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 | John F. Kennedy

Sarah’s Sex Appeal

As McCain pal and Republican strategist Mike Murphy so sagely observed recently: “If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?”Maureen Dowd

Donny Deutsch agrees with Murphy (see video), while Tamron Hall proves she’s a lousy political analyst, squealing “ridiculous!” and “insane” at what is not only absolutely true, but essential for national politics. I call it the John F. Kennedy quotient. That “it” thing that sent Nixon back to the drawing board. The visual impact of a politician’s charisma. Sarah’s got it. But that’s hardly the only issue in the sex appeal debate.

Maureen Dowd gave a hint, this time on “Way Too Early with Willie Geist,” via Dan Abrams new site:

“I love Sarah Palin. I mean, I love her more than anyone because as a journalist she is the best story ever… It’s like Hollywood casting — when you have Meg Ryan playing a nuclear physicist or, you know, Calista Flockhart playing a Harvard lawyer — I mean, you’ve got this former beauty queen and sportscaster who is in the role of Dick Cheney, and it’s mesmerizing.” – Maureen Dowd

Leaving Liz Cheney’s channeling of her father aside, Dowd gives you a window into what happened in 2008, when Barack Obama was getting all the good press, and Hillary couldn’t buy any. Journalists are people too and they love exciting personalities, especially on the national scene. So even as Dowd is dissing Sarah’s prowess, she admits to “love her more than anyone because she is the best story ever.”

Even as Sarah serves the media up as enemies, they’re the ones who will help keep her afloat… or not.

But I’m still wondering why so many women, especially, find it appalling to talk about Sarah’s sex appeal as a political weapon. Tamron Hall’s ignorant indignation almost seemed to say it was sexist to say such a thing. Nothing could be more preposterous.

The problem is that Sarah Palin’s sex appeal being her only weapon gives rise to the classic 20th century stereotype of women rising to the top by means other than competency and earned effort.

Dowd puts Hillary into this category again today, saying she’s finally gotten rid of “that irritating question mark” she carried “around above her head like a thunder cloud”, coupled with the question: What is Hillary owed because of what she gave up, and went through, for Bill? Judging Hillary finally worthy of the spotlight, Dowd simultaneously ignores the hard work that landed Clinton her Senate seat, that long ago answered the question over Bill.

Juxtaposed against Clinton, Dowd talks about the woman she so loves, Sarah Palin, being “all cage, no bird.”

Clearly Dowd’s confused, stapled to her 1950s genre monocle through which she sees the political world. Dowd admits to loving Sarah, even if she’s all sex appeal and nothing but sex appeal. Through Dowd’s prism, which she continues to use to judge Hillary, we get the never ending June Cleaver wisdom.

On the other side we’ve got MSNBC’s Tamron Hall providing the straight-jacketed feminist view, which basically relegates the conversation of sex appeal unworthy if you’re talking about women. The image of the sexless female with only brain, no competing style to a man’s machismo to offer.

With few women in political power able to vault to the national spotlight and finally break the toughest of concrete ceilings, the American presidency, I’m just wondering when we’re going to get both. A woman with sex appeal and brains to match, you know, like John F. Kennedy, minus the philandering, of course. Because a woman in high office caught with her legs up would be burned at the stake.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Summer of Endings

Yet another passing.

With death comes beginnings.

That’s the way it is this summer.

With the death of Walter Cronkite, a fellow Missourian, the legendary newsman’s creed dies with him. For no other person on planet earth today, who is in a position of power and influence, has the nerve to speak the truth without worrying about some ode to political balance, even if that middle road gives short shrift to the truth. Another Missourian, Harry Truman, said it differently after “give ‘em hell, Harry” was coined: “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” I bet Walter Cronkite could relate. I sure can.

Cronkite also marks the final breath of all things 20th century, as the foundational media that spawned the behemoth that now exists today passes away, opening out on to… we don’t know what yet. But one thing is clear, the candid courage that was inherent in Cronkite the newsman died long ago.

Cronkite ended the Vietnam war as people had thought of it. He had the nerve to do and say what others did not. The impact was wide and immediate.

“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.” – President Johnson

When the Republicans were hunting Democratic president William Jefferson Clinton, it was Walter Cronkite who offered a well planned photo op through a simple sailing trip with the Clintons. It didn’t stop Republicans from their hunt, but Cronkite didn’t care. He witnessed their collective shrug after Reagan’s Iran-Contra, far more dangerous than a sexual fling (however stupid), so he knew what it was about.

There is no news person in the traditional media who would dare do anything like this today for fear of making enemies somewhere, causing ratings to fall, their own popularity to dim.

New media has shown itself the closest to Cronkite’s legacy. Though we have yet to shrug off loyalty to Party personage and the belief that our political system works to do anything but continue the star chamber at all costs, including principle. Working for something greater and wider that leads to seeing beyond our own myopia and borders.

When Walter Cronkite said the Vietnam war seemed “unwinnable,” it was a seminal moment in U.S. history. Mr. Cronkite said the same thing about the Iraq war.

Juxtaposed against Cronkite’s transparency to truth, news organizations across the dial and into cable were busy imbedding their journalists with the U.S. military readying for invasion so they could get a front row view. Their headlines and footage dependent on the Defense Department, citizens were left to speculate how that curved their coverage.

That’s the way it is today.

Access journalism and chumminess; sacred cows and dishonesty; picking sides and propping up politicos; becoming invested in the relationship as professional ego bites down to protect what you’ve adopted, even if it has no relation to transparency of fact and truth.

That Cronkite died this summer puts a certain finality on what we’re witnessing day after day, week after week. It’s becoming the summer of death, 2008, with the feeling that something larger is passing away.

We now have a chance to shape what happens next, but it’s going to take more courage than is currently being displayed.

There are few heroes to tell us the stories straight, lead beyond partisan footholds that will make today’s news troubadours worthy of being a trusted source in news, let alone the most trusted. It is forever a goal. For in order to tell any tale you can’t be beholden to anyone.

That’s the way it is.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The JFK ‘X’ at Dealey Plaza

This is a Twitter liveblog report from Dallas.

9:58:36 AM: After a lifetime of research and one woman show on JFK, finally standing where he was murdered.

10:01:43 AM: Down Houston St., past jail, left on Elm @ the Book Depository; 2 ‘Xs’ on Elm pavement mark the shots.

10:04:15 AM: The Grassy Knoll is so much nearer the street, JFK.

10:15:03 AM: Fence @ Grassy Knoll, writings: ‘Back and to the left’, ‘Obama the new JFK’.

10:16:32 AM: Zapruder had *the* view. Sobering sight even all these decades later.

10:23:56 AM: Street vendors offer a more realistic historic tale than Arlen Specter’s insane “magic bullet theory.” Captivating JFK historians.

10:26:50 AM: What were they thinking when they mapped out that 90 degree turn @ 5mph? Absolutely NO way Oswald made the ‘kill’ shot. NO possible way.

10:42:37 AM: All these years later cannot dampen the ominous sights, including where the bullets ricocheted off the overpass. Still chilling.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Robert S. McNamara Changed

“He’s like a jackhammer,” President Johnson said. “No human being can take what he takes. He drives too hard. He is too perfect.” – Ex-Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara Dies at 93

Coming from Johnson, the king of political jackhammers, that’s quite a statement. Though as history has proven over time, Robert S. McNamara was anything but “perfect.” Labeling Kennedy pulling missiles out of Turkey “luck that prevented nuclear war,” in the end McNamara’s reflections on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations was welcomed candor from someone who was there.

Like Barry Goldwater before him, Robert S. McNamara upon retirement came to a philosophical shift that was the product of experience, watching the world from the driver’s seat and ending up a man whose life’s work and storyline ended up dramatically departed from where he started.

All stories about McNamara must include Errol Morris’s 2003 documentary “Fog of War” that includes “Rolling Thunder,” the massive and aptly named bombing campaign. More clips are available here, here, here, here, here.

After the New York Times piece yesterday, which reveals where Obama’s “nuclear-free vision” began, but also the press conference held today with Obama and Russia’s Medvedev, it’s impossible not to quote McNamarra’s views (h/t FP) as they existed at the end of his life.

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. Diplomats and intelligence agencies believe Osama bin Laden has made several attempts to acquire nuclear weapons or fissile materials. It has been widely reported that Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, former director of Pakistan’s nuclear reactor complex, met with bin Laden several times. Were al Qaeda to acquire fissile materials, especially enriched uranium, its ability to produce nuclear weapons would be great. The knowledge of how to construct a simple gun-type nuclear device, like the one we dropped on Hiroshima, is now widespread. Experts have little doubt that terrorists could construct such a primitive device if they acquired the requisite enriched uranium material. Indeed, just last summer, at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry said, “I have never been more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now.… There is a greater than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on U.S. targets within a decade.” I share his fears.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution resounded loudly during the lead up to the Iraq war, though Democrats and Republicans in Congress weren’t listening, which allowed the Bush administration to launch a war based on fictional reports of WMDs in Iraq. It proved that the U.S. hadn’t learned the lessons.

“It didn’t happen.” – Robert S. McNamara

Neither did WMDs in Iraq, but only David Kay could bring himself to be as forthright.

The best of our leaders after a long life are able to learn from participating in history and share what they’ve learned through confessions that often don’t serve their own interests, but something larger. McNamara, one of the “best and brightest”, was just one of those leaders.

The cost of not learning from people like McNamara is still manifesting daily. If you don’t learn from history… you end up where we are today.

“… .. …On November 11, three days after the McNamara recommendation to introduce combat forces, there was a new McNamara paper, done with Rusk, which reflected the President’s position. … Kennedy would send American support units and American advisers, but not American combat troops. We would help the South Vietnamese help themselves. …” The Best and the Brightest, by David Halberstam (pg. 201)

Sound familiar?

Only now we’re also sending American combat troops.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Caroline Kennedy’s Public Saga Continues

Now it’s because of taxes? The New York Times reports:

Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing. [...]

Seriously?

I wasn’t going to cover this debacle again, but the latest reporting of yet another excuse on Caroline Kennedy’s serial embarrassment pulled me back in. If you’re going to pull your name, pull it, and make sure everyone is clear, especially the man who might appoint you. Talk about mass baffonery.

Never in the history of aborted campaigns has a woman so botched her own public roll out. Incompetent. Confusing. Incoherent. Just by watching her the last weeks New Yorkers should be thanking the ghost of Patrick Moynihan that they didn’t get stuck with this woman as senator.

Could Caroline Kennedy have been handled any worse? Doubtful.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Wanted: Senator for New York

According to The New York Post, also announced by other news organizations. The report goes for the bone:

Sources said the reason Paterson had decided not to tap the daughter of John F. Kennedy was her poor performances in media interviews and in in private sessions with various officials. Caroline Kennedy tonight withdrew her name from consideration to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate after learning that Gov. David Paterson wasn’t going to choose her, The Post has learned.Kennedy’s decision removes the highest-profile name in the ring to step into Clinton’s now-vacant seat, as she departs after getting confirmed today as President Obama’s Secretary of State.

Sources said the reason Paterson had decided not to tap the daughter of John F. Kennedy was her poor performances in media interviews and in in private sessions with various officials.

Smackdown. Next?

TO ADD… No, really, do we move on? Seriously, not long after this post was up reports rebutting the Post and others, saying that Caroline hasn’t withdrawn her name. Who knows?

New York still needs a senator.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Dr. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy

It is fitting in so many ways that President-elect Obama’s inauguration follows the celebration of King’s life today. But as Obama today can work with men of all races in peaceful tones and moderation, talking of bringing men together and compromise, Dr. King’s rhetoric was forged in fire and brimstone on the altar of confrontation. King had to have his day before Obama could have his. Seems King is destined to pave the way, just as he did for another Democratic president back in his day.

Dr. King was forever challenging the U.S. media, but there weren’t many in the establishment that didn’t feel Dr. King’s heat. It’s certain that President John F. Kennedy did. But King lived in times of volatility, cataclysmic change and violent national shifts. He was a powerfully effective man of peace in a time of country and cultural wars.

Some believe that President Kennedy’s presidency was owed, at least in part, to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a moment of stunning political pressure inside his own camp, candidate Kennedy reached out to Martin Luther King when he was convicted of a probation violation after participating in a diner sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia. Forever the political pragmatist, Kennedy saw the light and interceded on behalf of King to get him released from Reidsville Prison. That, as some tell it, changed history. King as an ally brought out the black vote, helping to defeat Nixon. But there were many other fault lines in 1960, including Texas, Illinois, but especially West Virginia, that played their part, too. So I’ll let you be the judge of whether King helped elect Kennedy. He sure didn’t hurt him. Neither did Kennedy’s pledge to right the wrongs being done to blacks.

However, once president, Kennedy was simply too obsessed with foreign policy issues to turn his attention to the home front. He just didn’t get the importance of King’s fights down south, at first, especially when juxtaposed against the crisis brewing overseas. The challenges escalating between East and West Germany kept JFK’s attention focused on nuclear confrontation, then came the Cuban Missile crisis. But eventually, JFK began to finally understand that the home front matters as much as what’s happening “over there,” especially in the face of horrible prejudice. Kennedy was a man who could change and he did.

Known as the Birmingham Campaign, King altered history and shifted Kennedy’s thinking along with it. His famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is now legend. It was King’s incarceration in Birmingham that led Coretta Scott King to call President Kennedy, which resulted in him interceding once again on King’s behalf, forcing the Birmingham bigots to allow King to talk to his wife.

The March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” offered in the video above, worried President Kennedy at the time. He was understandably concerned about violence breaking out, but eventually King won him over. But watching the brutality in Birmingham and the subsequent political push from King and other civil rights leaders changed Kennedy forever. Months before King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on June 11, 1963, JFK proposed action that would offer “the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves.”

Good evening, my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was rounded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.

I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public–hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.

This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.

I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.

I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to de-segregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.

Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.

The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.

Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.

In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.

Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.

My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all–in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.

We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can’t have that right; that your children can’t have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.

President John F. Kennedy

It took constant campaigning from King, but JFK came to understand that action was required. Kennedy became the first president since Truman to trumpet the cause of civil rights. President John F. Kennedy’s civil rights legislation was met with fierce opposition by the southern delegations of Congress. He was assassinated before it became law. The legislation LBJ finally signed was Kennedy’s hope for a new America. Had John F. Kennedy lived, his civil rights actions would have been met hard in the south during his 1964 campaign. JFK never lived to fight this fight. The legislation LBJ signed was Kennedy’s final vision, and the words LBJ spoke upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encapsulized the moment for history: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”

King’s eulogy upon JFK’s death proved the respect each man had won from the other and that politicians can change to forge great hopes for those oppressed. He said that John F. Kennedy lived his life to “move forward with more determination to rid our nation of the vestiges of racial segregation and discrimination.”

King made the men of the 1960s come his way. His life force was gargantuan. His courage unbounded. His faith guided his life, because he knew his soul would live on and on. His memory has as well.
Edited from post first published 1.15.07.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Cooled on Kennedy


It’s almost official. After soaring in yesterday’s hearing, there is a party for HRC tonight. Tomorrow the vote. Then it will be time for her to resign her Senate seat, right about the time New Yorkers seem to have cooled on Kennedy.

New York State voters have cooled on Caroline Kennedy and more voters now prefer State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo 31 – 24 percent for Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney gets 6 percent, with 5 percent for U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, 2 percent for U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, 18 percent for someone else and 14 percent undecided.

Still, voters say 38 – 33 percent that Gov. David Paterson will appoint Ms. Kennedy to the U.S. Senate.

This is a bit personal for both sides, even without the marriage split between Cuomo and Kennedy’s cousin Kerry. The dish on that divorce filled New York columns.

It won’t be long now.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, Sisters in Victimology

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95wkCMeUkk&eurl
via Politico

Oh, it wasn’t her unpreparedness!

It wasn’t Sarah’s glassy eyed look when Charles Gibson asked her about the Bush doctrine.

It wasn’t her inability to name one newspaper she read.

It wasn’t because she talked about Putin rearing his head and… what was it? Coming over Alaska’s air space?

But hell must have frozen, because Sarah Palin actually gets something correct. Caroline Kennedy is getting an easy pass from the media, or at least was until her you know moments burst on to the scene. Now Kennedy is trailing Cuomo by a mile, according to PPP.

Still, Sarah’s like Ann Coulter who continually whines her way on to the best seller list… and on to NBC. I did a long piece a while back on the brilliance of Coulter’s ability to make big money peddling manure. Remains to be seen if Palin can make victimhood her financial salvation, but she’s sure giving it a go.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Senate Circus

Well, Burris has been turned away. Legally, except for Lawrence Tribe, most experts believe Burris will win this in the end. Who knows, but Senate Democrats look like idiots.

On another plain, in another state, Caroline Kennedy has fallen from grace, at least in popularity among New Yorkers. From PPP:

When it comes to whether they would prefer to see Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo appointed, 58% now prefer Cuomo to 27% for Kennedy.

However, the only New Yorker that matters on this one is Gov. Paterson.

Read full story · Comments { 41 }

‘The Wheels of the Bandwagon are Coming Off’

A New York Daily News columnist said “the wheels of the bandwagon are
coming off.” – AP

What a cool customer New York Governor Paterson has turned out to be. Because at the end of this, if Caroline Kennedy does not get appointed to the Senate, one big reason will be because of Gov. Paterson’s calm, unwavering strength to do absolutely nothing in the face of a lot of Democratic elite pressure to pick the Kennedy. His ability to do nothing and wait has allowed the clock to tick, giving Mrs. Kennedy time to make her case. Unfortunately, the more people hear from her the worse her reviews get.

um… like, you know. I mean, wow. What an interview. I lost count at around 140 “you knows.”

It might not be the unraveling, but when Rep. Rangel caused a media kerfuffle saying Paterson had made the choice, then used “he” to describe that choice, speculation ran amok.

Now comes the drip, drip, drip, of Kennedy’s, you know, um… clueless case for herself, which has turned into a late entry for embarrassment of the year. She’s not exactly Sarah Palin, but, um… you know, because Sarah Palin could at least string sentences toge— Oh, never mind. This has gotten way too weird.


CK: Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine
or something? (Laughter)

DH: What do you have against women’s magazines?

CK: Nothing at all, but I thought you were the crack political team here.
As I said, it was kind of over a period of time, you know, obviously we talked
about politics, we talked about what’s going on, we’ve been watching
the team that the president-elect is putting together — Hillary Clinton
is going to be a spectacular part of that team, you know, then there was a
vacancy here, you know, just like everybody else, you know: who’s going
to fill it, isn’t that interesting, there’s a lot of great candidates,
you know, obviously I have become much more politically involved than I have
in the past, so you know, I figure, why not try, I really think I have something
to offer.

Um… okay. Whatever.

Now I don’t care who gets the Senate seat in New York, but the celebrity angle
embodied in Caroline Kennedy wanting the job wouldn’t be so insulting if she
didn’t speak like, you know, some teenager trying to figure out
how to, um… well, you know, lie her way through a job interview.

There’s an old saying. Fake it ’til you make it. Caroline Kennedy hasn’t even
been able to fake it. So as Governor Paterson stands patiently by he’s likely set himself up to make the choice he actually wants, not the choice the Democratic elite are pushing on him. But as things go in American politics that could still mean another Senator Kennedy, regardless of, you know, the case she’s made for herself.

Read full story · Comments are closed

One Last Time Into Crazyland

The holidays are bringing slow news days and lots of emptiness to fill with stories that wouldn’t normally see the light of a cable show or web page. But since it’s close to the end of the year, it’s fitting that we go one more time into the crazyland. Caroline Kennedy has offered the occupants a new opportunity, with her first appearance upstate likely only to offer more fodder. Lawrence O’Donnell also reports that Mrs. Moynihan has now given her seal of approval (h/t GeoT @ “In the News”).

But how much do the unhinged fringe hate Caroline Kennedy? Let just one of the emails I have received on the subject outline the ways:



“Caroline Kennedy is a two bit nothing who has accomplished nothing in her life. [...] Hillary supporters like myself hate her with a passion that cannot be described.For Caroline to succeed the great Hillary Clinton would be an insult not only to Hillary but to those who support Hillary.To us this socalled princess of Camelot is a loathsome creature because of her over the top grandstanding on behalf of Obama. Obama should reward Caroline by making her ambassador to Ireland-even that is too good for someone of her meager ability and talent. For Patterson to appoint Caroline just because she is experiencing empty nest syndrome and could raise a lot of money would be totally irresponsible on the part of Patterson.” – rs

Honestly, it almost makes me want to root for Caroline Kennedy. There’s a germ of derangement out there that is reminiscent to what Hillary received at the beginning of her budding hate fest. Few are talking about the other great candidates; just opining on the evils of Caroline and all things “Camelot.” Targeting her through someone who worked for Joe Lieberman and who now works for Kennedy hardly seems like reason to disqualify her. What, is anyone who worked for a Dem most of us can’t stand now a political pariah? Do people really need to be reminded that campaign ads pull out all the stops? That winning is all in these campaigns?

That said, with an eye on one of Kennedy’s possible opponents she’ll have to defend the seat against, Peter King will not go quietly to a Kennedy. Can Caroline withstand a re-election fight? It’s hard to say, because we don’t know a thing about her, except that until now she’s not wanted to do public battle on anything before.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Senator Caroline Kennedy



The last time this came up the discussion got quite boisterous. There’s a little more beef to the story this time, with the NY Times having the story:


Ms. Kennedy will ask Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to consider her for the appointment, according to the person told of her decision. The governor was traveling to Utica today and could not immediately be reached for comment.

If appointed, Ms. Kennedy would fill the seat once held by her uncle, Robert F. Kennedy.

Ms. Kennedy has been making calls this morning to alert political figures to her interest. [...]

Remembering Hillary Rodham Clinton, who became just Clinton with no Rodham to help her husband, it’s
interesting that Caroline Kennedy, no Schlossberg to emphasize the Kennedy, is walking into the family biz at midlife.

Again, I don’t care one way or the other about
this one, though I do have an interest in the story as a life long studied expert of J.F. K. There are obviously good arguments to be made for other
candidates besides CKS. The ones against Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg) begin because she’s
a Kennedy, which is part of the “aristocracy” nonsense. Remember, our Founders
were rich land owners. The other is that she’s not experienced enough. Again,
when our Founders created the country they hadn’t a clue what they were doing.

Also let me say that I learned through my older big brother what politics is all
about, which isn’t a bad way to go. On a differently level entirely, to say
that Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg) has learned quite a bit from her family
isn’t exactly a bad way to get to know about politics either.

But one thing is clear. Caroline Kennedy wants to be a senator from the great state of New York. What do you think?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Caroline Kennedy for Senate


…and why not. No, that isn’t a question.


“I know she’s interested,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told The Associated
Press in a telephone interview Friday. “She spent a lot of her life balancing
public service with obligations to her family. Now her children are grown,
and she is ready to move onto a bigger stage.”

Now, I have no interest one way or the other on this one, but the whole “dynasty”
line is just silly:
But if Kennedy were, say, Caroline Smith, do you think that Governor David
Paterson would have even taken her call?

We don’t penalize people in this country for coming from a famous family,
especially one whose members have given their lives in public service, which
certainly applies to the Kennedys. It’s not like a black sheep Bush snuck in
and dismantled the Constitution, you know. Something for which Jeb Bush should
not be punished either, by the way, if he decides to run for the Senate in Florida.

The ignorant and uninformed also seem to think Caroline Kennedy has been sitting
around eating bonbons her entire life. You wouldn’t believe the drivel coming
into my inbox. In fact, I wasn’t even going to write about this until I saw the emails. The unhinged fringe lives on.


It is outrageous that an empty headed dingbat, like Caroline Kennedy, who
has never been gainfully employed is being considered for the Senate. Ms.
Kennedy only supported Obama because her airhead children told her to do so.
[...] Another reason to oppose Caroline Kennedy that it would offend Hillary
Clinton. … I would think that Obama would want not to offend Hillary by
nominating this woman who did everything in power to defeat Hillary. – Reba

Oh, but wait! Another drags in a Sarah Palin comparison, I kid you not:


I am not impressed by this choice and I hope as an upstate New Yorker, Governor
Paterson does not pick her. I feel strongly that to fulfill Hillary’s legacy
of public service, he should choose a woman who the people of New York have
elected to office – not some aristocrat who is not exactly qualified to hold
a United States Senate position. [...] The NOW
organization has endorsed Rep. Maloney and I hope she gets the job. I know
they are two different people, but didn’t we learn with the pick of Sarah
Palin who was not qualified to hold the office she was running for?? … – Lynn

Meow. And who says it’s anyone’s job to “fulfill Hillary’s legacy?” HRC can take care of that herself. This is a New York Senate seat.

Shameful how women can sound so shallow, vindictive and uninformed about someone
like Caroline Kennedy, not even caring to get the facts about her before throwing out judgments. Hey, but women tend to be the cruelest on their own sex, blind to their own pettiness.

Over
at the WSJ
, one woman had the grace to give Caroline Kennedy credit where
it was due.


Caroline has an undergraduate degree from Radcliffe College/Harvard University
and a law degree from Columbia Univeristy. She passed the NY bar exam on the
first try. She has written books on constitutional law. She has led an exemplary
and inspiring life of community service. She has reared three children, who
are now in college or prep school. How could anyone compare her eduation and
life experiences to Sarah Palin? Caroline is as qualified as most Senate first-termers.
Run, Caroline, run. – Comment by Mary – December 5, 2008 at 6:26 pm

If your only objection to Caroline Kennedy for Senate is that she is a Kennedy,
or that she didn’t support HRC during the primaries you’re not emotionally equipped
to weigh in on the subject.

The fact is that Caroline Kennedy has a first rate mind and class. She would
bring both to the Senate. She’s dedicated to education, a real New Yorker, and
a woman who has raised her family, hoping now to give back to her country in
a manner that is mutually beneficial to all, including New York state.

Few women get a chance to go back into the work force after their children are grown to do serious work equal to men. But there are many others in line for the seat who have worked
hard to get where they are, sacrificing too. Patterson’s got a tough choice
to make. I just hope he replaces HRC with another woman. That does seem important,
especially with so many qualified in the running and the gender balance in the Senate still tilted male.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Lion is Back



A much slimmer Edward Kennedy came back to the Senate today. He looks fantastic. It was great to see him appearing so much healthier than just a few months ago. Losing weight, no doubt, helps. It always does.



“I am looking forward to the session and we’ve got a lot of work to do and looking forward particularly to working with Barack Obama on healthcare,” Kennedy said in a brief chat with reporters Monday morning. “And we’re looking forward to working with all the administration on our agenda so we’re very thankful for all the good thoughts and prayers that we’ve received over the time.”

Senator Kennedy has worked on the issue of healthcare his entire Senate career. No doubt the last few months of facing life and death health issues makes this dream for him important to manifest.

Meanwhile, Senator Hillary Clinton’s passion for the same subject is also relevant. However, we are talking about the Senate, a place where seniority rules, with the reality being that HRC doesn’t have it, seniority that is, and Teddy does. No doubt it’s one of the prevailing predicaments of Hillary’s current Senate reality. It’s got to make the secretary of state job all that more appealing. Whether the political and financial complexities surrounding the most powerful couple on the global stage can be reconciled to make this happens is another story all together. With the people on Fox News Channel already worried about how Obama would fire her.

Read full story · Comments are closed

WHO IS MORE PRO ISRAEL? Jesse Jackson Talks to Amir Taheri


Here we go. Playing the Israel card. No doubt the McCain-Palin mob loves this.
It’s like a red flag in front of a bull. That Taheri’s piece was in the New
York Post
says it all. McCain’s
team jumped on it:



The McCain campaign is targeting Barack Obama over recent comments from
the Rev. Jesse Jackson suggesting the Illinois senator would fundamentally
change U.S. policy toward Israel.

"It should not surprise anyone that Obama’s supporters see what
others, from the terrorist group Hamas to Iranian President Ahmadinejad, have
seen: an Obama presidency would bring real change to America’s policy
of support for Israel," said McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy
Scheunemann.

Taheri’s set up:


"Jackson believes that, although ‘Zionists who have controlled American
policy for decades’ remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout
when Barack Obama enters the White House."

Jackson believes, seriously? This is so Taheri.

The last time we heard Jesse Jackson, he publicly stated somebody should geld
Barack Obama. Now we’ve got Jackson giving quotes to the most incendiary wingnut
writer Amir Taheri, with John McCain waiting in the wings.

For those of you who weren’t around here and don’t remember, I destroyed Mr.
Taheri’s credibility when he tried to float the canard that became known as
the Iranian
Badge Story
(also see Has
Bush’s Iran War Propaganda Begun?
; The
Iranian Badge Story Disappears… sort of
; More
on the Debunked Iranian Badge Story
; Who
Started the Iranian Badge Story?
; Iranian
Badge Story Follow Up
). Anything Amir Taheri writes should be investigated
before believing, or at the very least you should consider that the man always
has a motive, which is decidedly Likud.

But this all revolves around the same theme: Who
is more pro-Israel?
A subject I write about often.

But now Jesse Jackson’s comments have excited the McCain camp into thinking
they can play the Israel card on Obama. Last night on "Hannity & Colmes,"
Sean Hannity even brought out Rick Santorum to get the job done. This is the one
issue Republicans have wanted to use against Obama for months. Jackson opened
the door through Amir Taheri, who Jackson has to know will drop it like a political
bomb.

Obama shut it. I got the statement via email, besides CNN, ABC
picked it up
:


The Obama campaign’s response to these vague quotes — recorded by a columnist
it considers hostile in a tabloid newspaper it considers biased against them
— from an interview with a man last publicly seen threatening to castrate
Sen. Obama, is as follows, from Obama campaign national security spokesperson
Wendy Morigi:

“Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. is not an adviser to the Obama campaign and
is therefore in no position to interpret or share Barack Obama’s views on
Israel and foreign policy. As he has made clear throughout his career and
throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has a fundamental commitment to a strong
U.S.-Israel relationship, and he is advised by people like Dennis Ross, Daniel
Kurtzer, Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Senator Joe
Biden who share that commitment. As President, he will ensure that Israel
can defend itself from every threat it faces, stand with Israel in its quest
for a secure peace with its neighbors, and use all elements of American power
to end Iran’s illicit nuclear program. No false charges can change Barack
Obama’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security."

There isn’t an American politician who can make it through the system in this
country without understanding what John F. Kennedy labeled America’s special
relationship with Israel. There is nothing on planet earth that will change
this fact, no matter how hard Amir Taheri wants to push his ever focused strike
Iran propaganda, which is his ultimate goal, make no mistake about it.

That Obama wants to talk to our adversaries, including those in power in Iran, has people like Taheri in knots, never mind that there is no credible foreign policy expert who doesn’t think this is the most important job of the next president. This is particularly true now that there is an Iran – Iraq connection, from Baghdad to Tehran, that wasn’t there before we invaded Iraq. Stability in the region depends on it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Lion to Roar in Denver?

by Scott Hopkins
Reporting from Denver

Michelle Obama’s address is sure to be memorable, but the real buzz for the opening night of the convention is about a Kennedy.



Sen. Edward Kennedy is in Denver for the opening night of the Democratic National Convention, preparing to make only his second public appearance since brain surgery earlier this year.

The official program calls for a videotaped message from Kennedy as part of a tribute to him, but a Democratic source close to the senator’s family said Sunday night that the 76-year-old liberal icon “is itching to go and pushing back” at those who say it is too risky a trip to make.

“He’s truly humbled by the outpouring of support, and wouldn’t miss it for anything in the world,” Kennedy’s office told CNN.

It was rather humorous watching Fox News this morning repeatedly wondering if his appearance will remind voters of the old “tax and spend liberals”. I somehow doubt that fiscal policy will be the first thing people think of when Kennedy makes his first return public eye since being diagnosed with a brain tumor last May. Just a hunch.

This could be a highly emotional moment tonight in the Pepsi Center.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Kennedy Scorned

bumped


There’s a reason Teddy Kennedy backed Obama, and it has nothing to do with Bill. Frankly, I knew this from the start. Anyone knowing the history of the John F. Kennedy legacy, especially where Lyndon Johnson is concerned, saw this coming a mile away. I’ve been trying to get the story before mentioning it, which finally appeared yesterday in the Post, by “sleuth” Mary Ann Akers.



There’s more to Sen. Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family’s civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton’s LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a “meltdown” in reaction to Clinton’s comments. … ..

Read Jon Swift. The graphic alone will get your attention.

Lots to talk about. Including McCain’s bid to move the Republican party in a new direction. Very interesting what’s going on.

The most interesting foreign policy blog post today, however, comes from Larry Johnson. It’s a must read.

We’ll also talk about Hill and Bill. You won’t want to miss this one.

Hope you can join me.

UPDATE: Reader BuckHill:


Well, Teddy does have a history of these things. He kept Sargent Shriver off the dem ticket in 68 cause he didn’t want a Kennedy in-law getting a shot at the Presidency, before a Kennedy (read:Me) and who can forget his ill-fated attempt to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980, taking that all the way to the convention, even though Carter crushed him in the primaries. I doubt Carter could have won the election anyway, but Teddy’s divisive campaign thoroughly took all of the energy out of the convention. None of this is surprising to me. It fits a pattern. read more in the comment section below

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Would Have Voted For the Iraq War

Photobucket

Now I know many people have an aversion to the “dove” and “hawk” labeling, but it’s the most descriptive in drawing contrasts. The great respect I have for the Kennedy family, not to mention the years of research I’ve done on John F. Kennedy, also includes a harsh dose of reality on who John F. Kennedy was and the type of politician and leader he was as well. Some people have a romantic notion about J.F.K. that precludes them from venturing into the stark reality that he was ruthless, could cut people off on evidence that they’d become a liability (see Frank Sinatra), but also that many of his decisions depended on what would be good for him. Take the situation that had J.F.K. finally helping Dr. Martin Luther King as one example. His relationship with the press was complicated too, to which David Halberstam could personally attest if he were still alive. Kennedy appealed to the New York Times to get Halberstam thrown out of Vietnam because of the critical reporting he was doing at the time. Kennedy hardly had a sweetness and light relationship, though the press loved him enough to keep his secrets, something that would never happen today, though it’s clear that the treatment of Obama by the press compared to Clinton certainly draws a distinction on protection, not unlike Kennedy. On the Rezko – Barack Obama relationship, Obama should be in the spotlight, yet it was one photo of Clinton that got the press. You can’t buy that kind of political love, which draws out the “perfect storm of Clinton hate,” as Big Tent Democrat describes today, which I’ve been pointing out for months, including on the media’s race baiting. But for Obama, it’s Rezko that should be in the spotlight.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune, endorsed John McCain today. And had some kind words for you as well. But they went on to talk about your relationship with the real estate developer now indicted Tony Rezko. And they wrote this in their editorial. “Obama’s assertion in network tv interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity. Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fund-raising for Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2004. More than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos. One more time, senator, you need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship.” … (source: ABC’s “This Week” – rough transcript)

John F. Kennedy didn’t want to talk about his relationship with the mob either.

Kennedy family endorsements of Obama are theirs to give, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has given his to Clinton, and I won’t get into the personal nature of it, but I will say that the comparisons to J.F.K. only cover a very small bit of terrain. Like John F. Kennedy, there can be no doubt that Barack Obama’s rhetorical talents are inspiring and uplifting. But on experience, Obama doesn’t measure up by half, if you only take in Kennedy’s travels alone. The war hero aspect is another, especially Kennedy’s deep skepticism about top military leaders at the time, which he witnessed first hand. Obama’s military knowledge is miniscule in comparison. But there is one similarity that should give anyone pause moving forward. John F. Kennedy was a hawk through and through.

Now, as I’ve said before, I don’t think J.F.K. would have opted for preemptive war on Iraq, though he was clearly not squeamish about regime change. It just didn’t have enough in it for the U.S. In fact, I don’t think Clinton, Obama or Edwards or any other Democrat would
have chosen preemptive war with Iraq either. However, what would J.F.K. have done as a senator presented with the AUMF on Iraq is another question entirely. This really gets to why I think giving Obama any credit beyond his 2002 speech is not only silly, but ignores Obama’s record and the facts.

With Obama’s Iraq votes mimicking Senator Clinton’s one for one, minus one, General Casey for Chief of the Army, Obama says he would have voted no on the war if he’d been a senator. But is his 2002 speech evidence enough that would have been the case? If we take the J.F.K. analogy forward, I can tell you unequivocally, as I’ve said before, that if Kennedy had been in the Senate there is no way he would have voted against the force resolution on Iraq. His dad would have warned him that it would be political suicide for someone wanting to run for president. If you want to talk about the Kennedy who would have voted against the war resolution that would have been Bobby.

After studying John F. Kennedy for decades, this is an easy conclusion. Because first and foremost, John F. Kennedy was a brilliant, calculating politician. In 2002, if you remember the climate, the pressure on Democrats was intense. After 9/11, they all caved to the possibility of being accused of the “soft” label. This climate would not have gone unnoticed by J.F.K., and he would have made his calculations accordingly. He likely would have joined them, if only on looking forward to running for president.

I’ll let Steve Clemons take it from here:

But I will say that JFK, as significant a leader as he was, was a hard core Cold War hawk. He approved the invasion of other nations and approved of regime change as a tool of American foreign policy. While in the end, his intellect and the assembled high quality intellectuals he had around him kept the world from falling into a nuclear catastrophe with the Soviet Union, it was Kennedy’s youthfulness and his combination of hawkishness and Wilsonian rhetoric that helped precipitate a number of crises.

Messing with the memory of any icon like JFK has its dangers — but while Caroline Kennedy may not want to feature these parts of her father’s legacy in her endorsement of Obama, I feel I must note them. Obama is a compelling candidate who must know that gravity operates even in the White House.

Mysticism and gut will not assure our allies, deter our foes, restore confidence among our citizens, or make America regain its unique national and international character again.

In the one-woman political show I did on J.F.K. out of Los Angeles in 2005, I painted a full portrait of Kennedy, good, bad and brilliant, as well as his personal failings. It’s important to do that today as well.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Barack Obama’s signature rallying issue, making one speech about the Iraq war, would have manifest in a vote against the AUMF. In fact, looking at Obama’s calculations throughout his career, his “present” votes, ducking the Kyl-Lieberman vote, as well as all his votes on Iraq that put him standing with Hillary Clinton, not to mention his rhetoric over his Senate years, I’d say any notion that he’d have been an anti Iraq war leader in the Senate is pure fantasy. His bellicose language on invading Pakistan on “actionable intelligence,” for which Joseph Wilson took Mr. Obama to task in our interview recently, is another.

“It was reinforced today by Musharraf’s comment that any U.S. bombing of Pakistan would be considered a hostile act. That is precisely how reckless it is to be sitting there saying, yeah, if we have actionable intelligence we’ll just go ahead and bomb a sovereign country. The last thing we need to do is to further exacerbate anti-American opinion in a country that has a significant fundamentalist population and has nuclear weapons. So I think that is really born out by what Musharraf said yesterday or today. How delicate international diplomacy is today and how important it is to measure your statements and not to act in a way that can be construed as reckless.” – Former ambassador Joseph Wilson

Wilson had this to say about Obama on Iraq:

“Well, I think the fact that’s dominated the narrative is an indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was going on at the time. And the people making a lot of hay over this weren’t there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn’t see Barack Obama anywhere. I was out there and there is nobody who can deny that.”

John F. Kennedy wouldn’t have voted against the force resolution either. He was a Cold War hawk at heart. He matched the times in which he lived. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, would also have warned him that doing anything else would have gotten him labeled as “soft” and hurt his bid to be president.

We’ll never know for sure, but every single instance in Barack Obama’s career has him matching the times, calculating his stands, especially when votes would leave him or a colleague vulnerable. There is absolutely no evidence he wouldn’t have done the same in the Senate on Iraq.

Looking only rhetoric deep at any politician is dangerous. Romanticizing them is too. When looking at Mr. Obama’s record, given his lack of experience, especially when compared to Kennedy who was also an unabashed Cold War hawk, which met the times, it should give everyone pause when drawing comparisons. Because if Obama had met the times in 2002 as a senator, there’s no reason, given his record, to believe he’d voted differently from Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and even Joe Biden. Obama would have opted for calculation. John F. Kennedy would have too.


TM NOTE: The reason I can write this unbiased, cold assessment of John F. Kennedy is because his memory stands tall through facts and truth. He remains someone who has had an enormous effect on my life in only positive ways, mainly because I saw him through the eyes of my much older brother and sister, which has stayed with me throughout my life. What his father handed him in legacy, competitive nature and in connections is real. The tendency not to reveal the whole truth of the man serves no one, especially not J.F.K. As I did in my one woman show on him and as I’ve done throughout my writing life, I offer the fullness of the man, as I did in posts like “Days After Dallas” and “He Couldn’t Get Elected Today,” plus many more. Worshiping Kennedy serves no one. The truth renders him all the more fascinating.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Power and Fury


It’s one of the most important conversations we can have and one of the most important
books you can read. In “Breaking
the Silence,”
Juan Cole summed it up earlier this year: In
fact, Mearsheimer and Walt are at pains to make clear that there is no “cabal,”
and that the pro-Israel lobby is a lobby like any other (although more powerful
and sacrosanct than most.)
No doubt Alan Dershowitz got heartburn when
he read it.


The outraged and dismissive reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt’s paper illustrates
their thesis. The United States faces severe challenges in the Middle East,
including issues having to do with Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida and
what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian situation now that Hamas has won
the Palestinian elections. A debate about the best policies to achieve American
interests is being made difficult or impossible by the tactics of intimidation
deployed on both sides of the Atlantic. With a possible war against Iran being
floated by the Bush administration, the stakes are far too high not to have
the full and open discussion we never had before Iraq. When Ben Franklin exited
the Constitutional Convention, he was asked what kind of government the United
States would have. “A republic, if you can keep it,” he is said
to have replied. If we cannot even discuss the shape of U.S. foreign policy
toward the Middle East without a lynch mob forming, we won’t be able to keep
it.

The Israel Lobby is the book version of the 2006 paper
done for the London Review of Books
to which Juan Cole refers above. There is also a
video
of the Israel lobby debate available as well. NPR has a more recent interview. All will give you an
idea of the power of the discussion revealed fully in the book written by John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Alan Dershowitz (through a 40-page response) provides the fury. He got labeled an “intellectual vigilante” by Philip Weiss for his troubles.

TPM’s M.J. Rosenberg talked about it recently as well:


… Walt and Mearsheimer mostly limit themselves to exploring whether all
this is good for the United States (and to a lesser extent, Israel). The question
I ask today, and not for the first time, is whether this type of behavior
is good for Israel. Forty years after the Six Day War, the occupation continues,
the resistance to it intensifies, and Israelis in increasing numbers question
whether they have a future in the Jewish state.

Has “pro-Israel” advocacy consistently produced “pro-Israel”
ends? At several critical moments, it most certainly has not.

Was it pro-Israel to lobby the Nixon administration in 1971 to support Israel’s
rejection of Anwar Sadat’s offer of peace in exchange for a three mile pullback
from the banks of the Suez Canal? Nixon capitulated to the pressure and backed
off, leaving Israel free to reject Sadat’s offer. Two years later, Sadat attacked
and Israel lost 3000 soldiers in a war that acceptance of the Sadat initiative
would have prevented. Israel gained nothing in that war, and ended up giving
Sadat all the territory he sought in 1971, and much more.

Was it pro-Israel to urge the Reagan administration to back Israel’s invasion
of Lebanon in 1982? That war, and its bloody aftermath, lasted for 18 years
with the last Israeli soldier not leaving Lebanon until 2000 — after a thousand
soldiers were killed. Just days after Israel’s invasion, Lebanese Christian
forces massacred almost a thousand Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee
camp. And 241 United States Marines, serving as post-war peace keepers, were
killed (the most on any single day since Iwo Jima) when Hezbollah blew up
their barracks. In the end, the war accomplished nothing and Israel withdrew
unconditionally.

Was it pro-Israel to press Congress to attach so many onerous conditions
to aid to President Abbas’s Palestinian Authority that Abbas was unable to
demonstrate to his people that a moderate President, who fully accepted Israel,
would produce benefits that they would not achieve by choosing Hamas. The
US (and Israeli) policies of all sticks and no carrots led predictably to
Abbas’s defeat by Hamas and a Hamas-controlled Gaza which has resumed its
attacks on Israeli towns.

Was it pro-Israel to prevent the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administration’s
from insisting on a permanent freeze on settlements or, at the very least,
the immediate removal of the illegal settlements? Wouldn’t Israel be infinitely
better off if the United States had used friendly persuasion to end the settlement
enterprise right from the get-go? After all, the vast majority of Israelis
consider the settlements to be impediments to peace and so has every President
since the first settlement was erected. … ..

Mr.
Rosenberg goes
on to say similar things that I
said yesterday
about the importance of this debate to the presidential election,
as well as to American foreign policy and what it means to both of our countries.
It doesn’t do anyone any good to compete on who
can be more pro Israel
while actually doing nothing for either Israel or
the United States.

John F. Kennedy got it started. Walt and Mearsheimer make that point up front.


U.S.-Israeli relations had warmed by the late 1950s, but it was the Kennedy
administration that made the first tangible U.S. commitment to Israel’s military
security. In December 1962, in fact, Kennedy told Israeli Foreign Minister
Golda Meir that the United States “has a special relationship with Israel
in the Middle East really comparable to that which it has with Britain over
a wide range of world affairs,” adding that “I think it is quite
clear that in case of an invasion the United States would come to the support
of Israel. We have that capacity and it is growing.” Kennedy soon thereafter
authorized the first major sale of U.S. weaponry–Hawk antiaircraft missiles–to
Israel in 1963.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt (pg. 27)

Israel is the largest recipient of foreign aid, now receiving $3 billion per
year. What are the results of this aid? What has it done to U.S. foreign policy
in the Middle East? How has Israel benefited from the military largesse? Are
they any safer; are we? More peaceful? What about the Israel – Iran – U.S. triangle?

It’s here I should write the obligatory statement about the importance of our
relationship to Israel. After all these years is that actually necessary? When talking about subjects I mention here it’s the minimum required. The charge of being anti-Semitic is never far behind.

The truth is that it’s long past time we re-evaluated what it means to be “pro-Israel,”
as well as what will be the outcome for continuing on our current course, which
isn’t manifesting peace or allies for either Israel or the United States. In
fact, our current course makes the citizenry of both countries less safe; the world a much more perilous place.

Given the furor over this book and even what happens when I write on this subject,
I’ve got to wonder how the discussion will turn out. Look what happened to Jimmy Carter. Walt and Mearsheimer discuss that, too. Anyone brave enough to broach the subject of Israel, the Palestinians, the Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy goes through hot fire. Ironically, it’s actually the first time in my life I’ve related in any way at all to the former Democratic president.

Mearsheimer and Walt have started the most important discussion. It remains to be seen if there are enough grown ups around to engage in it without coming to blows beyond words.

Michael Scheuer, talking about the book, reminds me of why I gave Edwards credit for drawing out the Saudis yesterday.


“They should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject,” Scheuer says. “I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby.”

But it’s Larry Wilkerson who offers my favorite quote on the subject.


“I think it contains a lot of what I call the blinding flashes of the obvious,” Wilkerson says. “But that said, [they are] blinding flashes of the obvious that people whispered in corners, not said out loud at cocktail parties, where someone else could hear you.”

Read full story · Comments are closed