Thursday’s Mini-Report

July 26, 2007

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama quarrel is still going strong in its fourth day, with Obama goings so far today as to suggest that Clinton may be “Bush-Cheney Lite.” Clinton responded, “You know, I have been called a lot of things in my life, but I have never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. You know you have to ask whatever has happened to the politics of hope?”

* Clinton added, “I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.” Matt Yglesias makes the argument that comments like that suggest Clinton “really does sound like what Bush thinks about these things.”

* For what it’s worth, Mitt Romney and John McCain are sticking up for Clinton’s position on this, and questioning Obama’s judgment. Given the circumstances, I suspect she doesn’t want their help.

* It didn’t get quite as much attention as it deserves, but a presidential commission, led by Donna Shalala and Bob Dole, made a series of substantive recommendations yesterday on how to make “fundamental changes” in the ways in which veterans navigate the convoluted health-care bureaucracy. Most of the changes can be made by executive order — but the White House initially balked at its own commission’s ideas. White House press secretary Tony Snow initially told reporters yesterday that Bush would not act immediately on the panel’s advice. “He’s not going to be making recommendations; he’s not going to be issuing calls for actions,” Snow said. Shortly thereafter, the White House reversed course.

* From my friend Blue Girl: “As if more proof was needed that the Army is broken and George Bush is the vandal that broke it; the Army is lagging both on new recruits and reenlistments. The situation with recruiting shortfalls is so dire – the Army fell 16% short of recruiting goals in June alone – that 1,106 former recruiters have been reassigned and ordered back to recruiting stations throughout the land. The sudden TDY reassignments will run from this coming Friday to 15 October. (FY 2007 ends on 30 September.)”

* Bob Novak thinks Henry Waxman is mean. I’m sure it’ll keep the congressman up at night.

* If you missed it, be sure to check out this great piece today on torture policy from retired Marine Gen. P.X. Kelley and respectable Republican Robert Turner.

* Also in the in-case-you-missed-it category, Josh Marshall still opposes Bush impeachment, but he’s beginning to wonder if we’ve reached a point in which it’s necessary.

* Speaking of impeachment, conservative Cal Thomas and liberal Bob Beckel are discussing the issue over at USA Today. Thomas is open to the possibility, just so long as the inquiry is led by “responsible Republicans and Democrats who no longer hold office. It could be modeled on the Iraq Study Group, or the base closings commission.”

* This may come as a shock, but Fox News really, really hates liberal blogs. I can’t imagine why; liberal blogs always say nice things about Fox News.

* Would you believe Sean Hannity is still talking about Vince Foster? Is it even possible for a person to be more pathetic?

* Were all of the workers building the U.S. Embassy in Iraq there voluntarily? Apparently not. (Nothing says “democratic values” like forced labor.)

* David Broder can’t imagine why governors aren’t rushing to endorse Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney. Maybe because the governors don’t like them that much?

* It’s extremely unusual for me to actually enjoy at a post at RedState, but I thought this was hilarious: “No, Alberto Gonzales should not be offed…. But the man President Bush calls “Fredo”–was a Presidential nickname ever more apt?–should at long last be invited to spend more time with his family. Much more time…. Especially if he suddenly gets a hankering to serve his country once again. In which case, the legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity should move Heaven and Earth to convince Alberto Gonzales that ‘his country’ is Kazakhstan.”

* Ann Coulter’s latest column suggests, “Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday’s Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign,” because the only people it could possibly convince to vote for a Democrat are ‘losers blogging from their mother’s basements.'” Rick Perlstein notes, “Now why ever would Fox care about electing Republicans, given that they’re a news organization in the business of ‘fair and balanced’?”

* And Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), he of the prostitution scandal, told his Senate Republican colleagues yesterday at GOP policy luncheon that he wants to help “rebrand” the party by emphasizing fiscal conservatism. Yes, David Vitter wants to work on the party’s image. Apparently, the audience didn’t have much of a response. Perhaps they appreciated the irony.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

* And Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), he of the prostitution scandal, told his Senate Republican colleagues yesterday at GOP policy luncheon that he wants to help “rebrand” the party by emphasizing fiscal conservatism. Yes, David Vitter wants to work on the party’s image. Apparently, the audience didn’t have much of a response. Perhaps they appreciated the irony.

LOL Perhaps a scarlet letter should be branded on the Party. The heck with the Republicans and the whores they rode in on.

  • * For what it’s worth, Mitt Romney and John McCain are sticking up for Clinton’s position on this, and questioning Obama’s judgment. Given the circumstances, I suspect she doesn’t want their help.

    🙂 That’s as bad as JSR, Jr supporting Tom Cleaver.

  • * Also in the in-case-you-missed-it category, Josh Marshall still opposes Bush impeachment, but he’s beginning to wonder if we’ve reached a point in which it’s necessary.

    Josh Marshall needs to shite or get off the pot. He can’t decide whether to be wishy or washy on the issue.

  • * Speaking of impeachment, conservative Cal Thomas and liberal Bob Beckel are discussing the issue over at USA Today. Thomas is open to the possibility, just so long as the inquiry is led by “responsible Republicans and Democrats who no longer hold office conducted it. It could be modeled on the Iraq Study Group, or the base closings commission.”

    Well, sure, the same courtesy they showed Bill Clinton.

  • It didn’t get quite as much attention as it deserves, but a presidential commission, led by Donna Shalala and Bob Dole, made a series of substantive recommendations yesterday on how to make “fundamental changes” in the ways in which veterans navigate the convoluted health-care bureaucracy.

    Er, it was the lead page-one story in today’s New York Times. That’s not attention? Just because the blogosphere was more interested in Scott Thomas….

  • I think Obama is probably just saying this stuff perhaps because he feels like things have been subtly shifting in Hillary’s favor, and he really wants to be president, so he wants to cut it off at the beginning.

    Haven’t been keeping up with this; this is just my initial reaction after reading the bit on it in this post.

  • The folks at RedState may have accidentally uttered a truth on par with Coulter’s. The way this week has gone for Bush, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gonzo’s bloody cadaver showed up in the White House’s traditional Friday afternoon dump.

  • Obama is correct. Clinton is indeed Cheney/Bush lite in that she has fairly deep ties to some mighty big Corporations. Have you noted how she steers away from the corporatism topic?

  • Ann Coulter’s latest column suggests, “Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday’s Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign,” because the only people it could possibly convince to vote for a Democrat are ‘losers blogging from their mother’s basements.’”

    It is more of a mAnn than I’ll ever be.

    I wonder if a Corporate Military-Industrial Media-enabled psychopath throwing stones from an illegally-pouched ivory tower could possibly convince another serial psychopath to vote ReThug. I suppose so, since they both have the same authoritarian daddy after all.

  • Hillary said she didn’t want to be used for propaganda. Obama should have just said there’s more to diplomacy than photo-ops.

  • Equating prostitution with the Republican party does a distinct disservice to the oldest profession.

  • Would you believe Sean Hannity is still talking about Vince Foster? Is it even possible for a person to be more pathetic?

    Yes. You could be sitting in front of a TV watching Sean Hannity talking about Vince Foster, and waving your hands in the air, and going “Wooo! Wooo! Sean RAWKS!”

    And there are damn near enough of them to elect a President.

    Oh, and Obama’s right. Humphrey in ’68 knew he was selling his soul to the Washington Wise Men for the nomination — you could see it in his face. It was killing him.

    What doth it profit a man to wow the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies, the and lose his — or her — immortal soul?

  • maybe someday soon a map will appear on abu g.’s desk – a map with directions to fort marcy park.

  • Obama is overreacting, I should say

    It didn’t get quite as much attention as it deserves, but a presidential commission, led by Donna Shalala and Bob Dole, made a series of substantive recommendations yesterday on how to make “fundamental changes” in the ways in which veterans navigate the convoluted health-care bureaucracy. Most of the changes can be made by executive order — but the White House initially balked at its own commission’s ideas. White House press secretary Tony Snow

    “Helping people? The hell with that!’

    “Oh, wait…”

    Er, it was the lead page-one story in today’s New York Times. That’s not attention? Just because the blogosphere was more interested in Scott Thomas….

    Well, was it anywhere else? The NYT is not exactly everyman’s paper; most people probably get a more local one

  • I’m with Obama in this fight. And I’m actually impressed he’s still standing up to Hils machine. She is Bush-Lite, corporatist triangulating DLC tool.

    I predict we’ll see Gonzo’s bloodied corpse on the top of a Friday night news dump also. But I don’t think it will happen until Senate goes on recess, so W cam get a recess appointed AG. KKKarl Rove knows that an appointment hearing would be amazingly difficult minefeild for anyone to maneuver through. And whoever the new Senate approved AG was, he’d be required to investigate the administration. And how could Unka KKKarl convince any sane sentient human being to agree to be grilled on the Senates roasting spit? Not gonna happen.

    Note to Harry Reid: Keep Jim Webb and a few other not up for re-election Senators in DC and don’t recess…….That would drive the Rethugs batty!

  • I’m still waiting for any of the Democratic candidates to add their voices to call for a Special Counsel to investigate Gonzales. I know that they can’t sign the letter but it would certainly be nice to hear from them.

  • I posted this on my own blog and at TPM, but what the hell… I do think Sen. Clinton is “Bush/Cheney Lite,” but not for the reason Obama thinks. Dee Loralei at #16 is closer to the mark here. Like those institutional interests whose support she will command, Sen. Clinton offers no challenge or question to the increasingly problematic foundational premises of American foreign policy:

    1) Our unmatched power essentially gives us the right to do what we want, when we want

    2) We should not be held responsible for our own past actions, and they bear no relation to what goes on now (e.g. Iranian distrust of U.S. actions and intentions is in no way justified by the fact that we staged a coup in their country more than 50 years ago, replacing a democratically elected government with a repressive tyrant)

    3) Nobody worries about the larger budgetary and systemic (as in the ramifications for our democracy at home) consequences of our de facto empire except some weenie academics and losers who hang out on the Internets

    It probably can be argued that the only candidate in the race on either side who’s even thinking about these issues is the renegade Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul. And, of course, he’s a nut on myriad other grounds.

    But I have vastly more faith that Obama at least might grapple with these issues than that Hillary Clinton–the chosen candidate of the Establishment, the most likely to embrace the Bush/Cheney vision of Executive Superpowers, and the Senator who didn’t even bother to read the intel on Iraq because she’d made up her mind to cast the “right” political vote–ever will.

    If you think it’s important to even question the premises of how we Americans act in the world, and you’re concerned about the sustainability and morality of the “empire” Bush/Cheney have proudly and consciously made of us, you shouldn’t be supporting Clinton.

  • A suggestion for the debacle of recess appointments: Develop an online version of a Senate session. Defend this hairbrained scheme as a way to decentralize the Senate, dispersing its membership throughout the homeland sop as to prevent a concentrated terorist attack on the entire chamber. Openly accuse all GOP members of the body that they’re “incredulously soft on terrorism” if they oppose this move.

    If I can participate in a WebCT college course with a professor in one state and twenty other students in twenty other states, then by gods, the Senate can do the same damned thing! Take that, you O’Reilly bundist uberschweinen ReThugs you!

  • Mitt Romney and John McCain are sticking up for Clinton’s position on this, and questioning Obama’s judgment…

    The Republicans are dying to run against Hillary Clinton. They don’t know what they’d do if they had to run against Obama.

  • Isn’t it possible that Yglesias is reading way too much into the words “power and prestige”? And if he isn’t, then where is she so wrong?

  • actually, dajafi, i would argue that the least establishment candidate, or at least the most likely to challenge entrenched interests, among the non-nutjobs (by which I rule out Ron Paul, Denny K and Mike Gravel) is John Edwards. (1) he is the one that has dragged the candidates kicking and screaming to the issue of poverty, (2) trial lawyers – although a special interest in their own right – and corporatists are sworn enemies, (3) he has spent the least time in the belly of the beast – a case where inexperieince may actually be a positive if you really want an outsider.

  • The congressional democrats are having a great media time pointing fingers at the bushie’s for a endless stream of wrong doing which is pretty easy to do given the past 7 years but they are not creating the impression that they are doing much to move the country in any new directions from balancing the budget, defense, Medical care, Ag policy you name it. Other then the PR blitz the first few weeks its back to raising money and making connections with the corporate elite which plays great in DC but woun’t count on main street.

  • Obama exaggerates. Both Clintons are moderate Republicans. The fact that Bush/Cheney are lunatics does not change that.

  • It’s one thing for Obama to dig in deeper and escalate a fight when he’s right, it’s quite another thing for him to do so when he ‘s wrong.

    And he is so very wrong here.

    That Obama agreed to meet separately with Enemies of the State, without preconditions, within the first year of his Presidency clearly demonstrates just how unprepared he is for the office.

    Further, to pronounce yourself the best foreign policy mind among the entire Presidential field, is just absurd.

    Absurd bordering on nutty.

  • The Banner says: Reality-Based Commentary, Analysis, and Tirades on Politics in America

    Time for a tirade:

    Good for Hillary!

    I can’t think of anything better for Cuba than a continuation of the policy of not allowing Americans to spend money there.

    That policy has saved that island from looking everywhere like this: R Crumb’s History of America in 12 panels.

    I am almost tempted to vote for Shrill.
    Almost…
    But she has absolutely got to promise: NO AMERICANS IN CUBA!
    (sotto voce: or they won’t vote for you in S. Florida will they Shrill?)

    Suggestion to Hillary: Since Amiercans can’t possibly improve Cuba…
    Perhaps you can put your folk to work on improving the Moon and Mars.
    You Americans can do anything! [insert democracy-in-Iraq chuckle here]
    Hill.. have you thought about the space program?
    Are you going to take us to the Moon and Mars too?
    Like Bushie?
    Because you know what?
    If I had to get on that &*!%tty Space Shuttle… I’d get pie-eyed plastered too…

    Like the name says:

  • Can’t say I blame Obama. My first thought on reading the transcripts (I didn’t see the debates) was also that Hilary’s answer was Bush-lite; “I’ll talk to them, provided I know precisely, ahead of time, what they’re gonna say. And provided they’re gonna say what I want to hear. Otherwise, screw them”

    And you’d have to be nuts, to think that he’d, literally, rush off to Havana and have a tete-a-tete with the two Castros, over tea, without first having his Dept of State do the spade work.

    This said, I’m getting tired of this spat. Can’t we talk about Edwards’ haircut instead?

  • Re: zeitgeist @ #23
    …among the non-nutjobs (by which I rule out Ron Paul, Denny K and Mike Gravel)…

    Thanks for insulting Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel and their supporters one more time. And I don’t think that it’s any coincidence that they are the three current candidates who seem to be sincerely concerned for our Constitutional Republic and are not standing on the sidelines of the current constitutional crisis as it were.

    While I appreciate that you have a monopoly on The Truth, and your personal insults speak volumes to your credibility and sensitivity, I disagree that we should respect what you have to say just because you say so or you’ll call us names.

    Your anti-democratic trip on the ideological speed-ball of political solidarity and political calculation dashes my hopes for American Democracy. Everything that you say seems to be contrary to everything that I find inspiring about American political discourse. If I were not as strong willed as I am, I would be turned off to the brand of politics that you preach.

    Luckily, I can be a Secular Progressive and not subscribe to the Democratic Church of Zeitgeist or genuflect to its High Priest, zeitgeist.

  • The Clintons are getting defamed over here.

    Hillary Clinton is trying to get elected president. There are a lot of people in this country, not just you and me. Some people are not as smart as us, some people are capable of seeing the world only more simply, and some are real hard-nosed law-and-order people. They’re always thinking, maybe one of the easiest ways to make the world better is just find all the badguys, round ’em all up, and stop them, and don’t let anything- any formalities or technicalities- stand in the way of that. It’s really hard to win people over who see things this way, because it seems real simple and they see us as standing in the way of this. But we should not be, and they should see us for what we are- for making it as easy as possible to get the real badguys, and as hard as possible to fuck with, or make a mistake and bother, innocent people. Right now, they just think we care about making it hard to get the badguys caught when a practical approach can lead to catching them. Hillary is saying to these people, “Hey, don’t work against me, and when the general election comes, take me seriously. I’m not saying one thing for the general, and it’s different than what I said in the primaries.” She’s showing them all that she’s not some parody of a liberal fangirl who’s just going to gladly rush into the arms of any dictator who calls himself a socialist and gush over him.

    We can do everything these people want to do as far as fighting terrorism better than they could. But right now they see as a bunch of klutzy, falling-all-over-themselves morons. It may be futile, and I’m nost suggesting that it is, but I understand what Hillary is trying to do, and I think if you do, too, it’s hard not to respect it.

  • Nice, JKap: you perceive zeitgeist as insulting the Holy Fools–of whom Paul is the only one I’d even consider supporting, as I’m not 100 percent sure he’s batsh*t crazy–so you insult zeitgeist. Must be nice to be so righteous in your leftitude that you can give the finger to people who agree with you on 95 percent of the issues you claim to care about.

    I suspect that’s why people like you, and those you support, are so devastatingly successful winning democratic elections. Oh, wait…

    zeitgeist, I appreciate Edwards for his focus on economic justice. But I think he panders on foreign policy–it’s either Get Out Now or Start Another War, depending on his audience–and I find his gay marriage position beneath contempt (and as shameless a pander as anything Hillary offers up). I honestly wish Elizabeth were the candidate.

  • …just so long as the inquiry is led by “responsible Republicans and Democrats who no longer hold office…

    Well DeLay is certainly available for this duty as is Gingrich. Porter Goss would be a choice as would Hastert when he retires shortly. “responsible Republicans…who no longer hold office” is an amusing phrase.

  • Obama is in some difficulty on stating his willingness to meet with leaders of countries that we don’t like. In reality, his response is correct, although the explanation is too intricate to counteract the initial impression Hillary emphasized.

    By “pre-conditions” the questioner undoubtedly meant insurmountable ones such as fair and free elections in Syria. These act as barriers to any diplomatic discourse. And, as Obama pointed out later, there would be planning before any meeting.

    If these were real debates with time for exchanges between candidates these points would have become clear. But they are not and, in the meantime, Obama must be alert for the appropriate, firm soundbites.

    homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

  • “:-) That’s as bad as JSR, Jr supporting Tom Cleaver.”

    If Hillary gets the nod and Tommy choses not to vote in the Presidential election, he will find himself having more than a few friends to the right of him!

    Tommy, I have an idea for you: Write in Ned Lamont!

  • Why the hell wouldn’t Bush/the administration want to take the Dole/Shalala recommendations and run with the ASAP? That makes no sense. The only thing I can think of is that this was something that came from the outside and a – gasp – Democrat was involved, therefore it was suspect. What the hell is wrong with these people? This could have been a little bit of good PR, or at least “we are fixing the problem” PR, and they had to turn it into a misstep that didn’t have to be. It is almost like they are trying to look like idiots on purpose.

  • With all due respect to Matt Yglesias, one would have to have been seriously not paying attention to anything Mrs. Clinton said, or else viewing the world through distinctly Obama-tinted lenses to arrive at that conclusion. (Of course the latter may tend to lead to a certain predisposition for the former, I’ve observed.)

    For crying out loud. the kid bobbled a question in a debate and one of his opponents made a little hay on it. Welcome to politics. But the more Obama attempts to demonize Clinton’s perfectly reasonable and measured position on the subject, the more he jeopardizes his potential as a general election candidate (and by extension, in the early primary states where voters do care about that sort of thing) by making himself look more and more the dictator-coddling wussy on foreign policy.

    And you know Clinton’s just going to keep egging him on as long as he keeps rising to the bait. She’s in this thing to win. As long as he wants to go on burnishing her credentials as a tough-minded centrist, she’s not going to be the one to put the brakes on.

  • So THAT’s how the Iraqi embassy is being built on budget!
    Genius!

    Clinton a moderate Republican? Would McCain and Romney support her if she was? I think not! She’s a liberals liberal progressive! At least, they’ll say so the second she wins the nomination. For now, she’s their favorite… for some reason. Don’t think about it too much. Please.

  • The reason Mrs. Clinton is the darling of the Republican wanabes is simple. They think she gives them the best chance to win in 2008. politics is about contrasts and Hilary is definitely closer to their positions than Obama, or Edwards!

    • Comments are closed.