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 | right wing

Hillary’s Vogue

“I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now. Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I’m wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I’m pulling my hair back. You know at some point it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention. And if others want to worry about it, I let them do the worrying for a change” – Secretary Hillary Clinton in an interview with CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty

from Fox News

CLINTON’S STYLE QUAKE has shifted the American universe and provided yet another Hillary Effect moment, one that rattled the confines of post-feminism and the concept of raw power among girls. There is no woman on planet earth who could cheerfully, defiantly and unflinchingly remove the stigma of a working woman’s persona from being tied to glam duty more thoroughly.

Here’s the hub of it. Women being able to choose their look, without expectations of false eyelashes and mandatory movie-esque makeup, when sometimes less of all of it is who she is. Rachel Maddow wouldn’t wear Gayle King’s high heels and bright hues, but the style Maddow opts for works for her, same for King.

Drudge began the latest conversation with the “Hillary Au Naturale” headline (seen below), which Fox News and others picked up (see above), launching another salvo in the war on women, this one targeting our looks and age as vulnerabilities. Expectations that because a female doesn’t appear dolled up it’s worthy of headline news instead of a deliberate decision because it suits her.

Teens and twenty-somethings get away with a scrubbed face, but aging shouldn’t relegate us all to chasing the vanity mirror unless we want to.

It follows what Drudge did when Clinton was a presidential candidate, which is covered in my book, with both he and Rush Limbaugh getting the scrutiny they deserve. Flashing back on the event when candidate Clinton was eviscerated on Drudge for a picture showing her natural wrinkles, which comes with age regardless of gender. Progressive new media blogs were also guilty of posting unflattering pictures of Clinton on purpose, but none came close to the Drudge-Rush treatment. As the Kathleen Hall Jamieson of Annenberg Public Policy Center relayed to Bill Moyers in 2007, negative images are purposefully used in politics to make the onlooker feel bad about a politician. However, when it’s done to a woman through highlighting her age it hits our juvenile nation in its solar plexus, though the air it knocks out is that of the woman being targeted, while telling other femmes to stay in the beauty box.

When Rush picked up on the Drudge wrinkle photo back during the ’08 race, he used his signature shrill sexism for the occasion.

Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she’s getting older, because it will impact poll numbers. It will impact perceptions.” – Rush Limbaugh (December 2007, source: The Hillary Effect)

“America loses interest in you,” Rush opined.

Today, where Hillary is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth.

Virginia Clinton Kelly, William Jefferson Clinton’s late mother, had moments of pause upon meeting Hillary Rodham, because Mrs. Kelly was a full makeup kind of girl. Hillary wasn’t. She now isn’t again, at least at times.

Just be careful when trying this if you’re plodding up the professional ladder, because we all know how long it took Hillary to ascend and be accepted, what it cost, and people still have expectations. But the Hillary Effect just might make it easier to decide to be different.

That Drudge got creamed this time ’round from all quarters was a thing of beauty to watch. That Clinton gave him the middle finger with a casual smile in an interview while she was on yet another grueling globetrotting tour as America’s chief diplomat was a fitting and long overdue f-you.

We’ve come a long way from ABC’s headline in 2007 asking “Is It Sexist to Discuss Hillary’s Wrinkles?” to articles in the Washington Post defending her, to Jezebel’s Hillary “GIVES ZERO FUCKS” graphic.

But that won’t stop outlets like the UK Daily Mail from doing the misogynistic deep dive on “Make-up free Clinton shows the strain of her busy travel schedule,” complete with pictorial walk-through over the last months and years meant to prove she’s worse for wear.

There’s not one woman who doesn’t know what the “tired” trap means. It means she can’t take the heat, because she looks like she’s melted without makeup. The girl’s not up to it. It’s the ultimate sexist slap driven into our confidence that we can’t matter once we’re beyond youth and motherhood, because of our mind alone. That the way we think isn’t actually a huge part of our beauty, with the confidence to live originally making us hotter with age, because the fact is it does.

The people I’ve talked with who know Secretary Clinton have said she is exhausted and looks forward to a long holiday and rest, which has been reported in every outlet you can name; some supporters puzzled over her relaxed hair and makeup. It’s not for everyone and it shouldn’t have to be. You fly 700,000 miles doing a pressure cooker job and see how you feel about every two to three weeks keeping a short haircut maintained and daily sculpted, highlights regularly, the mask of cosmetics every morning, even when you’ve had little sleep, it’s hot as hell where you are and you couldn’t name where that is without an aide. I’m not saying Clinton can’t name it, but I’ve had jet lag on puny little holiday trips, so I can’t imagine reality with her itinerary.

America is an airbrush nation.

When the first HD TV blasted across the country we all got a look at the infotainment pundits and talking heads who shouldn’t be blamed if they started looking for plastic surgeons, dermatologists, or doctors who practice laser therapy, women in particular.

Look at the films and the few female actresses who continue to work over 40.

It’s a testament to the women in film and television who have stood up and shown what they look like before they get their glamour on. KLG and Hoda did it, Natalie Morales and Meredith Vieira, too. Trendy magazines have done pictorials of actresses without makeup, with People the latest, which included Jessica Paré, who plays Don Draper’s wife on “Mad Men.” Her freckles are fabulous. In the Golden Age of Hollywood that fact would have been hidden on pain of the publicist’s life. A way to an Oscar is also seen through beauties going beastly who are considered brave. Remember Charlize Theron in “Monster”?

But not everyone is a Hollywood actress, let alone the brilliant Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s seen more pressure come her way on looks than most and finally rejected the reviews outright.

Could yet another part of the glass ceiling have cracked when Hillary “au naturale” hit the headlines this time? Traditional and new media, as well as most of television, minus misogynist central on the traditional right, didn’t just shrug, but said you look good to us, Hillary.

Taking the cue from Secretary Clinton, we backed her up and because of it some of us over 40 or 50 and beyond, took note. A space had been made to breathe. A moment crafted where the most admired American female leader said, whether I have makeup on or not in the middle of a work day “it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention.” Let others worry about the trivial, I’m helping run the world, or my family while juggling a job, or running a small business.

As a girl who chose the pageant system to help pay for college, did the national commercial and Broadway babe thing where talent and looks combined made a difference, then on from there to eventually write about things that matter, all the while trading on talent and face to help get in doors or in a talking head chair to help pitch my points, I’m now at an age where it takes a lot more work for a lot less bang for my MAC buck. Sometimes I enjoy the paint and sometimes not, but I never go public in my work without it.

Let’s hope Hillary cracking the makeup ceiling shatters convention.

I’m never going to forget it and am grateful for it.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Republicans Already Lost Hispanics, Now Shoot for Losing Next Generation

“While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.” – Reince Priebus, RNC

Fox Nation headline, via Media Matters (It was changed within an hour.)

IT’S GOING TO BE A HOT TIME at George Clooney’s Hollywood fundraiser for Pres. Obama tonight.

May the gods bless V.P. Joe Biden, who laid down a solid roll out for Barack Obama by speaking out on “Meet the Press” that was followed by a statement from the President that made history.

Even Alex Castellanos on CNN, after Obama’s statement became breaking news, questioned the intelligence of Republicans being against love, which will leave the next generation out of reach. Yes, Alex Castellanos actually said that, though he also said Obama will lose “Reagan Democrats, the cultural blue-collar Reagan Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina and Pennsylvania — important swing states.” Evidently, Mr. Castellanos missed the jailbird vote in West Virginia from Tuesday, because the voters he cites are already long gone for Obama.

If you want to be cynical, the President’s statement on marriage equality will excite Obama’s Democratic base, if anything, which is really what he needs to do right now.

Obama’s statement of support for marriage equality also lands same sex couples in a position to put states rights on trial through their pocketbooks. Because if you’re gay or lesbian and in a committed partnership or want to be, there’s no reason to continue to live in a state that doesn’t respect your civil right to form a legal family, proving it doesn’t deserve your money. Jobs make it rough to bolt, but living openly and being legally protected in a loving family should become an economic issue for states, because that’s where the battles will now be fought.

A message from Pres. Obama is important, but it won’t change everything, because we all know Congress is worthless, with Pres. Obama making the decision his administration would no longer defend section 3 of DOMA over a year ago.

So, with all this to talk about, it makes perfect sense that an article from Politico, written by Glenn Thrush and Carrie Budoff Brown, surfaced casting “blame” on Biden. Because we all have to keep churning stuff out no matter how ridiculous and Politico couldn’t seem to think outside their insider bubble to cast a net toward Republicans and what it means for them. Instead, the high school version was assigned, with thesaurus at the ready, on how Biden “forced” Obama’s hand, “deeply annoyed Obama’s team,” followed by the weirdly written phrase “nor did it tickle anyone” that Joe had been caught on video being Joe. It was followed by “chafed,” to once again describe the Obama team’s reaction to V.P. Joe Biden’s remarks. All of this came after an initial piece from Politico reporting “Biden forced Obama’s hand”… blah, blah, blah.

Politico’s Thrush and Budoff Brown dumbed it all down to this: “But the damage control was anything but a joke.”

When does a statement of support delivered by the president of the United States to people who love one another, encouraging acceptance of them to be able to form a family with legal protections, including for children, require “damage control”?

Maggie Haberman reports what I believe is the strongest angle in the whole unwinding, which didn’t begin this week, whether we’re talking Biden or Arne Duncan, but was a cumulative evolution that was helped exponentially by the strong views of First Lady Michelle Obama, along with an assist from Valeria Jarrett. These two women have given Pres. Obama his best council, most of which surfaced in action well after Rahm Emanuel’s departure, in case anyone is keeping track.

Then there was Barack Obama’s two young daughters, Sasha and Malia, the next generation capable of teaching each of us where the future lies if we listen. Is it so hard to believe their dad did just that?

However, if any one thing was the trip wire for Obama speaking out now it was just as likely to have been the painful and obviously disastrous White House press briefing by Jay Carney. If that didn’t shock Pres. Obama into moving nothing would, because it unfolded in a manner that proved the subject was never going to be tamped down.

The most important story beyond Pres. Obama making history is where this leaves the Republican party and Mitt Romney.

In the dust of things undone from the 20th century and they’re evidently not going to budge. This is the story, because it’s a jolting moment for the GOP, as the Democratic party lays down yet another historic civil rights marker, this time for activists to follow in states across the country.

Mitt Romney’s comments were predictably small, because they’re moored in religious conservatism, well outside the fulcrum of civil rights.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while challenging Obama on marriage equality, which has now been met by the President, easily wipes the floor with Romney on the issue, who’s becoming a less attractive presidential candidate every day.

“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney told KDVR. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.” – Yahoo! News

We can no longer accept or tolerate religious interference in the business of progress, because as a nation we can no longer afford the price we pay in productivity.

It’s like the entire world is moving to a place in the 21st century that encourages the expansion of civil rights and human rights, while Republicans hold fast to the notion that “Leave it to Beaver” can be recreated off a Hollywood set in a century that will leave the U.S. behind if we don’t empower every American to their best self, their best life, which includes bringing more and more families, as well as forgotten children, together, uniting loved ones in honor, dignity and protected status so that no person feels excluded from the pursuit of happiness and the American dream.

Fox Nation screencapture via Media Matters.

Read full story · Comments { 84 }

Will Sen. Joe Manchin Join the Jailbird?

My message is simple: WTFU. Translated — wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake. … I ask: What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking? Look around the world — do you see any governments or incumbents winning any elections out there? – Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose

Federal prisoner Keith Russell Judd, 49, at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas in March 15, 2008. (h/t Buzzfeed)

VOTING FOR A JAILBIRD instead of Pres. Obama, the AP is reporting 4 in 10 voters in West Virginia prefer a criminal white man over our African American president. America should be so proud. Makes you wonder if Sen. Joe Manchin will join his fellow West Virginians, because he’s already hinted he may not support Obama in November. Of course, there’s absolutely no indication Manchin is racist, however, the same cannot be said for many anti-Obama voters.

…A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary. In Alabama, 18 percent of Democratic voters chose “uncommitted” in the primary rather than vote for Obama.

Obama’s energy policies and the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of mining-related permits have incurred the wrath of West Virginia’s coal industry. With the state the nation’s second-biggest producer of this fossil fuel, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin -both Democrats have championed the industry – have declined to say whether they will support Obama in November.

So, Manchin’s dirty energy ties will keep him from voting for Pres. Obama? He’s a Democratic senator, so you have to wonder what good party affiliation is when you can’t even get your own Blue Dog Dems to vote for you.

When you’re voting for a criminal over a the first African American president the reason is obvious.

That Democrats assume they’ll win in November is understandable given how bad a politician Mitt Romney has proven to be, coupled with the crazy Republican primary die hards have watched over these past months. The problem is that Etch a Sketch politicians have been a staple of our country for a long time, so there’s no reason to believe that voters won’t choose one again.

People are discontented.

But voting for a jailbird?

What puts this all into perspective is that Pres. Obama and the Democratic party chose to have their convention in North Carolina, an anti-union right-to-work state that just passed Amendment One against marriage equality and even civil unions, where Obama will deliver his acceptance speech at Bank of American stadium.

Whatever the considerations in the choice, a lot about Charlotte goes unmentioned: double-digit unemployment, overflowing homeless shelters and North Carolina’s notorious restrictions on labor unions. [...] When the president takes to the podium at the field named for BofA, it ought to be “a moment of mild embarrassment” for his party, says U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, a Tar Heel Democrat. “There’ll probably be a night of wincing,” Miller says. “One of the Obama administration’s greatest vulnerabilities is that they have been seen, correctly, as too inclined to accommodate the banks.” – Huffington Post

The Democratic party simply isn’t what it used to be.

However, according to Gallup recently, Obama has a two-point advantage on voter enthusiasm in swing states right now. So, as much as I appreciate Carville’s partisan freak out, unless Mitt Romney can make a move on Hispanics, I’m just not seeing this the way Carville is. The race remains Pres. Obama’s to lose, though that’s very possible.

Oh, and about Amendment One passing in North Carolina, where the Democratic party is planting their convention flag. Pres. Obama is “disappointed” about the vote. Who exactly is that supposed to impress?

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

Missouri’s Disgrace

SENATOR CLAIRE MCCASKILL is receiving extra Secret Service protection at public events, because of an extremist Republican, Tea Party branch, who made rhetorical threats that can’t be taken lightly. These are the same people who come to rallies with guns at their side, not even concealed.

“We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen,” Boston said. “She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” – St. Louis Post Dispatch

When I left Missouri decades ago, it was a right wing, anti-feminist factory. Today, it’s a state that continues to disgrace itself politically.

Republican Senate hopeful John Brunner firmly repudiated the wacko Tea Party cretin. Unfortunately, as Dick Lugar’s loss proved yesterday, they’ve infiltrated the party of Reagan so that they’re now wagging the dog.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Biggest Loser After Anti-Austerity Vote in France? Infotainment Host, Joe Scarborough

For Worst Financial Analysis in Infotainment

POOR JOE SCAROBOROUGH. You had to almost feel sorry for the irascible infotainment host this morning.

The months and months of economic mumbo jumbo offered on “Morning Joe,” particularly by the host himself, which masquerades as financial analysis but is actually Paul Ryan austerity propaganda, blew up in his Starburck’s over the weekend. What’s the financial wingnut to do now? Tying himself in knots over voters in France, as well as Greece, turning out the austerity plans of Angela Merkel made him even crankier than usual on Monday (at least from the couple of clips I checked out online).

That Paul Krugman’s analysis continues to win out has got to be particularly galling for the guy.

What is true is that Mr. Hollande’s victory means the end of “Merkozy,” the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a “dangerous” development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn’t and doesn’t; it’s time to move on. Europe’s voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent’s best and brightest.

What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper.

Of course, Scarborough will remain in denial, which is best seen whenever his nemesis Donnie Deutsch slams Republican economics, something that drives Scarborough nuts, though I actually believe it’s more a mano-a-mano problem for the “Morning Joe” host whose ego can’t handle anyone being right but him; something that is seen daily through Scarborough exchanges and Buzzfeed recently reviewed as a “cacophony of arguing.”

The second most entertaining reaction came in a weird column today by Robert Reich, with a title that is not only contrived but obvious in its intent.

The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution

It seems set up as an offensive rebuttal of what may come from Republicans and to help the Obama administration, because we all know invoking “socialism” for any part of American public policy is the Democratic fear of fears.

But as Lawrence O’Donnell tries to remind people every chance he gets, America has been a mix of Democratic ideals and socialism going back to at least F.D.R., though Teddy R. and others made their contributions, too. Even the Tea Party likes their entitlements, so to have a renowned economic analyst like Reich, who is really playing the role of Democratic partisan here, make the case for “Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution” is down right amusing.

What Reich and his ilk are actually trying to do is stem off criticism from Republicans to meld Pres. Obama’s economic message, though I still maintain he doesn’t have one, with that of anti-austerity president-elect François Hollande, who’s been invited to the White House amid warnings from Obama on Afghanistan and the European financial crisis.

Anyone trying to associate Obama with socialism is not only ignorant of the latter, but knows absolutely nothing about the former.

As I’ve written previously, president-elect François Hollande’s idea to lower the retirement age for some workers to 60 is daft. However, thinking Pres. Obama is a socialist is simply partisan propaganda, because there remains a high probability that in his second term, if he gets one, the grand bargain on entitlements will indeed manifest in some form through the Democratic leader, which will be backed by most members of his party.

On the other side, there can be little doubt Mitt Romney would attempt entitlement “reform” as well, which if it comes in the form of the Paul Ryan plan would be a disaster for us all, though it no doubt would make certain infotainment hosts very happy.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Arne Duncan Joins V.P. Biden, Comes Out in Support of Same Sex Marriage

Look, I am Vice President of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that. – V.P. Joe Biden on Meet the Press

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA “evolve already”?

Today, Education Secretary Arnie Duncan joined Biden.

Mark Halperin asked Duncan on “Morning Joe” if he thought same sex men and women should be able to get legally married in the United States. Duncan’s simply reply: “Yes, I do.”

It comes after V.P. Joe Biden, a devout Catholic, made news on “Meet the Press” yesterday.

The Catholic Church will not approve, but will they deny Biden communion like one diocese threatened to do to John Kerry, because of his stance on women’s individual freedoms?

Looks like the Catholic League’s going to be very busy this year. Their boycott of Jon Stewart hasn’t gone so well, so maybe revving up a bigot campaign over The Gays might invigorate them.

Mitt Romney and the Republicans are against marriage equality, as well as women’s individual freedoms, while newly crowned Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson sides with equality for all, as do most Democrats.

We’re still waiting for Pres. Obama to get off the fence.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Michael Mukasey Latest Republican to Make a Fool of Himself Over Obama OBL Call

Scores of pages of al Qaeda documents seized in last year’s U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden were released Thursday. They comprise 175 pages in the original Arabic of letters and drafts from bin Laden and other key al Qaeda figures, including the American Adam Gadahn and Abu Yahya al-Libi. – The Osama bin Laden documents



REPUBLICAN SCRAMBLING BEGAN the moment the reelection ad for Pres. Obama, narrated by former Pres. Bill Clinton, surfaced, but has now reached epic levels with Republicans using former attorney general Michael Mukasey’s Breitbartesque Wall Street Journal op-ed from April 30th. That Sean Hannity is using the propaganda is predictable, but that Mukasey would stoop to these levels by assuming one C.I.A. memorandum tells the story is pretty remarkable and close to professional irresponsibility.

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s.

This is the exact same case made by a Breitbart column I cited.

Mukasey went on:

Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

Again, Mukasey assumes this from one singular memo? Unfortunately, as the CNN story from the top of this column reveals, which came on May 3rd, he was not only wrong, but made a fool of himself by deciding to play politics himself when he also didn’t know the full extent of what was retrieved.

The Christian Science Monitor also reported on the bin Laden papers.

People can argue about whether a political ad on the OBL operation and its success is “spiking the football,” but what cannot be denied is that if Republicans were in Obama’s position they’d ram it down Democratic throats. What also cannot be argued is that Pres. Obama took huge risks in going into Pakistan without permission, something Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden criticized him for suggesting when they were all running for president in ’08.

Mitt Romney can cite Jimmy Carter in a clearly prepared line that scores with his base, but there’s still no evidence whatsoever that he’d have proceeded with the raid inside Pakistan.

“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” – Mitt Romney, 2008 campaign

You can argue Romney’s 2008 statement doesn’t preclude a daring call to send SEAL Team Six into Pakistan unannounced, but it does seem to judge national security issues on economic terms alone, not considering the blood the mission might have “cost” is equally important.

I say this also because of his statement on Chen Guangcheng, with Romney popping off when he obviously didn’t have enough facts, because few did. His injudicious politicizing of national security matters as a presidential candidate, both in 2008 and today, reveals a lack of caution and also shows he’s trying to act like he knows what he’s talking about instead of being confident enough to say, “I’m not in the position to have enough classified intelligence to make the decision from here, but the murderer responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice.”

Mayor Giuliani didn’t hesitate to utilize 9/11, George W. Bush pictured 9/11 in 2004 reelect ads, and just this week Mitt Romney had lunch at Engine 24/ladder 5 firehouse that lost 11 men on that day.

This closes the case on political opportunism.

Considering Romney was nowhere in leadership on 9/11, but Pres. Obama took a lot of risks and performed his commander in chief duties with expertise on OBL, the case is closed when comparing the two as well. Romney would be wise not to try to insert himself on this front, but being a Republican he can’t help himself.

From Mukasey to Romney, Republicans are tripping over themselves to try to beat Obama at the national security game, which they owned from Vietnam until the disastrous Iraq war. That Obama is offering a solid chance for Democrats to out tough Republicans, I’d say leaning too far on the hawk side, must be infuriating to the right, but they need to get over themselves, because right now they’re making fools of themselves.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Jon Stewart Calls Out Brian Schweitzer, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Martin Bashir

“I hate Barack Obama more than I love Jesus.” – Jon Stewart on religious conservative bigotry over Mitt’s Mormonism

What a target rich environment.

In the first video below, Stewart uses Schweitzer, O’Donnell and Bashir for target practice, after they make fools of themselves over Romney’s religious preference. “Speaking as a Jew,” Stewart’s religious take down is perfection.

The second video’s subject is Richard Grenell, which has been a disaster for Mitt Romney.

So, as long as we’re talking about the media, let’s also look at the horrific news CNN got this week. They can’t even beat HLN. Buzzfeed offers some advice that’s not bad, starting with their prefab taped segments, but also that Piers Morgan is great on celebrity dish, but the worst on cable when it comes to political analysis.

There’s a reason Fox News Channel leads the pack and that’s because the competition, minus Rachel Maddow, is very weak.

Enjoy the videos, it’s two of Stewart’s best in a long time.


Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Obama’s Composite Girlfriend Creates Rip van Winkle Awakening

The success of “Dreams” has given Obama nearly complete control of his own life narrative, an appealing tale that has been the foundation of his political success. But Maraniss’s biography threatens that narrative by questioning it: Was Obama’s journey entirely spiritual and intellectual? Or was it also grounded in the lower realms of ambition and calculation?The dangerous new Obama book, by Glenn Thrush and Dylan Byers

BACK IN 2007, into very early 2008, when the national press was agog about Barack Obama, I wrote about him in a manner that was honest and highly doubting that the myth matched what I’d been told by Chicagoans, as well as what I’d dug up and read about the man who was just another ruthless politician. But politics is a dirty game and there isn’t one person who reaches Obama’s heights that doesn’t get into the mud, which was certainly the case in the Democratic primaries of 2007, which I recount in my book The Hillary Effect.

The Obama camp went nuclear on Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas, which I’ve defended, as they also did on Confidence Men by Ron Suskind, also a trove of revealing facts. So you can bet they’ve got a corner of their reelection war room ready for David Marinass’s new book Barack Obama: The Story, to be published in June by Simon & Schuster.

However, let’s begin with what Barack Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father, before the reader gets to the first page:

“For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people, I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of privacy.” [Business Insider]

No one can get into Mr. Obama’s mind way back when he was writing his memoir, but having written about a boyfriend in my current book I’ll admit I can’t relate to the composite choice. There are many ways to protect people, with a composite obviously coming with motive on crafting a story that lives beyond facts and truth. It’s not in any way necessarily nefarious, dishonest or manipulative. However, considering Barack Obama’s healthy ambition it’s clear there was intent to create a narrative that suited the main character’s purpose. Again, nothing wrong with that either, but the tale does lie beyond fact. That he admits this up front is important. Why he decided to take that road, however, is too.

It is excerpted in Vanity Fair:

In Dreams from My Father, Obama chose to emphasize a racial chasm that unavoidably separated him from the woman he described as his New York girlfriend.

One night I took her to see a new play by a black playwright. It was a very angry play, but very funny. Typical black American humor. The audience was mostly black, and everybody was laughing and clapping and hollering like they were in church. After the play was over, my friend started talking about why black people were so angry all the time. I said it was a matter of remembering—nobody asks why Jews remember the Holocaust, I think I said—and she said that’s different, and I said it wasn’t, and she said that anger was just a dead end. We had a big fight, right in front of the theater. When we got back to the car she started crying. She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and wasn’t that enough.

None of this happened with Genevieve. She remembered going to the theater only once with Barack, and it was not to see a work by a black playwright. When asked about this decades later, during a White House interview, Obama acknowledged that the scene did not happen with Genevieve. “It is an incident that happened,” he said. But not with her. He would not be more specific, but the likelihood is that it happened later, when he lived in Chicago. “That was not her,” he said. “That was an example of compression I was very sensitive in my book not to write about my girlfriends, partly out of respect for them. So that was a consideration. I thought that [the anecdote involving the reaction of a white girlfriend to the angry black play] was a useful theme to make about sort of the interactions that I had in the relationships with white girlfriends. And so, that occupies, what, two paragraphs in the book? My attitude was it would be dishonest for me not to touch on that at all … so that was an example of sort of editorially how do I figure that out?”

An over exercised story in The Atlantic makes good points on Rush Limbaugh and the corrections made by Politico. But the complaining about Obama and “vetting” is laughable.

Politico does get one thing correct and that is the Marinass book is potentially dangerous, because people don’t think of Barack Obama the way they did in 2008. No politician can withstand the pedestal and political god treatment, whether it’s John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton or, yes, even Barack Obama.

All along David Axelrod and David Plouffe portrayed Barack Obama as beyond your average politician. Michelle Obama has added to this myth exponentially, as has Valerie Jarrett and others around the President, because as the first African American president they’ve laid on him, with Obama accepting the charge, that he’s special, different and, as Oprah said, “The One.”

Through all my writing, including in my book, which focuses on the press’s complicity in allowing the myth of Obama to take hold as a political foundation, I’ve endeavored to portray Barack Obama as he is, which began through what I’d learned from digging around as much as my independent pocketbook would allow, back when the traditional and new media press, as well as cable, were laying hands on him. It looks like the media is finally deciding to consider that Barack Obama is indeed another politician who utilized his life story to craft a narrative that would sell.

Ask Marco Rubio how important a political narrative is in American politics.

We’re a Hollywood nation, so we love a good story and when someone tries to add truth to the mix that tarnishes the tale they end up paying for it in any number of ways.

But to hear the media whine about Barack Obama’s story is a bit much. This is the same national and new media I indict in my book, because of their clear bias and careless coverage throughout 2007-2008, while ignoring important clues, not to mention what they chose to focus on regarding Hillary Clinton, a dramatic political and journalistic tale that goes back 20 years. Ryan Lizza’s article in The New Yorker further proved I’d been on to something from the start.

Now the right’s going nuclear because it will help their fight to get Mitt Romney in the White House. Utilizing Obama’s fall from perfection, the media’s Rip van Winkle awakening to stir up a story in a dizzyingly boring election year, as well as the people’s nervousness about everything, Republicans have seized on the Marinass narrative.

Team Obama’s in for a bruising battle, because now everyone knows he’s not “The One.” No one is.


CORRECTION: The Maranass book will be out in June, not this month as originally stated, and has been corrected above.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Obama Uses Newt Against Romney

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, on the eve of suspending his roller coaster presidential bid, said in an interview with USA TODAY that he will embrace Mitt Romney’s candidacy Wednesday and is ready to campaign for his former rival. – USA TODAY

A NEUTERED NEWT GINGRICH will endorse Mitt Romney today. Gingrich said he wouldn’t run in 2020. No, I’m not kidding.

Obama reelect promptly jumped on the opportunity to use Gingrich’s words against Romney against him again.

Dave Weigel nailed the problem and dug up the old Kennedy ad above, the facts of which I actually remember from 1980. That I’ve been a student of the Kennedys since I was a kid, coupled with the fact that I stood in gas lines in New York City while Pres. Carter suggested we all put on a sweater, as the hostage crisis ticked on day by day, all make Weigel’s point hit home to me.

Obama’s ad (see below) is just too antiseptic, too easy and predictable.

Both Romney and Obama are cut-out political dolls of the big corporate parties, which all of their ads mimic. I prefer campaigns with grit, gall and lots of heart, which certainly describes Teddy’s 1980 campaign to a tee. Never mind it was hopeless and seen by insiders as disastrous for Democrats, though it was actually more about Carter, but was still one reason Barack Obama didn’t get a challenger this year.

The big question now is whether Mitt will help Newt with his debt, which is an embarrassing example of hubris run amok. If Mitt Romney needs Newt Gingrich, so paying his debt will help him, I’m not sure that says anything good about the GOP nominee.

Newt Gingrich ends his White House dream today with his political committee facing a mountain of debts — owing about $4 million to scores of businesses and campaign workers around the country who fear they will never get paid.Yahoo! News

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

White House: “We can’t do anything about Drudge”

**updated**

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SECRET TRIP TO AFGHANISTAN was kept under wraps by responsible news media and members of the White House Press Corp.

The New York Post and Drudge could have cared less, with Drudge swapping links to keep the leak alive, while putting Pres. Obama’s life in danger.
Everyone has their priorities.

Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed has the incredible tick-tock and the story.

Per Jay Carney, via the pool report, after Obama’s speech to the troops, he visited a hospital on Bagram Airbase, gave out 10 purple hearts, as well as addressed the troops on the military radio system, thanking them for their service and what they continue to do.

As for Pres. Obama’s remarks and the strategic agreement, the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many years to come, through 2024 in a “support role.”

There are so many questions left to answer it’s unfathomable where to start.

As Prepared for Delivery

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than seven thousand miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries – a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I’d like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe-havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I’d like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where Afghan Security Forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan Security Forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans – men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan, and for Afghanistan’s future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan’s neighbor – Pakistan – that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America’s image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear timeline to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don’t leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as Commander-in-Chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As President, nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm’s way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan, and end this war responsibly.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

This future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of them, and told them that as Commander-in-Chief, I could not be prouder. In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, coast guardsmen and civilians in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice.

As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear, and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen, and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still. This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Enter the Swift Boat Narrative on Obama’s OBL Decision

MICHAEL HASTINGS KNOWS the meaning of being swift-boated, as does Buzzfeed boss Ben Smith.

The swift boat headline is a winner, even if the usage and examples are incorrect, with the most important element of this story a buried lede that has nothing to do with swift-boating and could be a blockbuster if Pres. Obama’s opponents pick it up.

Of course, for that to happen people would have to keep two opposing thoughts in their head simultaneously, something that is rarely accomplished in U.S. politics. Those thoughts are that Pres. Obama earned bragging rights for okaying the OBL raid that was superbly executed, but that there is legitimate criticism coming from SEAL Team Six about what happened afterward.

Hastings begins by unleashing a torrent of speculative assumptions from a reporter usually known for sourcing and unbiased stories, though he eventually gets to the juice. A snippet from Hastings today:

But as the stagey outrage over the politicization of foreign policy from Mitt Romney and his Republican allies gained momentum over this past weekend, White House officials started to have their doubts. Was spiking the football, again, and again, and again, in a public such a good idea? Was it necessary? Was the campaign in Chicago, White House officials wondered, going too far?

Like Kerry’s war record, the vulnerability to the president’s Bin Laden story isn’t so much from the other side, as it from those who can claim the mantle of veteran. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the website: navysealsagainstobama.com sprout up soon. Sure, military servicemen are accustomed to being exploited by both the left and the right. But that strategy can have its weaknesses, too. If the assault on the Bin Laden narrative continues, and if the anger expressed in private by the SEALs remains very public, the campaign might be forced to retreat.

One can only imagine who these unnamed “White House officials” are, but someone at 1600 better get a grip on these leaks, because in a tough election cycle they can be a politician’s undoing, especially when it revolves a story so potentially explosive.

To “swift boat,” a subject on which I’m an expert, entails, in part, fabricating a damaging fantasy for partisan reasons, that hits the politician where he’s seen to be strongest. It is to associate a political opponent through a lie that attacks his or her credibility, wrapped in a smear campaign, that hits at the heart of an issue that makes his candidacy popular.

The reason the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were calamitous for Kerry’s campaign is that they took aim at his Silver Star in an offensive attack against a Democratic war hero that unpacked his bravery through misrepresentation and when that didn’t work utter bullshit, with Kerry caught flat-footed out of disbelief anyone would buy it. This tactic was eventually replicated against three-limb amputee and hero vet Max Cleland as well. It wasn’t the actions of either war hero in battle that were actually at issue, though swift-boating questioned their bravery and patriotism, but the fact that they were Democrats, with their opponents waging war on them because of it.

Swift-boating Obama would require vaunted heroes to lie, defame and concoct a narrative against the commander in chief, getting themselves dirty in the process, because swiftboating is never about truth. It’s about opportunity, along with the actors willing to play their parts for partisan gain, at all cost.

The first problem with Hastings swift boat narrative begins here:

What was supposed to be an easy win—a victory lap on the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, trumping up the president’s most militant moment—appeared to be slipping away.

According to whom? Republicans? SEAL Team Six members, current and former? Where’s the evidence that this is true, beyond Hastings putting his reputation behind words that come out of nowhere with no proof, but do support the political narrative people attacking Pres. Obama want to push.

Next from Hastings is something that actually matters and has absolutely nothing to do with swift-boating.

The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six.

Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing?

Hastings is reporting a very substantive allegation here that’s the opposite of swift-boating, saying that Navy SEALS in the Team Six unit have questioned whether Pres. Obama’s naming them as OBL’s assassins got members of their team killed.

Coming from Hastings, whose reporting has been golden since the career ending interview with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, continuing in his book, which has been widely lauded, this should send shock waves through Obama reelect, with someone in the “war room” investigating it immediately, if only to be prepared.

John Kerry wasn’t prepared.

May the gods help Obama reelect if the right-wing rabble of Rush and Sean decide to take hold of this one, because they’ll never let go. Jerome Corsi is likely investigating it as you read this column. Having been burned on his birther book, he’s got to be chomping at the bit to find another angle to try to take down Obama.

The allegation Hastings floats has nothing to do with being swift-boated, but is a serious issue that could be exploited, which is quite separate from the scurrilous partisan skullduggery that is at the heart of what it means to swift boat your opponent.

Everyone’s still writing about the political gamesmanship going on, missing the potential news in Hastings’ Buzzfeed piece.

It’s dangerous for Pres. Obama, because if utilized through a coherent political strategy, it would bring the “naive” charge right back to Obama’s door. Republicans could contend that Pres. Obama openly naming SEAL Team Six put them in danger and got them killed, an event that happened long before the commander in chief rightfully took credit for okaying the daring raid.

However, concocting the naive narrative without proof would indeed be swift-boating and it’s something Rush, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter crowd, aided by wingnut bloggers, could easily manufacture and they wouldn’t need anything but Michael Hastings’ Buzzfeed piece to launch it.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Obama Ad: ‘Just what you’d expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account’

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened. – Bloomberg

AS BACKGROUND, let me offer that the White House has never frozen me out of releases and press accounts because of criticism I’ve launched in their direction, which at times has been withering. I’m not invited to insider gaggles, but that’s perfectly understandable, because I’m not “a friend” of any politician at this point.

So, I’d post the response from team Romney to the ad above, because it’s my job and I’ve pledged to offer both sides, as I’m not endorsing anyone in 2012. Additionally, as I’ve written many times before, I think Obama and Romney are political bookends to a problem we have in politics that begins with the 1% buying the presidential election. But interestingly, ever since I asked team Romney an honest question about baptismal for the dead via Twitter, they’ve refused requests for campaign emails and press related material. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, so I’ve tried yet again this morning, so we’ll see what happens.

I certainly have a liberal bias, which I state openly and is also obvious, but my partisan political days for the sake of electing a Democrat are o-v-e-r and I get enough pro-Romney fodder and comments from long-time readers, as well as Independents, that I also feel compelled to offer both sides, which needs to come from the teams themselves whenever possible.

In full disclosure and in way of explanation of coverage I’ve given Pres. Obama recently, when he put forth free contraception for women, which Mitt Romney and the Republican are against, it was an lucrative economic prize for women that makes a difference in their daily lives for which Obama deserves credit. It comes after Obama’s very early and strong support for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which the Republican party was against, which equaled the playing field for women who were discriminated against in their jobs. These two issues alone, whether I’m a partisan or not, not only deserve mention and praise, but in the battle for the women’s vote gives Pres. Obama the advantage, because he’s proven his support on serious and pressing economic issues that can impact women. Both Ledbetter and free contraception directly affect the bottom line of single women, as well as working women, including those with families, while also being two policy decisions that Republicans opposed strongly. To not state bluntly that credit is due because it’s earned would be dishonest.

It’s the Romney campaign’s choice not to include me on their daily press list, though it requires no extra effort to do so. But if you’re wondering why you’re not getting their side of the story from the campaign’s mouth it’s because they won’t offer it to me and if that’s their stance I feel no compunction to go searching for it. I say this because long-time readers are now Romney supporters, as are some Independents that stop here, not to mention women who are concentrating on their financial status and not contraception, so not giving them the campaign’s version needs to be laid at team Romney’s doorstep, not mine.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Tzipi Livni Resigns

AFTER LOSING HER LEADERSHIP spot in Kadima, today Tzipi Livni resigned from the Israeli Parliament, vowing to fight on for Israel.

From the BBC:

[...] “I was by Ariel Sharon’s side on the day it was decided to form Kadima. It was founded in aim to create a government of hope and responsibility.”

Ms Livni said she did not regret decisions which might have led to her losing the leadership, saying she was not “sorry for not backing down in the face of political blackmail – even when the price was being in the government – and for not willing to sell the country to the ultra-Orthodox”. “And I’m definitely not sorry for the main issue I promoted. Even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t in vogue right now, there’s an urgent need to reach a permanent agreement with the Palestinians as well as with the Arab world,” she added.

Livni went on to say that it didn’t “take a Shin Bet chief to know that” burying your head in the sand won’t work in politics, referring to the former head of Israel’s internal security agency who has criticized Netanyahu for his obsession with Iran’s nuclear program and his counterproductive Middle East policies.

The reference was to the scathing criticism from Yuval Diskin, former head of Shin Bet, who follows Mossad’s Meir Dagan who has said that Netanhayu’s bravado of bombing Iran is “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard,” which of course it is.

From TIME magazine:

The former head of Shin Bet minced no words. “I have no faith in the current leadership of the State of Israel, which is supposed to lead us in the event of a major event, such as a war with Iran or a regional war,” Yuval Diskin told a group of retired security officials on Friday, in a restaurant north of Tel Aviv. Diskin, who stepped down a year ago as head of Israel’s internal security apparatus, was apparently videotaped by at least one of the attendees and excerpts appeared in Israeli media over the weekend. “I have no faith in either the prime minister or the defense minister,” he added, referring to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, respectively. “I am very mistrustful of a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic senses…. I’ve seen them from up close. They’re not messiahs, either of them, and they are not people whom I, on a personal level at least, trust to lead the State of Israel into an event of that scale and also to extricate Israel from it. I am very worried that they are not the people whom I truly would want to be at the helm when we set out on an endeavor of that sort.”

Diskin’s pronouncements were a bombshell in the Israeli media, coming after a string of similar public pronouncements from the previous chief of Mossad Meir Dagan, whose former agency is charged with doing overseas what Diskin’s does at home. Dagan, who left office last year, stopped short of Diskin’s indictments of the judgment of Netanyahu and Barak. But he has repeatedly called the duo’s threats to bomb Iran “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” The former spymaster, under whom Mossad carried out an ambitious espionage campaign against Tehran’s nuclear program, warned that a military strike would ignite a regional war that could go on for years.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Mitt Romney’s Retort

“Of course, even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” – Mitt Romney

IT’S THE QUOTE OF THE DAY and is pitch perfect for the national media and political press.

On whether Mitt Romney would have given the order to take out Osama bin Laden, the quote is via Ginger Gibson of Politico. They also remind everyone that George W. Bush never shrunk from using 9/11. Via Burns and Haberman:

…it’s worth noting that George W. Bush’s first ad of the 2004 campaign featured footage of a stretcher getting carried out of ground zero with remains, as well as the charred shell of the World Trade Center.

As to what voters will respond to Romney’s Jimmy Carter OBL retort, it wasn’t as much for voters as it was for the conservative base, who loathe Carter and think of him as the ultimate weak president.

As for Arianna Huffington defending Mitt Romney, CBS “Morning Show” (and Chris Licht) strikes again by getting the quote and some attention on an early morning talk show that is earning respect.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

An Example of Why People Should Hate Politics

It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer those villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they say and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. – Al Armendariz in 2010, former EPA official

ARE YOU KIDDING me?

An Obama EPA official resigns over conservative pressure about something he said in 2010?

Sen. James Inhofe, best known for “scar[ing] the crap out of” airport workers by flying erratically, and one of the most ignorant people to ever serve in the U.S. Senate, a global warning denier and general buffoon of all things 21st century, is behind it. That the Administration caved to this cretin is stunning, because Inhofe has absolutely no credibility whatsoever, unless you’re so far right you long ago lost sight of center.

Inhofe’s craziness led him to oppose the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which is little known, but critical to military operations, as well as maritime security. Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in the Bush administration, even called Inhofe out on his idiocy back in 2007.

Dave Weigel outlined how it all began to snowball last week. It began with Jay Carney “giving away the store” with a reporter, which opened the door to a If Obama Is About Hope And Change What Is This Guy Doing At The EPA moment?

When did Democrats become afraid of their own shadow? … .. Strike that.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Arrogant Amnesia: Obama Gets OBL, Republicans Stuck with ‘Mission Accomplished’ Cod Piece Photo Op



AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA in the Situation Room with Brian Williams on the bin Laden raid has exploded.

Sen. John McCain is having a hissy fit.

Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro is either the dumbest political writer on planet earth or is ignorant of presidential commander in chief powers. I’m guessing it’s both. He’s squealing like a little girl that Admiral McRaven was in charge of SEAL Team Six during the dangerous bin Laden raid, which in his mind means Pres. Obama is gutless, though how he comes to that conclusion takes a Olympic fete of intellectual fraudulence only someone from Breitbart could complete.

McRaven’s charge has been known since May 2011, written up by no less than Military.com, which also pointed to the thoroughness of the plan:

About 10 days before the raid, Obama was briefed on the plan. It included keeping two backup helicopters just outside Pakistani airspace in case something went wrong. But Obama felt that was risky. If the SEALs needed help, they couldn’t afford to wait for backup.

He said the operation needed a plan in case the SEALs had to fight their way out. So two Chinooks were sent into Pakistani airspace, loaded with backup teams, just in case. One of those Chinooks landed in the compound after the Black Hawk became inoperable.

Politically motivated and manufactured right wing reaction to the ad above revolves around a CIA memo obtained by TIME magazine, which proves absolutely nothing and raises no questions whatsoever, unless you’re a partisan hack.

Republicans actually believe the military is in charge of foreign policy and military actions. They have never understood our American republic is founded on the guiding principal of civilian leadership.

That Pres. Obama made the call and got the bastard of 9/11 galls them and they will do anything to discredit a gallant act of pure presidential leadership that was heroic, risky and revealed Barack Obama’s complete and total respect and faith in our elite military forces to get the dangerous, from military aspects to international and political hazards, job done.

I, for one, am loving it and can only say…

Finally.

At long last.

The ad I’ve been waiting to hit.

Having it narrated by former Pres. Bill Clinton is a stroke of political genius.

Unlike George W. Bush, who paraded himself around on an aircraft carrier, then took his place on a podium in front of a banner screaming “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” when it actually wasn’t and still isn’t in Iraq, Pres. Obama got the job done of getting Osama bin Laden.

Republicans are squealing bloody murder about an ad they would have tricked up and trotted out long before today. We would have been hearing about this every day since it happened, little doubt the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, who fictionalized Dick Cheney’s nuclear fantasies ad nauseam, given access to whatever Republican hero who’d gotten the madman of 9/11.

This U.S. military success, under the commander in chief Barack Obama, forever obliterates any question that he doesn’t have the right stuff to lead this nation. Republicans campaign to deny him his moment of leadership is everything that’s wrong with our politics.

Anyone can disagree with Pres. Obama’s politics, I do often and strongly, but Pres. Obama earned and deserves credit for making the decision and okaying the risky SEAL Team Six op to get OBL. It’s long past time he received it and nothing Republicans say should rob him of it.

As for using Mitt Romney’s words against him on national security, don’t make me laugh. Republicans have defamed military veterans who are Democrats, tarnishing their military service, even lying about vaunted combat awards.

That team Obama is hitting Mitt Romney on national security and foreign policy is not only fair game, it would be dereliction of political duty not to. Because unlike on the economy and business, there is absolutely no case to be made for Mitt Romney as commander in chief.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Nonchalance 2012


Mitt Romney had a rout on Tuesday, while Jim Messina announced the monologue is over, so the general election is obviously on.

“…and try as I might, I’m having difficulty giving a f*@!” – Jon Stewart

The feeling is wide spread.

Politico added to the umpteenth articles about 2016, though at least it had a twist, instead of being just another speculative opus leading to the same who knows? conclusion. This one meandered into the Cuomo vs. Clinton rumination.

It’s just silly, but it’s hard for new media sites to generate enough interesting stories about the horse race they love to follow, so they’re forced into endless speculation.

I’m with Jon Stewart on this one, though perhaps for different reasons.

The political bookends of the big two parties, Obama vs. Romney, is going to be all about buying the presidency through making your opponent look like the devil.

Former Pres. Jimmy Carter made that a little harder yesterday.

Carter created quite a dust up when he declared Mitt Romney just isn’t that scary to him. Carter’s interview on MSNBC has now been picked up by the Christian Science Monitor.

Asked for his thoughts on a Romney presidency in an interview Wednesday with MSNBC, Carter said that while “he’d rather have a Democrat,” he would be “comfortable” with Mr. Romney as president because, as he put it, “I think Romney has shown in the past – in his previous years as a moderate or progressive – that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics.” He also complimented Romney as “a good, solid family man.”

I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter, though his post-presidency has been impressive. But his comment was important for another reason.

Play politics by nonpartisan patter, as Barack Obama has done for years, and eventually you’ll be hoisted on your own petard.

What’s worse is that a Democrat used the one word that helps Mitt Romney the most: competent.

If this is a low turnout election, which it will be unless the stakes are raised along with interest, dissatisfaction with how things are could push people to take a chance on Mitt Romney, because people don’t feel any peril if they do.

Somewhere between the endless flip flops of Massachusetts Mitt compared to presidential candidate Mitt, the moderate versus the pandering politician to the far right emerges as the Etch A Sketch Republican, another in a line of politicians who does what he needs to in order to get elected, but who doesn’t give the impression of being a wingnut himself.

However, unless Mitt Romney finds a way to open a path for himself in the American west somewhere, with NBC’s Chuck Todd mentioning the Midwest states, beginning with Wisconsin and Michigan, Romney’s done before it begins.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

The Moment Where Charles Pierce Obliterates Ross Douthat

Simply put, Elaine Pagels has forgotten more about the events surrounding the founding of Christianity, including the spectacular multiplicity of sects that exploded in the deserts of the Middle East at the same time, than Ross Douthat will ever know, and to lump her work in with the popular fiction of The Da Vinci Code is to attempt to blame Galileo for Lost in Space.What’s Wrong with the Ross Douthat Creed, by Charles Pierce

The boys love to argue with Ross. He provides a wide target, which is just one reason. Another is he’s impressed with his own fancy pants philosophies, no matter how unwittingly hilarious they are to ponder.

Pierce knows his religious patter, and I’ve read Elaine Pagels, have some of her books in my library, so this was a delicious hike into Why Do Men Like Ross Douthat Have Any Intellectual Clout At All?

That he writes for the New York Times is the short answer. The longer one for this discussion is more complicated and it centers on the fact that women aren’t seen as religious scholars, with men keeping women out of the holy hills and dales of man theology.

Unfortunately for Douthat, his religious hallucinations are showing him up. The final insult in thought comes from The New Republic:

ROSS DOUTHAT’S ANALYSIS of religion in America is more sophisticated than the analysis of, say, Rick Santorum—but not by much.

That’s the review opener.

More from Pierce’s brilliant Douthat evisceration:

[...] The Didache comes up because Douthat is opposed to abortion. Period.

Too much of the book is simply a culture-war text gussied up in a chasuble. Douthat is extremely bothered by people who claim to seek enlightenment from a “God Within,” and outside the framework of preferred ecclesiastical constructs. (In this, he risibly cites Deepak Chopra and Elizabeth Gilbert — and Oprah Winfrey! — as somehow being American religious figures.) Can you find spiritual enlightenment outside of a formalized religious structure and, having found it, can you still be a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Presbyterian? An interesting question that Douthat simply ignores. But he also gives a good leaving-alone to the born-again evangelical experience of a “personal Lord and Savior.” (Apparently, a God Within is fine, as long as He’s wearing a Douthat-endorsed logo.) As Winters points out, he’s drunk deeply of Michael Novak’s neoconservative Catholic capitalist malarkey, which is how Sister Gilbert, and Father Chopra, and Pope Oprah I get blamed for the irreligious consumerism of American society. (He also quotes David Brooks to back himself up, which is a dead giveaway.) This passage is a remarkable three-rail shot in which the conservative religious historian manages to blame his idea of “heretical” religious liberalism for all the sins of capitalism without ever mentioning any of the large American business concerns that spend billions turning a buck on those heresies…

The sentence I highlighted above is important, because if women want any spiritual empowerment that’s fueled to our frequencies we sure as hell aren’t going to find it in the halls of organized religion that men built.

The reason it was constructed, beyond concentrating wealth and power, was to keep the girls in our place, which was never next to men as equals, something that has always been organized religion’s dividing line on piety.

Yesterday I quoted an article that stated that the real war on women was in the Middle East. That’s only half true. The war on women blasted off with the last stake laid at Christ’s crucifixion, a barbaric act of torture, which we all know the Douthat set loves. It’s the moment the boys started crafting the tale that led to Douthat’s delirium.

The whole Jesus forgiving a whore chapter was simply meant as a warning, you see, because we all know your average man is no Jesus, so sinning women better watch out.

That means you, too, Oprah.

As for Elaine Pagels, she had the audacity to translate and contemporize the whole thing, the witch.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Mitt’s Twist on Reagan

After winning 5 states in a walk, Mitt Romney made his case and it was all economics. It wasn’t pretty, but it drove home his point. Then there was this:

Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

It’s Mitt’s answer to Reagan’s one-liner, are you better off than you were four years ago? The follow-ups were familiar, yet different too.

I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living. I see children even more successful than their parents – some successful even beyond their wildest dreams – and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it.

This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.

In the America I see, character and choices matter. And education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded. And poverty will be defeated, not with a government check, but with respect and achievement that is taught by parents, learned in school, and practiced in the workplace.

It was a man putting bromides together that wouldn’t upset anyone, so he could be anything to everyone.

But who thinks poverty can be “defeated” through “respect and achievement”? What is he talking about?

Absolutely nothing and he intends on doing it through November 6th if he can. It’s not that Mitt Romney can’t put something of substance on the table. It’s that he’s scared to death if he tells people what he’d actually like to do, especially if his win ushers in a Republican Congress, independents and moderates will bolt.

If Romney wins the election, it’s almost a sure bet that Republicans win control of both the House and the Senate. And that matters. Right now, the GOP’s agenda is the Ryan budget, and that’s entirely fiscal: It’s a premium support plan for Medicare, and tax cuts, and deep cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other domestic programs. All that can be passed through budget reconciliation — which is to say, all that can be made immune to the filibuster.Ezra Klein

Read full story · Comments { 16 }