« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
Report: Military not ready for WMD strike
Check it out here
A reader at Andrew Sullivan's site responds to Mr. Sullivan's query as to whether Democrats were so stupid as to ignore Obama's appeal:
You ask:
The Democrats aren't that stupid, are they?
Yes, yes, we are. In fact, we're probably even more stupid than you can possibly imagine. After all, we're too stupid to realize that when we worry that the Republicans say we're weak, we are being weak; too stupid to realize that when you consent to an Attorney General who won't say whether waterboarding is torture, you get an AG who says later that waterboarding is not torture if it's done to the right people; too stupid to realize that people want us to confront Bush more, not less; too stupid to realize that Hillary voted for the war with Iraq and another possible war with Iran; too stupid to realize that the Clintons both supported limited torture until the polls said otherwise; too stupid to realize that the Clintons are totally unethical (and why? because Bill is so damned charming!); too stupid to recognize that Bill Clinton sold us all out (I'm sorry, but gays and lesbians were not the only ones to give hand over fist only to be disappointed); too stupid to realize that 50% of the country will never vote for Hillary; too stupid to realize that we've got our Reagan, the reincarnate of JFK, staring us in the face; and too stupid to realize that, for the first time that I can think of, the most liberal candidate is the one that is most acceptable to independents and Republicans.
We don't deserve to win this election if we don't nominate Obama. And you'll see a lot of Democrats like me abandon the party if we don't. Just watch. It's hard to keep associating yourself with this kind of ineptitude.
During the last debate between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, Obama asserted that while he was doing community work in Chicago, Clinton was serving on the board of Walmart. The charge never got traction because Obama didn't further elaborate on it and Clinton counterpunched a short time later with the Rezko "slumlord" charge.
Subsequent to the debate, Obama hasn't brought up the Walmart connection again. But there is a real issue here and Obama, if successful at connecting dots, can highlight a basic problem with the Clinton candidacy; Ms. Clinton's consistent failure to influence and execute change.
Walmart is famously anti-labor, it's strong arm anti-union tactics are well known and it's propensity for managing employee hours to avoid providing health care. As a Board member, Senator Clinton had a responsibility to oversee and participate in the development of corporate policy. Any measure of her success as a Board member would include the degree to which Walmart implemented pro-labor policy.
From ABC News:
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.
A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.
The videotapes do show that Clinton used her role to push for more environmentally friendly policies and better treatment of women.
Critics say Clinton's efforts produced few tangible results, and Wal-Mart is now defending itself in a lawsuit brought by 16 current and former female employees.
"I don't doubt the sincerity of her efforts, but we don't see much evidence that conditions for women at Wal-Mart changed much during the late 1980s and early 1990s," said Joe Sellers, one of the lawyers suing Wal-Mart on behalf of the women.
Ms. Clinton had another opportunity to influence policy and implement significant change in 1993, when she was chartered to recommend changes to the nations health care policy. By all accounts, the Senator so botched that assignment, she effectively killed the prospect of widespread health care reform for 15 years.
Implementing change requires two things; power and influence. Senator Clinton has always had plenty of the former, either as a First Lady, Senator, and Presidential candidate. But it does seem Ms. Clinton falls woefully short of the latter.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, a whopping figure that has permitted the campaign to boost staff and extend advertising to states beyond the sweeping Feb. 5 contests, aides said Thursday.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign attracted 170,000 new donors for a total of 650,000 donors overall. The $32 million raised in one month matches the campaign's best three-month fundraising period in 2007, when the campaign raised $30 million in primary money and $2 million for the general. The money raised in January was all for the primaries. (Link)
WASHINGTON—During a press conference Tuesday, CIA chief Michael Hayden expressed regret over the organization's inhumane interrogation tactics of simulating drowning, removing fingernails with pliers, and lacerating genitals, when he told reporters the practices should never have been committed to paper. "Geez, what the heck were we thinking?" Hayden said. "Our job is to protect the American people from this kind of disturbing stuff, and I don't know why we even jotted it down in the first place. Next time we'll just keep it to ourselves." Hayden also said the agency planned to remove the locations and mailing addresses of secret detention facilities from its official website.