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 | Hillary Clinton

Rachel Maddow Slams ’60-something Male Pundits’

By on 08 February 2012

“I realize a lot of 60-something male pundits look at this issue & think hmmm… bad politics for Democrats on the Catholic side. There’s another way to look at it.” – Rachel Maddow

Who are those “60-something male pundits?” More importantly why do we care what they think?

Mark Shields, E.J. Dionne and Chris Matthews, as I see it, are three of them, but there are many more.

What’s the other way to look at the issue of Pres. Obama’s contraception decision, beyond what the “60-something male pundits” view?

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

Americans of all faiths, including Catholics, but also those unaffiliated, agree with Pres. Obama. Then there are the all important independents, which Obama has lost over the last couple of years:

Numerous pundits have predicted that the requirement —and its narrow exemption for churches — will be a political liability for Obama. But where Shields sees “cataclysmic” fallout, the White House sees something quite different: a chance to widen the reproductive health debate beyond abortion to issues like contraceptives, winning over key demographics of independent voters in the process. – Why White House sees political opportunity in the contraception battle

It’s a catastrophe say the male pundit class!

Matthews says, it’s not about the number of Catholics who use birth control.

But but but, Mathews say, or the number of non-Catholics who attend Catholic colleges or universities or receive help from Catholic charities.

Matthews say it’s about what the church itself teaches. Mark Shields and E.J. Dionne agree. I’m sure the Catholic bishops are pleased, but all represent a contingent bent on controlling women.

I wonder if any of these men find it ironic that they’re defending dogma that American Catholics by a wide majority completely ignore. All of these men, mind you, don’t have ovaries or the job of planning their life in an environment that is economically challenging.

According to the Matthews-Shields-Dionne contingent, it’s not about the hundreds of thousands of women employees who work in Catholic institutions who would be denied affordable contraception, which is an economic issue for any modern woman, as well as a means to plan her future.

There is another way to look at this issue, but you’d have to look beyond a myopic vision that doesn’t include what’s good for all women, regardless of religion.

We’ve seen throughout our media during this debate why the story on women’s rights and our freedoms is so often left in the dark. They ignore the issue at hand and jump to the fantasy political impact, while screaming about the 20th century traditional views that don’t represent the 21st generation.

Yesterday on “Daily Rundown,” Chuck Todd had E.J. Dionne and another middle-aged man on to talk about this issue. Today he had a terrific panel of women (video below), including the formidable Neera Tanden, making a lot more sense than the 60-something male pundits yesterday. Shira Toeplitz from Roll Call said not even in Pennsylvania, which she covers a lot, will this issue impact over other issues and for the very reason I stated in the previous paragraph. It’s a new generation era. Sara Taylor Fagan, a former Bush administration official, also brought up relevant points.

I’ve done the rundown on what happened on “Morning Joe,” where guests and Scarborough stated Obama would lose the election over this issue, which David Gregory parroted today. Mika Brzezinski did a terrific job this morning herding squirrels, while Tina Brown emphasized that most Catholics agree with Obama.

In new media, Josh Marshall chose to feature a religious conservative reader expressing dissent on the subject of Obama’s free contraceptive care for women. The focus of the email was that the reader claimed to have quit reading the Washington Monthly “because their presentation of religious concerns showed a clear lack of effort to understand the point of view of people who are religious.” Falling into the usual trap of giving religious conservatives a platform to make a women’s health issue about religion is TPM’s choice. It may even be an economic one so as not to lose readers, which I certainly can understand. But when no such threat to religious freedom exists and you choose not to engage the falsehood, you’re not helping women or clarifying the issue. But TPM has never been feminist.

In this discussion we also see yet another chapter in why we still do not have a female president, but also why we still see so few women leaders in our public life. The criteria for what it takes to pass the test is steep. A newcomer first has to kiss all the local establishment men’s rings on religion and women’s right to prove you won’t be too shrill. But we all saw what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as Rep. DeGette and other so-called members of the “pro choice caucus” were willing to do when push come to shove. The first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history caved to the men in her church to get health care passed.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating here. No matter the religion, that women choose to be dictated spiritually through the inherent misogyny embedded in organized religion, wherever it occurs, and the politics that props up this philosophy remains a real issue for modern women and the relevancy of the church today.

Men like Matthews, Shields and Dionne are representatives of this religious hierarchy because they fuel the Catholic Church’s anti-women agenda. But modern women of all faiths and none are seeing through them, because after all, it’s the 21st century and it’s long past time for women to take back faith and spirituality.

Our traditional media, cable networks and even new media sites are replete with hostility for the basic instruments women need to maintain their financial health and plan their lives. They are led by men and network executives, producers and others who are cowardly and some even unethical, putting profits above women’s health and economic security, or pretending there’s a religious freedom issue to boost ratings and the political pie fight.

Below is a comment I want to share from “roseOred.” People are watching how this subject is being covered and many don’t like who networks are choosing to make an argument against women.

With the exception of Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, MSNBC has been infuriating me on this topic.

  • They gloss over or ignore the fact that religious universities and hospitals benefit from public money.
  • They ignore the fact that a whole bunch of states all ready require religious universities and hospitals to cover contraception and there was no big uproar over it.
  • They ignore the fact that apparently some of those states require even churches to cover birth control (thank you Rachel Maddow).
  • They ignore the fact that for a lot of women in a lot of areas, just going to a different hospital or finding a job at another hospital/university isn’t easy, realistic, or even possible.
  • There’s no mention of the fact that in this economy it is particularly heinous to vilify contraception given the cost of having and raising children.
  • There’s nobody pointing out the irony that when working class or poor women- especially women of color- have unplanned babies and require government assistance to feed them, conservatives fall all over themselves to blame them and call them a drag on society, welfare queens, etc. (You’d think for that reason alone they’d try to help poor women control their own fertility. Of course then they’d lose that warm feeling they get from feeling superior and demonizing groups of people they know nothing about. And they’d lose the perceived electoral benefits that this kind of posturing gives them.)
  • And nobody (save Melissa Harris-Perry) has mentioned the one thing that would end this whole controversy forever and ever: the adoption by the US of single-payer healthcare or a public option. If we had either one of those things, nobody’s healthcare would get in anybody’s religion and nobody’s religion would get in anybody’s healthcare. Instant fix, everybody happy! Right?

You know what I love? Some middle aged white dude telling me how problematic our lady-needs are for Catholics (98% of whom use contraception) and for the President’s re-election chances (as if there is any indication at this point that the general election will be that competitive, given the profoundly flawed group of Republican candidates and upward economic trends).

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

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Obama and the Boiling Middle East

By on 07 February 2012

“So what do we do? Well, faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future. We have to increase diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime and work to convince those people around President Assad that he must go, and that there has to be a recognition of that and a new start to try to form a government that will represent all of the people of Syria,” [Secy. Hillary Clinton] said. – Josh Rogin

It’s no secret I was against the Libya bombing and remain so. Watching the carnage in Syria reveals the flaws in the Obama administration’s strategy, as much as there was one. The unspeakable, which Josh Rogin said outright last night, is civil war in Syria. Even as Secy. Clinton worked the Arab League hard to make the NATO mission feasible, regime change looks differently once it’s over and the fallout begins.

See Egypt, where Americans are reportedly to be tried, including Secy. Ray LaHood’s son. Our so-called relationship today in that country as bad as it’s been in decades, which Josh Rogin explained with Chris Hayes last night. No doubt Secy. Clinton’s first instinct to bolster Mubarak came from this dreaded place. However, the truth is wider and deeper, of an American policy supporting dictators who are our allies in torture and rendition, as both Mubarak and Assad have been, while the people suffer.

The Arab Spring has unleashed a lot of energy, none of which Pres. Obama can predict, contain or manage very easily, but considering we engaged in the contagion to try and impact it, he’ll have to take ownership of something that is uncontrollably unpredictable.

Stephen Walt offers some thoughts on Syria, after the Libyan NATO mission.

One can argue that this was the right course of action anyway, because getting rid of a thug like Qaddafi was worth it. That’s a debate for another day, although I would note in passing that post-Qaddafi Libya remains deeply troubled and the collapse of the regime seems to be fueling conflicts elsewhere. But what if the Libyan precedent is one of the reasons why Russia and China aren’t playing ball today? They supported Resolution 1973 back in 2011, and then watched NATO and a few others make a mockery of multilateralism in the quest to topple Qaddafi. The Syrian tragedy is pay-back time, and neither Beijing nor Moscow want to be party to another effort at Western-sponsored “regime change.” It is hardly surprising that Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin condemned the failed resolution on precisely these grounds. In short, our high-handed manipulation of the SC process in the case of Libya may have made it harder to gain a consensus on Syria, which is arguably a far more important and dangerous situation.

Also read Marc Lynch on what a horror it is that the U.N. failed, which no doubt is making the neoconservatives gleeful.

I wrote about this just a few days ago, but if you count Iran and Israel, the economy may be the least of Obama’s worries, with the Middle East possibly throwing a curve to all the prognosticators.

With Pres. Obama’s foreign policy credentials including ordering the slaying of Osama bin Laden, there is no sense whatsoever that Mitt Romney can make a serious challenge to Pres. Obama if the Middle East goes south.

What that means to Republicans picking a nominee is anyone’s guess. It also could be why Newt Gingrich has seduced himself into thinking the race isn’t over.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

China and Russia Block U.N. Action on Syria

By on 05 February 2012

Thirty years after his father massacred tens of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children in Hama, Bashar al-Assad has demonstrated a similar disdain for human life and dignity. [...] Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern. The Syrian regime’s policy of maintaining power by terrorizing its people only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse. Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community… – Pres. Obama

Diplomatically, it was Secy. Clinton versus Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, giving dueling public speeches that came before the U.N. vote delivering a double veto. From Clinton at the Munich Security Summit:

Here in Munich, I have had productive discussions with a number of my counterparts concerning a list of critical issues. One that kept coming up is the ongoing violence in Syria. As a bankrupt regime clings to power by shelling its own people in their homes, we have seen a living nightmare play out in the city of Homs. It’s a nightmare that has been repeated across Syria over these past many months. Almost 30 days – almost 30 years to the day after the infamous Hama massacre, the international community must send Assad a clear message: By repeating the horrors of Syria’s past, you have lost your place in Syria’s future.

From the New York Times we get the outcome:

A United Nations Security Council effort to end the violence in Syria collapsed in acrimony with a double veto by Russia and China on Saturday, hours after the Syrian military attacked the city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the deadliest government assault in the nearly 11-month uprising.

The veto and the mounting violence underlined the dynamics shaping what is proving to be the Arab world’s bloodiest revolt: diplomatic stalemate and failure as Syria plunges deeper into what many are already calling a civil war. Diplomats have lamented their lack of options in pressuring the Syrian government, and even some Syrian dissidents worry about what the growing confrontation will mean for a country reeling from bloodshed and hardship.

According to Reuters, the latest death toll was 217 people.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Hillary Never Said ‘All the Way to the Convention!’

By on 30 January 2012

Gingrich is making the case that Romney can’t get a majority at the convention, his small circle of advisers are already eyeing favorable states in March and April, and those close to the former back-bench bomb thrower are testifying to his legendary perseverance. – Newt Gingrich’s long march, by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman

Newt’s clinging to NewsMax. Their “Insider Advantage Poll” is propping him up the day before Florida in hopes that the bottom doesn’t drop out before voting tomorrow. If people start believing Romney is about to walk away with the state, leaners will bolt for Mitt, because no one likes to back a sure loser.

From Quinnipiac:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 43 – 29 percent lead over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among Republican likely voters in Florida, the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to Quinnipiac University poll released today. Only 7 percent are undecided, but 24 percent say they might change their mind by tomorrow’s election

However, if you’re listening to people on Newt world, none of this will matter. The cry today is all the way to the convention!

There’s no evidence yet that Newt Gingrich can amass 18 million votes, as Hillary did back in 2008. He’s a completely different type of candidate than Clinton, with only one casino banker, while Hillary had legions of fans and supporters. But on he trudges, with the help of Kelly Ann Conway, touting the south as his promised land. The biggest difference between Newt and Hillary is that never once was there any indication whatsoever that she would have taken her fight to the convention floor. It was never going to happen, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, getting vilified by Hillary fans for giving sound analysis that turned out to be true.

Of course, the cable yakkers tried hard to whip up a frenzy saying otherwise, as I recount in my book The Hillary Effect, with even the esteemed Rachel Maddow falling for this line, though she was hardly alone.

Newt Gingrich’s primary cry the day before Florida, however, is exactly that, threatening to start a war inside the Republican Party on the floor in Tampa.

“We have no evidence yet that Romney anywhere is coming close to getting the majority and I think when you take all of the non-Romney votes, it’s very likely that the convention will be a non-Romney majority and maybe a very substantial one. My job is to convert that into a pro-Gingrich majority.” – Newt Gingrich, via the Wall Street Journal

Make my year.

In the interim, Gingrich is spewing Adelson talking points to Jewish Floridians: “[Mitt Romney] eliminated serving kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.”

Wrenching voters out of their comfort zone one inflammatory statement at a time.

If the projected polling today is correct and Romney wins big in Florida, Newt’s viability will rest in Sheldon Adelson’s hands, because it’s clear the Republican establishment isn’t going to help and neither are their bankers.

What if Adelson folds? Newt’s never run a grass roots campaign in his life. He’s learning this anti-establishment schtick as he goes along. It’s just not clear whether his ego can survive being second to Santorum and Ron Paul.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS

By on 26 January 2012

“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on January 25, 2012. State Department photo/ Public Domain

I tweeted about this likelihood on Tuesday. She’ll no doubt work up until the very last second on her very last day, for which Pres. Obama is no doubt grateful, as are we all.

We can only imagine that it’s “a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” as she also admits she “didn’t watch any of those debates.”

After she leaves State, Hillary Clinton will be able to rest, write, and then assess other options. This includes, come 2014, coming to grips on whether she’s ready to walk away from another run for the White House and possibly being the first female president of the United States.

There will be a different breed bidding for the Democratic presidential spot in 2016. However, no one in politics would be more prepared. She would, however, have to defend her continued militaristic foundation, whether it’s Libya or her continued belief in the war in Afghanistan. Her close relationship to the Pentagon and the U.S. defense industry would also be at issue. Mrs. Clinton’s closeness to Israel’s leaders and the trust built between them, would, however, hold great possibilities. Her involvement during the Libya bombing proved unparalleled, as she worked to convince Arab leaders to come on board. It would be a serious campaign, not a walk in the park, at least with progressive primary voters, though there would also be great emotions on the left to making a Democratic female a seminal part of American history.

Mrs. Clinton has also said time and again she will not run for president again.

TM NOTE: An international women’s foundation, raising money from all sides, like her husband’s CGI, and impacting women’s lives in countries around the world, is one very good bet, which I’d put money on myself.

Taylor Marsh is the author of The Hillary Effect, which traces the history of the near twenty years of press coverage and political events that followed Hillary Clinton into the 2008 presidential race and helped make her candidacy as impossible as it was part of her destiny.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt

By on 24 January 2012

The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of events out for people to read and connect. The Hillary Effect gets another big boost from recent reporting that bolsters the case I make, which is backed up by the facts I offer.

Available in print at Amazon.com


A memo revealed by Ryan Lizza in “The Obama Memos”, printed in The New Yorker, proves a main thesis in my book and does so beyond any doubt whatsoever.

“Change we can believe in” and other Obama slogans were mythmaking of the first order, which I prove, with character assassination the only weapon they thought could work when Obama got up against it. Because it wasn’t as if Hillary had an affair with Monica, or was responsible for NAFTA (it was proven conclusively she was against it), and Obama and Clinton had the same votes in the Senate on foreign policy (minus the Iran vote he ducked).

The reality from Lizza’s important article:

Another hard-edged decision helped make him the Democratic Presidential nominee. In early October, 2007, David Axelrod and Obama’s other political consultants wrote the candidate a memo explaining how he could repair his floundering campaign against Hillary Clinton. They advised him to attack her personally, presenting a difficult choice for Obama. He had spent years building a reputation as a reformer who deplored the nasty side of politics, and now, he was told, he had to put that aside. Obama’s strategists wrote that all campaign communications, even the slogan—“Change We Can Believe In”—had to emphasize distinctions with Clinton on character rather than on policy. The slogan “was intended to frame the argument along the character fault line, and this is where we can and must win this fight,” the memo said. “Clinton can’t be trusted or believed when it comes to change,” because “she’s driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions. . . . She embodies trench warfare vs. Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done. She prides herself on working the system, not changing it.” The “current goal,” the memo continued, was to define Obama as “the only authentic ‘remedy’ to what ails Washington and stands in the way of progress.”

Obama’s message promised voters, in what his aides called “the inspiration,” that “Barack Obama will end the divisive trench warfare that treats politics as a game and will lead Americans to come together to restore our common purpose.” Clinton was too polarizing to get anything done: “It may not be her fault, but Americans have deeply divided feelings about Hillary Clinton, threatening a Democratic victory in 2008 and insuring another four years of the bitter political battles that have plagued Washington for the last two decades and stymied progress.”

Neera Tanden was the policy director for Clinton’s campaign. When Clinton lost the Democratic race, Tanden became the director of domestic policy for Obama’s general-election campaign, and then a senior official working on health care in his Administration. She is now the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, perhaps the most important institution in Democratic politics. “It was a character attack,” Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. “I went over to Obama, I’m a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn’t an ‘issue contrast,’ it was entirely personal.” And, of course, it worked.

The entire traditional, elite and many new media outlets sucked up the Axelrod theory with a straw. Put more bluntly, they picked a side.

The result is the disillusionment you have among many American voters who trusted the marketing message of “change we can believe in,” but also trusted the press, which was in collusion for one candidate over another, a scourge that continues to run through our media, especially on cable, but also in new media, where if you don’t pick a side readers can’t figure out what you’re saying. That’s how used to the partisan pabulum people have become. The case I make in my book lays it out in detail.

The Obama memo details from David Axelrod emphasize what Neera Tanden is quoted saying. The only way Barack Obama could beat her was a character assault on Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if her character was really not the issue. The issue was Barack Obama not having what it took on his own.

It’s nothing new under the political stars, but it is emphatically evident it was far from the preening, above it all persona the Obama campaign pushed.

The critical component remains the media who laid the groundwork, which I prove conclusively in my book, which covers close to 20 years.

This illustrates the importance of reporters in outlets like The New Yorker to history, people who get access to historic information to which independent authors aren’t privy. It’s a lot harder for people like myself to get heard, because I’m outside the establishment, so nuggets like what Rizza offers are critical.

The New Yorker has done something very important, for which I’m grateful, because I wrote a fair, fact based, true account of the most important political contest in modern history, from a point of view that had not been heard before.

The relevancy of The Hillary Effect has never been more real and now has one more piece of historical testimony to add to its truths.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Sissy Farenthold Speaks Truth to Power on What We Must Do to Save America

By on 21 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

“I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns and women join the unqualified men in running our government.” – Sissy Farenthold

Sissy Speaks Truth!

This week, as President of Meyerland Area Democrats, I was able to get a progressive legend to come and speak. Her name is Sissy Farenthold.

See, Sissy was the first woman elected to the Texas House, back in 1968. She took out a good ole boy and won the House seat in South Texas. Farenthold became a household name as the “den mother” of reformers in the Texas House, her courage to take on the corruption there made her a national hero. Her actions directly led to the toppling of most the corrupt figures in the legislature in what became the Sharpstown Stock Scandal.

Then in 1972 she did the unthinkable again: she ran for governor. It was a media sensation and a explosive firestorm: a liberal woman running in her own right against the conservative Democratic Party machine. Sissy’s run empowered a new generation of progressives in the state, and even by losing she scored a win. She peeled off votes from the embattled incumbent Governor Preston Smith and long groomed LBJ/ Connally protégé Lt. Governor Ben Barnes. Thus, banker Dolph Briscoe wound getting the most votes and went into a runoff with Sissy! He won the runoff and political history was made. Farenthold’s run had cost two Texas incumbents the governorship.

That same year of 1972 more history was made: she was nominated at the Democratic Nation Convention for Vice President. She is the first woman to have had such real consideration and it almost happened, but alas she got second place in the voting. She went on to run in 1974 again for governor, lost, then established many organization such as the National Women’s Political Caucus.

Although Sissy only served two terms in the Texas legislature (1968-1972) she made a massive impact on her state and the national scene. Without Sissy you do not get Ann Richards or Hillary Clinton.

At our meeting she discussed the need for all of us to start being more vocal about the plight of the people in this nation. She is a major supporter of Occupy Wall St., was in New York when it started, and yes, talked to the protestors there and here in Houston holding rallies. She warned that this election will be very difficult for Obama because of how terrible the economy is and the growing masses of poverty.

Sissy expressed outrage of the lack of a real women’s movement against the barbaric new anti-abortion and anti-voting laws . She urged the women in the crowd that the time has come to stand up and be counted. Sissy expressed that Occupy shows the way for women to start fighting the male dominated system in Washington for their economic needs.

Sissy urged that change won’t come via the crew in DC. Or at the state capitol. It would come through raising our voices and pushing hard against the corrupting forces in this nation.

You see Sissy gets that standing up can have a positive effect. She stood up to the graft in the Texas House and unleashed the toppling of many good ole boys there. In 1969 she stood up to the national Democratic Party by being the lone vote against a resolution praising LBJ’s Vietnam leadership. Someone had to say no to that war despite LBJ being the leader of her own party. We must have her kind of courage going forward.

You could say Sissy has been a Occupier for a very long time. She is a maverick, a rebel and a real progressive who fights for her values and will not be silenced by the establishment. The answer to our political problems I think is more Sissy Farentholds. It will take that to end the power of the oligarchy and moneyed interests we are living under.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Gingrich Soars on Wings of Obama Fluffing Media*

By on 20 January 2012

*See note below

“The liberal media,” she added, “and some of that GOP holier-than-thou machine overplayed their hand this time. … I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. … “Their target in this case, Newt,” Palin added, “is now going to soar even more because we know the game now and we just won’t put up with it. – Daily Caller

The headline I offer above won’t be used by the insider press, because they’re not that honest or blunt. However, the Obama fluffing media is the foundation for what may manifest on Saturday, which is a Newt Gingrich win in South Carolina. Politico represents the kinder, gentler argument:

By twice castigating one of the right’s perennial boogeymen — the press — Gingrich made a gut-level connection with conservatives who think they get a raw deal from the news media. – Politico

Sarah Palin whipping up anti-establishment conservatives is a perfect play when the American media is woven into the narrative. It comes at a time in an election year that is already shaping up to be advantage Pres. Obama in the media, though not for the same reasons as it was in 2008, which is proven in my book The Hillary Effect.

But Palin calling Brian Ross part of the liberal media reveals she’s just not all that astute as an analyst, nor is her audience; though details and facts aren’t the point. Ross was part of the ABC crew who trumpeted Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress, complete with composite picture that included candidate Hillary, when Clinton’s campaign released the documents of when she was first lady. All Ross and ABC wanted was coverage, which they got, as they did yesterday with Marianne Gingrich.

John King had to ask the question, though you can disagree it had to come at the top of the debate, however, making King the subject is a distraction. It’s not for the right and conservatives. So Gingrich teeing off on King, who did not flinch, with a bank shot to the entire media, is not only what Newt does, but taps into the foundation of anger that’s been festering among the Republican based since 2008. As you saw in the hall, it’s a winner, but for a good reason.

That’s because in 2008 conservatives and Republicans watched candidate Obama get glowing press and very little of the scrutiny, with their anticipation it will happen again justified. On Morning Joe, Ms. Brzezinski plays the role of spokeswoman for the White House, though that’s nothing compared to what we’ll see on Fox News Channel once a nominee is selected by the GOP. However, if past is prologue, Fox’s partisanship will not be repeated elsewhere.

Even Joe Scarborough talked about conservatives being sick of being “marginalized.” It’s not a ludicrous statement when you consider Fox News Channel’s prowess, but also Scarborough’s own network, which rarely offers criticism of Pres. Obama, even when earned.

You can see that policy best represented by Chris Matthews calling Andrew Sullivan a “genius” for writing his Newsweek piece this week, calling Obama’s critics “dumb.” It’s echoed by Ed Schultz and all the way through primetime. It doesn’t bother Matthews or his bosses that Sullivan has been disgraced through his harangues against Sarah Palin, his ridiculous intelligence and race ramblings, both of which have the virtue of being totally fact free.

In a year when Republicans are serving up no one who can beat Pres. Obama, conservatives are standing up to say they at least want someone to state their case and communicate to America that they’re mad as hell at the media playing defense for Pres. Obama. The target of that ire is not only Barack Obama, but a media who fell in love with this brilliant political athlete who naively believed he alone could change the American world of politics and suckered the entire American media, minus yours truly and a few others, that he could make it happen.

It’s not entirely Pres. Obama’s fault to believe this nonsense since he came into Washington with the American press at his feet.

TM NOTE: The title of this piece was chosen to make a point. That the media choosing sides ends up impacting our politics in a way that benefits no one, especially when it elevates the likes of Newt Gingrich. As we begin another election cycle, it’s important to stress what happened previously, because as we saw last night, the pro Obama media bias from 2008 is very fresh in the minds of conservatives.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

Newt was honest with Marianne Gingrich about his sexuality

By on 19 January 2012

“… Callista doesn’t care what I do. … He wanted an open marriage.” – Marianne Gingrich

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

We’re on the other side of hell hath no fury, folks.

Marianne Gingrch has now given the interview she’s threatened to unpack, but was saving for the perfect moment. The result is not presidential, but it is human for a segment of his gender.

At least Bill Clinton had the survival instincts not to ask.

How interesting that after one failed marriage and in the throes of another, Newt Gingrich honestly opens up to tell his wife he wants to stay married, but desires to sleep with another woman, now his current wife, Callista.

It’s not great for the get out the women’s vote.

It’s no secret that I find Newt Gingrich not equipped or worthy of the presidency. However, this revelation is going to fizzle for a reason. But it will be delicious to watch tonight on Nightline.

Men of all political persuasions and religious affiliations, though the faithful don’t stray on Sunday, can relate to Newt’s request. Back in the ’90s I did enough interviews with men and research into sexuality and marriage to prove to me this is true, which I don’t believe changes over time.

What Marianne Gingrich’s confession confirms is that once women get a whiff they won’t vote for this man in a million years.

Whatever you say about Mitt Romney, and I’ll have a post up on him tonight that says a lot, he’s not repellent to women, a voting block neither party can win without.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Jodi Kantor Refutes First Lady Michelle Obama on ‘Angry Black Woman’

By on 12 January 2012

Jodi Kantor: Corie, I never called the first lady an “angry black woman.” Not in those words, and not by implication. The book shows her as an impassioned and supportive if sometimes critical spouse, loving mom, and most of all, as a successful professional trying to figure out the very confusing role of first lady. To me, that’s the most fascinating storyline in the book– watching Michelle Obama figure out this role for herself.


Yesterday on Facebook, Jodi Kantor, the author of The Obamas, did a chat through the New York Times FB page. Before moderators got fully engaged the nastiness coming from Obama supporters was off the charts, most of which teed off on the “angry black woman” charge. Once the moderators showed up things calmed down, with the most offensive comments taken down.

It should go without saying that I identified with the attacks on Kantor from Obama die hards, which I’ve also received going back to 2007, but which escalated when my book The Hillary Effect was published. Obviously, with Kantor’s connections to the traditional media and publishing worlds, as well as her reach, her experience is no doubt much more acute.

What we’re talking about here is a back and forth between an author and the subject of her book. Like anyone doing a book on such an electric subject as the Obamas, or Hillary Rodham Clinton, to get it published is an ordeal in itself. The fact checking and scrutiny is overwhelming at times. Quite candidly, publishing The Hillary Effect and getting it just right was a bear, but once I did and found the right team it was worth it. That I take on the media, which is deserved but not appreciated, is an additional challenge for my team. Kantor’s job to get it right, fair and true had to be intense.

Twice in the FB chat, Kantor addressed the “angry black woman” characterization, which she was charged with making.

Jodi Kantor: Bene, just to be clear, “The Obamas” does not say that Mrs. Obama is an angry black woman, in those words or by implication. (Nor does it say that she and Rahm Emanuel clashed directly.) For five years, I’ve been working on portraying her in an accurate, human, well-rounded way. Check out the work and decide for yourself: http://jodikantor.net/articles/

The “angry black woman” characterization actually came from First Lady Michelle Obama herself in an interview with Gayle King, who’s now part of a brand new CBS morning show. It was obviously meant as a preemptive strike to shape the narrative about Kantor’s book, implying it’s unfair, even factually inaccurate, which goes directly at the author’s credibility.

From Lynn Sweet, of the Chicago Sun-Times today:

“That’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman,” she told CBS News in an interview broadcast Wednesday.

To deal with it, “I just try to be me. And my hope is that, over time, people get to know me, and they get to judge me for me.”

As Kantor said yesterday, she tapped “200 ppl, including 33 White House aides, and the White House cooperated with the book,” but after Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Man things got a lot more difficult. It’s easy to say that the secretive nature of the Obamas will only get moreso, with the ring around them tightening after her book.

I’ve come to the defense of First Lady Michelle Obama many times. That she went to a friendly journalistic source like Gayle King for this interview isn’t surprising at all. Her defensiveness however and choosing to invoke the “angry black woman” charge against author Jodi Kantor is worth noting, especially since the author denies the characterization completely. That Kantor also offers an archive to prove her goal is fairness is something to which I can also relate. Unfortunately, in the Obama era, blaming the messenger for telling even a true, fair and accurate story is not appreciated by subjects, especially when it’s the Obamas. They’re just not used to the unvarnished treatment.

I jumped in at one point when the talk turned to first ladies, with Kantor, whom I do not know, addressed one of my comments:

Taylor Marsh: Your comment about first ladies, that there is “condescension towards first ladies out there,” is a very important subject. Nancy Reagan, as well as Hillary Clinton, were formidable women with deep impact in their husband’s presidencies. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone as deeply intelligent and strong as Mrs. Obama would run into some friction with the men’s club inside the White House.

Taylor: I think you are on to something. No man gets elected to the presidency without a really canny, determined, effective spouse. And then the first couple gets to the White House, and the new first lady gets recast as a helpmeet, and we know what happens to first ladies who are deemed meddlers— unelected figures who hold unearned powers. One of the most fascinating things in my reporting was watching Mrs. Obama, who is a very frank and strongminded person, wrangle with this. Or even think about the decisions she has to make in terms of how and when to give feedback to her husband. The president, any president, is criticized constantly, daily. So if you’re the first lady, do you really want him to come home to more criticism? But on the other hand, if you think he’s making a mistake, you have a moral and spousal imperative to stop him, because the stakes are so, so high. If you read my book, please keep that difficult choice in mind throughout, and think through how you would handle it.

It’s easy to understand why Mrs. Obama is sensitive to the “angry black woman” tag when it’s actually made. But sometimes being too defensive about an author telling a story based on interviews, as Kantor has done, reveals something else entirely.

The good news for Jodi Kantor is that Mrs. Obama helped her sell even more books than she would have if the First Lady hadn’t called her friend Gayle King and gone on CBS to complain.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Romney ‘Acceptable’ to Republican Conservatives, and Remainders from Iowa

By on 10 January 2012

**Book winner update below**

“I think there are at least 3 tickets out of New Hampshire.” – Jon Huntsman on CNN

…and Mr. Huntsman got that ticket by coming in third.

Romney Wins New Hampshire

Ron Paul Second

–original post below–

Mitt Romney is the now the only candidate that a majority of conservative and moderate/liberal Republicans nationwide see as an “acceptable” GOP nominee for president. Conservative Republicans are more likely to say Romney would be an acceptable nominee than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. – Gallup

In honor of the Gallup poll above, I bring you the Democratic response to Mitt Romney’s possible nomination below.

An assist goes to Newt Gingrich, who is likely to be held accountable for lengthening the assault and drilling down to the organic Romney candidacy challenges in the age of Occupy. Rush Limbaugh has already started on him.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich is unleashing an offensive “pro-abortion” Mitt Romney ad in South Carolina, where the gutter is high water territory.

There is also more bad news for Mitt Romney and his job creating bragging rights. Glenn Kessler gives him 3 Pinocchios on his claim of creating 100,000 jobs, calling it “untenable.”

What’s interesting is Newt’s Bain Capital attack seems to also be registering with Republicans who are developing a political patter and marketing strategy to preemptively prepare for a Romney nomination.

This from Bill Kristol:

Post 2008, capitalism needs its strong defenders—but its defenders need also to be its constructive critics. The Tea Party was right. What’s needed is a critique of Big Government above all, but also of Big Business and Big Finance and Big Labor (and Big Education and Big Media and all the rest)—and especially a critique of all those occasions when one or more of these institutions conspire against the common good. What’s needed is a willingness to put Main Street (at least slightly) ahead of Wall Street, and a reform agenda for capitalism that strengthens it, alongside an even more dramatic reform agenda for government that limits it.

Now for the fun stuff. Before the Iowa caucuses I ran a Call Iowa contest. It’s time to announce the winner. The person who came closest to calling Iowa is “newdealdem1.” Looks like your niece is going to get the book.

BUT… BUT… BUT… [update] “newdealdem1″ has decided to pass her win to the next closest person, who is… “guyski”! Congratulations! Her niece will still get the book, but she’s going to buy it for her. Here’s what she wrote to me:

I am truly stunned and so happy! First, I haven’t won anything since I was a kid and won a picnic basket in one of those Italian-American feasts in NY. LOL

Thank you, Taylor.

Now on to the win. I would like to “donate” my win to the next person who came closest to calling Iowa. I so love your book that I want more people to read it. I am going to purchase your book for my niece as I feel so strongly that young women like my niece need to be cognizant of the things you say in it.

So, Taylor, let the next closest person be the lucky recipient of your book. The more people read your book (even if that person is a guy – and this is crucial for men to read as well), the better.

I have the greatest readers around. Thanks so much “newdealdem1.”

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Shameless Plugs, UK Guardian Edition for The Hillary Effect

By on 10 January 2012

Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today:

Does the GOP have a woman problem?

They have a nice ending quote buy me, but also give a shout out on my book The Hillary Effect, complete with a purchase link, which is fantastic for us.

In case you missed it, last week Al Jazeera English gave the book some attention as well, which accompanied a quote I gave on Michele Bachmann’s exit from the GOP primary.

These interviews and links matter a lot to my work, book sales and my bottom line, because political writing is how I make a living. You can help by sharing these links and also clicking on them. It’s one way to support my work that makes a huge difference to me. Thanks!

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

From Self-Proclaimed Nominee to Loser

By on 30 December 2011

“I can’t do modern politics.” – Newt Gingrich (reported by Howard Fineman)

via Mark Halperin on Twitter


There’s the video of Newt’s moment, but when Mark Halperin floated the picture above on Twitter it captured to me the resignation that Mr. Gingrich knew he’d been defeated.

These candidates work hard and it’s a tough slog, so this is hard to see from anyone.

The difference is that Newt Gingrich has been bemoaning the negative attacks against him, which he helped inspire. Gingrich created the formula being used against him in Iowa in negative ads. A flashback from FAIR, who has Newt’s “words matter” GOPAC memo, from 1995, that laid it out (emphasis added):

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay… failure (fail)… collapse(ing)… deeper… crisis… urgent(cy)… destructive… destroy… sick… pathetic… lie… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… betray… consequences… limit(s)… shallow… traitors… sensationalists…

endanger… coercion… hypocrisy… radical… threaten… devour… waste… corruption… incompetent… permissive attitudes… destructive… impose… self-serving… greed… ideological… insecure… anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs… pessimistic… excuses… intolerant…

stagnation… welfare… corrupt… selfish… insensitive… status quo… mandate(s)… taxes… spend(ing)… shame… disgrace… punish (poor…)… bizarre… cynicism… cheat… steal… abuse of power… machine… bosses… obsolete… criminal rights… red tape… patronage

From Susan Page to Politico, Hillary’s moment in New Hampshire is being invoked, only with a lot more compassion than she received.

As I recount as part of Hillary’s history in my new book, the vitriol that came her way was white hot, represented well by Bill Kristol on Fox News’ Special Report.

“And I don’t believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first. This — and I think this was — if it was genuine, it was entirely solipsistic and narcissistic. It’s all about her.”

Newt Gingrich was in no shape to run in a modern presidential election. It’s a marathon war that withers the best of them. By any measure he was not fit enough, though if I’d made that observation out loud I would have been flamed for being too harsh, but I saw it from the start. Contrast Newt with Christie, who carries a lot more weight, but whose vital energy is off the charts; it’s age, for sure, but it’s also something else. Newt’s arrogance is what kept him afloat, as long as he wasn’t treated as one of the bunch. But the minute he started receiving the type of incoming he’d delivered to others he wilted, he whined, then he cried.

This is the man who impeached Pres. Bill Clinton, while he was having his own adulterous affair. Clinton paid for his reckless, philandering stupidity.

Newt’s finally paying for his hypocrisy through the very tactics he’s used to bring others down.

Michele Bachmann is getting her ass handed to her in Iowa, disgraced more than once just this week by fleeing staffers, but you don’t see her bellyaching. I detest her politics, but she’s one tough broad.

Now all that’s left to wonder is where Newt’s support will land next.

Iowa’s turning out to be as wild for Republicans as the rest of 2011. It’s sure to bring 2012 in with a blast.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Bachmann’s Fantastic Flameout

By on 30 December 2011

Romney drew the support of 23 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa – identified based on interest, chance of voting and past participation – ahead of Paul, at 21 percent. They are followed by Santorum at 15 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 14 percent, Gingrich at 13 percent and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann at 6 percent. – NBC poll: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul neck-and-neck in Iowa; Newt Gingrich in 5th

Even Rick Perry is making a comeback of sorts, in spite of his gafferiffic gems. He’s actually ahead of Newt Gingrich, who’s now in fifth, in the latest NBC/Marist Iowa polling.

Ed Morissey is evidently hoping a humbled Newt can come back.

Not if Romney wins Iowa, though most reports are making the case that Ron Paul’s support is deeper than he’s getting credit.

However, it’s now very obvious Michele Bachmann didn’t go to school on Hillary’s mistakes in ’08, while Mitt Romney learned from Obama’s long slog strategy.

Women have to be a lot smarter than this to beat the guys at a game they’ve got down.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman writes on Bachmann’s demise today:

“I think to a certain extent it was a smoke and mirrors operation,” said her former campaign manager, Ed Rollins. “The debates kept her in it and the end of the day that’s not the substance [of a campaign]…We got her to a point where people looked at her [but], just as other candidates found out, once the spotlight goes on you, you better be prepared.”

He added, “It was a full-scale rush from the day that I signed on to the day I left…there wasn’t the time to properly plan for a campaign.”
Monte Shaw, an Iowa GOP state central committee member who is neutral in the primary, echoed that sentiment.

“She peaked so soon after getting in the race that she didn’t have the infrastructure in place to lock down the goodwill that she had at that time,” said Shaw, adding that at the time she was still seeing crushes of people at her events, she should have had a field staff in place to take advantage of it by, among other things, signing up names. Instead, he said, “she was still trying to hire field staff.”

Of course, it doesn’t help when you have a candidate like Bachmann who’s forever letting whoppers slip through her lips. The national audience got a glimpse of this through her attack on Rick Perry and the HPV vaccine allegedly causing “mental retardation,” which was false. Going off half-cocked is fine when you’re railing at a rally from the Tea Party caucus bandstand. But when you’re running for President of the United States it’s a different ballgame.

However, Michele Bachmann’s crashing end doesn’t negate the historical fact that she was the first female Republican to win a straw poll, primary or caucus in the GOP’s history. That’s something, though not nearly enough.

Let’s also not pretend that right wing Republican primary voters are ready to give the nomination to a female. It’s a fantasy.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Hillary and Joe, Condi vs. Joe

By on 29 December 2011

The rumors are flying around the internets.

Robert Reich reveals the Democratic panic deep within the insiders by pushing a Hillary – Biden switch. He’s just the latest.

The subject of a Biden – Hillary switch makes my book, but I’ve yet to read anyone address the damage it would do to Pres. Obama, who right now is seeing his approval ratings rise. What would dumping Joe Biden, which isn’t going to happen, say about his candidacy? That he absolutely needs Hillary to win? There’s no proof that this is true.

Would Hillary supporters automatically vote for Pres. Obama if she’s on the ticket? Newsflash: Most Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama anyway.

This site was a leading anti-Puma venue in the 2008 general election. Would anti-Obama voters who tilt Democratic and to the left automatically vote for Obama if Hillary was his nominee? Could these people be inspired to vote Obama in order to save Hillary from humiliation of the possibility of not delivering for him?

With Robert Reich the latest to hoist the Hillary – Biden swtich, there is obviously real worry by insider Democrats that the base won’t be inspired to turn out for Obama alone.

For me, however, the most interesting rumor hitting my inbox lately is Condi versus Biden. An abundance of popcorn would be required for a Rice debate with Joe Biden.

But as the CBS video above from November 2011 reveals, she says “… I’m a policy person not a politician. …politics doesn’t appeal to me.”

But before anything would happen Pres. Obama would be forced to combat yet another push for the Biden – Clinton tango, something I think is ludicrous to suggest and, for what it’s worth, do not endorse.

Dr. “swatting flies” Rice was arguably the worst national security adviser in U.S. history.

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile? A hijacked airplane as a missile? All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” – Condoleezza Rice

Another round of “mushroom clouds,” anyone?

There’s that little item “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.” that didn’t get much attention from her. Rice’s reaction to George Tenet telling her the U.S. needed to strike Afghanistan is equally disturbing.

Dr. Rice played third fiddle in the Rummy-Cheney fiefdom, then allowed herself to be humiliated by Pres. Bush, who wouldn’t let her do her job and even hung her out on torture.

Rice also demoted Richard Clarke, the man Pres. Clinton elevated to a cabinet position, because of the terrorism threat, including cyberterrorism. Then there’s the decision not to set up a principle’s meeting with Clarke until after 9/11.

Dr. Rice missed the Hamas moment, when Pres. Bush pushed for elections that landed them in power (from 2006), which rendered her “surprised” at the time. It should be noted that the Palestinians warned Bush they weren’t yet ready.

But no one would likely care.

In a year of the Republican circus primary shuffle, Condoleeza Rice comes off like Margaret Thatcher, only moderate.

Ms. Rice is an abortion rights advocate, so she’ll catch some flak from some. However, among suburban women who vote Republican, as well as the highly educated contingent, and independents, not to mention cafeteria Catholics, that will be a plus.

It’s just another rumor, but if Dr. Rice heard George W. Bush’s voice on the phone saying her country needed her could she resist?

I’m still waiting for Liz Cheney’s move, though she’s got plenty of time to make it.

Assuming Romney prevails, the most dangerous man for team Obama remains Chris Christie, though everyone should remember only the fringe people vote on vice presidential choice alone. That includes Robert Reich’s hail Mary panic pick, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Who is More Pro Israel?, Progressive Edition

By on 29 December 2011

“This is where James Baker and George H.W. Bush were, this is where Brent Scowcroft is, this is where Tom Pickering and Colin Powell are – this is not crazy stuff, we’re talking about mainstream, bipartisan positions,” said Jeremy Ben Ami, the executive director of J Street, which has sought in recent years to build an American “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby. – Israel rift roils Democratic ranks, by Ben Smith

File this under in case you missed it.

With Ron Paul’s foreign policy views finally getting attention, especially his Israeli views, as he shakes the race in Iowa, it’s important to review what’s been happening in December on the left.

Unfortunately, the piece by Ben Smith linked above, posted in early December, begins with an unfair characterization of MJ Rosenberg, someone with whom I’ve had exchanges, usually after New America Foundation events on the Middle East, back before I began work on my book, which has taken my focus elsewhere. Smith’s report will give you a foundation for what’s been brewing, for those who care about progressive power inside the Middle East debate, though you’ll have to skip over the editorializing.

It revolves around Media Matters and the Center for American Progress, both of which are trying to open up debate on U.S. Israeli policy. It begins with pushing back on the idea that criticizing Israel means you’re anti-Israel or worse, anti-Semitic, the most scurrilous accusation hurled at people in order to silence dissent, debate or discussion.

Justin Elliot reported on a right wing listserv, first reported by Smith in 2010, which revealed Josh Block, a former AIPAC spokesperson, was fishing for coverage of a screed against anyone who dared to discuss Israel openly, honestly and critically. One of Block’s targets was Eric Alterman, himself a Jew, with Block leveling a full tilt attack. From early December:

Block was quoted in the story accusing CAP columnist Eric Alterman of writing “borderline anti-Semitic stuff,” a charge Alterman (who is himself Jewish) dismissed as “ludicrous.”

Block’s email to the Freedom Community list arrived under the subject line “Important piece to echo and the research to do it….” – a reference to the Politico story. He wasted no time throwing around more accusations of anti-Semitism.

“This kind of anti-Israel sentiment is so fringe it’s support by CAP is outrageous, but at least it is out in the open now — as is their goal – clearly applauded by revolting allies like the pro-HAMAS and anti-Zionist/One State Solution advocate Ali Abunumiah and those who accuse pro-Israel Americans of having ‘dual loyalties’ or being ‘Israel-Firsters’ – to shape the minds of future generations of Democrats,” Block writes. “These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.”

Greg Sargent has also written about the anti-Semitic slurs and tactics.

Well, it finally came to a head last week when Josh Block was officially excommunicated, so to speak, from the pack.

From another report from Smith, this one just before Christmas Day:

“There’s two explanations here – either the inmates are running the asylum or the Center for American Progress has made a decision to be anti-Israel,” said Josh Block, a former spokesman for AIPAC who is now a fellow at the center-left Progressive Policy Institute. “Either they can allow people to say borderline anti-Semitic stuff” – a reference to what he described as conspiracy theorizing in the Alterman column – “and to say things that are antithetical to the fundamental values of the Democratic party, or they can fire them and stop it.” (Alterman called the charge “ludicrous” and “character assassination,” noted that he is a columnist for Jewish publications, and described himself as a “proud, pro-Zionist Jew.”)

Truman National Security Project founder Rachel Kleinfeld notified Block he was out.

“This has nothing to do with your policy views, and is a decision solely made on the basis of the need for this community to privilege the ability to debate difficult topics freely, without fear of mischaracterization or character attacks,” she said in the email. “Your actions outside the community have caused too many to fear conversation within the community. That fear is not baseless, given your own actions. As the point of the Truman Fellowship is to help the next generation of leaders think about hard topics together, we need people to feel that they can debate with security.”

Ms. Kleinfeld made the right decision, in my opinion, and she deserves credit for calling Mr. Block out, which his actions and words proved was earned.

With 2012 about to heat up, as they say, stay tuned, because Who is more pro-Israel?, however shameful to ask, is a seasonal political sport during elections.

If you know anything at all about Harry Truman, beyond his important backing of the state of Israel, it’s hard to imagine Mr. Truman allowing invective like “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” without push back. Truman was never afraid of debate, which is all we’re talking about here.

As for the “Clinton Democrat” view, which Smith characterizes in one of his posts as the “Clinton Democrats’ traditional staunch support for Israel,” once again he joins in to imply that criticism of Israel is inherently proving lack of support, which is nonsense and damaging to open debate.

In the other of his posts (linked above), Smith gets a blind quote from “a liberal Israel policy thinker and CAP ally”:

“They’re obviously a progressive place, but if you want to attract a mainstream Clinton, New Democrat milieu, you can’t really do real progressive Israel stuff.”

Smith goes on to write that most of the criticism doesn’t come from Clintonites, citing Matt Duss, someone also present at most of the Middle East forums at NAF I’ve attended.

What side you come down on is another subject, but free and open discourse simply must be the foundation of any foreign policy discussion, especially when it comes to the Middle East.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Book Event and Fundraiser

By on 21 December 2011

Thanks for your support!

I’ve seen the print version and it’s gorgeous, easy to read and beautiful if you’re considering giving it for Christmas or Hanukkah.

Buy my book in the soft cover print version!

It’s a smart book to have on your Kindle or NOOK, too.

You can also support my work and this site by donating through Paypal (credit cards accepted, too). It makes a big difference.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bill Clinton Answers a Question

By on 21 December 2011



Did the press favor Barack Obama in 2008? I prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in my book.

Of course Bill O’Reilly decided to go there with former Pres. Bill Clinton.

What’s interesting is that former Pres. Bill Clinton did not have to answer the question. He could have done his signature laugh, wagged his finger, then given O’Reilly a classic Bill Clinton answer like, you’re not going to get me to go there, that’s ancient history.

However, it’s not for William Jefferson Clinton.

No doubt he’d appreciate the chapter “Blaming Bill” in my book, though some of it could definitely rub him wrong.

Candor is never kind.

Let’s throw this open, politics, whatever is on your mind. It’s that kind of morning, just four days before Christmas.

Video via Ben Smith.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011

By on 16 December 2011

“Cancer victimhood contains a permanent temptation to be self-centered and even solipsistic”… – Christopher Hitchens

To people who didn’t know him personally, who watched him render political judgments on people, Mr. Hitchens came off as an irascible, sometimes irrational, always self-important, occasionally brilliant, disagreeable, whiskey loving SOB.

For that he’d likely nod, then hoist an insult to what he would consider my reprehensible Clintonite past. Mr. Hitchens detested the Clintons and was one of the charter members of the Clinton Derangement Club, for which he earned one line in my book.

Henry Kissinger is likely toasting his demise.

His writing was something else, always worthy of your time.

But, oh, his “living dyingly” this year was stunningly courageous for its uninhibited, naked exhibitionism, which turned defiantly exultant as it was doomed to fail.

Christopher Hitchens was 62.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

The Romney as Hillary Headline Finally Appears

By on 14 December 2011

Available at Amazon.com and Apple starting Dec. 15.

WASHINGTON – Oh, what a set up. Thank you Politico. First it was floated on NBC’s First Read, then came Politico. This is my wheel house. Having written the book, quite literally, on what happened (which hits Amazon and Apple tomorrow), there isn’t anyone who can speak to this subject better.
Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 6 }