Annotation

Rebate checks

2008-05-03T21:38:00.000-04:00

Thought this was humorous...

IRS Rebate checks

As you may have heard, the IRS rebate checks will soon be in the mail. The administration wants you to stimulate the US economy by cashing the check and spending it. Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If we spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If we purchase a computer it will go to India.
If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.
If we purchase a car it will go to Japan.
If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan. And none of it will help the American economy. We need to keep that money here in America. The only way to keep that money here at home is to spend it at yard sales, since those are the only businesses still in the US.

Huffington on 20/20

2008-04-26T08:34:00.001-04:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/arianna-discusses-the-rig_n_98720.html

War Room: McCain "glad" to have radical preacher's support

2008-04-21T15:12:00.000-04:00

Texas televangelist John Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the Great Whore," the "apostate church," the "anti-Christ" and "a false cult system" that inspired Adolf Hitler to initiate the Holocaust. He also endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign after the Republican senator sought out his support.

The subject came up briefly on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" Sunday.

There was this ...

Stephanopoulos: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept [Hagee's] endorsement?
McCain: Oh, probably, sure.

... followed a few seconds later by this.

Stephanopoulos: So you no longer want his endorsement?
McCain: I'm glad to have his endorsement.

Classic McCain. He thinks it was a mistake to accept Hagee's endorsement, but now that he has it, he's not giving it up.

Interestingly enough, the discussion on the program came shortly after McCain blasted Barack Obama for knowing Bill Ayers. Watching the interview, I got the sense that McCain missed the irony.
Link

Ragin' McCain...

2008-04-20T13:49:00.000-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

War Room: John McCain's "academic argument"

2008-04-18T15:35:00.001-04:00

On "Hardball" the other day, John McCain was confronted with his record of siding with the Bush White House on Iraq policy. McCain didn't want to talk about the past.

"We can look back at the past and argue about whether we should have gone to war or not, whether we should have invaded or not, and that's a good academic argument. But we're there now, and the question is, is what we do in the future."

I see. So, holding leading senators accountable for their votes is now "academic."

As Matt Yglesias put it, "Over 4,000 people died in this academic argument. People need to use the term 'trillion' to express its fiscal cost. And, obviously, the question about whether or not it was a good idea speaks to some important points of doctrine and theory. This isn't like quibbling over some vote on some amendment back in 1983, it was the biggest national security policy decision of the current era."

It reminds that the thing that's always seemed odd about McCain's campaign pitch is that it only works if you refuse to look below the surface.

McCain, for example, goes to great lengths to emphasize his past. He's running on his "experience." It sounds great, until we actually want to scrutinize this experience, at which point the past is an "academic exercise."

The argument, in a nutshell, is that McCain's past matters more than anything else, except when he decides it shouldn't.

Stepehen Colbert explained this very well recently.

"[W]hen you question his record he says this: 'I want to make it very clear this is not about excisions that were made -- decisions that were made in the past.' Now, decisions that were made in the past is how people without experience define experience. So how can McCain claim to be more qualified of a candidate because of his experience yet also claim that any history of bad decisions is irrelevant? Easy. Experience. You see, he is experienced enough to know that some experience is relevant, like the fact that he has experience. While other experience, like his previous experiences, are irrelevant."

It's quite a compelling argument, isn't it?
Link

Greenwald: The harmony between the Right and the media

2008-04-17T11:43:00.001-04:00

I was fortunate to have missed the Obama-Clinton "debate" last night because -- ironically enough -- I was speaking at a book event about the establishment media's essential role in propagating petty, insipid right-wing personality attacks in lieu of any substantive discussions of issues. Afterwards, I read the transcript of the debate and it's hard to know even what to say about it. Coincidentally, Salon today has published an excerpt from Great American Hypocrites that discusses precisely the media sicknesses and their captivity to the toxic strategies of the Right that were on full and vivid display last night.

My favorite (unintentionally revealing) media commentary about the debate is from The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Dan Balz, who devoted paragraph after paragraph to describing the substance-free "issues" that consumed most of the debate -- Obama's "remarks about small-town values, questions about his patriotism and the incendiary sermons of his former pastor . . . gaffes, missteps and past statements" -- and, at the end of the article, they added:
The debate also touched on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, taxes, the economy, guns and affirmative action.
It's just not possible to express the wretched state of our establishment press better than that sentence does.
Revealingly, not everyone is displeased with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos' conduct of the debate. To the contrary, two constituencies which frequently work in harmony are quite impressed and very pleased with the whole spectacle -- right-wing noise machine members and establishment journalists.

National Review's Mark Hemingway excitedly declared that the winner was "McCain by a landslide." Commentary's John Podhoretz said: "Good Lord. Charlie Gibson Turns Into Larry Kudlow." Hemingway quoted one of his readers: "What's up with Charlie Gibson tonight? Especially on capital gains. He sounds downright conservative." Separately, Hemingway celebrated: "Halle-frickin'-lujah. Someone in the mainstream media finally mentions the William Ayers connection," praised Gibson for his questions about Jeremiah Wright, and the praised Gibson again for his questions to Obama about Bosnia sniper fire.

It all was so severe that even Jonah Goldberg admitted:
I'm no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a "fighting Dem" who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the "real issues," I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.
(Apparently only "leftwing bloggers" think that presidential debates should focus on a discussion of issues.) Of course, Stephanopoulos was on at least two right-wing radio shows the day before the debate, assuring both Sean Hannity and right-wing host Steve Malzburg that he would take their advice about which inane, sideshow questions to ask Obama -- a promise he dutifully kept, to the delight of National Review readers.
Our meek and obsequious media stars think that the way they show that they are "balanced" is by pleasing the most radical right-wing polemicists in the country. Don't take my word for that. Commentary's far-right Jennifer Rubin gushed:
"These are the best questions, bar none, asked in a debate this election season. . . . If the ABC game plan was to utterly undermine the "liberal media is giving them a free ride" complaint they succeeded in spades. . . . . Conservatives will have to find something else to complain about.
The only ones more pleased than right-wing polemicists were establishment journalists. David Brooks said he "thought the questions were excellent" and gave ABC an "A" for the debate. Politico's Roger Simon agreed, criticizing Obama for daring to suggest that the debate was focused on matters that are petty, have no impact on the lives of Americans, and are ones that voters don't care about. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder echoed those sentiments, proclaiming Obama the clear loser and telling him: "if you're uncomfortable with it, then change the rules or don't run for office."
Notably, Charlie Gibson also hosted a GOP and a Democratic primary debate back in January and received rave reviews then, too . . . from the Right. The Far Right site NewsBusters heaped praised on Gibson back then for what they deemed his fairness and decency in questioning GOP candidates. So, too, did National Review's Mark Hemingway ("The Sober, Intellectual Tone of moderator Charlie Gibson and this whole ABC news production so far is very welcome"). The general consensus among Republicans in January was that Gibson did a superb job of moderating their debate, too.

Last night was a perfect microcosm of how our political process works. The Right creates stupid, petty personality-based attacks to ensure that our elections aren't decided on issues (where they have a decisive disadvantage). Media stars -- some due to sloth, some due to ideology, some due to an eagerness to please the Right and convince them how Good and Fair they are -- eat up the shallow trash they're fed and then spew it out relentlessly, ensuring that our political discourse is overwhelmed by it, our elections dictated by it. That happens over and over. It's how our media and our elections function. Last night was just an unusually transparent and particularly ugly expression of it.

UPDATE: The Washington Post's Tom Shales:
It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with. . . .

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
That is absolutely right, and will be a distinctly minority opinion among establishment journalists. Obama's pushback against media stupidity of this sort should be even stronger and more emphatic still. Let the David Brooks, Roger Simons and Marc Ambinders band together and self-righteously defend this trash. As always, it's vital to remember that they don't actually speak for anyone other than the discredited journalist class of which they're members.

Link

War Room: McCain sides with Bush, opposes new GI Bill

2008-04-15T16:22:00.000-04:00

Just a few days ago, appearing on ABC's "The View," John McCain talked about the importance of increasing the size of the U.S. military. To entice more volunteers, he said, the government should focus on incentives: "[O]ne of the things we ought to do is provide [the troops with] significant educational benefits in return for serving."

Naturally, then, McCain indicated a few days later that he'll withhold support for a bipartisan measure to renew and expand the GI Bill for a new generation of veterans.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.
McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.

Both Democratic presidential candidates -- Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. -- have signed on as co-sponsors, and the bill has gained bipartisan support from 55 senators on Capitol Hill. A vote on the proposal is expected before the summer.

But the bill, which would dramatically increase educational compensation for American troops, has run into some unexpected resistance, both at the Pentagon and now from McCain, who has remained silent on the issue, saying he had not studied the bill close enough.

McCain's opposition comes a day after petitions from 30,000 veterans arrived at McCain's Senate office, urging him to support the modernized bill to offer veterans more money towards a college education.

But the reason for the opposition is especially ridiculous. Bush administration officials, and apparently McCain, "worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college."

Just last week, Wesley Clark and Jon Soltz highlighted why this is nonsense: "[I]t is morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members, in an attempt to force them to re-up. Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service."

Regrettably, McCain doesn't see it that way.
Link

War Room: McCain confused about Petraeus' job, chain of command

2008-04-15T13:29:00.001-04:00

Speaking before the Associated Press's annual meeting yesterday, John McCain was asked whether he would consider "diverting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan" in order to catch Osama bin Laden. McCain replied, "I would not do that unless General Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that."

The problem, of course, is that McCain's response doesn't make sense. In fact, as the Army Times reported, Petraeus himself explained just last week, to McCain and his Senate colleagues, that decisions like these aren't his to make.

The Army Times notes that McCain may have "missed the explanation," but that's not really the point -- whether McCain was in the room or not, he's supposed to be an expert on national security and military policy. And he clearly isn't.

Let's not forget that relatively minor errors on military affairs are, according to McCain, worth raising a fuss over. Last year, McCain took enormous delight in trying to embarrass Barack Obama when Obama's campaign issued a statement talking about a "flack jacket" instead of a "flak jacket." Indeed, major national news outlets thought this was quite a significant development -- the "inexperienced" Obama was being taught a thing or two about the military, by virtue of an arguable typo. (For the record, either spelling is considered acceptable, and McCain's cheap shot was factually wrong.)

Obama's use of the word "flack" in a press release led to coverage from ABC, NBC, Fox News, the Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times.

Why, then, is it trivia when John McCain doesn't understand the chain of command, and is ascribing military responsibilities to David Petraeus that the general just explained last week he does not have?

For that matter, I know it cuts against the agreed upon media narrative, but McCain's confusion on these issues points to an issue that should be a real problem for his campaign. Just over the last month or so, McCain has been confused about whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shi'a on at least four occasions, whether Iran is aiding al Qaeda, and was equally confused about what transpired during Maliki's recent offensive in Basra.

Remember, this is the subject McCain claims to know best. After conceding that he knows practically nothing about economic matters, his expertise on the military and national security is supposed to be the underpinning of his entire presidential campaign.

And yet, about once a week, he seems to have no idea what he's talking about.

Link

War Room: McCain's misguided role model on deficit reduction

2008-04-10T16:18:00.000-04:00

Just a couple of months ago, John McCain acknowledged, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." For some reason, he has been trying to prove this point ever since.

Wednesday, for example, McCain made a campaign stop in Westport, Conn., where a voter, asking for some "straight talk," inquired as to how McCain plans to balance the federal budget. (McCain has vowed, repeatedly, to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term in office.)

"I don't believe in a static economy," Mr. McCain said. "I believe that when there's stimulus for growth, when there's opportunity, when people keep more of their money -- and the government is the least efficient way to spend your money -- that economies improve."
"When Ronald Reagan came to office," he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, "we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I've got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn't raise taxes, and we didn't cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy."

There's so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. First, citing Reagan as a model for deficit reduction is foolish. The deficit tripled under Reagan.

Second, McCain hails Reagan's example for not raising taxes, but this overlooks a key detail -- Reagan did raise taxes, several times, to prevent his budget deficits from spiraling out of control.

And third, McCain concluded, "I believe we can grow this economy, and reduce this deficit." This is so utterly foolish, it's hard to believe a serious presidential candidate would be willing to say it out loud.

In just the past couple of months, McCain has been confused about the relationship between taxes and revenues, confused about whether he thinks our current economy is strong or not, confused about why interest rates even exist, confused about his own no-new-taxes pledge, confused about his own Social Security policy, and confused about how he'd pay for yet another round of reckless tax cuts.

After a quarter-century in Congress, when it comes to the economy, the poor guy sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about.

Maybe the senator could take a few weeks off, read a book or two, and get back to us?
Link

War Room: Lieberman's unusual take on "the facts"

2008-04-08T15:50:00.004-04:00

Matt Yglesias noted this afternoon that Joe Lieberman is "probably beyond shark-jumping at this point." That's no doubt true, but the Connecticut senator continues to push the embarrassment envelope at every available opportunity. Tuesday morning, for example, Lieberman, after praising Gen. David Petraeus and ambassador Ryan Crocker, seemed utterly dumbfounded by the fact that some senators are displeased by conditions in Iraq.

There's a lot to digest here, but this was the quote that stood out for me: "Hey, let's be honest about this: The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give credit for that."

This is just so wrong, it's hard to know where to start. The obvious problem, of course, is that the senator is contradicting reality. Political reconciliation in Iraq hasn't occurred. Perhaps Lieberman missed this report from the weekend: "A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is 'so slow, halting and superficial' and political fragmentation 'so pronounced' that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago."

But it's also worth noting that the comparison between Iraq and the United States is itself foolish. As Yglesias put it, "America has a heated political debate, but liberals and conservatives aren't shooting mortars at each other and we don't have pitched battles in the streets. To compare the situation in Iraq to the persistence of strong partisan disagreement in the United States is idiotic."

Quite right. For a U.S. senator to compare Iraqi officials to Americans, and insist that Iraqis are somehow more impressive, is kind of offensive, in addition to being wrong.

Link

Politico: Clinton battle the facts

2008-04-08T14:12:00.001-04:00

By MIKE ALLEN | 4/8/08 12:03 PM EST

In the waning days of the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) finds herself battling two opponents: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and her own words.

Did Chelsea Clinton go to a private school in Washington because it was best for her education, as the White House said at the time, or because “the press would never leave her alone,” as Clinton said in a debate last year?

The new answer is more accurate, her campaign says.

Why did she perpetuate the family tale that she had been named for the mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary, only to correct the record in 2006, on the eve of her presidential campaign?

Her mother had told her the story and the senator only learned the truth when she was older, her campaign says.

And why are there at least two instances of her vividly telling a story that happened to someone else, as if it happened to her?

In one case, she apparently was conflating stories, her campaign says. The other was the simple product of a mother’s worry, according to her campaign.

The increasing scrutiny of Clinton’s statements in recent days has revived an old weakness – voter doubts about her trustworthiness – that until now has played little part in the campaign.

In the past few weeks, the problem has gotten so acute that even things she says that turn out to be true – for instance, her statement the other day that she shook hands with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Chicago when she was 14 – immediately draw questions.

Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s communications director, said the real issue is not Clinton and the truth, but how the media covers her.

Clinton aides, frustrated by what they consider to be disproportionate scrutiny throughout the campaign, were vindicated this week when a health-care anecdote she has been telling on the trail was questioned by The New York Times, then verified two days later by The Washington Post.

“The press was quick to jump on this because they decided it fit a storyline — but the fact is that Senator Clinton was right,” Wolfson said. “That's the scrutiny we live under — even when she is right, she is wrong. I get reporters e-mailing me after every event checking facts that turn out to be right. Meanwhile Senator Obama and his campaign are allowed to mislead the press about … his legislative accomplishments, his relationship with Tony Rezko and even basic biographical details.”

Nevertheless, the issue continues to distract from her campaign. On Sunday, ABCNews.com printed a thorough refutation of Clinton’s assertion on Saturday in Eugene, Ore., that she “actually started criticizing the war in Iraq before” Obama did.

Obama gave a famous speech against going to war with Iraq in 2002, nine days before she voted in favor of a measure titled, “A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”

A Gallup poll analysis published early this month found: “The most prominent reason given by those opposed to Clinton being elected president is not trusting her — mentioned by 24 percent.”

In a March poll by Gallup, only 44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that she “is honest and trustworthy,” compared with 63 percent who said that about Obama and 67 percent said it about the Republican nominee-to-be, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The embarrassment over Clinton’s claim that she had landed “under sniper fire” in Tuzla, Bosnia, as first lady, which turned out to be a wild exaggeration, badly hurt her campaign.

The admission that she had misspoken detracted from an economic summit she was holding, and undercut her campaign’s suggestion that Obama is a smooth talker who’ll say anything to get elected. It undermined her core strength – preparedness to be commander in chief – and reminded people of her core weakness: questions about her trustworthiness.

One curious element of the Bosnia story is that a female senator actually did land under fire in the former Yugoslavia – but it wasn’t Clinton.

It was Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who landed in Sarajevo as part of a congressional delegation six months before Clinton’s foray to Tuzla.

That pattern appeared to repeat itself when Clinton told NBC’s “Dateline” that Chelsea had been jogging near the World Trade Center, out for a cup of coffee, when the first plane hit.

Chelsea, writing a first-hand account in the defunct Talk magazine, later revealed that she was watching TV in a pal’s apartment on Park Avenue South.

But it turns out that one of the two daughters of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jessica, actually was at high school on Sept. 11 – in the shadow of the World Trade Center.

One Clinton aide was furious about coverage of that one. “Her daughter was in lower Manhattan,” the aide e-mailed. “Put yourself in her shoes. She was a mother worried sick about her daughter, who couldn't connect with her for hours, knew she had gone running, knew people who were in the buildings and likely died. She made these comments only days later, and she had been worried and scared.”

Link

War Room: McCain gets confused about al-Qaida again

2008-04-08T14:05:00.002-04:00

Arguably the most politically significant aspect to Tuesday's Senate testimony from Gen. David Petraeus and ambassador Ryan Crocker is the campaign angle -- John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will all get a chance to question Petraeus and Crocker directly.

But McCain is drawing interest this morning for what appears to be yet another in a series of mistakes about the basics in the Middle East.

For those who can't watch clips online, McCain asks Petraeus, "Do you still view al-Qaida in Iraq as a major threat?" The general responded, "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago." McCain said, "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites all overall?" Petraeus answered, "No," and McCain quickly added, "Or Sunnis or anybody else."

I've watched the exchange a few times, and I keep coming to the same conclusion: By rhetorically asking if al-Qaida is a Shiite sect, McCain was once again demonstrating that he's confused about the terrorist group's religious background. He added, "Or Sunnis or anybody else" not to necessarily to clarify but to cover his bases -- he figures al-Qaida has to be affiliated with an Islamic tradition, even if he doesn't know which one.

Ilan Goldenberg added, "McCain did genuinely mix up Sunnis and Shi'a again ... Now, I know that there is a bit of gotcha going on here. But this man claims that his greatest qualification for the Presidency is that he understands foreign policy. But the differences between Sunni and Shi'a matter. They matter a lot! And this nasty habit of mixing it up just seriously needs to stop."

Indeed, I'd say it's the "nasty habit" that makes this morning's mix-up especially interesting. If McCain had consistently demonstrated a firm grasp of events in the Middle East, it'd be easier to overlook confusion over whether al-Qaida is Sunni or Shiite.

But therein lies the point. McCain has struggled with the basics more than once recently.

Add up his errors, and we see a Republican candidate whose problem is not with words but with facts.
Link

Olbermann takes on Wal-Mart

2008-04-01T14:08:00.001-04:00

TAKEDOWN IN AISLE 5: MSNBC "Countdown"'s Keith Olbermann has waged a battle against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for suing one of its former employees, Debbie Shank, 52, for $470,000 in medical expenses paid for her care after a car accident left her brain damaged. Olbermann has named the mass retailer to his Worst Person in the World list for four nights in a row, and says his fight with Wal-Mart will continue so long as its pursuit of money from Shank continues. "If they continue to do the morally indefensible to this woman, no matter what their legal rights may be, we will keep reminding people that's what they're supporting when they go to Wal-Mart. And we'll do it nightly, and indefinitely," said Olbermann via e-mail.

In 2001, Shank was left with severe brain damage (her short-term memory is virtually nonexistent) after being hit by a semitruck. Her medical expenses were paid for by Wal-Mart, and Shank won close to $1 million in a settlement from the trucking company and, after paying out legal fees, was left with $417,000. But a clause in the retailer's benefits agreement says the store can recoup medical fees paid if an injured employee receives damages from a lawsuit. Wal-Mart, which earned more than $11 billion in profits last year, sued Shank for $470,000, and won. Shank appealed the ruling in the summer, but lost again. Six days later, her 18-year-old son was killed in Iraq. "Wal-Mart, may your stores melt in the hot sun," Olbermann declared.

Daphne Moore, Wal-Mart's corporate communications director, responded in a statement: "This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction. While the Shank case involves a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members. These plans are funded by associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal of the case, which concludes all litigation. While Wal-Mart's benefit plan was entitled to more than the amount that remained in the Shank trust, the plan only recovered the funds remaining in that trust," which according to reports amounted to about $277,000. The spokeswoman did not respond specifically to Olbermann's TV battle.

Link

War Room: Obama picks up new superdelegate support

2008-03-31T10:46:00.001-04:00

Barack Obama is on an impressive run -- since Super Tuesday, he has picked up the public endorsement of 64 superdelegates, while Hillary Clinton has tallied only nine. Even after that string of victories, though, Obama remains behind Clinton in most superdelegate counts (these counts tend to vary from media outlet to media outlet, but it's certainly the common wisdom that Clinton is ahead in superdelegates, at least for now), but he's gaining fast.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that North Carolina's seven Democratic members of Congress -- all of whom are superdelegates -- will endorse Obama sometime before their state votes on May 6. Also Monday, Obama received the endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

Moves such as these are being widely interpreted as a sign that superdelegates are impatient with the continuing race, and worried about the impact it will have on November voting. The WSJ ties Klobuchar's endorsement to Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey's own recent endorsement of Obama and notes, "Both senators had planned to remain neutral, according to party officials, but decided to weigh in as the Democrats' campaign became more negative and Sen. McCain was free to exploit the confusion looking to the November election."

Link

Politico: Scaife's column on Clinton

2008-03-31T10:34:00.001-04:00

So R.M. Scaife suddenly hearts Hillary?

I'm a day late on this one too (I'll be up to speed by midday, I promise) but what's really striking about Richard Mellon Scaife's favorable column on Hillary Clinton is the total lack of a backward glance.

He writes as though he were just any columnist, or voter, pleasantly surprised by a pol:

Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.

Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.

Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.

But what's interesting about Scaife isn't his personal opinion.

I mean, is he now sorry he spent all that money trying to destroy the Clintons? Water under the bridge?

Link

Politico: Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills

2008-03-31T09:51:00.001-04:00

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."

Link to more

Why the WH Won't Define Success in Iraq

2008-03-29T08:40:00.002-04:00

Why the Administration Won't Define Success in Iraq
Posted March 28, 2008 07:46 AM (EST)

What does it mean, then, if the violence goes up in Iraq?

"Success of the surge," they say.

What? How can you manage to say that? Well, that's what the Pentagon did yesterday, claiming that the exploding violence in Iraq is a sign of progress.

For years, we've been asking "What is success" in Iraq? How do we know we're making progress? And, for years, we've gotten nothing but a vague answer from the administration, with no hard metrics.

Now, admittedly, for years I assumed it was because the administration and its proponents simply had no answer -- that they couldn't figure out what the end-state was.

Now, today, it's become painfully clear: It's not that the administration CAN'T define success, it's that they WON'T. For, to lay down some specifics would pin them down, make them accountable. And, above all, it would keep them from claiming success no matter what. Without defining progress, they can make it up on the fly. It can be reduced violence one day, and if the next day sees dozens of deaths, progress can mean that. If a nuclear explosion went off in the middle of Baghdad, you can bet your bottom dollar that the administration would say THAT is a sign of progress.

Here's the blunt truth of it, though. As we at VoteVets.org laid out in our "State of the Wars, Military and Veterans" report, true progress in Iraq cannot be made until the Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr are convinced to give up their arms and become a willing and active partner for peace. As we've seen this week, when the Mahdi Army wants to unleash mass violence, they can do it. Then they'll lay low, rebuild, and launch new attacks. And that cycle will continue forever, until there is a settlement.

That is not an American military problem -- it is an Iraqi political and diplomatic problem. Resolution of this problem was supposed to be a by-product of the surge (though the White House refused to say that would be the end-state of the surge, and now I know why). The surge was supposed to give some time and space to the Iraqi government to confront these tough internal political issues. Yet, as we've seen, it has done anything but that.

I would say that's proof that the surge has failed.

But, of course, I prefer to judge success and failure on pesky little things like metrics. The White House spin machine was wily enough to not concern themselves with petty things like that.

Politico: The new Dem code

2008-03-28T16:20:00.000-04:00

Smartly cracked by Chuck Todd:
If someone says, "the process isn't hurting the party, let everyone have a say" you know that is code for "I'm still holding out hope for Clinton."

But if a supposed uncommitted superdelegate says, "we need to start thinking about what this is doing to our long term chances of defeating John McCain" that is code for, "I am leaning toward Obama but I hope Clinton will simply drop out so I can always claim to her and Bill that I was never against them."

Politico: DOJ wins a legal battle with DNC over White House e-mails

2008-03-28T10:18:00.001-04:00

A federal judge has handed the White House a legal victory in a battle with the Democratic National Committee over e-mails related to U.S. attorney firings.

District Judge Ellen Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on Thursday that the DNC does not have a right under the Freedom of Information Act for 68 pages of e-mails sent between White House and Justice Department officials simply because the White House e-mail traffic was transmitted on a server controlled by the Republican National Committee.

The DNC sued the Justice Department in April 2007 after its FOIA request for the e-mails, which relate to the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, was not granted by DOJ. Attorneys for the DNC argued that since the White House officials used "GWB43.com" e-mail addresses to send the messages, they cannot be deemed to be official in nature and therefore must be turned over under the DNC's FOIA request. Eighty-eight White House officials were given those RNC-controlled addresses to conduct political activities, but the Bush administration later claimed that the accounts were used to handle other official business, such as interactions between the White House and senior DOJ aides on the prosecutor purge.

In dismissing the DNC lawsuit, Huvelle ruled that it was "based on the false factual premise that White House officials only used their RNC e-mail accounts for political communications."

Additionally, Huvelle decided that just because an RNC server was used to send the messages - 68 pages out of more than 5,000 which have been denied to the DNC - it is not enough to automatically disqualify the Justice Department from claiming a FOIA exemption in refusing to release them.

"It is therefore clear that RNC e-mail accounts were used (rightly or wrongly) both for official and RNC business, and thus the nature of the server is not necessarily informative as to whether the document contained official or political communications," Huvelle wrote in her opinion.

The DNC's attorneys also argued that since the RNC evidently did not retain huge numbers of White House e-mails, this was a violation of the Presidential Records Act, which requires that all official White House records and documents be saved. Since the White House didn't make an effort to archive the e-mails on the RNC servers, they cannot be considered as official White House business and be exempted from FOIA requests.

But Huvelle noted she wasn't asked to rule on whether the White House violated the Presidential Records Act, only whether they were exempted from FOIA requests because of their content. Huvelle, in fact, said the failure to save the e-mails from the White House officials was an "an apparently flagrant violation" of the Presidential Records Act.

Yet that wasn't enough for Huvelle to order the Justice Department to turn over the requested e-mails to the DNC, even though it may open up another avenue of investigation for congressional Democrats looking into the millions of missing White House e-mails.

"However, the administration’s violation of the Presidential Records Act is, as plaintiff acknowleges ... not before this Court, and it cannot serve as a basis for determining whether the government has properly invoked" a FOIA exemption, Huvelle wrote. "Moreover, [the DNC] fails to point to any case law that would indicate that the server where an e-mail is housed is relevant to its treatment under FOIA. Rather, under D.C. Circuit precedent, it is the content, not the form, of the communication that determines whether it is properly exempt" from FOIA.

Huvelle added: "Therefore, because the form of the document does not factor into the analysis under FOIA, the Court cannot adopt a per se rule that any e-mails sent on the RNC servers are not covered by FOIA."
Link

Bernstein: Hillary Clinton - Truth or Consequences

2008-03-27T13:35:00.000-04:00

Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:

“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]

As I noted:

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”

The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…

When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

The book concludes with this paragraph:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.
Link

War Room: "It is possible ... that she misspoke"

2008-03-24T16:26:00.002-04:00

As Salon's Mark Benjamin has documented in this space, Hillary Clinton's telling of her experiences during a 1996 trip to Bosnia doesn't jibe with either her schedule for the trip or the memory of comedian Sinbad, who accompanied her. Plenty of other reporters, bloggers and pundits have done similar analyses. But it took video evidence (which you can watch at the bottom of this post) to make Clinton's campaign walk back these comments the candidate made last week:
I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia. And as Togo [West, former secretary of the Army] said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor or too dangerous, the president couldn't go. So send the first lady. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

In a conference call Monday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was asked about his candidate's description of what had happened in Bosnia. Wolfson said, "It is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke in regard to the exit from the plane, but there is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines."

According to the New York Times' Caucus blog, Wolfson cited Clinton's memoir, "Living History," noting that in it she wrote about sniper fire in nearby hills -- not at the tarmac -- and "clearly meant to say that" in the disputed account. Wolfson also said Clinton had used the inaccurate characterization only once, but the Caucus takes issue with that, citing one other example.

Update: Barack Obama's campaign has responded to Wolfson's comment, saying, "The Clinton campaign claimed today that Senator Clinton 'misspoke' when she described a supposedly harrowing landing in Tuzla, Bosnia as First Lady in 1996 -- despite the fact that the claim appeared in her prepared remarks."

In the statement, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "Senator Clinton said that a planned welcoming ceremony was cancelled because they needed to avoid sniper fire, but news footage shows that she was met by a small child who read her a poem. Contrary to the latest spin from the Clinton campaign, when you make a false claim that's in your prepared remarks, it's not misspeaking, it's misleading, and it's part of a troubling pattern of Senator Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience."

Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?

2008-03-22T09:39:00.000-04:00

As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?

In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh, the nation's top-rated talk radio host, was urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to skip their party's primary on March 4 and instead cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the fight between her and Barack Obama. And that Tuesday, as media in both states reported, thousands of Republicans did just what Limbaugh and others had suggested -- they changed parties to vote for Clinton.

For the Rest:

War Room: Quote of the Day

2008-03-21T16:04:00.002-04:00

Last week the McCain campaign included an op-ed slamming Obama and the Rev. Wright in its morning clip package to reporters -- then later in the day had an aide say they regretted doing so. This week, the campaign suspended an aide for Twittering the appalling "Is Obama Wright?" video.
I'm starting to believe that the Senator's campaign isn't entirely serious when it emphasizes its commitment to avoiding any and all ugly personal attacks in this race. Either that or senior aides are having a hell of a time communicating that seriousness.

-- The New Republic's Michelle Cottle, writing in a blog post titled "Oops, They Did It Again."

Link

Politico: Story behind the story: The Clinton myth

2008-03-21T13:42:00.001-04:00

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

Link to more

He said, he said.

2008-03-21T13:33:00.002-04:00

From HuffPo, Joe Wilson on Obama:

The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.

To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls. During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president's role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.
On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush's Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.

In 1995 and 1996, while serving as Political Adviser to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, I was directly involved in the diplomacy associated with the movement of troops from Western Europe to Bosnia in support of the efforts of President Clinton and his special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to implement the Dayton Accords and bring an end to the Balkan genocide.

In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton's National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama's senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate's slender credentials.

In each of the three cases, there was a critical common denominator: direct presidential engagement. During the Desert Shield part of the first Gulf War, then President Bush personally chaired many of the National Security Council meetings and made nonstop calls to foreign leaders to assemble the international coalition and secure the U.N. resolutions that provided the legal underpinning for the military action.

In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

And in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the aerial bombings of Addis Ababa and Asmara ceased thanks to the personal efforts of a President.

Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.

Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton's historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon's feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.

Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush's war into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.

Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama's public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.

Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of "fear." One of Obama's fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn't about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.

There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain -- the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient -- several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?
The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.

From Time, Joe Klein on Wilson:

A confession: I'd have no problem with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama answering the crisis phone at 3 am, even though neither of them have any real experience in life-and-death crises. Both have faced stiff tests of judgment and gumption during this campaign, and both have passed. I don't think either one of them is going to get crazy on us if elected President.

I also have some residual respect for Amb Joseph Wilson, who told the truth about Niger and yellowcake uranium. But this is garbage. Especially this:
Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko.

Clinton's slim hopes of winning the nomination are not helped by this. They are hurt. In fact, let me amend what I said in the first paragraph: If her campaign persists in peddling this sort of kamikaze stuff--and make no mistake, this sort of op-ed is usually vetted by the campaign--her judgment should be called into question.

War Room: Obama passport file breached

2008-03-21T11:33:00.000-04:00

Two State Department employees have been fired for looking at Barack Obama's passport file, and third has been disciplined. All were contract workers. The department's inspector general is now investigating. According to the Associated Press, it's not clear whether the employees saw anything beyond basic information.

Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, has said it was nothing more than "imprudent curiosity" that led the employees to examine Obama's file. The Obama campaign is pressing the issue, however. In a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said:
This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an Administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes. This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.

Link

Politico: McCain getting crushed by Dems in money war

2008-03-21T10:51:00.000-04:00

John McCain had his top fundraising month in February, pulling in $11 million mostly after he all but secured the GOP presidential nomination with a collection of big wins in the Super Tuesday contests on February 5.

But that was less than the $11.7 million the senator from Arizona senator raised in January, when he was still locked in a tight four-way race for his party's nomination, suggesting Republican donors have yet to coalesce behind their standard bearer.

His February tally pales in comparison to the staggering sums raised by the two Democrats, raising troubling questions for Republicans as they look toward November and perhaps increasing the likelihood McCain will accept taxpayer cash for his general election campaign.

Link to more

Politico: This will get GOP insiders a buzzin'

2008-03-21T10:48:00.003-04:00

Via Playbook, I see that Bob Novak has the below item in his notebook column tomorrow.

"John McCain's team that is taking over the Republican Party has decided on Bobbie Greene Kilberg, a liberal Republican from Virginia long detested by conservatives, to run the party's national convention in St. Paul, Minn., in August.

"Kilberg, as an aide to President George H.W. Bush in 1990, promoted White House overtures to gay activists. She won an internal power struggle over gay politics with fellow Bush assistant R. Douglas Wead, who was fired as White House liaison to religious conservatives. When Kilberg appeared on television by McCain's side the night of Feb. 12 after he won the Virginia primary, her presence was resented by conservatives as a sign of contempt for them."

This means little to the outside political world, but will create a stir among the elite of the elite within national and state GOP circles.

Link

Politico: A hard gap to close with the popular vote

2008-03-21T10:46:00.000-04:00

I've got a story up on Politico looking at the hard math for Hillary regarding what's emerged as a key, secondary measure of legitimacy: The popular vote.

The apparent collapse of planned new votes in Florida and Michigan could push victory on a key symbolic measure — the primary season popular vote — beyond Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s grasp.

Clinton’s top supporters, including her husband, have suggested in recent days that amassing more votes than Sen. Barack Obama, while it has no formal meaning, could offer a key rationale for laying claim to the nomination. The theory: Winning the popular vote might give party leaders known as superdelegates a reason to take the nomination away from Obama, who is virtually sure to earn more pledged delegates.

"If Sen. Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself, 'Which is more important, and who is more likely to win in November?'” former President Bill Clinton told ABC earlier this week.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a key Clinton ally, painted the same path to victory.

"Let's assume that Sen. Clinton goes ahead in the popular vote count," he said in a March 13 conference call with reporters. He then asked, “Which is more Democratic”: the measure of delegates won or of votes received.

But it’s assuming a lot to give Clinton anything but the slimmest of chances to lead in the popular vote. It’s impossible to project turnout in the 10 states and territories left to vote, but Clinton will have to close a deficit of more than 700,000 votes. That means, even with extremely high turnout estimates, she would have to win by huge, double-digit percentages in the states where she could have an edge — Pennsylvania and West Virginia — while holding Obama to tiny gains in states such as North Carolina and Oregon, where he is heavily favored.

Without those blowouts, many influential Democrats contend, she will find it hard to convince superdelegates of a legitimate victory.

“It would be a particularly poisonous Pyhrric victory if she gets the nomination after losing the delegate count and the popular vote,” said Dan Gerstein, a political consultant who said he supports Obama. “Many Democrats would see the result as illegitimate, particularly in the black community. As such, it could cause a real rupture in the party that would not just threaten Hillary's chances in November but could lead to lasting bitterness and even a full-on rebellion after the campaign is over.”

Link

Bill Richardson to Endorse Obama

2008-03-21T08:43:00.002-04:00

NM Gov. Bill Richardson endorsing Obama
By BARRY MASSEY, Associated Press Writer

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.

The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor.

Richardson has been relentlessly wooed by Obama and Clinton for his endorsement. As a Democratic superdelegate, the governor plays a part in the tight race for nominating votes and could bring other superdelegates to Obama's side. He also has been mentioned as a potential running mate for either candidate.

No primaries are scheduled until Pennsylvania's on April 22, a gap in time Obama hopes to use for such announcements to assert that he is the front-runner for the nomination.

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Richardson said in a statement obtained by the AP. "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

Richardson's endorsement also could help Obama pick up support among Hispanics, who are the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority.

Clinton has been the favorite of Hispanics in primaries and caucuses, according to exit polls. She won the New Mexico caucus in early February with a nearly 2-to-1 advantage among Hispanics.
Richardson backed Obama despite his ties to Clinton and her husband, the former president. He served as ambassador to the U.N. and as secretary of the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. Last month, Richardson and former President Clinton watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's residence in Santa Fe.

Richardson praised Hillary Clinton as a "distinguished leader with vast experience." But the governor said Obama "will be a historic and great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad."
Richardson was a roving diplomatic troubleshooter when he was a congressman from New Mexico, negotiating the release of U.S. hostages in several countries and meeting with a rogue's gallery of U.S. adversaries, including Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has show it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally," Richardson said.

Obama said he was "deeply honored" to have Richardson's support.

"Whether it's fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations," Obama said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_on_el_pr/obama_richardson

War Room: Clinton's nondenial on Obama pastor

2008-03-20T17:07:00.000-04:00

Ever since the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Barack Obama's connections to him, first exploded, there has been an open question: What would Hillary Clinton's campaign do with the uproar? Appearing to get involved could be deadly for the Clinton campaign, but on the other hand, it does need every advantage it can get at the moment.

In an article in the New York Times Thursday, Adam Nagourney shined some light on the answer; it may be a sort of Solomonic response, actually. The Clinton campaign hasn't been discussing Wright publicly, and isn't slamming Obama for his pastor, but is, Nagourney says, going to superdelegates and making an electability argument based on Wright. "Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election," Nagourney reported.

At a press availability on Thursday, Clinton was asked about Nagourney's report. ABC News' Eloise Harper has the details of what ensued:
Clinton refused to deny that her campaign was pushing the story.
When asked, Clinton ignored the Wright portion of the question and said "well my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable, that I have said for a year or more that I am the person best able to make the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief."

When Clinton was then asked specifically if her campaign was pushing the Wright story –- she shrugged and took the next question, ignoring the reporter.

Now, it's worth noting, before anyone jumps to conclusions here, that a nondenial isn't the same as a confirmation, which she didn't give either. Even if the Clinton camp isn't officially involved, Clinton can't control what every single one of her operatives is doing at any given moment, and it would be pretty embarrassing for her to deny the report only to have a new story come out later proving her wrong. That said, either scenario is plausible, and though she didn't confirm Nagourney's report, Clinton's own remarks seem to indicate that it's true.

Link

Politico: Gerry Ferraro, still swinging

2008-03-20T16:20:00.001-04:00

She gives yet another interview to the small California paper that started the whole story, and says she doesn't like being lumped in with Jeremiah Wright:

"To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable," Ferraro said today. "[Obama] gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred."
Link

Arrogance on Iraq

2008-03-20T09:12:00.000-04:00

Arrogance on Iraq
Thu Mar 20, 12:19 AM ET

Vice President Cheney doesn't spend a lot of time talking with the press, and his interview on ABC's Good Morning America Wednesday showed why. When a reporter noted that two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting in Iraq because the cost in lives exceeds the gains, Cheney's grinning response was a dismissive, "So?"

Pressed about whether he cares a whit about public opinion, the vice president went on to make a larger point about persisting in difficult but worthwhile tasks even when they're unpopular in the polls. But it was hard not to interpret his response as disdain for the views of American citizens who disagree with him.

On the fifth anniversary of a war that has cost far more American lives and treasure than any of its architects predicted — and has no end in sight — the administration owes Americans more than that. Not just to be polite, but to sustain public and congressional backing for the further sacrifices needed to leave behind a stable, self-governing Iraq.

Cheney, in particular, has long since squandered his standing to criticize others on this subject. On March 16, 2003, three days before the invasion, he was asked on NBC's Meet the Press whether an invasion might not unleash "a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties."

"Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way," he replied, "because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators." Two years later, he said on CNN's Larry King Live that the Iraqi insurgency was "in the last throes."

It took a new strategy by Gen. David Petraeus, and a surge of 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq last year, to begin to bring that insurgency under control. The surge's progress has given the United States at least an opportunity to disengage from this misbegotten war in a careful way that protects long-term U.S. interests in the region.

That won't happen, however, unless the White House can make the case to a public sick of the war that rapid withdrawal would be a mistake. One of the crucial lessons from the Vietnam era is that this nation can wage war for a while with deteriorating public support, but not indefinitely. Poll numbers for Iraq long ago began to match those that brought an end to the Vietnam conflict. A consistent 60% of Americans want out of Iraq. If the vice president thinks it's vital to U.S. security to stay the course there, he needs to mold public opinion, not be contemptuous of it.

Politico: Clinton calls Michigan vote "civil rights issue"

2008-03-19T11:57:00.002-04:00

Speaking in Detroit just now, Hillary picked up Obama's discussion of race yesterday, and cast the question of the vote in Michigan in the terms of the civil rights movement.

"This goes way beyond this election and it goes way beyond who’s running," she said.

"It is a bedrock American principle that we are all equal in the voting booth.

"For me, it has been a long struggle to get to the point where barriers were knocked down and doors opened. … It is the vote that has given voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. … It is through that vote that women, African-Americans, Latinos and so many others have claimed our rights as full and equal citizens," she said, citing those who had "marched and protested, risked and gave their lives for this right."

Now, many insiders see this as a tactical question, and roll their eyes at the 11th hour appeals to high principle. Clinton's contention that "when others made a decision to remove their names from the ballot, I didn't, because I believed your voices and your votes should count," is undermined a bit by her statement, back when New Hampshire mattered, that Michigan's vote is "not going to count for anything."

But even if Clinton doesn't win this one, she's forced Obama into the position of openly opposing a new vote, while she supports it — something that can certainly figure in her case to superdelegates as the year goes on.

"Sen. Obama speaks passionately on the campaign trail about empowering the American people," she said. 'Today I'm challenging him to match those words with action — to make sure the poeple of Michigan and Florida have a voice and a vote in this election."
Link

2008-03-19T11:06:00.002-04:00

The Cost to Our Forces in Iraq
3,990: American troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the war. [icasualties.org, 3/17/08]
29,395: Number of U.S. service members that have been wounded in hostile action since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq. [AP, 3/11/08]
60,000: Number of troops that have been subjected to controversial stop-loss measures--meaning those who have completed service commitments but are forbidden to leave the military until their units return from war. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]
5: Number of times the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has been sent to Iraq. They are the first Marine Corps unit to be sent to Iraq for a fifth time. [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/27/08]
2,100: Number of troops who tried to commit suicide or injure themselves increased from 350 in 2002 to 2,100 last year. [US News and World Report, 2/25/08]
11.9: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their first Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]
27.2: Percent of noncommissioned Army officers who reported mental health problems during their third or fourth Iraq tour [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/08]

The Cost to Our Military Readiness
88: Percent of current and former U.S. military officers surveyed in a recent independent study who believe that the demands of the war in Iraq have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin" [Foreign Policy/Center for New American Security, 2/19/08]
94: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2003 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]
79: Percent of Army recruits who had high school diplomas in Fiscal Year 2007 [Larry Korb, The Guardian, 10/12/07]
4,644: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2003. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]
12,057: Number of new Army recruits who were granted moral waivers in Fiscal Year 2007. [Houston Chronicle, 10/14/07]
67: Percent of captains the Army managed to retain this year, short of its goal of 80 percent, and in spite of cash bonus incentives of up to $35,000 [Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/26/08]

The Cost to Our National Security
1,188: Number of global terrorist incidents from January - September 11th, 2001. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]
5,188: Number of global terrorist incidents in from January- September 11th, 2006. [American Security Project, "Are We Winning?," September 2007]
30: Percent increase in violence in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. [Reuters, 10/15/07]
21: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2001. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]
139: Number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan in 2006, with an additional increase of 69 percent as of November 2007. [Center for American Progress, "The Forgotten Front," 11/07]
30: Percent of Afghanistan controlled by the Afghan Government according to DNI Mike McConnell. [Associated Press, 2/27/08]
2,380: Days since September 11th, 2001 that Osama Bin Laden has been at-large.

The Cost of Funding the War in Iraq
$50-60 Billion: Bush Administration's pre-war estimates of the cost of the war. [New York Times, 12/31/02]
$12 Billion: Direct cost per month of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]
$526 Billion: Amount of money already appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. [CRS, 2/22/08]
$3 Trillion: Total estimated cost of the Iraq War. [Washington Post, Bilmes and Stiglitz Op-Ed, 3/9/08]
$5 Trillion - $7 Trillion: Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounting for continued military operations, growing debt and interest payments and continuing health care and counseling costs for veterans. [McClatchy, 2/27/08]
160: Percent that the cost of the Iraq War has increased from 2004 to 2008. [CRS Report, 2/22/08]

The Cost to Iraqis and Journalists
8,000: Number of Iraqi military and police killed since June 2003. [Brookings Institute, Iraq Index, March 13, 2008]
82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War. [Iraq Body Count]
4.5 Million: Number of Iraqi refugees both inside and outside the country. [Washington Post, 3/17/08]
61: Percent of Iraqis that believe the U.S. military presence makes the security situation in Iraq worse. [Agence France-Presse, 3/17/08]
127: Number of journalists killed in Iraq since March 2003. [Committee to Protect Journalists]

Economic Costs of War in Iraq
$33.51: Cost of a barrel of oil in March 2003. [Energy Information Administration]
$105.68: Cost of a barrel of oil on March 17, 2008. [NYMEX]
U.S. Troops and Contractors in Iraq
132,000: Number of U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2007, before President Bush's escalation. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]
155,000: Number of U.S. troops currently in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, 3/13/08]
140,000: Number of U.S. troops projected to be in Iraq in July 2008. [Associated Press, 2/26/08]
35,000: Number of private security contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]
180,000: Number of private contractors operating in Iraq. [Human Rights First, Private Security Contractors at War]

Progress Towards Political Reconciliation Made By Iraqis
3: Number out of 18 Bush Administration Benchmarks Met by Iraqi Government As of January 24, 2008. [Center for American Progress, 1/24/08]
18: Number of provinces President Bush said would be secured by Iraqis as of November 2007. [President Bush Speech, 1/10/07]
8: Number of provinces actually secured by Iraqis as of January 2008. [NPR, 1/7/08]
Bush-Republican Intransigence on Staying the Course in Iraq
8: Number of times a majority of the Senate has voted to change course in Iraq.
7: Number of times Bush Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course in Iraq.
1: Number of vetoes issued by the White House over changing course in Iraq.

Murtha endorses Clinton

2008-03-19T10:08:00.003-04:00

Link to more

Not too shabby for Hillary, despite Obama's day in the rhetorical sun; she also got Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame onboard.

ETA:

Here's War Room's take on the Murtha endorsement:

Pennsylvania Rep. Jack Murtha has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Our standard disclaimer about the actual impact -- or lack thereof -- of endorsements in the days after the era of machine politics applies. Still, Murtha does bring a couple of important things to the table. First, as one of the leading antiwar voices in Congress, he might bring Clinton some credibility on the Iraq war that she has lacked so far with certain parts of the Democratic base. Then, also, perhaps much more important than Murtha's ability to move actual votes in Pennsylvania at this point is his superdelegate vote. Barack Obama's been running the table in picking up superdelegates recently, and though this might not stop the tide, it's at least something of a bulwark in Clinton's favor.

Foreign policy expertise, indeed...

2008-03-18T14:28:00.001-04:00

From Politico:

McCain mixes up Sunni/Shiites

This won't help burnish those foreign policy credentials:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda."

Predominantly Shiite Iranians don't tend to get along well with Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda.

A Bright, Shining Moment

2008-03-18T13:14:00.000-04:00

Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama's glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of "what is is"), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama's magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor.

"This is it, it's here," I thought while watching Senator Obama lay it on the line. We are finally talking about race. Slavery, Jim Crow, economic enslavement, no FHA loans, the failure of affirmative action, busing, offended whites who match offended blacks in rage and fear. Obama shined a light on the conservative talk show hosts who fan white resentments, and at the same time, did not dismiss the reasons for the resentments. He reminded us that the dreams of black America do not come at the expense of white America.

Someone running for the highest office in the land finally talked about it -- the dark and secret swamp that we Americans dodge at every possible opportunity. As he finished the searing truth telling, I realized that this was not so much a speech but rather a unifying call to arms, an insistence that American people act on change. This was an order and a prayer from someone worthy of being called Commander in Chief -- an order that as a bruised and bloodied nation we finally discuss that what unites us, as well as that which divides us. So we can grow, together as a people.
Barack Obama's speech, perhaps one of the most important in modern political history pushed us as a people to move beyond race and gender, beyond Democrat and Republican, beyond politics and into reviving the spirit of the nation itself. To talk, to talk at home, at work, at the dinner table. To really finally talk. What a great day, and where else in the world but in the United States? Today I am very proud to be an American.

HuffPo: Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero

2008-03-18T09:25:00.001-04:00

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of imminent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Link for more

Sleight of hand?

2008-03-18T06:25:00.002-04:00

Exactly how has the conventional wisdom changed? Until recently, the thought was this:

"Well, Michigan and Florida broke the rules, so those delegates won't be seated at the convention."

Suddenly, and seemingly without much questioning, there's been a shift toward this:

"Can we just have a do-over? Can we, huh? Can we?"

This is the DNC's mess--why is it up to the states to clean it up?

Here's a blast from the past

2008-03-17T16:10:00.003-04:00

His estranged wife denies it, but former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey said they engaged in threesomes with a male aide.

Link to more

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

2008-03-17T15:26:00.001-04:00

... from the Leprechaun Brothers!

War Room: Cheney calls Iraq invasion a "successful endeavor"

2008-03-17T14:15:00.000-04:00

Having dropped into Iraq for a surprise visit Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney was in a good mood. Speaking at a press conference in Baghdad he held after a meeting with Iraqi leaders, Cheney told the assembled reporters, "If you look back on those five years it has been a difficult, challenging but nonetheless successful endeavor ... and it has been well worth the effort."

Also on Monday, a female suicide bomber blew herself up in a crowd of Shiite Iraqis at a mosque near Karbala. At least 32 people were killed and an additional 51 were wounded, according to one report. Four attacks in Baghdad killed a total of four people and wounded 13.

Cheney's visit comes just before the five-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Presumptive Republican presidential John McCain is also in the country, accompanied by fellow senators and supporters Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. "The surge is working," McCain said in an interview with CNN.

Link

War Room: Hillary Clinton, sniper fire and Sinbad

2008-03-17T12:15:00.000-04:00

In her war to prove she is the one to take that 3 a.m. phone call, Hillary Clinton brought it up a notch this morning.

Now she's a combat veteran.

Clinton delivered a foreign policy speech at George Washington University this morning, mostly touting her ideas about conducting a "well-planned withdrawal" from Iraq if elected.

But Clinton and her national security surrogates also took the opportunity to try to remind us how much she is ready to be commander in chief, once again touting a dangerous 1996 trip to Bosnia.

Togo West, former secretary of the Army, introduced her this morning and claimed that Hillary was dispatched on the trip because the Secret Service "would not allow" the sitting president to go to the active combat zone. Too dangerous.

West said it was a "serious trip under serious circumstances." He said the adventure helped prove that when it came to being ready to answer the red phone at 3 a.m., Hillary is "one of the most prepared candidates, ever."

When she stepped up to the dais, Clinton too remembered the harrowing Balkan adventure. "I remember landing under sniper fire," she recalled. She and her retinue were then sent "running with our heads down to our vehicles."

Her courageous fellow travelers for that 1996 trip included her daughter, Chelsea -- oh, and singer Sheryl Crow, plus comedian Sinbad.

Sinbad, an Obama man, has already told the Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers that Clinton"s version of the trip is bunk. He described it as a feel-good USO tour. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place,'" Sinbad told Akers recently. (If Akers' article is accurate, Clinton's memory of the gunfire has improved since a December speech in Iowa, when she said she was told that "there might be sniper fire" during the expedition.)

Sinbad said the whole description is ridiculous. "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife,'" Sinbad told Akers. "'Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

Link

Politico: McCain and campaign explain "100 year" comment

2008-03-17T12:10:00.002-04:00

You can be assured that two quotes will haunt John McCain throughout this campaign: his admission that he doesn't know a lot about the economy and his suggestion that he'd be ok with U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years.

Both he and his campaign addressed the latter today, likening the prospect to our post-war presence in the countries we fought in World War II.

"I understand politics, but that was very, very misconstrued when I said that," McCain said on "Good Morning America."

Americans, McCain said, will accept troops in Iraq for the long-term so long as casualities are reduced.

And, responding to a foreign policy speech by Hillary Clinton, McCain's campaign put out a statement clarifying the difference between an "American troop presence versus American combat presence."

"One would suspect Senator Clinton is aware that American troops have been present peacefully in Germany and Japan for more than six decades," jabbed McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker.

Of course one would wonder if the American people will soon perceive Iraq and the broader Middle East as anything less than a uniquely dangerous region that is prone to violence and extremism.

Link

Greenwald: Time magazine invents facts to claim that Americans support Bush's domestic spying abuses

2008-03-17T11:55:00.002-04:00

No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that "nobody cares" about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that "Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security"; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers "hasn't convinced the people." Not a single fact -- not one -- is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions.

Link for more...

Politico: Bill's image damaged by campaign role

2008-03-17T11:38:00.004-04:00

New polling suggests Clinton’s involvement in battle between his wife and Obama has significantly tarnished the former president’s image.

Link for more...

Appropriate, for both yesterday and today...

2008-03-17T11:15:00.003-04:00

Igloo Dreams has a nice post highlighting an old Paulsen & Krenn song about the Pens, called "We'll Kick Your Arse Ya Flyer Scum."

In progress

2008-03-17T11:03:00.002-04:00

We're trying to get this thing off the ground at the moment. Once we get everyone onboard, we can fine-tune the appearance and such. I'm open to anything.

Welcome!

2008-03-17T10:43:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Annotation blog, a place for us to post and comment... and to keep our inboxes from becoming unwieldy.

Enjoy!