All the Hill supporters should read Sam Stein's piece on HuffPo where Hill agrees with McSame on staying in Iraq. You can't trust her.
Posted by JohnT at May 5, 2008 10:38 AMpost-parsing, as we've come to expect from certain blogs and supporters of certain candidates. clinton and obama both keep the "embassy," so both plan on staying in iraq for a long time. but nice try.
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 10:49 AMI'm just really, really impressed with Hillary's commitment to staying on the high road with all this "elitist" talk. That's the kind of folksy populism that one inevitably picks up at Wellesley and Yale Law.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 5, 2008 10:52 AMI'm amazed at how many people give national polls credibility. We have an excellent way of measuring people's opinions on the candidates and judging voter turnout - with actual voting. 87% of the people have voted. Poll the other 13% plus Michigan and Florida and add that to the total for the rest. It would be boring and wouldn't move much, but at least it would be meaningful.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 5, 2008 10:52 AMclinton and obama both keep the "embassy,"...
They have to get that electrical work straighten out Turkana.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 5, 2008 11:02 AMheh, 7o6...
perhaps that explains mccain's 10,000 years...
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 11:05 AMBut at least Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran. That was comforting to her supporters.
Posted by phidipides at May 5, 2008 11:09 AMand at least phid doesn't understand the concept of hypotheticals and of nuclear deterrence. but i do love how you continue to reveal yourself by beating the same dead post-parsed horse.
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 11:15 AMTurkana, hypothetical or not, anyone who can even THINK about, let alone make a declaration of her intentions - and later confirm her seriousness about - obliterating a country is not someone I want to have as president of ANY country, let alone the United States.
I have never supported Hillary Clinton because I do not like her history or her stated positions on much of anything to do with foreign and military policy, particularly as it pertains to the Arab and Muslim worlds. However, the remark about obliterating Iran, and her subsequent confirmation , were completely outrageous, hypothetical or not. It is simply beyond all reason to speak of obliterating a nation. Period. End of report.
And this does NOT mean I am an Obama supporter. I am not. It is entirely possible, to support neither of them.
Posted by Shirin at May 5, 2008 11:25 AMjust watched a little of MSNBC and CNN...guess what...they are fully on Clinton's side. Carl Bernstein-famous author- was cut off when he started noting Clinton's problems in favor of a nobody who was all too willing to say Wright Wright Wright and to tell us how Obama was robbing us all for not going along with the McCain/Clinton gas rebate. On the other channel, Alan Greenspan's wife was Wright Wright Wright and even when her "guest" said not one economist agreed with the McCain/Clinton gas rebate, she went ahead saying that showed Obama out of touch....The Corporate Media people are so invested in serving up a Clinton nomination to their GOP Overlords...it is really transparent. Oh yeah, she also brought up the race card, too, for good measure. Clinton might as well take some money out of the 109 million Bill made and give each of us $30 bucks if she's so dedicated to buying our vote. The gas tax rebate is the most blatant political buy-your-vote scam I've seen. Same Old Politics=Clinton/McCain.
Posted by T2 at May 5, 2008 11:30 AMshirin,
every u.s. president for forty years contemplated the idea of obliterating a country. it was called "mutual assured destruction." it was called nuclear deterrence. it worked. but since a) iran is nowhere close to having nuclear weapons, and b) even if they did, they wouldn't obliterate israel, i think we can all stop hyperventilating and act like we understand complex policy. or not.
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 11:31 AMWell, why exactly would we extend our nuclear umbrella over our lil' trouble-making buddy Israel for free? For no commitment on their part to reforming their "policies" (i.e. 40 year illegal occupation of muslim land) more towards with what w supposedly want (settlement reductions, movement on two sate soultion)?
Why would we commit to nuclear annihilation of Israel's "enemies" when we have very little "control" over Isreal's absurd warmongering policies? How is that remotely reasonable or sensible? How does that benefit America in any way, shape or form?
Ms. Hillary, back in the corner, care to answer?
Posted by euzoius at May 5, 2008 11:33 AMt2..
thats the same media who got barack obama where he is today..certainly wasn't his resume
Posted by dennis at May 5, 2008 11:34 AMhummmm...blackboxvoting.org has an interesting story about voter purge in Indiana. Guess what, most of those purged from the rolls happen to be in largely African-American districts. I have no idea if this is a certified report, but the numbers look real.
Posted by T2 at May 5, 2008 11:36 AMTurkana,
Sorry, but I am just not as sophisticated a thinker as you are. I am, far more simple minded.
Posted by Shirin at May 5, 2008 11:40 AMExtending our nuclear umbrella over warmongering Israel (and agaisnt a country that doesn't have and isn't working on nuclear weapons) is a new right wing obssession, straight out of Krauthammer. Leav aside the fact that Israel is at least to much to blame for instability of the ME as anyone, and that it possess hundreds of of its own nuclear warheads.
And Hillary has casually swallowed this neocon line hook, line and sinker---again, just like Iraq. Very disturbing, but one has to admit that she is a hawk---the Iraq invasion vote wasn't a "mistake", it was very much Hillary's view of what "needed" to be done.
Posted by euzoius at May 5, 2008 11:42 AMeuzo,
obama doesn't rule it out, he just said that we shouldn't be talking about it. but he very explicitly avoiding saying the policy was wrong. wonder why...
wonder why...
Pandering to the pro-Israel vote?
snark gets the award! when either clinton or obama refuses to speak at an aipac convention, we'll have change we can believe in.
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 11:56 AMPandering to the pro-Israel vote?
At least it's a diplomatic pander. ;)
hummmm...blackboxvoting.org has an interesting story about voter purge in Indiana. Guess what, most of those purged from the rolls happen to be in largely African-American districts.
That was the direct intent of the SCOTUS decision.
wonder why....
Because jingoist militarist America likes thinking we'll just lob nuclear bombs at anyone we want to. Hillary affirmatively said we should extend the nuclear umbrella over Israel, just like the neocon right advocates.
I did not hear Obama say we affirmatively should do that---so I see this as a difference between the candidates, and one that likely helps Hillary pander to the militarist pinheads of America, very irresponsibly on her part. Instead of rejecting the rhetoric of warmongering, she revels in it, feeds it up to the militarist stooges. We're losing two wars and still want to hear about excitin' new ones. Hopeless.....
Gas tax "holidays", nuclear saber rattling, outright lies about supporting NAFTA (supported by "elite economists"), she really is having quite a field day. And her supporters she nothing wrong or dismaying in the least, but instead falsely wring their hands over the idiotic l'affair Wright.
No matter how bad things get, nothing ever changes. Pandering and Fake Issues, that's what our elections are all about.
Posted by euzoius at May 5, 2008 11:59 AMHey, at least Hillary owns Barack on another issue important to Dems...guns!
Posted by phidipides at May 5, 2008 12:01 PMSince we just had an article in the AZ Republic on Iraq/Iran connection: Our own, idiosynchronic, has a good post up, "Does Bush, Rice and Co. have it in for Iran?"
Disclaimer: I'm not blogwhoring.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 5, 2008 12:05 PMHey, at least Hillary owns Barack on another issue important to Dems...guns!
No shit phid, I saw the double triggers and laughed my ass off.
I did not hear Obama say we affirmatively should do that---so I see this as a difference between the candidates...
Because if you'd have read a little further on the issue you'd have seen Obama at his jingoistic militarist best saying that he would use whatever means at his disposal, including military force, as CinC to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
The hair splitting you guys go through is stunning.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2008 12:12 PMDemocrats know how to lose elections. They have refined it to the point that appealing to the working class, the backbone of FDR's voting block is somehow anti-American. I guess that the liberal academic branch of the turn of the century Republicans took a a hold of the Democratic Party when FDR was elected. FDR maintained his base by joining the Democrats from the South. It was bound to fall apart with the changes of the 60s, but for the life of me, I don't understand why the Democrats must forget and leave the blue collar worker into the hands of the Republicans. I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm willing to be a little more tolerant towards that middle America if we can win the WH. The Clintons know how to win and know how to govern. Hillary is an awesome candidate that can win. Obama is wounded and should pick up his pieces and go back to the senate.
Posted by Prabhata at May 5, 2008 12:14 PMHey, I've heard Cindy McShame wants exclusive beer distributorship rights for the contractors and soldiers in Iraq.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 5, 2008 12:14 PM
Democrats know how to lose elections.
That's why the DLC has to hit the road!
FDR maintained his base by joining the Democrats from the South. It was bound to fall apart with the changes of the 60s...
You can take the white out of the cracker but not the cracker out of the white!
...but for the life of me, I don't understand why the Democrats must forget and leave the blue collar worker into the hands of the Republicans.
A little gerrymandering does wonderful things.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 5, 2008 12:21 PMTurkana,
I find the double standards held by certain "liberal Americans" to be quite fascinating.
Iran's President Ahmadinajad allegedly makes a comment about wiping Israel off the map (that is NOT what he actually said, but it's what most people THINK he said), and despite the fact that Ahmadinajad does not have anything to say about military matters, and in any case Iran does not have the wherewithal to wipe anyone off the map, American liberals go into a hysterical frenzy over it.
A candidate for the presidency of the United States makes a clear and explicit threat to wipe Iran off the map (i.e. obliterate it), and you "American liberals" spin yourselves dizzy insisting it means something completely different.
Posted by Shirin at May 5, 2008 12:25 PMA candidate for the presidency of the United States makes a clear and explicit threat to wipe Iran off the map...
if...and here's the important element of the hypothetical...Iran were to attack Israel. So, there's a bit of an important element that you left out there. But regardless, she did not make an explicit threat as you claim. She said that Iran needs to know that it would be a possibility should they decide sometime in the future to attack Israel.
It is you that is in an hysterical frenzy.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2008 12:34 PMfwiw, shirin, i didn't hyperventilate about ahmadinejad's comment, either. to begin with, from what i read, it was poorly translated.
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 12:35 PMIf it's true that Iran would face annihilation for an attack on Israel, it's far better that they know that in advance.
I don't think it would be wise for us to annihilate another country under any circumstances except a devastating unconventional attack on our own territory. But if somebody's going to (IMHO unwisely) extend the nuclear umbrella to cover other countries, it's better for those countries' neighbors to know the ground rules.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 5, 2008 12:38 PMIt is you that is in an hysterical frenzy.
Lot of that going around, eh snark?
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 5, 2008 01:08 PMTurkana,
Thanks for the article. You are correct that both sides will quote whatever poll until the cows come home.
But the only poll that matters (at least for Indiana and North Carolina) is tomorrow.
And that's the only one I am going to notice.
But I think things are going in Hillary's favor, as she has Bill working the hustings, and Chelsea doing her part as well.
No one can represent Hillary better than the Clinton family, working together.
I will have more to say Wednesday morning.
Posted by Troubled American at May 5, 2008 02:12 PMi love the smell of democracy at work in the springtime...
Hillary Clinton's campaign today acknowledged plans to try to win seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Nation Convention at a meeting of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31.
In a statement issued in response to a story on The Huffington Post ("Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option," see below), the campaign declared:
"There is no secret plan.... The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn't publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated."
The campaign's public assertions stand in contrast to its response to inquiries prior to publication of the story. At that point, Clinton aides insisted on keeping all comments either off the record or on deep background, or did not respond to questions at all. The campaign statement appeared to be designed to try to reduce the significance of the story.
In a more typical reaction to the story, political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said: "Wow. The nuclear option will yield nuclear winter for the Democratic Party."
so let me get this straight, as i am over the pond and the news here is slow... but explain to me, how mi gets sat to favor hilary if only she and kucinich were on the ballot, in abject disregard for the dnc's rules on the matter. not only that, but 700,000 or so, from a report i read and quoted on this blog, did not vote in the primary, because they knew the dnc's rules beforehand. then, fl, where no one could campaign, and the turnout was noticeably poor, because the floridians knew their vote wouldn't count as well. so she wants them sat only as an advantage for her??? how's that democracy? if this doesn't reek of entitlement for the presidency, what exactly wtf qualifies?
Posted by at May 5, 2008 02:48 PMthe above was me
Posted by anthony at May 5, 2008 02:49 PMLot of that going around, eh snark?
Between you going on about people swinging from lamp posts and all the vapors over something so novel as the concept of nuclear deterence, yeah.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2008 03:12 PMFloridians went to the polls for the other down ticket races too...many seem to forget it was a primary vote for any race contested. There have been other DNC rules broken then set aside in this race. And seemedly when one candidate had advertising play into these sanctioned states and another holds a news conference outside a fundraiser in a sanctioned state. Seems the rules don't matter too much.
Posted by peter at May 5, 2008 04:00 PMInteresting. Iran just said no more nuclear inspections until Israel allows inspections. How crazy, eh?
What's the over/under at Dimona? 200? 300? 500?
If Iran ever attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, if it ever gets a nuclear weapon, America would have a hard time finding anything in Iran to obliterate. Maybe target a goat herd in the northwest corner of the country.
Turkana can pretend this is nuclear deterrence. Of course, Clinton isn't part of the administration so it's just her lil' ol' opinion right now. Clinton's saber-rattling was nothing more than a political ploy to get a few more votes on the eve of the PA primary. Maybe she'll threaten someone else tonight.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 5, 2008 04:41 PMBut regardless, she did not make an explicit threat as you claim. She said that Iran needs to know that it would be a possibility should they decide sometime in the future to attack Israel.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2008 12:34 PM
Well not exactly Snark, this is what she said:
"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them." .......... "That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic,"
Tasteless sabre-rattling comment.... IMHO
wow- what shameless editing, eliminating all context, goyo. classy.
Posted by Turkana at May 5, 2008 05:49 PM"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them." .......... "That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic,"
That was a joke, right Goyo?
I do have to give you credit for at least making it obvious that you chopped the hell out of the quote.
Another fine example of the intellectual honesty inspired by the "Change We Can Believe In" tour.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2008 06:37 PMI'll leave it to Juan Cole to finish the argument: It was the "totally obliterate" phrase that that was objectionable, insofar as it implied the commission of a crime against humanity. ..you get what you deserve with this one!! Context this!!!
Posted by Goyo at May 6, 2008 07:25 AMI'll leave it to Juan Cole to finish the argument: It was the "totally obliterate" phrase that that was objectionable, insofar as it implied the commission of a crime against humanity. ..you get what you deserve with this one!! Context this!!!
An appeal to authority, eh?
Hillary Clinton did not "imply a crime against humanity" any more so than any president who has lead the United States during the past 50 years under the doctrine of MAD has done. Listen carefully. Clinton said that Iran needs to know that we have the capability to completely obliterate them. She did not say that that would be our response. She did not say that she would be inclined to obliterate Iran. She said Iran needs to understand that that is a reality in the hope that it will encourage them to not even consider attacking Israel.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Oh, right, it's because Hillary Clinton said it.
Posted by snark at May 6, 2008 07:54 AMAn appeal to authority, eh?
Fuck you're stupid!
Posted by Goyo at May 6, 2008 03:43 PMFuck you're stupid!
And your response leads me to the same conclusion about you.
How many times must the concept of nuclear deterrence be explained? Hillary Clinton has no intention of nuking Iran. Just as no American president had any intention of nuking the Soviet Union. MAD was a real policy. Both parties understood that the use on nuclear weapons would mean the total destruction of their own country. I understand Juan Cole's background in Middle Eastern and Asiatic Affairs. But to distinguish Clinton's annunciation of such a nuclear deterrent as somehow unique or more objectionable than any other expression of it in the last 60 years is BS. And his academic credentials don't really give any weight to his pronouncement in this particular case.
Again, it all goes back to what she actually said. You've expressed your contempt for context but it really is important.
If it's of such a concern to you I'd expect you and the rest of the progressive community that is so riled about CLinton's comments to be pushing for the US to unilaterally nuclearly disarm so that we are not a threat to obliterate anyone. Afterall, the objectionable part is not in the acknowledgement of the potential but in the maintainance of that potential. What say you? Perhaps President Obama will take it up as a priority? Since he was so bothered by the thought.
Posted by at May 6, 2008 07:29 PM