Hillary will rise again!

anneshirley · August 2008

So, a serious political question. If Ron Suskind is proven right--he says he has the proof on tape from Tenet's subordinates, in their own words, that the WH gave Tenet orders to forge a letter to indicate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction--should George Bush and Dick Cheney, and all the others, Powell, Rumsfield, Rice, obviously others, be tried and imprisoned for causing the death of 4,000+ American soldiers, and for all the innocent Iraqi lives?

Please note this is a hypothetical. I'm not yet saying Suskind is correct, but asking if it's proven, what should be the consequences to those who did this?.

saluki · August 2008

Really need to see the proof on Suskind before I weigh in on this. I grow more cynical as I grow older of anything in print.

By the way regarding Obama's ad that McCain is in big oils pocket; Jake Tapper at ABC has a different take.

Add to that some of Obama's biggest backers are also the biggest players in hedge funds.

From Political Punch

--------------------------------------------------

Exxon [Hearts] Obama

August 07, 2008 4:02 PM

As we close up a week wherein Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on the stump and in a TV ad accused rival Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., of being "in the pocket of big oil," and doing the industry's bidding -- not to mention a week during which the Democratic National Committee launched an Exxon-McCain '08 website to drive home this Democratic talking point -- the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics points out that the issue is a bit more complicated than it first would appear.

McCain has received three times more money from the oil industry in general -- $1.3 million for McCain compared to approximately $394,000 for Obama. But that said, Obama has received more campaign cash than McCain has from the employees of some of the biggest oil companies -- Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This might seem to complicate Obama's continual use of Exxon-Mobil on the stump.

In Youngstown, Ohio, this week Obama said that McCain is "offering $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America -- including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil...a company that, last quarter, made the same amount of money in 30 seconds that a typical Ohio worker makes in a year."

In Lansing, Michigan, Obama said Exxon-Mobil "is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon. And Senator McCain not only wants them to keep every dime of that money, he wants to give them more. So make no mistake – the oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain."

But based on data downloaded electronically from the Federal Election Commission on July 29, 2008, reports CRP: "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500."

McCain himself has tried to push back against the Obama charge, telling votes at a town hall in Lima, Ohio, today, that he "spoke up against the Administration and Congress and Senator Obama when they gave us an energy bill with more giveaways to Big Oil and really no solution to our energy problems," and Obama did not.

Discussing the 2005 energy bill, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, McCain said "I think Senator Obama might be a little bit confused. Yesterday, he accused me of having President Bush's policies on energy. That's odd because he voted for the President's energy bill and I voted against it. I voted against it, had $2.8 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil companies, and they're already making record profits, as you know. Senator Obama voted for that bill and its Big Oil giveaways. I know he hasn't been in the Senate that long, but even in the real world, voting for something means you support it and voting against something means you oppose it."

The Obama campaign disputes that the bill was "the president's" energy bill, and in Lansing told voters that McCain voted "against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country."

saluki · August 2008

You may be interested in this.........Looks like at least at the convention there will be Kumbaya moments...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Clinton to Speak at Democratic Convention
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, August 7, 2008

Bill Clinton will speak on the third day of the Democratic National Convention, FOX News has confirmed.

The former president has been scheduled to address the convention on Wednesday, Aug. 27, before the speech by the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, according to a senior Democratic source familiar with the situation.

The news comes on the heals of statements by Hillary Clinton that she might ask for her name be offered for a roll call vote at the convention — a formality, since she already has withdrawn from the Democratic race and thrown her support behind Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee.

Hillary Clinton’s comments set off speculation about whether any ill will remained between Obama and the Clintons following a hard-fought and lengthy primary race.

Obama’s campaign hadn’t commented as of Thursday evening on talk of Bill Clinton speaking at the convention, but Obama responded earlier in the day to questions about the Clinton’s support of his candidacy.

“You know, I spoke to President Clinton this week,” Obama said. “He’s been very supportive. … I couldn’t ask for him to be any more gracious than he’s been and supportive since the campaign ended.”

Denver is hosting the Democratic convention Aug. 25-28.

Rosemary44 · August 2008

I heard last night that if there is a roll-call vote for Hillary it will be during the day so not many will be tuned in. It will just be something we hear about on the news that evening. I wonder if they'll allow the dancing and marching in the aisles that usually goes on after a vote? I know they really don't want to mar the Obama love-in festival with large Hillary displays, but that's the way it goes.

saluki · August 2008

Don't know how much coverage this will get-------It will be the 88th anniversary of the date American women were granted the right to vote. ...

----------------------------------

CNN has said

"The grassroots group 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise is planning a march in Denver, where the convention is taking place. The group is coordinating the march with others across the country as well as planning a festival in downtown Denver.

The group said its goal is to celebrate Clinton's achievement and advocate for women's rights. The group also said it is dedicated to seeing Clinton in the White House."

anneshirley · August 2008

I received some 50 one liners about Obama, and this was my favorite:

The United States Mail Service will publish Obama's resume on a new first class stamp.

Rosemary44 · August 2008

I heard today they will be releasing the inter-office memo's from Hillary's campaign. The suggestion is, Hillary is behind the leak That makes no sense, if she wants the Veep position, damning comments about Obama wouldn't get her that position, even if it was from other people in her campaign.

Who would have the most to win? The person who doesn't want her on his ticket is the more likely source of the leaked documents. We'll see if they make it to the light of day on Monday or is it just more foolishness to use against Hillary.

That's pretty funny Anne, you should give us one a day to keep us smiling.

anneshirley · August 2008

A reasonable look at the energy crisis, versus what Obama and McCain are putting forward:

Editorial

Energy Fictions

New York Times

Published: August 9, 2008

A toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy.

The latest evidence comes from Senator Barack Obama, who in less than a week has reversed his stance on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, softened his opposition to offshore drilling and unveiled an out-of-nowhere proposal to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and funnel the money to consumers in the form of a $1,000 tax rebate.

Compared with his slightly hysterical opponent, Mr. Obama had been making good sense on energy questions, and his recent speeches had included a menu of proposals for energy efficiency, conservation, alternative fuels and new technologies.

Yet public opinion polls showing deep voter discontent with fuel prices — and Senator John McCain’s steady pounding on the issue, including television ads blaming Mr. Obama personally for the rise in gasoline prices — have caused high anxiety among Democrats. They also seem to have persuaded Mr. Obama, who earlier had resisted gimmicky proposals like a gas tax holiday, to strike back.

The Democrats’ presumptive nominee has made a poor choice of weapons, beginning with his proposal to tap the petroleum reserve, an idea that Mr. McCain has wisely resisted. True, some usually responsible Democrats have been urging the release of as much as 70 million barrels of oil from the 700-million-barrel strategic reserve. And tapping the reserve on several earlier occasions — including the home heating oil crisis in 2000 and after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 — did in fact cause oil prices to drop.

But these were the kinds of genuine emergencies for which the reserve was designed in the first place. High prices — even $4 for a gallon of gasoline — do not, in our view, constitute such an emergency. (They may even be salutary: according to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove 30 billion fewer miles in the first five months of this year than they did last year. Consumers are moving briskly to the more fuel-efficient cars they probably should have been buying all along.)

The windfall tax idea seems exactly the kind of populist gimmick Mr. Obama has been trying to avoid, and could be counterproductive. It is true that oil company profits have reached obscene levels, largely as a result of oil prices. It is also true that oil companies receive tax benefits that they do not need and that ought to be repealed. But rebates would encourage consumption, leading to higher prices at the pump and hurting the very consumers Mr. Obama is trying to help.

The senator’s shift on offshore drilling is less disturbing and more nuanced. Having opposed it in the past, he now appears willing to endorse selective drilling in places where states allow it, and only then as a negotiating tool to win a much bigger and broader bipartisan energy package.

This is far more defensible than Mr. McCain’s gung-ho, drill anywhere approach. But Mr. Obama cannot allow himself to be seen as endorsing the twin fictions (assiduously promoted by Mr. McCain’s advertising, if not by the candidate in his own public statements) that freeing up the 18 billion barrels in areas now off limits to drilling will bring quick relief at the pump and, in time, satisfy the country’s long-term needs.

Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources. This is a point the honest candidate should be making at every turn.

Emphasis added

Rosemary44 · August 2008

"The latest evidence comes from Senator Barack Obama, who in less than a week has reversed his stance on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, softened his opposition to offshore drilling and unveiled an out-of-nowhere proposal to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and funnel the money to consumers in the form of a $1,000 tax rebate"

I consider that $1000 rebate or tax credit, (two different ads call it one or the other) is just a ploy to get votes. Nothing more. Plus, it doesn't fix the problem. I tell ya, congress loves to try to fix problems with hand-outs instead of going to the root of it. Giving away a tax credit/rebate won't fix this one.

I'm surprised, the Times is sounding very reasonable. Did they change owners?

They do have McCain's plan wrong. He said he'd leave it up to the States to decide if they want off shore drilling. I understand Swartenegger already turned it down, and California could use the extra money that would come in. The States will share in the profits.

anneshirley · August 2008

Actually, Rosemary, the Times is almost always reasonable, with the occasional off day. I thought the last paragraph says it all. We need alternate forms of energy. Of course, both Obama and McCain know this, but they'll do anything to get votes. I agree that the $1,000 rebate is just plain silly and probably won't happen.

Anonymous · August 2008

There is a bipartisan plan that 10 senators have come up with.

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/7/topic/708458?page=7#idx_188

Senators unveil bipartisan energy plan

Hoping to break a standoff, a group of lawmakers proposes allowing some oil drilling -- though not off the West Coast -- to help fund expanded production of alternative-fuel vehicles.By Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 2, 2008

WASHINGTON - In a possible breakthrough on energy, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a compromise Friday that would preserve the oil-drilling ban off the West Coast while easing restrictions on exploration off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.

The proposal also would provide billions to greatly expand the availability of vehicles powered by alternative fuels.

In unveiling the ambitious plan, the senators -- five Democrats and five Republicans who call themselves the Gang of 10 -- hope to break a partisan standoff that sent lawmakers home on their monthlong summer recess Friday without action on major legislation to address high gasoline prices.

But the proposal's pros pects appear remote this election year, with time running out on the congressional session and the parties highlighting their differences on energy.

And a number of the proposals remain controversial -- expanding drilling off Florida, reviving the nuclear industry, boosting efforts to convert coal into fuel for motor vehicles.

At home, lawmakers are likely to hear from voters about canceled vacations and tighter family budgets because of high gas prices.

When Congress returns to Washington in September, "we hope that colleagues will have heard from their constituents that something has to be done, and done before Congress finishes its business this year," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a leader of the bipartisan group that forged the plan.

The proposal is the first sign of progress on an issue that has stirred anxiety and animosity on Capitol Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was hopeful the compromise "can begin to break the current legislative stalemate on the Senate floor."

The proposal would offer concessions to Republicans who have called for increased domestic production: An area of the Gulf of Mexico, 50 miles off Florida's coast, would be open to drilling; and Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia could decide whether to allow drilling 50 miles off their shorelines.

The senators excluded efforts to lift the long-standing ban on new drilling off the California coast or to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration as too contentious and likely to complicate passage of the plan.

In a significant shift, the group's Republicans agreed to repeal a key oil industry tax break and force oil companies to pay billions in royalties to the U.S. Treasury for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Democrats have tried to repeal industry tax breaks in the past but have been thwarted by a GOP-led Senate filibuster.

But a number of Republicans are finding it hard to defend the tax breaks while oil companies record high profits.

An estimated $30 billion that would be paid by the oil companies over 10 years would help fund initiatives such as $7.5 billion to help U.S. automakers expand the production of alternative-fuel vehicles. Funding also would be provided for tax credits to encourage consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars and for extending tax credits to promote energy efficiency and cleaner energy sources, such as sun and wind power.

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, welcomed the proposal, saying it included measures he had advocated such as repealing oil industry tax breaks. But he said he remained skeptical that new offshore drilling "would bring down gas prices in the short term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long term."

And in an interview with the Palm Beach Post in Florida, Obama said he might support limited additional offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive policy to promote fuel-efficient autos and alternate sources of energy.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called for lifting the offshore drilling ban. In a statement, his campaign said the country needs an " 'all of the above' approach" and chided Obama for opposing expansion of offshore drilling.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the Bush administration would consider the legislation.

"We would need to see a bill that would increase the supply here in our own country, across the board, in a comprehensive way," Perino said, adding that "alternatives and renewable energies" are needed too.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) initiated the bipartisan talks several weeks ago, approaching Conrad after another day of partisan warfare in the Senate over energy policy.

Chambliss acknowledged that the bipartisan talks irked party leaders. "The fact that they're uncomfortable means we're doing the right thing," he said.

But though the proposed compromise enjoys bipartisan support, the five Democrats who endorsed it hail from states that voted for Bush in 2004.

Other senators putting forth the plan are Democrats Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska; and Republicans Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Thune of South Dakota.

richard.simon@latimes.com

anneshirley · August 2008

Tried unfairly! They can't be serious, can they?

Obama's No. 1 Media Problem, CBS Market Watch

'm starting to worry about Barack Obama.

From a journalistic perspective, he seemed like such a refreshing departure from the oft-paranoid media relations practiced by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the two George Bushes.

Now I'm not so sure.

Too often, Obama and his handlers have overreacted to what we've come to accept as frivolous, basically harmless "coverage" by the celebrity-obsessed mainstream media.

Two examples of him getting his back up: Obama made a federal case of the appearance by his daughters on "Access Hollywood" and he was snippy with reporters when he was pressed about his unexpected email friendship with actress Scarlett Johansson.

Sure, these are minor events. But if he is going to be anal about the small stuff, it may get ugly if he loses his composure about something important.

Obama has staked his claim by offering American voters a fresh voice and a strong sense of optimism about the future. When he was on the way up, he was the favorite son of the media, who heaped almost unprecedented praise on him. Now that he has all but secured the Democratic nomination, Obama has shown little patience for standard media practices, which can range from silly to stupid.

The Obama team may still think the "old" rules apply. By old, I'm referring to the kid-gloves treatment the media gave him when he was an up and comer and Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to secure the Democratic nomination.

Even before Obama stunned Clinton by winning the Iowa caucus, the first high-profile showdown between the rivals last fall, the media had all but decreed that Obama would be their darling, the one who could do no wrong.

If Obama was designated "hero," the media had to find a "villain" to complete the convenient story line and, of course, Hillary Clinton was consigned to wear the black hat.

That was then. Now, Obama and his staff must accept the reality that the game has changed as he prepares to battle John McCain. As PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told me a few weeks ago, it wasn't so long ago that McCain was the media's darling.

The story line the media love best is to hail the candidate who was down, but not out, and somehow rallied to achieve a stirring victory. This is McCain's saga over the past year.

Obama has to realize that he will be subject to increasing scrutiny as the campaign really heats up. What we've seen so far is the orchestra tuning up. The real show begins after Labor Day, as the Obama-McCain debate season begins to take shape.

The mainstream media, as well as bloggers who have a point of view, will seek to exploit any situation as a way to create news. Don't forget that all hell broke loose when the New Yorker, which you'd think was solidly behind Obama in his fight against McCain, published (I thought) a biting and witty look at the stereotypical way many Americans view Barack and Michelle Obama.

Still, some accused the magazine of exploiting Obama and his wife. Others said it was a racially insensitive cover. These critics completely missed the point that the New Yorker was mocking bigots in the strongest fashion. Or, perhaps, they wanted to miss the point as a way to advance their arguments.

Members of Barack Obama's campaign thought he got a raw deal from the media during his battle with Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps they were just trying to stir an argument because any fair-minded observer could see that Clinton was the one should have felt mistreated by the press.

Obama had better toughen up -- fast. The media spotlight -- or is it a glare? -- will only get brighter in the months leading up to Election Day. Expect the incessant charges that Obama is too inexperienced and unprepared to be president and a Pollyanna cockeyed optimist to get more shrill, too.

Obama has resented the media for treating him like a presidential candidate -- someone with a personal life, a family and a past. He had better get used to it. The pace is sure to quicken between now and Election Day.

And if you win, Mr. President-Elect, look out. Things can only get worse.

anneshirley · August 2008

I just read an article, which I won't post, about a woman who couldn't get care after she broke both her arms. I won't post it because these stories are a dime a dozen in this country. All of you folks who have insurance and don't want health care for others, please get your heads out of the sand on this subject. That one of the richest countries in the world, if not the richest, can't provide health insurance to all its citizens is a national shame.

Can it Happen Here? Paul Krugman, New York Times

The draft Democratic Party platform that was sent out last week puts health care reform front and center. “If one thing came through in the platform hearings,” says the document, “it was that Democrats are united around a commitment to provide every American access to affordable, comprehensive health care.”

Can Democrats deliver on that commitment? In principle, it should be easy. In practice, supporters of health care reform, myself included, will be hanging on by their fingernails until legislation is actually passed.

What’s easy about guaranteed health care for all? For one thing, we know that it’s economically feasible: every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of guaranteed health care. The hazards Americans treat as facts of life — the risk of losing your insurance, the risk that you won’t be able to afford necessary care, the chance that you’ll be financially ruined by medical costs — would be considered unthinkable in any other advanced nation.

The politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal coverage, the nation will love it.

I know that’s not what everyone says; some pundits claim that the United States has a uniquely individualistic culture, and that Americans won’t accept any system that makes health care a collective responsibility. Those who say this, however, seem to forget that we already have a program — you may have heard of it — called Medicare. It’s a program that collects money from every worker’s paycheck and uses it to pay the medical bills of everyone 65 and older. And it’s immensely popular.

There’s every reason to believe that a program that extends universal coverage to the nonelderly would soon become equally popular. Consider the case of Massachusetts, which passed a state-level plan for universal coverage two years ago.

The Massachusetts plan has come in for a lot of criticism. It includes individual mandates — that is, people are required to buy coverage, even if they’d prefer to take their chances. And its costs are running much higher than expected, mainly because it turns out that there were more people without insurance than anyone realized.

Yet recent polls show overwhelming support for the plan — support that has grown stronger since it went into effect, despite the new system’s teething troubles. Once a system of universal health coverage exists, it seems, people want to keep it.

So why be nervous about the prospects for reform? Because it’s hard to get universal care established in the first place. There are, I’d argue, three big hurdles.

First, the Democrats have to win the election — and win it by enough to face down Republicans, who are still, 42 years after Medicare went into operation, denouncing “socialized medicine.”

Second, they have to overcome the public’s fear of change.

Some health care reformers wanted the Democrats to endorse a single-payer, Medicare-type system for all. On the sheer economic merits, they’re right: single-payer would be more efficient than a system that preserves a role for private insurance companies.

But it’s better to have an imperfect universal health care plan than none at all — and the only way to get a universal health care plan passed soon is to inoculate it against Harry-and-Louise-type claims that people will be forced into plans “designed by government bureaucrats.” So the Democratic platform emphasizes choice, declaring that Americans “should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan.” We’ll see if that’s enough.

The final hurdle facing health care reform is the risk that the next president and Congress will lose focus. There will be many problems crying out for solutions, from a weak economy to foreign policy crises. It will be easy and tempting to put health care on the back burner for a bit — and then forget about it.

So I’m nervous. The history of the pursuit of universal health care in America is one of missed chances, of political opportunities frittered away. Let’s hope that this time is different.

One more thing: if we do get real health care reform, a lot of people will owe a debt of gratitude to none other than John Edwards. When Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, I credited him with making universal health care a “possible dream for the next administration.” Mr. Edwards’s political career is over — but perhaps he and his family can take some solace from the fact that his party is still trying to make that dream come true.

saluki · August 2008

I am very surprised at Jake Tapper of ABC's political punch. I always thought he was pretty even-handed but this is low for him-------

« Shrum On Clinton Memos: An "Ugly" "Appeal to Stereotypes" | Main

Did Edwards' Lies Hurt Biden and Richardson?

August 11, 2008 12:23 PM

Some former Clinton aides are suggesting that by remaining in the race despite having had a recent affair, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, hurt the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

I'm not so sure.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson came in 4th in Iowa, maybe Edwards' voters would have gone to him.

Or perhaps they would have flocked to two other white men in the race, Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del, or Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Clinton folks say their polls showed Clinton would have gotten about 2/3rds of Edwards' Iowa voters.

But as I recall, Clinton's Iowa polling was pretty God-awful.

The bottom line is gaming such a thing out is futile.

But, for those Clinton supporters who are increasingly like the Imperial Japanese Army soldiers found in the Philippines, Thailand and elsewhere decades after World War II ended, I guess it fits in with the general mindset.

- jpt

anneshirley · August 2008

Since this is a political thread I thought it would be rare and wonderful to actually discuss politics. I am concerned with John McCain's reaction to the Russian/Georgia skirmish. I hope it stays such and doesn't turn into a war. I haven't yet heard Obama's reaction but I'm hoping it's less warlike in tone.

The U.S. has been sticking its finger in the eye of Russia for a while now, mainly in trying to circle Russia with U.S. allies and in its attempt to install a missile shield in former Soviet satellite countries, supposedly to protect Europe from Iran! We have always asserted the Monroe doctrine in keeping countries like Russia out of Central and South America, and in particular did so when Russia was bringing missiles into Cuba, as I think was our right. Shouldn't we assume that Russia has its own Monroe Doctrine. In addition, we don't have the resources to get involved in a military conflict with Russia so why is McCain saber rattling beyond trying to scare Americans into perhaps voting for him. What scares me is that when we start making such noises, it's not that easy to back down. In addition, Georgia initiated the conflict so the rights and wrongs here are somewhat ambiguous.

I live to amaze myself when I start agreeing with Pat Buchanan, who stated yesterday on the McLaughlin Group that we had better stay out of this. But with John McCain itching for a fight, will we? Sure hope so. I want to hear from Obama on this one. Let's see if he really has the good judgment he's claiming for himself.

anneshirley · August 2008

Back to the silly season stuff. The Obama celebrity ad aimed at McCain comes across as a a school yard taunt: you did it, now we'll do it. There are so many things that the Democrats can call the Republicans on, so this is just silly, and very ineffective I think.

saluki · August 2008

Frankly, Russia condemming itself in the Security Council at the United Nations ain't gonna happen.

Political Punch has a little to say about the two approaches of the candidates:

August 11, 2008 5:29 PM

Both Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today delivered stern messages condemning Russian's invasion and aggression towards Georgia.

But their messages were quite different in their ways.

Not least of which, in their last paragraphs.

To wit, Sen Obama: "Let me be clear: we seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation – but with that role comes the responsibility to act as a force for progress in this new century, not regression to the conflicts of the past. That is why the United States and the international community must speak out strongly against this aggression, and for peace and security."

And Sen. McCain: "Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attack, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity’s progress toward respecting the values and security of free people."

Maybe you think Obama is being soft, appeasing. Maybe you think he's being diplomatic, statesman-like.

Maybe you think McCain is being bellicose, war-mongery. Maybe you think he's being tough, a fighter for freedom.

Either way, there's no question that their styles are starkly different.

- jpt

anneshirley · August 2008

The reasonable thing, in my view, for both men would have been to say that we have a president and it is their preference not to interfere with the diplomatic efforts of our elected government. I heard something stronger from McCain earlier today, or perhaps someone was paraphrasing. Whatever the case, the U.S. can do little on this, considering its own invasion of Iraq, and also because we are spread far too thin to get involved. Russia is in the cat bird's seat on this one, and I really do wonder why Georgia started this, and why just as the Olympics was beginning. Did it think Putin wouldn't notice? That man has eyes in the back of his head.

saluki · August 2008

Bush has said on Putin "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul ..."

It is said of McCain he looks into Putins eyes and sees one thing---KGB

He is a realist

Paulette531 · August 2008

Edwards sex lie cost Clinton the nomination: former aide

Mon Aug 11, 12:52 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton would be the Democrats' White House nominee today if former presidential hopeful John Edwards had come clean earlier about an extra-marital affair, a top aide to Clinton believes.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Howard Wolfson, who was the combative communications director for Clinton's doomed campaign, told ABCNews.com.

In an interview released Monday, Wolfson also said that Clinton's campaign knew about the affair but kept quiet.

"Any of the campaigns that would have tried to push that would have been burned by it," he said.

Former senator Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth is stricken with terminal breast cancer, confessed Friday to having had an affair in 2006 with filmmaker Rielle Hunter.

But Edwards, who was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004 and bowed out of this year's White House race in late January, denied fathering the six-month-old baby of Hunter.

Wolfson insisted that Edwards voters in Iowa, whose presidential caucuses kicked off the 2008 race in early January, would have been behind Clinton rather than Barack Obama.

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," he said, citing internal polling by the Clinton campaign.

"They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."

Obama, who is set to be crowned the Democratic nominee in just over a fortnight, won the Iowa caucuses with 37.58 percent of the vote. Edwards came second on 29.75 percent, a hair's breadth ahead of Clinton with 29.47 percent.

It was a shock result that derailed what was once seen as an "inevitable" march to the nomination by the former first lady, and put Obama firmly in the driving seat over the marathon primary process that followed.

Just two months before the caucuses, Edwards had angrily denied a National Enquirer report about an affair with Hunter, and the issue was ignored by the mainstream press until he belatedly came clean on Friday.

While the Obama campaign did not comment on Wolfson's claim, it can point to subsequent primary results to undermine the assertion that supporters of Edwards were a natural fit with Clinton's.

Both Edwards and Obama ran outsiders' campaigns that vowed to take on Washington politics, and after Edwards bowed out, the Illinois senator swept 11 nominating contests in a row in February.

But Wolfson's intervention does come at a sensitive time just ahead of the Democratic convention, with Clinton supporters demanding a potentially divisive roll-call vote to formally acclaim her battle for the nomination.

Meanwhile as Democrats denied that the revelations about Edwards would hurt their electoral chances in November, Hunter was reported to have ruled out a DNA test to establish the paternity of her baby.

Edwards offered to take the test in an emotional ABC television interview on Friday, when he also denied extending financial payments to Hunter to buy her silence.

anneshirley · August 2008

Thanks Paulette,

For once I have to agree with the Obama campaign, which is basically what happened, happened. There's no way to know what might have been if Edwards hadn't run. Still annoyed, however at Edwards for running without first revealing. Such hutsbah!

Paulette531 · August 2008

It almost makes you wonder if Edwards did it on purpose though, to throw off Iowa. A lot of mystery there!

Rosemary44 · August 2008

What makes this all very interesting is his delegates are free to vote for anyone they want. If they do have a roll-call vote for Hillary will they turn on him and his endorsement for Obama? Stay tuned the soap opera continues.

anneshirley · August 2008

Shokk, if you're still reading here. In answer to your question on the Edwards' thread (which is getting a bit argumentative I notice), I really don't have an opinion on how Hillary would have fared if Edwards had not run. It might have ended the same way, or not. Anyone's guess.

I read today that Daschle says Obama still hasn't picked a VP yet. I don't understand the man, at all. Does he not want to win. If he picked Hillary, and I believe from all I read she wants the spot, he'd win in November. It would also show that he actually has the judgement he's been claiming for himself.

Speaking of Obama supporters, my two sisters are here, and one of them was annoyed at me when I said I was voting Green this year. She said I was throwing my vote away--God, I hate it when people said that. No one throws a vote away because their candidate doesn't win. And we'll never get away from frick and frack until we have a viable third party. When I asked her if she were aware of Obama's recently-changed positions regarding FISA, gun control, the death penalty, supporting religious organizations, etc. etc., she wasn't. I wonder if that is at least part of the problem, that so many stopped paying attention after the primary. Anyway, I hope she's rethinking her position about not voting Green this year. And she lives in New Jersey where (LOL) her vote really does count. Democrats always win in New York State--at least as long as I can remember.

Shirley--also in response to question you asked on Edwards thread. The New York Times wrote a bit about why it refused to print the Edwards story, yet printed the McCain story. I'll look it up and post it here. The Times did have a reason. You might not agree with it, but it makes sense to me.

Anonymous · August 2008

Anne, it really doesn't matter why the Times wrote about McCain. It's a done thing.

I believe there are many people voting for Obama who know NOTHING about him. They hear a little and that's it. Same goes with McCain. However, since McCain is "tied" to Bush that turns many people off that are on the fence.

People need to listen to both candidates. They just don't have time OR they just aren't interested.

Shirley

Rosemary44 · August 2008

Anne,

I already like your sister. I love it when people tell you the truth about throwing your vote away. Sure let someone else make the decision for you who will be your President.

saluki · August 2008

AnneShirley--Since you humorously suggest for McCain to pick Rep Pro- Choice Olympia Snow as his VP candidate, I thought you may find some humor in McCains trial balloon and its reception---even if it isn't a woman.

By the way your other Senator -Rep Susan Collins had some choice comments about Edwards

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/sen-collins-on.html

From The Weekly Standard :

A pro-choice running mate for McCain?
posted at 10:40 am on August 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Hopefully, members of Team McCain have rushed to remind John McCain that he needs to energize the Republican base to support him, not to oppose him. In an interview with Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard yesterday, John McCain suggested that Republicans might not mind a pro-choice VP, as long as he suppported other portions of the social-conservative agenda. He intended to draw a contrast between Tom Ridge and Michael Bloomberg, but the comment threatens to draw lines within the GOP instead:

    John McCain said that he is open to choosing a pro-choice running mate and named former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as someone who merits serious consideration despite his support for abortion rights. McCain also criticized Barack Obama’s presidential campaign for attempts to “politicize” the debate over Georgia and criticized President Bush for failing to recognize the true nature of Vladimir Putin.

    “I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain said. “And I also feel that–and I’m not trying to equivocate here–that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.”

    McCain’s comments came in response to a question about comments he made to several reporters during the Republican primary season. During that exchange, McCain was asked whether New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg would make a good running mate. McCain offered strong words of praise for Bloomberg but said that Bloomberg’s position on abortion–he is also pro-choice–would make it difficult to choose him as a vice presidential candidate. …

    “I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a–albeit strong–but just it’s a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far moreso than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”

McCain has this exactly backwards. Abortion is the sine qua non of the social conservative agenda, not gay rights, for a simple reason: abortion kills human life. In comparison, gay-rights issues stirs passions, but not the kind of line in the sand abortion represents. Being tough on gays hardly represents a consolation prize to pro-life Republicans, many of whom think the gay issue is already overblown as it is.

Michelle notes the essential problem McCain creates with this odd formula:

    Pro-open borders. Pro-global warming hysteria. Might as well go for the trifecta.

Either one believes human life begins at conception or not, and if so, then abortion is an abomination. McCain has a good track record on this issue as it is, so he obviously believes that human life should not get terminated out of inconvenience. Why, then, would he propose asking someone who doesn’t believe that to take a position which could put that person in charge of appointing judges to the bench if something tragic happened to McCain while in office?

It looks like a trial balloon to me, a way to show that McCain can get along with everyone in Washington and work across the aisle. If so, let’s pop that balloon tout suite and quit alienating the base.

shokk · August 2008

Hi guys for some reason I had trouble finding ya'll...........Anneshirley I guess you heard today that Hillary is going to get a roll call at the convention.......also Chelsea is the one that is going to be introducing her Mom.........I cannot wait............Hillary very well could end up stealing the show............As I understand it Bill will speak first on one night and then Chelsea and her Mom the next night?..........Susie probably has the run down..............but I am glad the the delegates will have to publicly state whom they are voting...........I certainly don't want any trouble at the Democrat Convention or for anyone to get hurt.............I hope any demonstrators are respectful of the importance of the event.............but I get this feeling that Hillary is not done............it should be some very interesting history being played out right in front of all of us.............Shokk

anneshirley · August 2008

I've been busy entertaining my sisters and my husband has taken over the TV for the Olympics, so I haven't been hearing much in the way of politics this week. But thanks, Shokk, for news about Hillary getting a roll call. I'm happy as it seems to be particularly important to her supporters, and I think also to her. Still hoping Obama will get some sense and make her his veep, but even if he does, I'll still vote Green.

Rosemary, the sister you admire thinks she's a liberal, but she's not. Well, I suppose she is in the U.S. Most liberals today are about where centrist Republicans were back in the 60's. One can't call oneself a liberal (in other countries anyway) and then enthusiastically support a candidate who agrees with Scalia on the death penalty. Just ain't possible. So, if those who think like me don't support third parties, we'll never get one that isn't more than a fringe party. So long as a person votes, he/she can't throw it away. I've voted third party in many many elections since I turned 21, and I suspect that for the remainder of my life I'll always vote third party. I've had it with the Democrats. If they continue to move to the right as they've been doing for the last three decades, they'll soon be swimming in the Atlantic--which is not such a bad idea! Laughing

Odalys · August 2008

Glad to hear about Hillary but it seems too late. I am not happy about how the media treated her. She was making history but it seemed Obama got the most coverage. Oh well, what can I say that hasn't been said already?

Hillary will rise again!

Comments

Energy Fictions

Did Edwards' Lies Hurt Biden and Richardson?

Categories