B-Rock NYLA

Hillary vs. Condi

Whenever I seriously start thinking/planning on moving back to LA, the great folks of New York remind me of how much there is to love about this great city of ours.  "It's War" blares the headline in the post.  Huh? Hillary Clinton responds in defense of her husband and all of a sudden it is "War"?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday fired a direct shot at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not taking Osama bin Laden seriously enough before 9/11.

Clinton jumped into the escalating and bitter blame game after Rice charged in yesterday's Post that Bill Clinton was making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't do enough to stop the terror attacks.

"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," Hillary Clinton charged.

Her carefully worded but searing comments were aimed directly at Rice, who served as Bush's national security adviser before the attacks. Clinton was referring to a classified Aug. 6, 2001, briefing Bush received, attended by Rice and other top advisers, that dealt with bin Laden's interest in attacking the United States.

"All you have to do is read the 9/11 commission [report] to know what [Bill Clinton] and his administration did to protect Americans," Hillary Clinton said.

"I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating Democrats are not going to take these attacks," she added.

That is what war looks like?  To me that is mere telling of the facts.  It is, indeed, a fact that President Bush, not President Clinton, was at the helm on 9/11. Why everyone is so loathe to accept that reality is beyond me.  When someone dares defend themselves and attacks this administration it is "war"?  Give me a break folks.  The Clintons are just the only Democrats on the planet, it seems, who aren't afraid to fight back.  If that feels like war to you, then that is personal problem.  I suggest you grow some tougher skin and get used to it.  Frankly, Hill didn't really say all that much. If she really wanted to take direct aim and Condi there are so many more bullets in the arsenal.  From the laid back response to the OBL memo to all the lies in the run up to the war and all the bullshit they spew every single day.  So, in the words of our dear, fearless leader I say, "Bring it on!"

Hillary Clinton Can Beat John McCain

Time Magazine has Hillary Clinton on the cover this week. Surprise, surprise there is nothing really new in the piece. They do the usual rehash of "will she run" "can she win" "what ever will she do with Bill" blah, blah, blah. We've read it all before at least a million times. There are two things that caught my interest, however:

She is the inkblot test of a polarized electorate. In the Time poll, Democrats overwhelmingly describe her as a strong leader (77% ) who has strong moral values (69% ). Republicans by and large see an opportunist who would say or do anything to further her political ambitions (68% ) and puts her political interests ahead of her beliefs (60% ).

In Blue America, they're watching a Lifetime movie about the country's first female President. In Red America, they're watching Godzilla. In one America, she's smart, committed, likable, with strong values and empathy for people like them, and in the other she's an ambitious, callous appeaser. Republicans also think she's a "divider and not a uniter" (52%).

That's interesting. I suppose I spend too much time reading the posts and reactions of the folks over at DailyKos and the Huffington Post because I leave those places with the perception that Hillary is universally hated on both the right and the left. The lefties at Kos and Huffl largely see Hillary as "an opportunist who would say or do anything to further her political ambitions". Hmm. I have felt for a while now that the folks on the extreme left have been driven out of their minds by Karl Rove and the Iraq War. Their reaction to anything Hillary related is vitriolic and more in line with the average Republican reaction to her. These people have completely accepted this negative image of Clinton. But, alas, we mustn't forget they are on the fringe in many respects. It is good to know that most Democrats have not fallen for Rove's manipulations. If you are a Democrat and you agree more with Republicans than you do with Democrats with regard to Hillary Clinton you really need to do some soul searching and figure out why that is.

The other interesting thing from the Time piece:

Her strategists point out that all she would have to do in November 2008 is win every state John Kerry did, plus one. They consider Ohio and Florida her best opportunities. And there is plenty of encouraging news for her in the latest Time poll. More than half of those surveyed—53% —said they had a favorable impression of her; she registered higher than the other most familiar names in the potential Democratic field, Al Gore (49% ), John Edwards (46% ) and John Kerry (45% ). Her negative ratings (44% ) were lower than either Kerry's or Gore's. Edwards generated fewer negative reviews (31% ), but 23% of those polled said they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion one way or the other. In hypothetical matchups with the preseason g.o.p. favorite, John McCain, Hillary is the only big-name Democrat to make a real race of it, with McCain edging her by just 2 points among registered voters. By comparison, McCain would trounce Kerry by 10 points and Gore by 9.

Wow. Just 2 points between Hillary and the crazy John McCain? Really? Hellz Yeah. That rocks. All the nay sayers need to shut up. The Clintons' know what is required to win and they are willing to do it. This is why I love them both. There is absolutely nothing that can stop a Clinton/Clark campaign. All they have to do, again, is hold Kerry's states. That shouldn't be too much of a problem. And pick up OH, FL or AR. This can be done, people.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, John McCain

Democrats Shake Up Primary Calendar

Times are a changing:

Democrats agreed to shake up tradition Saturday by wedging Nevada between Iowa's leadoff caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the 2008 presidential nominating calendar and adding South Carolina soon afterward.

The plan would keep Iowa's caucuses in their leadoff position Jan. 14. Nevada would follow with its own caucuses Jan. 19. New Hampshire would retain its status as the first-in-the-nation primary, with voting Jan. 22. South Carolina would hold its primary Jan. 29.

Sounds good to me.  Iowa and New Hampshire are greats states for sure, but they are also some of the whitest places in America.  Allowing Nevada and South Carolina to be heard early on when it counts will add important voices to the mix.  Of course, Iowa and Nevada are up in arms about these changes.  NH has threatened to move its primary even early in the calendar.

Eager to keep states from jumping in line, the DNC also passed enforcement rules that would punish candidates who campaign in states that ignore the party and set their own schedule. Some party members worry that would create an unseemly intraparty fight when Democrats can least afford it.

Under that plan, candidates who venture into states that ignore party rules would not get any delegates from those contests.

My only concern is that we will not have a clear understanding of the impact of these changes until we see the changes in action next fall.  As  much as I'd like to maximize the voices of minorities I want to win back the White House even more.  Some have also speculated that these changes will benefit John Edwards' presidential ambitions.  That gives me some pause as I never really warmed up to Edwards and I'm more than a little tired of Southern white men running the country.

technorati tags:DNC, 2008, Democrats, JohnEdwards

Blogged with Flock

Happy Birthday President Clinton!

Image Source: ABC News

We miss you Mr. President.

"It's funny, you know: I've spent most of my life being the youngest person doing whatever I was doing," Clinton said. "And one day, I woke up and I was the oldest person in the room."

Clinton has lived longer than Elvis, his musical hero, lived. So in honor of Clinton reaching the six-decade mark, ABC News presented him with some Elvis sunglasses, direct from Graceland.

"I'm going to wear these over the weekend, when I have the right togs on," he said.

He will have those togs on tonight as he kicks off the first of two months' worth of birthday parties, ending with a special concert by those other old men rock-stars, the Rolling Stones.

Check out: Clinton Global Initiative

technorati tags:Clinton, Birthday

Blogged with Flock

Blame the media

A federal judge ruled in a Constitutionally significant case with national security implications on the same day a man was taken in to custody in the Jon Benet Ramsey case.  I give you one guess which story was the lead and which story garnered the most attention.

ThinkProgress:

All three major TV networks led their evening news with stories on JonBenet Ramsey’s death and the comments made by arrested teacher John Mark Karr. The networks offered multiple segments and numerous expert analyses to provide in-depth coverage on the legal case. The NSA decision received only a passing mention from two of the newscasts, while ABC devoted a full segment to it.

Still, ABC devoted twice as much time to Ramsey as it did to the NSA story. More egregiously, CBS offered seven times as much airtime to Ramsey as it did to the NSA story, while NBC devoted 15 times more airtime. Below is a comparison of the allocation of time made by each network:

NETWORK	RAMSEY SEGMENT	NSA SEGMENT
NBC	7:39	0:27
CBS	3:23	0:25
ABC	4:03	2:00

This is what happens when the maximizing principle of your news department is entertainment and money.  Personally, I couldn't give a shit about Jon Benet Ramsey and the developments in solving the case of her murder.  My heart goes out to her family for sure, but this is, at best, a local story.  The only reason I'm subjected to this bunk here in New York City is because she was a little blond girl whose parents dressed her up like a Barbie doll.

Believe me, I get the fact that millions of Americans are probably interested in this soap opera drama.  I understand the incentive.  But, is there no one at the Networks with self-respect?  Is there no one out there who might consider it more important to sufficiently inform the American public about issues of fundamental importance?  Must we always be entertained? Anyone?!?!?

Also see: Jeff Cohen's further explanation.

technorati tags:JonBenet, Ramsey, Media, News, NSA

Blogged with Flock

What The Republicans See in Joe Lieberman

I hope Joe Lieberman gets off on taking it up the butt from Republicans.  He is probably patting himself on the back  with pride as he watches the Republican party ditch their chosen nominee for the CT Senate race and do everything they can to boost Lieberman's candidacy.  But I hope he isn't fooling himself.  The only reason the Republicans are on his jock is to boost the Republican turn out in the general election and thereby significantly improve the chances of the down ticket Congressional candidates who in for a world of hurt.  You see, Joe, it all comes back to the Republicans maintaining the House.  Can you see that?  It is painfully obvious.

It all comes down to whether Holy Joe values himself over the Democratic Party.  Unfortunately, I know the answer is that Joe believes in his own Holiness more than anything else. He is more than willing to bend over and take it up the rear if he can maintain his own power.

NYT:

Facing Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent candidacy, Republican officials at the state and national level have made the extraordinary decision to abandon their official candidate, and some are actively working to help Mr. Lieberman win in November.

Despite Mr. Lieberman’s position that he will continue to caucus with Democrats if re-elected, all three Republican Congressional candidates in Connecticut have praised Mr. Lieberman and have not endorsed the party’s nominee, Alan Schlesinger. An independent group with Republican ties is raising money for Mr. Lieberman, who has been a strong supporter of President Bush on the Iraq war.

But one thing is clear: there is little to no talk of bolstering Mr. Schlesinger, 48, the Republican nominee...

Yeah, right.  This is not about the Iraq War, idiots.  Lieberman votes almost 90% with the Democrats and will caucus with the Democrats so why do they want him so bad?  How, exactly, will his support for this dumb ass war be of any use to them when it comes to votes in the Senate, I ask you?

The Times offers up this rationale:

But what kind of message would it send if a strong defense, pro-Iraq senator won in this environment? It would prove you can be for what George W. Bush is doing in Iraq and still win, even in the Northeast.

Hogwash.  By the time this particlar question is answered it will be too late to influence anything.  The Adminstration and the Republicans care about one thing and that is maintaining control of the House.

Sid Blumental has it right over at TPMCafe:

Lieberman can only win by securing almost all the Republican votes. His campaign must pull Republican votes to the polls, courtesy of the national GOP on which his ambition has become dependent. That can have a drastically negative effect on the Democratic campaigns in the three Connecticut congressional districts where Republican representatives are at risk. Those three seats comprise 1/5 of the total number of 15 that Democrats need to gain the House. Out of necessity Lieberman has become an active obstacle to Democratic victory and one of the key bulwarks for protecting Bush's one-party rule essential for remaining unaccountable for the rest of his presidency.

Indeed, Brother Sid.  Indeed.

technorati tags:Lieberman, Lamont, Republicans, House

Blogged with Flock

Bloomberg Makes Pitch for NYC to host Dem Convention

So, the Democrats are in Chicago talking over the 2008 primary calendar and the site for the nominating convention.  New York City Mayor Bloomberg made a strong case for New York City. The other possible locations are Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota and Denver, CO.  Unfortunately, New Orleans is no longer in the running because they are not ready to raise the money required to  host such a large event.  New Orleans would have been perfect.  In fact, I wish there was some way to help them raise the money.  Hurricane Katrina was the turning point in America's relationship with the incompetance of the Bush adminstration and it would have been...well...perfect.

That being said, I'm dorn between New York City and Denver.  On the one hand I would love for Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and it would be oh so sweet to send her off from New York.  New York City could also be a nice backdrop to reclaim the national security debate.  On the other hand the future of our party could depend on a concerted effort in western states like CO, AZ and NM. 

At the end of the day I believe the symbolism offered via a New York City convention would be most useful.

But, New Orleans would have been perfect!!! :-)

Sources: CNN

technorati tags:Democrats, Convention, NYC, NewOrleans

Blogged with Flock

Bush Eliminates Judicial Branch

Bush really does think he a king:

A federal judge's ruling that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional set off a flurry of political responses yesterday, as Republicans tried to keep control of the national security debate amid signs that their own party's ranks may be breaking under the pressure of the Iraq war.

President Bush concluded a discussion on the economy with a challenge to Democrats, many of whom had hailed U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling that the NSA's wiretapping efforts violate both the Bill of Rights and federal law.

"Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," Bush said after meeting with his economic team at Camp David. "This country of ours is at war, and we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war."

WaPo

This is wrong and disturbing on so many levels.  First and foremost, the President of the United States doesn't seem to have a basic understanding of American democracy.  The "nature of the world we live in" is not the test by which we analyze our laws.  The fact that we are engaged in a war does NOT mean we chuck the Constitution by the way side.  If he believes the laws we have are insufficient he needs to convince the country that the laws need to be amended.  Dumbass!

Secondly, the president is very quick to say that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.  That is one of the stupidest things I have ever contemplated, but let's be generous and give him that position.  Why, then, does this administration bend over backwards to thwart our system?  It really makes no sense to me and I'm waiting for someone to explain it to me.

I honestly believe these people (the president and his Republican choir) have no respect for our system of government.  All they seem to care about is manipulating the American public in time for elections.  This has been painfully obvious to me since the Clinton impeachment.  The only question is whether or not a majority of American voters will continue to fall for it.

AmericaBlog has more.  The US Constitution here.  WaPo article on ruling.

technorati tags:Bush, Wiretapping, Constitution, Elections

Blogged with Flock

Williams College is #1

US News & World Reports is out with their annual update to their college rankings. Once again Williams College tops the lists of liberal arts colleges. Williams is followed by the usual suspects of Amherst and Swarthmore. These reports and rankings, I think, have a significant influence on the choices that will be made over the next few months. Williams was ranked number 1 the year I was choosing between colleges and that ranking helped me choose Williams over both Swarthmore and Amherst. Although going to Williams was one of the best decisions I've ever made, I'm sure Amherst and Swarthmore would have been just as excellent.

The top ten list for Liberal Arts Colleges:
1. Williams College (MA)
2. Amherst College (MA)
3. Swarthmore College (PA)
4. Wellesley College (MA)
5. Middlebury College (VT)
6. Carleton College (MN)
7. Bowdoin (ME)
7. Pomona College (CA)
9. Haverford College (PA)
10. Davidson College (NC)
11. Wesleyan University (CT)

This is your President on crack

I don't need to tell or convince anyone with a brain that our dear leader is an idiot, but we must give the  man props for being able to deliver the following garbage with a straight face:

Bush said Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria were responsible for the 34-day war, and called that conflict "part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror." (Watch Bush blame Hezbollah, Iran and Syria for the crisis -- 2:06)

Bush said the U.N. resolution that took effect early Monday was an "important step that will help bring an end to the violence."He said the conflict was a win for his administration's policy of encouraging democracy in the Middle East and a defeat for Hezbollah, discounting a claim of victory issued by the Shiite Muslim militia's leader earlier Monday. (Watch the president declare Hezbollah the loser -- :40)"Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," Bush said during a news conference at the State Department.
source: CNN

I know, I know.  Up is downism prevails.  The very fact that Hezbollah survived 30 days of fighting against one of the most feared and equipped militaries is a victory for Hezbollah right there.   Unfortunatley, there just isn't any other way to spin that one.  But, you don't have to believe me, the Israeli people "get it" even if out village idiot doesn't:

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

source: The Independent

technorati tags:Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Bush

Blogged with Flock