Apr 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM by David Pleasant
Hillary Clinton’s response in ABC’s Democratic debate last week on what she would do if Iran attacked Israel was anything but a knee-jerk reaction. She confirmed her "massive retaliation" answer tonight to Keith Olbermann on Countdown and added the U.S. should return to "Cold War" foreign policies.
OLBERMANN: Can you clarify…which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?
CLINTON: What we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be a continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. And I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
Watch it.
At the moment, I can’t decide which is worse, Clinton’s desire to return to Cold War foreign policies or her blatant brinkmanship with respect to the Middle East.
Apr 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM by David Pleasant
On Countdown tonight, Keith Olbermann asked Hillary Clinton about her fear-mongering Osama bin Laden ad. She said it was about "leadership."
Video to follow.
Apr 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM by David Pleasant
No need to fret Bill. . .
"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she’d have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don’t have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."
Conservative bloggers already view Hillary as a great Republican.
Apr 21, 2008 at 7:18 PM by David Pleasant
Hillary demands Barack Obama must explain every moment of his life and every word he has spoken, but Team Clinton refuses to explain why Clinton slammed millions of Democratic Party activists and caucus voters? (h/t kos)
There was a significant dose of stonewalling on Monday’s conference call with aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Asked to explain what areas of disagreement the senator had with the Democratic activist group Moveon.org — which Clinton said she had clashed with — Howard Wolfson, the senator’s chief spokesperson, declined to even broach the question.
"I appreciate your effort to extend your exclusive story but we’ve said all we are going to say about that, and I say that as a proud member as Moveon.org," he told The Huffington Post.
But when it comes to answering questions about Clinton’s comments, they haven’t really said anything at all. Indeed, when asked about the story on Sunday, the campaign’s new top strategist, Geoff Garin declined to specify areas of disagreement between the group and the senator. And when pressed to discuss when, as Clinton claimed, MoveOn had "flooded" caucuses and "intimidated" voters into supporting Obama, he cited his short time with the campaign in sidestepping the query.
Just five days ago in the ABC Democratic debate Senator Clinton said everything should be explored.
You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people’s minds.
And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.
Apr 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM by David Pleasant
Barack Obama is back in the lead by seven points in the Gallup Daily tracking poll.
Obama: 49%
Clinton: 42%
Apr 21, 2008 at 4:36 PM by Political Chase
Are people in Pennsylvania really going to fall for this pandering?
On the eve of tomorrow’s make-or-break Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton came to her ancestral home of Scranton this morning armed not with a stump speech, but with a simple declaration: I understand you, because I’m one of you.
And Hillary seems to have forgotten the Constitution, again: "We cared about our families, we cared about our faith."
Apr 21, 2008 at 3:29 PM by David Pleasant
Secretary of Defense Bob Gates slammed the U.S. armed forces in a speech today, which must surely have been prompted by an episode last night on 60 Minutes featuring Green Berets in Afghanistan relating their account of an incredible battle with the Taliban. In addition to describing their courageous and heroic efforts in the perilous battle, the Berets were unequivocal on their perspective of Afghanistan — the Taliban is winning decisively.
One could easily predict the fury that would emanate from the White House, John McSame, and other Republicans if a Democrat, or even worse, a Democratic presidential candidate gave the same speech as Gates:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates chided the U.S. armed forces today for not providing enough intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance help to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying it has been "like pulling teeth" to get the services to change old habits.
Addressing student officers from the U.S. and foreign air forces at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Alabama, Gates expressed frustration with conventional military thinking that he said has been slow to adapt to current threats. He suggested that the U.S. Air Force has not moved fast enough to meet a need for unmanned aircraft, which often can hunt and target enemies more efficiently than piloted planes.
It is hardly coincidental that Gates’ criticism of the military comes the morning after 60 Minutes aired Green Berets emotionally telling their story of being surrounded and embattled by Taliban forces for two days and the futile efforts of the most powerful army in the world to extract them.
CBS: "Not since ‘Black Hawk Down’ in Somalia have we heard a story of a small band of elite American soldiers who were so badly outnumbered and fighting for their lives."
"We’re completely surrounded by Taliban," Ford remembers, hearing the recording. "Every position, the patrol base, the compound."
"So you guys were in real trouble at this point," Logan asks.
"Yes, we were," Ford replies. . . .
After nearly two days of fighting, two men lost and one seriously wounded, the Green Berets were almost out of ammunition. . . .
"The Taliban want to take Afghanistan back. They want to install their government, their system of life," Ford says.
"But, bottom line, a force that was defeated in the invasion is no longer defeated," Logan asks.
"Not at this time," one of the soldiers replies.
"But people will watching this how - wondering how did we get to this point? When this is the army that literally ran from U.S .forces. And now we’re fighting them on this scale?" Logan asks.
"They’ve hid. And they’ve trained," Ford says.
"The kind of training that you use," Logan remarks.
"Right. Absolutely," Ford acknowledges.
"And now I’m sitting here and you’re talking about a force that not only uses American style combat and infantry tactics, but is able to engage America’s finest warriors," Logan remarks.
"That’s correct," one of the soldiers replies.
Watch the video:
Apr 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM by David Pleasant
(update below)
Latest Pennsylvania ad from Karl Rove Hillary Clinton with a special guest appearance from Osama bin Laden.
Watch the video.
Update: Bill Clinton in 2004: "If one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
Apr 21, 2008 at 11:58 AM by David Pleasant
Finances, rather than votes, may be the determining factor in Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. There convention is more than three months away and Clinton has only $9.3 million to spend on the primary, but is burdened with $10.3 million in debt. In other words, she’s $1 million in the red.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is continuing to struggle to stay ahead of its bills, finishing March with just $9.3 million in the bank for the primary, coupled with $10.3 million in debt, according to a report filed last night with the Federal Election Commission.
In contrast, Senator Barack Obama had amassed a $42 million war chest for the primary by the end of March and had less than $700,000 in unpaid bills.
Mrs. Clinton had ended February with $8.7 million in debt. She collected about $20 million in March but spent about $22 million, adding to her pile of unpaid invoices.
Her list of outstanding debts reads like a road map of the nominating contest schedule: $45,908 to World Audio & Lights in San Antonio; $4,600 to Studimo Sound in Motion in Ironton, Ohio; $43,484 to Endeavor Audio and Lighting Services in Dickson City, Pennsylvania. Mrs. Clinton even had outstanding debt from Iowa, the first nominating contest of the season, including $16,260 to Garner Printing in Des Moines.
Apr 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM by David Pleasant
If you watched HBO’s portrayal of John Adams, Jack Rakove of the Washington Post has a superb critique today of the mini-series and appropriately provides perspective that was generally missed in the show.
The seven-part miniseries, based on Adam’s recent favorable biography by David McCullough, made for good drama and was well produced, but fell short on providing some important facts. Paul Giamatti’s performance as Adams was excellent and his superior acting indeed helped bridge some incredible gaps in history the series omitted.
For those that watched the show, and may have not been Adam’s buffs, Rakove’s piece provides insight into areas where I believed the producers relied to heavily on nuance. However, regardless of any gaps in history, or variations from fact, the show is well worth watching, especially for those that are curious about our Founding Fathers and the American Revolution.
Here’s one scene that did not make it into the epic HBO miniseries on the life of John Adams that ends tonight. It is June 23, 1775, and members of the Continental Congress accompany George Washington as he sets off to command the provisional army outside Boston. Adams rides along, then returns to his Philadelphia digs and writes in self-pity to his wife Abigail: I "must leave others to wear the Lawrells which I have sown; others to eat the Bread which I have earned — A Common Case."
Coming at the zenith of the colonists’ revolutionary fervor, two months after Lexington and Concord, this was a stunning statement. It was also classic Adams. At the very moment when selfless feelings of patriotism ran highest, he was already fretting about whether his countrymen and history would treat him fairly, whether his contributions to "the common cause" would be justly recognized.
This outburst of envy and self-doubt — one among so many — goes to the heart of our John Adams problem. Was Adams, as his admiring biographer David McCullough would have it, the one leading founder who has never received his due? Or was he his own worst enemy, succumbing to a temper and vanity unique among his contemporaries? HBO is keen to usher him into the canon, but Adams did a great deal to earn the devastating assessment that has trailed him ever since Benjamin Franklin first quipped it in 1783: "He means well for his Country, and is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
