Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTo wiggle out from under the memory of her vote in favor of the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton is trying a back-to-the-future maneuver. She is sponsoring a resolution to rescind the original resolution to go to war in Iraq. This new resolution wipes out the old resolution and she no longer has to keep explaining why she cast that cursed vote.
For her sake, let's hope it works. There is something unfair about constantly going back and looking at what somebody said or did in the past. How is a poor politician to lighten all the luggage she's dragging around?
In that pile of baggage, there is a very heavy duffle bag wherein husband Bill is kept out of sight. He is, of course, unzipped and let out of his canvas confinement at private fundraisers and in front of African American groups. Using Bill for black groups spares us having to listen when Hillary puts on that gawdawful southern accent. The girls at Wellesley were not taught how to speak ethnic when Hillary went there and learned to become young and radical.
The problem with Bill is not only what he did in the past but what he is doing now. He's gotten himself involved with his reticent billionaire friend, Ron Burkle. Burkle's business front organization, Yucaipa Cos., is trying to move in on, buy, takeover or generally grab Allied Holdings, which runs the largest car hauling outfit in the country. Car haulers are those frightening trucks loaded with new cars on their way from dockside or factory to local dealerships.
In his attempt to get Allied, Burkle has come to terms with the union the drivers belong to--the Teamsters--which means making an accommodation with its president James P. Hoffa, the son of the famously disappeared former Teamsters president James R. Hoffa. Apparently Bill, in his role as consigliere to Burkle and Yucaipa for undisclosed compensation, was the go-between on this operation.
As one might expect with such a triumvirate, some Allied stockholders have filed suit. Terms such as collusion, manipulation and abuse are being flung around. That's the trouble with Bill. Hillary is always having to run out to buy yet another duffle bag.
On the plus side, Billionaire Burkle recently raised $2.5 million for Hillary. Maybe that makes it worth it.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
"Clinton," the headline should have said.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 3:46pm
HRC doesn't have a Southern accent because she's not from the South.
It would be a change if a Dem could be elected President without having to have one of those as some kind of proof of.. authenticity, or reassuing (to whom?) centrism.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 3:51pm
What is the offense here? WJC has a business partenr who is trying to take over an auto hauling company. As part of the takeover he has "come to terms" with someone with someone named Hoffa. What does "come to terms" with mean here? It turns out that some shareholders have alleged -- but the bloggerr perhaps hasn't bothered to investigate the existence of -- "collusion" and "abuse." The blogger drops the word "consigliere" into the mix to give everything an evil taint -- without bothering to back anything up.
This sounds like a smear. It's under-researched, at minimum. No links, even. What's someting like this doing at The Nation?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 3:57pm
Is the new policy at The Nation that someone gets to go the blogs and post undocumnted smear, as long as it's about the Senator that the Nation chooses to call, familiarly, "Hillary"?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 3:58pm
Nicholas von Hoffman: She is sponsoring a resolution to rescind the original resolution to go to war in Iraq. This new resolution wipes out the old resolution and she no longer has to keep explaining why she cast that cursed vote.
Amazing Grace, this sounds almost exactly like seeking a (very) Late Term Abortion; except, the baby's head is already out and eyes almost open!
Posted by Happy at 05/09/2007 @ 3:59pm
It's so irresponsible. I"m trying to get over the shock. Nicholas von Hoffman. This is depressing. What is it about HRC that is unhinging so many otherwise sensible people?
It can't be DLC centrism. Everybody was DELIGHTED when those Reaganauts were sent there walking papers in 1992. Nobody likes seeing them back at DoJ tearing up the Civil Rights sectin, or at EPA pretending there's no such thing as global warming.
Nobody seriously thinks going around calling Bill Clinton a "consigliere" (!) is the appropriate moral and political response to this Administration. Right?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:02pm
I rarely post comments at this Campagin Matters blog. It seems so important to expose and punish and eradicate the GOP rot and the Bush Administration rot that sitting around debating whether the Dem candidate should be Ms. X or Mr. Y seems so much less important.
But the fellas who are knocked brainless by HRC must have been having lots of fun at this blog all this time. Must check in more often.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:09pm
If we can't stop Rove from fixing elections, it doesn't how many Decorated Veteran-Southern Populist tickets we run. Rove will just send his boys out to Ohio or Missouri to intimidate and indict miniority voters and the people who try to register them.
Nicholas von Hoffman DOES know that's what's been gong on at DoJ, right? He's following that piece, too, right, when he gets a break from Rodham takedwons? He's not in such a knot about the Clintons having receptive African-American audiences that he's forgotten that Bush has stolen Florida and Ohil and trie dto steal Missouri and othe states by suppressing the black vote.. has he?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:19pm
The Dems will find a way to loose another sure thing, yet again.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/09/2007 @ 4:22pm
It's hard playing The Nation's "the soluton is more speech" libertarian game when I am a real person and not a contracted troll-for-hire company operating on a stealth RNC account out of Maclean, Virginia.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:23pm
If we can't stop Rove from fixing elections, it doesn't how many Decorated Veteran-Southern Populist tickets we run. Rove will just send his boys out to Ohio or Missouri to intimidate and indict miniority voters and the people who try to register them. Posted by RLAWRENCE
How do you lose to such an unmitigated disaster like Georgie Jr? The Dems found a way. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/09/2007 @ 4:26pm
One of the reasons we're stuck with the Worst President Ever is because the Repubs united behind him. They united behind an unqualified candidate who administered awful policies (the death penalty in Texas is one). Toss in some election fraud and you've got the ensuing six years, with the GOP still united behind him! Still!
What are the Dems doing? Rippin' the Rodham cuz she's a she -- and, Republican-style, not fessing up to the bigotry. (I"m sure von Hoffman would SWEAR the jibe about "girls" at Wellesley was meant innocently!)
Hard to explain to the people why Gonzales needs to go when we can't get Civil Rights 101 through our own brains.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:29pm
By the way, Nation, isn't Tim Griffin still installed as US Attorney in Arkansas?
Let Rove's boy handle the oppo research. I'm sure Alphonse D'Amato would be happy to do the same for any New York business dealings of the Clintons. And Murdoch would be delighted to give it all plenty of play.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:31pm
Posted by ZERO 05/09/2007 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person
Zero,
This approach is going to kill Hillary. By using her first name, she tries to make herself cute and cuddly. But when voters get to the ballor box, both at primaries and maybe general election, people are going to see "Richardson", "Edwards", "Obama", they are going to see strong surnames, and the psychological effect is going to be telling.
As all of the other candidates are going to be associated with a surname, and she is the cute "Hillary", she is going to lose credibility.
If I was her campaign advisor, I would use Clinton, yeah, she may sound more like one of the guys, but it will save her from the last minute do I really want "President Hillary" or do I want "President Richardson". Polling may work for her now, but this issue alone will start to turn the tides against her.
Or maybe John and Al lost because they went by Kerry and Gore.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 4:35pm
I seem to recall years ago seeing Sam Doanldson on the Phil Donaue show saying it wa perfectly legitimate to ask an Italian-American candidate about mob connections, becuase, hey, it's a natural question!
Natural for people who are prejudiced, don't have criticial thinking skills, and are easily distracted.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:36pm
Posted by RLAWRENCE 05/09/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person
I doubt this analysis is anywhere close to correct. GWB got as many votes as he did despite his being a moron because of "Conservative" issues. Not "Religion" perse, but gay marriage, gun control, and abortion.
Lets face it, if each of these issues (many of them have already) come up for a popular vote, they are going to go conservative in almost every case.
This is why people rallied around GWB, he was less of a threat to things that people (maybe mistakenly) think really affect them.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 4:38pm
Did an editor at the Nation really think allowing the words "Hoffa" and "consigliere" to pass for an argument would go unnoticed by its readers? Yes, even at the lowly blogs?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:39pm
Posted by RLAWRENCE 05/09/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person
Hillary is going to lose more Demorcat men votes than she will gain Republican women votes.
It has nothing to do with Republicans bashing a woman, it is America's institutional prejudice against women.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 4:40pm
Posted by RLAWRENCE 05/09/2007 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person
Everybody loves a good mob movie/ story.
I'm pissed because the Black Donneleys got cancelled and I have to watch the rest of the episodes online.
But bring back the Sopranos anyday.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 4:42pm
By the way, IIRC, the vast right wing conspiracy got Clinton disbarred in Arkansas. I haven't heard that he's licensed to practice in New York. Can you be a consigliere without a license from the state of New York? Or is that a "J.D preferred but not required" position? Gee whiz.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:44pm
Speaking of contracted trolls and vast conspiracies:
Perhaps The Nation knew this was an irresponsible article, but published it anyway to generate site visits or clicks.
Perhaps von Hoffman can do an expose on such practices? Once he finds a way to work in a line about how liberals are only pandering to Negores for ther votes, I'm sure he'll be right on the case...
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:47pm
The article is like the worst of centrism, the MSM and Naderism rolled into one.
There's the fake "balance" of going after a Democratic target. There's a "scandal" that upon closer inspection consists of innuendo. There's a "wait for your turn" attitude toward women and minorities -- who, presumably, will have to put up with Mitt Romney or Joe "Clean and Articulate" Biden through 2016 because it's somehow not just HRC's time now. Then there's the endless quest for purity -- HRC's voting record isn't pure enough, she can't be "cleansed" by the Authorizatoin Revocation bill... so, you know, it's Kucinich or nobody!
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 4:53pm
Hillary's a phoney, just like her husband, only she lacks the charisma Bill has. And she evokes visceral hatred from those on the right. It's an irrational hatred these people have for her.
I know she is extremely appealing for many in the Democratic Party, but that doesn't mean that she will have the same effect on those that could be lured away from voting Repub. Some people are going to vote one way or another no matter what; it is the undecided, "swing" voters that you must win. I'm afraid Hillary will repel the white, working class demographic in a general election. Maybe this article is meant to demonstrate just how vulnerable she is to polarizing attacks.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/09/2007 @ 5:05pm
Any chance we'll be seeing any investigative reporting here on the racist threats agaisnt Senator Obama?
Or is a jibe at Hillary Clinton quoting "I Don't Feel No Ways Tired" the Nation's idea of ace reporting on Blacks and Politics 2007?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 5:08pm
What state does this car-hauling guy operate out of? There could be a US attorney already installed by Sampson & Gonzales to make sure the indictment comes at the "right" time. And the "right" time is just before the election, when voters are just tuning in to the campaigns, and are suscpetible to the messages "They're ALL corrupt" and "Be afraid, be very afraid." And if you know "the math," you know which party wins when those are the options.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 5:15pm
Let's have a new Constitutional office: The Secretary of Clinton Investigations. They can have staff dedicated to going over all Clinton business with a fine-toothed comb. It would be officially bipartisan, and Senator Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) could be the first appointee.
Would that free up all the journalists to report on something that matters?
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 5:29pm
This just in: Chelsea Clinton has ties to Soviets!
Oh, wait, she was just studying some Russian ballets....
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 5:36pm
Matt Cooper reported here from Californiaa on the ten unfit men who participated in the Republican debate last week. Comparing the poor lineup on the right with the good line up on even the center left, much less the left, should inspire pride. But instead it seems to inspire some people to whine about Wellesley girls, hint darkly about their husbands, and impugn the intelligence of the one bloc that has voted most strongly and consistently against the Reactionaries.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 5:45pm
Maybe the Clintons could just cut to the chase. They can make Tim Griffin and Alphonse D'Amato their personal consiglieries -- and those two, I'm sure, would only advise them to enter into highly ethical and on-the-up-and-up business deals.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
and a Nader doesn't emerge to run, I'll have the distinct pleasure of finally being able to sit out a presidential year. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That is awesome. I am the other guy that voted for Nader, much to the displeasure of my wife.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:08pm
As for consiglieries, I think that Tom Hagen (Duvall) was a member of the Bar.
However, Michael Corleone did mention in Godfather 1, when he sent Tom to Vegas, "And if I need a consigleire, who is a better advisor than my father" who I am certain was not a JD.
Officially, I'm not sure that a Bar Card is necessary.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:12pm
This just in: James Carville Entered Contract with Secret Operative
Wait, it was a marriage contract with Mary Matalin....
Posted by RLawrence at 05/09/2007 @ 6:14pm
Does anyone really believe that who-ever is president, does not have significant ties to most shady operations in the country?
We know the Bush clan is messed up in lots of shady stuff, the Clinton have to be.
I'm not sure that I would vote for someone that didn't know how the country really operates.
That is why I'm stunned that Sharpton and Jackson don't do as well in national elections.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:14pm
Posted by WALLSTREET
Me too (Nader) in '96. I had to write him in. Had I been able to vote in 2000 I would have voted for him again.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/09/2007 @ 6:15pm
I think Carville and Rove should do a show together.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:15pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/09/2007 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person
BS. Now you are just trying to be one of the cool kids. Everyone knows that Nader only got 2 votes.
Seriously, I was hoping that he would break the 3% divide and secure federal funding for who-ever ran for the greens in 2004. I think that 3rd party funding is the only way out of the political lockdown that we have been in for the last X years. A credible (and funded) 3rd party is the only way to make the other idiots focus on what matters to everyone, rather than the 3 hot button issues that everyone pretends to care about (but really affect very few people)
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:19pm
Although there was nothing better than Rove telling C. Crow and L. David to f-off. That was awesome. "I've got a million dollars, you have to listen to me." classy, just classy. Those two had no idea who they were dealing with.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:21pm
The best would have been if Rove would have handed Crow a napkin and told her to go wipe again. Now I am just falling out of my chair.
Posted by WallStreet at 05/09/2007 @ 6:23pm
It has nothing to do with Republicans bashing a woman, it is America's institutional prejudice against women.
Posted by WALLSTREET 05/09/2007 @ 4:40pm
It has to do with one thing and one thing only, Hillary....and then it is her out look on the country, her exwife screeching voice, her southern/black/Pentecostal/ accent bullshit, her left wing nonsense, her economic understanding(except cattle trades), her holier than thou atttitude...I could go on for months...never the less...
Hillary is the candidate and the nominee for the Dems in 08. The rest of this is for the second bannana seat.. all the Repubs have to do is find a conservative...a real conservative..and Hillary will go back to the Senate...
if NY had a law that says run for one office at the risk of the one you are in..would Hillary run?
Posted by john maasch at 05/09/2007 @ 7:28pm
AP Opposition Grows to Allied Ch. 11 Plan Wednesday May 2, 5:32 pm ET More Shareholders Signal Opposition to Allied Chapter 11 Plan
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Another group of Allied Holdings Inc. shareholders has joined the chorus of voices asking the bankruptcy court to throw out the auto hauler's Chapter 11 plan, which would leave shareholders empty-handed and give control of the company to unsecured creditors. ADVERTISEMENT
Shareholders Virtus Capital LP and Hawk Opportunity Fund LP, who hold a combined 8.3 percent of Allied's stock, said the proposed reorganization plan gives the upper hand to unsecured creditors, who stand to recover more than 100 percent on their claims.
"The plan would result in unsecured creditors receiving more than the value of their respective claims because the proposed distribution scheme is predicated on the false assumption that Allied is insolvent and no value to its current equity holders," the shareholders said.
The plan, they said, also includes "impermissible" releases for non-debtor third parties. Hawk Opportunity last week filed a racketeering lawsuit against private-equity firm Yucaipa Cos., Allied's largest unsecured creditor and the architect of the reorganization plan, and the Teamsters union for negotiating the terms of a plan "behind Allied's back."
Allied plans to pay back unsecured creditors, owed $196.9 million, with its new stock. Yucaipa, which controls Allied rival Performance Transportation Services, is poised to appoint three of the five members of Allied's post-bankruptcy board of directors.
Allied, based in Decatur, Ga., filed for Chapter 11 protection on July 31, 2005. The company, one of the largest vehicle transporters in North America, blamed its financial problems on declines in deliveries stemming from decreased production in the auto industry.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Atlanta is slated to consider the Chapter 11 plan at a May 9 hearing.
The filing by Virtus and Hawk comes on the heels of a plan objection filed by members of Allied's founding Rutland family, who also claim the company is worth enough to provide a recovery to shareholders.
The family, including Allied Vice President Guy W. Rutland IV, Chairman Robert J. Rutland and Chairman Emeritus Guy W. Rutland III, complain that Yucaipa's "secret negotiations" with the Teamsters resulted in fewer wage and benefit concessions than Allied would have sought, leaving nothing for shareholders.
Hawk's lawsuit, filed as a class-action on behalf of Allied's shareholders in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, claims Yucaipa and the Teamsters conspired to block Allied's own reorganization plan if it didn't accept the terms they had negotiated.
The lawsuit claims Yucaipa, which is controlled by billionaire financier Ron Burkle and counts former U.S. President Bill Clinton as a top advisor, wants to gain control of Allied and merge it with Performance Transportation.
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 7:31pm
Where the HELL is FRANKGRITS, defending his Main Gal from Nicholas von Hoffman?!??!?!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/09/2007 @ 7:32pm
This sounds like a smear. It's under-researched, at minimum. No links, even. What's someting like this doing at The Nation?
Posted by RLAWRENCE 05/09/2007 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person
'Hawk's lawsuit, filed as a class-action on behalf of Allied's shareholders in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, claims Yucaipa and the Teamsters conspired to block Allied's own reorganization plan if it didn't accept the terms they had negotiated.
The lawsuit claims Yucaipa, which is controlled by billionaire financier Ron Burkle and counts former U.S. President Bill Clinton as a top advisor, wants to gain control of Allied and merge it with Performance Transportation.'
Try doing some research. Critics, like journalists, need to be well informed as well.
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 7:40pm
Where the HELL is FRANKGRITS, defending his Main Gal from Nicholas von Hoffman?!??!?!
hehe
Posted by MASK 05/09/2007 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person
Maybe Frank is going to let you do the honors there Mask?
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 7:52pm
United States of America On October 15, 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the "RICO Act", became law. The RICO Act allowed law enforcement to charge a person or group with racketeering, defined as committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a 10 year period. The purpose of the RICO Act was stated as "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce." S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1961(10) of Title 18 provides that the Attorney General may designate any department or agency to conduct investigations authorized by the RICO statute and such department or agency may use the investigative provisions of the statute or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. Absent a specific designation by the Attorney General, jurisdiction to conduct investigations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 lies with the agency having jurisdiction over the violations constituting the pattern of racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.[1]
Source: Wikipedia.
Notice the lawsuit filed by Hawk is RICO Act violation. Should the Clintons be worried?
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 8:19pm
Where the HELL is FRANKGRITS, defending his Main Gal from Nicholas von Hoffman?!??!?!
hehe
Posted by MASK 05/09/2007 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person
Right on cue again Mask. Just have to sit back and wait. Good call.
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 8:23pm
it's a long long time from may 07 to november 08
with apologies to Mr.Maxwell Anderson.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/09/2007 @ 8:25pm
No. Why?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/09/2007 @ 8:34pm | ignore this person
Lets get Bill Clinton on the witness stand and ask him eh Frank?
You don't mind if I take a raincheck on jumping on that Hillary train for the mean time. We have enough corruption in government already thank you.
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 8:38pm
It's time to get serious.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/09/2007 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person
Words to the wise Frank. Republicans just may have a field day with this new grist for the Gus Russo mill. It will fun to see Billary try to distance herself from hubby's post presidency business dealings.
Posted by OneVote at 05/09/2007 @ 8:52pm
Hillary's train is pulling away. The smart thing to do if you're a democrat or an independent is to get on board.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/09/2007 @ 7:59pm
Your losing me here, Frank. No dynasties. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is bad juju for America. It reeks of hereditary monarchy.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/09/2007 @ 10:26pm
DARN LIBROOL TRAITORS ARE RUINING AMERICA!!! WHY DON'T THEY GO BACK TO THEIR COWARDLY HOLES
ABC News
Wednesday 09 May 2007
In an act of defiance perhaps not seen since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, today the anti-war veterans group VoteVets.org, which has been influential with Capitol Hill Democrats, is launching a half-million-dollar TV ad campaign featuring Maj Gen John Batiste (Ret.), former commanding general of the first infantry division in Iraq.
The ad begins with a clip President George W. Bush saying "I have always said that I will listen to the requests of our commanders on the ground."
Batiste then appears, saying, "Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."
Major General Paul Eaton (Ret.) and Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) will also appear in ads
Posted by crabwalk at 05/09/2007 @ 10:29pm
"Mr. President, you did not listen"
Posted by crabwalk at 05/09/2007 @ 10:30pm
http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/5104.html?id=eoH6CWA5
GOOD STUFF!!
Posted by crabwalk at 05/09/2007 @ 10:34pm
" Saddam wasn't a threat to anybody anymore. "
...except Kurds, Israelis, Sunnis, other Shites,......
Posted by john maasch at 05/09/2007 @ 10:49pm
Didn't know we had a responsibility to the entire world to save them from each and every tyrant they are unwilling to stand against. They sure seem grateful for the opportunity, eh? Pulling together, uniting, putting aside differences for the betterment of their neighbors.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/09/2007 @ 10:54pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/09/2007 @ 7:53pm
Yep, just had to wait, ONEVOTE.
See, we banter around a lot of talk about people coming to this blog working for one group or another (had my share of "MASK is a paid GOP operative"...didn't hold up once they saw my posts against the war)....but FRANKGRITS is obvious, quite obvious.
FRANK's in the Hillary campaign. Maybe a staffer, maybe as much as a state chairman. But nobody is that such a defender of ONE candidate...without having a VESTED interest in JUST that ONE candidate. Especially on an opinion mag's blog, that has been consistantly suspicious of her.
Posted by Mask at 05/09/2007 @ 11:00pm
Back to the Future? Most of the time neocons and bigots make you sick. And, hey, sometimes you get sick of this untra-liberal flurry of pro-Obama support. But read this news and you don't want another empty suit in the White House:
Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths By BOB LEWIS Associated Press Writer RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died. The death toll was 12.
"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died--an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
Posted by Helen DAO at 05/09/2007 @ 11:31pm
"Republicans spent eight years doing that while OBL plotted to attack the WTC'
or the.....
" Democrats spend eight years doing that while OBL plotted to attack the WTC...the first time...."
Ah, right Frank? ah, where was Bill and your hero Hillary..with all her WH expeience?
Posted by john maasch at 05/09/2007 @ 11:33pm
"FRANK's in the Hillary campaign. Maybe a staffer, maybe as much as a state chairman. But nobody is that such a defender of ONE candidate...without having a VESTED interest in JUST that ONE candidate. Especially on an opinion mag's blog, that has been consistantly suspicious of her."
Kinda reminds me of the followers in Guinana....and some kool aid...
Posted by john maasch at 05/09/2007 @ 11:37pm
What if Hillary had voted no? Imagine...
Posted by ultvio at 05/10/2007 @ 08:14am
And what did Hillary know then???? The vote to go to war was not unanimous.
Posted by ultvio at 05/10/2007 @ 08:16am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/10/2007 @ 12:13am
did your magic 8 ball come up with that nonsense. Because no human brain could mangle reality that bad.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/10/2007 @ 08:18am
Hillary held her finger up to the wind, sensed the political direction and went with that. She failed the country and New York. Perhaps the only thing worse than her Iraq vote was her standing in that yellow dress singing Ashcrofts pap song.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/10/2007 @ 08:22am
By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, May 10, 2007; Page A01
House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.
... the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out. The meeting, organized by Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), one of the co-chairs of the moderate "Tuesday Group," included Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Todd R. Platts (Pa.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.).
...Participants in Tuesday's White House meeting said frustration about the Iraqi government's efforts dominated the conversation, with one pleading with the president to stop the Iraqi parliament from going on vacation while "our sons and daughters spill their blood."
Chimpy replied, "But, they're workin' hard!"
Davis, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, also presented Bush dismal polling figures to dramatize just how perilous the party's position is, participants said. Davis would not disclose details, saying the exchange was private. Others warned Bush that his personal credibility on the war is all but gone.
sometimes even the repubs see the writing on the wall. go ahead RIO, attack the anti-American republicans!! Go get 'em tiger, they used you and your religion to establish a progressive secular paradise. I bet they used a lot of prophetic symbolism, like mushroom clouds, to get you to vote for their sneaky progressive paradise.
"The key for everybody is to try to find a way to declare victory and get out of there,"-Rep. Thomas Davis (r) Virginia.
and there you have it!!
Posted by crabwalk at 05/10/2007 @ 08:33am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/09/2007 @ 7:59pm
"Hillary's train is pulling away. The smart thing to do if you're a democrat or an independent is to get on board."
Thanks for the bandwagon argument. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will win the POTUS office due to the blunders of Republicans of the last few years and the poor field. Which in turn, will fuel the whole "move to the right, you'll win!" line of thinking that you are espousing here.
Since the Democrats don't differ from the Republicans in ways that are particularly significant, votes on the Iraq war are a good example, the smart thing to do - from my perspective - is to vote third party. Enough people start doing that - then it won't be about winning some supposedly "centrist" (meaning right) independent that votes for the two major parties, it will be about winning the decidedly "leftist" independent that doesn't. Then, everyone has to move the left to win. You see?
I'm interested in the long term win and actually having people like George Bush in office or even Hillary for that matter, means eventually people will wake up and smell the coffee on the whole Democrat vs. Republican sham.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/10/2007 @ 08:40am
Good point, SRJenkins, about '08 being a pivotal opportunity for serious consideration of a 3rd party candidate. I'm reading David Bergland's "Libertarianism in One Lesson," 9th edition, and finding it appealingly palatable! Nadar's eloquence has for decades now made me suspect the "last (or bottom-most) would be first," literally, so I considered voting "Green" but was only dissuaded by now realized fears of what the neo-cons would do/destroy. Now, in '08, it's not like things could get any worse if some Repub won rather than Hillary (or even a Pelosi-esque accommodationist). Is Bill Moyers ready to run after soliciting Kucinich's withdrawal and endorsement. Can't we get some consensus on the peace-promoting left and a "what's the greater good" answering consolidation behind one candidate? Edwards? He seems the only one capable of understanding Nadar's and Kucinich's principles while having the "looks" to gain mass support.
I suppose this writer's writhing frustration is akin to what made the democratic convention of '68 such a vivid public demonstration of the schizophrenic polarization we endure in this most hedonistically commodifying society.
Thanks for the opportunity for some catharsis about the "sham" that passes for reasoned debate in our war-oil addicted country.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/10/2007 @ 09:18am
"Hillary's train is pulling away. The smart thing to do if you're a democrat or an independent is to get on board."
No, the smart thing to do is to first get Hillary to tell you exactly where the train is going, and what stops it will make along the way.
She has a record of making some not-very-progressive detours, and she will not apologize for getting lost...
Posted by drhammer at 05/10/2007 @ 09:29am
Or make sure the bridge is still standing as she heads for the ravine at full throttle ....
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 09:37am
"No, the smart thing to do is to first get Hillary to tell you exactly where the train is going, and what stops it will make along the way. "
We are talking Frank, here...DR., he is prewired for Hillary...the trigger mechanism is the maigoc words "Limbaugh" or "Fox News"...and away he goes....
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 09:39am
Lew, Moyers will keep doing what he does best. he has zero chance as a candidate.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 09:40am
I'm not sure why von Hoffman thinks Clinton needs to "wiggle" out of a pro-war-in-Iraq position. She approved it at the time, so what? Back then and in the years previous all thinking people believed Saddam had or was working on WMD's: The Clintons, the UN, Europe, Clarke, everybody. In fact, according to the GPO Occasional Paper IRAQ & AFTER by the CSWMD, Saddam did everything he could to promote the notion that he DID have them, believing foolishly that our belief in 1991 that he did kept us from going into Bagdad then.
Being in favor of the war is not a crime, and ironically, it was Clinton who essentially told a crowd recently flat out that if people couldn't handle her history on the matter "well... there are other people to vote for". Have to admit I admired THAT.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/10/2007 @ 09:43am
FRANK's in the Hillary campaign. Maybe a staffer, maybe as much as a state chairman. But nobody is that such a defender of ONE candidate...without having a VESTED interest in JUST that ONE candidate. Especially on an opinion mag's blog, that has been consistantly suspicious of her.
Posted by MASK 05/09/2007 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person
Agreed. The Nation ought to start charging Frank for his(her) posts as paid political advertising. His unflinching support of a candidate betrays his vested interest. Right on!
Posted by OneVote at 05/10/2007 @ 09:48am
this is all nonsense about Frank. he is a valued member of this "community" who is no more a paid shill than Maasch is. they both share the conviction that Hillary will be the next pres.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 09:55am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 09:55am
The difference is, I am sure she is ths candidate for the Dems in 08, but I am not sure she can win the whole enchilada..as Frank is...Frank drinks from Hillarys well..it is his lifes blood..
She has a bath tub ring problem left from Bill, fair or not...and she is , well, Hillary...
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 10:22am
..."paid shill than Maasch is"..
On the other hand, I am open to receiving checks from anyone interested in sending them...
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 10:23am
they both share the conviction that Hillary will be the next pres.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 09:55am
Wrong. MAASCH consistantly opposes HRC, but thinks she's got the nomination locked.
FRANK LOVES Hillary and defends her from the slings and arrows AND thinks she's got the nomination locked.
Big diff.
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 11:01am
This is kinda funny.
After years of deflecting speculation that he is paid for his online ruminations, Mask decides to explore Frank's motives.
(This is not a judgement, mind you, just an intriguing observation.)
Posted by drhammer at 05/10/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 11:01am | ignore this person
wrong? he has expressed more than once that he believes Hill will win.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 11:35am
May 10, 2007
Your War, Not Mine
By Victor Davis Hanson
"This war is lost," Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid recently proclaimed.
That pessimism about Iraq is now widely shared by his Democratic colleagues. But many of these converted doves aren't being quite honest about why they've radically changed their views of the war....
After all, responsible Democrats in national office had been convinced by Bill Clinton for eight years and then George W. Bush for two that Saddam's Iraq was both a conventional and terrorist threat....
Most in Congress accepted that Saddam was a genocidal mass murderer. They knew he used his petrodollars to acquire dangerous weapons. And they felt his savagery was intolerable in a post-9/11 world. There was no debate that Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or offered sanctuary to terrorists like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. And few Democrats questioned whether the al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Islam was in Kurdistan.
In other words, Democrats, like most others, wanted Saddam taken out for a variety of reasons beyond fears of WMD.(all emphasis mine) Moreover, it was the Clinton-appointed CIA director George Tenet who supplied both Democrats and Republicans in Congress with much of the intelligence they would later cite in deciding to attack Saddam.
When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.
But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead they were hoodwinked by sneaky warmongering neocons or sexed-up partisan intelligence reports.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, especially in matters as serious as war -- but the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.
So why not come clean about their changes of heart?.....
Democrats need to admit the truth: that removing a dangerous Saddam Hussein and promoting democracy in his place seemed a good idea to them in 2003-4 when the cost appeared tolerable. Now, in 2007, with over 3,000 American lives lost in Iraq, they feel differently...
That confession could, of course, be nuanced with exculpatory arguments about the mistakes made by those in the Bush administration, such as: "Our necessary war that I voted for to remove Saddam worked; your optional one to stay on to promote democracy didn't."
Such an explanation....would certainly be more legitimate that the current protestations of "the neo-cons made me do it." With America still engaged in a tough war, that kind of excuse-making just doesn't cut it.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
Posted by Happy at 05/10/2007 @ 11:59am
JR<
I don't believe I have expresed the view Hillary will win, in fact, I think she will lose..but I do believe it is possible for her to win..especially if the repubs put up a Rino...
Mask is correct in his post.
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 12:02pm
Maasch, perhaps you have changed your mind, but I do remember you saying she will win. nevertheless, it's a trivial point, like much of what mask spends his time on. if Hill gets the dem nod, she will win.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 12:05pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 05/10/2007 @ 11:17am
Doc, the charges against me for being a "paid GOP operative" were based on the fact that the Lefties here couldn't stand the fact that I got in a bunch of posts and I tended to "drift Right" on issues. But this was in the face of a LOT of other posts where I ...opposed the war in Iraq, was pro-choice, was for gay rights, opposed the religious right's "cultural war", and was opposed to the Drug War....hardly "Republican talking points".
FRANK is AGGRESSIVELY defending HRC and is trying the "it's inevitable, jump on the train or get left behind" tactic that many Hillary operatives themselves have tried, to try to depress enthusiasm for either Edwards or more importantly Obama.
Now while it's possible for a liberal to support Sen. Clinton....it's a bit ODD that one would be talking against even CONSIDERING any other Democrat, or pushing the "inevitability" angle...unless they have a VESTED INTEREST in her becoming the nominee.
But, I'll take FRANK at his word...and if he denies that he is directly involved in the Hillary Campaign....I'll believe him until proven otherwise.
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 12:52pm
nevertheless, it's a trivial point, like much of what mask spends his time on. ---Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 12:05pm
Notice how it's ALWAYS a "trivial point", whenever JR (or others) are proven WRONG?
hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 12:54pm | ignore this person
you are a child.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 1:01pm
Oooh, cat fight!
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/10/2007 @ 1:20pm
nevertheless, it's a trivial point, like much of what mask spends his time on. ---Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/10/2007 @ 12:05pm
Notice how it's ALWAYS a "trivial point", whenever JR (or others) are proven WRONG?
hehe
Posted by MASK 05/10/2007 @ 12:54pm | ignore this person
Mask...Sissy Boy Johannes is going to contact the Nation and have your post purged for such strong words. This is his latest strategy, realizing nobody gives a rat's ass if he puts them on his ignore list.
Posted by OneVote at 05/10/2007 @ 1:31pm
HAPPY 05/10/2007 @ 11:59am
Let us know when your man gets past the Peloponnesian War, okay? We always like up to date analysis on current events.
Posted by MyParadigm at 05/10/2007 @ 1:41pm
" Gore would have put us on the right track to... We would be well on our way to an national health care like France has .."
Nice idea Frank...our economy will end up like France...stalled...this is why guys like you should never be in charge of anything..
Posted by john maasch at 05/10/2007 @ 2:03pm
John, much the same as denial of climate change is no longer fashionable in your circle, the realization that the USA has a bad health insurance system is not long in coming.
Posted by MyParadigm at 05/10/2007 @ 2:13pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/10/2007 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person
perhaps you could back up this Quatsch with some citations.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2007 @ 2:18pm
French Health Care, not economy. The problem is your inability to separate the two. For Maasch, clearly healthcare is less important than economy. They can be mutually exclusive. Today the President said pulling out of Iraq would create a dangerous situation similar to South East Asia when we left Vietnam. I promise if Hillary Clinton were President, she would know better than to use THE QUAGMIRE while discussing her quagmire.
Posted by phillymark at 05/10/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/10/2007 @ 1:43pm
Okay, FRANK, if you say so....again, just found it ODD that you're so fired up about Her Majesty and telling people to "jump on the Hillary Express or get left behind"...as if "inevitability" is a good reason to vote for somebody and not judging their stand on the issues.
BTW, what qualifications is JOHN EDWARDS lacking that Hillary has (besides a former Prez for spouse) and where is HE wrong on the issues, but Hilly has it right?
Posted by Mask at 05/10/2007 @ 3:21pm
Hillary is a strong woman of destiny. I'm simply way out ahead in my vision of what this country needs to put it back on the right track, fiscally, environmentally and in foreign policy. Hillary and the people she would surround herself with will do their best to keep the country safe.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/10/2007 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person
Why has Hillary failed to fulfill your vision as a New York senator? But for the fact that she is Bill Clinton's wife and former First Lady, she would be a unknown. I don't see her leadership on anything in the Senate.
Your predicted argument is that she is just waiting to become President to kick it into gear. But is that truly courageous leadeship for people of New York and the US? Or, maybe she is laying low, doing nothing much of anything except for war pandering, so that the DNC can fulfill its vision?
Hillary is just another run of the mill politician riding on the coattails of the past. I think your train is heading to nowhere, or worst, just going around in circles like a hobby toy.
Perhaps you can elucidate for us Senator Clinton's accomplishments as a New York senator, including important legislation which she introducted to the Senate floor? I am all ears Mr. Conductor.
Posted by OneVote at 05/10/2007 @ 3:56pm
Hillary has all of Bill's luggage and none of his charisma.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/10/2007 @ 4:23pm
You need to educate yourself dude. Start by going to hillary's Senate website. You'll find what you're looking for.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/10/2007 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person
Thats the point Frank. There is nothing on her website that tells me that her record as NY senator deserves even passing interest. She is vague (deliberately) on what her plans for the future are.
Your absence of any concrete accolade for Clinton causes me to believe that you are of "blind faith" or you have a vested interest in promoting Billary. Just being a woman and former First Lady are ridiculous criteria to promote her for President. Such shallowness does not bode well for the future of this country.
Posted by OneVote at 05/11/2007 @ 09:56am