n a t b s

There’s an article in Politico today entitled “What Clinton wishes she could say,” of which the basic premise is that Hillary has been holding her tongue on several issues that the Republicans will use to destroy Obama:

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

I don’t know what campaign John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei have been following but clearly it’s not this one. Hey guys, want to see me deflate your entire article with a few quotes? Ok here goes, regarding his “radioactive personal associations,” ie rev Wright and Rezko:

He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend. [ptr]

I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco[sic], in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago. [cnn]

She’s clearly not been hands off with his personal associations. What about his exotic life story?

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said. [politico]

Subtle? Yes. But is she staying quiet on this “issue?” No. Let’s keep going, what about his “academic and elitist style?”

I think his comments were elitist and divisive and the Democratic Party has been unfortunately, viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch

Wrong again Politico! And finally, his liberal ideology, the one issue his Democratic opponent and colleauge, couldn’t possibly criticize him on…right? Wrong. As anyone who’s been reading this blog knows, she has totally been criticizing Obama for being too liberal:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past [washpo]

Well there you have it, Politico is completely wrong. Hillary has been attacking Obama on every one of the issues this article claims she can’t touch. Kind of sad really, as it illustrates how Hillary is playing this just like a Republican would. Hell, maybe he’ll do better against McCain because he’ll use the same attacks, but Obama will be able to point out way more policy contrasts between himself and McCain than himself and Hilldawg. And the fact that he’s been doing so well despite all these cheap attacks may demonstrate that he’s more than ready to take on grandpa in the election. If only he didn’t have a prominent Democrat constantly undermining him, he could be trouncing McCain right now.

There’s this new trend lately, to blame the Iraqis for the problems over there, and I think it’s kind of disgusting. This is from an article in BBC News:

Limited patience

The reconstruction of Iraq also relies heavily on US money, while Iraqi oil revenues are growing, with a surplus estimated at $30bn in US banks according to Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat and chairman of the armed services committee.

Democrats want to try to push legislation that would force Iraq to spend those revenues on reconstruction and in that there seems to be unusual bi-partisan agreement. Republican senators also asked why the Iraqis were not using more of their own money.

Republican Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming said: “We’re a generous people but our patience is not unlimited.”

Unless you control a country, you can’t really force it to spend it’s own money can you? But I guess it’s easy when you’ve installed it’s government, occupy it, and have all it’s money in your banks. Hey, why aren’t they using their own money? I mean, we’re generous, but come on.

Also, we’re generous? In some cases we are, but not with respect to Iraq. You can’t say that with respect to Iraq. That’s as absurd as it is offensive. We’re the aggressive invaders who now occupy and control their country with no mandate. Except, of course, that we’re bringing democracy to them as a gift from God. But other than that, no mandate.

It’s just crazy to lay the blame at their feet. They’ve inherited an impossible situation from us. Kind of like the next president is going to from Bush. I hope he can handle it. Speaking of Obama, he just said today: “it is time to bring them home, and to ask the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country.” That’s edging into this territory and it makes me uncomfortable without also adding, “and we need to take responsibility too, and help them with aid” or something. You’ve got to say that too because otherwise, you’re kind of being a dick. Sorry, I love Barack, but it’s true.

So in closing, all the problems in Iraq are the Iraqi’s fault! No need to worry Americans, no blame can be placed at our feet. Even though we did elect George Bush, twice.

And god help us if we elect McCain.

As much as McCain frightens me, I have to admit he would probably be an improvement over Bush. Not that that’s a huge compliment, I think it would be hard for someone to be worse than Bush even if they tried. He has a certain way of ruining things that you can’t learn, it’s all instinct. So back to McCain, he gave a speech yesterday before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council where he:

proposed a new organization, the League of Democracies, to “harness the vast influence of more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”

The League of Democracies? Is that anything like the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, because that movie sucked. Seriously, though, this sounds pretty good. He actually wants to work with other countries, unlike Bushy who likes to go it alone. More from the speech:

Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed

Stop making me like you! Where’s all this reasonableness coming from? Can this be the same man who wants to bomb Iran? Who says things are going well in Iraq no matter what anybody tells him? I can’t tell if this guy is Bush v2 or some kind of relatively reasonable Republican (do those exist anymore?). Here’s another quote:

It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal

This is a half-truth in my opinion. On the one hand, horrendous violence and ethnic cleansing will probably occur when we withdrawal. And it’s our fault. And we have committed a horrible sin. On the other hand, I think the longer we stay the worse we make things. The deed has already been done, the sin already committed. We can’t fix what we’ve done with more violence, we can’t fix it with our army, and we can’t fix it by staying there and terrorizing Iraqi citizens. It’s time for us to leave. And we are going to have to make amends for what happens as best we can but not with our army. Ok, more speech:

We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are at the foundation of our society. We can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

Again, this is reasonable and I agree with it. DAMN YOU MCCAIN! But wait a minute, didn’t you just vote against making the army field manual the standard for interrogations? And wasn’t that essentially a vote permitting the CIA to torture people? What kind of doublespeak is this? I think I can conclude that this guy is pretty scary, he’s just good at charming liberals. Which actually makes him more scary and dangerous. Any final thoughts Johnny?

Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war

Did he just call Bush a fool and a fraud? I think he did. Remember what Bush said earlier this week:

I must say, I’m a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks.

Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. Whomever our next president is I know they wont be a fool, but there’s a good chance they’ll be a fraud. I guess it’s a step in the right direction.

Yesterday, after returning from Iraq, John McCain had this to say:

We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says. I’ve seen the facts on the ground[source]

He took the words right out of Bush’s mouth. This guy is very frightening to me. He’s basically Bush2, but a little smarter. But anyway, regarding those “facts on the ground,” today AP released this report:

BAGHDAD – Iraqi forces clashed with Shiite militiamen Tuesday in the southern oil port of Basra and rockets rained down on the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad as followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr expanded a nationwide backlash against government crackdowns.

The clashes also threaten to reverse the security gains achieved by U.S. and Iraqi forces. [source]

So much for the surge. So much for McCain’s judgment. He was there last week and he thinks everything’s fine. Not only that but he doesn’t care what anybody says. So I guess this report doesn’t bother him. Good to know. I want a president who doesn’t listen to anybody, and who knows that the perpetual occupation of Iraq is going well no matter what happens.

I thought McCain was riding the straight-talk express, not the doublespeak zeppelin.

We may be beginning to see the effects of this protracted primary. According to the “Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator” the Democrats seem to be losing their electoral edge. When you include safe, likely, and leans Democratic states vs Republican ones you get Democrats 247 Republicans 229 with 62 toss-up states. That’s not bad, but it’s not nearly as good as the commanding 284-229 lead they had less than two weeks ago on March 9th. Nor is that as good as the 284-216 lead they had one month ago on February 20th.

Clinton and Obama need to stop attacking each other and start attacking John McCain because right now these numbers are moving in the wrong direction. Right now the Democrats, and the press, are taking it pretty easy on McCain. Right now the story is the Dems battling each other, and not how John Mc”Admiral“Cain is terrifying.

What the Democrats really need is a nominee, but since that’s probably not going to happen until June at the earliest they just need to stop tearing each other down. Obama made a good faith effort with his speech on tuesday. I’d like to see Clinton step up and play nice, but I have very little hope that will happen.

They need to look at these numbers and think about what they’re doing. A McCain presidency would be a disaster. Granted, it would be hard for him to be worse than Bush, but I think he’ll come damn close.