by Al122, Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 07:12:52 AM EST
Thanks to everyone who took the time to read my post on Jonathan Tasini, make comments and vote in the poll.
Now I first have to say that Hillary's being for the war in Iraq is nothing to be taken lightly. In fact, it should disqualify her from receiving the vote of any Democrat who is against the war. Since we are only about four days away from the anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" let us reflect for just a moment on the enormous costs of this war to the people of the United States and Iraq in terms of lost lives, lives shattered by disabling injuries and billions squandered on a criminally corrupt and incompetent effort to rebuild infrastructure that was largely destroyed by the U.S. itself. By voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, Hillary (and every other Democrat who voted likewise) must be held accountable for its consequences.
And it's no excuse for Hillary and the rest of the pro-war Dems to say that they were given "bad intelligence" by the Bush administration either. As John Walsh points out in an excellent piece on COUNTERPUNCH (http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh1205200
5.html) all of the Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that voted in favor of the war (Bayh, Edwards, Daschle, Feinstein and Rockefeller)had good reason to know that the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq was unreliable. There were 19 members of that committee, including Republicans, all of whom had to know that Bush was lying. Four Democrats (Durbin, Levin, Mikulski and Wyden) to their credit voted against the war. Are we to believe that only 19 members of what is often described as a small and intimate club knew that the war was based on a lie?
by skeptic06, Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:24:06 PM EST
Huffpo has an interesting - perhaps rather too interesting for its own good - piece alleging a relationship between Hillary Clinton and a leading firm of lobbyists, Blank-Rome.
Apparently, the firm is preemptively hiring some Dem operatives just in case November brings a change of control in either house of Congress.
And Hill and - of all people - Barbara Boxer have supposedly got involved with a client of the firm's who is interested in selling the Federal government a fairly expensive piece of military equipment. (And who has been fined nearly $3 million by the SEC for making false claims about a company's profit projections.)
Just like the Killian memos, one's first reaction is: Rove stunt. Or someone's stunt. Probably belongs with the Vince Foster murder files.
Unless someone has some corroboration.
by blogswarm, Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 09:06:06 AM EST
In the big picture, I think the best Democratic Party progress is going on in the states. But we need progress in DC and I think it is increasingly clear our best offense will continue to happen with bold action for the right thing, not consensus incrementalism in the caucus. Remember last November when Leader Reid made many of us proud with his bold move to invoke Rule 21 and force the Senate into closed session. Charles Babington's wrap up in the Post reported:
The final decision to employ the tactic, which infuriated Republicans and exacerbated partisan animosity, was made in the Democratic leader's second-floor Capitol office Monday night, in a small gathering of his lieutenants. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) considered the strategy to be so sensitive that only four of his colleagues knew what he intended when he entered the Senate chamber at 2:25 p.m. Tuesday, party aides said yesterday. [...]
But even though Reid attended a private lunch for all 44 Democratic senators Tuesday, he did not mention the plan to anyone else before springing his surprise on the Senate floor moments later.
by Matt Stoller, Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:25:04 PM EST
Walter Shapiro (via Political Wire) has a very interesting piece in Salon on the contest for the Republican leadership, and how this plays into party attitudes about Senator Clinton's chances in 2008:
by liebermanlives, Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:00:35 AM EST
I know the 2008 election is far off, and I know that we have to concentrate on 2006, but a new Rasmussen poll has just come out on the supposed Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, and the news isn't all the comforting if you support her.
In the poll,(and I remind you that Rasmussen skews right some), only 29% says they will definitely vote for her, while 40% say they will definitely vote against he, while 24% say it depends on who the Republicans run
Also the poll say that 10% say that Hillary is a conservative, (I like to meet those people), 32% say she is a moderate, while 45% say she is definitely a liberal. It looks like her trying to move to the center, isn't working too well. This poll indicates for the third straight month, Hillary has at least 40% of the voters voting against her.