If you’re going to make an argument against Hillary Clinton make it. That goes double for a candidate’s official website. Why not just promote your own agenda and strengths, without using a die hard conservative to get the hatchet job
done?

Via Barack Obama’s official site, through a community blog entry, we get Andrew Sullivan making the case for Barack Obama. Yeah, that’s right. Let ‘er rip:

Read Andrew Sullivan’s post this morning on the differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are from different Democratic generations, Sullivan says. Obama was not traumatized by the conservatives’ ascent in the 1990s. Clinton, on the other hand “internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular.” Sullivan writes: Obama is different. He wasn’t mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn’t carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority. Obama does inspire unity and optimism. You can hear it when you talk to supporters and see it when you go to campaign events. We need someone who is comfortable saying what he thinks, and who can confidently engage and persuade a majority. Barack did it in the state Senate — read the New York Times article from yesterday about it here. He’s doing it in the U.S. Senate, and he can do it again as President. Andrew Sullivan: “Obama Is Different”

Excuse me for being flip, but exactly which primary is Obama trying to win?
And why should we care what Andrew Sullivan thinks about our candidates? Now
don’t get me wrong, Mr. Sullivan and I have agreed on several things, especially
on torture and Capt. Fishback, but on presidential candidates never the twain
shall meet.

There’s nothing wrong with a diarist on a candidate’s official site making
the case for the candidate. But you’ve got to question what’s going on when
conservatives are parroted to make the point against a frontrunner Democrat.

The politics of hope this is not, any more than it is a “different kind of politics,” to use Mr. Obama’s words.

As an aside, Mr. Sullivan has made no secret that he does not like Hillary Clinton, speaking out against her at every opportunity. So using this post is just a cheap shot.

But after the Bush-Cheney lite comment, you’ve got to wonder if Obama is courting
independents who can vote in the primaries, especially in New Hampshire. After
all, it sure doesn’t look like Iowa’s shaping up for Obama. That means he needs
to look beyond.

It’s just beginning to get rough out there.

Share

Ambushed!

How’s it feel, Bill-O?

Pick me off of the floor. This is hilarious.

Do not miss Mike’s
DailyKos diary.

Share

Via
Greg Sargent.

Watch the ad above from Obama, which is airing in Iowa. Sound familiar?

“I haven’t spent most of my life in politics, which most of you know, but I have spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington.” – John Edwards, circa 2004 primaries

As Greg notes in his update, Axelrod worked for Edwards back then.

Share

IRAQ: Talk of Progress Excludes the Political bumped

The wingnuts are afire. Between the O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed and other military news out of Iraq, Republicans think they’ve found a winner. The surge is “working,” progress is being made. However, this discussion is happening in a vacuum that excludes the political. Republicans are also ignoring what the continual redeployments and extended tours are doing to our Armed Force structure. All they want to do is prop up the president, no matter the cost. Today, in an interview with John F. Burns, as well as on wingnut radio, it was full tilt propaganda, where the political side of the Iraq war and the military consequences of our continued presence was not taken seriously at all.

There are few journalists who I respect more than John F. Burns, the Baghdad bureau
chief for the New York Times. Recently, he lost one of his Iraqi reporter/interpreters
execution style. He’s been in Iraq for five years. Burns
has given an interview with Hugh Hewitt in which Burns talks about the fear
of Iraqis and their dread of what will happen if (I would say when)
America leaves. He also addresses the political, but not in any way that offers
hope.

JB: No, I would say that’s probably the most depressing or discouraging aspect of the entire situation. I think it’s probably fair to say that the Iraqi political leaders, Sunni, Shiia, Kurd in the main, are somewhat further apart now than they were six months ago. In other words, the Bush administration’s hope that the military surge would be accompanied by what they called a political surge, a movement towards some sort of national reconciliation, uniting around a kind of national compact, that has simply not occurred. Indeed, the gulf between the Shiite and Sunni leaders in the government is probably wider than it has ever been. There’s a great deal of recrimination. There’s hardly a day when the Sunnis do not, as they did again today, threaten to withdraw from the government altogether. There’s virtually no progress on the key benchmarks, as the Bush administration calls them, matters like a comprehensive oil law that will settle the issue of how oil revenues, which account for 90% of government revenues here, will in future be divided and spent between the various communities, and many other issues, eighteen of them, benchmarks identified by the Congress, there’s very little progress on those benchmarks. Where there is some progress is at the grass roots level, some progress, though we’re beginning to see tribal leaders, in particular, in some of the most heavily congested war areas, beginning to stand up and say they’ve had enough of it, and to volunteer to put forth their young men, either to join the Iraqi police or army, or to join in tribal auxiliaries, or levees if you will. That’s probably the most encouraging political sign. But at the Baghdad level, unfortunately, the United States still does not have an effective political partner.

The entire interview is very disheartening for many reasons, but mostly because
Republicans, with the help of wingnut radio, intend to change the subject. Rush
was all over this today, which I’ll discuss on my radio show. They’re turning
the entire argument on its head in order to focus only on military aspects of
the war in Iraq, virtually ignoring the consequences of no political solution
anywhere in sight.

The Catch 22 in all this is that Burns also states that the talk of withdrawal
is hurting the political side. The inference is clear. The conversation insinuates
that we should stay in Iraq, because the military side is “working,”
even though the Iraqis are not one inch closer to reconciling their political
differences, which just so happens to be the only path to any peace at all in Iraq. That for us to leave would cause a full riotous civil war, which the Iraqis
fear every day. Never mind that the Iraqi parliament isn’t so concerned that
they’d cancel their month long vacation, a topic Hewitt didn’t dare broach.

Thinking soberly about what Burns is saying, the only place to which I return
is what a colossal blunder Bush and the Congress made by going into Iraq. It’s
been said many, many times before, but as we discuss, plan and start to get
our hands around withdrawal it becomes even more infuriating. Lesson learned?

John Burns is as good as it gets. His assessment of General Petraeus could
not be higher. Burns believe Petraeus will give us an honest assessment because
Petraeus believes he owes it not just to Bush but also to Congress. That may
be true, but it’s clear what we will hear in September. The challenge will be
to face the political chasm between the Iraqis, understand we cannot bridge
it and decide that as dangerous as Iraq has become for Iraqis, the world has
become far more dangerous for us and that we’ve got other arenas to which we
simply must turn our attention.

Former admiral, now Rep. Joe
Sestak, was on “Hardball,” yesterday. He laid out the timeline and the realities of redeploying from Iraq, which for the health of our Armed Forces, as well as the national security of this country, is inevitable.

… The Americans are tired of this war. It‘s what I hear throughout my district. But at the same time, they want to salvage the best of the situation, and they need Congress now to try to do it by turning towards a comprehensive way to do it, a strategic approach. That‘s what I hear from them. And the elements are there. You mentioned them. First off, what you have is an Army that must begin to redeploy by next spring if we are to salvage an Army that can be ready over the decades to come, years to come. Second, that redeployment can‘t be tomorrow. I tell everyone that. You remember Somalia, Mike, after Black Hawk down, 6,300 troops to get out of that country took six months, and we inserted 19,000 service members in order to protect them because when you redeploy, withdraw, is when you‘re most vulnerable militarily. Remember, the Soviet Union leaving Afghanistan, 120,000 in nine months it took them, and 500 people died on the way. We have 160,000 troops there in Iraq and over 50,000 to 100,000 contractors. What we have to do is remember we can only take a two to two-and-a-half brigades at a time. And there‘s 40 brigade equivalents riding into Kuwait to wash them down, to shrink-wrap the helicopters, to put the tanks and clean them up and get them on the ships. That is going to take 15 to 18 months. .. …

Iraq does not revolve around whatever military successes we can achieve, though
it’s clear Republicans plan to exploit our military once again to keep Bush’s
foreign policy disaster going, even on life support until the ’08 election.
Iraq never has revolved around American will. Even in the midst of the dire
situation in Iraq, the biggest decision the Iraqi parliament has made together
so far is to go on vacation. They’ve got more important choices to make. No
matter how brilliantly our military performs, our presence in Iraq is not inspiring
them to make them.

Share

It includes not only Mr. Bush, but also Alberto Gonzales, which to me is the
biggest disappointment.

If not in the House, Pelosi stated today that she "would probably advocate"
impeaching Bush. But she is so she doesn’t. At a breakfast this morning, which
is named after the dear friend we lost, Maria Leavy, Ari Berman has the story.

"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker’s office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don’t know what our success can be on impeaching the president." (snip) But Pelosi sees impeaching Gonzales and his superiors as a distraction from the ambitious agenda she has crafted for the House. "If I can just hold my caucus together," she says, "I can take them to this progressive place." … .. Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment

Share

Bill O’Reilly’s Burlesque updated

BREAKING UPDATE: Home Depot dumps O’Reilly, though they still need to hear from you. See Aravosis.

Did you see Bill-O last night?

It was quite a spectacle.

Like watching the air go out of a very large tire. Not even Joe’s best friend Lanny Davis nor Kristen
Powers would go along with Bill-O’s hyperbolic huffing and puffing about the “hate”
he says DailyKos exudes. By the time it was shown on the air even the picture was anticlimactic.
In fact, it came off almost comical with Bill-O’s voice droning on and on over
the visual. That he’s taken to instructing his audience to turn the channel
to save themselves adds just the right touch of drama to Bill-O’s over played
routine.

At one point O’Reilly puffed up his cheeks as if he were about to explode,
because his phony outrage had no where to land. The look of frustration on his
face was priceless. His sentences running out into the air ending in a sputter.

In the end, Bill-O looked like a silly little man picking a fight with people
who have far too much to accomplish to give a crap what he thinks. This includes
our Democratic candidates, minus Joe Biden, who could care less about Fox or
Bill-O’s judgment. Their own counsel will do just fine, thank you very much. Talking with progressives who give their lives to the cause of Democratic politics isn’t such a bad idea in the end.

This very public fight has done damage, on that Mr. O’Reilly is correct. It’s
just that the damage isn’t to DailyKos, the blogosphere and certainly not the
Democratic candidates who are going to be present to speak to YearlyKos. Surely
Bill-O knows that when you pick a fight like this you should make certain you
win. He accomplished very little, except to reveal that jetBlue gave money to
Mitt Romney, and that the company has no spine.

As for YearlyKos, everyone may have been interested before, but now the coverage
will be huge. Our Democratic candidates knew what they were doing when they
accepted the invitation. Bill-O just handed them a bonus round of pr. It doesn’t
get much sweeter for Democrats than that.

While Bill-O’s burlesque just gets staler by the show.

Share

John Edwards, take a bow. Republicans are now trying to horn in on your issue,
as David Brooks talks poverty today. Honestly, I had to look four times when
I saw the column. I really wasn’t sure who I was reading. Even so, the very
first line still surprises and the curious way in which David Brooks wades into
the subject is down right odd. He posits a question.

Suppose you were going to decide your vote for president entirely on the issue of who could best reduce poverty. Who would you vote for? Edwards, Obama and the Poor

Edwards has been talking about poverty, well, as long as I can remember, with his poverty center, as well as his focus on New Orleans, bringing up subjects that don’t exactly make the average American voter comfortable. His poverty tour ended with Obama joining in.

Obama has been a community leader and knows the problems of inner cities and
is passionate about solutions, offering his own plans to change the reality in inner cities.

The gaping void is obvious. Brooks doesn’t even mention a Republican candidate.
Not. One. For all their talk of religion and values, there isn’t one
Republican candidate that can speak to the issue of poverty in this country.
It boggles the mind.

Obama and Edwards agree on a lot, but in this matter they emphasize different things. As Alec MacGillis of The Washington Post observed, Edwards emphasizes programs that help people escape from concentrated poverty. Obama emphasizes programs that fix inner-city neighborhoods. One helps people find better environments, the other seeks to strengthen the environment they are already in. (snip) Obama, by contrast, builds his approach around the Harlem Children’s Zone, what he calls “an all-encompassing, all-hands-on-deck anti-poverty effort.” The zone takes an area in Harlem and saturates it with childcare, marriage counseling, charter schools and job counselors and everything else you can think of. Obama says he’ll start by replicating the program in 20 cities around the country.

The Democratic candidates are giving Brooks a sort of rhetorical angina. Last
week it was Hillary Clinton.

The biggest story of this presidential campaign is the success of Hillary Clinton. Six months ago many people thought she was too brittle and calculating and that voters would never really bond with her. But now she seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change. (snip) Clinton’s performance will also have an effect on the Republican race, though many Republicans are only now beginning to realize it. When you ask Republican presidential candidates about Clinton, a smile of professional respect comes over their faces. The Uphill Struggle

This week it’s Edwards and Obama. Professional respect from Republicans towards
our candidates is becoming a habit. It’s more and more obvious that the Grand Old
Party of the Past is afraid of getting left behind. Brooks senses it. His columns are foreshadowing.

Share

via Ornicus

Yawn.

But wouldn’t you know, Lieberman would have to be in the act. Via
Hunter.

From: Mitchell, Ron [mailto:xxxxxxx@FOXNEWS.COM] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 To: xxxxxxx Subject: Fox News Request This is Ron Mitchell with Bill O’Reilly at the Fox News Channel. The O’Reilly Factor plans an update on issues involving DailyKos website the story for Monday. There are some disturbing images on the DailyKos depicting Sen. Joe Lieberman and others along with some very offensive language. We are asking for statements regarding this issue from each of the Democratic candidates planning to attend the YearlyKos convention. The image attached is from an active posting. I think that most people would agree that this sort of thing has no place in mainstream political discourse.

Ho-boy, these guys just don’t understand brutal satire. Hunter’s
got the picture, which you have to see to believe. That’s going to finish
DailyKos?

As for what really matters, you know, considering graphics are, well, graphics.
Dave over at Ornicus lays
O’Reilly out.

But why are O’Reilly and Fox targeting a progressive business and why
do they hate capitalism so much? An equally important question is why O’Reilly has such disrespect for women. There was his sexual perversion on display with Miss New Jersey, but then he silenced Jane Hall. Need we rehash his harassment lawsuit? But what’s next, making us ask for permission to speak?

Fire up the tv and get ready to pour the cocktails, folks. But Bill-O delivering the death blow to DailyKos? Honestly, you can’t buy this type of publicity.

Share

House Dems to Introduce Impeachment Against
Gonzales updated

Via
MSNBC:

A group of House Democrats will introduce a resolution calling on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) will sponsor the measure. It will be dropped in the hopper tomorrow.

More to come as available.

Share

I loved this guy.

I never missed his "The Tomorrow Show." When it went off the air I was crushed.

“Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air.” – Tom Snyder

Cocktail hour at our house tonight will include a toast to Tom. He was transparent,
sometimes transcendent in his meandering interview techniques, but he was also
quite simply one of the best at what he did, which was to engage the audience and make it impossible not to watch and listen to what he had to say.

There was only one Johnny Carson, only one Bob Hope, and likewise, there was only one Tom Snyder.

Share

Video above by Max Blumenthal

As a person of faith, I get incensed when Democratic elders start talking about
how so many of us are afraid of religion and that we are reticent to address spiritual issues. I
get equally peeved when they push religion, because there are plenty of secularists
in America that deserve equal respect, because there is simply no evidence that
the deeply religious are or act more moral. For evidence see the Catholic Church
pedophiles and the secrets the elders kept, Hannity’s lies, Bill O’Reilly’s
hate, George W. Bush’s preemption and torture (and lies), Tom Delay’s thuggery,
Ann Coulter’s bigotry, etc. etc., not to mention the way most organized religions treat modern women, which is basically to ignore that we are living in the 21st century. Our Founders knew what they were doing when
they set religion free in the Constitution. Balance is the way our Founders
wanted it.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” “Notes on the State of Virginia” – Thomas Jefferson

To put a finer point on it, our country wasn’t even founded as a Christian religion. I’ll let conservative Richard Brookhiser take it from here.

… The United States was not founded on the Christian religion. The First Amendment, forbidding a national religious establishment, had been ratified in 1791. The year before, President Washington wrote the congregation of Touro Synagogue in Newport that America did not practice “toleration”: it was not “by indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. … All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” In 1793, he wrote the Swedenborgian New Church in Baltimore “that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart.” That amendment and these statements are a better guide to the founders’ views than a treaty with pirates. … What Would the Founders Do?, by Richard Brookhiser (selected sections between pages 63-73)

So when Obama gave a speech saying something pretty close to Democrats
need to embrace religion and not be afraid to do so it was maddening,
especially considering how many faithful their are in the Democratic Party.
When Howard Dean
kow towed to Robertson’s group and had to apologize
for misstating where the Democratic Party stands on gay issues, it was infuriating.
There’s a big difference in opening a dialogue with all religious leaders, including
conservative Christians, and pandering to them, as we sell our souls for votes. Because if we think the pro
life crowd is going to vote Democratic and we craft our message to seduce them
we’re just wasting time. Being honest and engaging these groups with our policy
initiatives, which are far more humane than the Republican plank, is the way
to reach out, which we absolutely should do. They’ll have to decide if being
pro life should take precedence, say, over our poverty agenda, especially when
John Edwards is doing the talking. As a side note, Republican hypocrisy is forever on parade, because poverty is not even on their agenda, any more than the importance of protecting God’s planet. I thought CNN’s
faith hour (with video), for lack of a better thing to call it, was quite
interesting. Who couldn’t relate to Clinton when she said she wouldn’t have gotten through impeachment without her faith? I’d be dead without mine.

But today we get something that should be repeated by every candidate, with a crescendo on how Democratic policies are in actuality and implementation far more Christian, humane, godly — insert your favorite term here — than the Republican agenda, which leaves whole groups of people way behind, including poor kids. In an email exchange, Barack Obama’s in your face response to CBN’s Brody (h/t
TPM) is a thing of real beauty.

Brody Question: As you seek or preach unity during your campaign, you recently gave a speech to your church body where you said, “Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us.” Some Evangelicals were taken aback at what they considered the harsh rhetoric. What was your intention when you said that and why did you feel it needed to be said? Senator Obama: My intention was to contrast the heated partisan rhetoric of a distinct minority of Christian leaders with the vast majority of Evangelical Christians – conservatives included – who believe that hate has no place in our politics. When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you’re implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you’re attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends. But as I said in my speech, it’s critically important to understand that these are the “so-called” leaders, not the real leaders. The real leaders are clergy and lay folks who are living out their faith every day in ways large and small, trying their best to determine how best to serve God and their fellow man. They may not agree with me on every issue, they may not even support me in an election (heaven forbid), but they know that hate has no place in the hearts of believers. Barack Obama E-mails The Brody File (emphasis added)

Add in a little ideology and how much better Democratic polices are for people and you’ve got a real winner.

For far too long Republicans have gotten away with political murder on all
things religious. After all, these are the pro preemption, pro torture, pro
spying, pro rich at the expense of the poor crowd. You can talk about being
religious all you want. Pray to the highest heaven. But there’s nothing Christian,
religious, humane or moral about their policies, which in the end is all that
matters. Obama told some truth to power in this interview with CBN’s Brody.
More, please, with ideology added next time, because Democratic policies matter. They put the moral in our politics.

Share

How in the world can you write an op-ed talking about winning in Iraq after
only visiting Sunni areas in that country? Then to top that omission, to then
trumpet winning in Iraq because we’re making military progress? Memo to O’Hanlon and
Pollack, it’s the politics that is keeping the pot on boil, boys.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. … .. A War We Just Might Win (emphasis added)

They left the politics out.

No one has ever questioned the ability of our troops to not only win skirmshes,
but all military battles they face. But at this late date to hear two wise men
come down from Brookings Mountain and proclaim we are finally getting somewhere
in Iraq, at least in military terms, makes you want to throw something rather large and heavy at these two numbskulls.

Joe Klein pointed out the other hole in their argument that is so gigantic you could drive an insurgent group
through it and still have room for an arms shipment.

Update: One thing I just realized–Pollack and Hanlon seem to have visited only Sunni areas–Ramadi, Tal Afar and Mosul, the Ghazaliya neighborhood on the west (Sunni) bank of the Tigris River. And that’s where the progress, such as it is, has been made, with the tribes moving against the jihadis and toward us. But Iraq is primarily a Shi’ite country–and we’re not doing so well with those guys, especially the most prominent of them, Muqtada al-Sadr. What’s Missing in this Column?

The Shiites are now at each other’s throats.

Then there’s the fact that the Shiites in the government don’t seem one bit
eager to share the wealth with Sunnis.

But according to Messrs. O’Hanlon and Pollock, we are finally getting somewhere
in Iraq, at least in military terms. Tommy Franks got us to Baghdad in
no time at all, with a huge victory in the first stage of the war. We pulled down Saddam’s statue. We killed his barbarous sons, then found father in a hole. Iraqis have voted, thrice. They have a parliament,
though they’re going on holiday along with the U.S. Congress for the month
of August. Our troops have won battle after battle on the ground. See anything
missing in this list?

Cue Joe Biden. The video above fills in what the Brookings boys missed. It’s not an insignificant piece.

Share

Wingnut Paper Hits Obama & Clinton updated

Interesting Sunday shows today, with the Obama – Clinton diplomacy debate getting
a full airing and then some. But on “Meet the Press”, at least the talking heads managed to acknowledge John Edwards is still in the race. But the main focus remains on the Obama – Clinton foreign policy smackdown. Of course we all knew it wouldn’t be long before
the wingnuts got involved. The New York Post comes out swinging against
both Democratic frontrunners. To them, both candidates are positively cracked.

Indeed, Obama’s apparent willingness to rush into sitdowns with America-bashing tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Chavez makes us wonder if he knows just what it is a president does for a living. For his part, Obama quickly backtracked: “I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said. And then he hurled what for Democrats is the ultimate insult: Clinton’s position, he said, is just like President Bush’s. Which is nonsense, of course. But here’s where it gets complicated. Even while ridiculing Obama’s position, Clinton repeatedly has ripped the president for saying “he will not talk with bad people.” Indeed, she complained, “you don’t make peace with your friends – you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don’t agree with.” She’s even admonished Bush for refusing to deal directly with the leaders of Iran. Even though, as president, her own husband never spoke directly with the leaders of any of those five countries either – and for good reason. Clearly, both candidates need to do a little more homework if they have any hope of being taken seriously on the foreign-policy front. THE KOW-TOW CLUB

Nice try, but, uh no.

It’s clear that one of the largest holes in the Post’s analysis is
the particular question that was asked. Paraphrasing it, the candidates were
asked if they’d meet with despots and dictators, among others, in the first
year of his or her presidency. Obama’s immediate “I would” was
met with Clinton’s, to again paraphrase, not so fast, followed up by a slap:
“I thought that was very irresponsible and frankly naive to say you
would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro or others within the first year.”
That clearly ticked off camp Obama, which countered by calling Clinton “Bush-Cheney
lite.”

The video above (h/t Marc Abinder)
not only illustrates the extent to which Obama’s smear was off base, but how
clearly so many people, especially Hillary haters, not to mention Obama cheerleaders,
just don’t get what this brouhaha is about.

It’s about a presidential candidate handing your adversary a rhetorical line
with which they can mercilessly club us all to death. It’s about making mistakes
that stick. The “I would” isn’t fatal, but even considering Obama’s
statement the day prior it’s at the least very undisciplined messaging, which we all have witnessed can be devastating in a general election.
Edwards has been hurt by a slow response to campaign challenges as well, letting
most take root way too long before hitting back. First came the blogger
brouhaha; he was slow to attack the haircut kerfuffle; but Edwards still hasn’t explained in depth his philosophy on why the “global
war on terror” is a “bumper sticker,” preferring instead
to try and get other candidates to play on his turf, which is domestic issues. That’s because it turned out to be a loser for him, no matter how true. To bring in another candidate, Senator Biden would never make such an “I would” statement without
explaining it, or make a statement about the “global war on terror”
being a “bumper sticker” (without explaing it). As an aside,
I’ve contacted his campaign to get a response on the Obama – Clinton debate, because he’s the most experienced
in foreign policy matters, and I’ll let you know if they answer. As for Clinton, she emphatically refused to be identified with Edwards’ attack on the Republicans’ main talking point, GWOT, not just as a matter of philosophy, but because she knows what her adversaries can do with such sound bites. In the game of debates and 60-second forums, it may be brave to initiate deep policy discussions, but it’s also perilous when they can be reduced to a tv commercial that can make you sound soft. Perception, after all, is reality, especially in election politics. However, it’s
clear that since the “bumper sticker” remark Edwards has retreated
to domestic issues where he has proven effectiveness. But getting back to Obama
and Clinton, it’s not that they’re that different in their diplomatic philosophies.
It’s that their approach to campaigning, expressing the Democratic message,
as well as promoting Democratic policies are very different. It’s about the
messaging and that loose lips sink campaigns. Just ask John Kerry.

“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week”)

The above statement reveals it best. Obama, by his own admission, is “not
an ideologue.” Both Clinton Edwards are and it shows, which is what elections are about. Winning so you can implement your ideological policies because you believe in them wholeheartedly. Obama’s campaign guru fills their philosophy out further.

Axelrod’s is a less grand, postideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity. Obama’s Narrator

Thus Obama touts Reagan (an ideologue, which camp Obama seems to ignore) and sees no problem with this,
then ups the ante; while Clinton, Edwards, Biden, nor Richardson or Dodd
(I imagine) would ever think of calling a fellow nominee “Bush-Cheney lite.”
Besides the fact that this is the worst way to come at a fellow Democrat, there’s
just no credibility to the charge. It’s also not Obama’s first irresponsible
jab at camp Clinton. All this harkens back to Obama using a wingnut talking
point on Iraq: “I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our
troops on the ground” (also
backing Joe Lieberman). Ideology matters, especially
when you tar your own party with a wingnut brush.

Again, it’s about messaging that matters and understanding what you’re saying
and how your adversary can use it against all Democrats. But it also
gets down to fundamental truths.

Abinder
has it exactly right:

In other words, Obama wants to focus on how Clinton originally positioned herself (rather than what she meant) because Obama clearly believes he and Clinton approach foreign policy from a fundamentally different place even if, in this particular situation, they agree on the remedy. The onus on Obama is to show, clearly, how both his approach and his operationalization would be different.

The fact remains, Obama
and Clinton have the exact same votes on Iraq, minus her nay vote on Casey.
Oh, and if you want to get specific about what top tier candidate acted first to pull the trigger on Iraq, it was John Edwards, who voted against the
$87 billion appropriations when he was still in the Senate, while Senator Clinton voted for it.

It’s not a two person race. It would be helpful if people and pundits quit treating it
as if it were.

Share

Gonzo Gets With The Program
guest post by Mash

Today the New York Times reports on the dispute in 2004 that led Alberto Gonzalies to rush to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room to intimidate a sedated and sick man. The Times explains Gonzalies’ lies:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program. … Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining. If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. [Emphasis added by me.]

The Times is giving Gonzalies too much credit. It is true that Gonzalies tried to parse carefully to try and give the impression that there was no dissent about the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program", but he did not parse to separate data mining from eavesdropping. He initially tried to parse to separate the "program" from its "operational aspects", but lost his way last week and may have dug his hole deeper.

To understand this, let’s review Gonzalies’ public statements and testimony on the matter.

On December 17, 2005 George W. Bush publicly acknowledged during his radio address the existence of a NSA program to eavesdrop on calls to and from the United States. The program had previously been leaked to the New York Times. Mr. Bush said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The following Monday, on December 19, Alberto Gonzalies and General Michael Hayden briefed reporters at the White House about the NSA program. At the beginning of the briefing Gonzalies made this very important statement about what he was to discuss:

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I’m only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President. [Emphasis added by me.]

It is clear from Gonzalies’ statement that operational aspects of the program, such as data mining as described by the New York Times today and earlier revealed by the USA Today, are part of the NSA program, and not part of another program.

During the same briefing, a reporter asked Gonzalies about the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council’s (OLC) legal rationale for this NSA program. Gonzalies side-stepped the question:

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you’re saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state. ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We’re engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We’ll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people. Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture — why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process? ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I’m not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I’ve offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

We of course learned earlier this year from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey that the OLC had raised serious objections about the NSA program.

Gonzalies was asked specifically about Comey’s and the OLC’s objections to the program by Senator Chuck Schumer during a February 6, 2006 appearance in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At this hearing Gonzalies parsed his words very carefully in order to give the impression that no such objections existed about the "program". It is also worth noting that Gonzalies was not under oath at this hearing after Arlen Specter, then Chairman, refused requests by Senators to have Gonzalies under oath. Following is the relevant exchange between Schumer and Gonzalies:

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports. It’s been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true? GONZALES: Senator, here’s the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements. There has not been any serious disagreement — and I think this is accurate — there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into. I will also say… SCHUMER: But there was some — I’m sorry to cut you off — but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point — that’s all I asked you — some reservations. GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we’re talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we’re not talking about today. SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about — we have limited time. GONZALES: Yes, sir. SCHUMER: It’s also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true? GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I’m here testifying about today. SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right? GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I’m here only testifying about what the president has confirmed. And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you’re identifying had concerns about this program. [Emphasis added by me.]

Gonzalies again drew the distinction between "operational capabilities" and the "program". In his opening statement he made clear that his responses would not address "operational details" of the NSA program:

Before going any further, I should make clear what I can discuss today. I am here to explain the department’s assessment that the president’s terrorist surveillance program is consistent with our laws and the Constitution. I’m not here to discuss the operational details of that program or any other classified activity. The president has described the terrorist surveillance program in response to certain leaks, and my discussion in this open forum must be limited to those facts the president has publicly confirmed: nothing more. Many operational details of our intelligence activities remain classified and unknown to our enemy. And it is vital that they remain so. [Emphasis added by me.]

So far, Gonzalies was side-stepping dissent about the NSA program by creating two artificial buckets – one bucket that was the description of the NSA program, and another bucket that was all the operational aspects of the program. By conveniently pushing all dissent into the "operational" bucket he had created the illusion that the "program", that is the description of the program (perhaps just the name), had not been the subject of serious dissent. Mr. Comey, however, in his May 2007 testimony clearly described significant dissent at the Department of Justice, testimony that has since been confirmed by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Alberto Gonzalies however parsed a little too far last week when he testified that the "dissent related to other intelligence activities" and not the "terrorist surveillance program". Gone is the distinction between "operational aspects" and the "program" – he is now under oath asserting that what Comey testified to, what Director Mueller testified to, and what the Negroponte memo cited, were not about the "terrorist surveillance program" or "operational aspects" of the program, but belonged outside the program altogether. In doing so, he has lost the fine line that he had created and was walking in his earlier public statements and testimony about the NSA program. In last week’s testimony, he failed to stick to the strict parsing that he had maintained for more than a year and a half. In parsing in a different direction, he has undermined his previous parsing.

Alberto Gonzalies may have just parsed himself out of a job. However, to be fair to Alberto Gonzalies, he has only been the Attorney General and not privy to the "operational aspects" of the Attorney General program – or, to be more precise, other attorney general activities. So, although there has been dissent about the "operational aspects" of the attorney general, would it be fair to say that the attorney general should be fired?

 [Note: The image above is from today's New York Times article. Interestingly, the image file is named "gonzo600.jpg".]

Share

This is just weird, not to mention wrong.

In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: “Hillary isn’t actually a woman, she’s a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine.” Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal’s Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: “If . . . you think it’s important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you’re doing.” Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where “mainstream media” bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves. Partisans Gone Wild

Ms. Slaughter doesn’t seem to get it. Partisanship is the lack of
spine to criticize your own, even when they deserve it. Yglesias
gets it right.

… for Democrats to attack Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama isn’t partisanship. What’s partisanship is when people refrain from criticizing their party’s leading figures.

The point is that you criticize your own when they get something wrong. Criticizing
Joe Lieberman for his continual Iraq war cheerleading, but especially his dangerous
rhetoric on Iran is not only required, but important. If partisanship was the
rule, Ned Lamont’s amazing campaign and win would never have happened. Everyone
would have blindly gone along with Joe.

To be on the receiving end of a losing argument these days can be uncomfortable
when the reviews come in. But to be the one to point out obvious mistakes by Democrats doesn’t
always go down well either, especially with the fans of presidential candidates, whether you’re talking about Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Biden or even Richardson, as well as subjects beyond the ’08 election. Frankly, it doesn’t matter who I’m praising or criticizing,
I often get accussed of shilling for someone different on any given day. Same with subject matter, especially when I go against conventional Democratic wisdom, say, on guns or immigration. All that
says to me is that I’m doing my job objectively. I’m not a partisan blindly following the pack. That pisses people off all the time.

Share

From the New York Times:

President Bush often insists he has to be the decider — ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department. (snip) Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request. If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story

Share

VIDEO: Edwards Enters the Fray.

Well, well, well, now this is really getting interesting. But I have to tell you, I don’t know what Obama’s going to do with this one.

Via
ABC blog, seems that in an interview with a reporter from the Miami
Herald the day before the YouTube-CNN debate, Barack Obama said he’d meet with Chavez, but only “under certain
conditions.” But the day after that interview he said
he’d meet “without preconditions.” Then after the debate, as we’ve
all seen, Obama has continued full tilt on his no preconditions line. So what happened
in twenty-four hours to have Obama going from preconditions to no conditions at all, with a heavy dose of attack Clinton with gusto on the side?

There has been no explanation, because as far as I know there has
been little coverage of this not insignificant item.

The Miami
Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer got the interview before the YouTube –
CNN debate, in which Obama was quite candid about preconditions. Oppenheimer
weighs in:

I was not terribly surprised when Sen. Barack Obama said in the Democratic presidential debate Monday that he would sit down with Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez if elected president. He had told me so a day earlier — and much more — although with a very important caveat. In a wide-ranging interview on foreign affairs, and Latin America in particular, the Democratic presidential hopeful criticized President Bush’s foreign policy as excessively ”based on the dislike of Hugo Chávez.” And he told me that he would not only sit down with the Venezuelan president ”under certain conditions” but would travel to leftist-ruled Bolivia — Venezuela’s closest ally in South America — at the start of his presidency. (emphasis added) .. ..

Preconditions one day, the next day, not so much.

A day later, at the CNN-YouTube Democratic Debate, Obama raised eyebrows nationwide when he responded affirmatively to a question on whether he would be willing to meet — without preconditions — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Asked the same question at the debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton seized the moment to portray Obama as a rookie on foreign affairs, saying that she would not hold such meetings right away because “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.” 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.” … ..

Mr. Obama was closer to being right in the Miami Herald interview, though I’m not so much for “preconditions” as I am for setting up a muscular diplomatic effort that builds outreach and structure over time, paving the way for presidential involvement when the time is ripe for real negotiations.

The fact remains, as reported, that Obama obviously changed his mind 180 degrees some time before the debate (or on the spot?), just one day later. So either Mr. Obama had an epiphany after
talking about preconditions with Oppenheimer, or campaign calculation intruded on his prior better instincts. Or maybe somebody else’s sense of Reagan
worship and “Bush-Cheney
lite” sloganeering somehow slipped into Obama’s rhetoric just to pump up the political theater of the week. But to
look at the video of Obama attacking Clinton as “Bush-Cheney lite,”
he sure sounds like a man who believes what he’s saying.

But talk about changing directions and finding your voice quickly. You’ve got to admire that in a politician. Complete with snappy attack points to boot!

Oh, and with due respect to Joe Trippi, this debate (turned smackdown) that’s going on between Obama and Clinton about when we’ll talk to
thugs and how we’ll re-engage American diplomacy post-Bush matters. It matters a lot. Edwards should engage in this debate, not scold Obama and Clinton for having it.

But I do have a couple of questions for Barack Obama, but also David Axelrod, who
has to be in this mix, because camp Obama has gotten too clever by half lately. What
happened to change your mind from the Miami Herald interview to the
YouTube – CNN debate one day later? And if you were talking preconditions before the debate,
at that moment were you “Bush-Cheney lite” too? You know, before you changed your mind.

Share

Fox Attacks Bloggers updated

UPDATE: The good guys win a big one. Via Markos, Lowes drops O’Reilly.

Lowe’s constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines. The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

O’Reilly threatened that Monday is the day he deals Daily Kos the death blow.
No doubt the incredible people at Brave New Films will have to add that slur
to the compilation they’ve already put together. But we’re getting through.

Via the AP, which picked up the fight:

Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network. MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America’s Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos. The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there. At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials. … .. Liberals Go After Fox News Advertisers

I’m with
Aravosis: Home Depot and jetBlue should stop supporting death threats, which we’ve proven are on BillO’Reilly.com.

jetBlue’s contact:
corporatecommunications@jetblue.com

Home Depot Web
contact form.
Phone number 1-800-553-3199

Mailing address:
2455 Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30339

Monday should be interesting, proving one thing. Bill-O will do anything for ratings.

Share

Good grief.

Robin Givhan’s ridiculous Clinton cleavage artcile has suddenly made her lamely
defensive. She wasn’t talking about Clinton’s cleavage. It was all about her
“neckline.” Uh-huh. Yeah, and the media wasn’t really talking about
John Edwards hair either. He’s been the poster boy for How the media can
run away from issues in order to cover the inane. I laid out the real objective
in going after Edwards, which had nothing to do with his hair. When Fox “News” makes fun of Obama’s middle name we all know exactly what they’re doing. Talking about
Clinton’s cleavage wasn’t about her breasts either, but the old stand by of
objectifying women; some insinuating that we have to hide ourselves in order to be taken seriously. It’s Taliban mentality. In the 21st century, can’t women be smart, tough and wear
what we want without being called out for having — gasp! — breasts?

However, after one hell of a week, camp Clinton has joined in, hitting back
like Edwards does in the YouTube above (h/t to reader “hillary murdoch”). Today camp Clinton sent out an email, which is now being portrayed at CNN, well, you’ll see:

“Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting,” Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Clinton, wrote in the e-mail. “It’s insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It’s insulting to our daughters — and our sons — who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast.” “Take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture,” Lewis adds, with a link to make a contribution to the campaign. “And take a stand for Hillary, the most experienced, most qualified candidate running for president.” … .. Clinton seeks ‘cleavage’ cash

So it’s official. I’m now declaring today the beginning of “cleavage Fridays.” It will be spectacularly silly. I hope Avedon
won’t mind. Her “bra of the week” is hotly awaited every week. My
idea is quite different and was inspired by the corporate hack pack and their
penchant for covering the ridiculous. But it will also be in honor of the first
woman running for president who actually has a chance of winning, and the fact
that the corporate hack pack is monitoring her breasts. So in honor of women,
buxom to flat chested, who are smart, have figures and aren’t willing to wear bags while revealing our gender and our smarts, welcome to cleavage
Friday.

We’ve come a long way baby, only to end up where we began, except for one minor
detail. Clinton’s (hopefully) making money off this silliness and she’s doing
it while running for president. Now that’s progress.

Share