You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Hillary Clinton' category.
McCain blames the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Congress:
Republican John McCain said Wednesday that the bridge collapse in Minnesota that killed 13 people last year would not have happened if Congress had not wasted so much money on pork-barrel spending.
Yet, McCain is a member of that same Congress he now chastises. If he really had a problem with his fellow Republican Ted Stevens and his Bridge to Nowhere, as he now claims, then he could’ve filibustered the spending bill til he got his way.
In fact, if McCain had a problem with spending over the last umpteen years all he had to do was turn to his fellow Republicans — they controlled Congress for all but a few months in the decade-plus leading up to that tragic bridge collapse.
This all-talk, no-action gig seems to be a pattern with McCain: saying he’s against something but not actually doing anything to quash it. From Rev. Hagee’s bigoted and anti-American sermons to the North Carolina Republican Party’s bizarre racially tinged guilt-by-association ad to now throwing his own fellow legislators under his campaign bus….
Indeed, having the presumptive Republican prez nominee throwing his fellow Members of Congress under the bus as a cheap political stunt makes even less sense than when the actual incumbent Republican President did the same thing a day earlier. (Pres. Bush complained Congress wasn’t sending him any bills to help “fix” the economy. It is members of Bush’s and McCain’s Republican Party who are holding up those bills with procedural shenanigans while the majority Dems have been working to get those bills unlocked from the GOP hijinx and send them down the street to the Prez…)
PS: If he were really concerned about our roads and bridges and infrastructure McCain wouldn’t be suggesting his cotton candy gas tax holiday (tastes good, but rots your teeth and leaves you empty). His empty gesture would instantly vacuum $10 billion out of the Highway Trust Fund with no alternate funding source for infrastructure investment in mind. Conservative and progressive economists agree that McCain’s anti-tax plan stinks
Review this front-page, top-of-the-fold headline in today’s Tribu carefully:
Democrat
debate is
a slugfest
Now, I could see “Democrats’ debate…” or “Democratic debate” but unless the Dai Tribu is going to start dropping all its derivational suffixes as some sort of funky new standard, there’s a headline writer that needs to retake 3rd grade English. I understand their editorial page is staunchly and historically conservative (even endorsing George W. Bush not once, but twice), but there’s no need to start taking writing style tips from the RNC.
For that matter, I’m not sure which debate Tribu reporters Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons watched but most of the rest of America — including a healthy sampling of their fellow journalists (Washington Post, Phila. Daily News, Editor & Publisher, and more) — were rather disgusted when they tuned in thinking they would see a debate but instead were treated to a weak display of Reality TV meets All My Children, with a dash of True Hollywood Story for good measure.
So-Called Austin Mayor has the latest scoop on Sinbad’s quest to meet the Commander in Chief threshold.
When is the Keystone primary? …Not soon enough.
While conservative talker Matt Gaunt’s self-reflective journey diving into his own racism is a very interesting and enlightening story, and I respect him for expanding his consciousness as he describes, he hasn’t grown nearly as much as he thinks.
Dear, dear Mr. Gaunt. It is not all liberals making racist remarks in the presidential campaign as the tone of your entire post implies. It is some people who claim to be a liberal. In fact, in recent days, it’s been one person who is a lifelong Democrat.
Just as Mr. Gaunt claims to recognize that he felt some sort of superiority complex to black folks, and was subsequently “ashamed” and “tried to continually purge that part of myself” … he fails to recognize that his stereotyping of black people is akin to his stereotyping of “liberals”.
We liberals aren’t cartoon characters, Mr. Gaunt, no matter how much you may subconsciously think it so. We do not act or behave en masse, any more than the past racist statements of David Duke, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly indicate all conservatives are racist blowhards nor the bigoted tones of Bill Cunningham, Debbie Schlussel, or even Mr. Gaunt’s fellow Ill Reviewer Dan Zanoza imply that all conservatives are xenophobic ranters.
…Then again, there are in fact many, many more examples of each of those conservative “types” so perhaps there is a pattern there, eh?
Chalk another one up the “liberal” media acting not-so-liberal … and it’s a two-fer since Obama’s “free pass” in the media clearly disappeared as the reporters swooned over a scandal over, get this, the fact that the Canadian government now admits they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor.” (wmv file)
The major benefactor in all this was of course Sen. Clinton whose stumbling campaign managed to get back on its two feet for a few days.
Give the media a D- for follow-through as they chose to run like lemmings from sensationalist smear to sensationalist smear regarding the Obama advisor’s comments to the Canadian embassy in Chicago. One of the basic facts that was rarely (if ever) reported is that the Canadian government is currently led by the conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, like Australia’s conservative PM, apparently has no problem trying to interfere in American politics.
Gee, why would conservative partisans (no matter the country) want to poke their fingers in the eyes of liberals? Hmm…
Now, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that the Canadian Embassy admits they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor.”
MattW at MyDD explains what launched this silliness by describing the CBC report:
This [CBC news] piece details the sordid affair, that begins not with Obama contacting Canada, but nervous Canadians contacting the campaigns. [Obama economic advisor and Univ. of Chicago professor] Austan Goolsbee agreed to accept an invitation from Canadians, who pressed him for answers about protectionist sentiments emerging in the US Presidential election. He tried to reassure them that Obama did not want to do away with the agreement, but wanted to add labor and environmental protections.
Recall that the original row between Obama and Clinton began with Obama pointing out that Sen. Clinton supported NAFTA and her husband (who’s White House record she tries to claim as her own, but only the good bits) considered it a gem of his Administration.
Both Obama and Clinton have said in this campaign season that they want to refine the agreement to bolster labor and environmental standards within the pact — a reasonable position to improve the current treaty.
The non-flap flap came about after Obama advisor Goolsbee sat down with Canadian embassy officials. Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press then had a print story claiming Canadian officials saying Goolsbee was contradicating Obama’s refrains based on a Maple Leaf memo she “obtained“. (Ms. Pickler is married to a Fox News cameraman, BTW. Normally that wouldn’t mean boo but Ms. Pickler has a history of taking smears against Dems and running with them as well as uncritically using info provided by conservative-provided info near-verbatim. Sen. Obama has said he will not visit Fox studios after the network repeatedly aired lies about his grade school years while he and his mother were living in Indonesia.)
Sen. Obama didn’t yet know that Mr. Goolsbee had informally talked with the Canadians so he denied the gist of Pickler’s report.
Then Sen. Clinton picked up on the broohaha and the press lapped it up like so many kittens at their milk bowl.
And now Canada’s own public broadcasting channel has debunked the entire dang thing….
Go read the rest of MattW’s piece detailing the timeline of the infopimped flimflam and recapping the CBC’s report popping that balloon full of so much hot air.
Congratulations White House press corps wannabes, for better or worse you’re well on your way to proving yourselves to be every bit the “lazy stenographer” stereotype as the current crop.
The Clinton campaign schools us on just why the right-wing memes about the Clintons exist in the first place by threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party over “primacaucus” rules that have been in place for decades…
Way to feed into stereotypes, Camp Hillary:
The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. [...]
The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.
The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.
Texas’ hybrid primary/caucus would not be questioned were it not that one candidate appears to have an advantage in caucus settings. Or that in a close race, the popular vote in senate districts will probably translate into an even split of delegates. Consequently, the Clinton campaign finds Texas to be a poor place to build a firewall or mount a comeback. That’s an historical accident. Attacking the state party here would be irresponsible and damaging to Democratic prospects here in both the near and long term.
The overwhelming numbers of Texas who have voted early in the Texas primary is symptomatic of the changing political tide here. Much work has been done rebuilding the progressive movement in the Lone Star State. Attempts to taint the primary, and consequently the primary and caucus decisions of Texas voters, will set this effort back.
(emphasis added)
Precisely. I’m all for going down fighting, but at least fight the good fight and be responsible. Gah.
In yet another case of “m-fer” cons trying to infopimp outright lies that are easily debunked, notorious Aussie conservative and m-fing bigwig Rupert Murdoch hopes to help Sen. Hillary Clinton’s quest for the Democratic nomination with some bullpuckey about Sen. Barack Obama’s victory speech after the recently held Iowa caucuses. As if lying about Sen. Obama’s upbringing and his Christian faith weren’t enough, now they need to lie about something as simple as musical selections at rallies?
A bald-faced lie from Mr. Murdoch’s New York Post “Gossip” page (maybe “gossip” has something to do with it being a complete lie… still):
January 14, 2008 — PRESIDENTIAL hopeful Barack Obama claims to run a clean campaign, but someone in his camp took a swipe at Hillary Clinton through the candidate’s theme song. [U2 and Stevie Wonder are controversial?]
As Obama and his wife, Michelle, strolled triumphantly into his victory party in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 3, Jay-Z’s “99 Problems” was blaring. In it, Jay raps, “I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain’t one.” [Umm, didn't happen liar.]
Some listeners took it as a not-so-sly reference to Hillary. [What "listeners"? The song wasn't played.]
“We didn’t know he used that,” a shocked Clinton spokesperson said. [Because he didn't. Shocking, I know.]
Unfortunately for Mr. Murdoch (and the unnamed Clinton staffer who plays along), not only were people there but TV cameras were also filming and the Boston Globe already noted the playlist (no rapper in sight):
At the rally when Obama was more than a half-hour late, Thompson, an Austin, Texas, native, had the responsibility to keep the crowd happy and anticipating. To help do that, he mixed in oldies with some newer choices by Natasha Bedingfield and India.aire, keeping the message close to Obama’s themes of hope and possibility.
Here are the songs on the Obama playlist on Saturday:
- Marvin Gaye, “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough”
- John Parr, “St. Elmo’s Fire (Man in Motion)”
- Tina Turner, “The Best”
- The Doobie Brothers, “Takin’ It To The Streets”
- Earth, Wind & Fire, “Shining Star”
- O’Jays, “Give The People What They Want”
- Sam and Dave, “Hold On I’m Coming”
- Kool & the Gang, “Celebration”
- Natasha Bedingfield, “Unwritten”
- The Isley Brothers, “Shout”
- The Temptations, “Get Ready”
- India.aire, “There’s Hope”
- McFadden and Whitehead, “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now”
- Staples Singers, “I’ll Take You There”
- Orleans, “Still The One”
- Sly and the Family Stone, “Everyday People”
- The Doobie Bros., “Long Train Running”
- Stevie Wonder, “Sir Duke”
- John Fogarty, “Centerfield”
Also noted: Obama took the stage to U2’s “City of Blinding Lights,” and he departed to Stevie Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered.”
Sounds like a decent, uplifting playlist suitable for any political gathering (left or right).
The author of the Post’s craptacular “Page Six” is Richard Johnson. Feel free to let him know he’s a moron at richard.johnson@nypost.com — be polite if you like. You might also wish to include Gossip Editor Steve Cuozzo at scuozzo@nypost.com and perhaps write a letter to the editor via letters@nypost.com — or just call (212) 930-8000.
Why do these “m-fers” continue to promote blatant lies as if honest folks can’t just go online and tell the truth?! How stupid do m-fer conservatives think Americans are?
What’s next? Will conservatives claim they heard Sen. Obama cussing while ordering iced tea, m-fer?
(For those who don’t get the joke and are wont to complain, the multiple “m-fer” references are to conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly’s racist “observations” about black folks eating dinner in a restaurant.)
(h/t Geekesque)
CNN’s Political Ticker blog has a headline reading, “Clinton official says Obama’s past drug use could hurt him.” That Clinton official would be New Hampshire’s Bill Shaheen, husband of former Governor and current Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen (clearly not a political newbie).
Said Mr. Shaheen:
…he expects Republicans will “jump on” Obama’s remarks should he become the nominee.
“The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use,” Shaheen said. “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’”
(So he needs to do the Republicans’ partisan fighting for them? Bizarre.)
Sen. Obama disclosed that he tried cocaine in a 5th grade term paper his memoir many, many moons ago. That hasn’t stopped the apparently anti-Obama Washington Post from treating the rather old news as a this-just-in front page story nearly a year ago. And now, with Sen. Clinton’s numbers sliding everywhere we look, one of her surrogates is trotting it out yet again in as prime an example of concern trolling as ever there was.
The Obama camp has been straightforward about the incident and is calling the Clintons’ latest move “desperate.” Obama tried drugs, realized it was moronic and has been warning kids to stay away ever since.
Compare that to then-Gov. Bill Clinton saying he put pot in his mouth but didn’t inhale. How could he be in a room full of pot smoke and not inhale? (Isn’t ‘not breathing’ fatal…? Unless he’s some sort of record-breaking breath holder.) Compare also to our current president who has reportedly tried a number of illicit “recreational” drugs, but refuses to even talk about it for fear of somehow promoting drug use among children. (Huh?)
So the question remains, how does talking about his mistakes openly and honestly “hurt” his election chances? He’s not lying (as opposed to, “didn’t inhale”) and he’s frank about it (as opposed to, “no comment”)… Sounds like a breath of fresh air rather than more of the same.
Realizing how stupid the statements sounded, the Clinton camp immediately but only sorta distanced themselves from Mr. Shaheen’s comments with a generic “the comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.” Notice though that they didn’t bother to condemn the use of conserv-o-partisan talking points.
Also notice that in these waning days of the campaign they’re not talking about actual issues that matter like the economy, health care, Iraq, etc.
UPDATE: According to Mark “unnecessarily self-abbreviated” Halperin, Sen. Clinton personally apologized to Sen. Obama for the baloney while the two were waiting together at Reagan National Airport. Someone from Team HRC must’ve also slapped Mr. Shaheen but good: he apologized too.
Leave that sort of malarkey to the partisan opponents, folks.
UPDATE 2: Billy Shaheen has resigned as co-chair of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire. (h/t RaisingPaine and IcerbergSlim)
….The hilarity over Hillary’s dig ‘em deep oppo research continues. This (snarky) blog was just launched by enterprising kindergarten graduates:
A Blog that will point out various things Sen. Obama did during school that we think the voters should know!
Perhaps you’d like to describe rumors and innuendo you’ve heard about the Senator’s kindergarten and preschool days…. Who needs those striking entertainment writers when the comedy practically writes itself.
Already under the gun for appearing so desperate as to attack Sen. Obama’s kindergarten record, we’re also learning Sen. Clinton is skipping a few facts in another line of attack she’s using. It’s bad enough when conservatives twist facts and ignore context in order to infopimp an attack. But does Sen. Clinton also need to do it?
The Clinton campaign has been hounding Sen. Obama for a series of votes on abortion issues during his time in the Illinois State Senate. Their gripe is that he voted “present” rather than for or against the Republican-sponsored bills.
What the Clinton camp fails to explain (either out of ignorance or an intentional attempt at misleading voters) is that the strategy of voting “present” on those bills was a caucus strategy designed to blunt then-Sen. President Pate Phillips’ (R) divisive ploys in which he tried to wedge Democrats apart from each other.
And, in fact, according to Rich Miller it wasn’t just a caucus strategy but a strategy devise by Planned Parenthood, which opposed Pres. Phillips’ divisive measures. Sayeth local PP head Pam Sutherland, “The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did.” Rich has much more on the history of that time in the Illinois State Senate — including updates to his original post noting that Sen. Obama has been routinely attacked by conservatives like Jill Stanek, Fran Eaton and a Marylander named Alan Keyes for blocking similar anti-abortion bills in later years.
Sen. Clinton might want to read up on it, as should the Chicago Tribune’s veteran political reporters Rick Pearson and Mike Dorning after they bought her talking points hook, line and sinker in a story they ran this morning.
If she wants to harp on him for voting present instead of yeah or nay then she should do so; no need to ignore the context of the situation. Keep it clean.
Swiftboating meets the Class of 2008…
Clearly, sometimes it’s best to leave that quip you think is a really hot zinger stuck with the lint in your backpocket. Over the weekend the Clinton campaign began comically attacking Sen. Obama by referencing an essay he wrote … in kindergarten.
Zip. Zap. Zowee.
Dem activists have, of course, been having fun with it. Can you imagine the jokes if the entertainment writers weren’t on strike and late-night tv were fresh?!
dmsilev channels Gary Gnu:
Kindergarten Classmates For Truth
Kindergarten Kiddies For TruthSenator Obama has claimed to be for a “new type of politics”, but a careful look at his record, and extensive interviews with his colleagues has revealed the Real Barack Obama:
- On eight separate occasions, Barack Obama was observed eating paste intended for classroom activities. America does not need a President who exhibits such wanton disregard for the property of others. Nor is America ready for a President who regularly consumed common adhesives. Indeed, we must ask whether Senator Obama is still a closet paste-eater.
- According to classmate Susie Smith, Barack Obama repeatedly refused to sit next to her because she “had cooties”. Senator Obama, will you disavow your sexist past?
- A careful review of Barack Obama’s schoolwork from this period has revealed a systematic inability to stay within the lines while coloring books. America deserves a President who can obey the law.
- Barack Obama’s teacher has stated that he lost a shoe one day, and had to have another one brought in from home. Can America truly be led by a man who can’t even keep track of his own clothing?
- As corroborated by several classmates, Barack Obama constantly snored during naptime, preventing them from taking part in this critical activity.
- Reports indicate that Barack Obama preferred saltine crackers over graham crackers for snacks. Why does Senator Obama hate America?
It’s time for Senator Obama to tell the whole truth about his kindergarten experience.
One of the fascinating things to watch unfold in the days after Sen. Clinton announced her healthcare proposal has been the literally Bizarro-world reaction of the conservapartisans.
As evidenced by recent statements from Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney and others, and by today’s letters to the editor in the Chicago Tribune … conservatives apparently have had a severe case of Knee-Jerk Reaction to Sen. Clinton’s plan. All of that is quite odd because her plan really isn’t that much different than the plan which then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts and has since touted as a conservative solution to America’s healthcare crisis. Does this mean it’s ok if Romney proposes it but not if Clinton does? Why no epithets of “MittCare will destroy the village in order to save it“?
How strange. But, what’s even more strange is the creepy vitriol coming from regular joes as they attack Sen. Clinton’s proposals…
Let’s break down one letter from this morning’s Trib:
A personal issue
Nancy J. Thorner, Lake Bluff
Hillary’s proposed plan would require a massive new government bureaucracy for enforcement, and, like all government-controlled entities, inefficiency and burgeoning out-of-control spending would rule the day.
Actually, many government agencies are very highly efficient. The Social Security Administration has “overhead” costs far lower than any investment bank, insurance firm or other financial-type institution in the private sector. It’s all a matter of leadership — does the person in charge of the Oval Office have the willingness to commit to actually governing efficiently or not (…”Brownie, you’re doin’ a heckuva job”).
Whereas each state government sets up its own health plan, when all states are mandated to establish the same health-care system, one would be hard pressed not to refer to the result as national health care. When did it become fashionable to believe that one is entitled to have what people used to supply for themselves?
Yes, asking all states to follow the same standards could be considered a “national” plan — look at what happened in the wake of standardizing public schools under NCLB. Fair enough, but what is inherently wrong with taking a national focus to a national problem? We do so with our military — defense is a national issue, is it not?
Why can we not consider our society’s health to also be a national concern?
As for the ol’ “entitlement” canard… since when did the “pro-life” party become the “anti-life” party? People with no health insurance are not able to afford the care they need. Healthcare costs are the #1 reason for bankruptcy in this country. Number one with a bullet.
We are paying for our out-of-whack insurance system now. Ask GM what their biggest carrying cost is (hint: healthcare for employees and retirees). Ask hospitals what drives up their costs of doing business (hint: uninsured individuals who don’t seek preventive care so they delay treatment til situations are emergencies). Those costs get passed along to the rest of us — GM raises the price of their cars; hospitals charge higher tabs to insurance and HMO cos.
Do the American people really wish to rally behind what they perceive as a freebie, which in reality would not be free, efficient or timely?
I’ve already explained that we pay for the costs of the broken health insurance system now, in ways that Ms. Thorner clearly hasn’t considered. No health service is “free” (no such thing as a free lunch). Even “free” clinics are paid for by grants from government agencies, businesses or wealthy individuals.
Universal healthcare is simply a way of covering health costs by other means — through raising revenues at the tax level instead of the car’s sticker price, the hospital’s marked-up charges, etc.
More importantly, with universal healthcare the cost liabilities are actually decreased. With the largest possible pool of “insured people”, the healthy folks help average out the costs of folks who get hurt or sick. It’s the insurance industry’s ideal actuarial table — everyone is included which decreases the risk for all. Besides, if all people have insurance they are far more likely to seek care for a problem before it becomes overwhelming (and much more expensive).
It’s a lot cheaper to modify diet and exercise before a heart attack than afterward; but if you don’t even suspect you’re heart’s in trouble because you don’t have insurance to cover a physical exam…. you won’t know about the problem.
Further, who hasn’t had some medically crucial service (test, procedure, exam, etc.) flat out denied for coverage by an HMO bureaucrat? Talk about inefficiency and delayed care.
Rationing of services and long waits would rule the day. Can situations of life and death tolerate delay and uncertainly [sic]?
Here’s where Ms. Thorner is actually dead wrong. We already have rationing of services and delays. Ever go to the doctor’s office for a 10am appointment and still been sitting in the waiting room at noon, with no hope in sight? We all have.
Besides, nations which have universal healthcare haven’t suddenly seen their populations disappear. Canadians still populate Canada. Britons still populate the UK. Universal healthcare hasn’t been anywhere near as diabolical as the conservatives make it out to be. Not by a long shot.
And, again, who hasn’t had some medically crucial service (test, procedure, exam, etc.) flat out denied for coverage by an HMO bureaucrat? Is that not “rationing of services”?
America has some of the best health care available to its citizens. A market-driven health-care system is the way to go. Such are the programs being proposed by several Republican presidential candidates.
This capper is one of the most Bizarro of the bunch. Again, Sen. Clinton’s proposal is barely any different than the Massachusetts example which Gov. Romney signed into law. And, that Mass. example is in fact market-driven (it relies on employers working with private insurers and HMOs).
As far as our healthcare being the best available — yes and no. We may have some of the best hospitals in the world, but they are also among the most expensive. And those “best” facilities don’t mean a hill of beans if you can’t afford them. While Ms. Thorner brings up a valid point that even the 47 million uninsured Americans can still receive healthcare (via ERs). But again, that is the most expensive option and part of the reason people are being driven to bankruptcy at such alarming rates.
Even folks with “insurance” or health coverage end up in dire financial straits when problems hit. With high-deductible plans gaining favor thanks to the conservatives’ market-based “solutions”, more and more citizens are forking over wads of cash to hospitals that don’t list their pricing upfront (it’s not like choosing between the McDonald’s value menu or the Burger King value menu).
And, of course, there’s the amazing market-based real-world example of Blue Cross Blue Shield recently telling a woman who had a miscarriage that BCBS doesn’t cover “elective abortions”. This woman didn’t choose to have a miscarriage, so it wasn’t elective. And since when did natural miscarriages become confused with medical procedures?
That is, in a nutshell, why our healthcare system is broken in this country, Ms. Thorner and Gov. Romney. (It’s also why I don’t think “market-based” solutions are going to work unless the market dramatically improves and becomes more consumer-oriented, rather than profit-driven.)
Why is it that conservatives think it’s better to leave 47 million Americans behind, out in the cold, than to work toward a truly united country which cares about and accepts a modicum of responsibility for one another?
Divided we fall — as we see with our broken healthcare system now.
1980’s conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, an ally of Pres. Reagan to the end, said of him during her eulogy for the Gipper:
” … he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.”
Compare that to Sen. Barack Obama’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” point of view:
“We need a president who’ll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that’s what it takes to protect our security.
“That’s what I’ll do as your next commander in chief
“I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can’t talk to. We’ve got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values.”
The strength and courage to go toe to toe…
Isn’t that what all Americans want in our leaders? It’s what America wanted in FDR, and that Democratic president led us out of the Great Depression and through WWII. (It’s also big part of the reason why FDR’s conservative detractors loathed him so: he was confident, plain and simple.)
Certainly, some have advocated that belligerence and obstinance is some version of “strength and courage” … but shooting first and asking questions later clearly doesn’t always work, as Iraq is demonstrating quite clearly. (What’s that foreign policy theory about “rational players”?)
More than that basic question of courage and strength though, is whether or not America truly wants a new direction (Sen. Obama’s willingness to hit, and hit hard, when challenged and his willingness to come to mutual agreements through policies of moderated engagement). Or, do we Americans want to continue the belligerent “you’re dead to m” attitude of arrogance which has led us to be despised throughout the world and, in essence, led to the sacrifice of thousands of our best, our bravest and our brightest in the Iraqi’s civil war.
And for all those goofs harping about Sen. Obama’s “new politics of hope” … when did he say he would lay down like a lamb and not fight back? What he said was we need to rise above the BS like Hillary calling someone “irresponsible and naive” for saying essentially the same thing she said back in January. He did not say he wouldn’t punch back when blindsided — this is a campaign to be commander-in-chief after all and our nation needs a leader willing to stand up for our values and principles.
(h/t Deborah White)
Still more resonance on this simmering Saturday over the Obama Campaign’s memo slamming Sen. Clinton’s chumminess with outsourcing interests. This memo was supposedly written by someone low on the campaign totem pole, who was directed by a middle-manager to make it more harsh, according to Rich Miller’s CapFax blog.
[UPDATE: Rich Miller indicates he has sources telling him it was no middle manager, but was in fact Obama camp higher-up Robert Gibbs that ordered the 'harsher' rewrite ... Gibbs has a history of engaging in internecine bloodbaths and bullshit.]
Again, though I don’t excuse their use of the word, I tackled the ways in which the use of “Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in that memo from the Obama camp was not a slur, let alone “xenophobic”, Friday and Rich Miller replied Saturday eve. The fact that Sen. Clinton and a major supporter both described her as representing Punjab province in India just as well as New York state is the first clue that this is not some xenophic slur. Instead, it’s an odd claim to fame for a sitting United States Senator but ripe picking for an opponent to use against her as a way of demonstrating her possible split loyalties. (I mentioned on Eric Zorn’s post on this topic — though I don’t think he approved the comment — that if this had been Karl Rove attacking Sen. Clinton she would immediately be branded a “traitor” or “Manchurian candidate” for having agreed with her $50,000 supporter that she represents the Indian region of Punjab well in the United States Senate. How about representing New York state instead?)
The Chicago Tribune Saturday morning had a brief section 1, page 4 print story which echoed their earlier Swamp blogpost from Friday. Their story/blogpost wasn’t so much about the memo itself as the ‘reaction’ to it. In many cases it’s quite the manufactured reaction — the sort of “But he spilled milk” exclamation of someone who’s trying to distract from the fact his hand is in the cookie jar.
Part of that ‘reaction’ includes the letter sent to the Obama campaign and accompanying press release from Mr. Sanjay Puri, the head of the 50,000 member US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Given his position, on first blush it makes sense for him to be out in front of this story.
But Mr. Puri’s near-immediate jump into this fray begs the question as to why the chief of the supposedly bi-partisan USINPAC would take such umbrage with an attack memo between Democratic campaigns anyway?
For one, USINPAC is actually heavily referenced throughout the Obama campaign memo. Mr. Puri would properly want to look out for his political action committee’s good name, as would any other such director.
But if you dig a little deeper, several dots appear that are ready for easy connecting.
Thursday’s New York Sun article lists the entire Obama campaign memo. In it, we see that USINPAC had been pushing for the creation of a Congressional “India Caucus” for years. It was Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) who granted their wish. She founded the caucus and is currently co-chair of the Senate India Caucus. (The Obama group’s memo lists the following as references: “[link to photo at USINPAC website, accessed 4/17/07; Roll Call, 4/28/04; PR Newswire, 4/29/04]“).
So there’s a direct link between Sen. Clinton, co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, and Sanjay Puri, head of USINPAC (the entity which had wanted that Caucus to be developed).
Even deeper, we find that Mr. Puri himself benefits from outsourcing as founder and chief of an IT services company. Swamp blog commenter Jeff L. indicates Mr. Puri is the head of Optimos, replete with what Optimos calls an Offshore Solution Center that benefits greatly from outsourcing contracts — hiring Indian workers to save US firms the cost of hiring US workers.
I also have some issues with the he-said/she-said reportage of the Puri letter.
Rich Miller quoted from Mr. Puri in his oft-updated post yesterday accusing the Obama camp of racial slurs. The Trib’s Swamp post and print article, among other media, also quote Mr. Puri in their news articles.
Now, Mr. Puri is certainly entitled to his opinion and he enjoys the same freedom of speech as Clinton, Obama, and even li’l ol’ me. But what is interesting is that the journalists covering this stuff locally haven’t bothered to tell anyone just who Mr. Puri is nor what his relationship to Sen. Clinton is.
Again, the full press release and letter from Mr. Puri is here and the full Obama campaign memo is here. Take 10 minutes to read both.
Mr. Miller quotes Mr. Puri’s letter in part:
I am writing on behalf of the over 50,000 members of USINPAC, the largest bi-partisan political action committee representing the Indian American community. As representatives of the Indian American community, we have been encouraged by your message of inclusion and your promise to bring a new kind of politics to our country. This is why we are so concerned about media reports indicating your staff may be engaging in the worst kind of anti Indian American stereotyping. (emphasis added)
How much less direct can Mr. Puri be? He is concerned about unnamed “media reports” because those reports indicate Obama campaign staffers “may be” engaging in the “worst kind” of stereotyping.
But does Mr. Puri list anything that he considers to be “stereotyping”? No. Does he himself have concern over the memo? Hard to tell since he only refers to concern over reports about the memo.
Basically, Mr. Puri relies on the tired old political game of “some say” x, y and z to reinforce that x, y and z may exist (even if they don’t).
The Trib also quotes Mr. Puri as saying:
“There cannot be a suggestion that Indian-Americans are somehow taboo,” said Sanjay Puri, chairman of the 50,000-member U.S.-India Political Action Committee. “That is not the message we want any leader to be presenting.” (emphasis added)
Again, Mr. Puri is as indirect in this accusation as one can be. “There cannot be a suggestion”??? Who suggested it? Nothing in the Obama campaign’s attack memo suggested Indian-Americans are taboo.
Instead, the memo attacks Sen. Clinton’s ties to outsourcing interests and people involved in questionable business deals.
They could be Idaho-Americans instead of Indian-Americans and the memo would read the same because it’s not about Indian-Americans (and certainly not about xenophobia), it’s about outsourcing and shadey business deals. (In the same manner, the memo could’ve read “Sen. Clinton (D-Boise)” and it would’ve made sense since it accuses Sen. Clinton of having loyalties other than to the state she represents.)
The memo slams Clinton’s coziness with outsourcing, plain and simple and that slam strikes directly at Mr. Puri, his business, and USINPAC’s major goals (increase US-Indian ties to benefit India — including through outsourcing).
Those who follow Barack Obama the presidential candidate certainly know that he has said he wants to run a different sort of campaign and rise above the politics-as-usual malarkey we see year in and year out (even moreso these last 7-odd years it seems). The continued employment by Obama for America of well-known politics-as-usual hired gun Robert Gibbs definitely brings that claim by the candidate into question. Candidate Obama already slapped Mr. Gibbs on the wrist once over some useless attacks in relation to a fundraiser (of all things). The Obama camp had a valid point regarding Sen. Clinton’s comfort and support for outsourcing.
If Mr. Gibbs is indeed responsible for turning this attack memo against Clinton into more muckraking than it needed to be, he does deserve a pink slip because he is clearly unwilling to change his ways so as to better fit the candidate, and ultimately that candidate’s supporters, that he works for. Some tigers can’t change their stripes. (How’s that for flip-flopping inside of 48 hours.)
Don’t get me wrong — if it were me I wouldn’t have used the word and I do find it offensive, but apparently not as much as others…
It’s not too often that Illinois political journalist Rich Miller calls for a political insider to be fired, but he is today saying that whoever demanded the re-write of a recent Obama Camp attack memo against Sen. Clinton needs a pink slip. And of course the Illinois Review picked up on it right away (though I was pleasantly surprised to see it was Greg Blankenship’s level head rather than more of the same Obama-is-Evil-Incarnate from Fran Eaton — I agree, it is too early for this).
The bugger for Mr. Miller is apparently the memo’s use of “Punjab” which can certainly be as derogatory as the word “macaca” when used in a demeaning context (which we now all know helped take down Sen. George Allen, R-VA, last year). In fact, Mr. Miller goes so far as to say that this may be Obama’s “Macaca Moment”. Now whether he firmly believes that or he just liked the alliteration I can’t say. But the attack memo (the text was obtained by The New York Sun) is indeed entitled: “HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA.”
But the differences between a campaign using “Punjab” in a memo and Allen actually calling a fellow “Macaca” to his face are huge.
For one, there is no record of racism in Sen. Obama’s background. Unlike former Sen. Allen, he wasn’t hanging the Confederate flag, running around calling people n!%%3®$ and making sure they knew their place, putting chopped off animal heads in a black family’s mailbox or happily taking pictures and cavorting with known racists and white supremacists.
For another, Sen. Clinton herself said she could be the Senator from Punjab. The Obama campaign didn’t make it up. They weren’t trying to imply a slur. The context is that she used the word to describe herself, after one of her own supporters also did, and the Obama campaign used it against her. From the memo:
Sen. Clinton (D-Punjab) Joked That She Was Senator From The Punjab Region In India. “At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton began by joking that, ‘’I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,’ after being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.” [India Abroad, 3/17/06]
In essence, all the memo is doing is a little political jujitsu — turning a strong source of support and donations against Sen. Clinton by using her own words and claim. She was the one who said she could be the Senator from Punjab, the Obama campaign took her up on it to illustrate their point.
And their point, of course, is to highlight Sen. Clinton’s coziness with outsourcing interests in India, and their own quid pro quo commitment to supporting her campaign monetarily. Interestingly, The New York Sun has also been looking into Sen. Clinton’s zealous pursuit of donations from Indian-Americans (she is co-chair of the Senate Indian Caucus, and that’s not the Native American “Indian”).
As the Sun notes, organizations opposed to offshoring practices have been going after Sen. Clinton for some time. In light of that and the current two-term Republican administration telling us outsourcing American jobs is a good thing … this memo is actually an effective piece. It’s short for: ‘Do you want more of the same, or something different?’
Mr. Miller’s final points are that Sen. Obama has said he and his campaign would be above politics-as-usual. He already gave a verbal slap on the wrist to one of his campaigners after the Geffen fundraiser event a few weeks back. It remains to be seen what he’ll do here, but Mr. Miller’s point is well taken. There are other ways to say that Sen. Clinton is cozy with outsourcing American jobs that don’t involve using (D-Punjab)…
In fact, I believe a certain candidate 3 years ago used the term “Benedict Arnold Corporations” for those “American” companies that moved their “headquarters” to an offshore address to avoid taxes. I don’t think there’s a trademark on that phrase.
But Mr. Miller is over-reacting. Plain and simple.
(UPDATE: Clarification — it is abundantly clear from the context of the very-well-referenced Obama campaign memo that the use of the word “Punjab” was not meant in a derogatory manner, but rather as a mockery of something Sen. Clinton and her supporters joked about themselves … unlike Sen. Allen’s use of the word “Macaca” which clearly was intended as a racial slur and fit into a pattern of under-the-radar racism found throughout Mr. Allen’s lifetime. While the word “Punjab” could be taken as offensive in a different context, in this case it’s simply a reference to something Hillary said of herself last year while reveling in the support of a group of outsourcing interests, one of whom had originally made the reference to Sen. Clinton representing both the Punjab region and New York state.)
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that conservatives are going to start slamming Sen. Hillary Clinton harder over her earlier remark to the Sun-Times that she cared for children of immigrant farm workers while she was a teen in Park Ridge.
I previously posted about partisan conservative John Ruberry’s vacuous comments on the interview, but based on Internet searches folks are using to arrive at that very post it appears something’s afoot. I don’t listen to the conservative talking heads on the AM dial so maybe they’ve been beating this dead horse.
Watch out. Next the partisan conservatives will be lying that she claimed to have invented farming just like they continue to lie about Al Gore and the Internet (that meme is demonstrably false by the way).
Illinois Reason’s most obsessed fan has a new post up over at good ol’ Illinois Review and he displays that trait which makes partisans oh so famous — listening to what people say and then telling everyone what you want them to hear instead of what was actually said.
Huh? Come along with me for a moment as I explain.
His post is mainly about a gabfest he had with conservative pundit Bay Buchanan and her new book rehashing old baloney about the Clintons (Mrs. Clinton to be exact). While most conservatives have grown tired of their constant game of Hillary Hate, not so Ms. Buchanan and her avid reader, Mr. Dienhart who apparently like to dig in old dirt.
But buried within his post, smackdab in the middle, Mr. Dienhart goes a step further to tie Sen. Clinton in with what he considers to be an A-1 Genu-Ine Blame America Firster…
You probably remember him [Clinton adviser Michael Lerner] from this quote made shortly after 9/11: “We need to ask ourselves, ‘What is it in the way that we are living, organizing our societies, and treating each other that makes violence seem plausible to so many people?”
Think of that for a moment. One of Hillary’s closest advisor’s blames the United States for 9/11. Is Michael Lerner someone that should be advising the president? (emphasis added)
…Yes, let’s think of that for a moment, shall we? What Mr. Lerner said was that, gee, maybe in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy we ought to take a look at those things we as a leader among nations may be doing to piss people around the world off. In fact, piss them off enough to hijack planes and ram them into buildings on suicide missions.
He’s not blaming America for anything. He’s suggesting we modify behaviors (ie, change course — something partisan conservatives seem loathe to do) to head off the insane al Qaida types before they wreak their terror. Maybe one thing such Blame-Clinton types like Mr. Dienhart ought to consider is something like not propping up dictators who keep their people trapped in poverty and subhuman conditions.
Ya think?
Maybe another thing Mr. Dienhart could think about doing is actually trying to get past his partisanship to honestly evaluate what other folks have to say, instead of dismissing them and calling them names simply because he disagrees with them. Maybe then our political leaders (left and right) could actually work out a common sense approach to combatting terrorism on a global scale instead of inciting an ever-growing number of terrorist acts.
Maybe.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is arguably the current Democratic front-runner for the 8-months-hence presidential primaries. That, plus a 20-year-history of Hillary-hate from partisan conservatives, leaves her with a big red bullseye which those nattering nabobs on the right enjoy slinging mud at any chance they get.John Ruberry (who apparently has an aversion to fact-checking) again decides against any research and flies solo with just some stuff he makes up based on memories and tales from “old-timers” in responding to a recent Sun-Times article and a subsequent Rush Limbaugh Show bit about it.
In his post “Park Ridge, Illinois surrounded by farms? A Hillary fib?” Mr. Ruberry engages in some pointless Hillary-hate just for the sake of exercising his typing fingers:
She [Sen. Clinton] recalled Park Ridge was surrounded by farms that relied on migrant labor and that she used to baby-sit the workers’ children, an experience that awakened her to the complexities of the immigrant experience.
That paragraph didn’t pass the smell test with me. However, [S-T reporter Jennifer] Hunter didn’t present those as direct Hillary quotes, so perhaps, Hillary didn’t actually say those things.
Well, she did. Roger Hedgecock subbed for Rush Limbaugh Thursday, and he played that segment of her San Diego speech. What was played matched almost word for word what was reported in Hunter’s report.
Hedgecock asked people who knew about the Chicago area to opine on Hillary’s agricultural exclamation.
…A young Hillary Rodham would’ve been babysitting back in the 60s. [Update: Greg points out in comments that the babysitting was done through a program at the church the Rodham family attended.]
As Mr. Ruberry points out, there were farms in Chicago proper right next door to Park Ridge) even through the 70s. But he also does his best to avoid any real research by talking about a drive he took:
Directly southwest of Park Ridge is O’Hare International Airport. The airport dates back to the 1940s, but it didn’t begin become an commercial airport until the mid-1950s. No farms there. The other sides of Park Ridge are bordered by Niles, Glenview, and Des Plaines. Once you do a quick drive through these suburbs, and it becomes very clear that the majority of the residences in those towns–outside of the recent tear-down constructions, are post-war housing boom units. Those homes probably supplanted farm land, but most of them were built–I would guess–before Hillary Rodham was old enough to babysit young-ins.
Actually, there were farms near O’Hare up until fairly recently — same can be said for other towns next to or near to Park Ridge that Mr. Ruberry “drove through”.
