In a nifty bit of editing by her campaign, Hillary Clinton sounds
very independent of her husband in this snippet from last night’s
debate. (When she was surprised to learn that, unlike her, he had
supported torture in a terrorism hypoethetical.) Actually, she wouldn’t
say if contributors to the Clinton Presidential Library should be
disclosed, an obvious question, saying she’ll have to talk with him.
** MORRIS QUESTIONS FOR HILLARY. Dick Morris, the Clintons’ chief political strategist in the former president’s 1996 re-election campaign, was once one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s greatest political friends. Now the two quite obviously detest one another. That said, here are some questions that Morris has for the former first lady/New York senator/Democratic presidential frontrunner: Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?
After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?
(As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn’t you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?
Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay. In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn’t you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?
** EDWARDS REVERSES COURSE, TAKES PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS. With his fundraising lagging far behind that of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, former Senator and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee John Edwards will take federal matching funds for his presidential campaign. It’s a good way to inject funds into a campaign. But it does impose spending limits in each state. Which he may be close to in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation contest which he must win. Yet, having done Iowa in the past, I know there are ways around this. You can buy TV time on stations which are just out of state but have many Iowa viewers. You can rent cars in bordering states. And so on.
** A NEW RADIO SHOW. Incidentally, you might want to check out a national radio show I’m doing. It’s on XM Satellite Radio, on the POTUS08 (POTUS = President Of The United States) channel, which is Channel 130, and it’s called “PJM Political.”
In addition to being an on-air political analyst about presidential politics, which was the original idea, it turns out that I’m also the show’s co-host. It’s a weekly, hour-long show that airs this afternoon at 3 PM Pacific time, 6 PM Eastern time, with several subsequent airings during the following week.
** MOVEON.ORG, THE CLINTONS, AND A SENSE OF HISTORY. OR NOT. One of the intriguing facets of the dust-up over MoveOn.org and its condemned-by-Congress New York Times ad attacking General David Petraeus is the concerted Republican effort to use the controversy to go after Hillary Clinton. They are clearly trying to energize a base, that has many reasons to be dispirited, by stirring it up around their long-time bete noires the Clintons.
But I’ve been amused by what they haven’t said as they labor to create the Clinton-MoveOn linkage. Namely, that the linkage is an historic one. While the focus has changed over the years, MoveOn.org was literally founded as a support group for the Clintons.
In fact, the very title “Move On” comes from the insistence that critics of the Clintons should “move on” from their fixation with the scandals of the Clintons in the 1990s. Most notably, the impeachment controversy around the then president’s dalliance with intern Monica Lewinsky.
I’m surprised that the Giuliani campaign and other critics haven’t mentioned that. I haven’t seen it reported elsewhere.
** HILLARY CONTRADICTED HERSELF, AS WELL AS BILL, ON THE “TICKING TIME BOMB” SCENARIO. In the clip above, edited from debate footage by the Clinton campaign, Hillary Clinton distinguishes her position on torturing a terrorist with detailed knowledge of an imminent attack from that of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The former president, a big fan of the hit TV thriller, 24, in which agent Jack Bauer has frequently tortured a terrorist to foil an attack, allowed last year as how he would be open to doing that. Last night, Hillary Clinton said she was not. But the New York Daily News reveals that she, too, expressed the same view as her husband last year. And that her campaign would not comment on the contradiction.
** HILLARY PUMMELED IN DEMOCRATIC DEBATE. With a polished performance, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton emerged unbowed from last night’s debate in New Hampshire. Nevertheless, her opponents, most notably John Edwards, who won the debate, scored against her. And the New York senator and former first lady demonstrated a penchant for avoiding answering questions. If she’s not careful, she will develop a problem with the press — which in my view has been largely for her candidacy — that could signicantly affect the dynamic of the race.
Edwards drew clear distinctions with Clinton on Iraq and Iran. On Iraq, he said that her continuation of combat missions there would be a continuation of the war. (She says the combat missions would be limited to dealing with terrorists such as Al Qaeda.) On Iran, he said that her backing for a Senate resolution designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is helping President George W. Bush build the case for war with Iran.
While Edwards sparkled in this Democratic primary debate, while perhaps causing problems for a potential general election campaign, Barack Obama, who wasn’t bad, did not. After a spirited beginning, it was a relatively quiet night for him. He suffered from a bad cold. Also having their moments were Joe Biden, whose proposal to partition Iraq won overwhelming support yesterday in a non-binding Senate measure, and Bill Richardson, who promises to get US troops out of Iraq faster than any other serious candidate.
** GIULIANI CATCHES ROMNEY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE POLL. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s lead in the neighboring New Hampshire Republican presidential primary has disappeared in the near CNN/WMUR poll by the University of New Hampshire. It’s now Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 18%, and Fred Thompson. Romney, whose TV advertising in the early states has gone essentially unanswered, had led for months — and by a whopping 14 points two months ago — but the former New York mayor has caught him. And McCain is on the rise again, having been at 12% in the previous poll in July. Romney continues to lead in Iowa.
** SCHWARZENEGGER IN MEXICO. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in Mexico today and tomorrow, for the annual Border Governors Conference, which he will chair next year in California. Schwarzenegger joins the governors of and top officials from Arizona, Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, New Mexico, Sonora, Tamaulipas and Texas. Over the next two days, they’ll address a variety of issues including agriculture, security, economic development, education, energy, environment, health and tourism.
“There are pressing issues, like global warming, improving trade and enhancing border security and goods movement that demand our continued cooperation and innovative approaches, as we search for solutions that go beyond our borders. I look forward to hosting next year’s conference in California and continuing the spirited debate on these important issues,” said Schwarzenegger in a statement last night before leaving for Mexico.
** AL QAEDA’S AMERICAN PRISONERS STILL NOT LOCATED. American troops are now in the midst of a 134th day of searching for the remaining two US soldiers captured by Al Qaeda in an ambush south of Baghdad. They have had no luck so far. A video put out by Al Qaeda forces in Iraq claims that all three men were executed after being captured. But, with the exception of the Californian found floating in the Euphrates River, that claim can’t be confirmed. The US high command in Baghdad has revealed that ID cards for the other two American prisoners were found in an Al Qaeda safehouse on June 9th.
** Track global and national energy prices in near real time via Bloomberg. Crude oil prices are moving back up, around $82 per barrel.
Your posts are welcome in the Forum.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Editing can say anything.
Editing can say anything.
Schwarzeneger’s on the road again. lol
Is there a webcast?
No webcast.
Hillary has an issue to deal with.
>Jonas Blane :
Editing can say anything.
Sep 27, 2007 08:53 AM
Edwards did do well.
How about that crazy Republican race. Whose going to step up and win that?
Mrs. Clinton was unaccountably smug last night. She acted as if she is already the President.
That is an historically good way to not become the President.
Mrs. Clinton was unaccountably smug last night. She acted as if she is already the President.
That is an historically good way to not become the President.
Sorry for the double- posting.
It’s pretty open. But Giuliani’s move in New Hampshire could be a difference maker. Meanwhile, he has problems of his own on other fronts.
>How about that crazy Republican race. Whose going to step up and win that?
Sep 27, 2007 09:37 AM
It’s pretty open. But Giuliani’s move in New Hampshire could be a difference maker. Meanwhile, he has problems of his own on other fronts.
>How about that crazy Republican race. Whose going to step up and win that?
Sep 27, 2007 09:37 AM
That’s true.
>Jonathan Hemlock :
Mrs. Clinton was unaccountably smug last night. She acted as if she is already the President.
That is an historically good way to not become the President.
Sep 27, 2007 09:56 AM
My impression of the exchange between Hillary and Russert was that it had been pre-arranged.
Why do you think that?
He went at her a number of times in the debate, and she seemed miffed, telling him “Social Security is your issue.”
Then it turns out, since I wrote this early this AM, that she actually flip-flopped on the torture issue!
>Hap Hazard :
My impression of the exchange between Hillary and Russert was that it had been pre-arranged.
Sep 27, 2007 10:14 AM
Hillary sounds like a big phoney flip flopping like that.
She suffered some media erosion last night.
Oh no. The Bill Bradley Show! I knew this was getting out of control. lol
I wonder if Obama will “peak too early”? I’ve actually been more impressed with his comments on foreign policy than Edwards’, the last month or so. I would be very happy with him or Edwards as candidate. I just think that unless we can get Hillary to fall from first place in the national polls (in which case I think she loses her aura of inevitability, and collapses), we’ll need to have a clear second-place alternate choice, to rally everyone who is worried about her as the general election candidate. If we go into the primaries with both Edwards and Obama as serious contenders, I think they’re likely to prevent each other from beating Hil…
Obama hasn’t peaked.
Why thank you!
>Ann :
Oh no. The Bill Bradley Show! I knew this was getting out of control. lol
Sep 27, 2007 12:21 PM
I’m on XM. I’ll check you out.
Satellite radio? I have a relative that used to have a radio show in San Francisco! Wow…I am impressed:)
Now I will tell the husband, I need a new car that has satellite radio.
It’s a whole new media. XM has 8 million subscribers.
It’s a whole new media. XM has 8 million subscribers.
Great!
>Jonas Blane :
I’m on XM. I’ll check you out.
Sep 27, 2007 01:24 PM
The problem with the MoveOn ad dust-up and the bipartisan attack against it is that it distracts from the real issue: Patraeus already DID betray us!
He has played a role in arming various militias in Iraq who are basically terrorist adjuncts to the US Military (like the Blackwater mercenaries).
Reports worth checking out are:
Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge, By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) – In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
>>
Democracy Now!
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007
EXCLUSIVE Report From Iraq: U.S. Fueling Sectarian Civil War in Anbar by Funding Former Insurgents to Fight Al Qaeda
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about General Petraeus’s report, we’re joined by filmmaker and journalist Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films. He has just returned from Iraq, where he closely tracked the situation in Anbar province. … your comments on the testimony of Ambassador Crocker, Rick, and General Petraeus.
RICK ROWLEY: Well, when General Petraeus says that they’re merely applauding these tribes from the sidelines, he’s lying. I mean, while we were embedded with the Americans, we saw American military commanders hand wads of cash to tribal militias. And when he says that they are facilitating their integration into the country’s security forces, what he means is they’re pressuring Iraq’s government to incorporate these militias wholesale into the police forces. In fact, that’s one of the promises that these tribes are given, that after working with the Americans for a few months, they’ll become Iraqi police, be armed by the Iraqi state and be put on regular payroll. So it’s completely disingenuous, what he’s saying.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1424208
I wish DOJ and FCC would make up their minds about the Sirius/XM merger. I’m one of the millions stuck on the sidelines on satellite radio because I’m reluctant to be one of the early adopters who bought a Betamax.
Latest Flash Report Klown Show:
“Does anyone CARE what this guy has to say?”
“SacBee: Garamendi pushing new college strategy”
Plump Jonny Flashman cares because Garamendi whipped his Idol Tom McClintock. lol
Paull, really. Admiral Fallon clearly has very serious doubts about the course in Iraq.
However, having been in the Navy, I really don’t think that he called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chicken shit.”
This is the sort of over-the-top junk that ruins the left in this country.
>Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
And by the way, Paul, you’ve somehow managed to fuck up my Forum section with all this bolding.
I don’t have time to run it down.
Thank you very much.
Take a break for a day.
I’m blissfully ignorant about all that, other than to know that XM bought Sirius and has 8 million subscribers.
>wilbur :
I wish DOJ and FCC would make up their minds about the Sirius/XM merger. I’m one of the millions stuck on the sidelines on satellite radio because I’m reluctant to be one of the early adopters who bought a Betamax.
Sep 27, 2007 01:57 PM
Satellites? Radio? What’s that?
Director Rob Reiner has endorsed Clinton…Yeah! I didn’t know Reiner directed “A Few Good Men”?….loved that movie.
Although agreed to by the companies, the merger still must be approved by FCC and DOJ antitrust div. There was talk of consolidating the two incompatible formats into a single format once the merger consummated, ending the present VHS/Betamax hardware dilemma. I might guess it would end up being XM’s technology which goes forward and that it’s the Sirius receivers that would end up being Betamaxes in a few years, but I have been holding my breath waiting to see how it plays out before investing $$ in a receiver. But I did just learn an intriguing new reason today why I should quit waiting and take the XM plunge!
Actually, Paul’s Times New Leftie font is a little easier to read.
How would I listen in Russia?
Speaking of “media erosion,” here you go…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_po/debate_clinton_s_evasions;_ylt=ArXZ6ByQp8.F.wono67tuq.s0NUE
The AP story’s lead is “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign slogan is ‘Ready for Change, Ready to Lead’ yet she has adopted the time-honored, front-runner strategy of dodging tough questions, contradicting the image of a strong leader.”
Speaking of “media erosion,” here you go…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_po/debate_clinton_s_evasions;_ylt=ArXZ6ByQp8.F.wono67tuq.s0NUE
The AP story’s lead is “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign slogan is ‘Ready for Change, Ready to Lead’ yet she has adopted the time-honored, front-runner strategy of dodging tough questions, contradicting the image of a strong leader.”
Exactly.
Unfortunately, I don’t know. I’ll check into it.
>sergei :
How would I listen in Russia?
Sep 27, 2007 03:06 PM
Yet most people object to BOLD FACE.
wilbur :
Actually, Paul’s Times New Leftie font is a little easier to read.
Sep 27, 2007 02:51 PM
XM is the dominant company, having acquired Sirius.
>wilbur :
Although agreed to by the companies, the merger still must be approved by FCC and DOJ antitrust div. There was talk of consolidating the two incompatible formats into a single format once the merger consummated, ending the present VHS/Betamax hardware dilemma. I might guess it would end up being XM’s technology which goes forward and that it’s the Sirius receivers that would end up being Betamaxes in a few years, but I have been holding my breath waiting to see how it plays out before investing $$ in a receiver. But I did just learn an intriguing new reason today why I should quit waiting and take the XM plunge!
Sep 27, 2007 02:50 PM
On the other hand, I believe there’s also an online alternative. But I have something else new going on, so I’m not entirely up to speed.
Unknown.
>Capitol Boy :
Satellites? Radio? What’s that?
Sep 27, 2007 02:22 PM
I have no idea why part of my post was bolded. It didn’t appear that way when previewed; and why would every other post afterward be affected? Perhaps Michael Ledeen is in the shadows again, doing his dirty tricks, since no one reads his blog.
I believe Patreaus, like Rumsfeld, Rice, and others, have betrayed us – they have given us endless war and destruction, a culture of lies and abuse of power, and need to be prosecuted as the war criminals they are.
It’s a merger of two discrete customer bases which the surviving company obviously wants to hold on to. In their FCC filings XM and Sirius submitted a la carte pricing plans which would permit consumers to pick a melange of XM and Sirius channels. But neither’s receivers can receive the other one’s signal, and there’s a techie dispute raging over whether they can compress signal enough to shift all that programming to one system. And if they DID shift everything to one transmission format, one or the other’s “legacy” receivers would become paperweights, and a lot of those burned customers would choose not to invest another few hundred to convert. Because their original FCC licenses required them to, the two have funded development of an “interoperable” receiver technology which could deal with both formats. But millions of new cars – their only big growth sector in subscribership – have receivers that aren’t inoperable and, being buried in dashboards, would be very costly to replace. Or maybe they ARE secretly interoperable…. Tech journals are abuzz with speculation that some newer generation receivers actually have the technology and just need a firmware update. But nobody seems to know for sure. XM and Sirius are being mum just how they would accomplish interoperability. It’s less than clear which existing receivers may be obsoleted by the transition, but pretty clear that some will.
Well, if Hillary Clinton can’t answer those questions I don’t see how she can be the President.
Here’s more re: Patreaus betrayus:
Well-worth a read as this traitor is responsible for fomenting civil war in Iraq by arming several factions.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/12/1410237
To talk more about the Petraeus hearings, Arun Gupta joins us … He’s a reporter and editor of The Indypendent, a bimonthly newspaper based here in New York. His most recent article is called “Meet Gen. David Petraeus: His Militia Strategy Plunged Iraq Into a Civil War, And Now He’s Back for More.”
Well, Wilbur, you’re outlinging the early adopter scenario, which I’ve learned over the years through hard and expensive experience and to largely avoid.
I’m not up to speed on all this. I remember the two-year product cycles when I worked with regis McKenna, which meant I could be on top of the tech, media, and politics.
I remember wowing Gray Davis with my killer combo of a Mac SE, a laser printer, and a fax machine.
Now. I work to stay up to speed on the information flow, as I take on another project I haven’t mentioned.
BTW, the show I am told will be available in a few days online.
>wilbur :
It’s a merger of two discrete customer bases which the surviving company obviously wants to hold on to. In their FCC filings XM and Sirius submitted a la carte pricing plans which would permit consumers to pick a melange of XM and Sirius channels. But neither’s receivers can receive the other one’s signal, and there’s a techie dispute raging over whether they can compress signal enough to shift all that programming to one system. And if they DID shift everything to one transmission format, one or the other’s “legacy” receivers would become paperweights, and a lot of those burned customers would choose not to invest another few hundred to convert. Because their original FCC licenses required them to, the two have funded development of an “interoperable” receiver technology which could deal with both formats. But millions of new cars – their only big growth sector in subscribership – have receivers that aren’t inoperable and, being buried in dashboards, would be very costly to replace. Or maybe they ARE secretly interoperable…. Tech journals are abuzz with speculation that some newer generation receivers actually have the technology and just need a firmware update. But nobody seems to know for sure. XM and Sirius are being mum just how they would accomplish interoperability. It’s less than clear which existing receivers may be obsoleted by the transition, but pretty clear that some will.
Sep 27, 2007 04:07 PM
Well, Wilbur, you’re outlinging the early adopter scenario, which I’ve learned over the years through hard and expensive experience and to largely avoid.
I’m not up to speed on all this. I remember the two-year product cycles when I worked with regis McKenna, which meant I could be on top of the tech, media, and politics.
I remember wowing Gray Davis with my killer combo of a Mac SE, a laser printer, and a fax machine.
Now. I work to stay up to speed on the information flow, as I take on another project I haven’t mentioned.
BTW, the show I am told will be available in a few days online.
>wilbur :
It’s a merger of two discrete customer bases which the surviving company obviously wants to hold on to. In their FCC filings XM and Sirius submitted a la carte pricing plans which would permit consumers to pick a melange of XM and Sirius channels. But neither’s receivers can receive the other one’s signal, and there’s a techie dispute raging over whether they can compress signal enough to shift all that programming to one system. And if they DID shift everything to one transmission format, one or the other’s “legacy” receivers would become paperweights, and a lot of those burned customers would choose not to invest another few hundred to convert. Because their original FCC licenses required them to, the two have funded development of an “interoperable” receiver technology which could deal with both formats. But millions of new cars – their only big growth sector in subscribership – have receivers that aren’t inoperable and, being buried in dashboards, would be very costly to replace. Or maybe they ARE secretly interoperable…. Tech journals are abuzz with speculation that some newer generation receivers actually have the technology and just need a firmware update. But nobody seems to know for sure. XM and Sirius are being mum just how they would accomplish interoperability. It’s less than clear which existing receivers may be obsoleted by the transition, but pretty clear that some will.
Sep 27, 2007 04:07 PM