Kos & Sully: Now here's An Iran-Contra Affair to Remember.

than these constant flattering references to republican presidents but he's got nothing positive to say about Bill Clinton. Pardon my cynicism if I don't think it's coincidental.

Has BO REALLY forgotten the abomination that was the 2-term Reagan presidency, besides the aforementioned Iran-Contra? How about the Central American atrocities aided and abetted by the CIA (nuns, anyone?)? The crack cocaine smuggling into black communities? The stupid and reactionary economic and fiscal policies? Taking down the solar panels off the roof of the WH as symbolic gesture? The Auschwitz blunder?

Reagan deserves NO praise at all, and most certainly not from a primary Democratic candidate. I can't imagine what the Big Blogger Boyz would write if HRC said stuff like that... wait, actually, I can imagine.

At this point I'm running on pure schadenfreude. I know that in 2 or 3 years, a lot of motherfuckers are gonna have their hearts broken by President Obama.

People thought they were voting for a new FDR or JFK, and all they're going to get is a George H.W. Bush and a Ronald Reagan.... Chumps...

I don't think he has forgotten about the 2nd Reagan admin. blunders because I don't think he knows very much about them.

Despite his attempt to diss WJC, the more I hear the less I am impressed with his base of historical knowledge. I don't care where he went to school. And I think we have all known some people who have lovely degrees but were shockingly uneducated.

Some years ago it dawned on me that I had spent a good part of my life assuming that people in power must have some extra info. or smarts that we 'common' people didn't. I no longer believe that, if anything, just the opposite.

The constant stream of anguished wails about statements that EVERY FUCKING NATIONAL POLITICIAN IN AMERICA MAKES EVERY YEAR by Clinton supporters is just beyond ridiculous.

You guys are living in some alternative reality.

Barry has no understanding of American political history..
Submitted by A. Citizen on Sun, 2008-03-30 09:28.

If this assclown gets into office watch the fuck out.

So when you were editor of Harvard Law review, teaching constitutional law at UChi, filing appeals briefs on civil rights cases, and getting laws passed to deal with police brutality, you demonstrated a much deeper understanding of constitution and history than "Barry" ?

It is strange in the context of the current Iraq war to be talking about Bush Sr. positively. When you consider the messes he left to Clinton, concentrating on Iraq but leaving Saddam Hussein in power and with the Republican Guard in tact while neglecting the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Somalia, Haiti. And the fact that he and Reagan had a lot to do with building up Saddam when it seemed worthwhile to them, not to mention his part in Iran/Contra. Then too, there was the S & L crisis.

Obviously, he was smarter than his son. He did put togethere a coalition. But it is strange to have a Dem candidate who talks about doing things differently in DC praising the politicians who got us where we are today. It may or may not appeal to non Dems but it is particularly galling to those of us who felt that Reagan and Bush were a consolidation of the nightmare that began with Nixon.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/12310...

... I'm not that thrilled when a candidate promises foreign policy similar to JFK's.

He was, thank Jeebus, successful in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs aren't exactly what I'm looking for from our next "best and the brightest" team.

...getting laws passed to deal with police brutality...

Actually, he didn't do that. Others did. He got the credit for it due to a IL Democratic party elder who wanted to "make" a senator. But let's pretend all of that is not true. The fact is he only "succeeded" with legislation at a state level one year, when the Democrats swept office, which shows that there is no proof whatsoever he has any skills necessary to push through effective legislation past opposition.

In addition to all the Republican love...
new
Submitted by vastleft on Sun, 2008-03-30 12:14.

He was, thank Jeebus, successful in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs aren’t exactly what I’m looking for from our next “best and the brightest” team.

So you must be thrilled with the Poppy/BillClinton featured team that Senator Clinton, the Colin Powell fan, Kyle-Lieberman supporter, and, of course, AUMF yes voter has put together. Her foreign policy makes JFK seem like Noam Chomsky.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77691/

Submitted by Davidson on Sun, 2008-03-30 13:08.

Actually, he didn’t do that. Others did. He got the credit for it due to a IL Democratic party elder who wanted to “make” a senator. But let’s pretend all of that is not true. The fact is he only “succeeded” with legislation at a state level one year, when the Democrats swept office, which shows that there is no proof whatsoever he has any skills necessary to push through effective legislation past opposition.

Oh please. Surprising that some people left in Obama's wake would be catty about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

So you must be thrilled with the Poppy/BillClinton featured team... [sic]

I'm almost certain I recall that Bush 41 categorically denied he'd have anything to do with this, and I also seem to recall that Bill (not the candidate) floated that in an offhand comment. Not your strongest argument.

It's what he said to Larry King.
I am extremely puzzled by the so called progressives being completely in the tank for this guy (they obviously stick their fingers in their ears when he makes those statements)
On this one, my puzzlement is on the idea that McCain would be as naive (or more) than W....I can think of a lot of things to call McCain - none of them complimentary. But naive is NOT one of them.
This campaign was "We had peace and prosperity - GOP took power - we have war and recession". If we get a nominee who wants to win - rather than paid to kick out the real competition ("we give then 2 forms: one to switch parties now, one to sitch back to GOP before November")

There are two candidates - neither one is progressive. Obama is significantly less hawkish than Clinton.

These are simple truths.

[edited by vastleft to remove broken HTML]

I'd recommend dropping this one...
Submitted by cenobite on Sun, 2008-03-30 13:40.

So you must be thrilled with the Poppy/BillClinton featured team… [sic]

I’m almost certain I recall that Bush 41 categorically denied he’d have anything to do with this, and I also seem to recall that Bill (not the candidate) floated that in an offhand comment. Not your strongest argument.

* reply

Thanks for your advice, but if anything is characteristic of the Clintons, kissing ass to republicans and then getting their teeth kicked is it.

If your argument is that Hillary will have a progressive foreign policy because GHWBush laughed at Bill Clinton's cravenness, then you have a hard road to travel.

You're citing a misleading factoid and it makes the rest of your argument weaker. You can use my advice or not.

Also, the WaPo article you cite does not support your thesis: some people left in Obama’s wake would be catty about it. It merely breathlessly repeats Sen Obama's legend.

Like I said in another comment, neither candidate is very good at the foreign policy issues I care about, but one is marginally better than the other.

Hillary and Obama have voted more or less identically on military issues (and most everything else).

He has spoken more hawkishly about Pakistan, and his former adviser Samantha Power made unproven claims about Iran that meet or exceed any dubious, inflammatory claims made by a Bushie (and things that have since been directly contradicted by the NIE): "...they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror." Even Bush hasn't claimed that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. At least she didn't say they're training Al-Qaeda....

I'll be posting soon in more detail about the ol' AUMF debate, and if Kyl-Lieberman was so important, why didn't Obama vote against it, instead doing one of his trademark non-votes?

Personally, I think K-L is a big deal, and both candidates get my disapproval for failing to oppose it. A chickenshit or couldn't-be-bothered non-vote doesn't impress me any more than Hillary's wretched vote in favor of it.

Like I said in another comment, neither candidate is very good at the foreign policy issues I care about, but one is marginally better than the other.

* reply

If you compare Samantha Powers to Richard Holbrooke, the difference is stark.

You’re citing a misleading factoid and it makes the rest of your argument weaker. You can use my advice or not.

I don't see how GHWBush's put down of Bill makes the ploy any more favorable to Hillary. Her husband who she says would have a prominent role in her administration and whose administration she claims as part of her "experience" says he'd go on tour with Bush1. That's weak.

Also, the WaPo article you cite does not support your thesis: some people left in Obama’s wake would be catty about it. It merely breathlessly repeats Sen Obama’s legend.

It does not breathlessly repeat anything - it supports the claim that Obama had a substantive role in getting this legislation passed. The article cited to prove Obama did nothing was a catty bit of the whinging you could find in the wake of any successful person.

Like I said in another comment, neither candidate is very good at the foreign policy issues I care about, but one is marginally better than the other.

I agree with that. I was just responding to a comment in which Obama's lame middle of the road foreign policy was greeted with shocked outrage as if Senator Clinton was embracing Kucinich's foreign policy.

Since Sen Obama has repeatedly said he would prefer a Republican Secretary of State and Defense.

I’ll be posting soon in more detail about the ol’ AUMF debate, and if Kyl-Lieberman was so important, why didn’t Obama vote against it, instead doing one of his trademark non-votes?

Personally, I think K-L is a big deal, and both candidates get my disapproval for failing to oppose it. A chickenshit or couldn’t-be-bothered non-vote doesn’t impress me any more than Hillary’s wretched vote in favor of it.

If you post on AUMF, you should take Hillary's post invasion CFR speech into account. That speech does not accord with her current claim that she was lied to about Bush's intentions. You'll notice a distinct lack of outrage about the invasion of Iraq.

Obama did not vote no, but did oppose.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/...

I wouldn't make this argument either
Submitted by cenobite on Sun, 2008-03-30 14:45.

That's a lie. Why don't you find a reputable cite?

* reply

Do you know the difference between an editorial and an op-ed?

Oh….yeah, I went to a University and majored in a subject that makes what Barry did at Harvard look like what it is.

No big deal.

Snort.

Oooh. You went to a university and majored in a subject! I'm in awe.

Of course it would be pitiful to compare merely being the Harvard Law Review Editor to being majoring in some subject at a real university!

Do you get your lines from Karl Rove directly or do you make them up yourself?

March 2, 2008
Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet

[...]
Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...

Now take back the ad hominem, please.

You write

"Since Sen Obama has repeatedly said he would prefer a Republican Secretary of State and Defense."

and your evidence is

"Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” "

Both Hillary and Obama have said they would appoint or consider appointing republicans to cabinet positions. Neither of them have "repeatedly said he would prefer a Republican Secretary of State and Defense".

To say on that basis Obama has "repeatedly said he would prefer a Republican Secretary of State and Defense" is repeat a lie. I doubt it is your lie, but it's a lie nontheless.

If you want to see some disgusting "bipartisan" foreign policy
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/...

December 20, 2007 8:29 AM

ABC's Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he'd consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...

There's "repeatedly", meaning "more than once".

And from the article above...

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

Larry Korb, a defence official under President Ronald Reagan who is backing Obama, said: “By putting a Republican in the Pentagon and the State Department you send a signal to Congress and the American people that issues of national security are above politics.”

So, "repeatedly [in Decemeber and March] said he would prefer a Republican [Hagel and Lugar] Secretary of State and Defense [see above]"

QED.

"Obama's cabinet."

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Or not?

Just asking.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Kyl Lieberman could have been a big deal if it hadn't been gutted, but it was gutted. So what we're left with is a non-binding, sense of the senate resolution that suggests that the State Department formally recognize what they have long claimed about aspects of the Iranian army.

What Kyl Lieberman's purpose was, as far as I tell, was to give Democrats a hammer to beat each other over the head with and Republicans a hammer to beat Democrats over the head with. The fact that it's meaningless is pretty much evident from the fact that it's non-binding and there wasn't a bigger fight over removal of the genuinely inflammatory rhetoric. KL opponents like to quote what Jim Webb said before the legislation was changed and fail to realize that his rhetoric did change dramatically after the removal.

Everyone knew Clinton would vote for it because she wasn't going to allow the Republicans to paint her as soft on terrorism. So, first off the Democrats get to beat her over the head with it - which they did. Now, if someone besides Clinton gets the nomination, and that person voted against it, it allows the Republicans to paint the nominee as soft on terrorism. Americans don't like Iran - it wouldn't be tough to do. It won't be teh issue but it will be an issue.

Kyl Lieberman is meaningless except as a campaign tool. If Bush wants to go war with Iran he has to take just as many steps as he did before.

Kyl Lieberman could have been a big deal if it hadn’t been gutted, but it was gutted. So what we’re left with is a non-binding, sense of the senate resolution that suggests that the State Department formally recognize what they have long claimed about aspects of the Iranian army.

Oh yeah, the amendment that Jim Webb called "cheney's pipe dream" was harmless. And AUMF called for more negotiations. And NAFTA called for environmental and labor guidelines.

Most Obama supporters would just give a wide berth to all of this drooling republican invective from a site where Elizabeth Hasselbeck and IDB are cited as sources.

praises them?!?

sick. He's no Democrat--seriously--let him run with McCain.

criminals.

Nobody has had their perceptions of Barry or his slime bucket of a campaign changed by someone who links to WaPo editorials as if that would prove something. Editorials are opinion; not fact. I guess you didn’t get the memo.

Try learning the difference between the editorial and op-ed page genius.

Weak tea pal to someone who faced Barry’s hero RayGun’s National Guard goons packing M-14s with a smile and a ’Stop the War’ sign.

Brave man. You're a hero and you have a degree from a university too.

Reagan's been dead for a while though and he never managed to start a war as bloody as the one Senator Clinton endorsed.

but he sponsored enough bloodshed around the world and especially central America.

Reagan’s been dead for a while though and he never managed to start a war as bloody as the one Senator Clinton endorsed.

LMAO...

/snark?

See here.

And given that her fellow centrist, Obama, hasn't done squat on the war except check himself in every mirror he passes for a no-risk speech he gave in 2002, I really don't see much difference between them on that score. Too bad Obama couldn't wait 'til 2016, is what I hear a lot of people saying. Maybe with his law school experience, he'd be a great Attorney General for Hillary.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Yeah, her and Hans Blix
new
Submitted by lambert on Mon, 2008-03-31 11:20.

See here.

Oh please. She voted to GIVE W AUTHORITY TO START A WAR either knowing full well that he intended to start it or exhibiting a level of naivete that is hard to credit. Since her CFR speech made while it appeared the war might succeed was remarkably short on outrage about how Bush had misused the authority, the first is likely to be true. She made a political calculation to seek the politically safer path at the expense of doing what was right and she even miscalculated what was the safe path.

If Hillary had even approached Edwards in honesty and in showing an ability to learn, I'd be a lot more comfortable with her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Maybe not overtly
Submitted by FrenchDoc on Sun, 2008-03-30 23:32.

Yes, but so what? Woodrow Wilson was a bad guy too. All centrist politicians endorse the "bipartisan consensus on foreign policy" whatever that means (generally bad things) and all democratic party centrists contrast that to Bush's adventurism. In practice, they are contrasting for example Reagan's and Carter's willingness to use limited warfare and proxies instead to Cheney/Bush adventurism. Of course, it would be better if someone could advocate a non-imperial policy - but for a centrist Obama gets closest to it by specifically tying economic conditions at home to cost of empire.

When Hillary says:
For more than a half a century, we know that we prospered because of a bipartisan consensus on defense and foreign policy. We must do more than return to that sensible, cooperative approach.

She does not have Kucinich's department of Peace in mind.

There is little difference between Sen Clinton and Sen Obama on ending the war.

Sen Obama is fortunate that he wasn't there in 2002 to cast a vote in the AUMF, because I'm completely convinced he would have done what the senate leadership told him to do and voted yes.

Don't buy his antiwar hype. He wants to expand the army and the military budget.

Support the Responsible Plan. Whoever gets into the White House won't be leaving Iraq without enormous pressure from the voters.