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 | media

Dick and George’s Mushroom Cloud, and What Brought Obama to The Show

By on 05 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeYXnXpOwNA&eurl

With the flippancy of a teenage thug shrugging off his personal responsibility for the lies he told that got someone else killed, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed with the ease that the goals of Iraq have mostly been accomplished. The truth, as always with Bush-Cheney, is something quite different, as Rand Beers NSN outlines in full. It’s nothing short of a “national security legacy of failure.”

“…it’s been pretty well confirmed that (9/11 al-Qaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” – V.P. Cheney, “Meet the Press,” 12.9.01

Every Democrat who voted to authorize Bush-Cheney’s preemptive nightmare into Iraq should take pause today, with president-elect Obama remembering what inspired so many to support him in the first place.

“But we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” – Vice President Cheney, Speech to VWF’s 103rd National Convention, 8.26.2002

Politicians often forget how we got where we are today, where the dialogue from Dick Cheney can completely ignore that to get into Iraq he and the president had to not only stovepipe intelligence, but stack the deck, while the White House Iraq Group waged a publicity campaign that included traditional media outlets that sold their souls for access.

“…And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have known.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks to the Conservative PAC, 1.30.03

“… we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons… We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, included the al-Qaeda organization.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet the Press,” 3.16.03

The American public’s lazy trust revealed a soft inner core allowing belief to replace facts and truth. Because remember, the majority of America was gung-ho for war, while people like myself (on radio at the time) railed against the congressional spinelessness that accepted an Administration’s word for proof.

“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet the Press,” 3.16.03

The biggest lie of all the notion that Saddam Hussein could ever attack the U.S., using fantasy weaponry against the most powerful military on earth, never once thinking about the consequences. Proving how far U.S. foreign policy has gone astray that anyone would believe that Saddam was a clear and present danger to this country or our assets.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

A small group starting the lies, which grew into the case for preemptive war against a thug dictator that had plenty of company in a world of ruffians.

“Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon … “Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined.” -Vice President Dick Cheney on 8.26.02

Mushroom cloud whoppers made complete by a hero general, Colin Powell, who convinced everyone, including himself, that fear was justified to wage war. Proving that cowardice now was the main thread weaving through the U.S. government. No one having the real stuff to stand up and demand answers before the magnificent self-destruction of shock and awe.

Dick Cheney on “Meet the Press,” 9.8.02: “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.” (This reference is to aluminum tubes that were disputed by many intelligence analysts.)

“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 3.16.03

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney can attempt to rewrite history, but at the foundation of their story lies the unvarnished truth that the case for war was concocted, so that any story about the alleged achievements accomplished after five years is accompanied by the stark reality that a war of choice was waged by mounting a fictional case against Saddam Hussein that was full of holes. The Bush-Cheney administration stands on this foundation. Taking the U.S. and the world to war against a dictator who had been reduced to a figurehead and nothing more.

Bush and Cheney took us from 9/11 to war to torture, all on the wings of lies over the “war on terror,” a term forever ingrained in our language that allows no path to peace.

Let’s hope President Obama and the incoming administration remember this lesson and how our new president became our nominee, then won, starting with his objection to the Iraq war, with the confidence to state his opposition to popular belief when few had the foresight to do so.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Netanyahu’s Focus is Regime Change in Gaza

By on 04 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFetOsLOQVk
The Israeli government wants to remove the threat of Hamas shooting rockets into Israel. Simple goal, however difficult it might be to achieve. Mr. Netanyahu on the other hand made his position clear today with Wolf Blitzer. Call it an election year dividing line, at the very least. The current Israeli government has one plan. Bibi has another.

But with Barack Obama coming into office in just a couple of weeks, many are waiting cautiously optimistic about the possibility of a real change in policy from the last years. Aaron David Miller has written a piece for Newsweek that is the best advice for Obama I’ve heard coming from a traditional news source. He also mentions one of the real challenges facing the new team coming in: settlements.

… If Obama is serious about peacemaking he’ll have to adjust that balance in two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are many, including terror, violence and incitement), he’ll also have to deal with Israel’s behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.

Then there’s the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America’s credibility.

Miller doesn’t take on that one of the most important dynamics about to play out is Secretary of State Clinton’s ability to represent what Obama’s policy will be towards Israel, something that is anything but a minor aspect. It will be Secretary Clinton who has to navigate the complicated mind field (yes, mind field) now set up between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama’s primary role on coming into the White House must be one of setting policy that Clinton will have to carry out. The test will be if Obama will direct Clinton to separate U.S. policy from Israel’s, especially at first, putting daylight between our good friend and ourselves in order to help all parties that long ago became entrenched in a cycle of insanity. The bottom line putting America’s interest back on the table as their first priority.

The bottom line gets down to declaring U.S. independence from Israel, requiring separating our foreign policy goals, something that the U.S. hasn’t been able to do in years. This goal must be emphasized out loud, in public, so the world can hear, but also in order to set up the real possibility that President Obama can finally get something done in the Middle East. Instead of being just another American president whose team talks a good game, but has no leverage to manifest peace because we tip our hand towards the Israelis no matter the circumstance.

Second, Obama will have to maintain his independence and tactical flexibility to play the mediator’s role. This means not road testing everything with Israel first before previewing it to the other side, a practice we followed scrupulously during the Clinton and Bush 43 years. America must also not agree to every idea proposed by an Israeli prime minister. Our willingness to go along with Ehud Barak’s make-or-break strategy at the Camp David summit proved very costly where more disciplined critical thinking on our part might have helped preempt the catastrophe that followed. Coordinating with Israel on matters relating to its security is one thing. Giving Israel a veto over American negotiating tactics and positions, particularly when it comes to bridging gaps between the two sides, is quite another.

Read full story · Comments { 71 }

Israeli Ground Assault in Gaza

By on 03 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSuEOBLsa9I
Via Haaretz:


Goal of Israel, according to Amir Oren of Haaretz (interviewed on MSNBC), is to “break the will” of Hamas to launch missiles at Israel.

…At one tank base along the border, the roar of tank engines and the rumble of their movements toward the border could be heard after dark, though none moved across the frontier. Hamas officials also reported tank movement toward the border near the northern Erez crossing point. Defense officials said some 10,000 troops, including tank, artillery and special operations units, were massed on the Gaza border and prepared to invade. They said top commanders were split over whether to send in ground forces, in part because such an operation could lead to heavy casualties but also because they believe Hamas already has been dealt a heavy blow. [...]

The international press is not being allowed into Gaza by Israeli troops. But through television reports available one can’t help but ask what will be Israel’s end game? How do they de-escalate from this with a victory, something Spencer asks as well. Let’s hope they’re not headed for Lebanon II.

And with due respect to Siun at FDL, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of “ethic cleansing.” This rhetoric is not helpful, no matter how well meaning and righteously felt.

The most stark assessment that can be made in my view is that this is an all out effort to drive Hamas out of Gaza, perhaps even destroy their ability to “lead.” There is one part of the Palestinian leadership that wholeheartedly supports Israel’s actions, with Egypt in the bull’s eye right now because Mubarak has closed the border and is not supporting Hamas at all, something NBC’s Richard Engel has reported. But Egypt is not alone in not supporting Hamas as Israel’s attacks escalate. There is a political wheel turning within a wheel among Palestinians. For the Israelis it’s far simpler.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Anticipating Senate Fireworks

By on 03 January 2009

So, Burris shows up on Tuesday and the Senate does what?

Burris will not be allowed on the Senate floor, according to this aide and a Senate Democratic leadership aide.

Watch: What if Burris shows up?

The aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders’ plans said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber, the Senate doorkeeper will stop Burris. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol Police would stop him, said the aide.

“They (police) probably won’t arrest him” but they would call the sergeant-at-arms,” the aide said. [...]

However, the most hilarious line from Burris doesn’t need a laugh track: “There is no confrontation here, there is no antagonism here,” Burris said in a phone interview from Chicago.

That is simply not believable. The confrontation began when Mr. Burris and Gov. Blogojevich staged the press conference on the Senate announcement by making sure Bobby Rush came to the podium to warn not to “hang or lynch” anyone over it. (Surely no one believes it was a coincidence that Bobby Rush was in the audience.) The language and posturing of all three of these Democrats, but particularly Rush, was designed specifically for a confrontation, with a dare on top, with Rush purposefully antagonistic by dragging race into the picture. We won’t rehash Rush’s complicated relationship with Obama that goes back years, though it’s a juicy story the traditional media will eat up with both hands. But the dare was implicit through Rush’s presence.

One can only imagine how the old boxer of the Senate, Harry Reid, is taking all of this. Not well, I suspect, especially considering the latest political nuggets bursting forth that Reid inserted himself into the process in Illinois. Not that the majority leader of the Senate shouldn’t be concerned that the appointed senator be the best gamble to win re-election.

UPDATE: Lawrence Tribe believes the Senate doesn’t have to seat Burris.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

New Year Topic Free For All

By on 02 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsR8DVGS9bM
Couldn’t resist posting the video above. It’s blue, so consider yourself forewarned.

For the news today concerning Israel and the Palestinians, see the TM headlines.

Well, it’s amazing who I’m hearing from now that our relocation city is out of the bag. Moving to Washington, D.C. will be quite an adventure. Thanks for all your emails and comments, including on Facebook and through Twitter.

A couple of “In the News” items. Reader nancy50 posts an item that posits it might be Caroline Kennedy for Senate. Dundee19 posts an article on Washington and Israel from Glenn Greenwald, though that’s long before the Holocaust and the state of Israel hit history. History doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Quite a back and forth ensued over Betsy’s posting.

On another note, I’ve posted on the Facebook group “Tear Down This Myth,” the title of Will Bunch’s new book.

Consider this a topic free for all. Have at it.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

By on 01 January 2009

It’s a New Year. So, it’s time to start our new adventure.

We’ll be moving to Washington, D.C. It begins after the Inauguration. It’s an exciting time and this just seemed like the right city and the perfect moment.

Lots of new things will result from the move, even if it’s just being in D.C. to witness President Obama and the Democratic Congress first hand, while living in a very exciting city (that also has terrific food, wine, architecture, culture (!), you name it, as well as proximity to other truly great cities as well). I’ve traveled there so many times in the last years, but living there will be something else. Covering Madame Secretary when I get the opportunity is among the fist things I look forward to doing.

Saying good-bye to the west will be difficult, but I’m sure we’ll be back some day. Living back east is something I truly am looking forward to. Living in New York City was a long time ago, but I simply adored living on that side of America. As for my hubby, he’s taking a leap of faith with me, something he promised when we met and I told him I was on a change the world journey without roots. It will no doubt be one hell of a ride.

Happy New Year everyone. It’s sure to be an eventful year, especially around here.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Gird Your Loins

By on 28 December 2008

Getting the last licks in before Bush leaves office? Check. Challenging Obama’s foreign policy to take a stand straight out on Middle East policy? Check. Joe Biden’s words ring out as loudly today as when he said them.

But how many times are the Israelis going to try the same tactics expecting different
results than have come to pass before? Fly meet screen.

The same goes for American leaders, specifically
Barack Obama, who will be challenged immediately upon entering the presidency
to put in place a message on the Middle East, testing his mettle on what it
means to change the course of U.S. foreign policy after Bush-Cheney. With AIPAC staring over his
shoulder, no doubt Obama’s initial reaction will be scrutinized.

Will the new president have
the courage to dust off the Neanderthal thinking of the likes of Marty Peretz
who is obviously intent on pushing the Likud line until we all implode on our
traditional myopia? From his latest rant on the Israeli strike against Hamas
in Gaza, Peretz
is exhibit A for why the U.S. must demand more from both Israelis and Palestinians, but also American writers opining on American foreign policy in the Middle East.


… The government in Jerusalem had made it unmistakably clear that it would
no longer tolerate this fire power aimed at innocent civilian life. It had
been saying this for months to an increasingly skeptical and apprehensive,
not to say, restive public. And to Hamas which didn’t seem to care. Instead,
it threatened Israel by word and follow-up deeds that confirmed the recklessness
– as if confirmation was needed- of also this Palestinian “liberation”
movement, the last in the long line of terrorist revolutionaries acting in
the name of pathetic and blood-thirsty Palestine.

So at 11:30 on Saturday morning, according to both the Jerusalem Post and
Ha’aretz, as well as the New York Times, 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters
demolished some 40 to 50 sites in just about three minutes, maybe five. Message:
do not fuck with the Jews. At roughly noon, another 60 air-attack vehicles
went after other Hamas strategic positions. Israeli intelligence reported
225 people dead, mostly Hamas military leaders with some functionaries, besides,
and perhaps 400 wounded. The Palestinians announced 300 dead, probably as
a reflex in order to begin their whining about disproportionate Israeli acts
of war. And 600 wounded. [...]

Glenn wastes no time in dressing Peretz down for his “uniquely despicable view” of the recent events.

Israel obviously learned nothing from their war with Lebanon. It’s not about
“very disproportionate, indeed,” contrary to Mr. Peretz’s whining.
It’s about Israel refusing to wake up and deal with the world condemnation,
because Israeli leaders evidently don’t get that Israel is no longer considered
a special case in the Middle East; a country given a pass on behavior for which
any other nation would receive condemnation, starting with the blockade of humanitarian
aid to the Palestinians, which left the people of Gaza in dire straights. Israel
is still viewing their place in the world as the little country who could, instead
of the military and political powerhouse it has become in the world. Israel
is no longer the fledgling democracy it once was and this is no longer the 20th
century. Israel’s right to exist and prosper is no longer in question, except
by the lunatic fanatics who now have the disrespect of the world.

Obama must get beyond people like Peretz, a minority, who continue to use the likes of Ahmadinejad to push a narrative against Israel that most in the world not only do not buy, but wholly reject. Obama’s ability to accomplish this feat will color whatever diplomatic outreach being planned for Tehran.

There is no doubt that Israel has the right to defend herself.

The same can be said for the Palestinians.

…and around we go continually reacting with no solution in sight.

But if you want to stop for a moment to review George W. Bush’s legacy and input into the current crisis, remember it was Bush who pushed elections that manifested the democratic elections that vaulted Hamas to power and leadership, something it’s clear they weren’t prepared to offer.

Where are the grown ups in the Middle East? Will it be President Obama, with and through
the leadership of staunchly pro Israel Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, someone who also believes in a Palestinian state? Can
the new Democratic administration triangulate their diplomatic and military
policy towards Israel and the Palestinians to exact a change? Or will Netanyahu coming back to power signal more of the same, especially with Obama getting lobby pressure from AIPAC out of the gate?

Mr. Peretz says “do not fuck with the Jews,” as Israelis
inspire a third intifada, while tons of bombs continue to explode killing Palestinians
by the dozens, as criticism and outrage towards Israel grows. What will be President Obama’s response? As Biden so frankly put it, “gird your loins.” It’s going to be rough from the jump.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Most Admired Woman of 2008

By on 26 December 2008



This is the seventh consecutive year that Hillary Clinton has secured top billing as Americans’ Most Admired Woman — and the 13th year she has made the top ten since her first appearance on the list in 1993. The 20% naming Clinton this year is comparable to what she received in 2007 (18%), but falls short of the 28% naming her in 1998. – Gallup

The most admired woman, with the next female half as powerful as Secretary of State designee Hillary Clinton.

That woman, Sarah Palin, has one-sixteenth of Clinton’s experience, intellect and national security knowledge. Palin being mainly a cultural gift to anyone still moored in the 19th century. A woman who was picked for her looks and gender, with her intellect not having anything to do with it. If you want to know the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic ideals where equality is concerned, all you have to do is look at the criteria for women succeeding on the national ticket level. Republicans still believing in appearances for women, as if the presidency is still some beauty pageant for females, vs. Democrats who insist on qualifications for the job. HRC being a fully realized 21st century leader, including in the hardest won area, national security. Not since 1998, the height of the Lewinsky imbroglio, has Hillary Clinton enjoyed such widespread approval. This year her admiration quotient is not based on sympathy, but on the power of her personal political prowess and portfolio, something she’s earned in her own right that reached its height in 2008, but which she has the chance of surpassing once she’s heading the State department.

For those of us who have followed HRC over the years and not just in 2008, her rise comes as no surprise.

Read full story · Comments are closed

This Week ‘In the News’ Highlights

By on 19 December 2008

–updated–


The first topic I’m going to highlight is a story that sucks the life out of
you. It’s my “In the News” feature of the day, which I’ll add at the
top of every highlight post on Friday. In the city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq,
a
women’s rights activist was beheaded. All I can envision is what Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton would say about this event if she was in her post today.
It’s a chilling event, regardless of the politics of the victim.


… The victim was identified as Nahla Hussain, the leader of the women’s
league of the Kurdish Communist Party. She was alone in the house at the time
of her death.

It is not known what the circumstances were that led to the attack. Violence
against women has been an ongoing problem in Iraq. [...]

Highlights of reader posts are below, though there are many more. Remember,
you can also comment on each entry “In
the News.” Thanks to everyone who jumped in. Let me know what
you’d like to see in that section. We’d like to hear your suggestions.

Peregrine links to a
doozy on Iraq: Official History Spotlights Iraq Rebuilding Blunders.
Also a column
by Juan Cole on Pakistan. Appreciate the foreign policy angle.

Jack Johnson highlights the story
around the Fitz Blago bust. Words like “frustrated” and might
lose “half of their case” are just part of it.

Reader mattlsu87 links to “Prop
8, the Musical.” Hilarious. They need a sequel featuring Rick Warren.
Speaking of bigoted homophobes…

Benny puts up the full quote of Rick
homosexual marriages are akin to pedophilia Warren’s “courage” nod
to Obama. Though how a Democratic president could give a right-wing bigot a
national spot that connotes approval and respect is beyond me.

Palin family
woes, via GeoT, is one of my favorites. I know, ’til the
season to be charitable, but I just can’t help myself.

Audiegrl tags a very interesting story about the Obama
Transition meeting with Jewish groups. I just wonder, if Obama can reach
out to homophobic preachers, why can’t he reach out to Holocaust deniers as
well?

Nightrain37 focuses on a good
article about the UAW.

Betsy thinks Dick
is taunting George to pardon him.

Richardson
in the hot seat, via djjl.

Oh, and justlen acted out. Twice. Let’s just say he wasn’t too happy about the media obsession
with Blago.

Consider this a topic free for all. The floor is yours.

Read full story · Comments are closed

From Media Clamor to Clinton Reality

By on 03 December 2008


WJC on the economy

“There will be disagreements,” opined Chris Cilizza on “Hardball,” speaking of HRC and Dr. Rice. Aw lawdy, where’s my smellin’ salts, Scarlet? How will we endure? Now, Cilizza’s a nice guy, but he illustrates how filling cable air can be hazardous to sounding sane.

Politico’s headline writers channel Sean Hannity, accompanied by abbreviated video clip. (…or has Mike “exasperation” Allen struck again?)

Enter the informed, beginning with Gene Lyons:


Look, here’s the deal: There are two Hillary Clintons, the brilliant, conscientious U. S. senator about to become secretary of state and an imaginary character in a serial novel by Dowd and her many imitators. Dowd is essentially the Hedda Hopper of Washington, a witty gossip columnist better suited to chronicling the affairs of Angelina Jolie and Madonna than troubling her pretty little head with affairs of state. Worse, she pretends to be dumb.

The New York Times offers
the usual drivel, this time opining HRC’s diplomatic resume or lack thereof, as they see it. Yeah, visiting 80+ countries, being first lady, then Senator of New York, plus a member of the Armed Services Committee, nah, no resume there.

Bill Somerby on more
NY Times derangement:


Stanley is a pal of Dowd’s; she often displays the same desire to force
her own foolish dramas onto your most important news topics. And let’s
state the obvious: This group will never stop working this way, until widespread
ridicule makes them stop. They live inside a sumptuous palace—and their
flighty minds are full of dime novels. They’re too dumb to see the world
other ways. They’ll insist on novelizing your news until they’re
finally stopped.

You can’t get dumber than Stanley and Dowd—and this sort of work
virtually defines the way your upper-end “press corps” functions.

Matt Browner Hamlin finishes
them off. Put it under the fat file of making stuff up.


But it’s 100% B.S. Nowhere in the press conference is it apparent that
any of it was “designed to address Mrs. Clinton’s sensibilities.”
Stanley is projecting, plain and simple. Moreover, at no point in the time
since June 7, 2008, has Hillary Clinton ever suggested that her concession
of the Democratic nomination for the presidency was not “for real.”
Again, Stanley is making things up.

Sam Stein has a
juicy post on former Clintonite Greg Craig.

Politico’s John H. Harris and Glenn Thrush dub HRC
a “survivor.” Really? Who knew?


Clinton’s Senate performance, meanwhile, suggested skills that could
be important as secretary of state. Defying predictions that she would be
a Senate show horse, she proved instead to be a work horse. She worked well
with Republicans, even some who had tried to evict her husband from office
during impeachment proceedings. She showed the trait that may be the most
important to success in both legislative and diplomatic battles: iron pants,
the willingness to sit and concentrate for hours at a time on tedious discussions.

Clinton’s eligibility
a non-issue.


Senate Democrats were working Tuesday to put together legislation making
it possible for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state
despite a constitutional clause that some critics argue should bar her from
joining the cabinet.

Someone break the news to Judicial Watch.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Nightline Links

By on 01 December 2008

Listen to Richard Engel. Halperin, not so much. Also, it’s not “center-right,” folks, it’s “water’s edge,” non-ideological pragmatism, which will be implemented through Obama’s tough Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A reminder, ‘In the News’ is for you. Whether you comment here or have a blog, anyone can use “In the News” to post links, even write posts. As we build it back up,
I’ll select out certain posts and blogs to link to. Reader djjl posted a beauty over the Thanksgiving holiday. In the meantime…

Steve helps you out with a terrific
Christmas book list. I’ve read many of them. One he left out that is a must
read is “Descent into Chaos,” by Ahmed Rashid.

Oh Lordy, it’s
her again… or should that be still? Go Jim Martin. The other
guy lies.

Tina
Brown asks: How is it Obama can fill a Cabinet faster than NBC can replace
Tim Russert? Oh, and Tina’s replacement pick is very interesting.

While Huffington Post is reporting David Gregory gets the nod, though NBC is not confirming this just yet. Gregory’s interview today with Martin Indyk was very good, though it’s not online.

John
Nichols explains: Why Obama’s Got “Complete Confidence” In Clinton.
On foreign policy, outside political campaigning, they’re simply not that far
apart.


[...]Perhaps as significantly, Feingold saw something else.

Though he has long been at odds with Clinton — especially on campaign finance
and ethics issues, but also on foreign policy — Feingold explains that he
came to see the former first lady in a new light when they traveled together
(along with Arizona Senator John McCain, Maine Senator Susan Collins and South
Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) on a 2005 Senate fact-finding mission to
Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Tunisia.

“Two things: One, she was incredibly well-prepared and well-informed.
She knew the key players and the issues that were heating up in each of the
countries we visited,” recalled Feingold. “Two, she was very well
respected. When we landed in each country, this Senate delegation, she was
the one that the generals and the officials were trying to talk to. She was
the one they knew and respected.” …

It’s World Aids Day, with Madonna
in the mix.

Franken’s in a bind.

The Dow drops over 600 points.

Stoller will judge Clinton on what she does on Israel. Speaking of that, Jerome’s
latest post is worth a read.

Other than that, consider this a topic free for all.

Read full story · Comments are closed

So Much For Killing Off The Clintons

By on 01 December 2008

–updated–

A certain big blog barely mentions the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Yesterday the owner couldn’t bring himself to write the words himself. He delegated it. Evidently the help needed to understand
such a nomination still hasn’t arrived. Pity. Another has already eaten his hat, showing class among the classless. Others who thought the mere mention was just a ruse look particularly ignorant, though that was hardly a change from their habitual petulance. While Hillary Clinton takes her place beside Obama as his nominee for Secretary of State. If you never doubt and stay loyal to your purpose you often eventually find your reward. That is, if the journey doesn’t kill you first.

Some on the left can’t quite get their heads around it still. While traditional media types are proved wrong yet again. “The Village,” to quote Digby, thought Obama was listening to them. You know, the Borderites, Thomas Friedman, David Ignatius (regarding his case against Clinton at State), the list goes on and on. Even Andrew Sullivan equated the Clinton pick as Machiavellian, which was proved wrong today as Obama gave Clinton her due, with no hint of ulterior motive the Clinton haters hoped would explain it. No one is listening to all these people who got it wrong any more, because they all predicted a premature death for the Clintons. Pronounced it so after Obama won the nomination. But you can’t kill the modern foundation of a political party, from which the new leader will build his vision.

Begrudging nods come from some, but you can sense the bitter taste it’s giving them. That in order for Barack Obama to be successful he simply must rely on the Democratic Administration who came before. It’s common sense, except among the dense.

The horrors! The Establishment. That it’s the Clintons makes it a killer. So many in the blogosphere letting their emotional immaturity relegate their analysis to one notch above petty personal griping, their national security assessment the stuff of high school government class. And they wonder why Barack Obama isn’t listening. If you miss the strength and stature of what Hillary Clinton and the Clinton name brings to State, as well as the love felt around the world for former President Bill Clinton, preferring spiteful revenge instead, have you already abdicated your ability to help lead?

As for the unhinged fringe, they’ve likely caught and already swallowed their tails already. I hope they choke on them.

For me, this is victory day for Hillary, as she takes her place as Obama’s designee for Secretary of State. The end of a long road where we finally see two rivals stand together for country, ignoring the bloviators and prognosticators, the “reporters” and their ad nauseam anonymous sourcing unwinding dramatic headline after another, while pundits opine ignorantly, as well as the politically, emotionally immature who put their fickle trust in Obama then pulled it when he began implementing his vision, because Hillary Clinton would be the face representing Obama and America around the world.

The Clintons were never going anywhere. Feel the collective shock. Around here, we knew that all along. But it’s fun to watch the exploding heads, even when it’s only witnessed through their silence, as the vision of puffed up red faces dances across the mind.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Feeding the Beast

By on 25 November 2008


Finally, someone out there gets it right. Peter Beinert:


In recent weeks, as Barack Obama has stocked his administration with one former Clinton official after another, the cry has gone up from the pundits and blogs: “Where are the new faces? You call this change?”

Actually, yes. For the first time in four decades, a Democratic administration is going to hit the ground running rather than fall on its face because it will be staffed by people who know how the federal government works. That’s change all right—the kind we can believe in.

Ever wonder why Republican administrations start fast and Democratic ones start ugly? It’s partly because Republicans draw on experience. [...]

As for Arianna Huffington, straight out of the gate she gives herself away.


It’s too early to tell what changes Hillary Clinton will bring to Barack Obama’s foreign policy, but she’s already had an enormous effect on his brand. Her addition to his team has turned “No Drama Obama” into “Mo’ Drama Obama.”

Hillary’s appointment isn’t even official, but the Obama/Clinton narrative has already left the realm of politics. Its twists, turns, shadings, and complex emotions are the stuff of literature.

But who would be the best writer to do this saga justice? [...]

The only “enormous effect” the prospect of Hillary at Foggy Bottom has had is on political writers, both new and traditional media, with a few talking heads thrown in for extra noise. But asking the question, who would be the best writer to script the saga?, really is the issue.

It’s not about what’s actually going on between Obama and Hillary. It’s how best the scribing and chattering class can construct the drama playing out in their own heads.

Now don’t get me wrong. If when this all comes down things roll out in a way worthy of criticism, that’s part of the game and everyone knows it. But to construct a plot before the characters are firmly cast, well, that’s what’s Shakespearean about what’s playing out.


But given the palace intrigue that always accompanies the Clintons, James may be too genteel. Consider: in the two Times stories examining the “Clinton-Obama detente,” we hear from “confidants of Mrs. Clinton,” “former Clinton administration officials…who admire Mrs. Clinton,” “a longtime friend,” “a former aide,” “two advisors to Mrs. Clinton,” “a longtime friend of the Clintons who broke with them,” “one Clinton advisor,” “lawyers on both sides,” “people close to the vetting,” “close aides to Mrs. Clinton,” “her confidants, who insisted on anonymity,” “a close associate of Mrs. Clinton,” and “one Democrat who is close to both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.”

So by taking in Hillary, Obama is getting more than just Hillary — and more than just Hillary and Bill — he’s getting the entire Royal Court of the House of Clinton, complete with chancellors, chamberlains, and a court-jester or two. [...]

According to whom?

By Ms. Huffington’s own admission: “confidants of Mrs. Clinton,” “former Clinton administration officials…who admire Mrs. Clinton,” “a longtime friend,” “a former aide,” “two advisors to Mrs. Clinton,” “a longtime friend of the Clintons who broke with them,” “one Clinton advisor,” “lawyers on both sides,” “people close to the vetting,” “close aides to Mrs. Clinton,” “her confidants, who insisted on anonymity,” “a close associate of Mrs. Clinton,” and “one Democrat who is close to both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.”

For all we know these myriad of sources could come from Clinton enemies, Obama supporters and insiders trying to feed the media because they’ll swallow anything.

There is no evidence, you know, the kind that comes with an actual name, to prove Hillary Clinton and her closest circle, which at this point is rather small, has added to the drama the media covering her has spun out of control.

It’s not surprising that people are buying into the soap opera construct. It’s just disappointing when there’s no proof that any of this is coming from HRC’s side or Obama’s either.

Tina Brown has hit it right on the head with her new venture. It is about feeding the beast. Daily, especially where the Clintons are concerned.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton Haters in Minority

By on 20 November 2008


Most Americans are all for Clinton to head State. Well, the Republicans aren’t crazy about it, so that means the progressive Clinton haters belong in that pile. There you have it. (To add.. People can have legitimate reasons not to support Clinton for State, but the opposing arguments by the usual culprits are not based on logical reasoning, but instead on derangement of the Clinton variety.)

According to latest Gallup poll:


A new Gallup Poll finds a majority of Americans (57%) in favor of Barack Obama appointing Hillary Clinton as the secretary of state in his administration. Thirty percent oppose it.

Busy, busy today doing some research. So consider this a mid-day free for all. You pick the topics.

Read full story · Comments are closed

NY Times Once Again Gets it Wrong on Clintons

By on 20 November 2008



Here we go again. The Times has gotten it wrong so many times lately it’s turning into a journalistic parody. Two days in a row the Times misreported WJC’s transparency on his speaking fees. Today, WJC gave over 200,000 names to Obama-Biden today, according to Lisa Meyers of NBC news (see video above), as well as agreed to quite a few compromises, including restricting his future activities. He’s also promising more transparency regarding his charitable donations. WJC is doing all he can to make sure Obama-Biden have full assurances that there will be absolutely no conflict of interest going forward if Clinton is officially nominated for State.

But again, the Times channels the best of the haters on the Clintons’ intent, complete with no sourcing whatsoever.


In their public signals, the Clintons are trying to take the former president’s activities off the table as an issue, in their view eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job. Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.

“Some in the Obama camp are bristling”… at “strategic leaks by the Clintons,” which aren’t actually coming from the Clintons. The Times’ proof the leakers are “from the Clintons?” There isn’t any. None. Nada. Zippo.

Have you read any direct sourcing from the official Clinton camp? They’re not saying a word.

These so called “strategic leaks” are coming from, as Politico’s Tim Vogel accidentally opined yesterday, people with a “predilection for leaking things.”

Memo to all the Clinton obsessed blamers and haters. Hillary and Bill cannot control their fans and supporters on the outside who have sloppy speech control. The Obama drama is coming from outlets like the Times, which is allowing the other Clinton obsessed writers a day off, as they swiftboat the Clintons who are cooperating quietly while the media stirs up the storm.

Read full story · Comments are closed

When a Confession Needs a Laugh Track

By on 19 November 2008



A certain blogger admits “[he] needs some help” understanding Hillary Clinton for State. That’s for sure.

As my friend Joan Walsh said so brilliantly on “Hardball” today, trust Barack Obama. Everyone gladly did up until he actually won the presidency.

Many of the people running around in circles trying to quickly scuttle Clinton for State are the same people who could say nothing critical about Obama during the election season, and nothing positive about Clinton. Now, just because he’s thinking about appointing Clinton as secretary of state, Obama blew it? The delusion from some border on swiftboating Hillary in order to derail what’s obviously moving forward to finale.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bill ‘Helping’ Hillary to Become the Next Secretary of State

By on 19 November 2008

Well no kidding.

Reporters have to write something, especially when facing the biggest story of the post-election season. But in their rush, most are stumbling over themselves, as are talking head hosts and their guests on cable. But it was Ken Vogel of Politico who really nailed it today, saying something I’ve already warned about. Vogel said on MSNBC that it’s the same people who have a “predilection for leaking things” who are talking. Bingo. (Politico should be thankful someone over there is getting something right on this one.) If you’re known as a leaker, you likely don’t really know anything anymore. But no doubt news outlets are grateful.

Credit to the people over at Salon’s “War Room” for the most accurate headline of the day.

As for “Obama’s first drama,” David Corn needs to look in the mirror. The Clintons haven’t said one word about the nomination or the process, apart from original statements referring questions to the Obama-Biden transition team. It’s people like Corn, Chris Matthews, and Christopher Hitchens and the hack pack press who are doing the writing, relying on people with a “predilection for leaking things.” What do these guys expect? That Hillary should be content to live with her senate and first lady resume, as good as it is, because the boys can’t handle her prowess? The “Obama drama” isn’t HRC’s fault. It’s Corn, et al.

Clinton
to help Hillary get State job, says an AP headline by Beth Fouhy. Details of the report do make for an interesting read.


“Bill Clinton will not be the obstacle to whether Hillary gets this job or not,” said one Democrat familiar with the situation. Another person added: “He’s willing to be as transparent as the Obama world wants.”
- The
Wall Street Journal

Nothing of note there either.

Politico’s Mike Allen and Glenn Thrush, the two men responsible for “exasperation,” as well as one “Clinton insider” said HRC may turn down the SoS position, respectively, both stories absolute rubbish, with one proven unequivocally so, have a post up with both their names in the byline.

The Times parrots Thrush today, so there’s two reporters talking to one or two Clinton fans who seem to simply want HRC to have options, leaving Hillary and Obama an out if it doesn’t work out. Lame at best. Same message on Bill, which is the only consistent, however obvious, narrative out there.


“Issues around W.J.C. won’t be the stumbling block,” the adviser to Mrs. Clinton said in the e-mail message to The Times. “She hasn’t decided whether she wants to leave the Senate.”

But let me add this. No one should ever question that WJC will do whatever he can to make the path for Hillary to take the SoS nomination easier, as well as for President-elect Obama to feel comfortable with the relationship going forward. There is nothing about Bill Clinton’s commitment to his wife’s career that says otherwise. That Hillary is also not only qualified, but SoS will give her the stature and respect she’s earned, is fully appreciated by WJC.

Bottom line to all the swirling anonymously sourced stories: No one from Obama-Biden is rushing to the press offering statements of denial. Everything is moving Clinton forward to the cabinet post fitting her intellect and strengths, which President-elect Obama will need as he faces putting our country’s reputation back together after Bush-Cheney.

We’re getting close to Thanksgiving. Do the math. We’ll know soon enough.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Yet Another Anonymous Quote from Yet Another ‘Clinton Insider’

By on 18 November 2008

Breaking news!

Another anonymous source just leaked an unfounded tale of yet another unproven fantasy about something HRC is thinking or doing regarding a mythical assumption about Obama’s pick for secretary of state.

Alert the media!

Never mind. They’re on it, stumbling all over themselves in the process. But in the furor to out Drudge Drudge they’ve succeeded.

At the rate we’re going most of the stories with a byline these days might as well be making this stuff up out of whole cloth, because there isn’t a shred of proof in much of what’s being printed or posted.

Someone “reports” that some alleged Clinton insider said — insert utter crap here — and everyone is off and linking. Nice for advertisers.

But at least the anonymous insider quoted in one particular circulating column to which I will not link gets one thing correct. There is “a lot of speculation and reporting… ahead of the facts here.” That would include the stuff this particular person gave to the writer quoting him or her. Irony is not dead, though it was lost on this particular person.

Politico did it last night with their “exasperation” nonsense, which was immediately picked up by certain cable talking heads. Obama’s people are “exasperated” at the Clintons? Utter rubbish, but round it went. Just another opportunity for the media hack pack to attack.

Now I know people need to sell advertising, keep jobs, etc. But sloppy impulse control doesn’t even begin to describe the knee jerk reporting, talking, posting and linking these days on all things Hillary Clinton and the possibilities for her at State. Here’s the truth: it may or may not happen. Obama is considering it closely and vetting is being done. That’s a full lid.

That said, it’s rational to think that Clinton is thinking long and hard about the position. The other issue is that HRC would obviously like to have all of her most trusted advisors, including her husband, in the same place before moving forward. Additionally, it’s a serious reality that Obama’s vetting the Clintons, including WJC’s global work, would take time as well.

Last night there was mad linking to some UK article that Hillary was indeed accepting the nomination for State. Proof? None. A detailed story to give it validity? Nada. Anything reliable that hasn’t been said before? Zip.

Read the stories carefully. Most are rehashes of likely outcomes from outlets that want to say something on a subject that everyone is waiting to break news about, so “Clinton insider” over here is jumping up, as an “inside Clinton” person is saying something else over yonder. Meanwhile, it might as well have been made up. Here’s a rule for now: If you could have written the story yourself, don’t believe it.

The real Clinton insiders are not saying one word. The other alleged “Clinton insiders” have been on the outside since they started blathering last spring.

Trust me. When something real breaks about President-elect Obama selecting his secretary of state there will be little doubt about its veracity. Until then, lay off the caffeine.

Oh, and did you hear, Santa Claus is comin’ to town.

Read full story · Comments are closed

TINA BROWN: ‘Hillary was savaged by this very network.’

By on 18 November 2008



As Obama’s presidency gets grueling and sour, as it will surely very swiftly become, he will need Clinton again like Batman needs Robin.

Terrific piece by Tina Brown today on Daily Beast.


Hillary is more pragmatic than her “dead-enders.” She knows that as Secretary of State she would be not just be numero uno in the Cabinet. She wouldn’t shrink into the office—the office would have to grow to accommodate her. Her appointment would be a return to the tradition of the office being held by political giants. Presidents from Jefferson to Van Buren (with the exception of Andrew Jackson) held the position. The two women preceding Hillary, Madeleine Albright and Condi Rice, were not political figures, having never held or run for elective office. Hillary has a huge national constituency. It’s a great power base, and it makes Obama look good, too—magnanimous, presidential. And remember their combative, but respectful chemistry on the stump last summer when there was still a lot of buzz she could be his veep pick? Once Hillary dropped from view, no-drama Obama became a tiny bit boring for a while. As his presidency gets grueling and sour, as it will surely very swiftly become, he will need her again like Batman needs Robin. Not only is she super- smart and wired to Washington, she distracts the press while he gets on with governing.

But on “Morning Joe” today, she went straight at MSNBC. It was priceless.

Brown brought up the image differences shown in the campaign, which some boy bloggers utilized as well.

As for Sarah Palin, I disagree wholeheartedly. She should never have been in this position, with her choice being the worst gender pick in political history. “Big second act” is Brown’s assessment. No doubt, we haven’t seen the last of Palin.

On the subject of Clinton, the most dangerous thing right now for her future politically is the media hack pack. They pose a far worse threat than Bill Clinton’s global philanthropic galavanting. Tina Brown makes this case clear as well.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Chris Matthews, Clinton Hater on a Ratings War Path

By on 18 November 2008



Some are doing their best to derail her. But even people who aren’t fans of Hillary realize the brilliance of Obama in considering this choice.


“I can’t stand her, but I think she’s a great choice,” said another Obama insider.

Not so Chris Matthews, the maniac misogynist of MSNBC, who never shirks from
shrieking about anything Clinton.


An avowed Clinton lover who was sitting next to Matthews reports: “He was in business class wearing a red baseball hat that said Penn on the back, and the fat [bleep] fell asleep on the train and snored with his mouth open.”

During the ride to DC, Matthews awoke from his nap. A fellow passenger asked him, “What’s the news tomorrow?” – to which Matthews loudly started talking about President-elect Barack Obama possibly picking Hillary as his secretary of state.

“I don’t understand it,” Matthews bellowed. “Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She’ll just use it to build her power base. It’s Machiavellian. And then we’ll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn’t want drama. He’s already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He’ll have even more drama with her. …

If you saw yesterday’s “Hardball,” this little outburst shouldn’t surprise you.

Some people will never give Hillary Clinton her due. In the Senate, Trent Lott warned her before she’d even arrived. Guess what happened when she got inside the Senate? She kept her head down and earned everyone’s respect.

Now, with the thought of Hillary at State, some of the usual suspects are railing wildly. It began with Matthews yesterday on “Hardball.” No doubt, it will continue today. (For those interested, the general email for “Hardball” is hardball@msnbc.com)

No one is doubting, as I said yesterday, that Bill Clinton will have to reconcile his global philanthropic work with Hillary’s job if she’s given the nod of secretary of state. Going forward things will have to change for the former president. But there is no evidence in Hillary’s working career in the Senate that she’s done anything but a superlative job. But for Clinton haters like Matthews that’s not enough.

The job now is to vilify her in the media and cause such a storm that she is passed over. It began yesterday and continues today. The pack is back.

Read full story · Comments are closed