There’s that phony accent of Hillary’s again..
Or rather, those moving, ever-changing goalposts. They are making me quite dizzy really..
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann expects some new “metrics for what actually defines winning” to emerge from Team Clinton come Wednesday morning, especially if Barack Obama can top her in Indiana and North Carolina Tuesday night.
“We decided to prepare for tomorrows potential new re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-definition by compiling the guidelines offered so far,” Olbermann said on Monday’s show. “By the time we finished, it seems the only yardstick they had not yet offered was ‘Ladies First.’”
Priceless. Whatever works I guess… She IS quite the chameleon. She would be entertaining if it wasn’t all so ridiculous, manipulative, self-serving, and utterly infuriating…
And Keith, once again, AMEN and well said.
Above photo is a panorama shot of Jerusalem.
For the latest on talks between Israel and Palestine, and the US role in them, go here.
A top Iraqi official said Sunday there was no conclusive evidence that Shiite extremists have been directly supplied with some Iranian arms as alleged by the United States.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq does not want trouble with any country, “especially Iran.”
Al-Dabbagh was commenting on talks this week in Tehran between an Iraqi delegation and Iranian authorities aimed at halting suspected Iranian aid to some Shiite militias.
Asked about reports that some rockets made in 2007 or 2008 and seized in raids against militias were directly supplied by Iran, al-Dabbagh replied: “There is no conclusive evidence.”
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector – and former marine – says attack on Iran ‘virtual guarantee’:
“We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it’s a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future—or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command,” Ritter said last week in a little-noted interview with Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now. “And if this situation spins further out of control, you would see these aerial strikes expanding to include Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and some significant command and control targets.”
Well, tomorrow is the next big primaries in North Caroline and Indiana. If you think that will decide this contest, think again. The Clinton Camp is now considering the nuclear option to overtake the delegate lead. I honestly think Clinton will stop at nothing to take the nomination (you notice I didn’t say “win”), regardless of what the majority of Democrats want. More on this at the Huffington Post. I will say it again, this is all about her.
A lot more below the fold…
Twice this week now, Hillary Clinton has stood there smiling like the Cheshire Cat as the governor of North Carolina used the word “pansy” and then as a union leader in the same state, who more famously referred to her “testicular fortitude”, went on to inveigh that Hillary was the only thing that stood between the good and God-fearing people of North Carolina and the “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.” Clinton, according to the report linked to here, “smiled sheepishly before breaking into a nervous laugh.”
Hillary Clinton’s tactics are mindful of Republican and conservative smear tactics to an extent, that Michael Tomasky declares her behavior sickening. After her unexpected difficulties during the primaries, she wouldn’t rely on her strengths, but almost immediately resorted to a Rovian playbook.
Read Michael Tomasky’s full comment here.
Here is the story Senator Clinton loves to tell in Indiana especially:
The story was mentioned on MSNBC and quickly dropped as they went back discussing Reverend Wright and Obama’s problem with white, working class voters. Obama can’t bowl and has been know to drink orange juice while Hillary is able to drink a shot of Crown Royal. No contest then, we have to give our votes to Hillary.
Clinton blasts Bush for project Bill OK’d
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008
INDIANAPOLIS — Hillary Clinton loves to tell the story about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.
It’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.
If she were president, Clinton says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.
What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband’s administration.
ABC News carried the story, “Hoosier Responsible? Clinton Decries China’s Acquisition of Indiana Company — Ignoring Her Husband’s Role in the Sale” by Jake Tapper dated April 30. Here’s a link to the full report.
And while Evan Bayh has been on television singing the praises of Hillary Clinton, a memo prepared for Bayh by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service earlier this year stated that the Clinton administration could have objected to the sale under CFIUS, but it did not, and that the consortium promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005.
This is from Senator Bayh’s own site:
Senator Bayh, along with Senators Shelby and Sarbanes, first requested the GAO report in 2003 after an Indiana company called Magnequench closed thanks to a 1995 decision by CFIUS to approve a Chinese consortium’s takeover. At the time, Magnequench made 85 percent of the magnets used to guide U.S. smart bombs. Link.
Really Senator Bayh, you’ve been on television all week supporting Senator Clinton and you haven’t mentioned this story once. Should we believe everything else you said?
Rumor has it that the Clintons have something to do with the erratic behavior of Reverend Wright. Of course The Daily Show has the most entertaining view of Reverend Wright’s behavior:
Errol Louis at the New York Daily News points out that his appearance at the Press Club was orchestrated by avid Clinton supporter, Barbara Reynolds. In fact at this link to his article Barbara Reynolds is shown sitting next to Reverend Wright and speaking to him just before he rose to speak.
In addition, on Morning Joe today Joe Scarborough said to his sidekick Mika Brzezinski something like, “You think the Clintons paid him off don’t you?” Her response was, “Don’t put words in my mouth.”
In light of the unpredictable nature of Jeremiah Wright’s recent comments and the fact that he basically threw long time parishioner Barack Obama under the bus his motivation is certainly in question.
Barack Obama responded today:
Stewart has the gift for stating the obvious..
Jon Stewart surveyed the aftermath of the inconclusive Pennsylvania Democratic primary on Wednesday’s Daily Show. Although he noted the overheated rhetoric of the media coverage, his sharpest jabs by far were aimed at Hillary Clinton.
Media bias? Or simply astute observations..
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
This very strongly worded op-ed piece ends with this:
It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton. I wonder if this piece means they’d like to re-think it..
The news networks are calling the Pennsylvania primary for Hillary Clinton, beginning when 1% of the precincts were reporting. I’m watching the CNN tally here, because it’s easy to read.
TheZoo’s own RUCerious has predicted Hillary Clinton will take the primary 53% to 47%. We’ll see how good his predicting skills are. :)
Right now (6:30 PT), CNN is reporting 21% of the precincts are in, with 54% for Clinton, and 46% for Obama. I’ll continue updating the numbers in the comments section.
Question: Would Bush’s heavily politicized Department of Justice be “monitoring” the primaries if twice as many REPUBLICANS had registered to vote?
Justice Department officials will be monitoring today’s primary elections in Philadelphia “to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws.” According to a DOJ press release, the monitoring arises from “a settlement agreement with Philadelphia related to allegations that the city had violated the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).” Pennsylvania election officials are expecting twice as many Democrats to vote in today’s contests as turned out for the 2004 primaries.
I don’t think any of us had illusions that our voting is strictly on the up-and-up anymore, but really, do they have to be so brazen about it?
What do you think? I’m sure John McCain will love it.
You may throw tomatoes at me if you like, BUT that won’t change the way I feel. The songs that I am posting this evening are GOTV for Obama in Pennsylvania. North Carolina and Indiana, you’re next. So listen well.
Fired up and ready to go Pennsylvania…
Would you change? Vote Pennyslvania
Because the times they are a changin’.
And from our youngest voters… just a reminder…
They’re gone and I want them back but alas, that’s not to be. That’s right I’m the person who watched the Democratic debate on ABC news last night. Oh the shame. I feel like I’ve been caught buying The National Enquirer. Actually embarrassment has morphed into anger as I rethink one of the questions. They actually asked Obama about not wearing flag pins. What you ask? They didn’t! But that’s not the worst of it, they asked him while mentioning that they knew he had put one on the day before when a veteran asked him to.
That’s right they asked him why he wouldn’t wear the pin while saying they knew he had just worn one. I could go on but my head is ready to explode. To relieve the pressure on my psyche I’m posting this link to ABC News in case anybody else watched the debate and shares my “passion”. Please feel free to share the “love”.
Because when I think of Hillary Clinton I think of somebody I’d like to have a beer with, I was shocked to discover she’s a Crown Royal drinker. And I’m not talking about sipping it, oh no, that woman can pound back a shot with the best of them. Who would have thought? That’s why I put this up because I concede I’m not in the same league as she is. I couldn’t possibly drink Crown Royal, then grab my shotgun and wait for that 3:00 a.m. call to come in.
Its Friday once again. The weeks are flying by and the sun is finally starting to make an appearance in Oregon. You’d think I’d want to put up a “Spring” photo..
I have a bad attitude today. I think I have finally realized that nothing is going to happen to make things right for our country. This country that I love. This country that is changing before my eyes.
With the revelation a few days ago that all the ‘principals’ in the White House, all the way to the top, are involved in designing, instituting, and carrying out a program of torture in the name of our country, one would think there would be at the very least SHOCKED OUTRAGE and renewed calls for impeachment, and at the most, arrests on War Crimes, trials and imprisonments.
It raises the question.. What would these guys have to do that would actually cause Congress to act?
Like Bluedahlia said in her post this morning, death by a thousand little cuts – I believe we as a nation are all ‘shocked and outraged’ out. There is no emotional energy left, nor hope that the direction will change. Congress has been silent. The MSM has been… has been… I don’t even know what to call what they have been.. Complicit? On vacation? Not even curious…?
This administration has sucked this nation dry of our spirit and our treasure, and now our economy and infrastructure are starting to implode. By the way, read Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine“. None of what has been happening to our country is random or due to incompetence. There is a definite method to this madness.
I believed in 2006 that things would finally begin to change. They didn’t. I had great hopes for this November, but I am beginning to finally believe that any change is an illusion. Accountability isn’t going to happen. There is undoubtedly a stack of pardons in a safe somewhere in the White House all signed and ready to go, and these war criminals will skip out free as birds – untouchable. Bush, Cheney, et all will leave this country in ruins – with smiles on their faces, free to reap their rewards. Nothing will happen. No one will answer.
America and its citizens will be paying a heavy price for years to come.
Well… Now on to the news.. I am focusing on just a couple areas today.
Cheney Authorized Harsh Interrogations. I am sure we are all shocked..
Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
You know Bush wouldn’t have been left out of this. He has a long history of loving torture. He likely was promised his own set of tapes to watch before he went to bed at night with his bowl of popcorn.
From The NY Times: War Crimes Investigation Ahead?
From TPM Muckraker: Its Not All About Yoo
In his speech yesterday, President Bush called Iran one of two greatest threats to America:
President Bush warned Iran yesterday that if it did not stop arming and training Shia militia in Iraq then “America will act to protect our interests and our troops”.
During a speech in which he ordered an indefinite halt to US troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer, Mr Bush called Iran one of the two greatest threats to America in this century, together with al-Qaeda. His words echoed testimony from General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, to Congress this week in which he described Iranian-backed Shia groups and the “malevolent” influence of Tehran as the biggest long-term threat to a viable Iraq.
Anyone else feel a bombing coming on? Remember the warning a few days ago from Paul Craig Roberts - Petraeus Testimony Next Week Will Signal Iran Attack
And now for the blues…
James Taylor - Steam Roller Blues ’71
There is so much to say about Hillary Clinton’s credibility and we have done so here at TheZoo a number of times. I’ll pick out two instances for you. First: Hillary is positioning herself as an advocate for blue collar workers, especially in Ohio and now in Pennsylvania, but her record speaks a different language. She was on the WalMart board and praised the company back in 1991, see for yourselves:
Her NAFTA stance is ambiguous at best, too. During her White House years, she actively promoted the treaty and whatever criticism there may have been, was due to her interest to keep health care, her own ambitious project, as a top priority, here’s Hillary Clinton on NAFTA:
I am really reluctant to accuse somebody of making money. We all want to do that and the Clintons are by any standard very talented people, put their talents to the test and made a fortune, fine with me. But where the fortune comes from, is a legitimate question to ask if there is a conflict of interest. Hillary Clinton’s failure to part ways with Mark Penn, the adviser, who moonlighted in promoting a trade deal that she, again as with NAFTA, now publicly opposes, opens questions about the seriousness of her opposition. Even more damning, a $ 800’000 personal windfall for the Clintons stemming from Bill Clinton’s promotion of free trade with Colombia adds to the doubts about her credibility.
Small wonder that the Economist/YouGov poll shows that around 70% of voters feel Hillary Clinton says what people want to hear as opposed to her saying what she thinks. This is definitely a credibility problem.
Again, you are very much welcome to comment on this and to point out occurrences that struck you as having gone awfully wrong for the Clinton campaign.
We now know that, not content with $108 million of wealth, the Clintons decided to go for the gold when Bill Clinton took $800,000 from a Colombian source, loyal to the Colombian government, advocating pro-Colombian trade policies.
How ironic. The Clintons send out the B-Team to make trite accusations about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, long after voters have made their decision on the subject. Hillary launches the ridiculous claim that Obama would not move America out of Iraq, because of an innocuous comment by a staff person.
Normally, distasteful as it is, I would not focus on the Clintons’ $800,000 windfall from Colombia — but as Bill Clinton said, before the latest trite featherpunches against Obama, if the Clintons saddle up, so will I.
Think about it. This is not a difference between a husband and wife, or a difference between a senator running for president and a former president who believes in free trade. This is a huge, gigantic, nearly million-dollar windfall that directly violates one of the core principles of the Clinton campaign — and that was paid by a foreign source with the intent of influencing foreign trade and investment policy.
Hillary Clinton does not take a hint. Her attacks have only increased her negative ratings, her problem being perceived as untrustworthy, her problem being perceived as divisive, her problem being perceived as not credible.
I think $800,000 from a foreign source, with foreign interests, advocating trade policies supported by that foreign source and foreign nation, is fair game.
I suspect that workingmen and -women in Pennsylvania and elsewhere will agree.
Hillary Clinton should stop her lowball negative attacks and divisiveness within the Democratic Party, and unless and until she does, fair game is fair game.
It would have been much better for all if Bill Clinton had stopped at $108 million, and let somebody else make the $800,000, which should be donated to wounded troops or foreclosed homeowners.
I sure like this guy…
When the democratic nomination primaries have ended and when, hopefully without a contested convention, a candidate for the Presidential elections in November is found, there will be analysis galore as to why Obama prevailed. No surprise there, I am thinking along these lines since Iowa (admittedly a bit insecure after New Hampshire).
The missteps of the Clinton campaign are manifold and I have been rightfully corrected by our commenter bademus for forgetting two items when I last brought up the subject of Clinton’s ill fated campaign. There is a impressive series of major blunders to be found ultimately instrumental to her losing the nomination battle. And let’s not start with “marrying Bill”, however tempting that is. I’d like to put the start of when everything went wrong at the time when she voted for the Iraq war. You are very welcome to comment and send in your views and, most of all the stories that irked you most and the positive things as well. (Warning: You may see your comment posted in one of the next installments). So, hopefully, by the end of the primaries we have a clear picture of which events turned the inevitable candidate into a woman who lost the battle of her lifetime.
Her first campaign stop and probably most damning mistake: Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. As we are all bitterly aware, in October 2002 the Senate approved Public Law No. 107-243 the use of military force in Iraq and thus midwifed the ultimate catastrophic blunder of the Bush presidency. The war in it’s sixth year now has cost 4’024 soldiers’ lives, many more are maimed physically and mentally, often beyond recuperation, uncounted civilians have succumbed to the terrible bloodletting. The Iraq war has taken the focus from Afghanistan and the hunt for the alleged mastermind of 9/11. The stabilisation of Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban led regime has never taken place. The fall of Kabul back into the hands of the Taleban has been predicted for this year. The cost of this war has accelerated, if not triggered, the recent economic crisis in the US, which threatens to spread worldwide and will cost many people their jobs. It is small wonder, that the US and the UK, the most insistent advocates for the attack on Iraq, are hardest hit by the current economic downturn.
There was a choice. Many Senators did not vote for authorizing the war, nobody forced her to authorize the use of military force. There are good indicators, that this vote indeed was cast primarily to further her career and her prospects for a White House bid:
- Her insistence, that she was prepared to be commander in chief from day one, most prominently in the 3 a.m. ad,
- Her vote against banning clusterbombs in civilian areas ( Senate Amendment 4882),
- Her vote for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment,
- Her vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the fact that she never renounced that vote
were strategically planned to show her as a woman who has the necessary clout for commander in chief and to even go to war, if necessary. The consequences of those votes are calculated collateral damage in the pursuit of her own political ambitions.
Subsquently, the blood of too many people sticks to her hands in the mind of many progressive voters and the reputation of an opportunistic, stick-at-nothing, ambitious, power-hungry politician can not be overcome by her.
Here are the questions to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker by Senator Obama and Senator Clinton:
Good Monday Morning everyone! Ummm, where’s Spring..?
I’ll start this roundup with a post from BuzzFlash:
Mark Penn did not get “demoted” from being Clinton’s chief strategist for meeting with the Colombian government. He got officially “pushed” aside for getting caught, which had the danger of once again exposing Senator Clinton’s hypocrisy and deception on fair trade and union issues. Of course, he will still be “consulting” for the Clinton campaign. Natch.
Consider this April 4th Clinton campaign statement “inoperative” now: “Today, the Clinton campaign was asked about the [Colombian] meeting, and a spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said that Mr. Penn’s work had nothing to do with the campaign and that he did not see any conflict or perception problem.”
BuzzFlash has a homework assignment for our readers. Examine the following excerpts from articles this past week about what was clearly a Clinton campaign overture to Colombia to get involved in the U.S. primaries by denouncing Obama. But there’s more to it than that. Despite all the ongoing Mark Penn apologies, he’s the poster boy for the corporate lobbyist destructive infestation of our government – and he is Clinton’s lead strategist. Read on…
A new poll by the American Research Group has Obama and Clinton tied in Pennsylvania: Clinton 45% (-6)
Obama 45% (+6).
Apparently, since February 5th, Obama has collected 69 ‘super-delegates’, and Clinton has a net loss of two.
The Iraq War is costing each household in America $100 a month.
Security officials extinguished the Olympic torch (three times) on Monday on the Paris leg of its journey, disrupted by protesters against China’s crackdown on Tibet.
The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan (The Daily Dish) was on Chris Matthew’s Show on MSNBC yesterday and said that Bush Administration officials will be ‘indicted for War Crimes’. (With video)
SULLIVAN: The latest revelations on the torture front show the memo from John Yoo…means that Don Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time soon. They will be, at some point, indicted for war crimes.
Don Siegelman was interviewed for 60 Minutes two days after being released from prison. The accompanying video was heart-wrenching.
“Politics for me…in terms of electoral politics–is over,” says former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, once considered the most successful Democrat in his state, to CBS’ 60 Minutes Sunday. “I think that’s what Karl Rove wanted; he has accomplished his goal.”
Jeremy Scahill, writing for The Nation, pens “Contract Justice“. It is an article on the crimes continually being committed by Blackwater – the private mercenaries in Iraq paid for by American taxpayer money. Blackwater’s contract was just extended for another year by the State Department.. This extension was just condemned by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Do you think his opinion will matter for anything?
Glenn Greenwald wrote an interesting post over the weekend called “The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell“. He breaks down how many times the MSM has reported on various topics of importance (and non-importance..) to the public over the last two weeks. His numbers are quite interesting, and not surprising.
Greenwald follows this post of Saturday with a post Sunday on Michael Mukasey and the way the MSM has handled him..
In a post on CommonDreams, Dave Lindorff appeals to Americans to listen to Lt. General (ret.) William E. Odom, who on April 2 testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and not to General Petraeus when he comes to speak to Congress.
On ABC’s This Week, Republican strategist Dan Senor said that Condoleezza Rice has been actively campaigning to be John McCain’s pick for Vice President. Look out..
Have a good week folks.