No surprise there.
I just wish that for once, Americans would repudiate this kind of BS and severely punish any party that employs such tactics.
Coming Soon: The Swiftboating of Hillary Clinton
Top of the list of projects is a planned movie, being filmed by veteran Republican operator David Bossie. Bossie is raising money for the film through his conservative group Citizens United, which is appealing for video footage, stories about Clinton and money. It plans a release by the end of the year, just as the first primary elections are held in New Hampshire.
Bossie is being helped in the project by Dick Morris, a former top Clinton aide who has become a leading Clinton critic....Citizens United and other Republican groups are set to model their anti-Clinton operation on the notorious Swift Boat campaign that derailed John Kerry's 2004 bid for the White House. That aggressive smear campaign focused on Kerry's Vietnam war record and was seen as critical in President George W Bush's election victory.
'The Swift Boat campaign is going to be a direct model. They have openly come out and said that,' said Terry Krepel, editor of Conwebwatch, a website that monitors the output of conservative news media....Texan businessman Bob Perry has joined Republican Mitt Romney's campaign as a fundraiser.
In 2004, Perry gave more than $4m to the Swift Boat campaign. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2104853,0...
Vote caging, justice department stacking, swiftboating, lies and whisper campaigns -- they wouldn't bother with this stuff if they thought they could defeat her straight up.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Cllinton, not liked, but a strong leader
June 11, 2007
Poll: Clinton stronger leader, Obama more likeable
Clinton has increased her lead over Obama in New Hampshire according to a new CNN/WMUR poll.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have lengthened her lead among likely New Hampshire primary voters after last week’s debate among Democratic presidential candidates, winning points for being strong, even if she’s not necessarily the most likeable, a poll said Monday.
The CNN/WMUR presidential primary poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, placed the senator from New York at the front of the pack, supported by 36 percent of likely voters versus 22 percent for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, her closest rival. (Read full poll results [PDF])
Since April, Clinton’s support has grown by 9 points — from 27 percent, the poll said. Obama’s position has grown by just 2 points — from 20 percent — in April.
Most of those increases appear to have come at the expense of Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, whose support tumbled from 21 percent in April to his current 12 percent.
Former Vice President Al Gore, who has not said he is running, tied Edwards at 12 percent, up from 11 percent in April. And New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson garnered 10 percent, up from 4 percent in April. The rest of the field included Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, with 4 percent; Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, with 1 percent; and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, each of whom garnered less than 0.5 percent.
Clinton fell behind when it came to likeability. Asked which candidate is most likeable, likely voters cited Obama (40 percent) nearly three times as often as Clinton (14 percent). Clinton also trailed Edwards (20 percent) while Gore attracted 9 percent and Richardson 6 percent.
But the former first lady fared considerably better when likely voters were asked which candidate is the strongest leader. She led the pack, with 48 percent, followed distantly by Gore and Obama — each with 12 percent — and then Edwards, with 6 percent.
Asked which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in November’s general election, Clinton again came out on top, with 37 percent, more than double the 15 percent garnered by Obama and more than triple the 12 percent who cited Gore or the 10 percent who cited Edwards.
Since the April poll, Iraq gained in importance, with 57 percent citing it as the most important issue that will affect their vote in the primary, up from 39 percent.
Health care was cited by just 8 percent, down from 21 percent in April. The economy also attracted 8 percent, down from 11 percent in April.
New Hampshire holds the nation’s first primary, part of the process by which the Democratic and Republican parties select their candidate for the general elections, to be held in November 2008.
The telephone poll of 309 Granite State residents who say they will vote in the primary has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 5.5 points. It was carried out Wednesday through Sunday, after the June 3 debate among Democratic presidential candidates, which was sponsored by CNN, the New Hampshire Union-Leader and WMUR-TV.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Poll: Clinton stronger leader, Obama more likeable
Clinton has increased her lead over Obama in New Hampshire according to a new CNN/WMUR poll.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have lengthened her lead among likely New Hampshire primary voters after last week’s debate among Democratic presidential candidates, winning points for being strong, even if she’s not necessarily the most likeable, a poll said Monday.
The CNN/WMUR presidential primary poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, placed the senator from New York at the front of the pack, supported by 36 percent of likely voters versus 22 percent for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, her closest rival. (Read full poll results [PDF])
Since April, Clinton’s support has grown by 9 points — from 27 percent, the poll said. Obama’s position has grown by just 2 points — from 20 percent — in April.
Most of those increases appear to have come at the expense of Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, whose support tumbled from 21 percent in April to his current 12 percent.
Former Vice President Al Gore, who has not said he is running, tied Edwards at 12 percent, up from 11 percent in April. And New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson garnered 10 percent, up from 4 percent in April. The rest of the field included Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, with 4 percent; Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, with 1 percent; and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, each of whom garnered less than 0.5 percent.
Clinton fell behind when it came to likeability. Asked which candidate is most likeable, likely voters cited Obama (40 percent) nearly three times as often as Clinton (14 percent). Clinton also trailed Edwards (20 percent) while Gore attracted 9 percent and Richardson 6 percent.
But the former first lady fared considerably better when likely voters were asked which candidate is the strongest leader. She led the pack, with 48 percent, followed distantly by Gore and Obama — each with 12 percent — and then Edwards, with 6 percent.
Asked which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in November’s general election, Clinton again came out on top, with 37 percent, more than double the 15 percent garnered by Obama and more than triple the 12 percent who cited Gore or the 10 percent who cited Edwards.
Since the April poll, Iraq gained in importance, with 57 percent citing it as the most important issue that will affect their vote in the primary, up from 39 percent.
Health care was cited by just 8 percent, down from 21 percent in April. The economy also attracted 8 percent, down from 11 percent in April.
New Hampshire holds the nation’s first primary, part of the process by which the Democratic and Republican parties select their candidate for the general elections, to be held in November 2008.
The telephone poll of 309 Granite State residents who say they will vote in the primary has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 5.5 points. It was carried out Wednesday through Sunday, after the June 3 debate among Democratic presidential candidates, which was sponsored by CNN, the New Hampshire Union-Leader and WMUR-TV.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
This Effing War Is Gonna Haunt Us All For Years To come
And, perhaps no one as much as Hillary Clinton.
The word mistake does not seem to be in her vocabulary. Historically, it is a bad time for people who cannot say, "I was wrong."
Nevertheless, she was right to point out that it is a sad thing when congressmen and senators cannot trust the president to tell the truth about something as important as taking this nation to war.
Howl by Nicholas von Hoffman
Hillary's Political Horror Story
[posted online on June 1, 2007]
Slowly, very slowly, Hillary Clinton's vote to invade Iraq is turning into a political horror story. It is the moldering hand of a murder victim coming out of the grave to grab her by the ankle.
Bodies would not be jumping out at the candidate of the money wing of the Democratic Party if she had only said she made a mistake in voting for the war, but she has refused to do that so often that if she did it now she would open herself up to a chorus of catcalls.
She may be concerned that a retraction will make her look weak. So her line of defense has been, "My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time."
She says it over and over again.
The facts she had and the facts she could have had before she cast her vote for the war are two different things. We learn that from an article in The New York Times Magazine by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.
These two, who have made a career out of investigating Hillary, have dug up a couple of facts the Senator is going to have a hard time ignoring. The big fact is that she had access at the time to a highly classified report, the National Intelligence Estimate, which contained authoritative doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Gerth and Van Natta have established that she did not read this report. Because it was classified, senators wishing to read it had to sign in, and Hillary did not. Although one of her Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, urged Hillary and all the other Democratic senators to read it, few did. Graham, however, read the ninety-page document and was so shaken by the questionable evidence for the existence of WMDs that he voted against going to war.
In fairness to Hillary, she is not the only Democratic presidential aspirant who had a chance to read the National Intelligence Estimate and did not. John Edwards did not read it either and also voted for war. Since then Edwards, unlike Hillary, has recanted his vote, but he still has some explaining to do. Also with some explaining to do are Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, two other Democratic senators running for the nomination. But Hillary is the only one saying that she would still vote for war knowing what she did then.
If her vote was "a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time," what exactly is a "sincere vote"? Why did Clinton vote to send Americans and Iraqis their doom without reading a report throwing cold water on the reasons she later gave for supporting the war? And as for the assurances, where did she get them? From intelligence sources or from her political advisers?
There is more than one dead hand snatching at Hillary's ankles. Why, Gerth and Van Natta ask, did she accept the Bush-Cheney line that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Not only the National Intelligence Estimate but other intelligence reports available to her as a senator said it simply was not true.
Yet another hand slapping the ground and grasping for Hilary's ankle is what Gerth and Van Natta call "the forgotten vote." They write: "For all the scrutiny of Clinton's vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization.
"In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn't voting for 'any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.' Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting--and that she now says she had favored all along....
"The amendment called...for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator (Carl) Levin's words, 'urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.' That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option."
Safely seated in the armor-plated political machine of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton has not had to explain her vote against the "diplomacy first" amendment. Nor has she had to answer for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to send thousands of people to their deaths.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
The word mistake does not seem to be in her vocabulary. Historically, it is a bad time for people who cannot say, "I was wrong."
Nevertheless, she was right to point out that it is a sad thing when congressmen and senators cannot trust the president to tell the truth about something as important as taking this nation to war.
Howl by Nicholas von Hoffman
Hillary's Political Horror Story
[posted online on June 1, 2007]
Slowly, very slowly, Hillary Clinton's vote to invade Iraq is turning into a political horror story. It is the moldering hand of a murder victim coming out of the grave to grab her by the ankle.
Bodies would not be jumping out at the candidate of the money wing of the Democratic Party if she had only said she made a mistake in voting for the war, but she has refused to do that so often that if she did it now she would open herself up to a chorus of catcalls.
She may be concerned that a retraction will make her look weak. So her line of defense has been, "My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time."
She says it over and over again.
The facts she had and the facts she could have had before she cast her vote for the war are two different things. We learn that from an article in The New York Times Magazine by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.
These two, who have made a career out of investigating Hillary, have dug up a couple of facts the Senator is going to have a hard time ignoring. The big fact is that she had access at the time to a highly classified report, the National Intelligence Estimate, which contained authoritative doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Gerth and Van Natta have established that she did not read this report. Because it was classified, senators wishing to read it had to sign in, and Hillary did not. Although one of her Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, urged Hillary and all the other Democratic senators to read it, few did. Graham, however, read the ninety-page document and was so shaken by the questionable evidence for the existence of WMDs that he voted against going to war.
In fairness to Hillary, she is not the only Democratic presidential aspirant who had a chance to read the National Intelligence Estimate and did not. John Edwards did not read it either and also voted for war. Since then Edwards, unlike Hillary, has recanted his vote, but he still has some explaining to do. Also with some explaining to do are Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, two other Democratic senators running for the nomination. But Hillary is the only one saying that she would still vote for war knowing what she did then.
If her vote was "a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time," what exactly is a "sincere vote"? Why did Clinton vote to send Americans and Iraqis their doom without reading a report throwing cold water on the reasons she later gave for supporting the war? And as for the assurances, where did she get them? From intelligence sources or from her political advisers?
There is more than one dead hand snatching at Hillary's ankles. Why, Gerth and Van Natta ask, did she accept the Bush-Cheney line that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Not only the National Intelligence Estimate but other intelligence reports available to her as a senator said it simply was not true.
Yet another hand slapping the ground and grasping for Hilary's ankle is what Gerth and Van Natta call "the forgotten vote." They write: "For all the scrutiny of Clinton's vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization.
"In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn't voting for 'any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.' Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting--and that she now says she had favored all along....
"The amendment called...for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator (Carl) Levin's words, 'urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.' That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option."
Safely seated in the armor-plated political machine of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton has not had to explain her vote against the "diplomacy first" amendment. Nor has she had to answer for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to send thousands of people to their deaths.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Ken Starr; Still A Douche-bag
I have to say that Ken Starr is even sicker than we thought.
Someone who has this much hatred and animosity toward anyone should not be allowed to prosecute (nor persecute) that person. Ken Starr is clearly over the line.
He is a sick man.
WASHINGTON - Ken Starr says he could have "dumped on" Hillary Rodham Clinton for her dealings with Vince Foster but chose not to - provoking sharp new questions about the conduct of the controversial Whitewater independent counsel. In "My Way," a biography of the former first lady written by two New York Times reporters, Starr hints he uncovered new details about her interactions with Foster, who was helping with her response to the Whitewater probe in 1993.
"I could have dumped on her," said Starr, who found no evidence of wrongdoing in connection with Foster's July 20, 1993 suicide. Starr's predecessor, Robert Fiske, reached the same conclusion. Starr didn't reveal any new information about Foster to the authors.
"Two independent counsels investigated this and completely cleared both Clintons," said Lanny Davis, who led White House damage control during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "For Ken Starr to talk to reporters after announcing he cleared them [the Clintons], with the innuendo that he could have done something else, is a reckless abuse of prosecutorial power."Calls to Starr, now a dean at Pepperdine School of Law, weren't returned last night.
Davis and other Clinton supporters were incensed by footnotes indicating that co-author Jeff Gerth was given details of Starr's investigation by independent counsel "prosecutors" and "officials" from 1997 to 1999."
The footnotes prove what I know with direct personal knowledge, and that is that Ken Starr's prosecutors were consistently whispering in reporters' ears, but always with anonymity," Davis said. "They didn't have the guts to be held accountable."
Starr's comments are legal, said St. John's University law school professor John Barrett, but go against prosecutors' unwritten code to "button their lip" if a probe doesn't result in a prosecution. "I'm of the old school: that a prosecutor brings, or doesn't bring, an indictment and then goes out of business," said Barrett, who worked with independent counsel Lawrence Walsh on the Iran/Contra investigation. "I think it's better practice, in the interest of credibility, to wear the white hat."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Someone who has this much hatred and animosity toward anyone should not be allowed to prosecute (nor persecute) that person. Ken Starr is clearly over the line.
He is a sick man.
WASHINGTON - Ken Starr says he could have "dumped on" Hillary Rodham Clinton for her dealings with Vince Foster but chose not to - provoking sharp new questions about the conduct of the controversial Whitewater independent counsel. In "My Way," a biography of the former first lady written by two New York Times reporters, Starr hints he uncovered new details about her interactions with Foster, who was helping with her response to the Whitewater probe in 1993.
"I could have dumped on her," said Starr, who found no evidence of wrongdoing in connection with Foster's July 20, 1993 suicide. Starr's predecessor, Robert Fiske, reached the same conclusion. Starr didn't reveal any new information about Foster to the authors.
"Two independent counsels investigated this and completely cleared both Clintons," said Lanny Davis, who led White House damage control during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "For Ken Starr to talk to reporters after announcing he cleared them [the Clintons], with the innuendo that he could have done something else, is a reckless abuse of prosecutorial power."Calls to Starr, now a dean at Pepperdine School of Law, weren't returned last night.
Davis and other Clinton supporters were incensed by footnotes indicating that co-author Jeff Gerth was given details of Starr's investigation by independent counsel "prosecutors" and "officials" from 1997 to 1999."
The footnotes prove what I know with direct personal knowledge, and that is that Ken Starr's prosecutors were consistently whispering in reporters' ears, but always with anonymity," Davis said. "They didn't have the guts to be held accountable."
Starr's comments are legal, said St. John's University law school professor John Barrett, but go against prosecutors' unwritten code to "button their lip" if a probe doesn't result in a prosecution. "I'm of the old school: that a prosecutor brings, or doesn't bring, an indictment and then goes out of business," said Barrett, who worked with independent counsel Lawrence Walsh on the Iran/Contra investigation. "I think it's better practice, in the interest of credibility, to wear the white hat."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Hillary...Not Surprising
Gupta-gate: Hillary Clinton at the pillory
May 26, 2007 - 7:55am.
Hal Brown
By HAL BROWN
The Clinton's roadmap to a presidential dynasty seems to have been drawn in part by Republican fat cats. How else can we interpret their acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Vinod Gupta, a multimillionaire donor to all things Clinton, whose own company sold consumer data to telemarketing criminals who used it to steal money from elderly Americans.
Even supporters of Hillary Clinton are aware that in order to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, she has to overcome the public perception of being driven by cold, calculating ambition.
Could she be a ruthless politician like George W. Bush whose quest for power is not far removed from an amoral capitalist obsessed with amassing wealth? Could she be following an ethical compass whose arrow always points north even when she's headed south?
According to the New York Times, Mr. Gupta's company...
paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show. During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events. (Read article here)
a quote from the New York Times article that has the Bush ring to it:
"An entrepreneur from India, Mr. Gupta, 60, founded infoUSA in Omaha in 1972 and built it into a publicly traded company with more than $400 million in revenue. Along the way, he nurtured a taste for politics, becoming a major Democratic fund-raiser and a Lincoln Bedroom guest in the Clinton White House.
Before leaving office, Mr. Clinton appointed Mr. Gupta to the board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Earlier, Mr. Clinton had nominated him for two minor ambassadorships, which Mr. Gupta declined because of business commitments.
Even if infoUSA was a pristine pure company operating at the highest level of ethics, and all Gupta did was open his wallet for the Clintons to dip into so he could bask in the afterglow of power, and get a chance to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom (which he did), the Clinton's behavior looks so ..... Bush Republican.
If John Edwards can be held to task and mocked for a $400 haircuts and living in a mansion, what will be the public reaction to Billary's cozy financial relationship with a millionaire who engaged in a tawdry scheme to bilk the elderly.
How will both her supporters and critics react to one of her surrogates, Phil Singer's public rationalization of her accepting a $146,666 private jet trip by saying she “complied with all the relevant ethics rules” on accepting private air travel.
The relevant rules are that senators and candidates make reimbursement at a rate equal to that of a first-class ticket. I know first class is pricey, but unless she flew to the moon I can't image that a trip anywhere on earth would cost $146 thousand.
Those who want to see a Democrat as our next president better hope that Barak Obama doesn't have any gold plated skeletons in his closet.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
May 26, 2007 - 7:55am.
Hal Brown
By HAL BROWN
The Clinton's roadmap to a presidential dynasty seems to have been drawn in part by Republican fat cats. How else can we interpret their acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Vinod Gupta, a multimillionaire donor to all things Clinton, whose own company sold consumer data to telemarketing criminals who used it to steal money from elderly Americans.
Even supporters of Hillary Clinton are aware that in order to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, she has to overcome the public perception of being driven by cold, calculating ambition.
Could she be a ruthless politician like George W. Bush whose quest for power is not far removed from an amoral capitalist obsessed with amassing wealth? Could she be following an ethical compass whose arrow always points north even when she's headed south?
According to the New York Times, Mr. Gupta's company...
paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show. During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events. (Read article here)
a quote from the New York Times article that has the Bush ring to it:
"An entrepreneur from India, Mr. Gupta, 60, founded infoUSA in Omaha in 1972 and built it into a publicly traded company with more than $400 million in revenue. Along the way, he nurtured a taste for politics, becoming a major Democratic fund-raiser and a Lincoln Bedroom guest in the Clinton White House.
Before leaving office, Mr. Clinton appointed Mr. Gupta to the board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Earlier, Mr. Clinton had nominated him for two minor ambassadorships, which Mr. Gupta declined because of business commitments.
Even if infoUSA was a pristine pure company operating at the highest level of ethics, and all Gupta did was open his wallet for the Clintons to dip into so he could bask in the afterglow of power, and get a chance to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom (which he did), the Clinton's behavior looks so ..... Bush Republican.
If John Edwards can be held to task and mocked for a $400 haircuts and living in a mansion, what will be the public reaction to Billary's cozy financial relationship with a millionaire who engaged in a tawdry scheme to bilk the elderly.
How will both her supporters and critics react to one of her surrogates, Phil Singer's public rationalization of her accepting a $146,666 private jet trip by saying she “complied with all the relevant ethics rules” on accepting private air travel.
The relevant rules are that senators and candidates make reimbursement at a rate equal to that of a first-class ticket. I know first class is pricey, but unless she flew to the moon I can't image that a trip anywhere on earth would cost $146 thousand.
Those who want to see a Democrat as our next president better hope that Barak Obama doesn't have any gold plated skeletons in his closet.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Monday, May 21, 2007
Clinton in Trouble in Iowa
It's good to see Edwards in first place. But it is still early....
Clinton Falls to Third Place in Iowa
Sun May 20, 12:22 PM ET
The Nation -- Hillary Clinton's campaign is running into trouble -- potentially very serious trouble -- in Iowa.
The latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that's not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly.
The Des Moines Register survey has former North Carolina Senator John Edwards solidly in first. Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.
In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) with 23 percent.
Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.
But Clinton, the presumed frontrunner nationally, does not just have to worry about who is ahead of her in the first-caucus state. She's also got to watch who is coming from behind.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the former congressman, cabinet secretary and UN ambassador who only formally announced last week, is gaining 10 percent support among likely caucus goers. As in New Hampshire, where a new poll has Richardson breaking from a pack of weaker contenders to enter the second tier in the crowded 2008 contest, the governor is moving up rapidly in Iowa.
The next strongest candidate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, was at 3 percent.
Richardson, who is campaigning in Iowa small towns this weekend, was making the most of his improving position.
"We have a lot of good candidates running for president," he told friendly crowds. "A lot of them could be in the White House - as my vice president."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Friday, May 18, 2007
Bay Buchanan Is A Nut-job Just Like Her Brother
How's that for a clinical DX ?
Bay Buchanan: The Doctor Is In
by Diane Dees at MOJO Blog
A few years ago, when Bush on the Couch was published by psychiatrist Justin A. Frank, his publicist invited me to review it. I declined on ethical grounds. Frank, having never met George W. Bush, is not qualified to diagnose him, despite his using the technique of "applied psychoanalysis" which permits the psychological analysis of a public figure, but which--in my opinion--shoud be limited to analysis of the dead. (I am a psychotherapist, and I know that if I did such a thing, my board would come down hard on me.)
Huh. I saw Frank's book more as profiling. Our government does it all the time.
Enter Bay Buchanan, who is most definitely not a mental health practitioner of any kind, but who has provided us with a casual diagnosis of Sen. Clinton. In her book, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, Buchanan hints that Clinton may have narcissistic personality disorder. (Buchanan calls it "narcissistic personality style," a term which does not exist in the mental health repretoire.)
This Dx is about as far off the mark as anything I have ever read. Buchanan nees to keep her pundit job, where it is, obviously, not a requirement that you have a clue what you are talking about.
In describing how she reached that conclusion, Buchanan refers to an endnote in the book that does not exist. All the same, Buchanan says that "[W]e are talking about a clinical condition that could make her [Clinton] dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander-in-Chief." She then covers herself by saying "I pass no judgment as to whether this shoe fits the Lady Hillary."
Oh, pulleze. I can't imagine anything more dangerous to the country than the socio/psychopathology we've had in the White House for the past 6 1/2 years.
Diagnosing someone from afar, especially if you are not a mental health expert, is wildly irresponsible, even if you say "I don't really mean it, I'm just saying...."
There are plenty of former presidents who weren't quite right, like Kennedy (drug addiction and sexual compulsion) and Nixon (alcoholism and violence), and Buchanan's colleagues are ga-ga about at least one of them, and sometimes both of them. It wouldn't be too difficult to apply phony mental health language to other candidates, but I could have guessed that an armchair psychotherapist would go after Clinton. She is an "ambitious" woman, and she is married to Bill. Who needs more information than that?
Nixon was paranoid as hell. I have no way of knowing whether he was an alcoholic or not. His drinking, during the Watergate scandal, may well have been an adult-situational reaction to a very nigtmarish time in his life. I have never heard the term, "violence" used as a psychiatric DX.
Kennedy had myriad health problems, not easily treated in his day, which accounts for some of the drugs that were prescribed for him. If he was a drug addict, he was certainly a high functioning one. Sexual compulsion or addiction is rather epidemic in D.C., is it not?
I don't see disintegration to a point anywhere near mental illness in Hillary Clinton. While I may or may not agree with her, or even like her, she seems quite stable to me.
Bay Buchanan, not unlike her brother, is an authortarian personality type and those folks are capable of some extremely dangerous disintegration.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Friday, May 04, 2007
Clinton Determined Not To Have To Clean Up After Junior
Can anyone blame her?
As she said, she is in to win. What she, apparently, does not want to win is Junior's and Vice's Mess-O-Potamia.
If only Junior's own parents had made him clean up his own messes, we might not be in hell now.
What is news to us, is that she voted for an amendment to the original War Resolution, that would have limited Junior's misadventure to a year, before it would have had to be reviewed again, by Congress.
Would that have been a year from the time of the Resolution, or from the time the war actually began?
This is significant, because had the war resolution been reviewed in March of 2004, the excuses for the war, given by the administration, at the time Congress voted to give Dipwad the authority to take military action, as a last resort, would have been accomplished.
By that time, no WMD had been found and never would be, because Saddam didn't have anything more dangerous than stuff I have in my garden shed. Both of Saddam's crazy sons were dead and Saddam has been caught.
Mission Accomplished. Right?
Clinton seeks new Iraq war vote
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 3, 7:46 PM ET
Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday sought to force another showdown with President Bush — and her Democratic rivals — over the Iraq war.
Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007.
"If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor.
The two senators have not decided how they will seek to force a vote on the measure — whether through an amendment, a stand-alone bill, or a spending bill.
Her tough talk also contained a veiled jab at rival John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who has been outspoken in criticizing his own vote and that of other lawmakers in 2002 authorizing the war.
Clinton noted on Thursday that in 2002 she had also voted for an amendment offered by Byrd that would have limited the war authorization to one year. The measure was defeated, and Edwards voted against it.
"I supported the Byrd amendment on Oct 10, 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue," she said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino derided the proposal and attributed it to posturing for Democratic primary voters.
"Here we go again. The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar. Welcome to politics '08-style," Perino said.
The Democrats are not the first to suggest Congress vote whether to reauthorize the war. Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, floated the possibility months ago, but it has gone nowhere.
Clinton's position on the Iraq war has been a subject of constant debate among Democrats as they weigh the candidates seeking the presidential nomination. She voted to authorize the war, but has long criticized the Bush administration's handling of the conflict. While others have called for an immediate withdrawal, Clinton has favored redeploying troops out of Iraq within 90 days.
She also supports a goal of removing all combat troops except those needed for residual missions by March 2008.
Edwards urged Congress to pass again a bill Bush just vetoed that would have begun troop withdrawals in October.
"Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him. They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war, and brings them home," he said.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said of the Byrd-Clinton plan: "While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the president's course in Iraq."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
As she said, she is in to win. What she, apparently, does not want to win is Junior's and Vice's Mess-O-Potamia.
If only Junior's own parents had made him clean up his own messes, we might not be in hell now.
What is news to us, is that she voted for an amendment to the original War Resolution, that would have limited Junior's misadventure to a year, before it would have had to be reviewed again, by Congress.
Would that have been a year from the time of the Resolution, or from the time the war actually began?
This is significant, because had the war resolution been reviewed in March of 2004, the excuses for the war, given by the administration, at the time Congress voted to give Dipwad the authority to take military action, as a last resort, would have been accomplished.
By that time, no WMD had been found and never would be, because Saddam didn't have anything more dangerous than stuff I have in my garden shed. Both of Saddam's crazy sons were dead and Saddam has been caught.
Mission Accomplished. Right?
Clinton seeks new Iraq war vote
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 3, 7:46 PM ET
Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday sought to force another showdown with President Bush — and her Democratic rivals — over the Iraq war.
Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007.
"If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor.
The two senators have not decided how they will seek to force a vote on the measure — whether through an amendment, a stand-alone bill, or a spending bill.
Her tough talk also contained a veiled jab at rival John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who has been outspoken in criticizing his own vote and that of other lawmakers in 2002 authorizing the war.
Clinton noted on Thursday that in 2002 she had also voted for an amendment offered by Byrd that would have limited the war authorization to one year. The measure was defeated, and Edwards voted against it.
"I supported the Byrd amendment on Oct 10, 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue," she said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino derided the proposal and attributed it to posturing for Democratic primary voters.
"Here we go again. The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar. Welcome to politics '08-style," Perino said.
The Democrats are not the first to suggest Congress vote whether to reauthorize the war. Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, floated the possibility months ago, but it has gone nowhere.
Clinton's position on the Iraq war has been a subject of constant debate among Democrats as they weigh the candidates seeking the presidential nomination. She voted to authorize the war, but has long criticized the Bush administration's handling of the conflict. While others have called for an immediate withdrawal, Clinton has favored redeploying troops out of Iraq within 90 days.
She also supports a goal of removing all combat troops except those needed for residual missions by March 2008.
Edwards urged Congress to pass again a bill Bush just vetoed that would have begun troop withdrawals in October.
"Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him. They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war, and brings them home," he said.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said of the Byrd-Clinton plan: "While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the president's course in Iraq."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Monday, April 30, 2007
Do You Believe In Magic?
I did.
When JFK was elected.
When Martin cried out, "I have a dream...."
When Bobby ran.....
....but we all know how that turned out, don't we?
No more magic.
Just a man or woman willing to tell the truth, and clean up Washington!
We want justice, we want accountability, now!
We want our country back, not to mention our money, wasted on this criminal war, among other things, criminal!
We know that our kids are gone forever....but can we get it together face reality and to take out nation back?
By Adam Tanner
SAN DIEGO, California (Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wowed California Democrats at their annual convention on Saturday, drawing a more passionate welcome than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton received hours earlier in this state that carries new clout in the presidential primaries.
More than 2,000 party activists frequently rose to their feet in cheers as Obama, who has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, talked about his desire to end the war in Iraq and usher in a new political era in Washington.
"It is time to put an end to this war," Obama, of Illinois, said at the convention center in San Diego shortly before many started chanting his surname.
Reuters Pictures
Even Clinton supporters recognized Obama's speech -- full of generalities such as the need to "turn the page" -- had tapped into the crowd's emotions.
"It was the same thing in 2003 for Howard Dean," said Andrea Dew Steele, 38, referring to the former Vermont governor who made a strong showing early in the last presidential race largely because of his opposition to the war.
"We have a very progressive left-wing constituency here in California. Obama's extremely talented, but this is Hillary's time," said Steele, who wore a Clinton sticker on her lapel.
Democrats were making their pitch to a state that has become key in the primaries since California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month signed a law moving up its primary to February 2008 from June to give the state a greater role in the presidential selection.
BIG EARLY TEST Continued...
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
When JFK was elected.
When Martin cried out, "I have a dream...."
When Bobby ran.....
....but we all know how that turned out, don't we?
No more magic.
Just a man or woman willing to tell the truth, and clean up Washington!
We want justice, we want accountability, now!
We want our country back, not to mention our money, wasted on this criminal war, among other things, criminal!
We know that our kids are gone forever....but can we get it together face reality and to take out nation back?
By Adam Tanner
SAN DIEGO, California (Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wowed California Democrats at their annual convention on Saturday, drawing a more passionate welcome than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton received hours earlier in this state that carries new clout in the presidential primaries.
More than 2,000 party activists frequently rose to their feet in cheers as Obama, who has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, talked about his desire to end the war in Iraq and usher in a new political era in Washington.
"It is time to put an end to this war," Obama, of Illinois, said at the convention center in San Diego shortly before many started chanting his surname.
Reuters Pictures
Even Clinton supporters recognized Obama's speech -- full of generalities such as the need to "turn the page" -- had tapped into the crowd's emotions.
"It was the same thing in 2003 for Howard Dean," said Andrea Dew Steele, 38, referring to the former Vermont governor who made a strong showing early in the last presidential race largely because of his opposition to the war.
"We have a very progressive left-wing constituency here in California. Obama's extremely talented, but this is Hillary's time," said Steele, who wore a Clinton sticker on her lapel.
Democrats were making their pitch to a state that has become key in the primaries since California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month signed a law moving up its primary to February 2008 from June to give the state a greater role in the presidential selection.
BIG EARLY TEST Continued...
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Al Gore Is The Man To Beat
Giuliani leads in key 2008 states, Gore shows strong:
poll Published: Thursday April 26, 2007
Republican Rudolph Giuliani is favored over Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for the US presidency in three key electoral states, while ex-vice president Al Gore might be the Democrats strongest choice for 2008, a new poll showed Thursday.
The Quinnipiac University poll showed that former New York mayor Giuliani, who is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination, would beat Democrat Senator Clinton solidly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The three populous states are seen as crucial swing states in any election, with their voters never clearly in the Republican or Democrat camp.
In Florida, Giuliani topped Clinton -- the wife of former president Bill Clinton -- 49-41 percent; in Ohio 46-41 percent, and in Pennsylvania 47-43 percent.
The poll showed that Ohio had switched sides for Giuliani from an earlier March survey, but that she held the same against the Republican in Pennsylvania and gained ground in Florida.
However, the Quinnipiac numbers showed that non-candidate Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush in a controversial Florida showdown, could do better than Clinton against Giuliani in those states. Giuliani led the now-global warming activist 47-43 percent in Florida and the two were tied at 44 percent each in Pennsylvania.
But Gore trailed Giuliani in Ohio much more, with the poll 47-39 percent for the Republican.
Gore, vice president in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, has steadfastly maintained he has no intention of running for the White House again. Instead, he is riding his fame as the creator of the Oscar-winning global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Mayor Rudoph Giuliani remains the front-runner, but he and the entire Democratic field should wonder if Al Gore will become an inconvenient truth in the 2008 presidential race and go for the biggest Oscar of them all," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
...And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
poll Published: Thursday April 26, 2007
Republican Rudolph Giuliani is favored over Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for the US presidency in three key electoral states, while ex-vice president Al Gore might be the Democrats strongest choice for 2008, a new poll showed Thursday.
The Quinnipiac University poll showed that former New York mayor Giuliani, who is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination, would beat Democrat Senator Clinton solidly in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The three populous states are seen as crucial swing states in any election, with their voters never clearly in the Republican or Democrat camp.
In Florida, Giuliani topped Clinton -- the wife of former president Bill Clinton -- 49-41 percent; in Ohio 46-41 percent, and in Pennsylvania 47-43 percent.
The poll showed that Ohio had switched sides for Giuliani from an earlier March survey, but that she held the same against the Republican in Pennsylvania and gained ground in Florida.
However, the Quinnipiac numbers showed that non-candidate Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush in a controversial Florida showdown, could do better than Clinton against Giuliani in those states. Giuliani led the now-global warming activist 47-43 percent in Florida and the two were tied at 44 percent each in Pennsylvania.
But Gore trailed Giuliani in Ohio much more, with the poll 47-39 percent for the Republican.
Gore, vice president in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, has steadfastly maintained he has no intention of running for the White House again. Instead, he is riding his fame as the creator of the Oscar-winning global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Mayor Rudoph Giuliani remains the front-runner, but he and the entire Democratic field should wonder if Al Gore will become an inconvenient truth in the 2008 presidential race and go for the biggest Oscar of them all," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
...And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Friday, February 23, 2007
Hillary Doesn't Have A Leg To Stand on
Clinton's Iraq Vote Haunts Her on Campaign Trail
Reuters Thursday 22 February 2007
Washington - It is the vote that will not die, no matter how often Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton explains, defends or takes responsibility for her 2002 decision to back the use of military force in Iraq.
And whether it turns out to be a short footnote or a dead weight on Clinton's White House campaign could be the biggest question in the 2008 Democratic presidential race.
Despite pressure from anti-war Democrats, Clinton has refused to apologize for her U.S. Senate vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq or call it a mistake. The mistakes, she says, were committed by President George W. Bush.
She tells campaign crowds she would not have cast the vote if she knew then what she knows now. She says she meant to authorize the return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq rather than the launch of pre-emptive war.
But while the New York senator and former first lady has become a strong critic of the war and promises to end it if elected, she cannot shake questions about the vote or put the issue behind her.
It flared again on Wednesday, when Hollywood mogul David Geffen criticized her refusal to call the vote a mistake and Democratic rival John Edwards drew a comparison with Bush's reluctance to admit mistakes in Iraq.
For Clinton's front-running campaign for the Democratic nomination, the biggest unknown is whether voters ultimately question her judgment or credit her resolve. Is it a classic political calculation or a gutsy stand?
Clinton aides and supporters say the issue is overblown and most voters are looking ahead. But some party strategists say the longer the issue lingers, the more it hurts her.
"The left in our party is not going to give her a pass until she says it was a mistake," Democratic consultant Dane Strother said.
"If she'll just say that, people will hear her say other things as well. But right now no one hears anything other than she won't say her vote was a mistake," he said, adding Clinton's stance plays into her image as a politician who can at times be too calculating.
"We Want Emotion"
"We don't want calculated on this issue, we want emotion because we are emotional about it," Strother said of Democrats.
Doug Schoen, a White House pollster for former President Bill Clinton, said she had nothing to apologize for given the faulty intelligence offered by the White House before the Iraq invasion.
"You don't apologize when you have been given what appears to be deliberately rigged intelligence," Schoen said, adding poll numbers for Clinton, who leads the Democratic field in national surveys, show no sign of erosion over the issue.
"There is a small cadre of activists who probably weren't with her initially who want her to apologize. That is a narrow segment of the Democratic Party, it certainly is not broadly representative of the national electorate," Schoen said.
The other Democratic White House hopefuls who voted for the Senate authorization - Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, and Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph Biden of Delaware - have called the vote a mistake.
At a Wednesday forum in Nevada and again in a television interview on Thursday, Edwards said Clinton's stance raised questions about her judgment and prompted comparisons to Bush.
"We've had six-plus years of a president who never acknowledges a mistake unfortunately, and there's been huge negative consequences from that," Edwards said on NBC's "Today" show.
"The real question is, if we make a mistake, do we have a good sense and the judgment and the honesty to admit it and to acknowledge what's happened and to change course," he said.
Clinton's other top-tier rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, was an early opponent of the war but was not in the Senate at the time of the vote.
Clinton said she would rather lose the support of Democrats concerned about her vote than adopt an approach she is not comfortable with.
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war," she said last weekend in New Hampshire.
Reuters Thursday 22 February 2007
Washington - It is the vote that will not die, no matter how often Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton explains, defends or takes responsibility for her 2002 decision to back the use of military force in Iraq.
And whether it turns out to be a short footnote or a dead weight on Clinton's White House campaign could be the biggest question in the 2008 Democratic presidential race.
Despite pressure from anti-war Democrats, Clinton has refused to apologize for her U.S. Senate vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq or call it a mistake. The mistakes, she says, were committed by President George W. Bush.
She tells campaign crowds she would not have cast the vote if she knew then what she knows now. She says she meant to authorize the return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq rather than the launch of pre-emptive war.
But while the New York senator and former first lady has become a strong critic of the war and promises to end it if elected, she cannot shake questions about the vote or put the issue behind her.
It flared again on Wednesday, when Hollywood mogul David Geffen criticized her refusal to call the vote a mistake and Democratic rival John Edwards drew a comparison with Bush's reluctance to admit mistakes in Iraq.
For Clinton's front-running campaign for the Democratic nomination, the biggest unknown is whether voters ultimately question her judgment or credit her resolve. Is it a classic political calculation or a gutsy stand?
Clinton aides and supporters say the issue is overblown and most voters are looking ahead. But some party strategists say the longer the issue lingers, the more it hurts her.
"The left in our party is not going to give her a pass until she says it was a mistake," Democratic consultant Dane Strother said.
"If she'll just say that, people will hear her say other things as well. But right now no one hears anything other than she won't say her vote was a mistake," he said, adding Clinton's stance plays into her image as a politician who can at times be too calculating.
"We Want Emotion"
"We don't want calculated on this issue, we want emotion because we are emotional about it," Strother said of Democrats.
Doug Schoen, a White House pollster for former President Bill Clinton, said she had nothing to apologize for given the faulty intelligence offered by the White House before the Iraq invasion.
"You don't apologize when you have been given what appears to be deliberately rigged intelligence," Schoen said, adding poll numbers for Clinton, who leads the Democratic field in national surveys, show no sign of erosion over the issue.
"There is a small cadre of activists who probably weren't with her initially who want her to apologize. That is a narrow segment of the Democratic Party, it certainly is not broadly representative of the national electorate," Schoen said.
The other Democratic White House hopefuls who voted for the Senate authorization - Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, and Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph Biden of Delaware - have called the vote a mistake.
At a Wednesday forum in Nevada and again in a television interview on Thursday, Edwards said Clinton's stance raised questions about her judgment and prompted comparisons to Bush.
"We've had six-plus years of a president who never acknowledges a mistake unfortunately, and there's been huge negative consequences from that," Edwards said on NBC's "Today" show.
"The real question is, if we make a mistake, do we have a good sense and the judgment and the honesty to admit it and to acknowledge what's happened and to change course," he said.
Clinton's other top-tier rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, was an early opponent of the war but was not in the Senate at the time of the vote.
Clinton said she would rather lose the support of Democrats concerned about her vote than adopt an approach she is not comfortable with.
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war," she said last weekend in New Hampshire.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Clinton on Iran and Bush
It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
The question remains. Will Congress roll over on Iran like they did in Iraq if this ever comes up. Everybody should contact their representatives now and demand that attacking Iran is unacceptable…
....and the truth shall set us free.
Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.
The question remains. Will Congress roll over on Iran like they did in Iraq if this ever comes up. Everybody should contact their representatives now and demand that attacking Iran is unacceptable…
....and the truth shall set us free.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
