, SecDef Cohen.

Cohen’s beef? He apparently believes Clark went around him to take action in the Bosnia conflict. However, as commander of NATO, Clark did not necessarily report to Cohen. Its all in the eyes of the beholder.

Interesting. So that would mean that if Hillary won (though I hope that she and Barack cancel each other out), Clark wouldn’t necessarily be expecting a cabinet level appointment?

NO TALKS WITH IRAN!

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..llary.html

Until they thank us for the Shah!

Btw, Clark was terrible last night on Rove show, just terrible. Rove just slapped him around and even told Clark to stop referring to the Cheney administration.

scarlet p. @ 49

NO TALKS WITH IRAN!

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..llary.html

Until they thank us for the Shah!

OldCoastie @ 9

I still don’t think this argument hurts Hillary. “tough”, for her, is helpful. not retiring from a fight? helpful… “this is getting silly”? makes her “the mother”… and makes Obama look young…

nope, doesn’t hurt her at all…

Every 5 million words the progressive blogs waste on American Idol Presidential campaign arguments 2008 loses us one potential U.S. House seat gain. Think about it.

Biodun @ 46

Then there’s also this:

Ashley Torrence, a 27-year-old college instructor in Greenville, S.C., is torn between voting for Obama and Clinton, and considers her vote crucial because either candidate could smash barriers. Torrence has talked to Clinton and was disappointed when all she got from her encounter with Obama was a handshake.

In the context of this AP file, I’m assuming Ashley Torrence is an African-American woman. If so, she embodies the classic identity-politics split that will be played out (that’s already playing out) between Obama and Hillary during the primaries: race and gender.

At last count Women = 50% of the electorate. African Americans = <10%

Torch and Pitchfork @ 45

At the risk of sounding like a fool.
I think Bill and Hillary are compromised by the establishment. But perhaps no more than Mr.Gore is. There’s a whole deep issue about power I won’t get into here.
I think Obama is our last best hope. He has plenty of experience, valuable experience. Just none of the very stuff I am trying to articulate here and failing.
I guess I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say. Except if Mr. Bill Clinton has more data than I do, I must insist he does, than how can he be civil in the presence of these monsters??
There’s got to be something I’m missing? Duh?

I think what you’re missing is that sometimes you have to be civil to monsters, particularly if they have the power to make your life miserable. That’s as true for heads of state as it is for us little folks, I think.

What you should avoid doing is giving in to them, or giving them what they want when you can avoid it.

scarlet p. @ 50

NO TALKS WITH IRAN!

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..llary.html

Until they thank us for the Shah!

Nice shoutout from Froomkin for you today.

Not all that surprised about Hillary’s answer. It’s the triangulator’s creed: analyze the shit out of something before (or if) you make a decision. Make your opponent tear his eyeballs out of his skull from sheer boredom.

This brush up is a fark up for Hillary. She wanted to hit him for inexperience when she’s almost got the last nail in coffin with that anyway.

Instead, Obama hit back by standing by his position. This was definitely a win for Obama, hopefully a spark.

Oh and about about Obama and the black vote. Just remember name recognition. Obama isn’t known by many yet (sorry most voters aren’t paying much attention). They know Clinton, Obama has 35 million to let people know his name. Obama has the black vote (that wasn’t always the case before he raised all this money) as soon as he spends it the black vote will be locked in. HRC needs to spend time and energy in other areas than the black vote, that’s a mistake on her part.

Biodun @ 11

When Hillary makes a move like this, then we know we’re getting somewhere:

The Clinton camp placed comments from her and Obama on her web site, HillaryHub.com, and provided a link to an opinion article written by conservative Charles Krauthammer that described “how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie.”

Again, Hillary’s in great company, isn’t she? Well, isn’t she?

Ed*ard Teller @ 53

OldCoastie @ 9

I still don’t think this argument hurts Hillary. “tough”, for her, is helpful. not retiring from a fight? helpful… “this is getting silly”? makes her “the mother”… and makes Obama look young…

nope, doesn’t hurt her at all…

Every 5 million words the progressive blogs waste on American Idol Presidential campaign arguments 2008 loses us one potential U.S. House seat gain. Think about it.

I don’t see the connection. If you’d mentioned global warming or air pollution, I’d have gotten it, but I suppose that’s not very subtle humor.

Obama would talk with these leaders the first year and Hillary would consider talking with them the next year.

Ann in AZ @ 59

Biodun @ 11

When Hillary makes a move like this, then we know we’re getting somewhere:

Again, Hillary’s in great company, isn’t she? Well, isn’t she?

And you just know that Charles K is going to bend over backwards singing her praises is she gets the nomination.

Woodhall Hollow @ 48

dreamcatcher @ 43

Retired generals cannot become SecDef until 10 years after retirement from service. I believe Clark retired in 2000, essentially forced out by his nemesis, SecDef Cohen.

Cohen’s beef? He apparently believes Clark went around him to take action in the Bosnia conflict. However, as commander of NATO, Clark did not necessarily report to Cohen. Its all in the eyes of the beholder.

Interesting. So that would mean that if Hillary won (though I hope that she and Barack cancel each other out), Clark wouldn’t necessarily be expecting a cabinet level appointment?

A recently retired general/admiral can accept any cabinet appointment except SecDef. The SecDef has a huge say in awarding defense contracts, so Congress wanted to build a buffer period between the time a general retires, and when he can become SecDef, obviously because upon retirement, he still has close ties with generals and admirals who want expensive toys.

Who knows whether this really makes any difference?

Oh good. RGJoe coming up on CNN to talk about his fantasy of a fascist state tightening homeland security.

Just peechy.

Ed*ard Teller @ 52

OldCoastie @ 9

I still don’t think this argument hurts Hillary. “tough”, for her, is helpful. not retiring from a fight? helpful… “this is getting silly”? makes her “the mother”… and makes Obama look young…

nope, doesn’t hurt her at all…

Every 5 million words the progressive blogs waste on American Idol Presidential campaign arguments 2008 loses us one potential U.S. House seat gain. Think about it.

Ed is focussed because here in AK we have a chance to kick out Don “Buttfucking” Young who has been the embarrassing representative of our fair state for way too long.

Dover Bitch @ 44

Bush’s diplomatic legacy is one of failure, not because he wouldn’t have a sit down meeting with Il or Castro, but because he wouldn’t allow his State Dept. to do the slow, difficult work of engagement.

Iraqi Government in Deep Crisis

Kathleen @ 61

Obama would talk with these leaders the first year and Hillary would consider talking with them the next year.

“Precipitous” negotiations?

BigMitch @ 53

Biodun @ 46

Then there’s also this:

In the context of this AP file, I’m assuming Ashley Torrence is an African-American woman. If so, she embodies the classic identity-politics split that will be played out (that’s already playing out) between Obama and Hillary during the primaries: race and gender.

At last count Women = 50% of the electorate. African Americans = <10%

I would love to like Obama, because I am not thrilled with 8 years of a Clinton, after 8 years of a Bush, after 8 years of a Clinton after 4 (or 12 depending on how you want to count) of a Bush. But he just does not move me. I want more than voting for someone because they are a woman or African-American or they have a pretty face or a nice voice or whatever.

And I don’t get that Obama is anything more than Bill Clinton-lite. And I was never much of a Bill fan. Never quite trusted him. Or his wife.

But I have to say that if it really came down to a choice between Hillary and Obama, only, I would go for Hillary without any hesitation. Because I don’t have a clue what Obama is about other than being a good christian and a unifier. And I HATED his answer on health care.

It is time for a REAL change. Seriously.

It sounded to me that the ‘flap’ was manufactured, agreed upon by the candidates ahead of time.

Hillary or Obama. Gawd. What a choice.

BigMitch @ 53:

Women are split over Hillary: the less-educated: Yes; the more educated: Not.

So are we going to witness Bush pardon Gonzales in advance during the recess?

Jane Hamsher @ 64

Oh good. RGJoe coming up on CNN to talk about his fantasy of a fascist state tightening homeland security.

Just peachy.

You really shouldn’t be watching that stuff.

Look, what we don’t need is Hillary and Obama (and Richardson and Edwards and …) sniping at each other.

As far as I’m concerned, they each got part of the answer right. The status quo ante hasn’t worked. Talking beats fighting everyday, and talking beats fighting with thermonuclear weapons three or four times a day.

On the other hand, sitting down and chatting up people like Kim Jong-Il isn’t going to do much, either. Hillary was right that talking for the sake of talking wasn’t a great idea — going in with an agenda and with our eyes open is.

BC

Woodhall Hollow @ 20

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

There is a video up of Clark on CR last night.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

From everything he said regarding a run for the presidency, I seriously doubt he is angling to be anything other than President. If the “pre-conditions” can be worked out, he will run. Anyone with any doubts about who would best be able to get us out of the mess we’re in should watch the video! He’s brilliant.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 69

Hillary or Obama. Gawd. What a choice.

Which is really sad, because it is about friggen time we had a White House run by somebody other than an old white man. Tragic, actually.

well, ET – glad I didn’t write 5 billion words then! ;-)

Yesterday, I ignored this story and couldn’t understand why the MSM was dedicating so much time to it… today, I think both Obama and Clinton want this fight…

jen @ 74

Woodhall Hollow @ 20

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

There is a video up of Clark on CR last night.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

From everything he said regarding a run for the presidency, I seriously doubt he is angling to be anything other than President. If the “pre-conditions” can be worked out, he will run. Anyone with any doubts about who would best be able to get us out of the mess we’re in should watch the video! He’s brilliant.

Gore/Clark?

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Whatever is necessarily at the time to ensure peace. Each answer had its merits. It is a question of style of leadership. It is customary for leaders to send negotiators, but there are times when direct contact between leaders is crucial.

BigMitch @ 65

Ed is focussed because here in AK we have a chance to kick out Don “Butt-fucking” Young who has been the embarrassing representative of our fair state for way too long.

After all, we are talking about a guy who in 1995, during the controversy relating to the homoerotic art of Robert Mapplethorpe, told an assembly of high school students that he opposed federal funding for any art that portrayed people doing “offensive things.” Pressed for an example by an inquisitive student, Young quickly answered, “Butt-fucking.” It’s pretty hard to defend his choice of words, but he gave it the old college try: He said that his answer would have lacked impact if he had used milder words.

Well this is just a popularity contest. So it is much like American Idol. The problem with the Dems is that our front runner is hugely unpopular for the general.

This whole debacle, if HRC does win it (and absent Obama’s team really improving she will) could have been prevented by a 2006 Dem challenger in NY a la Lieberman in Conn.

Don’t you hate it when you just KNOW something and friends won’t listen no matter what you say. That’s how I feel about HRC. She’s fine, I’ll vote for her in the General, but not only will she lose, she may lose Congress as well. Anti-Hillaryism is the RIGHTS only way they can win. God it’s maddening considering all the good that can done if we have Dem Congress and President.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 70

Hillary or Obama. Gawd. What a choice.

Other choices are available. Better choices are available, in fact.

LS @ 79

BigMitch @ 30

Friends,

Are you noticing that we are talking about which answer, HRC’s or Obama’s, played better, improved image, etc. etc.

The real question is what is the correct answer? I think it is foolish for the president of the united states to promise to meet with the leader of North Korea or Iran without pre-conditions.

Hillary or Barak? Which one’s answer was correct?

Whatever is necessarily at the time to ensure peace. Each answer had its merits. It is a question of style of leadership. It is customary for leaders to send negotiators, but there are times when direct contact between leaders is crucial.

“necessary”

Biodun @ 71

BigMitch @ 53:

Women are split over Hillary: the less-educated: Yes; the more educated: Not.

Go figure, eh?

BigMitch @ 79

BigMitch @ 65

Ed is focussed because here in AK we have a chance to kick out Don “Butt-fucking” Young who has been the embarrassing representative of our fair state for way too long.

After all, we are talking about a guy who in 1995, during the controversy relating to the homoerotic art of Robert Mapplethorpe, told an assembly of high school students that he opposed federal funding for any art that portrayed people doing “offensive things.” Pressed for an example by an inquisitive student, Young quickly answered, “Butt-fucking.” It’s pretty hard to defend his choice of words, but he gave it the old college try: He said that his answer would have lacked impact if he had used milder words.

Well, I guess that provides a clue as to the nature of his personal fetish. Some like to wear diapers, some not so much.

closing -208.10

All of our top candidates have “experience” issues. Fortunately its not gonna be an experience election.
Remember, Rumsfeld and Cheney? Experienced.

I honestly thought Obama’s answer made more sense. Would you talk to them? Well, yes. Hillary’s answer seemed pretty Bush-like to me, which was more or less, “I won’t talk to people we don’t like.”

As anyone who’s ever worked in an office can tell you, sometimes you have to talk to people you don’t like. Krauthammer’s column–which was dishonest even by Krauthammer’s standards–implies that Obama said he’d appear on stage with Kim Jung Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in front of thousand of adoring fans. That’s not what Obama said. He didn’t even imply it. He just said that sometimes you have to talk to other heads of state, even ones you find distasteful. He didn’t say he’d thow them a parade. He just said he’d be willing to talk to them. I fail to see why this is naive or controversial.

Johnny Spectator @ 26

Hillary doesn’t need to act tough. Hillary needs to soften her image. This wouldn’t be the case for most women, but the Right has painted Hillary as a radical, amazonian feminist for 15 years. She’s a lawyer and lacks natural warmth as well. Most women, I would agree, would have to sell the toughness…Hillary hurts herself acting this way.

I will agree that HRC is winning on this inexperience crap and Obama needs desperately to answer it or he may be over. It really shouldn’t be hard to do, Hillary needs to be slapped down by surrogates who point out her qualifications are almost all porking Bill. Seriously. We’ve known Hillary a longer time, but she was first lady, that’s not the sort of experience that matters.

Obama needs some feisty supporters to get on these talk shows and pound the “First Lady isn’t real experience” message time after time…then throw in the Iraq war vote to show poor judgment.

Obama has been hurt by two things so far. 1)He’s not good in sound bites (although having watched him in a one on one debate he’s a master). He needs to focus group, memorize and repeat…just like Hillary. 2)His surrogates aren’t doing him favors. He let David Axelrod go on Hardball yesterday and it was embarrassing. Axelrod is a communication’s guy too I believe, he should know enough to see how poorly he handles himself.

I’m still hoping Obama’s campaign can right itself (he does have the money to win if they do). Hillary is suicide for Democrats. It’s like all of us that told you Al Gore was too stiff, Kerry lacked passion. Well Al did win, but barely, HRC cannot win. She mobilizes the right wing like no other figure. It would be like GOP running Coulter-geist.

Obama is a shoe in for the General. He’s more likable, telegenic, better in general style debates (he’s as good as Reagan) and doesn’t mobilize the right. If only we don’t commit suicide again.

all true.

Dick Cheney is going to have surgery to put a new battery in his robo-chest.

Do you think he will tell the surgeons not to wash their hands or clean their tools? I mean using clean and appropriate surgical tools would be “a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive” way to conduct the operation, but I don’t think the germs “will be impressed by our sensitivity.”

Woodhall Hollow @ 76

Oklahoma kiddo @ 69

Hillary or Obama. Gawd. What a choice.

Which is really sad, because it is about friggen time we had a White House run by somebody other than an old white man. Tragic, actually.

What do you consider old? :-(

I was not impressed with Obama during the John Bolton and Condi Rice nomination hearings. He was supposedly against the invasion but then voted yes to pass Condi”Mushroom Cloud” Rice on to her new position. Hello Obama Condi was a very serious war pusher.

I am not sure what his vote was on Bolton but Obama did not ask tough questions of Bolton.

Lincoln Chaffee sure did so did Kerry and Kerry voted against both Rice and Bolton

http://www.thewashingtonnote.c…..001564.php both of these warmongers on.

Is it still possible for someone else to enter the race to be the presidential nominee? (And I’m not talking about Gore). By when would someone have to declare their candidacy?

Also, any chance the field will have thinned some by the time the primaries actually start?

Ed*ard Teller @ 52

Idol Presidential campaign arguments 2008 loses us one potential U.S. House seat gain. Think about it.

I see your point, Ed*ard. But winning back 1600 is at least as important as gaining House seats.

BC

I think they were saying different parts of the same thing. Their responses to each other since then is magnifying what is most irritating about campaigns – the dog fight over nothing. Not much of a choice btw the two.

Joe votes with the Democrats. Wolf just said so.

The prediction here is that at the end of the day it will be Hillary/Obama.

The Repugs would love to have Hillary win the nomination. Any Dem who doubts this should look at the Repugs who have sided with her over Obama: Mccain, Romney, Charles K. (whose article she linked to on her website); and so on.

And why is Lieberman allowed to take credit for this?

jen @ 75

Woodhall Hollow @ 20

Wesley Clark was on Charlie Rose last night, and in talking about the admin’s ridiculous refusal to speak with the Iranians directly (he called our relationship with them a “Cold War”), pointed out that the US, by necessity, negotiated with known war criminals in the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

I am thinking he is angling to be Sec State or Def.

There is a video up of Clark on CR last night.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

From everything he said regarding a run for the presidency, I seriously doubt he is angling to be anything other than President. If the “pre-conditions” can be worked out, he will run. Anyone with any doubts about who would best be able to get us out of the mess we’re in should watch the video! He’s brilliant.

Whatever Gen Wesley Clarks is angling for bring him on in. One of the most competent leaders that we have

Scarecrow @ 98

And why is Lieberman allowed to take credit for this?

For what?

Frank Probst @ 86

I honestly thought Obama’s answer made more sense. Would you talk to them? Well, yes. Hillary’s answer seemed pretty Bush-like to me, which was more or less, “I won’t talk to people we don’t like.”

As anyone who’s ever worked in an office can tell you, sometimes you have to talk to people you don’t like. Krauthammer’s column–which was dishonest even by Krauthammer’s standards–implies that Obama said he’d appear on stage with Kim Jung Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in front of thousand of adoring fans. That’s not what Obama said. He didn’t even imply it. He just said that sometimes you have to talk to other heads of state, even ones you find distasteful. He didn’t say he’d thow them a parade. He just said he’d be willing to talk to them. I fail to see why this is naive or controversial.

Here is an example: Nixon. Who went to China to meet with Mao (the Stalin of Asia). But he did not go without preconditions. Kissinger was sent as an envoy on a number of secret meetings beforehand. That is how it is done. And Hillary, having lived in the Whitehouse knows this, and Obama is being a bit clueless.

Also, believe me, if Hillary had said anything else, it would’ve come back to bite her in the general election, as she well knows, having been through a lot more campaigning than Obama. And has seen over and over and over how witless remarks in the primary can come back to bite you in the ass in a debate with a rethug opponent.

raven @ 100

Scarecrow @ 98

And why is Lieberman allowed to take credit for this?

For what?

I guess for anything huh!

Someone get the smelling salts for Jane. Mr. “I don’t do oversight of the Bushies” is taking credit for homeland security.

I put Lieberman on, but I just can’t listen… his voice really unnerves me.

I judge a presidential candidate on three things. Foreign policy, their views on how to attack global warming and domestic issues. In that order.

Ahgoo @ 94

I think they were saying different parts of the same thing. Their responses to each other since then is magnifying what is most irritating about campaigns – the dog fight over nothing. Not much of a choice btw the two.

I rather like the various perspectives.

BigMitch @ 89

Woodhall Hollow @ 76

Which is really sad, because it is about friggen time we had a White House run by somebody other than an old white man. Tragic, actually.

What do you consider old? :-(

Well, being born before 1960, I meant that metaphorically, as in the same old, same old. (How’s that for an abu-like clarification?)

I see this as a great fight for Obama. He’s handled this one perfectly. I was expecting him to back down and equivocate or explain. Luckily he didn’t fall for it.

HRC didn’t need the fight…her first major misstep in an otherwise flawless campaign.

Oh, there it is — “a very partisan Congress.” I need to get a box of softer things to throw. Old sox, maybe.

Scarecrow @ 102

Someone get the smelling salts for Jane. Mr. “I don’t do oversight of the Bushies” is taking credit for homeland security.

He’s the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Kathleen @ 99

jen @ 75

There is a video up of Clark on CR last night.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

From everything he said regarding a run for the presidency, I seriously doubt he is angling to be anything other than President. If the “pre-conditions” can be worked out, he will run. Anyone with any doubts about who would best be able to get us out of the mess we’re in should watch the video! He’s brilliant.

Whatever Gen Wesley Clarks is angling for bring him on in. One of the most competent leaders that we have

What they do to him will make the swiftboating of kerry look like serious journalism. He will get creamed.

I think hazmat suits should be required for people who are around RGJoe when he talks.

borrowing a meme from andrew sullivan: Obama would be the best person to “rebrand” America.

Policy-wise, there would not be a dime’s worth of difference between any Dem currently running. But Obama would be like a crisp green salad after an eight-year diet of tainted meat.

As has been said, Hillary would galvanize the wingnuts like no other. We don’t need that.

Barak Obama as the new international face of America!!! Bring it on!

Wes Clark for Sec. of State!

Woodhall — Kinda evasive, “being born before 1960.” C’mon. Fess up. Extent of before?

Woodhall Hollow @ 102:

I can see the headlines: Hillary said she will meet with Chavez and Castro unconditionally.

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

Woodhall Hollow @ 78

jen @ 74

There is a video up of Clark on CR last night.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

From everything he said regarding a run for the presidency, I seriously doubt he is angling to be anything other than President. If the “pre-conditions” can be worked out, he will run. Anyone with any doubts about who would best be able to get us out of the mess we’re in should watch the video! He’s brilliant.

Gore/Clark?

A dream ticket. Couldn’t/wouldn’t lose.

Why is Lieberman allowed to caucus with the Democrats?

Joe thinks that if you defame someone by reporting them as terrorists to the authorities, and you’re dead wrong, you shouldn’t be liable. We just can’t be too zealous in snitching on innocent people.

Jane Hamsher @ 64

Oh good. RGJoe coming up on CNN to talk about his fantasy of a fascist state tightening homeland security.

Just peechy.

Der Lieberloser (L-Conneticut, where L stands for Likud) always has to throw in a “let’s bomb Iran” blurb or two these days.

I read that when Junya had his colonoscopy exam, one of the polyps they removed (reluctantly) was Joe “Shit for Brains” Lieberman.

Who knew? Why, we did, doncha know?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 105

I judge a presidential candidate on three things. Foreign policy, their views on how to attack global warming and domestic issues. In that order.

Number one issue for me is Supreme Court Justices.

Jane Hamsher @ 115

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

Are you surprised?

I’m suspicious about the Repub’s push for Hillary. It would be just like them to be sitting on some really scandalous skeleton in her closet that we don’t know about. They’ve had 7 years to dig one up, and if there is one, ooh boy.

Biodun @ 97

The Repugs would love to have Hillary win the nomination. Any Dem who doubts this should look at the Repugs who have sided with her over Obama: Mccain, Romney, Charles K. (whose article she linked to on her website); and so on.

I don’t think their support of Hillary is strategic (i.e. that they think she’d be the easiest to beat). I think they support her because she’s the most conservative of the bunch. She also the most well-known, which means they have a pretty good idea of what they’re going to get if she’s elected.

And the Clintons basically stabbed Lamont in the back.

Agreed that HRC’s answer in the debate was fine. Her problem was calling him names the next day. Dumb, but probably minor setback. Obama’s campaign still looks inept (and I’m a big supporter). He’s not adequately coached and his surrogates have sucked.

Jane Hamsher @ 116

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

I missed that one.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 123

And the Clintons basically stabbed Lamont in the back.

As did Obama.

Woodhall Hollow @ 107

BigMitch @ 89

What do you consider old? :-(

Well, being born before 1960

I may be old (by your definition) but my immaturity has real staying power.

OldCoastie @ 77

well, ET – glad I didn’t write 5 billion words then! ;-)

Yesterday, I ignored this story and couldn’t understand why the MSM was dedicating so much time to it… today, I think both Obama and Clinton want this fight…

My point is that 2006 proved the synergy of how we’re using this new tool – to communicate, vet the viable candidates from the losers, raise enough money to make an important difference. This topic, with all respect to Jane Hamsher, whom I adore (Mom does too!), isn’t going to help any Dem candidate get elected. The 2008 presidential election is totally out of our hands. The only reason the fix isn’t in yet, is because the fixers haven’t decided who helps their futures best. I am totally cynical about U.S. presidential politics.

The U.S. House, OTOH, is a field where we’ve already proven our worth, learned from the experience, and are poised to help the Dems gain at least 25 more seats. As the state primaries for house races draw nearer, the best applications of Blue net forces are in concentrating on those races. I’m concerned that we’ll get drawn more and more into the beauty contest issues of presidential and senatorial races in which our voices will not be a meaningful factor.

It is fun to argue about Hil and Obama, though, isn’t it?

Jane Hamsher @ 116

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

Nice mentor for Barack..

/snark

Jane Hamsher @ 115

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

Is that right? I don’t have a TV near where I am at the moment. So much for the mentor bit, eh? If Joe would stab his own protege in the back…

BigMitch @ 127

Woodhall Hollow @ 107

Well, being born before 1960

I may be old (by your definition) but my immaturity has real staying power.

LOL! That makes two of us!

Biodun @ 132

Jane Hamsher @ 115

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

Is that right? I don’t have a TV near where I am at the moment. So much for the mentor bit, eh? If Joe would stab his own protege in the back…

Joe would stab himself in the back if it would feed his ego and give him more power.

Jane Hamsher @ 116

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

that’s good. now he can reference the Bush-Cheney-Hillary-Lieberman foreign policy.

fwiw, I just received an E mail from Lowe’s stating

The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

raven @ 103

raven @ 100

For what?

I guess for anything huh!

A company just came out with a motorized rape gurney.

Fern @ 91

Is it still possible for someone else to enter the race to be the presidential nominee? (And I’m not talking about Gore). By when would someone have to declare their candidacy?

Also, any chance the field will have thinned some by the time the primaries actually start?

Yes. The deadline for filing for the early primaries will be this fall sometime, and it will vary from state to state.

And yes. I expect the field to thin down some before the primaries start, and considerably by March 1.

BC

BigMitch @ 112

Kathleen @ 99

Whatever Gen Wesley Clarks is angling for bring him on in. One of the most competent leaders that we have

What they do to him will make the swiftboating of kerry look like serious journalism. He will get creamed.

This is wrong. The reason swiftboating mattered was was because Kerry didn’t run against the war. He ran, the fool, on his record in Vietnam as much as anything else and Rove just neutralized his imagined strength.

Every Democrat is now running against the war whether they like it or not.

jen @ 116

Woodhall Hollow @ 78

Gore/Clark?

A dream ticket. Couldn’t/wouldn’t lose.

They’re both from the south. But then again, there are always exceptions…

These backs were made for stabbing.

And that’s what Joe will do.

-GSD

nonplussed @ 135

fwiw, I just received an E mail from Lowe’s stating

The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

excellent news!

A*P*C’s programmed robot Sore Loserman can’t let the notion stand we can ever talk to Iran. Luckily for Obama it probably would have hurt him more had Lieberman endorsed him.

Edited and released by Mod

Jane Hamsher @ 117

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

At the top of the hour – fish prefer a watery environment.

raven @ 38

brendan @ 36

Shape of the table.

Let’s keep Kissinger out of this, he’s caused enough damage in the world.

Joe Lieberman is a skilled knife fighter. He can stab Democrats in the back WHILE giving George W. Bush a reach-around.

An ambidextrous sort of chap.

-GSD

Obama is probably hoping Lieberman kisses Hillary and it’s caught on film.

Woodhall Hollow at 101: That’s arguing about the details. The bottom line is that Nixon went to China. My take on the question is, are you willing to talk to yucky foreign leaders or not? If your answer is, “Well, my advance team would have to hammer out some guidelines,” then you’re obviously willing to talk to them. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Obama was saying he’d just swing by Tehran for a beer one night, and they’d just see where the conversation went.

GSD @ 140

These backs were made for stabbing.

And that’s what Joe will do.

-GSD

One of these days,
Joe’s knife is gonna stab all over you…

(yeah, I know that song! except I remember the Nancy Sinatra version of “These Boots”)

Woodhall Hollow @ 129

Oklahoma kiddo @ 123

And the Clintons basically stabbed Lamont in the back.

As did Obama.

That’s right. ;0)

A*P*C programs Joe and they’re neo-con war pigs (at least that’s been their policy I know not all AIPAC donors agree with what they advocate).

Edited and released by Mod

It is of vital importance that the next U.S.president meet with nobody. Ever.

Whoever he or she might be, in the final analysis the nation requires a vow of silence and total isolation from their Chief Executive.

Exceptions may be made for voting during American Idol.

james @ 142

raven @ 38

Let’s keep Kissinger out of this, he’s caused enough damage in the world.

Actually, I wasn’t defending the terms that were set to open up China, I was just ’splainin how its done. As the case could be made that our current globalization woes originated with the deal that Nixon and Kissinger made with Mao. Which was all about $$$. I can’t remember the figures, but it is worth mentioning that Kissinger became a very wealthy man due to his Chinese investments. Speaking of crooks and war criminals…

Clinton’s (H & B) loyalty to Joe Lieberman is defensible, even if you don’t agree with it. I supported Lamont. But they had a personal relationship with Joe, and people who respect loyalty are okay in my book, unless they are otherwise unworthy. (I.e. Bush’s loyalty makes me gag.) Lieberman delivered Florida to Gore, and that is why Gore won the election.

Don’t get me wrong. The same defense of Clintons (loyalty) is an indictment of Lieberman (lack thereof.)

jess @ 51

Btw, Clark was terrible last night on Rove show, just terrible. Rove just slapped him around and even told Clark to stop referring to the Cheney administration.

Say what?!!

Bargain Countertenor @ 136

Fern @ 91

Is it still possible for someone else to enter the race to be the presidential nominee? (And I’m not talking about Gore). By when would someone have to declare their candidacy?

Also, any chance the field will have thinned some by the time the primaries actually start?

Yes. The deadline for filing for the early primaries will be this fall sometime, and it will vary from state to state.

And yes. I expect the field to thin down some before the primaries start, and considerably by March 1.

BC

Thanks – am finding American electoral politics slightly … opaque.

Frank Probst @ 145

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Obama was saying he’d just swing by Tehran for a beer one night, and they’d just see where the conversation went.

Precisely. Anyone who knows anything about diplomacy and international relations know that it simply doesn’t work that way. No f*cking way.

CAn I not post anyting about A*P*C and Lieberman?

edited and released by Mod

Can someone explain clearly to me what Senator Clinton means when she describes herself as a “modern progressive”?

Frank Probst @ 145

Woodhall Hollow at 101: That’s arguing about the details. The bottom line is that Nixon went to China. My take on the question is, are you willing to talk to yucky foreign leaders or not? If your answer is, “Well, my advance team would have to hammer out some guidelines,” then you’re obviously willing to talk to them. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Obama was saying he’d just swing by Tehran for a beer one night, and they’d just see where the conversation went.

I thought that is what Hillary basically said!

Frank Probst @ 148

Woodhall Hollow at 101: That’s arguing about the details. The bottom line is that Nixon went to China. My take on the question is, are you willing to talk to yucky foreign leaders or not? If your answer is, “Well, my advance team would have to hammer out some guidelines,” then you’re obviously willing to talk to them. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Obama was saying he’d just swing by Tehran for a beer one night, and they’d just see where the conversation went.

well you know if Obama did swing by Tehran for a cup of mint tea one night to see where the conversation led; that might be very interestinig.

Me @ 153:

knows that…

nonplussed @ 135

fwiw, I just received an E mail from Lowe’s stating

The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

Y E S

Johnny Spectator @ 145

Obama is probably hoping Lieberman kisses Hillary and it’s caught on film.

LOL

Joe is programmed by that PAC which cannot be named. Better for Obama to not have his backing.

I think in Tehran it would have to be a cup of tea……

Woodhall Hollow @ 68

BigMitch @ 53

At last count Women = 50% of the electorate. African Americans = <10%

I would love to like Obama, because I am not thrilled with 8 years of a Clinton, after 8 years of a Bush, after 8 years of a Clinton after 4 (or 12 depending on how you want to count) of a Bush. But he just does not move me. I want more than voting for someone because they are a woman or African-American or they have a pretty face or a nice voice or whatever.

And I don’t get that Obama is anything more than Bill Clinton-lite. And I was never much of a Bill fan. Never quite trusted him. Or his wife.

But I have to say that if it really came down to a choice between Hillary and Obama, only, I would go for Hillary without any hesitation. Because I don’t have a clue what Obama is about other than being a good christian and a unifier. And I HATED his answer on health care.

It is time for a REAL change. Seriously.

Oh God!!!

I am sooo with you on every one of those points.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 154

Can someone explain clearly to me what Senator Clinton means when she describes herself as a “modern progressive”?

I think it might be like post-feminism.

BigMitch @ 150

Clinton’s (H & B) loyalty to Joe Lieberman is defensible, even if you don’t agree with it. I supported Lamont. But they had a personal relationship with Joe, and people who respect loyalty are okay in my book, unless they are otherwise unworthy. (I.e. Bush’s loyalty makes me gag.) Lieberman delivered Florida to Gore, and that is why Gore won the election.

Don’t get me wrong. The same defense of Clintons (loyalty) is an indictment of Lieberman (lack thereof.)

Personal relationship? As in the DLC…only, because I am remembering how Lieberman loudly went on and on about Monica-gate.

Biodun @ 133

Jane Hamsher @ 115

Lieberman just stabbed Obama in the back.

Is that right? I don’t have a TV near where I am at the moment. So much for the mentor bit, eh? If Joe would stab his own protege in the back…

The Beard asked who he agreed with in the Clinton/Obama flap. Joe said that he himself wouldn’t meet with someone like Ahmadinejad without consessions being made first.

Nice payback to Obama for his support during the Lamont race, which probably cost Obama more netroots support than anything he’s ever done.

It would seem that things are setting up pretty well for Democrats in 08. But then I look at Hillary’s poll numbers and my optimism is completely dashed.

I honestly don’t understand how anybody could support her.

If she, by some miracle, got elected we wouldn’t see a drastic change in our Iraq situation and she’s an unashamed free-trader who will bow to the will of her corporate masters on every issue.

Her rhetoric will be more pleasant, but we’ll just keep heading down the same disastrous road we’ve been on since Reagan. It only accelerated under the first Clinton…

…which brings up my other concern. As others on this board have pointed out, our nation was NEVER intended to have dynastic leadership. A quarter century of leadership from only two families is profoundly disturbing to me even if Hillary’s politics weren’t (which they ARE).

big money has already decided that hillary is the next president.

bush/cheney might put up a stink by something like, oh say, martial law but in the final analysis hillary has wallmart, big pharma, etc…

Tithonia @ 161

I think in Tehran it would have to be a cup of tea……

Actually a glass of tea, served with a sugar cube (I know because I lived there in the 70s).

Tillman: 3 shots to the forehead
Tillman: 3 shots to the forehead
Tillman: 3 shots to the forehead

Biodun @ 141

jen @ 116

A dream ticket. Couldn’t/wouldn’t lose.

They’re both from the south. But then again, there are always exceptions…

Right. But as my friend Tom Rinaldo said and I believe is correct:

“They each are identified with America as a nation more than the region where they came from. Al Gore because he served 8 years as our Vice President, one of only two positions elected on a national basis in America, and as VP he represented all Americans, not just those from TN.

Wes Clark because he wore the uniform of the United States for (I think it was) 37 years. He represented the United States military, not the Arkansas national guard, and he lived in numerous states and nations throughout his military career.

Personally, I think they both share a fortunate hybrid identity. Coming from the South originally helps in red state appeal, but their subsequent national careers blunts some mild anti-southerner bias that does pop up some in other regions.”

Oklahoma kiddo @ 154

Can someone explain clearly to me what Senator Clinton means when she describes herself as a “modern progressive”?

Whatever that might mean. Progressive is progressive, whether now or the Middle Ages. You simply move ahead of the times, for change, period.

She’s not much of feminist that I can tell. She baked the cookies (telling moment after she made an obvious statement), she’s continued to stand by her man as he philanders around, and she’s up for placing some restriction on abortions. These may be smart positions, but they are not feminist.

nonplussed @ 135

fwiw, I just received an E mail from Lowe’s stating

The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

Someone should put the email on a huge posterboard and make sure that everyone at YK’07 sees it.

BigMitch @ 164

nonplussed @ 135

fwiw, I just received an E mail from Lowe’s stating

Y E S

An example of how we CAN make our synergy really count. I’m setting up a g-mail account this evening – I’m away from home and my home account gets weird if I send from it on the road – and follow through on the earlier suggestions on helping put pressure on that awful fellow.

Fern @ 164

Oklahoma kiddo @ 154

Can someone explain clearly to me what Senator Clinton means when she describes herself as a “modern progressive”?

I think it might be like post-feminism.

It means Liberal. She said that word has become vilified, and so she adopted the new language. Fine by me.

Biodun @ 177

Oklahoma kiddo @ 154

Can someone explain clearly to me what Senator Clinton means when she describes herself as a “modern progressive”?

Whatever that might mean. Progressive is progressive, whether now or the Middle Ages. You simply move ahead of the times, for change, period.

a modern progressive realizes that the International Workers of the World were rabid nutcases and that what we need are more ‘reasonable’ human beings bombing the living bejesus out of every living thing on the planet.

Johnny Spectator @ 163

Joe is programmed by that PAC which cannot be named. Better for Obama to not have his backing.

Hmmm. It’s sort of the Voldemort of PACs, isn’t it?

nonplussed @ 137

fwiw, I just received an E mail from Lowe’s stating

The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

Can you send it to me?

firedoglake AT gmail DOT com

BigMitch @ 153

Clinton’s (H & B) loyalty to Joe Lieberman is defensible, even if you don’t agree with it. I supported Lamont. But they had a personal relationship with Joe, and people who respect loyalty are okay in my book, unless they are otherwise unworthy. (I.e. Bush’s loyalty makes me gag.) Lieberman delivered Florida to Gore, and that is why Gore won the election.

Don’t get me wrong. The same defense of Clintons (loyalty) is an indictment of Lieberman (lack thereof.)

I think these notions of “loyalty” are a partly naive. Remember that this “loyalty” took the form of DLC money and slush funds: other FDL people will remember the details and names. Maybe I’m misremembering, in fact.

I find the notion that they all had “personal” relationships and personal loyalties dubious. For example, we’re supposed to believe Obama was the adoring protege of Lieberman and that’s what led him to screw Lamont?

Ann in AZ @ 155

jess @ 51

Btw, Clark was terrible last night on Rove show, just terrible. Rove just slapped him around and even told Clark to stop referring to the Cheney administration.

Say what?!!

I KNOW! Not the same show I saw. (And yeah, she meant Rose.) ;)

Each can judge for themself:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12794

Woodhall Hollow @ 151

james @ 142

Actually, I wasn’t defending the terms that were set to open up China, I was just ’splainin how its done. As the case could be made that our current globalization woes originated with the deal that Nixon and Kissinger made with Mao. Which was all about $$$. I can’t remember the figures, but it is worth mentioning that Kissinger became a very wealthy man due to his Chinese investments. Speaking of crooks and war criminals…

Speaking of crooks and war criminals, the Bush family has benefited wonderfully from Poppy’s stint as the first American representative to the People’s Republic of China, where he hastened after Watergate so as not to be dirtied up by its fallout.

If I’m not mistaken, that connection is still working for the Bush family…Neil was in partnership which the son of one of China’s leaders in an “educational software” venture.

No Bush Child Left Behind.

Jane Hamsher @ 165

Biodun @ 133

Is that right? I don’t have a TV near where I am at the moment. So much for the mentor bit, eh? If Joe would stab his own protege in the back…

The Beard asked who he agreed with in the Clinton/Obama flap. Joe said that he himself wouldn’t meet with someone like Ahmadinejad without consessions being made first.

Nice payback to Obama for his support during the Lamont race, which probably cost Obama more netroots support than anything he’s ever done.

I’m positive Obama is regretting calling Joe-lie his mentor in 2004. He’s gotten more Net-savvy since then.

Guess who got a zed upstairs?

Obama needed the funding from the PAC which cannot be named (at least he thought he did). Turns out he doesn’t need their money and can say stuff like he’ll talk with Iran. HRC…she’s lagging in funding and still needs support from the PAC which cannot be named.

Cujo359 @ 17

I
[snip]
Many of Obama’s fans have been peddling the false dichotomy that either you’re for refusing to communicate with these nations or you’ll support the President meeting with them without conditions. I say there’s an underemployed [Link (http://www.state.gov) department of our government that can handle the communications aspects just fine until some agenda can be worked out.

Let slip the dogs of foreign service, I say.

Exactly, Cujo. Yours is a perfect pull-the-debate-camera back
and see the big picture comment.

Meeting F2F with other leaders wouldn’t
even be a ‘deep dug trench’ were it not for the
ineptitude of the current Department of State.

But alas, we’re so deus-ex-machina, codpiece, and not to mention, “executive” focused, you’d think the President was supposed to be ubiquitous.

Canned hunts and canned audiences are GOP specialties, because the fantasy life of lizard brains can only survive in hermetically sealed environments. Daylight and reason are like wingnut kryptonite (but lo hear them caterwaul about the value of “free speech” when you don’t want their racist, genocidal ranting in your comment section — suddenly they’re all Bobby Seale).

Every progressive and liberal Democratic Party candidate should memorize these lines or use them as a basis for a talking point – it’ll come in handy. Pure, progressive truth.

Frank Probst @ 183

Johnny Spectator @ 163

Joe is programmed by that PAC which cannot be named. Better for Obama to not have his backing.

Hmmm. It’s sort of the Voldemort of PACs, isn’t it?

People need to realize that this particular political action committee has and is contributing heavily to Democratic candidates. As of 2002, seven out of the top ten senate career recipients of their largesse, including the top four, were Democrats; in the house, nine out of ten top career recipients were Democrats, including the top eight. Information for the ongoing cycle is hard to get.

Biodun @ 13

Here Edwards takes the high road:

Former Sen. John Edwards, in third place in the polls behind Clinton and Obama to become the Democratic nominee in the November 2008 election, inserted himself into the conflict and tried to take the high road.

“If you’re looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, one perfect example is what’s been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems facing our country,” Edwards, the party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, told an Urban League annual conference in St. Louis.

Here in Iowa, Edwards is the front-runner. Hillary and Obama are losing ground in the July versus May polling. Edwards leads Polls in Iowa

The PAC which cannot be named is why Obama says everything on the table with regard to Iran.

I think we should sell Iran some nukes and get it over with. Iran has proven to be a stable gov’t despite US contention. Israel has more than enough nukes to guarantee it can turn Iran to glass. It’s a case of mutually assured destruction. Remember everyone panicking about Pakistan getting the bomb? Have they used it? Nope. Why would Iran be any different than every other nation that has them?

Nukes give them a seat at the big boys table. And for everyone who thinks Iran is crazy, and would gladly give up their country to destroy Israel…well think on that one. Iran won’t even take in the Palestinian refugees for godsake. Iran talks up anti-Israeli stuff because they do hate them and its good food for the masses.

Next time one of the leaders of Iran straps on some explosives and carries out suicide mission let me know because then I might worry about what they’d do with a bomb. Last I checked, I haven’t seen any leaders dying by their own choice…really anywhere. Just like Sadr stays away, Cheney and Bush stay away… Leaders live a good life, why kill themselves?

Oh and another thing, Israel hasn’t nuked anyone yet. And they’ve actually been provoked and, until very recently, didn’t even have to worry about nuclear retaliation.

A war with Iran is moronic.

I don’t know what kind of voter Obama is aiming at anymore. One day he toes the line with neocons on Iran; another day he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq —but not all of them; one day he’s taking the high road of bipartisanship; another he’s attacking Hillary for being Bush-Cheney lite.
I”m beginning to really loathe Obama. If you think about how likeable he appears in person, this is quite an accomplishment, one which I’d lay at the foot of his horrible advisers.

The most laughable thing he said in the recent exchange is that he’s the best foreign policy expert in the field. Give me a break!

As far as my support goes, Obama has dug himself a deep hole. Every passing day makes me more convinced that he made a massive mistake running for President this cycle.

Knut Wicksell @ 25

Hillary’s advisors have been poll-testing and decided to jump on Obama when he left a sliver of an opening. What is disasteful about this is that it was, really, just a sliver, and a meaningless one at that.

The question about promising to negotiate directly with Dr. Evil within the first year of your administration was a snare in which Obama got caught. It would have been easy enough to quote a simple policy about not making promises during the campaign to take some particular action by a particular date. Obama was talking about the general principle of negotiating without preconditions, which is a good contrast with Cheney’s intransigence.

Furthermore, did Obama mean, “Yes, Fidel can drop by any morning and have lunch with me”? The details of putting a meeting together are considerably more complex, and everyone knows that.

As for a negotiation about the negotiation needing to take place before the negotiation, that is only one symptom of the Cheney regime’s core problem: they don’t negotiate — hell, they don’t do anything — in good faith. I doubt that Hillary is a proponent of the “fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke” or the just plain “fuck ‘em” style of negotiating that Rove or Dick can always be counted on to advance.

Biodun @ 13

Here Edwards takes the high road:

Former Sen. John Edwards, in third place in the polls behind Clinton and Obama to become the Democratic nominee in the November 2008 election, inserted himself into the conflict and tried to take the high road.

“If you’re looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, one perfect example is what’s been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems facing our country,” Edwards, the party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, told an Urban League annual conference in St. Louis.

Woo hoo!

Johnny Spectator @ 195

I think we should sell Iran some nukes and get it over with…

Israel has more than enough nukes to guarantee it can turn Iran to glass. It’s a case of mutually assured destruction…

Next time one of the leaders of Iran straps on some explosives and carries out suicide mission let me know because then I might worry about what they’d do with a bomb… Leaders live a good life, why kill themselves? …

A war with Iran is moronic.

Just so. The Iranians are eventually going to get nukes; in fact they may already have one or two stashed away. And yes, war with Iran would be moronic, or else Cheney wouldn’t be pushing for one. Like Rudolf Hess, Cheney will have to reside in a one-person isolated facility during his term of life imprisonment; but unlike Hess loitering away his time in an otherwise empty Spandau prison, Dead Eye Dick’s new home will be a hospital for the criminally insane.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 97

The prediction here is that at the end of the day it will be Hillary/Obama.

I think the MSM will anoint Hillary and if Barack wants any chance he has to savage her to differentiate himself from her as much as possible. It will obviously be difficult since they are quite similar on policy positions (except for the Iraq AUMF vote).

Hillary was looking for any in road to pick a fight. Frankly, regardless of what the slanted MSM is saying, I think Obama’s position was stronger and more reasonable. His point was not lost on me, but Hillary’s attempted smear really repulsed me.

Obama before the debate :

http://www.miamiherald.com/421/story/182541.html

Quote: “In our interview, the senator from Illinois had been a bit more cautious. When I asked him whether he would meet with Chávez, he had said, “Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it’s more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends”

I have been saying to friends for some time now, Obama is not doing well and his adviser Axelrod sucks. This could be the fatal blow.

The people knocking Obama might not have read enough written by him as well as about him. He is unique. It seems sad there are people who seem to thrive on posting impudent,disrespectful things about candidates that have sincere motives. I cannot help but believe most of the Democratic candidates fall into the category of meaning well,even though they are politicians.And the campaign is not a zero sum situation.

Barack Obama… Copacabana!

It’s all show and no go here. They are the same people. They just belong to the other wing of the National WarParty.

dreamcatcher @ 63

Woodhall Hollow @ 48

Interesting. So that would mean that if Hillary won (though I hope that she and Barack cancel each other out), Clark wouldn’t necessarily be expecting a cabinet level appointment?

A recently retired general/admiral can accept any cabinet appointment except SecDef. The SecDef has a huge say in awarding defense contracts, so Congress wanted to build a buffer period between the time a general retires, and when he can become SecDef, obviously because upon retirement, he still has close ties with generals and admirals who want expensive toys.

Who knows whether this really makes any difference?

Interestingly, Dubya appointed a military corporate lobbyist as his Secretary of Defense.