Clinton Then and Now on Iraq Withdrawal

Hillary today:

Today I’d like to talk about how I will do that, how as president, I will bring our troops home, work to bring stability in the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in helping to secure Iraq’s future.

The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.

Sounds pretty clear that she's referring to a full and complete withdrawal. And yet it doesn't match what she said a year ago. That's fine, things change. But in the same speech today she attacked Obama for certain perceived inconsistencies in his position--specifically the fact that his former advisor Samantha Powers nuanced Obama's position by explaining that President Obama's plan would have to be coordinated with key advisors and based on facts on the ground.

Well, Clinton's position today is less nuanced than it was a year ago. While she attacks Obama for not really meaning it when he says he'd withdraw troops, Clinton herself has changed her own position in ways that make one wonder if she's being disingenuous.

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest — if the Iraqis ever get their act together — to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don’t know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

Those are all different moving pieces on the chess board. And from the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there’s going to be a stable situation that will be inherited.

And so it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser, and I do not believe that it can be successful. If we had done it right from the beginning, we might have had a fighting chance. We did not, and I think it is beyond our control now.

But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region — the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.

It would appear that Clinton has adjusted her position to fit facts on the ground--the political facts of the domestic ground, and the need to match Obama's pledge to withdraw from Iraq. The interview from last year continues:

Q. So what you seem to be suggesting if I understand is a policy of maintaining American forces in Iraq, but redeploying them out of Baghdad and keeping them let’s say in areas where they could protect against Iranian infiltration, or stabilize Kurdistan, or possibly put them in Al Anbar — I don’t know if that’s part of your plan.

A. Well it is. Al Anbar is the likeliest candidate for the failed state scenario that will serve as the launching pad for Al Qaeda. That is their primary objective in terms of what they’re trying to achieve right now. It would be far fewer troops. We would not be doing patrols. We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that is a smart or achievable mission for American forces.

So I think that we will have troops.

She thinks we will have troops.

Furthermore, Clinton has said in another interview that it is the preparation before she takes office that determines the ability to withdraw troops--clearly that preparation hasn't taken place, and won't, but that hasn't prevented Clinton from calling for immediate withdrawal.

Six months into a Hillary Clinton administration, about how many U.S. military personnel do you envision being in Iraq to handle what you've referred to in the past as "vital national security interests" -- from helping the Kurds to preventing Iran from crossing the border?

I cannot give you a figure because I will not become president until January 2009 and there is no way to predict what will occur between now and then. I have said repeatedly that I am committed to taking our combat troops out of the midst of this sectarian civil war. And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation. When I'm elected -- and between the time that I am elected and the time I become president -- I will focus to a great extent (and nearly to the exclusion of a lot of other important matters) on being ready to make those decisions once I become president.

But it is just impossible to make any kind of credible predictions at this point. I am still hoping that the president will decide to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and begin to alter the makeup and mission of our force before he leaves office. I think it is his responsibility to do that. So that's my principal emphasis during this time -- to try to persuade or require him to take the steps that I would have to do initially if he has not.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hillary's Outsourced Hate

In 1984 I took a visit to Michigan State University. I was a politically aware senior in high school. Right there in front of Beaumont Tower was a political rally. None other than Geraldine Ferraro came out to speak against Ronald Reagan and his divisive politics, his race baiting of welfare mothers, his draconian budget cuts. Of course Reagan seems tame by comparison now, to the race baiting divisiveness of the last eight years. But Ferraro was a dream. She was brilliant, unabashedly liberal. And symbolic as the first woman to grace a national ticket, a barrier breaker in her own right. In those final embers of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, the writing was on the wall, but she soldiered bravely on, mocking the Spartans for Reagan who had assembled a counter-rally nearby with seeming glee.

Since yesterday, when I posted this at Candide's Notebooks, I've tried to refresh my memory on Ferraro's liberal creds. When I saw Ferraro in 84, I was 18 and the only kid in town who wasn't in Club Gipper and had a subscription to Harper's, I was thrilled to hear her take down Reagan's foreign policy and opposing the tax cutting regimen that was leaving no money left for higher ed--I paid attention to that, at least--and social programs after the defense department got their cut. Remember, the Mondale campaign was crucified on the honesty of pledge to raise taxes to restore the social programs liberals like us care about.

She was anti-nukes, if I remember, the big liberal issue of the day, and refreshing my memory on wikipedia (I know, the Clinton supporters are editing her entry madly right now) I found her comments on the Contras:

We're not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased. I did not support the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua; it is a violation of international law. Congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just this week, the Congress voted in cut off covert aid to Nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it, and the Congress approves it again in March. So if Congress doesn't get laid on, the covert activities which I opposed in Nicaragua, those CIA covert activities in that specific country, are not supported by the Congress. And believe it or not, not supported by the majority of people throughout the country. (not sure about the word laid there, but you get the idea)

I'd like to have more of that in our current Congress: cutting off funding for illegal administration activities. By current standards its not only liberal but downright revolutionary.

How disgusting then, to see her now, using the worst racist dog whistles, a shameless and transparent Clinton surrogate, able to burn the fiery rhetorical turpentine that the Clinton juggernaut fuels itself on now while the candidate herself remains safely outside the ring of fire. First Ferraro argued that Obama is where is because he’s black. Think about that: he is successful because he’s black. Where then, are the other black senators? Why no black president before now, if it’s such a winning strategy? Why so few black CEO’s in America, if the top prizes are set aside for them? Ironically, as Clarence Page pointed out today on MSNBC, it wasn’t long ago that pundits wondered out loud if Obama was black enough. But now according to Ferraro, his success is all due to his race. Reminds one of the criticisms against her own 84 candidacy: Mondale chose her because she’s a woman. Wikipedia also reminded me of the controversy of Ferraro being called a "witch", while now she is the paid mudslinger. The sad irony seems lost on her.

The Obama campaign has, for once, struck back, using the righteous indignation it earned itself with the unbecoming canning of Samantha Powers, to ask the logical question, why hasn’t Clinton denounced–-pardon me, denounced and rejected--these remarks? To which Ferraro responds, turning to victimhood in classic conservative style, “any attack on Obama is racist.” A remark which is, in itself, racist, and patently dishonest. But she goes further: He’s attacking me because I’m white. Classic Bush up-is-down-ism: He’s the attacker, not me.

What a shame. The great barrier breaker becomes the Clinton camp pit bull, engaging in the worst sort of politics, the kind Americans have become sick of, the kind she once symbolized a break from. Another liberal icon fallen.

Postscript: Here is Ferraro's Who, me? defense.

"I was talking about historic candidacies and what I started off by saying (was that) if you go back to 1984 and look at my historic candidacy, which I had just talked about all these things, in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate," Ferraro said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "It had nothing to do with my qualification."

Ferraro said she has a 40-year history of opposing discrimination of all kinds, including race, and that she was outraged at criticism of her remarks by David Axelrod, Obama's chief media strategist, because he knows her and her record.

"David Axelrod, his campaign manager, has chose to spin this as a racist comment because everytime anybody makes a comment about race who is white — he did it with Bill Clinton, he was successful; he did it with (Pennsylvania governor and Clinton supporter) Ed Rendell, he was less successful; and he is certainly not going to be successful with me," Ferraro told CBS' "The Early Show." "He should have called me up ... He knows I'm not racist."

Read More...

Summary only...

Hillary Clinton: Slash and Burn Politics

(Cross posted at Candide's Notebooks)

I have always been a partisan Democrat.

But after this week, I’m not sure I can support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she wins the primary. It started with her Iraq vote. But then again, Edwards and Kerry voted the same way, and I managed to forgive them once they disavowed the vote and proved their opposition to the war and Bush’s leadership.

Then, I wasn’t happy at all about Marc Penn’s company’s defense of Blackwater.

But in the last week, Clinton’s campaign has devolved into the worst sort of dirty tricks, cheap shots, and fearmongering that we would expect from a Republican opponent. First she aired an ad showing a sleeping child and talking about the “3 AM” phone call, and who would best handle it. She said that she had crossed the national security threshhold–whatever that means, and that Barack Obama hadn’t. But, that he gave a very good speech in 2002.

Well, let’s see. There are hundreds of people in the Pentagon and Congress who would have a pretty good idea of what to do with the mysterious “3 AM phone call”. Barack Obama can appoint one of them to be his National Security Advisor. But there aren’t very many who can inspire people with their words. Can Hillary Clinton appoint someone to inspire the country? Can she appoint someone to have enough good judgement not to trust cherry picked intelligence reports?

Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that it was HER campaign, not Obama’s, that gave private reassurances to Canadian officials that the talk about NAFTA was just that. She praised John McCain’s qualifications, saying only she and McCain had crossed the "threshold" of national security. Her top advisor compared, ridiculously, Obama to Ken Starr. She’s refused to release her tax records, after public assurances that she would do so. She’s demanded to seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida–but said she would ”not accept” (as if she has the power of refusal) a caucus. But more than anything, she has simply run a mean-spirited, dishonest, and fear-mongering campaign. She seems intent on destroying her party if she can’t be the nominee.

At this point, if she were to win, I think I’d have a hard time voting for her in the general. Even Nader seems more palatable.

Gary Hart in the Huffington Post has it about right, I think:

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Olbermann Nails It

Wow!

Keith Olbermann, discussing Clinton's remarks comparing her experience to McCain's in national security in contrast to Obama's "giving a speech in 2002".

Olbermann wondered out loud if CLINTON WERE A MCCAIN DEMOCRAT OR A LIEBERMAN REPUBLICAN. Wow.

Would Clinton, he asks, rather have President McCain than President Obama?

"All she has to do now is kiss President Bush on the cheek and she'll be just like Joe Lieberman."

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton, Obama, on Education

On the eve of the primary, it's worth examining how Obama and Clinton will approach education.

Both candidates have been critical of NCLB, with Clinton saying she wants to end it and Obama planning to return to the law's original intent of providing support for low-achieving schools. Both have terrific ideas for improving college graduation rates and improving access to college. Both are superior to the McCain approach, which is to ignore education and hope the issue goes away.

Obama has had some missteps on education that appear to be intended to prove his independence from the teachers' organizations. He's touched the third rail of vouchers, indicating a willingness to compromise on the issue. And he's flirted with the idea of merit pay, which I have written about frequently. But it's interesting that Obama hasn't made any concrete policy proposals in these areas, at least none that I've seen: just a willingness to explore proposals that the left has typically rejected. But it's hard to get too upset with his position when he expresses in sensible terms like these:

In interviews with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel prior to the Wisconsin primary, Clinton rejected private school choice outright, while Obama expressed some openness to private school vouchers -- if studies ever show they improve student achievement. Still, he made it clear that he's aware of the many problems with real-world voucher programs. "My view has been that you are not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand,” Obama said. “Instead, what you’re going to get is a few schools that cream the kids that are easiest to teach." That describes almost perfectly the problems with the Utah voucher proposal that voters in that state rejected last November.

Still he's been reliably liberal on issues like Head Start and college affordability.

Clinton has been more in tune with the unions on education issues which explains in part why she was able to secure the endorsement of the AFT. But, as my favorite education writer explains, the NEA endorsement is still up for grabs:

In a press release issued after Super Tuesday, NEA President Reg Weaver said neither Obama nor Clinton has made the case that would earn them the association's recommendation. "There have been dozens of debates but less than a handful of questions about the future role of the federal government in public education," says Weaver.

He continued: "If they haven't made education a central part of their campaigns, how can we feel confident that they will make education a central part of their administration?"

Here's a fuller comparison of their plans. I think it's safe to say that whether it's Obama or Clinton, education will receive more funding and more attention from the President than it has in the last seven years.

Read More...

Summary only...

Previous Presidents Prove: Experience Isn't Everything

Hillary Clinton went nuclear today, comparing Obama to George Bush based on experience.

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said during a foreign policy address at George Washington University.

"We can't let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

Since Clinton keeps bringing up the experience issue, let's look at history, and how much Washington experience various presidents have had. Here are some presidents without much elected experience, who probably would have been accused by Hillary Clinton of needing a manual on foreign policy:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, four years as governor of New York.

Abraham Lincoln, one term in the U. S. House of Representatives

Theodore Roosevelt, two years as Governor of New York, less than one year as Vice President before succeeding William McKinley who died in office.

Woodrow Wilson, two years as governor of New Jersey.

By contrast, Richard Nixon had 6 years in Congress and 8 years as Vice-President, roughly equivalent to Hillary Clinton's 8 years as First Lady and eight years as Senator.

Read More...

Summary only...

Debate Wrap

First: Campbell Brown is horrible.

Second: I thought Hillary's "that's not change you can believe in, that's change you can xerox"--something like that, about plaigiarism--line was garbage. That's French for bs. Glad the crowd booed.

I thought Obama answered the "ready on day one" question perfectly, saying "if I didn't think I was ready I wouldn't be running," and going on to show times when he's shown good judgement, been right on foreign policy issues. When he's good, he's good.


I thought both candidates were good on immigration, pointing out how ridiculous the idea of a wall was. And both were great at destroying Bush.

Mostly, though, more of the same. What'd you think?

PS. The ladies over at Cliff's place were swooning over Jorge from Univision. What's he got that I ain't got?! Besides style and class, I mean.

Read More...

Summary only...

Getting Real on Obama

If Obama is really about a new kind of politics, and I hope he is--see the graphic at the top of my blog--he should start thinking about actions as well as words.

Jill challenged me on my defense of Obama's plaigiarism. Is he really right to do what he did? I was asked by Michele also, what if it were a student? Well, I've argued the rules are different for politicians. But there's more to it. If Obama is trying to change those rules he needs to act differently. This is Clinton's point: if Obama is authentic, use your own words. If he wants change, he needs to show it with his actions. A better example: Campaign finance.

Obama promised to accept public financing, and McCain has said that he would agree to it. Now Obama is hedging. Well, if Obama really represents change, he needs to, when the time is right, address this issue. Is he for change or isn't he? I don't think it's that complicated. Sure, McCain might benefit from outside groups running ads for him in an effort to subvert the intent of public financing. But the left has its own outside groups that can match them if it comes to that. Move On will rise to the challenge. If Obama really represents change, he needs to help chart a different course in how elections are run.


The most disappointing moment of this campaign, to me, was when Edwards challenged Clinton on lobbyists money in one of the debates. Obama said, "No one's hands are clean on this." Wow, that's not what change is about. Change is about saying, no, I won't take money from lobbyists either.

I like Obama, and I support him at this point (after having supported Edwards) in spite of some curious statements. Most recently, he's claimed that he might support school vouchers. Dayton blogger Scott Elliott wrote about it here, and Michele McNeil wrote about it too. Change? I guess... but it's not the change in the right direction! On the other hand, Hillary doesn't need to fear-monger, a la Bush, to oppose them, either. From Scott:

Obama said he remained a "skeptic" about vouchers, but would reconsider if the research showed otherwise. There has not been a conclusive longitudinal study of the effectiveness of Milwaukee's voucher program, although a new study is underway.

Rival Hillary Clinton has been highly critical of vouchers, even warning that widespread use of them could result in public financing for kids to attend schools that teach "jihad."

And then there were the strange comments about Reagan ("I didn't say they were good ideas."), his quasi-support for merit pay, his oddly expressed desire to go after Pakistan. In spite of it all, I still think Obama's following and his energy make him a unique candidate. He's a gifted speaker and writer, and in spite of what Hillary suggests at times, words really do matter.

But so do actions. I hope his actions match his words.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama, Plagiarism, and Political Authorship

The accusation of plagiarism from the Clinton camp didn't hold much water, considering that Deval Patrick gave Obama permission to use his lines.

It brings up the larger point, though, of the authorship of political speech in the first place.

It was telling that Clinton's spokesperson Howard Wolfson in a conference call with reporters refused to guarantee that Clinton had never borrowed from anyone's speeches, or anyone else's words. That's because political speeches and political writing generally is always of dubious authorship. George Bush hasn't written his own speech once in his life. Is that plagiarism?

When a Bush administration official pens an op-ed for the New York Times or the Washington Post, does the Times or the Post verify authorship? Do they confirm that the official, and not a staff member, wrote the piece in its entirety?

Would Paul Krugman be allowed to subcontract his columns? Have a junior staff member write it? Of course not. But the privelege of attaching one's name to work written by others is granted to administration officials all the time. Did George W. Bush actually write the piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal under his name pledging bipartisanship with the new Democratic-led 110th Congress? What do you think? It's laughable to think Bush wrote any essay on his own, let alone something polished and sophisticated as one of the speeches he can't ever read aloud properly, let alone write.

The point is that leeway is often given to politicians when it comes to authorship, leeway that would not be granted to journalists or academicians. I'm not saying that's a good thing--I think leading papers shouldn't allow staff work to appear under their bosses' names--but it's a reality and it happens all the time. The degree may be different in Obama's case, but borrowing lines from a friend who suggested he do so hardly constitutes a scandal.

That the Clinton camp is trying to make it so shows how desperate they truly are.

UPDATE: David Frum, of all people, on Larry King just now, insisting that the question about Obama was what has he done, not what does he say. Ron Reagan took the words right out of my mouth--what about your guy?

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton ready for war

Clinton is ready, it appears, to tear the Democratic Party apart in order to win.

The front page story in the New York Times today by Adam Nagourney indicates as much. She is going to force the issue of seating Michigan and Florida delegates based on the votes no one showed up for in January.

If that happens, it'll be all out war in the party. If the Democrats are the part to stand up for fair elections--and I hope they are--these kinds of shenanigans can't happen.

And by the way, this just makes even more apparent what I've said all along--the initial decision to void the Florida and Michigan primaries was a really stupid decision. But it can't be undone now. See the money quote from the NYT story after the jump.

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.

Good for Al Sharpton. I have to admit, when I initially heard him speak I didn't realize it was in response to Julian Bond.

Read More...

Summary only...

Menendez: Superdelegates could decide race, not voters

Here's what Bob Menendez, Clinton surrogate, said today on Late Edition:

BLITZER: All right. Well, let's talk about the last point that Senator McCaskill just made. I'm going to put some numbers, Senator Menendez, up on the screen in terms of the delegate count that we estimate here at CNN right now. We estimate that Hillary Clinton has 1,108 delegates, Barack Obama has 1,049 delegates. Remember, 2,025 are needed to get the nomination.

But those include the pledged delegates as well as the so-called superdelegates, the party leaders like you, members of the Senate, members of the House, governors, high officials in the DNC, in the Democratic National Committee.

If you just take a look at the pledged delegates out there -- those are the people who have been elected, in effect, to go forward -- you see that, on those pledge delegates, Barack Obama is now ahead 918-885.

Are you worried that the party bosses could make this decision, as opposed to those who were actually elected by rank-and-file Democrats?

MENENDEZ: Well, Wolf, first of all, this party elects its delegates in many different ways. It goes from caucuses, where small numbers of people vote, compared to the population. It goes to primaries, where millions of people vote. It goes to primaries where only Democrats can vote. It goes to primaries where Democrats and independents can vote.

So, at the end of the day -- and it includes party leadership. You call them bosses. I call them leadership. These are individuals, like Claire, like myself, who ultimately get elected statewide.

BLITZER: But you're saying it would be appropriate if you -- that the super delegates had the final say in this...

(CROSSTALK)
MENENDEZ: Well, I certainly believe that we're going to get to a convention where, it is my belief, that Senator Clinton will have the delegates necessary to win.

At the end of the day, these elected officials, who are elected statewide, not just by Democrats, by the way, but by Democrats, Republicans, and independents, are elected to make their judgment, every day in the Senate, in the House, on the critical issues of the day.

They're also, in this context elected to make critical issues as to who they believe has the strength, ability to, from day one, be able to be the next president of the United States and win.

Sounds to me like he's saying, if Obama wins the delegate count, but the superdelegates give it to Clinton, that's OK by me.

Is this the Clinton strategy going forward?

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton letter to MSNBC

Whatever your feelings for Hillary Clinton, you have to respect her tough stance with MSNBC over the comments by David Shuster.

Mrs. Clinton said in her letter, to Steve Capus, the head of NBC, that she wanted to write personally to convey the “depth of my feeling” about Mr. Shuster’s comments.
“Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient,” she wrote.
She also said that Mr. Capus should look at “the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.”

The reference was to comments last month by Chris Matthews, an MSNBC anchor, who had suggested Mrs. Clinton had succeeded politically because of sympathy toward her resulting from her husband’s infidelity.
Mr. Shuster apologized on air yesterday and he and network executives apologized to the Clinton family and the campaign.
But those apologies apparently did not assuage Mrs. Clinton, who rarely responds publicly to press coverage. She said in her letter that she understood she was a public figure and that her daughter was playing a public role. She also said she was accustomed to criticism, “certainly from MSNBC.”
“However,” she wrote, “I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.” (emphasis mine)

The "pimping" comment isn't the worst thing that's been said on MSNBC or other networks, not even by a long shot. But the point Clinton and her campaign are making is an excellent one: Don't use debasing language about myself, my family, and women and expect to carry on business as usual. Inappropriate language will be addressed so that no one thinks that we think it's ok.

Good for Clinton. I'm not sure I'm ready to vote for her, but she's scored a lot of points with me on this, backing up what she has said all along, that she is the candidate best equipped to take on the GOP's smears.

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton Campaign in Disarray, Off Message

I'm really not sure what kind of messages the Clinton campaign is trying to send.

But I'm not sure I like any of them.

For one thing, I've been thinking for some time that this campaign, the first major national campaign by a woman for President, this historic moment for women in this country, is being completely overshadowed by .... a man. It's almost as if Hillary Clinton has been pushed into the background of her own campaign.

Part of that is to be expected, and natural, given the fact that her husband is the former president. It's natural that Bill Clinton would occupy a large role in the campaign. But the Clinton campaign has gone much further than simply using Bill Clinton's popularity to raise money and draw crowds. They've made the entire Clinton presidency a part of Hillary's narrative. At times Clinton's campaign almost seems like a re-election campaign for Bill. They seem to want people to believe that they are getting another four years of the Clinton White House.

I think that's a mistake. I think the campaign really needs to get back on message around Hillary's unique qualifications and her own skill sets. Interestingly, that message has been pushed most effectively by... Bill. But again, that mirrors the problem. Bill's testiness on the campaign trail hasn't helped, but the symbolic message of Bill fighting his wife's battles ultimately weakens her, takes away from her message, and pushes her off the stage. Bill should be used where he's valuable: getting crowds and raising money. Anything else is a distraction.

(Notice, by the way, how cleverly Obama has reminded voters who the candidate is: not Bill, but Hillary. You're not voting for Bill again, people, is the message when he says he feels he's running against both Clintons.)

The other messages they are sending are destructive too.

I was blown away when I read this this morning:

Each side accused the other of playing the race card, sparking a controversy that frequently involved Bill Clinton.

"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Let's be clear: this is classic Karl Rove strategizing. We're not playing the race card, they seem to say, we're just bringing it up in a way that reminds people of all of Obama's icky blackness, and by the way did you notice he's black? Whatever Clinton staffer said that Obama was being cast as the "black candidate" was either following orders, or should be fired. Because to suggest that Clinton benefits from racist attitudes implies a couple of nasty things: 1, they think Democratic primary voters are secret racists, and 2, as Josh Marshall wrote, they seem to be ok with that. The attitude is a problem, and does a great deal of harm that will be hard to undo if Hillary is the nominee and suddenly needs the support of black voters she's alienated during the primary season.

Clinton better her campaign together pretty quickly, and get it organized around a coherent communications strategy. The defensiveness and pit bull politics being played by the campaign right now isn't working, and is only reinforcing Obama's carefully crafted image of reconciliation and unity. The one who looks divisive right now is Hillary. She better get back in front of her husband, and her message. It may already be too late.

Read More...

Summary only...

Post Debate Unraveling

Go here for a good summary without reading an entire transcript. The main points are all here.

I thought Edwards did well again. After the jump I have posted a letter from Martin Luther King III that the Edwards campaign sent out yesterday. If you don't receive the campaign email, take a minute and read it. It's very moving, imploring Edwards to keep up his fight on behalf of the poor and the oppressed in the name of King's legacy. It repeats Edwards' affirmation during the debate that he's going to keep fighting for his issues, even if they aren't big vote getters.

I thought it was disgusting how many questions Obama and Clinton were asked about each other and their petty bickering. Time that could have been spent discussing issues. Instead we get, "Why don't you like him (her/her husband)?" Perfect demonstration of the failure of our political media to take the issues seriously. We have a world economic meltdown on our hands and CNN is worried about playground name calling. I wanted to smack Suzanne Malveaux.

The "sit down" part of the debate was a huge improvement, with Hillary doing a good job, I think, of putting the differences between the candidates into context. Obama at times seemed to be struggling for words. I worry about him frankly in a sparring match against a GOP opponent, although we've seen before how poorly a Republican can do in debates and still be considered the winner. Still, in spite of some winning lines, I thought Obama clearly came in third in this debate.

Edwards really drew blood tonight on the lobbyist issue. Hillary looked horrible on this issue, and when she accused Edwards of taking money from trial lawyers, he drilled her, saying it's not the same thing--lawyers represent citizens, not corporations, and they are contributing to his campaign not to enrich corporations but to be able to continue to SUE corporations on behalf of the little guy. Great answer, and shame on Hillary for trotting out the GOP trial lawyer bogey man. Then when it was Obama's turn he said, "No one's hands are clean." I thought that was a real admission of defeat on his part, really disappointing and cynical, and not indicative of the "hope" agenda he is advocating. I understand Obama is trying to be frank and candid, but he's wrong for one thing--Edwards' point is that his hands are clean--and for another, he sounds as though he's just willing to give up and let the lobbyists write the damn laws. So how, Obama, do you plan to fix it? At least Hillary went on to explain how she's fought lobbyists and supported public financing. Obama's answer was almost, "well, everyone does it." Pretty weak on what I think is a critical campaign issue. (And by the way, Russ Feingold, can you still dismiss Edwards after his comments tonight on this issue? Or is he still not as pure a liberal for you as his competitors?)

The King letter below.


Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain's big moment... planned?

It's pretty sad that McCain's big moment so far in his campaign comes from....

this?

Given the following...

Last week, Hillary Clinton's campaign was forced to admit that her aide had planted a question about global warming with a college student at a "town hall" in Newton, Iowa. When she was later asked about this apostasy, Clinton gave a verbal shrug. "In campaigns, things happen and you just go on," she told the Associated Press.

What she didn't say is that every candidate and every reporter expects a regular share of the questions asked in these events to come from people planted in the audience -- puppets, stooges or well-meaning volunteers, some who act overtly and some who sneak through covertly. This ever-growing practice has come squarely into focus because of Clinton's blunder in Newton, adding to her campaign's reputation for producing the most meticulously staged events in the field. But her misstep points to a larger issue: the widespread manipulation of the classic "town hall."

...and given the alacrity with which his campaign used the b-word thrown in with some good old-fashioned liberal media mythologizing (meanwhile, if you can believe it, Howie Kurtz said that the McCain campaign made a good point!!!) to raise campaign cash...

...and given the desperate situation in which the McCain campaign finds itself...

And finally, given McCain's refusal to disavow the remark while staying "above the fray" by saying he respects Senator Clinton...

... is it a stretch to believe that this entire thing was somehow, I don't know, PLANNED? Or am I just too suspicious?

By the way, here's Howie Kurtz's take on CNN's reporting. Go to about 2:49 in the video. "But his campaign has a point. That little incident was pretty badly hyped by Rick Sanchez." (my emphasis)

Read More...

Summary only...

Screw Strickland's Endorsement

I'm more than a little disappointed with Governor Strickland's endorsement of Clinton. I hate the way the GOP campaigns against Clinton, and the way the media talks aobut her, as I've said in other posts here (see my previous post). But progressives should have a hard time embracing someone who has the voting record Hillary does on the important issues of war and torture.

Strickland...said that it is unlikely a Democrat or Republican can be successful next year without winning Ohio and Clinton is the candidate who can speak to the issues Ohioans care about and carry the state.

Here are some issues this Ohioan cares about:

Why didn't Clinton do more to stop the nomination of Judge Mukasey, who doesn't know if waterboarding is torture?

Why is Clinton's chief strategist tied to Blackwater USA, with no statement from Hillary about this issue?

Why hasn't she done more to stop the war in Iraq?

Why is she planting questions, a la Bush press conferences, in campaign events?

Why did she vote to give the Bush administration tacit approval to attack Iran?

Why is she continuing to defend lobbyists and corporate entities and their control over our political process?

Sorry, governor, but if this is the best the Democrats can do I'd rather not have a party.

Read More...

Summary only...

Real Men Don't Eat Quiche or Vote Hillary

Just now on Hardball. I have to admit, I wondered when this would start. The line of reasoning is, essentially, if you're a real man you won't vote for Hillary.

The subject Chris Matthews was discussing with his guests was, Will men vote for Hillary? The answer was no. Patrick Healy of the New York Times said, "men won't vote for her because she reminds them of something that sounds like witchy." I'm not making this up.

Do these guys think men in America are a bunch of chickenshits afraid of women? Do they think we're Mysogynist America? We're so afraid of women, according to Chris, that we say we're for Hillary because a woman is on the phone.

I'm not crazy about Hillary, but come on. I guess the media is going to resort to this juvenile sexist stereotypes to derail her candidacy. Our media elite at work.

Pardon me, I'm afraid my wife is going to beat the hell out of me with a frying pan if I don't get off the computer. She's stomping around with a kerchief tied around her head with a knot in the front, wiping her hands on the apron and picking up the rolling pin. She looks pissed. I better go. Don't tell anyone, but I'm voting Edwards. Oh, and if there are any women out there, I'M VOTING FOR HILLARY. But oh, god! My friends will think I'm gay if I do!

Don't hurt me.

UPDATE: They came back to this topic. Is there some inherent unlikability with American men that will prevent them from voting for Hillary? That's the big issue in this election.

Sure glad I watched Hardball tonight. I think it'll be another year before I watch it again.

Read More...

Summary only...

Can Progessives Unite Behind a Candidate?

The prospect of a Hillary Clinton nomination is troubling to many progressives. Some of the reasons for this were eloquently voiced by John Edwards today.

And a few weeks ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1,000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special "treat" — the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of the homeland security committee. That presidential candidate was Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington — and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.

When I asked Hillary Clinton to join me in not taking money from Washington lobbyists — she refused. Not only did she say that she would continue to take their money, she defended them.

There are other reasons for concern. One thing that has troubled me greatly as a progressive voter is the fact that Marc Penn, one of Clinton's most important strategists, has a PR firm that is representing Blackwater. There's the Iraq War vote which she has refused to disavow. Her refusal to commit to pulling US troops from Iraq. Her vote on the Iran resolution.

It's frustrating how support for Clinton continues to remain strong among Democrats. Certainly, in many ways she has been a loyal Democrat and has espoused progressive values on many issues. But is she the best candidate for progressives, and is she the most electable against the eventual GOP nominee?

Rasmussen has some interesting polling out right now which suggests that Clinton is "the unifying theme of the 2008 election." In their polling, they find that Clinton does equally well about any GOP rival. And that includes Ron Paul.

Most polling on general election match-ups involving Clinton look like a referendum rather than a choice between Clinton and a particular candidate. Using a three-poll rolling average to quiet any statistical noise, the Clinton effect becomes clear. The former First Lady earns between 46%and 49% of the vote against each of the top five Republican hopefuls. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, John McCain or Fred Thompson.

If you average the results of the top five candidates, you find Clinton’s support at 48%. She also attracts 48% support when matched up with the little known Ron Paul. Adding further support to the notion that it’s all about Clinton is this tidbit-- among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, Clinton attracts the exact same total--48%. So, whether the candidate is a frontrunner or an also ran—or even if voters have never heard of the candidate, Clinton earns about 48% of the vote. These numbers make sense when you consider that Clinton is by far the best known of all the candidates and that opinions of her are split roughly down the middle.

What this suggests to me is that Clinton is well known to the American public. And the fact that she is polling in the 46-48% range no matter who the opposition is suggests that the public has already made up their mind about her. Does that range of support at this stage mean she can't win? Well, I won't go that far. But it does seem to me that she would have an uphill battle changing perceptions that already exist and changing the way she has been defined by the right. The perceptions seem solid so far.

Does the same thing hold true for Democratic primary voters? Knowing her as well as they do, have they already made up their mind?

Progressive Democrats seem to be splitting up the rest of the electoral vote. Clinton in most polls seems to be in the 35-40% range, with the rest of the candidates well behind. But obviously, there are more primary voters against Clinton than for her right now. What would happen if, like Gore in 2000, she had only one opponent? Would she split the votes of Edwards supporters if he dropped out? Or would Edwards' supporters rally to another candidate like Obama or Dodd?

What if Edwards, Dodd, and Obama supporters, and the rest, rallied and unified behind one of the three? Suddenly the race would look very different, and Hillary's nomination wouldn't look so inevitable. Are there too many candidates for progressives to choose from? Should the candidates opposing Hillary agree to pool their delegates against her at the convention?

The race is a long way from over. Let's not forget that Dick Gephart was leading at this stage in 2004. But it seems to me that at some point progressives are going to have to rally around a candidate. Could be Obama. Could be Dodd. Could be Edwards. But to make their voices heard, progressives need to rally around someone. We have about two months to make it happen.

Read More...

Summary only...

So it begins...

A few days ago I wrote that one way to defeat Hillary in the primary election was to remind voters of the vociferous hatred the right holds for her, the scandals manufactured by the right that they were dying to bring back, the new smears against Bill that they are keeping their powder dry for. (Notice how quiet the right wing is lately about Hillary, while they go after Obama and Edwards? Odd.)

Anyway, Obama has taken the bait.

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

So it begins. I am guessing this is going to be repeated for a while. It was inevitable that the "electability" argument would emerge in the primary campaign. I thought this line of attack might come from Edwards, but instead Obama has launched it. But it isn't over with. Not by a long shot.

Hillary went nuclear on this, declaring Obama's line of thinking to be the work of Rove. Them's fightin' words!! Actually, it's more likely the work of Obama's cheerleader Frank Luntz. Here's what Steve Young wrote about his appearance on Bill Maher's show with Luntz:

Backstage, before the show, I asked Luntz to come up with a new phrase during the panel so I'd have a scoop for my column. He said he would but had no idea yet what it would be. Little did I know that the phrase Newt Gingrich's favorite elucidater would come up might signal such an intriguing point in 2008 presidential election.

"This country would benefit from electing someone like Obama."
It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue say like "Contract with America," but keep in mind, this is from an admitted Republican who writes the words that make the whole right-wing world sing.

But that wasn't all. He gushed on. Obama would bring renewed respect to America.

"In Obama you see hope and opportunity. He's such a positive. He will do things that are good. This guy is incredible."
Alright, Frank, we get the idea. You're an unabashed Barack backer. No where during the show did Luntz come close that kind of adoration for a Republican candidate.

I wonder if Luntz is connected to the Obama campaign? (Obama couldn't pay enough for this kind of help.) He's said he admired Obama... in fact, if you believe it was him, he said it on this very site, after I said I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the racist smears against Obama were focus-grouped by Luntz.

(I should add that wiser heads than mine are convinced that the "Luntz sighting" was the work of an imposter. I have no idea.)

If Luntz were connected to the Obama campaign it would be the kiss of death--if it ever came out. The Obama campaign would never admit it; you know how toxic it would be for primary voters. So we'll likely never know. Unless some enterprising reporter asks.

I'm not holding my breath.

Read More...

Summary only...

How to beat Hillary

I wrote a few days ago about how to beat Hillary by running the kind of campaign Edwards is, but adding some reminders of how deeply she is hated by the right wing nutjobs who will put her on the defensive about everything from her cleavage to Whitewater all over again.

I realize that's not a completely fair argument. Vote for (candidate name here) because the Republicans will be mean to Hillary. But really, what do we want the presidential campaign to look like next year? Here's a preview from some guy named Moldea, via Howard Kurtz, via Digby:

"I have it on very, very good authority that major opposition research has already been conducted on Bill Clinton, and it's going to be a massive smear campaign against him," he says. A group of former intelligence officers, he says, is "going to try to cripple Hillary through Bill."

Now first of all, that's bullshit. They throw that out there to make people distrust a candidate they don't like. It's an attack without really saying anything.

But it's a preview of coming attractions, and frankly, I'm a little tired of the formula. I realize they'll attack any Dem who gets nominated. But there's a special kind of hatred the wingnuts hold for the Clintons. It'll be unleashed. Is it so wrong to say, let's avoid that, or, how about a ticket without a Clinton or a Bush on it?

Read More...

Summary only...