RUSSERT: [Talking about polling numbers from an NBC News/WSJ poll.] Why is there Independents and Republican resistance to you? [sic]
CLINTON: You know, Tim, one thing I think that everybody should have learned from New Hampshire is let's not pay so much attention to polls. We need to let voters actually make up their minds...
Whatever anyone may think of Sen. Clinton, she clearly prepared for this interview. She had a command of facts and voting records, and managed to slip in a "you can't just vote present" zinger at Sen. Obama with a smile on her face. (And against which the Obama campaign is already striking back, btw.) Her ability to turn Russert's policy and political strategy questions right back at him made me laugh out loud more than once. And his frustration at not making inroads with any of his carefully edited gotcha attempt clips was visible in the crestfallen and constipated look on his face throughout.
For every single Democrat who goes on the talking heads circuit: take notes. On how to take control of the conversation and steer it in the direction that it needs to go. Clear, concise, on message, factual command...nice to see. More of this please.
Now, if I just agreed with all of her policy positions, I'd be happier. Hugh pinpoints a particular point of contention among several from this morning, just as one example, where law and argument diverge for me.
But there are issues that she, Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards have worked on that could use much more public discussion. Sen. Clinton could start by talking more about her work on behalf of at risk children with the Children's Defense Fund. That is a conversation this nation desperately needs to have -- and one that a lifetime of work with CDF has prepared Sen. Clinton to discuss in depth. For that matter, Sen. Obama's early work with a well-known civil rights firm in Chicago is ripe for a lengthy discussion, especially since we haven't begun to scratch the surface of a desperately needed conversation on race and poverty, even in the devastating aftermath of Katrina. And former Sen. John Edwards has done some incredible work on rural and at risk education and poverty issues for those who are trying to work their way out of despair toward a better future.
The Democratic field has some real world, hands-on experience in trying to lift up the lives of Americans who most need a hand these days. Let's talk more about that, please, real world problems and solutions, and stop playing gotcha. It sure would make a nice change, wouldn't it?
(Smashing Pumpkins, The Everlasting Gaze.)
(A note to Clinton staffers: next time, check the lighting a little better on the interview set prior to beginning the interview. It was too dim on her, much brighter on Russert, and that left her face shadowy by comparison -- don't let the networks get away with that without double-checking it. That brown suit didn't do her any favors under bad lighting. It's a nitpick, but one that a media savvy campaign should be aware of for future appearances. That goes for the other campaigns as well.)
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
zed
zed
Ah, you beat me. I always get suckered by reading the post first.
I got the zed, even while a cat was trying to climb onto my lap. (Now he is eying the keyboard.)
I’ve learned to scroll to the bottom before reading. Now I will read.
That WaPo response from Obama that Christy linked to tells me that he too thinks that Hillary won the boxing match with Timmeh.
FYI. Edwards on Cnn Late Edition right now on east coast
That’s what it said to me as well.
Here’s one answer I thought Hillary fell short on, EPU’d from last thread.
I’m still really dissatisfied with her answers regarding her support of Bush’s pre-war crappola. She trusted him, she gave him the vote, she believed the WH. That is bad judgment coming from someone who pointed out the “vast right-wing conspiracy”…or…..she wanted that war.
She has not convinced me yet to the contrary. JMHO.
Have you seen the comments between TheraP and EW about what is causing the meltdown for people like Tweety and Pumkinhead? (I’ll go fish them out) It is very insightful and makes watching (or reading about - I can’t bear to watch this TV crap) all the more fun.
I like that Edwards is on CNN and going after Bush’s policies.
I’ve been coming to a theory about Congressional crdulity and inaction. I think it may have been grounded in their own egos.
The idea that any President would DARE to diss them collectively like that.
I don’t think their egos would allow them to believe that theh WH considered them to be completely irrelevant.
Think about it, in England the Queen gets “briefed” on all kinds of top secret stuff and is told in advance what the government is going to do. She ceremonially is “consulted”, but her real opinion is irrelevant to any action the government intends to take. It makes me think of the inadequate briefings given to the gang of 8.
Lahoma and I feel great this morning. Among other things, because we like each of our party’s frontrunners. Equally.
Edwards couldnt be clearer
We like Edwards.
Here is Marcy’s thread which was enhanced by TherP’s expert insight.
We like him too and hope he will stay in the race. I have heard he really will.
John Edwards is doing a fantastic job at the moment. Equally clear and concise. Boo yah!
I already voted (permanent absentee) and I voted for Edwards…
I have no illusions about him winning the nomination, though. It will be Hillary or Obama.
Watching Edwards on CNN right now, I am struck with the same really shallow observation that struck me during the NH debate:
He really should go back to the $400 haircuts. Getting an ugly haircut (and this one is seriously unflattering) is not going to make him seem more authentic.
Trying to ugly up is just silly. It reminds me of that dumb advice Dona Brazile gave Gore about wearing earthtones. Substance not style. Ditch those idiot consultants John and just be your own self.
IMO that is because she is the Senator from NY and has to keep her options open wrt repeating that whole b.s. scenario with Iran.
HRC and Obama. Now there is real dynamism.
No, My FDL surfing has been spotty the last couple days, I was trying to finish the book for this afternoon’s Book Salon.
He was great. Listen to Ring of Fire tonight at 8pm and hear David Bender talk about John. He had a positive and exciting take on his race. I’ll post the audio when it is available. Made me feel very good about supporting John
Did she like the Breakfast in bed? you are a GOOD husband
I wonder if Hillary’s votes to allow the President those powers came from her years in the White House, living with a President who would not have done all the crazy batshit stuff that King Boy has done. Perhaps she had (has) a respect for the office that she assumed the current holder also had. (I know, ever the optimist . . . )
I was too busy listening to look at his hair.
Haircuts? My lady cuts mine. And she gives a discount too because I am a devoted and long time customer.
She went back to sleep. So i think it’s turning into brunch or perhaps lunch in bed. ;0)
Good on you. I have to go in a bit to begin preparing “the meal”. My stepdaughter is bring “the one” to have dinner with us. She has been bragging about my cooking skills and so I have to live up to them.
I think that is a really good theory on what has been happening. Most of Congress was and is stunned at the brazen dissing by Bushco; especially during the last couple of years. I think they couldn’t believe it was happening and would rationalize it somehow…”they can’t possibly be that bad”…sort of thing…”he seems like such a nice charming guy”… The thing is, in my mind, is that in knowing the history of all of these Iran-Contra characters in the administration, etc., should have been red flag warnings as to what they were/are up to. It has left Congress unsure and believing that they are somehow impotent; which they are not. Pelosi and Reid are making willful decisions regarding the Administration; they are just not seeing what is right in front of their faces. They are in some strange state of denial or something.
JMHO.
OK. Since this thread is about Hillary, I’ll ask again (as a NYS resident), what has Hillary ever done for NYS? Her minions say she got reelected by an overwhelming majority, but that does not answer my Q. She had no competition; no one would run against a Clinton in NYS except a throwaway R. The other response I’ve gotten is that she helped get upstate farmers in touch with NYC markets, but that’s an effort that has been ongoing in NYS for a long time and that many people have worked on, so she can hardly take credit for that. In any event, it’s small potatoes.
So what has she ever done for NYS?
I don’t know much about Obama- but we had eight years of the Clintons- and I would expect the second eight years to be about like the first.
Nothing earth shattering
Lots of status quo
An analytical and fully informed approach to problem solving
Eight years of pissed off goopers.
Peace and Prosperity
We could do worse.
Yes, yes, and again yes. Really impressive, and he’s staying in for the long haul…Yes!!! Go John.
I think you are right. That goes along with my post @27. “No one could have anticipated . . .”
What does this mean?
AP - President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger “before it’s too late.”
Huckabee (now on Wolfie) is a nasty SOB, but he sticks the knife in with a smaile. Clever guy.
Too bad we’re not allowed to elect a triumvirate! Actually, though, the more I think about it, Obama still seems to me to be a very good orator, a motivational speaker, but basically, an empty suit. He seemed to say himself that he doesn’t have the answers (although I think he knows what the questions are.) He hasn’t got programs that are ready to go yet. And, I still prefer Edwards, although Hillary’s campaign has been a lot better than what I expected to see from her.
The other thing I haven’t seen nearly enough from these candidates about is whether they will put a stop to all the various ways that this administration has over-reached. I never hear questions about how the Constitution has been trashed or the infringement of citizen civil liberties and how each candidate will handle these things. I, for one, want to know if they intend to use and abuse those newly gained powers of the Presidency, or whether they will seek to give them back to the Congress and the Courts, where they belong. That will tell us who they are more than anything, I think.
Bombs away. That is why he’s over there without a doubt. They are prepping the Arab states to confront the “Evil Persians”….
Peace mission and George W. Bush are two terms that are incompatible. He’s the War President.
My lady has once again asked me to promise to refrain from attacking HRC. For the weekend. I have already come perilously close to breaking that commitment.
I think we have a new mushroom cloud metaphor.
I find it astonishing that what started out as a purported peace tour has turned into a blatant war tour.
Bush is traveling the Gulf states pleading and begging for permission to go to war with Iran.
He even told us himself:
When I talk about war, I reallyh mean peace.
This confrontation with Iran is coming and if past is prologue, the US will end up worse for the wear.
It will cause the full on regional Sunni/Shiite meltdown. Bahrain has been having Shiite protests against the Sunni overlords and there are similar sectarian rifts opening up in Pakistan.
Bush brings death and war wherever he goes.
-G
Bingo. I’m still slogging thru his book about hope, but it has only cemented my opinion, which you articulate well.
What does this mean?
AP - President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger “before it’s too late.”
Assuming that’s the only quote, i.e. no supporting quoted from other Arab leaders, I think it means that:
a) Bush talked about a few things other than “peace” while he was in Israel, and
b) that Arab leaders are treating Georgie politely, with red carpets and lots of food, while thinking to themselves - “Is it time for this asshole to leave yet?”
I didn’t attack Hillary. I simply asked what has she ever done for NYS. Some people seem to think that asking difficult Qs constitutes an attack.
Unless Congress does something now…one of these days in the not-too-distant future..we are gonna wake up to those familiar broadcasts…”the US commenced bombing of nucular targets in Iran last night….”…
People have projected that the attack would be during the Spring of ‘08.
Stop Bushco Now!!!!!
But it was nice that he gave us the info on the Sabbath. Wasn’t it? Mr. Bush is a Christian. He tells us.
Before you go. I read the thread and I TheraP indicates that there is an envy componen ot Tweeties craziness, and we know he hates the blogs.
I’m thinking that a guy like Tweety sees himself as being entitled to have Timmeh’s job next. After all Tweety worked for Tip. Tweety was once a Playah!
Now along comes a freakin’ sportscaster, who suddenly is beating the pants off O’Reilly (the great white whale of cable ratings) and how is KO doing it?
Oh yeah, by reading the blogs everyday and putting up the stories we care about.
WE here in great bloganistan changed the direction of media coverage. By taking a chance on us, by seeing if maybe we actually knew what the hell we were talking about, KO was able to position himself WAY WAY ahead of the the rest of the punditry pack.
You notice young whippersnappers like Schuster and Abrams seem to be VERY familiar with the work of us DFH’s
And they have been right time after time. They have been ahead of the power curve on story after story, and they have had very few slip ups and mistakes. Why? Because they have this huge instant research department–us.
For a guy like Tweety who has been able for years to “declare” what the facts are, reality based reporting is a major threat to his worldview and his actual job.
We are a major threat to him. KO is a major threat to him. Just as Abrams is a threat to Timmeh. It’s a changing of the guard thing. The new King Stag has to kill of the old King Stag in order to take over control of the herd. Naturally, when the soon to be ex-King Stag sees what’s coming, he gets desperate, and crazy with panic.
Kiddo is snarking away….Kiddo isn’t…ummm…fond of HRC usually…
I totally agree with what you said. It’s really striking when you consider what went on before Clinton (both the Reagan and the Bush 1 administration) and their miserable economics, and the disaster that is the Bush 2 administration, then the Clinton administration, wherein the whole country seemed to vastly improve in so many ways.
I’m familiar with kiddo’s style. Nonetheless, I felt obliged to make my point, for reasons that are familiar to some here at FDL.
No you didn’t attack HRC. That’s for sure. You ask legitimate questions. And I am already thinking of questions for Clinton for tomorrow. I am bound by a promise to not attack the Senator until after midnight tonight. Blast away. Please. ;0)
There are two issues regarding Hillary and Iraq.
The first is whether or not voting for the AUMF against Iraq was a mistake and whether or not she should apologize for it.
The second is an explanation for her long time support of the war. If as she says now her vote for the AUMF was not a vote for war, how does she explain her years long support of that war? In other words, if she thought that Bush had jumped the gun, why did she not oppose the war once it had begun?
I found this wiki article on Hillary’s positions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....am_Clinton
it appears she did not break with Bush on Iraq until June 8, 2006 or more than 3 years into the conflict.
If she was against the war, why did she support it for 3 years? What does this say about her, her judgment, her leadership?
Personally, I thought you had a really good point.
rwcole January 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
20
I already voted (permanent absentee) and I voted for Edwards…
I have no illusions about him winning the nomination, though. It will be Hillary or Obama.
_____________________
we must keep supporting Edwards all the way to Denver. if he gets enough delegates in the primaries to keep Hillary or Obama from taking the nomination on the first ballot then progressive Democracy can have a voice in what happens in ‘09. it doesn’t look good right now for Edwards getting the nomination but he can have a place at the table. the more delegates he gets in the primaries the more powerful he becomes.
GET EDWARDS TO DENVER
from winning on the first ballot
She was for the war. First thought, best thought.
Caption contest.
OT.
I found an interesting analysis that indicates the traditionally GOP favoring American Arab constituency is shifting dramatically towards the Democrats.
Al Jaz*era link.
-G
Meanwhile in Pakistan, a contingent of anti-government tribes, reported at 300, attacked a Pakistan military installation and was repelled after a heated battle.
Christy -
This is one smart article. More of this, please. Since the campaigns, never mind the media, can’t focus on what is meaningful, FDL will just have to take up that mantel and LEAD the way.
Your point on lighting isn’t picky. Remember the JFK-Nixon TV debate. Nixon came off looking shadowy. JFK won some serious points as a result.
I need another cup of tea.
Something people tend to forget, too, is that we were all shell-shocked after 9/11 — and BushCo banked on that. Try and remember the mood of the country in late 2002. Americans were still scared and angry, Bush’s approval was still in the stratosphere and yes, we’d just had eight years of a sane president who would have used a war authorization for leverage, not shafted the opposition party with their yes-votes. Was Clinton being a politician? Absolutely. But consider her position if things had gone differently, if Saddam had had anything that could have been construed as WMD and most Congressional Democrats had voted against Bush. We’d be looking at King George now crowning his successor and Karl Rove’s precious permanent Republican majority. I think Clinton voted the way she did because at the time she saw it as preserving her (and Democrats’) credibility on national security. She was wrong, but I think she was in an impossible position. The question I’d like them to ask is, would she or Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq under the same circumstances. There’s an answer I’d love to hear.
I was just talking to a friend of mine who came back from doing a sabbatical in Kuwait. He was saying that the Gulf Arabs are very scared of Iran. Of course, this does not mean they want to see a war with it.
Fellow New Yorker here. I don’t think she has “done” anything for NYS in the way that Sen. Pothole D’Amato did. But, Senators are not supposed to be so much about bringing home the bacon (in my idealized fantasy USA), that what House members are for.
Senators, ideally are supposed to be big picture, what good for the whole country thinkers.
Yeah, yeah I know, but what about the real world. hey, a Prop can dream can’t she?
Which is not to say I have found her to be so good as a Sen. When I call Chuck Schumer’s office I get a person (a grown up), I get action, I get answers to my letters, I even get face time with the Senator.
When , I contact Clinton’s office, I get a college kid, no action, little acknowledgment that I exist, BUT I always get a follow up fundraising call or letter. She is not very good at constituent services. The only way to see her in person is to buy a ticket to an lunch or dinner — and even then you cannot get near here. Bill at least takes questions and actually talks to people who show up at a dinner where he is speaking. As does Schumer. hell, Schumer even came out to LI and spent almost an entire Saturday on his feet in the heat at Oyster Fest actually talking to his constituents. Just hung out in the crowds with the great unwashed. No micro phones, no podium, no nothing. Just came to Oyster Fest like the rest of us.
George W. Bush was an extra in The Kingdom?
-G
fahr
sounds as if we see it the same way.
“This falcon looks like a good way to keep Pelosi & Reid in line.”
What I love about all of that (here is that hope thing again) is that the nasty media narrative of killing the candidate they didn’t like that began with Dukakis, might itself be killed with this election. If that happens, I may start watching TV again. I do watch KO when I have a chance, but not any other shows that still have the Repug shills commenting.
“The question I’d like them to ask is, would she or Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq under the same circumstances.”
Bush/Cheney invented the “circumstances”.
Me? Snarky? ;0)
What’s your secret? I get no adult at either senator’s office and, despite long & thoughtful emails to both, I’ve never been put on an email list from either of them. I think they’re both useless tools of Wall St., esp hedge funds. Would love to get a primary challenge to Schumer. (As you said, a gal can hope.)
Now I’ve have said something negative about Hillary, and Schumer too. I’ll add in my useless rep, Maloney.
Oops. That was supposed to be in reponse to caption contest @ 57.
Christy, I have to agree with you about the lighting but I had a conversation with some of my Chinese colleagues (who follow this stuff religiously), that presents a different point of view.
They cited the NH victory speech as an example. They couldn’t understand why she ditched her drab pantsuits for a flowery tunic and more feminine makeup. they thought that was a no-no because it somehow broke with an image they had of her as being professional and serious in business.
Now, my Chinese colleagues are very modest people, at least in public. You will never find them dressing down unless they are working in the lab. Their office attire is always professional so this might just be a cultural thing but I have to agree that her appearance during the victory speech was very different and noticeable. Better to change what you say than how you look and save the pretty clothes for the inaugural ball.
But yeah, the lighting could have been better. I think Kos said they gave him a chair with a booster seat. i think it’s deliberate to make the interviewee uncomfortable from the start. But in spite of it all, she handed Pumpkinhead his ass. My favorite line was she she said to him: “The political system in Washington won’t immediately lie down and give up. YOU know it better than anyone.”
Oh, yeah, she had his number. Obama couldn’t have done it better. And hasn’t.
rwcole January 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
34
I don’t know much about Obama- but we had eight years of the Clintons- and I would expect the second eight years to be about like the first.
Nothing earth shattering
Lots of status quo
An analytical and fully informed approach to problem solving
Eight years of pissed off goopers.
Peace and Prosperity
We could do worse.
_______________
chances are she won’t be caught in delicto flagrante in the oval office either …..
My lady is awake. She sent me an email from upstairs inquiring if I was hungry. Well I know what that means. ;0)
You mean a “Cleaver” guy?
It’s a legitimate question. Early on I asked friends living in NY this question. They are politically savvy and originally was not pleased with Hillary. Quite critical I may add. About six weeks ago they were visiting and I asked them again and they were more than pleased with what she did for NY. One is a school principal and he had nothing but good things to say. Things I would never know if I weren’t in the NY trenches.
I started to listen to Hillary from a new perspective. My grievance are with her corporate and war positions.
“If I pull off the hood, is it ‘Bombs Away!’?” (For the BoyKing’s fixation on bombing everything from Auschwitz to Terhan.)
“Heh, heh, heh…he shur wears the hood well don’t he!!
That too.
I got you beat in the Rep. department. I have Peter King. Yes, Mr. “I love to send hate mail and mash notes to constituents who dare to write to me to express their opinion” King.
He actually locks the door to his district office if a constituent he doesn’t like is seen walking towards it from the parking lot. The guy’s nuts. Literally afraid of the soccer moms in his own district.
What are they afraid Iran will do to them?
LHP-
re: your comments on senators & big picture & leadership. I think, on the seminal national issue for the U.S. since 03, the war in Iraq, Hillary has fallen woefully short.
Gee. That sounds like Harry Reid’s office. The best senator office I ever had is John Ensign and he and I are on opposite wavelengths. I must give credit where credit is do. He runs a really good office. His staff is informed, polite and helpful. I take that to be a reflection of their boss. As above, so below.
Now, that makes be feel a lot better. Misery loves someone with greater misery. *g*
Bush is such a delusional warmonger that he wants to travel backwards in time commit acts of war then too.
He is sick and delusional and he’s going to ruin America.
-G
Someone had a diary on Kos and it seems to be a fair analysis. He is basically telling the non-Shiite regional autocrats that if they get on board with the destruction of Iran then he’ll deliver a Palestinian homeland.
I think they (the dems) thought the media would do their job and hold the WH accountable for keeping their word. In the past, I bleieve this would have occured. Congress never includes the straight-out lying factor when deciding on whether to support a WH decision. I think that has changed to some degree, but I would have expected it to change more; I do believe Hillary at least has learned the lesson.
The level of Bush WH arrogance is unprecedented, and all other levels of government have been victim to that. For me, the first time I observed it first hand is when they stated there would be no Federal help for California after the Enron ordeal; they said something like “California dug their own grave & can lie in it.” Now, we have all come to expect it, and the American people are almost willing to accept some of it considering how low the bar has been set; kinda like gas prices…here we are all wishing for some reasonable price like $2.5/gal even though it was a lot closer to $1 when the Clinton WH left.
Oh and Ecahnomcs, one other thing. I think your Ms. Maloney may try to replace Hillary in the Senate if Hill gets the WH. She has been EVERYWHERE (around the state) and was a very big presence at the NYS Party convention.
Really trying to raise her profie and really working the upstate convention delgates and LI delagates.
New president should offer a combat command in Iraq to GW Bush.
Keep in mind you’re reading the results from a pro-Hillary can do nothing wrong view.
In legal terms or with a paramedic at her side - her blubberings would be called non-responsive.
Russert drilled Obama too. On another show clips were shown to counter Bill Clinton’s comments that Obama never answered tough questions or has ever gotten a free pass.
Your own eyes have seen that Hillary has had a free fuck***pass for a year and a half-solidly.
And Blitzer gave her a free pass on the You-Tube debate-while drilling Obama to an insulting degree , I thought.
Hillary is a cluster bomb loving war-monger.
And I proudly will vote for Huckabee before I’ll put another pandering Democrat in charge of this alrady castrated Democratic Congress.
Russert, usually hard on Democrats had already
When Bush starts another War all this campaign talk will be off the table.
eCAHN, are you looking for pork?
OK, my suggested captions:
“It’s stuffed just like you.”
or
“Oh look it has a little, what do you call it, Abu Gareb head mask on.”
or
“Hey, it’s just like me. I can’t see where I’m going either.”
or
“One word: barbecue sauce.”
Sounds like more fantasyland to me. On oh so many scores. Can’t say that W could “deliver” a Palestinian state, can’t say that ME autocrats (with small exception of weak tea from Saudi Arabia) are much concerned about Palestinians*, and I would hope that ME autocrats would have some perspective about how another war near their tiny states might influence them. Greater instability would not seem to be a plus.
*Another exception: those countries with lots of Palestinians refugees. But those are not the ones W is visiting.
A combat tour in Iraq would allow american troops to show their appreciation for GWs leadership.
Oy vey. I had no idea. Thanks for the heads up. Will ponder what to do about this.
we often do ….
I’m sure we can keep him well fed. Got lots of chickens in the
Congresschicken coop back home.Drats! EPUd again. This one’s for Chriaty. I sent wwwway to much time thinking this through. Enjoy!
____________________
From downstairs:
Hi Christy,
In another “what a surprise” moment, I’m going to respectfully take exception to your shadenfreude over recent push-backs to the unitary executive power theory. Let’s use this quote as an example:
Thomas Blanton, who heads the National Security Archive at George Washington University:
“They could have gotten 90 percent of the extra power they wanted if they went to Congress and the public, but by going for 100 percent and doing it in total secrecy, they undermined their own legitimacy and left the presidency weaker than when they started.”
I think the analogy that is apt here is that of a chess game. Blanton seems to see the White House’s ‘in nomine’ King (WHinK) in great jeopardy at this moment. I’m afraid Mr. Blanton doth protest too much. The People’s King (PeKing, i.e. open democracy, check & balance governance, transparency) remains equally if not more so in jeopardy in spite of the White House surrendering a couple of pawns. Concurrently, it has become apparent that there is a new aggresiveness at the formerly euphemized Department of Defense, which cognoscenti now call the Nominally Office of Defense (NOD).
Blanton suggests that the WHK should have played for acquiescence from Congress (the People’s Debilitated Queen, PDQ) in attempting to secure the board (political power, aka peepee), which would have meant that the courts, let’s label them the Bishops, would have had less recourse to reprimand the WHK.
What I see as Blanton’s huge mistake here is in viewing the board as being static, while what David Addington and the WH Office of Legal Counsel have been assiduously doing for the past 7 years is to create a worm hole in the time-law continuum and delivering by means of deceit and power plays an essentially unrecognizable playing board radically different from what we all thought we were watching in 2000. Whodathunkit then that today we’d be debating which portions of international law regarding torture, kidnapping and aggressive war are now legitimate postions on the chess board?
Essentially, what the WHinK has done is to recreate the chess board, while the slow elk among the herd are still tilting at windmills as if they are still on the same board we recall from the salad days of the halcyon ’90s.
So, Blanton really misses the point about how the WHinK went about grabbing more power. Sure, it could have been done through old fashioned legislation on the old chess board, but what is going on here is that the WHK is engaging in agressive over-reach fully cognizant that there will be opposition and the WHinK team will sacrifice pawns and possibly knights (Sacrifical Libbys Offered as Bribes, i.e. SLOBs) for the sake of dominating the newly created reality on the wormhole warped board.
In conclusion, I think we’re still in deep shit, though I’m also observing that WHinK and NOD seem to enjoy and get away with raining peepee on PeKing and the Bishoprics PDQ whilst simultaneously succoring the home team’s SLOBs.
That caused a coffee spew!
I was in the trenches working with the poor during the nineties. I remember when he compromised on the welfare to work programs and how some liberal dems were outraged. But you know what he did. He attached domestic violence treatment funding to the welfare to work program. So, our program quadrupled. Our welfare to work programs did more to help people than you can imagine. We had child care credits, we had long term over a year long counseling for the REAL issues that hold folks back (like domestic violence, substance abuse, poverty). We actually had programs that trained these women in computer fields so they would be guaranteed 40 thou or better when they got out.
I was in the the trenches. Still am. Our domestic violence programs have been cut. Welfare to work is not “dress for success” our programs for good jobs in higher paying jobs is gone, we lost two shelters in our city.
The Clintons did an amazing job of placating the republicans, balancing the budget without selling out the poorest, and middle class of this nation. There have been dems who developed good programs but NONE that did and balanced the budget. Republicans always used their examples as “pork” but not the Clintons. The Clintons completely damaged the republican reagan meme “trickle down economics” that if you focus on the rich, and corporations we all are “lifted.” The Clintons proved this was bunk. They are hated and feared for this reason.
I don’t like every thing about them, but I was working amongst the poorest, most neglected segment of our society when the Clintons were in office, and for them life got a hell of a lot better.
I get tired of the Clintons are corporate evil argument. If that were true, the nineties would have been way different. She outright admitted that NAFTA was a mistake and that it didn’t turn out the way Bill had envisioned. He was in trouble with the Monica Lewinsky stuff and threw them a bone, not realizing how bad it would turn out. WE do have to deal with the global market but it didn’t go the way they thought it would. IN part due to what BUSH did when he got into office.
I don’t like that she voted for the war, but I believe their were two reasons for that. One, as a women the worst case scenario is to be seen as weak and naive. Two, Bill had warned Bush about alquida and no one listened. I think her stance was validating Bills position that they are evil and maybe infiltrating everywhere. It was dumb. I wish she wouldn’t have. I like Edwards best. But I am so tired of people saying things about the Clintons that just don’t come out in facts.
I dislike Peter King hugely. This individual I view as being every bit as obnoxious as George W. Bush. Or for that matter, Cheney the Dick.