Do you want to see good pics?,

If you have a little free time, read this post:,

f2kacrwooajgi3q http://www.123919.com/549354.html v2y31ytexac69

v87khwyye7q2 [URL=http://www.394178.com/966285.html] ga1hk6l9kd2 [/URL] kdj7zqex1xoawo9

A note of interest for the Hillary staff, Bill, and Hillary:

Real Men

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital , as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery.

For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/ sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father.

Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America 's biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Coachslife

Is Mark Penn really not as influential in Clinton's Campaign? That is hard to believe since he is still a member of the campaign.

Also, did Clinton ask President Bush To boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics to devert the attention away from the Penn Controversy?

I sort of notice a pattern here, When the controversy broke concerning her Bosnia visit, she then decided to address the issue with Rev. Wright. It seem to have been an attempt to divert from her less than candid account of the Bosnia visit.

Mark Penn's leaving could only be a plus for any voter who pays attention to staff issues. He wanted to be HRC's Karl Rove but ended up being her Rumsfeld: responsible for the biggest mis-steps of the campaign and emblematic of the loyalty-before-competence mindset of the candidate. (Or is it her, does she just lack imagination?)

The problem seems to be that he is not really gone. Will PA voters care? I doubt it.

I have it on good authority that to be an
Obama deolegate in Virginia you need to be on a waiting list, and the clinton folks are asking folks on the street to be delegates

Penn's demotion might make the Hillary campaign look dysfunctional? After working with him since 1996, Hillary chose Penn as her top strategist despite her knowledge that his firm worked against unions and against environmental and health care regulations. He has supported Blackwater, Big Tobacco, and now the Colombian trade agreement. Can we assume that Hillary either sympathizes with his positions or doesn't really care about such enormous conflicts of interest inside her campaign?

Hillary's campaign has demonstrated poor organization; poor strategy; poor money management; not to mention unprofessional and unethical tactics. Penn is not responsible for the shambles of the Hillary campaign - she is.

I don't understand the lack of Union leadership outrage over this situation with Mark Penn in the Clinton campaign. All she did was "shuffle the deck" so to speak. This guy is still gonna do polling and provide "advice". Mark Penn needs to be GONE! I cannot put any trust in Clinton that she has the best interests of American union members as long as she refuses to part with this guy. And neither should the leadership of any union. I don't understand all the wailing about Obama's unpaid advisor's comments to some Canadian official, while the leader of Clinton's campaign is holding strategy meetings to get this onerous Columbian legislation passed? She is basically spitting in the eye of the unions by moving this guy to the back room for a while till the heat (what little of it that has been generated) dies down. Is union leadership so in love with (or in fear of) the Clintons that they accept this with nary a whimper? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? The AFL-CIO ought to be hounding Clinton night and day to make a complete break with this guy. Somebody please explain to me why that is not happening.

MarkInAustin,
Interesting read. I tend to concur that trade with China has, shall we say, issues. I don't think that the cure for those is to dismantle free trade. I also, unfortunately, don't know what the cure is for the WTO. Will sometimes has a way with words and I particularly liked the following paragraph:

"Penn's actual beliefs about free trade, whatever they are, pro or con, certainly accord either with those that Clinton holds now or with those that she held back in the 1990s, when she was in the White House's East Wing acquiring the semi-demi-quasi-presidential experience that makes her just the person to answer the red telephone that, judging by her campaign ads, rings constantly in the West Wing."

Thanks, Dave!.

While George Will tells less than the whole story, to the extent he carries it I think his column this morning is worthwhile as far as it goes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702194.html

Union railing against NAFTA and CAFTA is largely misplaced, and one wonders if the Ds will be beholden rather than listen to calmer voices like Goolsbee's.

To be fair, the unions are correct about China violating ILO rules and the ineptness of WTO with regard to China.

All in this humble employment lawyer's opinion, of course... .

MarkInAustin - "I cannot keep my Latin American leaders straight. Was Uribe elected in a relatively fair election?"

His first term, yes with relatively being the key word. For a SA election, it was pretty good but there apparently were some instances of voter suppression and intimidation. I think, however, that he easily won his second term and there were few problems.

Time for the "Kansas shuffle." You know, the one where the other side has it all within its grasp and then: ""Ten seconds to go, we're thinking we're national champs, all of a sudden a kid makes a shot, and we're not," Calipari said." Learn, Hil, learn. The last four shots Obama took didn't take. The convention is OVERTIME.

svreader? since when are you an Obama fan?????

What's more interesting than Penn leaving is the reason why he's leaving, specifically, the involvement of his consulting firm in helping Columbia lobby for a free trade pact that Clinton ostensibly opposes and the Dem electorate in PA definitely opposes.

Can Obama use this to paint her as a closet free-trader?

Posted by: Sam Stormfield | April 8, 2008 2:27 AM

They are all free traders - Obama Hill and Mac. No choice for the voters there.

Nobody cares about mark penn.

nobody!

Bill is the main guy not Mark Penn.

We need a primary - even the cultist outrage has lost its spicyness.

The campaign is going to start again in a week or so.

What's more interesting than Penn leaving is the reason why he's leaving, specifically, the involvement of his consulting firm in helping Columbia lobby for a free trade pact that Clinton ostensibly opposes and the Dem electorate in PA definitely opposes.

Can Obama use this to paint her as a closet free-trader?

Geoff Garin has been with the Clinton campaign for 3 weeks and his credentials are impressive.

A couple of things we have to look at too:

1. Replacing people is a given, and what this all really shows is that Hillary is battle tested, still standing. She has had and has the press against her. Yet, she's still standing and Obama looks very much like the pampered pet. You know, he has an accident, but somebody picks it up and pretends it never happened...

2. Obama is virtually untested with the exception of the Wright flak. But, so what, he's just like Bush#2; it's the second coming of the Teflon kid, nothing sticks. Can't even scratch the surface and find out what's there just like with GWB...
I think we had 8 years of a surface we couln't scratch and look what it got us.

Use some common sense folks..

Garin-

The man that Hillary Clinton brought in to replace controversial strategist Mark Penn got his start in politics 32 years ago in Pennsylvania, the very state that is so crucial to her presidential hopes now. Back then, however, Geoff Garin was working for a Republican.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1728594,00.html

"Why in the world would you think any HC supporter would justify the bonehead political moves of Mark Penn. Personally I wish he had been put in charge of running the Obama campaign. Does that spell out my distate for the man clearly enough?"

Leichtmann: Obama had enough political experience to know not to hire Penn. Hillary didn't. Get it?

Leichtman:

I almost forgot. Most Obama supporters are saying that they will have an open mind in the (slim) chance Hillary gets the nomination. Many Hillary supporters do not say that. I think that's because they are a bunch of spoiled losers.

By the way, I can hold my breath for two minutes, but am not good at turning blue. We must remember to work at that, because it remains our best chance to win this thing for Hillary. Logic and reason are no longer on our side.

So long. I have to go to work. The drive-thru is busy tonight.

Leichtman:

Looks like we've got the comment section to ourselves for a bit ...

I don't know how it is playing out in the more populous portions of the state, but we're still hearing a lot of "Hillary is more experienced" and "Obama is a uniter". Economy is big, health care is big. Iraq seems to be fading into the background.

I'll bet none of your calls were coming to our neighborhood. My wife was known as "The Democrat" on our block until our new next door neighbors moved in. Now there are three (D)s on the block (I was an (I) until two weeks ago).

mteng: those negative posts fom our so called suppoters can be the equivalent of psychological warfare to depress our fundrisingand GOTV activites if w aren't careful. I was bothered by that supposed 7:31post b/c it conflcted with the 35 calls I made into Pa this evening which didn't refelect any interest whatsoever from the Pa voters I spoke with showing any conrn witht the Penn story. They felt that HC was more of a policy wonk and knows more about how to fix the broken eonomomy then Sen Obama and tht is all they seem to care about. When you spend time here at the fix sometimes we need to hear more from people like you on the ground who know exactly what is going on with Pa voters rather than being constantly spun here in the blogosphere.

Leichtman:

Came back just to make sure you read my real posts @ 8:02P and 8:14P. The 7:31P comment is not mine. I'm glad you recognize that isn't my style.

I hope they fix this problem. The comment section is usually a good source of discussion and information beyond what the news media present. But the crazies have taken over tonight.

mnteng there was a negative HC post with your name on it above at 7:31 is someone, somehow spamming your login to spread antiHC disinformation?

Check the Chuck Todd story Logan. The HC campaign tried to vet that story according to Todd, they were led to believe its truth from the sherrif who reported it and HIPPA privacy rules prevented any further vetting of the story. An investigative story tonight on Hardball said the story you are so quick to jump on may be more accurate then the critics claim.

Another interesting story at the New York Times reports that Obama has no travel plans in Pa this week in Pa 2 weeks out. If his campaign was so sure about his winning Pa as your campaign now claims, Logan why would he be doing that?

I know you all think I'm self-centered, shallow, and offensive, and normally that's how I would rather come across. But I'm feeling vulnerable now... Rudy has not been heard from in over a month, and people who used to respect me are giving me the evil eye when they catch me mumbling - as I sometimes do, without thinking - "President Giuliani."

And to make it worse, the queenofzouk LAUGHED at me last night! She said something about my "little friend," and then "But he tries so... HARD!" and then guffawed for at least five minutes. I waited, politely, until she was finished, and then tried to kiss her goodnight, but she was snoring already. Once she moaned, and I thought she almost woke up, but then she fell back asleep with a smile on her face. Early the next morning, she kicked the covers off, and there it was on her left thigh... a TATTOO! saying "svreader," whatever that means.

What should I make of this? It will all blow over, right?

Poll Results
Do you have any doubts about Barack Obama's patriotism?

Yes, a lot 54% 76,503
None at all 33% 47,156
Yes, a little 13% 18,042

http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modular.jsp?resType=7&popup=yes&pollId=137358&channel=aol_us_election08&view=137238&template=1592

Obama Seeks to Affirm His Patriotism

BUTTE, Mont. (April 7) - Barack Obama wants to make something clear: He loves America.

Even the typical white people.

The Clinton crew in here is reeling. Thank god they have the login glitch to hide their cowardly attacks behind. Who designed this system ... Mark Penn?

No .. and a big reason is that Penn is still doing polls and giving advice to the Clinton Campaign -- I heard he participated in today's media conference call. That's neither "clean" nor a "break" of any real kind. That's just the same kind of sleight of hand that got Mrs. Clinton to claim sniper fire in Bosnia and uninsured pregnant ladies dying in Ohio ... not to mention NAFTA & CAFTA, lol. Please get the story straight Chris, as you and most of the media are buying the Clinton "he's out" announcement and yet he's still doing everything he's done all along.

Hillary Clinton is suffering of post traumatic stress disorder since her Bosnia adventure where she was under snipper fires... She is making up/embellishing a story about the uninsured pregnant woman who died because she was uninsured (she was insured and was not refused treatment at the hospital)... She is making a story about criticizing the war in Iraq in the senat before Obama did (in fact Obama criticized the war in the senat two weeks before her in addition of criticizing the war years earlier when running for office in the Illinois senat)... She is saying that Mark Penn is out of her campaign while he is not (he is still in charge of the polling on which she depends).

Hillary Clinton is suffering of post traumatic stress disorder and so is her campaign.

"I came here to talk about politics and campaign issues, not watch what I assume to be adults behave like 8-year-olds."

CC-fix the blog already!!

anyhoo quick comment about mark penn-rove. did anyone find it curious that the el presidente of colombia started making negative comments about obama, i suspect right around the same time penn's pr firm probably picked up the colombian contract?

is there some sort of law forbiding that type of campagin? seriously, leaders of other nations butting their noses in our election process? if anything i would expect the premier of vietnam to endorse McCain anyday now!

Several months ago I Posted about my dislike for Penn and Wolfsen. Strange as it may seem to some, but pols actually employ these "Hired Guns" without Knowing they are against them. I have felt these two were against Hillary from the start, and she was dumb enough not to realize it and kept taking their advice.

Leichtman:

The post at 7:31P wasn't me. I'm leaving until they fix this problem with the posting.

Leichtman:

Undecided voters? Surely you jest ... :)

I haven't been out personally, but friends who have been canvassing (Obama supporters) find that the economy is the biggest issue. No surprise there, particularly when it costs $50 to fill up your gas tank.

People around here aren't used to "big-time" campaigning, so its kind of a shock to most when someone comes knocking on the door. But most people aren't following the race nearly as closely as the posters on The Fix. There's still a lot of disinformation about HRC and BHO out there. Unfortunately, we also have 12 people (9 R, 3 D) running to replace Rep. John Peterson and they're having some trouble getting media exposure because of the D presidential race.

You'll be happy to hear that our county's Democratic registration now exceeds the Republican's for the first time since the Nixon era.

So much for al-Queda, hm?

Guess we're not talking about al-Queda anymore -- we're on to the next war. Get your war on!

To anon, re: Petreaus testimony... He is going to say that everything wrong in Iraq is Iran's fault, and therefore we have to stay there forever. And this is true, because all the Shiites, al-Maliki included, feel their greatest allegiance to their spiritual leader, Supreme Ayatollah al-Sistani of Iran, rather than any civil authority. So if we want to maintain the fiction of democracy, we will have to stay there, in great strength, and enforce it.

"Times of London: "IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week. Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi'ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think. Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces."

leichtman - It is all we are hearing about. The Clinton camp really screwed this one up. Imagine - telling these poor, hard-working voters out of one side of your mouth that you are in their corner, then you most trusted friend and advisor is caught trying to enrich an anti-union dictator at the working man's expense. This on top of the revelations that the Clintons have made millions for doing very little.

Now I know how you felt down in Texas after Hillary lost the state's delegates to that villain Obama.

Zouk is the real life "Kaiser Soze."

Dear Clinton Camp:

Just because you have timely fired Penn, do not think that we have forgotten to scrutinize your tax records.

Love,

The American Voter

mnteg if you have been cnvassing in Pa I am curious if any undecided voters you hace spoken with even know or for that matter cares about Mark Penn? It would seem that they would focus on their economy and would care less who is running the campaign. Everyone doesn't follow the minute by minute details of the campaign like those here.

Chris,

Not sure what is going on here today but you should be blocking some of these idiots. This is a disgrace to those interested in an adult conversation.

'all you dinosaurs can go softly into fossil-hood now.'

Message; no one over 30 permitted.

Why can't we focus on something impt like Patreaus'testimony rather than just screaming liar or you are old?

"even though most voters don't know who Penn is. "

Don't worry about that. By the time the media has condensed this into its proper narrative form - presidential candidate is saying one thing about free trade to blue-collar voters, while her most trusted confidante is greasing the skids for an anti-union thug - Mark Penn will replace William's as the most recognizable name in the Keystone State.

'maybe everyone is just sick of your hate speech and daily rantings.'

Yes, kingofzouk, we all ARE sick of you.

"Don't assume too much... I'm not convinced they are all adults (mentally or emotionally at least)."

Good God... PLEASE fix this blog sign in.

"I came here to talk about politics and campaign issues, not watch what I assume to be adults behave like 8-year-olds."

Don't assume too much... I'm not convinced they are all adults (mentally or emotionally at least).

JNoel002:

I don't think HRC suffered too much when she replaced Patty Solis Doyle with Maggie Williams, so I'd expect this move to have little effect on voting patterns. The people I've talked to here in central PA either don't know Penn or don't care (HRC and BHO supporters).

I'm clearly one of a very small minority here that's following these little things.

drindl - or maybe everyone is just sick of your hate speech and daily rantings.

It seems the same with the clintons - sick of the lies, the hate, the extremism, the partisan hackery. all you dinosaurs can go softly into fossil-hood now. we're done with you.

don't let the screen door on your trailer hit your enormous pant-suited behind.

"Hundreds were killed or wounded in the fighting across Iraq, which reportedly ended when Iranian and Iraqi Shiite officials held talks in Iran with clerics there."

says it all about who's in power in Iraq.

Does this swing Pennsylvania into the Obama category?

I was convinced up until I heard this that Clinton would win, but this would seem to change things...even though most voters don't know who Penn is. Doesn't another week of negative news put a damper on Clinton's hopes to secure the primary(which she desperately needs)?

This is the height of hypocrisy:

Clinton didn't pay health insurance bills

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html

drindl:

Clearly, zoukie has a bit of a crush on you. Remember kindergarten when the little boys threw rocks at the girls they liked? Or maybe he got rejected by a girl named "drindl" when he was younger.

"shrieking and cawing of a sick crow'

now bonjedi is obsessed with me too???? I always thought I had superior intelligence than Brittany but now I know it fer shere.

Oops, I'm sorry.

I came here to talk about politics and campaign issues, not watch what I assume to be adults behave like 8-year-olds.

I'll try again tomorrow.

cc could you also block anyone who doesn't actually sign their post, as your rules suggest. Except me, of course.

cc - could you also block all users who disagree with my loony views?

another way to tell it's me is the use of ***. I have a very limited vocabulary. those kinds of words express my hate and resentment very f*cking well though.

now back to my argument with myself. except I got a little lost, is this me or is this my sock puppet pretending to be me?

Hey voices, don't all talk at once. confused is only slightly better than lonely.

CC -- I suggest you take steps to block users who steal signatures from others, as your rules suggest.

Mark, would you shoot off another note to CC and see what's going on with registration?

jesus, what is wrong with this sick f*ck zouk? any of you got any ideas why he is so obssesed with me? man, he is one twisted little puke. no wonder he can't get a job or a girlfriend.

"full disclosure coupled with a vigilant press constitute our limited safeguards."

except we don't have a vigilant press anymore so so much for 'safeguards.'

'there is no good way of leaving and still looking like "real men".'

that, I think, is part of the problem. an american preoccupation with being perceived as 'macho.' what we look like instead is bullies. we ought to be more concerned with that.

that wasn't me. this is me.

In the future, if there is no sign of hate in a post, it is not me.

The Clixonian explanation for Penn's continuing participation today: "There is a difference between being in charge and being one of many voices."

Similarly there is a difference between principle and pure fraud, although that is a distinction wholly unrecognized by Hill, Bill, Howie and Harold.

"I pray that neither your voice nor hate represent the Obama campaign."

Again, let's dodge the real issue. Is it hate to call you on your nonsense? Is it hate to point out the hypocrisy and untenability of Hillary's position?

Realize this - you have been backed into the position that Hillary Clinton's campaign has set up a house of cards as its rationale for earning the Democratic nomination, and that no one has the right to pull any one of the cards, because the whole structure will topple. This stems from the sense of entitlement that alienates so many from Hillary. Do you realize that the only person in politics with a negativity rating that rivals Hillary is Newt Gingrich? Newt Gingrich! Historically, the only one who rates with Hill is Richard Nixon. Nixon, Newt, and Hillary. What a trio. Of course, none of the other two is as shameless as Hillary - offering the VP slot to the leader in delegates, states won, and votes; shouting "disenfranchisement" mere months after guaranteeing that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count; saying she came under sniper fire knowing that there were ample witnesses and video tape to bust her fib; leaking Obama's photo in "native" dress ... the list goes on and on ... Stiffing small businesses who have supplied her campaign, not paying her campaign's health insurance, moaning about how the media is costing her the election.

Of course, according to leichtman, no one is allowed to discuss any of that, and paradoxically the reason is that Obama is the candidate of hope and change. That leichtman believes that the only grounds for discussion are the flimsiest of straw men, and only the ones that give Hillary the nomination, those seem to be the best ways of undermining a candidacy.

You're not going to SwiftBoat Obama with the shrieking and cawing of a sick crow. Remember that every time you concoct one of your twisted posts.

that wasn't

that was me.

Dave!, Thanks for getting back on your take on Arkin today.

Your distinction between what should be asked in open session and what should be asked behind closed doors is well taken.

i had cooled on Arkin, too, but may still look at his column once a week or so.

I cannot keep my Latin American leaders straight. Was Uribe elected in a relatively fair election?

TruthHunter, I also think lobbyists are useful and in some sense a logical result of the First Amendment. It is the money storm that can be addressed at some level, without doing violence to the 1st A., but the existence of the lobby is part of being free, and full disclosure coupled with a vigilant press constitute our limited safeguards.

I have no positive comments to make, like every day, so instead I plan on spamming this site and filling it up with my usual rubbish. I will take the opportunity of signing other names to amuse myself.

It's like halloween every day. I get to be ignorant coward again, my favorite other self (among the many voices in my head).

see if you can tell, which is me, drindl and which is the real poster. tee hee.

Ah yes, it's just like the good old days in here today :)

bsimon, I know the invasion of Iraq has destabalized the region and, of course, this has driven the price of oil higher. But we are now in this quagmire and there is no good way of leaving and still looking like "real men".

" a benefit like the Webb proposal for Vets should be rolled into the war budget as a 'cost of doing business' in the ongoing military conflicts."

I agree. Wartime vets should get more assistance for education and retraining than peacetime vets.

Election year grandstanding is not the answer, although if it truly an improvement over the current system with less red-tape, then I support the new GI Bill and hope it gets more bipartisan support.

I can't pay my health care benefits for my staff.

Still, everyone else who doesn't pay them should go to jail. that is my proposal. the rules don't apply to me.

proudtobeGOP writes
"As for increasing domestic spending, if you believe that we should raise taxes and spend more money on domestic programs you are free to advocate that policy, whatever its wisdom."

Actually, that's not what I said. You're advocating that spending on the war is boosting the economy. I'm advocating that, if we're going to spend that money, the bang for the buck would go farther if the money were spent here on capital improvements or R&D, rather than on one time expenses such as munitions or fuel to run the military machine.

The larger point that you ignore (and I didn't address earlier) is that the war spending is causing problems because the war is funded through borrowing. On Friday you talked about not spending money on a Vet education benefit because it was irresponsible. I would find that position far more credible if it were also applied to the war in general. I think a benefit like the Webb proposal for Vets should be rolled into the war budget as a 'cost of doing business' in the ongoing military conflicts. Then we ought to have a larger discussion about whether its smart or not to borrow money & cut taxes while this war expenditure is going on. Its a ridiculous policy, in my opinion, that the Bush admin has foisted on the country this concept that we can increase spending while cutting revenue & everything will pay for itself. These guys believe in a free lunch, and people like apparently believe it too.

some things never change - day after day, hate after hate.

i hate, I hate, therefore I am....drindl:

I don't hate you, bhoomes, I hate being called a traitor. I hate people telling me I hate my country. I'm tired of the poisoned debate, the attacks, the viciousness, the swift-boating, the nastiness. I hate what happened to Max Cleland. It was disgusting.

This whole viciously partisan atmosphere that exists in DC was engineered by republicans. Ever since Clinton was elected, they have never stopped trying to destroy the Democratic party so they can hang on to the reins of power forever.

How is caring about the lives of 10,000 of my fellow Americans who are dead or maimed hating America? How is wanting to stop pouring more than 400 billion dollars down a rat hole hating America?

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 12:24 PM

The definition of leadership is being responsible for the actions of those that work for you.

Penn's actions and the re-actions are an example of HRC leadership. First make sure the press claims that BOTH HRC and Bill are furious. Then take decisive action, by let ting Penn 'only participate' in the conference calls.

Penn must have some powerful factual information about HRC and Bill to make the demotion the decisive action.

"Overall, Iraqi deaths rose from a low of 568 in December and 541 in January to roughly 721 in February to more than 1,082 in March, according to statistics compiled by Iraq's ministries of health, interior, and defense and confirmed by Smith. The vast majority were civilians."

You know what Dick Cheney would say to this: "so?!".

Zouk's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

"A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago."

Leave? Who wants to leave???

"Perhaps, instead of spending all this money on munitions that are expended in Iraq, we could spend some money at home.."

bsimon, As for increasing domestic spending, if you believe that we should raise taxes and spend more money on domestic programs you are free to advocate that policy, whatever its wisdom.

Your isn't an argument about the cost of the war -- it's an argument about whether we want to have higher taxes to pay for increased domestic spending.

Alternatively, it can be an argument about the cost-benefit of government borrowing versus tax increases, or of government borrowing versus economic stimulus in the form of government spending.

It is not about the one-for-one tradeoff of dollars spent on the war versus dollars spent on schools and health care.

Modern economics has long understood that the notion of a one-for-one guns-versus-butter trade-off is simply wrong.

As to drindl's argument about the price of gasoline, that high gas prices are the result of the war -- and ending the war would lower gas prices.

In the real world, American forces are playing a key role in keeping the violence in Iraq down and preventing it from engulfing the region -- if they are withdrawn prematurely, violence will spike and so will the price of oil.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmUxZjE4YmJhOWQ2OGQ0NTcwMzJkNDYzNzIzNWEwYzA=&w=MQ==

"Military spending has traditionally been a form of economic stimulus, and wars more commonly end recessions or depressions than start them."

See... if Bush would've just leveled with us instead of all that B.S. about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mobile Chemical Weapons Labs, Spreading Democracy and Ridding the World of a Tyrant (remember: "they'll welcome us with open arms as liberators"?) -- if he would have just leveled with us and said, "we need this war -- it's good for the economy" then maybe the trust would not be gone.

Overall, Iraqi deaths rose from a low of 568 in December and 541 in January to roughly 721 in February to more than 1,082 in March, according to statistics compiled by Iraq's ministries of health, interior, and defense and confirmed by Smith. The vast majority were civilians.

"There was somewhere on the order of a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties when you consider March compared to February," Smith said.

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

bonjedi I pray that neither your voice nor hate represent the Obama campaign.

Keep it up your posts undermine your own candidate's message. I am sure others here from the Obama side have told you that, but which you continue to ignore.

'believing that even my political opposite or a group way outside my social standing has the ability to come up with a good idea every now and then (a stopped clock is right twice a day).'

sounds like it was written from the cesspool of capitalism

"Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, making the case for the "unmistakable progress" in Iraq.

A telling moment in his remarks came when he was arguing why President Bush's surge "dramatically turned around the situation in Iraq." Just as he reached this point in his speech, MSNBC cut away to report on escalating violence in Iraq:

McCAIN: Faced with the prospect of defeat, we had two fundamental choices. We could retreat from Iraq and accept the horrible consequences of our defeat. Or we could change strategies and try to turn things around. It was, I believe, a critical moment in our nation's history, and a time of testing for our nation's political leadership.

In the year that has passed, our nation showed its strength -

MSNBC: We have breaking news out of Iraq, where at least four mortars have been fired into the heavily-fortified Green Zone today. It's unclear at this time if there are casualties. Now the news comes just a day after five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. Two, again, inside that Green Zone.

Yesterday's death toll was "one of the worst daily tolls for the American military in the most heavily protected part of Baghdad." The New York Times notes that the attacks "were a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq."

i wish i knew more about numbers. As it is , I have to go to hate sites and copy what they post. If I understood any of it, maybe I could think about it and offer something, but I can't.

If it smells like hate, i pass it on. I do a lot of smelly thinks like that.

By day, I am a whiny Clinton-supporting Silicon Valley executive who can read.

At night, I prowl the highways and byways of the internet in a neverending quest to outlaw diversity and institute worship of Mammon.

Moo-oo-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah!

Truth Hunter - "The problem with lobbyists prevailing is that the everyday man loses his voice... and eventually his country."

Except that lobbyists and the people who work for them and the people they work for and the people that buy the products or services of the people that employ lobbyists are us. And no, I am not and have never been a lobbyist. Simply a realist. Don't you find it curious that the lobbyists we agree with we call "advocates" and the ones we don't are called "lobbyists"? If Exxon or Walmart does it, it's called lobbying. If the PTA does it, they call it advocating. Regardless, I believe there is room at the table for all kinds of ideas from all kinds of individuals and groups. Again, I tend to focus on the policies instead of where they come from. It keeps me less close minded, believing that even my political opposite or a group way outside my social standing has the ability to come up with a good idea every now and then (a stopped clock is right twice a day).

"unfair-trade and union bashing"
Some call it this, others might call it defense of capitalism (in the socialist cesspool of South America).

Only problem with all that spending in Iraq is, it goes to foreign subcontractors, or it just disappears. That's never happened in previous US wars.

Look, this is precious:

"During today's White House press briefing, deputy spokesman Tony Fratto admitted that the White House has, at least up until recently, been looking at Iraq through "rose-colored glasses." Responding to a question about the rising violence in Iraq, Fratto said, "I think we have thrown out all of the rose-colored glasses in how we look at Iraq and try to look at it through clear lenses as to what is going on in the country." Fratto later added: "Like I said, we threw out the rose-colored glasses. I think we have a clear-eyed view of what's happening in Baghdad."

I can even have a talk with my self - watch.

See a doctor, zouk, get a life. You bore the hell out of everyone on here. Christ, what a juvenile.

Leichtman - out of curiosity, I googled undermind. Evidently, it was the title of Phish's 13th and final studio album. Not meaning to tease, just found it a curious typo with a potential double meaning.

BB

proudtobeGOP writes
"In fact, a high proportion of money spent on defense goes back into the U.S. economy in the form of salaries paid to the more than 5 million Americans employed directly or indirectly by the Defense Department, and payments to the defense industry and the long and complex supply chains from which they draw their raw materials."

Why, proud, I'm proud of you. You're starting to sound like you're getting misty-eyed for the jobs programs of FDR.

Its good to see that conservatives are starting to see that gov't spending isn't just throwing money into a black hole, where it is never to be seen again, but instead can be targeted to stimulate certain areas of the economy. Perhaps, instead of spending all this money on munitions that are expended in Iraq, we could spend some money at home & have something to show for the effort. New bridges, maybe, or new technology through a renewable fuels program. Or better schools, to educate the workforce of the future; being the selfish SOB that I am, I'd like to see the next generation running a booming economy that keeps things humming along nicely, while I'm enjoying my retirement.

"drindl, I was wrong about you -- I have to admit, you were right -- I am obsessed with you."

Thanks for admitting, but we all knew that already.

"The U.K. publication THE ECONOMIST, which had an editorial policy favoring war with Iraq, is nevertheless worried about the economic effects of the war for the world. In a recent series of articles, "The Cost of War," THE ECONOMIST looked at the many financial costs of a war: direct military costs; peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and rebuilding and the macroeconomic costs to the world economy in oil prices, stock markets, the dollar and business and consumer confidence."

The Iraq was is one of the main reasons the dollar is so low and oil is so high. If you don't mind paying $10 a gallon, sure let's keep troops in Iraq forever.

"I will ignore your comments about monica bonjedi "

How convenient. Overlook everything relevant to the continued existence of the Clinton campaign, and focus on non-starters like Florida and Michigan. Maybe if you forced yourself to look, you would realize that Clinton wasn't paying attention as much as she claims during the White House years, and that recent events in the campaign bear out the reasonable assertion that she is in over her head with executive matters. What kind of person is oblivious to her spouse cheating on her several times when they're in the house together, with the presence of the Secret Service to help, no less?

More Clinton doubletalk. As noted, you didn't waste any time piling on with Jeremiah Wright and Rezko.

I hope zouk comes back soon. I can't live without an enemy to hate. all this bile, envy and spite will end up in my living room if I don't regurgitate it here.

My husband already works nights, although I suspect something. why won't anyone be my friend? I could get my fangs filed down. but underneath it all there is always:

hate, hate, hate

out of respect for bismon, I will ignore your comments about monica bonjedi b/c I truly believe that you do not speak for or represent the sentiments of the Obama campaign to get into the gutter. Apparently you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time but to undermine your candidate, I do.

"The $100 billion or so of direct war costs that could theoretically be recouped by withdrawing all of our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan is less than 6 percent of the $1.7 trillion spent on mandatory and discretionary domestic programs."

Again, as someone pointed out, 'direct' costs are only a tiny percentage of the real costs. Direct costs don't include deferred costs, like the billions and billions we will be paying to care for the tens of thousands of maimed veterans for the rest of the their lives. They also don't include a number of immediate expenses which are shuffled off into other categories, like private contractors.

'Direct' costs don't include the $200,000 a year apiece we're paying foreign mercernaries that work for Blackwater, for instance, or ANY of the 'reconstruction' contracts, which are a great part of current spending there.

"In fact, a high proportion of money spent on defense goes back into the U.S. economy in the form of salaries paid to the more than 5 million Americans employed directly or indirectly by the Defense Department, and payments to the defense industry and the long and complex supply chains from which they draw their raw materials. "

Great idea - risk getting yourself maimed or killed, so the economy gets a shot in the arm. Ugh. Why don't we just machete people's arms and legs here, to save the cost of transporting them to the Middle East?

"The best place to start retrenching and reinvesting in Americans is to cut loose the waste in the Middle East."

In fact, a high proportion of money spent on defense goes back into the U.S. economy in the form of salaries paid to the more than 5 million Americans employed directly or indirectly by the Defense Department, and payments to the defense industry and the long and complex supply chains from which they draw their raw materials.

Military spending has traditionally been a form of economic stimulus, and wars more commonly end recessions or depressions than start them. That's not a good reason to start a war, but neither is it a good reason to lose one.

The impact of the current war on the U.S. economy is far smaller than the impact of previous major conflicts. Military spending in World War II ranged from 17.8 percent of GDP to 37.5 percent; in Korea from 5.0 percent (in 1950 -- 7.4 percent in 1951) to 14.2 percent; in Vietnam from 7.4 percent to 9.4 percent.

Current expenditures on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars bring total defense expenditures to something well below 5 percent of GDP.

Can America afford the consequences of an immediate withdrawal? What would they be? What would they cost? If those costs include the possibility of re-engaging against al-Qaeda or regional instability in the future -- as Sen. Obama has bizarrely hinted -- what will that undertaking cost?

The antiwar party has the obligation to explain to the American people the probable and possible costs of its own proposals, something it has so far utterly failed to do.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmUxZjE4YmJhOWQ2OGQ0NTcwMzJkNDYzNzIzNWEwYzA=&w=Mg==

Hillary's lead in Penn is shrinking with every day and with every shift in her suppporting staff. A group that cant keep her from lying in her standard stump speeches is probably beyond hope. I hate to think what their next great plan will be - HIllary crying into her beer (to show what a good guy she is.)

"when I read constant posts yelling liar or monica(not from you) it makes our side wonder where that uplifting campaign really is."

Explain why you think Obama's uplifting campaign presents Clinton with a get-out-of-jail card for her lying. And you know darn well why the Lewinsky Affair is important - either Hillary is completely oblivious to what was going on around her when she was supposedly racking up experience, or she exploited her marriage for the inside track on a presidential bid.

bsimon -

I posted the "anon" message to leichtman. My browser crashed and forgot my ID info, and I didn't notice until it showed up w/o a signature. Excellent response.

drindl, I was wrong about you -- I have to admit, you were right -- I am obsessed with you.

Will you mentor me? Will teach me what is best for our country? I will try to be civil, but I have to admit that sometimes my emotions for you overwhlem me and I become a bad boy.

I have very little to say except:

hate, hate, hate

hate, hate, hate

hate, hate, hate

hate, hate, hate

hate, hate, hate

hate, hate, hate

Bringing it all together: Friend of the unionmember Bubba wagging his finger at unionbusting thug Pres. Aribe, telling her he did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky:

http://www.daylife.com/photo/003MdZigiAe3H

It's interesting that programs designed to help people are "discretionary", but killing people in preemptive wars and occupations based on manipulated and outright false information is somehow non-discretionary.

(Oh, and that "$100 billion or so of direct war costs" is a pretty lame dodge of the real costs, which are significantly higher.)

"In short, we don't need a policy wonk for a President, we need a leader. Our best presidents are the ones that set a vision, establish an agenda & inspire the country to work together, not the ones that can debate the minutae of Medicare part D."

Actually I see HC as both a policy wonk and leader and that explains why we are on different sides. After 8 years of W totally destroying us at home and abroad yes it will take a policy wonk to unearth and change all of the hidden signing statements and unconstituitional programs and administrative privatization programs from W. There are literally tens of billions of dollars that have literally disappeared in Iraq and yes I would like a policy wonk to find a prosecute that past corruption. Giving a great speech won't fix that, our economy or healthcare.

Knowing the details of a bloated Medicare part D effects my 92 year old mom and knowing the details of sovereign wealth funds and Fannie Mae and Bear Sterns, effects the economy, the country and my family's employment and have truly universal healthcare effects whether my generation will be able to retire over the next 10 years w/o going into bankruptcy to pay for their healthcare.

So we agree: this election is not about Bill Clinton and the are real differences in policies b/w Sen Obama and Sen HC. That is certainly a better discussion then each side screaming liar.

I understand that you don't speak for Sen Obama nor that I speak for HC, but when I read constant posts yelling liar or monica(not from you) it makes our side wonder where that uplifting campaign really is.

Anon - And I'm impressed by your speling.

So far, we've seen svreader and zouk spoofed. Perhaps it's time for WaPo to use authentication.

BB

Uribe is a rightwing thug, like many of our 'allies'

The name, "Paragate," coined by the Colombian press, derives from the word "paramilitary," referring to the AUC, (Autodefensas Unidas de Cordoba or, United Self-Defence Movement of Colombia) the outlaw right-wing militia that dominates much of Colombia; with "gate," of course, suggesting that the scandal could even bring down the president, who has ties to the AUC.

The Paramilitaries:

The AUC was set up in the mid-1990's by wealthy landholders and drug traffickers as a counter-force to left-wing guerrillas. The AUC was popularly dubbed "paramilitary" because of a long history of collaboration between the AUC and the official Colombian armed forces. This teamwork in the perpetration of numerous atrocities over the last decade has been amply documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and by courageous reporters within Colombia, many of whom were killed or driven into exile for their efforts.

In the late 1990's leading up to the present, the AUC gained tremendous power over large swatches of countryside and in all northern cities -- Medellin, Santa Marta Barranquilla, Monteria -- of Colombia. By 2006, this outlaw army boasted some 30,000 armed fighters, who carried out a scorched-earth counter-insurgency policy resulting in the assassination or disappearance of tens of thousands of civilians they accused of leftist sympathies. An estimated 2,000,000 peasants were driven from their homes in order to clear and claim their land.

Their modus operandi -- often involving the use of chainsaws -- makes for a record of crimes against humanity that rivals that of Augusto Pinochet or Slobodan Milosevic. Such tactics were effective in gaining the AUC control hold over a large part of the Colombian territory, population and the state, and securing for them the land and export routes they needed for their cocaine export business to flourish."

I kinda lost my zest for the National Review when Bill Buckley left, Proud, but thanks anyway.

But you have touched on something of great importance: Entitlements.

What do we do about this Bogie Man?

p.s.
I read somewhere that the US defense budget is more than the rest of the world combined -- is this true? Anybody know?

Clinton's campaign is just a foretaste of a Clinton administration and, just like the previous one, it appears to be one train wreck after another.

And that's a fact that's clear and obvious to all but the fanatically devoted.

"The $100 billion or so of direct war costs that could theoretically be recouped by withdrawing all of our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan is less than 6 percent of the $1.7 trillion spent on mandatory and discretionary domestic programs."

You make a good point. The best place to start retrenching and reinvesting in Americans is to cut loose the waste in the Middle East.

"I'm sure our economy would feel that."

This is just the beginning. The real effects have not been felt yet. Give it time.

What Vietnam (coupled with the spending on the Great Society) did to the American Economy in the mid-late '70's will pale next to this debacle. Unless we can make a course correction and get out asap.

LBJ resisted tax increases to pay for that war until 1968. He tried to wage a war without increasing government revenues. The real pain came years later.

Adrick, Here's something I just read that pertains to your post:

"While it is true that security spending (including Homeland Security and many costs not related to the Iraq war) is the largest single line-item in the 2008 Federal budget at $656 billion, mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, and other non-security discretionary programs received $610 billion, $391 billion, $211 billion, and $481 billion respectively.

The $100 billion or so of direct war costs that could theoretically be recouped by withdrawing all of our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan is less than 6 percent of the $1.7 trillion spent on mandatory and discretionary domestic programs."

more here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmUxZjE4YmJhOWQ2OGQ0NTcwMzJkNDYzNzIzNWEwYzA=&w=MQ==

$12,000,000,000 is $12 Billion (not Trillion).

Ignore me (but not forever).

Dave! said: Colombia's Uribe "may well be a thug although I don't think he is in the same league as, say, a Chavez. What is the problem with diplomacy and communication with him? I thought that was the Obama approach - you should be willing to talk with anyone and everyone."

I was referring to making a fair-trade agreement with Uribe, the poster boy for unfair-trade and union bashing, not "communication." I can assure you that Obama knows the difference.

And, your defense of lobbyists sounds like the reasoning of a lobbyist. The problem with lobbyists prevailing is that the everyday man loses his voice... and eventually his country.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"'Are we stupid, or what?!?!'

'sucker' I beleive, is the correct terminology, according to PT Barnum."

But Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us that this war would "pay for itself" -- that the Iraqi oil revenues would subsidize the occupation.

And Cheney and Rumsfeld are patriots, right?

AdrickHenry, we're not paying $12,000,000,000 a month for the reconstruction and defense of ... Iraq. 12 Trillion? Wow... I'm sure our economy would feel that.

Leichtman seems lost without Penn to provide her talking points. Are you really naive enough to believe that there is no correlation between how a candidate approaches the campaign and how she approaches the presidency?

To throw your argument on its ear, Joe Sixpack should be paying very close attention to the Penn situation, for more than Hillary's incompetence in selecting personnel. What other Hillary messages are tainted, other than her fibs about Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and the pregnant-lady-without-insurance?

Obama "associates" himself tangentially with Rezko, Wright, Farrakhan and he is pilloried, but Clinton has been cuddled up intimately with Penn since the dog days of impeachment, and the electorate is supposed to focus on gas prices, not Clinton's lack of executive skills. That fits in with Clinton's best argument - I should get the nom because I will hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't. Ugh.

Meanwhile, the supers, who ARE rightfully paying attention, are beginning to choose sides.

Leichtman writes
"those attacks really conflict with your campaign's theme"

Yo, Leichtman, I'm neither a candidate for office, nor affiliated with any candidate's campaign for office.

I think the election is about leadership, specifically about each candidate's ability to 1) build some consensus among Americans about what it means to be America and to be an American. 2) demonstrate leadership on the world stage & return to a 'lead by example' policy.

I think now, as I have thought for a long time, that the best two candidates to acheive these goals are Barack Obama & John McCain. I have held this position since long before anyone had a lead - before the first votes were cast (or caucuses held) this year.

I don't think the campaign is about the relative merits of Bill's administration vs. W's. For one thing, neither of them are running. For another, the country's needs are different today than they were in 2000 or 1992. Thirdly, Hillary isn't Bill and McCain isn't Bush, no matter how much some people might wish otherwise.

In short, we don't need a policy wonk for a President, we need a leader. Our best presidents are the ones that set a vision, establish an agenda & inspire the country to work together, not the ones that can debate the minutae of Medicare part D.

I almost believed that was really from zouk but it's just too clever.

'Are we stupid, or what?!?!'

'sucker' I beleive, is the correct terminology, according to PT Barnum.

I pee my pants constantly coz I'm scare of everything esepcially brown people and I'm afraid to come out of the basement, so my mom always brings me cheetos and lets me play on the computer all day. I'm too stupid to go to school but I tell everyone I have a porsche --teehee -- and they all beleive me!

Sum peopl are meen to me tho because im not very smart but thats okay, ill show them when i grow up and work at burger king and thin i can git all the hambergers i want.

Slightly off topic, but I gotta ask:

Are we stupid?!

I mean, us... Americans, are we friggin' dumbs***s, or what?

I just saw in WaPo, that the government of Iraq is running "at least" a 30 BILLION DOLLAR surplus because of its oil revenues.

And yet, we, Americans Taxpayers, are paying approximately $12,000,000,000 a month for the reconstruction and defense of this same Iraq government?

Are we stupid, or what?!?!

"Aides to Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for dialogue to resolve a violent standoff with the Iraqi government, saying that the radical Shiite cleric would disband his militia if senior religious leaders ordered it."

Dave! This is the core of the issue. The Shia [and Sunni] believe in theocracy -- not democracy. We can't force it on them. We see this all through the ME -- Israel is a theocracy too, after all. Kings and shieks and Princes and clerics rule most countries there.

The Shia in Iraq -- all of them -- are led ultimately by the IRANIAN Supreme Ayatollah, al-Sistani. This is their spiritual leader, whom they place far above any civil leader.

It isn't that the Iranians are meddling in the Iraq war -- they don't even have too. Both al-Maliki and al-Sadr take their marching orders from the Ayatollah -- and in fact, it was Maliki who went to Iran asking the Ayatollah to broker a cease fire with al -Sadr when al-Maliki was losing.

Does anyone really think we're going to change the belief system of these people overnight, after thousands of years?

farlington: cute a typo, we are impresed by that insightful comment.

I see demon's everywhere!

bsimon: first of all Bill is not the candidate. Secondly if you wish to make this a campaign a comparison of the 50 million jobs and the reduction of poverty during the Clinton Admin. v a sinking economy and rising poverty under W's administration that is just fine. In reality while we hear Chelsea being inappropriately questioned about monica and other right wing garbage from the 1990s all of those attacks really conflict with your campaign's theme of bringing this country together and running a campaign that is not politics as usual. Sounds to me that at times that is exactly what we hear from your side(not from you).

Leichtman - to undermind a campaign? I'm sure you meant undermine, but I'd be interested in possible interpretations of the meaning of undermind. Sounds rather Machiavellian.

The Clinton campaign has gotten its act together and run a disciplined campaign since mid-March. Probably too late. I'd say the worst run campaign of the election was McCain's and see where that got him. [Rudy and Fred didn't seem to be intersted in campaigning at all.]

BB

Camp Clinton faces a real challenge of how to frame this story.

Either A) Penn's departure means disruption and upheaval or B) the title-change for Penn (still retained) is not enough to repudiate his pro-trade stance.

For now, it sounds like they're trying to have it both ways by saying they're upset with him, but there won't be any disruption (and of course they'll keep paying him and his team). I wonder how many pro-union voters in PA will notice.

'I am most disturbed by Mark Penn's close association with BlackWater'

Charles Black, the chief strategist for McCain, is also lobbyist for Blackwater, in addition to being a lobbyist for the government of Iraq and a former lobbyist for Ahmed Chalabi, the iraqi exile/Iranian spies, who lies formed the basis of support for this ungodly debacle in Iraq.

No one, with the exception of other neocon advisors to McCain, like Bill Kristol, is more responsible for the endless quagmire we face there now.

That's gotta be a spoof post from not svreader.

BB

MarkInAustin,
I used to blog a lot on Arkin's site but, to make a long story short, quit after my irritation levels got too high at him. That said, I took a look at it. He frames the issue correctly, I think, but some of the questions are off base and some just should not be publicly discussed, IMO. There are a few, however, that would be really good to get his take on. And I read the following today that seems to make some of his questions dated or at least rhetorical (Arkin is supposed to be the military expert with the inside ear so he should know this stuff already) -

"Aides to Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for dialogue to resolve a violent standoff with the Iraqi government, saying that the radical Shiite cleric would disband his militia if senior religious leaders ordered it."

I think questions about previous failures in leadership and what should or should not have been done about it takes the focus off of Iraq and the current situation. Those discussions need to occur but I don't think this is the proper forum. Questions like the one about the al-Maliki govt surviving should not be discussed in public. One of the really good questions was the one on why is it that the U.S. armed forces of nearly two million active duty and reservists can barely sustain less than one-tenth their strength in combat.

April: her campaign theme since Jan has been Sollutions for America, whether you like it or not.

I will answer your question thusly. Do you really think that Jo Smith voter who goes to fill up his F150 with $3.60 gas or the mom who goes to pick up her child care knows or would in the least bit care who Mark Penn is? Those are the people we should pay attention to in the next 55 days.

Once the election is over, few know or even care who ran their campaigns except for political junkies.

April, Karl Rove ran a great political campaign for W in 2004. Did that somehow speak for W's leadership skills as Pres? Does W's hiring of Rove mean that that made him a great or compitent President, or only lucky?

Maggie Williams has run her campaign for over a month and I doubt even the most partisan would question her skill her talent. Seems like there is always a Shrum or Penn to undermind a great campaign. I am glad he is gone and once the media gets over this story it could actually be a plus for her campaign

Anon asks, of Leichtman,
"Are the voters not entitled to consider Hillary's choices to head her campaign, her excessive loyalty to them, and her inability to settle on a coherent campaign theme/structure as evidence of the kind of WH she would run?"

I'll take that one. Voters are entitled to consider nothing that might reflect poorly on Sen Clinton as a Presidential candidate. Regarding her husband's administration, voters are directed to presume that Sen Clinton was involved in everything good, but nothing bad. Regarding which aspects of President Clinton's administration were actually good or bad, voters are allowed to make up their own minds, as long as they recall that Sen Clinton was involved with the good, but not the bad. Do you like NAFTA? Sen Clinton was involved. Oh, you don't like NAFTA? Sen Clinton voiced reservations about its priority in her husband's administration. See? Its not that hard!

hate, hate, hate

Penn will fade. The dysfunction story will not:

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-clinton-embellishes.html

"Sunday, April 06, 2008
Why Clinton Embellishes

We have three examples from recent days of Clinton's modifications of the truth.

Why do they matter? One might say that many politicians are prone to factual distortions.

What is of particular importance is not only that Clinton distorts the truth, but when she does--and why.

Clinton, as many who know her well and have studied her life closely have indicated, from Dee Dee Myers to Carl Bernstein, has a fundamental difficulty in revealing herself. She is seen by even those who are closest to her as perpetually standing behind a guise, ever prepared for the attack, a characteristic regarded as at times poignant, and at other times Nixonian in its manifestations.

We know from biographies of Clinton, including Bernstein's astute and perceptive "A Woman in Charge" that Clinton's suffered from a harsh and judgmental father, and that this relationship had a deep and significant shaping influence.

On the one hand, it prepared her (indeed, over-prepared her) for quick response, for an all-too-ready response to attack. Yet it also created, beneath the increasingly agile guises and forms of protection, a more fundamental experience of self--that despite the greatest efforts, the most agile displays, of never being quite good enough to measure up to his judgment. This left her, as it leaves many in such circumstances, with a rueful admiration of and attachment to a seeming strength and sureness that she could never have; and underneath the formidably developed masks of intellect and defensive pretense, a fundamental fear of, in her true self, uncovered, falling short. Many have noted this quality in Clinton, and have drawn it back to this familial source.

As a consequence, beneath the feigned hardness, the feigned casualness, and beneath the years of powerfully developed yet defensively driven skills, there is a tragic, deep and, for a President, highly consequential flaw--one that is most likely to be relevant in those "3 a.m. moments" that she has so readily and repeatedly invoked.

One cannot respond with balance and wisdom from a guise. One's own judgment is critically affected by what one feels they must display (and truly cannot), and by what they believe that they must hide.

From such a position, the "other"--be it a colleague, opponent, or one's view of the "public" at large, is critically distorted. The other is not regarded as a fellow equal, with whom we are shouldering difficult tasks together, in order to determine a better future, but a threatening judge, to be managed and feared; whose response must be calculated to be met with the proper guise--one which must be quickly changed--or covered--if there is a danger that, beneath the mask, one will be found out.

What Clinton shares with other talented, tragic figures is a mistrust of humanity's judgment, and, as a result, an inability to meet them with the full, uncovered gaze of a developed and accepted self. The truth, within such an uncertain experience of self and the judgment of others, is often felt to be not enough.

This is what Obama, in this revolutionary moment, to a greater extent, has. This is what people are connecting with. And, in 3 a.m. moments, this is what we need.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-clinton-embellishes.html

I hope that this country can get together behind a great leader like Barack Obama and move forward. I would run through a wall for this great man and this great American. My only regret about democracy is that I can only cast one vote for him.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to come clean.

Posted by: svreader | April 7, 2008 3:04 PM
__________________________________________

I almost needed universal health care from laughing!

"I hope KOZ is not behind that one; I would rather think
a juvenile took KOZ's daily rave about drindl and hid behind this loss of sign-in"

But you know it's him, Mark. He's the only one who ever pulls that kind of sandbox crap. You knew immiediately it was him, don't kid yourself.

From WhiteWater to BlackWater: We've come a long way, baby, or have we? I am most disturbed by Mark Penn's close association with BlackWater, a very profitable no-bid contractor in Iraq. What happened to that legal principle of "Arm's length" associations?

Where a conflict of interest exists between clients, I guess being within book-bag hurling distance it too close for comfort.

leichtman -

Something we agree on: why on earth would anyone ever hire 13-straight-concession-speeches Shrum? When Kerry signed him up on '04 I knew it was over. (He's probably the one who told Kerry to sit quiet while the swiftboat ads smothered his campaign in its crib).

And if I were a Hillary supporter I'd be livid about how badly Penn screwed up her campaign, and dancing the jig at his departure (if he has really departed).

But I put this question to you: Are the voters not entitled to consider Hillary's choices to head her campaign, her excessive loyalty to them, and her inability to settle on a coherent campaign theme/structure as evidence of the kind of WH she would run?

Why is she still in the race. The best way to remove tape is to just rip it off quickly, not a little at a time. She might not be dying quickly, but make no mistake she is dying.
Obama/Richardson 08

Obama was for the Beijing Olympics before he was against it.

Add this to the long list of 'present' votes for Barry the Waffler, aka gutterball.

Your'e right Dave!, that was fun. ;-)

On to a Penn-free Pennsylvania.

bsimon writes "If the stories paint her campaign as woefully dysfunctional, are they accurate or inaccurate?"

Some are calling it inaccurate, and many within her camp are probably dancing the jig right about now.

Major Garrett writes " I believe Penn's departure, while bad for headlines, could be good for the candidate and very good for her over-worked and beleaguered senior staff.

If Penn's detractors are to believed, he had a suffocating effect on Clinton's team, more probably than she fully realized. It is possible that those in Hillaryland who have smoldered for weeks or months about Penn's approach to the campaign will find new freedom and new energy and the campaign will find within itself a sense of possibility and renewal. We will know the answer to this question within a week in terms of Clinton's speeches and ads."

Bush says he is going to be at the Olympics. Clinton has come out against it. I was looking for the eloquence of Obama and instead got this. This is not a good (non)stand to take, IMO. When is he going to decide which of his minds he should side with? After the poll results come in? I found this really, really dissapointing.

"Obama said in a TV interview earlier this month that he was "of two minds" when it came to full U.S. participation in the Olympics.

"On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem," he said, before adding: "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

I just hope that this means an end to all the negativity we've heard from the Clinton camp for teh last two months.

Ambinder says that Penn is still on the conference calls. It looks like he's only lost his title but is still working on the campaign, actively.

Chris writes
"The danger for Clinton is that these stories could paint her campaign as woefully dysfunctional."

Chris, we come here to get your insight into such issues. If the stories paint her campaign as woefully dysfunctional, are they accurate or inaccurate?

Who's taking over Penn's role (if anyone)? Is Wolfson running the show now? Someone new? Or is Penn trying to retain behind-the-scenes influence while remaining out of the spotlight?

Dave! - Take a look at Arkin's column today.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2008/04/ten_questions_for_gen_petraeus.html#more

MarkinAustin - "The 2:47P post is an example of the broken thread inviting anonymous abuse."

Problematic as I think the sign-in has been really helpful. That said, I am really enjoying being able to sign as Dave!, even if only temporarily (hopefully).

I hope that this country can get together behind a great leader like Barack Obama and move forward. I would run through a wall for this great man and this great American. My only regret about democracy is that I can only cast one vote for him.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to come clean.

Truth Hunter - "Colombia's Uribe is a thug.... and he's the best we've got in Latin America according to The Decider."

He may well be a thug although I don't think he is in the same league as, say, a Chavez. What is the problem with diplomacy and communication with him? I thought that was the Obama approach - you should be willing to talk with anyone and everyone. I can't see for the life of me why any Obama supporter would have any issues whatsoever with trying to work together with him. Is it because he is not a leftist/socialist?

And to your question, no, not necessarily. Focus groups and lobbyists are simply means to generate ideas and promote policy. I don't specifically have issues with them. Much