TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Bill Clinton

Are Iowans Rubes?

By on 02 November 2011

**UPDATED**

While Herman Cain struggled for a second day in Washington to push back against sexual harassment allegations, the high political drama almost went unmentioned Tuesday in one of the most important courts of public opinion — Iowa. On the campaign trail, on local conservative talk radio and in conversations among activists, Republicans here have so far greeted the story with a shrug. – Iowa yawns at Herman Cain allegations

Iowa doesn’t deserve special treatment in our presidential sweepstakes. It’s the 21st century, with this state having no relationship whatsoever to the future. For anyone who knows its history on females and politics, it’s fitting that Iowa Republicans wouldn’t do anything else but shrug at Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment.

The highest approval rating Hillary Rodham Clinton ever received was when she was standing beside her philandering husband back in the ’90s. It’s not hard to guess Iowans loved her in that role, the role of victim, but like other women at the time, when running for a place of leadership it is no sale.

Judge, an Albia Democrat who has spent 18 years as a state senator, agriculture secretary and lieutenant governor, said she can see the day coming when Iowa ends the dubious distinction of being one of only two states that has not elected a woman to Congress or the governor’s office. – Women can win in Iowa, outgoing lieutenant governor says (January 2011)

The other state is Mississippi.

Iowans didn’t care when Barack Obama outright lied to them about Exelon either.

One wonders if Herman Cain’s other troubles, that he possibly broke federal campaign election law, will matter to Iowans.

“The number of questionable and possibly illegal transactions conducted on behalf of Herman Cain is staggering,” said Maistelman, a Democrat who has represented politicians from both parties on campaign issues.

It’s all just some big mistake, right? Read the article.

So why should the Republican primary rubes in Iowa care about what Mr. Cain allegedly did to women? That’s plural, in case you care.

So, when you read that Iowa “yawns” as Herman Cain and his backers, including conservative women like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, go around propping him up against the women who must remain silent, no one should be surprised.

Maureen Dowd says it well today.

Ann Coulter has a point when she says that feminists rewrote their own rules on sexual harassment to support Bill Clinton. It is never right for any boss, especially the president of the United States, to mess with an intern, even if she’s the aggressor.

But Coulter falters when she charges that, like Clarence Thomas, Cain is the victim of a high-tech lynching, that “if you are a conservative black, they will believe the most horrible sexualized fantasies of these white women feminists.”

This isn’t an incendiary story about race. It is the most hackneyed story in Washington — another powerful man who crossed the line and then, when caught, tried to blame the women.

In Iowa, blaming the women is still acceptable. It obviously is in the Tea Party, right wing arena of the Republican Party, too.

ps – For those of you who haven’t read Ken Gormley’s book, it’s important to note that former Pres. Bill Clinton, in fact, did not blame the women, contrary to what Maureen Dowd writes today, as she does every time she writes about the Clintons. But you’ll have to buy my new e-book to get the whole story in one place, backed up and proven.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Hillary’s Close-Up

By on 30 October 2011

“We came. We saw. He died.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton, TIME magazine

The issue above is slated to hit newsstands on November 7, the day before my book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss comes out. I urge you to read this article, which is behind a subscriber wall. It will cost you $2.99 to get access for one week. Do it, if you possibly can. The media establishment needs to see evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton, whether you love her or hate her, is a woman worthy of coverage and that people will pay to read candid articles and books about her, because of what she has accomplished. It’s how Sarah Palin happened, even after her vice presidential candidacy collapse. Sarah became bankable because of her fans. No one deserves to become monetized in media terms, that people will pay to read about her, more than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

They say timing is everything and I certainly hope so. Because Hillary has earned it, that’s why I wrote my book. This woman, this dynamo, this fighting female made history and her story matters to American politics, but now even the world.

The TIME article also has an iconic Hollywood type shot of Secy. Clinton looking positively fabulous, by Diane Walker. You will love it. As she heads into what will be her last year at the State Department, at least according to her own statements, there can be no doubt that Hillary Rodham Clinton is riding the wave she created, the Hillary Effect.

Beyond American politics, including the galvanizing impact her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington, which is the focus of my book, the Hillary Effect can be seen across her diplomatic efforts, but also in the latest action by Pres. Obama, the bombing of Libya. It’s one of the things over which Secy. Clinton and I differ greatly. But if you believe the New York Times reporting, among others, which I do, Hillary was instrumental in what manifested. The militaristic reaction by Pres. Obama and his administration, including Clinton, toward Kaddafi’s threats to massacre Libyans made them act through NATO with bombings and force. And guess what, it worked to get rid of Kaddafi.

I was strongly against Pres. Obama’s decision and disagreed with Clinton’s choice to side with Samantha Power and Dr. Susan Rice, though I understand and sympathize greatly with their humanitarian reasons to suggest bombing Libya to save the people. But what will replace Kaddafi? The stories so far are not promising, nor is what this action means to U.S. foreign policy as part of an overall strategic vision.

It’s the militaristic reaction from women, now represented very well through Libya, that proves we’ve got a long way to go before females can add the dimension needed on foreign policy matters. Of course, it helps that it’s just not practical anymore to send a large footprint into nations. However, a smaller force doesn’t mean no involvement or that our impact will not be costly to the U.S., not just financially, but more importantly in our global focus.

When it comes to military action, Secy. Clinton, as well as Power and Rice, but also Madeleine Albright, have proven women aren’t yet ready to lead differently than men. Albright once saying “What’s the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can’t use it?”

Will it be different as American women take larger roles in the military and get more involved on the front lines of battle? Conservative women are always the first to say fight, “man up,” while simultaneously spewing that women shouldn’t have combat roles. The irony is not lost on people like me who study these issues and the surrounding hypocrisy.

There’s a story that’s gone around for a long time about Clinton being one of the most trusted Democrats by the Pentagon establishment, because she understands the military. It’s something former Pres. Bill Clinton did not enjoy. All of the research I’ve done proves this to be the case regarding Hillary. It comes out of her generation and her persona, which has at its core traditionalism, something that informs all she does, particularly her larger foreign policy philosophy, beyond her diplomatic instincts, but particularly her domestic priorities.

If Secy. Clinton wasn’t the star talent she is, knowing how to speak the language of men and might, she would never have convinced the Arab League and leaders of the Arab world to approve of Pres. Obama’s actions through NATO.

This is also part of the Hillary Effect.

But so was Sarah Palin’s history making presence on the Republican presidential ticket; Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party candidacy, which also made her the first Republican female in U.S. history to win a straw poll, primary or caucus; so is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s stepping out to help women like Rep. Hochul and many others; as is Elizabeth Warren, whose fan base makes her look like a presidential contender. These are just a few examples of women breaking out since Hillary’s historic candidacy that made her the first woman in U.S. history to win a major party presidential primary.

Secy. Clinton’s tenure at the State Dept., through the brilliance of Pres. Obama choosing her to not only run State but resurrect it from the ashes of Bush-Cheney, has shifted the world in the short-term. This shift is one reason why Clinton’s work post-State will be so important, because it’s a continuation of her “human rights are women’s rights” speech in Beijing, China as first lady, which began the charge of her life: convincing the world that women and girls matter to countries and that the stability of nations depends on females being part of the political process and economic future of each country.

Clinton’s feminist philosophy, if you will, has established “human rights are women’s rights” as a tenet to U.S. diplomacy, which includes women’s ability, no matter where they live, to have access to reproductive health care, in order for women to plan their life and their family.

How she’s altered the State Dept. through her leadership is the story yet to be told, which will no doubt happen once she starts her next chapter. Experts on diplomacy and statecraft will no doubt weigh in soon, though I’ve offered a brief preamble in my book.

Clinton opens a chance for women to succeed in the hierarchy of U.S. foreign policy. What has not happened is that women today have yet to break out of the male dominated militaristic language and attachment to use of force tactics to solve problems that are well outside America’s strategic interest.

Secy. Clinton has made U.S. history in putting women and girls at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy. Her impact in Afghanistan, Africa, but also in the world at large is undeniable. Across the globe backward countries like Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan still abuse and marginalize women, as will no doubt happen in Libya if sharia law is implemented. But Clinton gave women a voice, a megaphone and a platform, and though there will be brutal battles ahead to drag religious fundamentalist Arab and Muslim countries and the citizenry into modernity, it has begun.

It’s another facet of the Hillary Effect.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep

By on 27 October 2011

The video above is of Sgt. Shamar Thomas. It went viral and now has over 2 million hits. After Scott Olsen’s assault, it seems even more relevant.

Interestingly, Olsen is reportedly from Wisconsin, the state that Gov. Scott Walker ignited with his anti-democratic view of economic equality.

As a reminder, Pres. Obama and the Democrats did not mount any economic message for the 2010 midterms. Then after getting their… um.. hats handed to them in December, Pres. Obama made a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts. Now that candidate Obama is on the campaign stump, however, he says he won’t extend them again.

Of course, now that Pres. Obama’s own political future is on the line he’s sounding like a class warrior who has religion.  One by one on cable, the talking heads proclaim he’s “back,” his message is winning, etc.  

It’s not hard to believe Pres. Obama’s populist message, conveniently timed and politically motivated, is winning. The message to back up the middle class and working stiffs, one that I’ve been drilling home for years, is always a winner.  It’s just unfortunate that Mr. Obama only finds it when his own fortunes need a lift.

It’s also why I laugh out loud when David Axelrod or team Obama go after Mitt Romney, making the argument that slick Mitt will say anything to get elected.  If that charge sounds familiar it should.  Yes, Mitt Romney is a Wall Street jackal.  Obama’s not in that league, but he doesn’t have any problem taking campaign contributions from those who are.  You decipher the difference.

Ronald Reagan started sapping the American dream in the 1980s, which lasted for 12 years. 

The Bush tax cuts and two wars off the books in the 2000s did the rest.  

When Pres. Obama came into office, the economic die was already cast.  

Unfortunately, Obama chose to hire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, the latter the man who convinced Pres. Bill Clinton to dismantle Glass-Steagall, though when Clinton finally signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, Congress had passed it with a veto proof majority.  An apology from Clinton is hardly enough, but you would have thought Barack Obama would have learned before entering office what these actions had wrought.  Instead, he doubled down on known economic quantities and friends of the establishment, moneyed class.  People who helped the economic crisis occur.

Elizabeth Warren offered Pres. Obama a glimmer of hope and a way out of the mess Geithner and Summers had made of his economic message.  Unfortunately, Tim Geithner had no intention of letting her gain power and Obama had no intention of using his presidential clout to make sure the woman who understood the financial plight of we the people had any.

From Confidence Men, the book that sent the White House into swift damage control, by Ron Suskind:

“… Only those in his inner circle at Treasury, though, can read what’s behind that expression: a string of private efforts across the past year to neutralize Warren. The previous fall, Geithner huddled with top aides to develop what one called an “Elizabeth Warren strategy,” a plan to engage with the firebrand reformer that would render her politically inert. He never worked out a viable strategy–a way to meet with Warren without drawing undesirable comparisons–and so, like the president, he didn’t.

What the Treasury Department did do, unbeknownst to Warren, was embrace demands from the banking industry to create a bureau under the condition that Warren would not be allowed to lead it.  [...] The industry managed to get the proposed agency shrunk into a bureau that would live under the auspices of the Federal Reserve…

It may seem like all of the events currently swirling are unrelated and happening separately, but as days and weeks pass there is a common thread running through them all and it’s not going away.

AFTER-TAX INCOME GREW MORE FOR HIGHEST-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

  • 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
  • 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
  • Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
  • 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The title to this piece has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Glenn Greenwald with Rachel Maddow

By on 27 October 2011

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Glenn’s got a new book out, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. The interview above with Rachel Maddow is worth your time.

One focus of Glenn’s book, which I haven’t yet read, evidently is the pardon of Richard M. Nixon, something that rocked my world when it happened. When Gerald R. Ford died, I minced no words, writing “I Can’t Forgive Ford,” plus a follow up piece. I think our country suffered greatly for Nixon not being fully investigated and tried for the crimes he committed as president. A subtle message was also sent.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately as I watch Occupy Wall Street unfold, giving birth to state Occupy movements. I think back to Eliot Spitzer, who opened the door for his enemies, but who was on a trail that Wall Street tycoons couldn’t afford him to follow. Spitzer paid dearly for his stupidity and we lost a sheriff.

It’s ironic that Democrats like Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton were made to walk the plank, Clinton being impeached, but yet Richard M. Nixon was allowed to resign, and Ronald Reagan skated on Iran-Contra, something far more dangerous than a consensual fling with an intern.

A lot more people who robbed this country from the comfort of their Wall Street offices need to pay. Our political class and the parties who protect these people, because they pay their way into power are failing us even further if they don’t.

TM NOTE: Speaking of books, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Mahablog, Skippy, Newshounds, and Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice, where I also post weekly. All of these blogs offered a free ad to me to get the word out on my book. Joe also has encouraged me to also write about the book on his site, for which I’m very grateful. Class acts, all.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

About the Book Cover

By on 25 October 2011

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

‘Obamabots’ Fan Out in Defense of their Hero

By on 18 October 2011

“They don’t have any belief system, they don’t have any political views, they only have reverence for and loyalty to President Obama,” [Glenn Greenwald] said. – ‘Obamabots’ defend POTUS in Twitterverse

The amusing piece by Politico’s Ben Smith and Emily Schultheis is all about the “Obamabots.”

Under the mainstream radar and largely on Twitter, the Obamabots are waging a high-intensity guerrilla war against the liberal-leaning journalists and activists who have — as they see it — gone weak in the knees and abandoned the president in his time of need. As liberal pundits have swooned at Obama’s occasionally feisty rhetoric during recent weeks, the Obamabots were ready with an “I told you so.”

[...] The Obamabots are the ragtag digital cavalry riding to the president’s rescue, a cadre of decidedly amateur supporters, people far outside the Beltway and its norms, whose intense loyalty and passion at a moment of wide disaffection can be reminiscent of Sarah Palin’s core of backers.

What Glenn is describing in the top quote is a virulent strain of what I call fan politics, which is most visibly seen today by Obamabots, as they’ve been called around here since 2007. Greenwald has been attacked on this site by them, as has Mr. Krugman. Fan politics is about people, like the Obamabots, who support a politician regardless of the policies he or she delivers upon, thinking anyone finding fault in their candidate of choice is committing some larger sin for not following in line. Fan politics is particularly destructive because it demands party loyalty take the place of political dialogue, party trumping principle.

The bad news for Obamabots is that we’re now living in a new era of political independence, which is only going to grow in the years ahead. The good news is that the momentum may not crescendo in time to sweep Barack Obama out.

However, the energy behind Occupy Wall Street protests, which reveal disgust with Democrats and Republicans could help the energy build and build toward a 2012 voter explosion to throw everyone currently in office out again. There’s no evidence yet that there is this power, but it’s not an outlandish proposal to say this may be where we’re heading, depending on the staying power of the energy behind OWS, long after the protests break up.

In the Politico piece, Joan Walsh is quoted as follows:

“I’ve become a conscientious objector in this war,” she wrote in an email to POLITICO. “It seems to me that the energy ‘progressives’ spend fighting other progressives over the administration’s every move could power a small city. And the rising tenor of personal abuse doesn’t help.”

Die hard party loyalists don’t seem to get there is a undulating political upheaval slowly taking place, which has been happening on the right for several years, with the left joining in, the foundation of their discontent the continued drag right of the Democratic Party, which began under William Jefferson Clinton. What saved Clinton from the wrath being felt today, besides the fact that new media hadn’t matured, was the courage he had to launch the largest tax increase in decades, though Lawrence O’Donnell claims it was the biggest ever, which, along with the tech boom, led to peacetime prosperity for everyone. Clinton also has a gift Barack Obama does not and that is he can seduce Wall Street and croon to main street simultaneously.

Progressives are fighting Obamabots over political principle, so it only makes sense the heat “could power a small city.” However, the venting doesn’t mean the majority of the disgruntled won’t come home to vote Democratic come November 2012, something I reiterate over and over again. There is real evidence, however, that excitement about 2012 is muted in Democratic and progressive circles, which very likely could lead to what Clinton experienced in 1996, which is lower turnout on the left.

If Mitt Romney is the nominee, which I’ve said all along I believe he will be, depressed voting is almost assured. It’s why the Obamabots get so incensed when political analysts like myself rightly scoff at the smorgasbord of Republican candidates, each taking their place under the heat lamp. Without a firebrand right-winger, the Obamabots already sense there won’t be the GOTV passion with Mitt. The other problem is that with people’s mood so bleak on the economy, the what-have-we-got-to-lose penchant could run wild.

In the background of the left’s discontent is the belief that if Obama is reelected he will tinker with the New Deal, because he won’t have anything to lose, with his legacy of accomplishments his only priority. But as we’re seeing with health care, as the Administration scuttles Teddy Kennedy’s CLASS, not even Obama’s accomplishments are safe, because of the ramshackle way ACA was designed. Obama also seems to believe, joining conservative Democrats and Republics, that entitlement “reform” should be a priority, leaving most to rightly think that whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in the White House in 2012, the people’s safety net will be weakened.

Of course, Obamabots are taking heart in candidate Obama reemerging to make his reelection case. However, with his record of compromise and capitulation to conservatism, with “hope and change” now retired to the marketing section of Barack Obama’s bookshelf, it’s a coin toss whether people will take a chance a second time.

Obamabots have been around since 2007. Today they’re just angry Obama activists who are incensed that Democrats and progressives want to hold their hero accountable for the “hope and change” marketing, with Obamabots still in denial.

What is at the root of Obamabot invective, however, is the palpable fear and realization that Pres. Obama could actually lose in 2012. This is a stunner for them, especially considering where Barack Obama started his presidency.

But now the President’s fans have their own egos attached to him and the thought of Obama losing is scaring the crap out of them. Their goal to get Obama reelected now tied to not being proved wrong about him, but also to protect gloating rights, never mind that the current choices from either party leave a lot to be desired. The sad truth is there isn’t very much difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney that will be felt by people. For Obamabots, it’s not just about Pres. Obama winning reelection in 2012. It’s not about their belief that Barack Obama will champion greater policies in a second term. There is no evidence he will. Obama’s reelection is now also about them. It’s personal, not political or policy driven.

Fan politics for the sake of the politician being supported is always toxic. It also usually disappoints. Just ask the bookend to the Obamabots, die hard fans of Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments { 40 }

Lady Gaga Serenades Bill Clinton

By on 17 October 2011

Gaga — who also crooned a Marilyn Monroe-esque version of “Happy Birthday” to the former president, who celebrated his 65th in August — suggested that the audience should get “caught up in a little Bill romance.” She then launched into her 2009 hit as she slipped off a skirt that covered the lower half of her nude-colored bodysuit, wiggling her booty as she did so. As the video below reveals, Bill and Hillary Clinton both had a good laugh … – Lady Gaga serenades Bill Clinton with ‘Bad Romance’

I’m a huge Lady Gaga fan. Only she could take a page from Marilyn Monroe and not only add to it, but obliterate it.

This should wake you up and get your week started.


More from the concert is below. (Gaga at around 22 minutes then serenades Hillary, too.)

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

DCCC Supporting Anti Women Democrats: Reps. Mark S. Critz, Mike McIntyre, and Jim Matheson

By on 15 October 2011

**UPDATED**

The freedom is just for men crowd in the House continue their war against women, which is being waged by conservatives who inhabit both political parties. It surrounds the absurd notion that in the Affordability Care Act using public funds for abortions is not already prohibited. Never mind that it was Pres. Obama who signed an executive order to pacify Bart Stupak when it passed in the first place, making it cool to wage war against women. From the Huffington Post:

After an emotional floor debate, the House of Representatives on Thursday passed the so-called Protect Life Act, which prohibits women from buying health insurance plans that cover abortion under the Affordable Care Act and makes it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions.

Now women can’t even buy a health insurance plan that would cover an abortion, an extreme extra step at one of the most emotionally wrought times in a woman’s life.

To some Democrats, men like Critz, McIntyre and Matheson, the mother isn’t considered a life. That’s how far the Democratic Party has fallen in the Obama era. [update] Here are a list of all the so-called Democrats voting for this anti women’s rights bill: Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), Heath Shuler (NC)

Pres. Obama has threatened a veto. However, let’s remember it was Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker in U.S. history, who emboldened these cretins in the first place.

Some of you may remember Mark Critz, who ran for John Murtha’s old seat. Former Pres. Bill Clinton helped get him elected. Critz, McIntyre and Matheson all voted against saving a woman’s life in an emergency. But yet the DCCC is using money raised from abortion rights proponents to help keep these men against women’s freedoms in office.

From Credo, with a petition at that link, here’s their campaign to hold anti women Democrats accountable:

The House of Representatives voted to let women die by passing a bill that would make it legal for hospitals to refuse to perform a life-saving abortion on a woman as an emergency procedure.

In response to that vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to donate to help protect the health of women.

But three out of fifteen of the DCCC’s top candidates who would receive that money voted to let women die.  Tell the DCCC: You can’t have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women’s health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who vote to let women die.

It is shameful that the DCCC is using these horrible attacks on women’s lives as a chance to fill their own coffers with the money of supporters who are genuinely angry about the war extremists in Congress are waging against women.
Not only is it hypocritical for the DCCC not to mention that the money raised for their women’s health fund will be going directly to three anti-choice candidates, but it is simply wrong that they are funding candidates who are so anti-choice that they voted for a bill that would let women die in a hospital without any intervention.

The DCCC’s two-faced messaging must stop. If they care about protecting women’s health, then they need to stop funding extreme anti-choice candidates — and if they want to fund those anti-woman candidates, then they need to stop running fundraising campaigns that use attacks on women’s health to solicit contributions from pro-choice activists.

Tell the DCCC: You can’t have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women’s health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who want to let women die.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

ANNOUNCING… THE HILLARY EFFECT – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

By on 11 October 2011

A BARNES and NOBLE Exclusive!

“NOOK First” Featured Authors Selection

Goes wide December 15th, available in print and Kindle through Amazon.com,

and iBooks.

The eBook that tells the definitive story.

Published by Premier Digital Publishing.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.

The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

TM NOTE: Renowned artist Hugh Syme did the cover; Hillary bust by Karen Caldicott, who’s been featured in Newsweek and The Nation.

The announcement has been edited and updated.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Taylor Marsh Authors The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

By on 11 October 2011

Due out in November. Available on Amazon.com, on your Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook, and iPad.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.
The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Pres. Bill Clinton on the Economy

By on 09 October 2011

The problem [with the Tea Party's 'government phobia'] is that there’s not a single example on the planet of a successful economy that runs on the antigovernment model. – Pres. Bill Clinton

From Fortune:

The Tea Party’s government phobia

The problem is that there’s not a single example on the planet of a successful economy that runs on the antigovernment model. All the successful economies have public/private cooperation to generate economic opportunity, provide a good education, create an environment where government and the private sector work together and advance economies. The only thing I’d say to the antigovernment crowd is that we’ve got to do what works and what works is cooperation, not conflict.

Does the President have power over the economy?

Oh, quite a bit. Look at President Reagan’s policies. I give him a lot of credit for the deregulation work he did and the bipartisan resolution for the Social Security problem. But I also think that his tax cuts, which were very large, spurred economic growth in a way that wasn’t sustainable. It worked, but when the first President Bush took office, he basically got all the downside of having a deficit-spending model of generating jobs. Now, my program wouldn’t have been successful either if we hadn’t had a theory of private sector growth. I was fortunate. I became President when the information technology revolution broke out.

On paying more taxes.

No, no, I’m in favor of it because — and I don’t consider it class warfare. I mean we had — if you look at from 19 — from the end of the Second World War to about 1980, we had enough inequality to reward hard work and raw talent and creativity, and enough equality to build the world’s greatest middle class and allow poor people a reasonable chance to work their way into it.

And the distribution was the bottom 90% had 65% of the income; the top 10% had 35% of the income; the top 1% had about 9% of the income.

And those numbers have changed in the last 30 years. The 90% share has dropped from 65 to 52. The 10% share has gone from 35 to 48. The 1% share has gone from 9 to 21.

That’s a breathtaking increase in inequality, and I don’t think it’s good for our long-term stability.

 

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Friday Night Odds and Ends

By on 07 October 2011

“The protests that are trying to destroy the jobs of working people in this city aren’t productive,” Bloomberg said in his weekly radio appearance with John Gambling. Taking a swipe at “some of the labor unions participating,” Bloomberg added that “their salaries come from – are paid by – some of the people they’re trying to vilify.” – Mayor Bloomberg: Occupy Wall Street ‘Trying To Destroy the Jobs of Working People’

Why Occupy Wall Street? Watch the video above. I’d like to see Scott Brown do what Elizabeth Warren does in the video above, from DC Douglas.

Tech President reports from Wall Street and why some people just aren’t getting what’s going on.

In other news, Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech. Spencer Ackerman’s plea? Give me something to work with here, Mitt.

…and speaking of Mitt Romney, one of Perry’s backers calls Mormonism a “cult.”

Laura Rozen writes on McChrystal and what he has to say as we commemorate 10 years in Afghanistan: Ten years on, U.S. goals in Afghanistan only “fifty percent” met.

An “Ides of March” review from the New York Times. Another review mentions Jay Carson, someone I’ve met and spoken with on many occasions, but also adds color to the melding of reality and movie making:

As for the Morris handlers — Stephen Myers, played by Ryan Gosling; and Paul Zara, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman — it is impossible not to find traces of political strategist Jay Carson in their characters. A former campaign press secretary and adviser, Carson is CEO of the C40 Clinton Climate Initiative, which combines programs started by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former President Bill Clinton.

While on the campaign trail with Howard Dean and others, Carson was joined by Beau Willimon, a staff associate. Willimon later wrote a play on which The Ides of March is based, with substantial changes by Clooney; Willimon; and the other writer, Grant Heslov.

“Beau, George and Grant really get it,” Carson said recently. (more at the link)

And in case you missed it, essays on Bill Clinton’s presidency are now online in celebration of when he announced, 20 years ago last week. This video offers a flashback, too.

Jared Bernstein on the jobs report: “Shaky Stability.”

AP reports prostate cancer screenings for men are out.

Herman Cain catapults 20 points ahead of Mitt Romney in a new Zogby poll.

Happy Friday night!

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Progressive Notes: Pres. Clinton Schools Dem Party on Messaging and How to Hit Tea Crowd

By on 02 October 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Clinton '92 Button

Former President Bill Clinton is celebrating his 20th anniversary of when he launched his 1991 campaign for the Whitehouse. The week ahead will be one of looking back at the transformational, historic campaign of Clinton. Written off by the establishment in the party and the pundits he won, twice.

And why is this progressive in such praise of Clinton? Because he knows how to win arguments with Fox News, Newt Gingrich and the rest of them. He knows how to defend government like he did for Medicare and SS in 1995.

Clinton was speaking yesterday on why his campaign was so successful he got to the heart of it: messaging. Without it you will fail. He is urging the current Democratic Party to do the same and fast:

..“I’m telling you this to point out that we need a coherent narrative,” he said. “The No. 1 rule of effective politics, especially if the people you’re running against have a simple narrative — that government is always the problem, there is no such thing as a good tax or a bad tax cut, there’s no such thing as a good program or a bad program cut, no such thing as a good regulation or a bad deregulation — if you’re going to fight that, your counter has to be rooted in the lives of other people.”

So we need narrative stemming from the emotive stories of real Americans at minimum. This is something not done these past three years effectively.

Clinton also spelled out what the Tea Party is about and how Obama can counter them and win:

“King George’s government was not accountable to us. That’s what the Boston tea party was about. When the tea party started out, at least they were against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom. Then it morphed into something different. If you want to go against that grain, you’ve got to tell people you understand it’s a privilege and a responsibility to spend their tax money, but there’s some things we have to do together. And that’s what the purpose of government is, to do the things that we have to do together that we can’t do on our own.”

“If we can make that choice credible,” he added, “then our candidates — starting with the president — and our principles will be fine.”

The master is sending the 411. Will anyone on the Hill listen?

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

They’re Playing the Race Card Again

By on 26 September 2011

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

It was bound to happen.

It’s just sad coming from Melissa Harris-Perry. In a piece she did for The Nation recently, the purpose of which was to throw a lighted match into the Democratic base camp, she goes straight to the race card and doesn’t prove her case.

Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

Pres. Clinton “enthusiastically” re-elected? Is she kidding? Between NAFTA and welfare reform, not to mention the debacle of DADT, not to mention the blow back from the failed raid in Somalia (aka Black Hawk Down), Clinton was creamed by so called “liberals” back in the ’90s for his policies. …and turn out in ’96 was abysmal.

I also don’t relate to Joan Walsh on the one point of agreement she admits to with Harris-Perry. That any disappointment, which I’ve always called uninformed voting, is due to the fact that “a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.” I didn’t expect Mr. Obama to be anything close to Martin Luther King, Jr. It never occurred to me. Nobody is King.

Barack Obama is a brilliant political performer, with no experience when he first ran for president, but a lot of savvy, who saw a perfect moment and took it. I voted for Barack Obama and Joe Biden because I knew they’d be better on foreign policy than McCain-Palin, not because Obama was black. Though it was a thrilling moment in American history to see Barack, Michelle and their children standing together when he won.

The other problem with Harris-Perry’s case is the lessening of enthusiasm that reaches across segments of the Democratic Party. From Joan’s piece:

As long as we’re looking at the president’s racial support, let’s look broadly. While white liberal support for Obama has almost certainly dropped, so has his support within every group. Why are Latinos abandoning Obama? Two thirds of Latinos voted for the president in 2008; the Gallup tracking poll showed Latino support dropping to 44% at the end of August, though it jumped up above 50 percent this week. Overall, the president is polling in the 40s among Latinos since the end of June. And while black support remains strong, it’s declined, too. Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008, and his approval rating hovered in the 90s for most of his first two years. This week, it’s at 82 percent, and it’s been steadily in the 80s since February. That’s still high, but it’s not the enthusiastic, near-unanimous support that elected him.

The president himself acknowledged the rising volume of African American discontent in his speech to the (increasingly critical) Congressional Black Caucus Saturday night.

But that’s not the worst of Ms. Harris-Perry’s argument.

If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

I’ll let David Sirota school Ms. Harris-Perry, because you’ve likely already read the pieces I wrote warning about Barack Obama’s policy prescriptions starting back in January 2007. A snippet of Sirota, with the original filled with embedded links and sources to prove the case he makes below.

This is a president who as a candidate railed on adventurist wars and promised to seek congressional authorization for new wars — and then turned around and initiated new adventurist wars without congressional authorization.

Obama is also a man who criticized Bush-era civil liberties policies as a candidate and then as president not only extended those policies — but, in many cases, actually made them worse. Among other things, he has pressed for longer Patriot Act extensions than congressional Republicans, added bipartisan legitimacy to warrantless wiretapping (which he explicitly promised to end) and claimed autocratic powers that even the extremist Bush administration never dared to claim (for example, the power to assassinate American citizens without charge).

And let’s not forget trade and healthcare. Candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA and reform the corresponding free-trade template that has cost Americans so many jobs. He also repeatedly pledged to champion a public option to compete with private health insurers and promised to push for legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Now, President Obama is pushing a new series of NAFTA-like deals in Panama, South Korea and Colombia. And, as we now know, he didn’t merely try but fail to pass a public option or the Medicare drug-negotiation provisions — he actively used his power to eliminate those provisions from the final healthcare bill.

Taken together, we see that Obama — as opposed to Clinton, who at least paid (often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism — has proudly and publicly stomped on the very progressive promises that got him elected.

I also don’t remember Clinton ever touting Ronald Reagan as Barack Obama has done. Clinton also gave hell to Republicans regularly, on camera and with feeling. I don’t remember Clinton selling out women’s reproductive healthcare by codifying Hyde in legislation. Oh right, Hillary wouldn’t have let him.

But I’m not surprised to read a piece from a strong Obama supporter blaming white liberal disaffection with Pres. Obama on racism.

Read full story · Comments { 49 }

Bill Clinton: It’s Netanyahu’s Fault

By on 23 September 2011

Josh Rogin’s piece is a perfect button on the drama unfolding this week at UNGA.

But the Netanyahu government has moved away from the consensus for peace, making a final status agreement more difficult, Clinton said. “That’s what happened. Every American needs to know this. That’s how we got to where we are,” Clinton said. “The real cynics believe that the Netanyahu’s government’s continued call for negotiations over borders and such means that he’s just not going to give up the West Bank.” – Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process

Mr. Netanyahu had his chance at a “Nixon goes to China” moment. He walked away from it.

Then there is what Clinton emphasizes regarding the Saudis, the most important player in the region.

“The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians … we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership,‘” Clinton said. “This is huge…. It’s a heck of a deal.”

The Netanyahu government has received all of the assurances previous Israeli governments said they wanted but now won’t accept those terms to make peace, Clinton said.

Former Pres. Bill Clinton is right. Bibi blew it.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Clemons: Obama ‘has assured the rise of Hamas’

By on 22 September 2011

**UPDATED BELOW**

Obama’s first meeting after the speech was with Netanyahu, who praised his sometime-nemesis for his “principled position,” and for taking it “in this house, which has … automatic majorities against Israel.” It’s “a badge of honor,” Bibi said — adding, as he turned to Obama, “I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor and also to express my hope that others will follow your example.” – O’s moment of glory is instantly tarnished by French diss

There are few people I respect more than Steve Clemons, though we’ve had our disagreements, whose foreign policy acumen is among the best on the progressive side. He proves again he’s a leading thinker, offering an unflinching take on the issue of Palestinians working for a sovereign state through UNGA, with a strong piece in The Atlantic that eviscerates Pres. Obama all the way to the bone.

Steve Clemons slams Pres. Obama and calls out his lack of courage to stand up for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations where it could really matter.

Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in Back of Bus

President Obama’s UN General Assembly speech shows that the President has lost much of his groove since Cairo and amidst the Arab Spring is telling Palestine to be patient, to stay seated in the back of the bus, until Israel and Palestine leaders decide to be responsible. Obama fails to understand that Israel and Palestine can never sell a deal internally without blaming outside powers for compelling them to do what is in their long term interests. It’s time for Obama to read up on “gaiatsu” and understand the practice and utility of “foreign pressure”.

[...] If this was 2013, Obama might be in a different groove — but by then Palestinian and the broader Arab temperature may be such that they ultimately decide the two state track is folly — and much like Turkey giving up on its European identity aspirations — decides to pull back and subject a recalcitrant Israel to never-ending harassment and violence, assuring that Israel ultimately becomes a state of hard-edged, security-demanding Apartheid, all while the Palestinian demographic edge inside Israel’s borders booms while the Israeli Jewish population growth slows and perhaps even declines.

Obama is assuring the further emasculation and perhaps final demise of Palestine’s moderates. Obama is also treating the Israelis and Palestinians as if they are on equal footing, equally able to concede to each other’s demands. What Obama doesn’t get is that a substantial portion of Israel’s population loves not having a deal and never wants one. They are OK with a peace process to nowhere — but that is not acceptable for the less-endowed, less-powerful Palestinian side. Hamas is in the rejectionist corner as well, seeing its fortunes rise as earnest efforts at peace go nowhere.

Steve defies American conventional wisdom, that it would be catastrophic to allow a vote on statehood through the U.N. Security Council and that “no good can come from it,” to quote Richard Haas, who heads the Council of Foreign Relations, a dinosaur organization.

The world watched Barack Obama lose a battle in the last two years with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israeli settlement expansion in contested and occupied territories. This is like the Soviet Union having lost a war of wills at the height of its power with Cuba.

The client state trumped the President of the United States — telegraphing to many around the world that President Obama ultimately didn’t have the courage of his convictions and wasn’t able to deploy power and statecraft to achieve the outlines of what he called for in his lofty rhetoric. …

George W. Bush aided the rise of Hamas and assured their legitimacy through pushing elections when the Palestinians warned they weren’t ready.

Barack Obama stood up against the building of more and more settlements, only to back down because of domestic pressures and reelection concerns. Pres. Obama, after having offered so much hope and lofty words and outreach towards the Arab world, empowering moderates with what his presidency would mean to the greater Middle East and U.S. influence in the region, has failed to deliver on any measurable scale.

The last American president to put his own skin in the Middle East peace game, working to the last day in office, was Pres. Bill Clinton. Arafat spit in his face.

It’s now finally clear the American era of diplomacy in the Middle East is over.

TM Note: I just want to add that the point of emphasizing Steve’s analysis is that it challenges everyone to think of the situation in a new way, because what were currently doing isn’t cutting it. I haven’t a clue how this serious situation resolves itself completely, but Israel needs Palestine as badly as the Palestinians.

UPDATE: Rep. Keith Ellison has broken with Pres. Obama, as well as Democratic Party tradition, over the Palestinian state vote.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

9/11 Commemoration: Three Presidents, Different Perspectives

By on 10 September 2011

“There has always been a special place in the common memory for people who deliberately, knowingly, certainly lay down their lives for other people to live. …” – Pres. Bill Clinton

Every time I hear the word “anniversary” invoked for 9/11 I cringe. There is nothing celebratory about the date, with it a commemoration of a horrific tragedy that now with the 9/11 memorials in place should take a new spot in our national dialogue. Revisiting the history of it that has an end, which came with Pres. Obama’s call to send Seal Team Six into Pakistan to risk it all to kill Osama bin Laden.

The politics of 9/11, however, will go on, as we saw last Sunday on Fox News with Chris Wallace, when the anchor decided not ask former V.P. Dick Cheney about the killing of Osama bin Laden, because the thought of crediting Pres. Obama with an extraordinary point of leadership, which didn’t require torturing anyone, would be just too much for FNC viewers to take.

From Politico, the politics of 9/11.

A decade later, 9/11 has finally brought the political parties together in this respect: They’ve both mastered the art of politicizing the terrorist attacks.

[...] But the presence of 9/11 in politics is as profuse as ever. Most recently – days ahead of the tenth anniversary of the attacks – candidates in a New York congressional election have traded sharp accusations over who’s more committed to protecting the country from terrorism and supporting first responders.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Chris Wallace Proves (again) Why He’s the Worst Anchor on TV

By on 04 September 2011

… But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP. [...] – Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

Fox News Channel and Chris Wallace won’t be leaving the “cult” anytime soon. In fact, today is representative of how they keep the cult alive, along with the mythology that helps promote, but also hide, the rancid reality of Republicanism today, not only where the economy is concerned, but also on matters of national security.

If you want to get an idea of how awful Chris Wallace is as a news man, today was another example. While discussing Cheney’s book, Mr. Wallace danced around 9/11 without ever once mentioning the killing of Osama bin Laden and the mission Pres. Obama approved to get that job done. It’s the exact opposite approach he took with former Pres. Clinton one day in 2006, with the entire spectacle today on Fox representative of the worst of today’s national security media mendacity.

What’s even worse is that Chris Wallace allowed former V.P. Dick Cheney to once again embellish, some would say continue to perpetuate a historical lie when compared to the facts, his role on 9/11. I’ve written about it before, in 2007 and in 2006, with the second link to 2006 giving you an example of the types of questions Wallace asked former Pres. Bill Clinton compared to how Wallace tip toes around Dick Cheney.

So, take yourself back…

It’s 9/11.

All hell has broken loose, with hijacked planes bearing down on the nation’s capitol, Washington, D.C. and outlying areas and and the financial center of the United States, New York City.

V.P. Dick Cheney has been whisked to the bunker for safety, but according to Mr. Cheney, he’s also in charge of events.

What kind of man lies about his role on 9/11?

Unfortunately, it’s now becoming legend, as Mr. Cheney once again regurgitated his story to Chris Wallace, who did nothing to challenge his version of events.

From a very important Vanity Fair article back in 2006, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes” (the salient section about Cheney being proved a liar on page 18).

Nasypany starts walking up and down the floor, asking all his section heads and weapons techs if they are prepared to shoot down a civilian airliner if need be, but he’s jumping the gun: he doesn’t have the authority to order a shootdown, nor does Marr or Arnold, or Vice President Cheney, for that matter. The order will need to come from President Bush, who has only just learned of the attack at a photo op in Florida.

[...] A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. “Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.,” he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they’d land and make demands. “There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement.”

In his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02—only one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. “Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision,” Bush’s then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News.

Cheney echoed, “The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, it’s an order that had never been given before.” And it wasn’t on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

Rewriting Bush-Cheney history has been happening a lot in the Obama era.

Now segue to Wallace interviewing former Pres. Bill Clinton in 2006. While Wallace today didn’t bother to ask Cheney why former Pres. George W. Bush said he was “truly not that concerned” about bin Laden. As you can witness by former Pres. Bill Clinton’s response to Wallace’s blatant bias, love him or hate him, the Big Dawg didn’t take Chris’ crap when Wallace tried to sandbag him on 9/11. Here’s the excerpt, since minds have gone soft as we approach the commemoration of the horrific tragedy next week.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20…

CLINTON: No let’s talk about–

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

Clinton takes on Fox News bias:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke. So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?

I want to know how many you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke?

I want to know how many people you asked…

WALLACE: We asked — we asked…

CLINTON: I don’t…

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change.

And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you’ll see half the questions are about that. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

WALLACE: That’s not true. Sir, that is not true.

CLINTON: And Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.

WALLACE: All right. Well, after you.

CLINTON: All I’m saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaida existed then. And…

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998…

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: … when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about…

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that’s strange.

The entire interview from 2006 is instructive. Because whatever you think of Clinton, and his third way-ism, NAFTA and other policies that were destructive to progressive economics, while paving the way for Obama’s Republicanism, at least the man didn’t use kumbaya bipartisan excuses to keep from fighting battles that need to be fought. Bipartisanship for Clinton didn’t require caving to wingnuts out of fear of partisanship or because he might scare off Independents.

As for Dick Cheney’s other claim today on Fox News Sunday that Obama’s made the economy worse, said with a straight face and without a hint of irony, Chris Wallace didn’t challenge him on that either. The fact that Bush-Cheney kept the wars off the budget, gave massive tax cuts that produced no jobs, while blowing the surplus Clinton left them, with the list a lot longer than this, none of this was on Chris Wallace’s mind either.

That’s because Mr. Wallace feels more comfortable catering to the Fox News audience, so presenting facts over ideological fluffery isn’t his top priority. He does prove why they’re the least informed, because he and others on the network make sure of it.

Simply, do you think there was a liberal bias in the mainstream media? – Chris Wallace to former V.P. Dick Cheney

Maybe Mr. Wallace should try his luck at comedy, because as a journalist, “fair and balanced” or otherwise, he continues to fail.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Republicans Plummet in Popularity After Debt Ceiling Debacle

By on 10 August 2011

This isn’t easy to do: have a lower approval than Republicans during Pres. Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

So, the Tea Party, who gained in 2010, through Obama and Democrats caving on the Bush tax cut extensions last December, but also through the White House’s cut-cut-cut 2011 austerity budget, then the debt ceiling negotiations, have finally brought the Republican Party down where they deserve.

Both parties have earned the dubious distinction of turning off voters, but for Democrats only 58% think they should be thrown out of Congress, while it’s 64% for Republicans.

A new CNN poll sends a strong message to the Tea Party and Republicans, saying their priorities are not America’s:

According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent disagreeing. And by a 57 to 40 percent margin they say the committee’s deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.

But cuts in defense spending get a mixed review: Forty-seven percent would like the committee to include major cuts in military spending, with 53 percent saying no to such cuts.

Nearly two-thirds say no to major changes to Social Security and Medicare. And nearly nine in ten don’t want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower income Americans.

We’ve known the people don’t support cuts in the social safety net for a while, but Pres. Obama won’t stand on that line.

So, this would be great news for Obama and the Democrats, showing them the way, but unfortunately the President bought into austerity a long time ago and won’t make the Democratic economic case. That means for 2012 we’ll have two candidates making the case for cuts, while Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid has no champion in either big two party, though we’ll hear plenty of hot air on “reforming” the social safety net, which won’t result in any good news for the working class.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

A Friendly Rebuttal to David Sirota (from the ultimate outsider – a former Clintonite)

By on 05 August 2011

David Sirota has taken up the multi-dimensional chess argument for Obama, though in a different way than his loyalists and fan boys. David begins by excusing the results we’ve had so far as simply being that he isn’t a liberal. Well, that’s an understatement, but then he says Obama is a “bizarro FDR.” Sirota is as smart as they come, but he’s not the only one screwing up the Obama story. Here’s one snippet of his piece:

They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is “President Pushover,” as the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.

This story line is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today’s imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.

Considering this, and further considering Obama’s early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama’s term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it’s more than just silly — it’s a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe “their” president is with them.

Hip boots, please.

Mr. Obama has no driving dream as a foundation, but is simply a formidable political performer that has the gift of oratory, which has become the facade behind which he stands. He can deliver the words, but has never cared about the deeds required to make those words manifest. He is a political actor, nothing more, which is why compromise is his tool, because he has no ideas of his own for which he’s willing to risk failure to pursue. It’s always about him, never you.

None of this, however, detracts from the fact “that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.” But power for the sake of it, without purpose, is ultimately corrupting, corrosive and eventually calamitous.

What Sirota and the progressive cool kids are trying so hard to elucidate is that Obama is doing what he is because he wants to, getting the results he wants. So far, so good, but today Sirota takes it to a place that doesn’t sustain itself.

What he and others miss by a marathon is why this is occurring, though Sirota does get this right too: The president has the political muscle to enact a progressive agenda, but he doesn’t want to. Absolutely correct, as I’ve written for a long time, but not for the reasons he writes.

It’s in the polling, which is what guides the Obama White House and reelection team and is the only thing driving this president and it begins with Pres. Obama and his team knowing that Democrats will be on board no matter how mad you get about how horrific his capitulations and compromises are to the Right.

The reason he’s going to the Right is because they’ve got the momentum and he actually is too weak to make the counter argument, because he doesn’t want the fight as much as he wants the compromise, but also because he simply doesn’t care that much to wage the battle. Progressives like David Sirota have forgotten Obama’s revulsion to the battles of the 60s and the 90s; he wasn’t kidding.

Barack Obama will do anything to avert an ideological confrontation, but with the Tea Party caucus he’s been thrown the mother of all curves. Even during the Gingrich era Republicans weren’t willing to burn Washington down over the debt, deficit or budget. The reason he served up Medicare and entitlement “reform” is because Obama thought Republicans would jump at it. As conservatives said repeatedly, pre Tea Party they would. Pres. Obama and the White House never in a million years believed they’d stiff him on it, which is why he didn’t want the details leaked, because the White House isn’t stupid and knew the Left would go berserk. But when the Tea Party did what happened? He compromised again and again to get an outcome that would stop the madness, instead of something that would rectify the problem.

Barack Obama has never waged a fight for anything other than himself, which is what his presidential campaign was about. Now he’s trying to bring every voter he can to his side for his reelection, with Democrats and progressives assured, so he’ll do anything to make that happen, relying on polling to tell him what the public thinks, what they want to hear and what he should say to reach them.

The outcome truly doesn’t matter to him as long as most of the American people side with him in the end to give him a second term. Polls are his compass, not some passion for his Republicanism, which he chose because the mood of the country long ago started swinging Tea Party and Obama has no intention of taking them on, because he might alienate voters whom he’ll need, and Democrats no longer stand for anything, so they’ll just follow the leader.

It’s this Democratic weakness that set up Barack Obama in the first place, the genesis in the Clinton era, though Clinton’s compromises were mixed with a man who relished the battle and had lines he would not cross. When you take out that fighting for people character component the result is the Obama presidency, which has no Democratic compass at all.

The problem with compromising with political extortionists is that once they find out you detest an ideological battle and are willing to give them anything they want as long as they go away and things quiet down is that it’s a never ending saga.

Once again to Obama being candid back in 2007, something most people ignored, but I still believe was a seminal moment for understanding him:

“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”) – May 2007

Pres. Obama is using F.D.R. as his Democratic template and his negotiating base. Everything progressives and the Professional Left bellyaches about is simply noise, because he has no intention of taking on Republicans to make the fight. Obama cedes control to Congress time and again, because he doesn’t want to be cloaked in their ideological mist. The White House always blame liberals for not making the case for Obama, because as they see it, you’re not going anywhere and he’s not changing, so shut up and get with the program. Obama’s got to make peace with a Tea Party nation, so he doesn’t need your crap.

That he has no ideological compass or foundation from which to make an argument for anything F.D.R.-ish should go without saying by now, so any notion he’s a “bizarro FDR” is absurd. He assumes people know that F.D.R. is the base from which he navigates, because he’s goddam Democrat.

The rest is about forging any compromise he can get and he isn’t about to take on the Tea Party and the Right, because he doesn’t believe in ideological fights, which he truly thinks is fruitless, as it upsets people and alienates them from him.

If it won’t help Barack Obama, he’s just not going to do it. Democrats should be grateful, because after all, he’s their leader and he’s, duh, #winning.

The problem that Pres. Obama and his advisers have created now, however, is that when you compromise with extortionists who are also wrong on the facts of the current economic disaster unfolding in America, as Europe’s financial volcano comes close to erupting further, and you have no ideological compass of your own on these matters, the purposeless floundering and dangerous compromises can boomerang.

Sure, you may be left standing, but the carnage piled around you will be catastrophically historic.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }