BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
by Damozel | One quibble: If I were running his campaign, I wouldn't have described it at the website as his 'historic speech.' How the hell can the campaign say it's 'historic' yet? (Unprecedented, maybe.) Don't they listen? Aren't they paying attention to the mutterings about arrogance, hubris, etc.? Dial it back, Obama campaign! Let hissupporters say this.
Still, it's a really good speech [see transcript and comments below]. I just think he should have lightened the tone by proclaiming right at the start 'I speak to you...as a citizen...and as a jelly doughnut.' (Note that the linked article claims that Kennedy never said this; if not, there goes my favorite political blooper of all times). See Obama's speech:
by Damozel | Apparently the pedestrian Robert Novak ran down isn’t doing too well. Novak feels ‘terrible.’ But probably not as terrible as the man he hit. Meanwhile, Novak’s had a $50 traffic citation. Jonathan Turley has some details of the aftermath and discussion of the legal ramifications.
by Damozel | The ACLU has released some crucial memoranda which reveal the tortuous path by which the Bush Administration's Department of 'Justice' taught the CIA to rationalize its way to a distinction between 'enhanced interrogation' and plain old-fashioned 'torture.' The Justice Department told the CIA that agents would be safe from prosecution if they they believed 'in good faith' that flies don't have feelings so it doesn't matter if they pull the wings off them, according to the AP. I may have paraphrased a bit. I know they don't like being quoted.
Put it another way, you could say that the standard articulated in the memos works something like this: 'Use only those enhanced interrogation techniques that wouldn't shock the conscience of a sociopath.' At that, it's hard to believe that they drew the line at waterboarding. Evidently the CIA doesn't have as many agents who think like sociopaths as television and films would lead you to believe. One effect of all this information is to make me feel a little better about them. They might have done so much more.
by Damozel | Krauthammerknows hubris, of course---and is to this extent qualified to write a piece called 'The Audacity of Vanity.' But---he's been wrong about everything, all the time. And now he's wrongagain (naturally).. See Radio Free Mike here (with deepest gratitude to Sadly, No! for the links and comments).
Gavin M of the Sadlies sees off right-wing complaints about 'electioneering' and distribution by Obama's campaign of flyers (in Berlin, where German is spoken) which are written in German (so German-speaking natives can easily read them). [Contains bonus Tin Drum reference]:
by Damozel | Yep, lots at stake here. But for me, the 'double standard' at play is the one between National Enquirerand other publications that don't sometimes turn out to be not quite accurate about their inferences. Reporting the details is fine. As for drawing their inferences, that's the difference between tabloid and non-tabloid: the tabloid reach the conclusion in advance of all the facts and report it as if it were true. They may be right this time---I assume the mainstream media will try to find out.
The real moral is getting lost in all the quibbling over details.
The REAL point is that McCain's military experience doesn't translate
into superior understanding of foreign policy. The whole surge thing---McCain was right; Obama was wrong blah blah blah; and never mind that it's kind of previous to make that call---was supposed to prove that 'experienced' McCain was more likely to get these things right.
What---if he can't even keep the details straight? How's he going to make good judgments if he can't cope with details?
by Damozel | Obama's getting called out for embellishing because of a misstatement to the Israeli Prime Minister. It's a minor matter, but in the interests of even-handedness, I shall discuss it before I rip into McCain. As I've made clear, I support him (though not all my cobloggers do).
Responding to an Israeli reporter’s question Wednesday on his
commitment to protect the Jewish state, Barack Obama pointed to a bill
“we passed” in the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that tightens
sanctions and authorizes divestment from Iran. “My committee,” he
called it.
Except that he isn’t a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
by Adam | John McCain is in a very tough spot this year. He represents an unpopular party going for a third straight term in the white house (something only accomplished once in the last 60 years), his party has a large and growing registration gap, and he lacks the charismatic appeal of his opponent. But most fundamentally, a majority of the public prefers Obama's policy proposals to McCain's on nearly every major issue, from health care to tax policy to foreign policy. These issues have become more and more difficult to deny.
As such, McCain really only has one clear path to victory. He must paint Obama as unfit for office and make the election a referendum on his readiness. His only hope is that Obama's negatives can outshine all the issues that matter.
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I
had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political
campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a
war in order to win a political campaign..
Elrod at TMV points out the comparison to Rove and discusses the drawbacks of this approach for McCain.
Even Joe Klein thought this was way over the top of the scurrilousness scale for a presidential contender. If you want to put something that inflammatory out there, at least get Rove or some surrogate to say it for you. He found it 'unpresidential.' I found it all too presidential. I was kind of hoping we could raise the bar a bit.
by Damozel | Yesterday, Elrod commented at TMV on misstatements by John McCain
which he made during his interview with Katie Couric. ‘Mysteriously,’ these were not aired.
This misstatement isn’t another amusing gaffe by a crusty old maverick; this one matters. As to what
it tells you about him, take your pick. More than one interpretation is
possible, as Elrod and others have pointed out. Which do you like best?
He’s either (1) deliberately distorting facts he knows perfectly well
because he’s desperate to discredit Obama; (2) has forgotten the facts
because his recollection has become blurred; or (3) —’the Bush
option’—he is indifferent to the facts (because he thinks the
end—deflating Obama—justifies the means).
Via D-Day: My friends, we have to drill off shore. We have to do it. It's out
there and we can do it. And we can do that. The oil executives say
within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. So why not
do it?
Oh, right. Why not, eh? If the oil executives think it would be beneficial, why not?
KeninNY at Down With Tyranny at first doubts that these energy experts would ever say such a thing...
by Damozel | Nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley calls it 'a very problematic rationale.' I'll say. The police came to her apartment looking for her son.(WDTN.com)
Her family said she was yelling at officers because she was scared.
"She
was terrified. She was extremely terrified," said Harris's niece,
Dionna. "She was scared because the person identified themselves as a
police officer. But she's been robbed before by someone using the same
technique."...
"She's blind and they pulled her off her
Futon, handcuffed her and tased her because he said she swung at him.
She can't see," said Harris's sister Elvita Harris. "I'm very
frustrated and upset. Dayton police need to implement a sensitivity
program." (WDTN.com)
Posted by Damozel | Shaun Mullen discusses the ramifications for McCain’s of McCain’s argument here. Michael Stickings rounds up commentary by bloggers here;
This piece rounds up related quotes and commentary, including a couple
of fairly lame counterjabs from the McCain-supporting (or
Obama-dissing) side which prove to be fairly easily seen off. After
all, McCain’s whole argument against Obama’s position is founded on a
pile of yesterday’s news clippings.
Initially, the Iraqi government denied that Maliki had intended to endorse Obama’s plan. Now it seems that Maliki is endorsing Obama’s plan.
Republicans would like to make the case that McCain is seasoned and
Obama is a callow newcomer to the public stage. But that’ll be harder
if he keeps up the verbal slips, which make it easier for comedians and
critics to pile on.
This may be a factor for you. Perhaps it should be a factor if you're one of those McCain so-called 'Democrats' who is all, 'At least McCain is SEASONED!' Yep. He's seen many, many seasons.
[F]or the first time since the women’s movement came to life, an economic
recovery has come and gone, and the percentage of women at work has
fallen, not risen, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Each of the seven previous recoveries since 1960 ended with a greater percentage of women at work than when it began...
The proportion of women holding jobs in their prime working years, 25
to 54, peaked at 74.9 percent in early 2000 as the technology
investment bubble was about to burst. Eight years later, in June, it
was 72.7 percent, a seemingly small decline, but those 2.2 percentage
points erase more than 12 years of gains for women. Four million more
in their prime years would be employed today if the old pattern had
prevailed through the expansion now ending..
Economists first assumed that this was because women didn't need the money or had 'other priorities.' Whimsical little souls, those economists.
by Damozel | I am supporting Obama for president now, so don't start on me if you're one of his supporters, but I'm nevertheless filled with pride that Hillary---my choice for the nomination---is justifying my faith in her. She has (in her words) 'sound[ed] the alarm' regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's pending regulations that will redefine common forms of contraception as 'abortion.' What's in a name?:
These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow
healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who
need it. (HuffPost)
That's bad. That's very, very bad. The ramifications are serious, both for those who think it’s not the
government’s business to impose its current ideology on health care
issues such as availability of contraception to the poor or who are already grumbling about all the women on welfare who expect taxpayers to pay for their children’s basic necessities.
by Deb Cupples| We taxpayers keep paying top dollar to private contractors for services at home and abroad. The least those contractors can do is get the job done well and thoroughly.
Back in May, my co-blogger Damozel covered a New York Times piece discussing warnings going as far back as 2004 that shoddy electrical work had been causing fires and even electrocution of American troops on military bases in Iraq. A few days ago, the NY Times reported that electrical problems wereeven worse than previously reported: this article has a big color picture of ruins at a U.S. Marine base near Falluja, which lost 10 buildings in June due to electrical fire.
Congressman Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee is (once again) demanding answers. In a July 18 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Waxman wrote:
by Deb Cupples| A willing accomplice or someone who just doesn't care about wasted tax dollars likely thinks it's better to appear incompetent than unconcerned or knowingly complicit in waste, fraud or abuse. Idon't believe for an instant that the folks handling the FBI's private contracts are too stupid to anticipate problems or learn from mistakes. Some of it is just sooo elementary.
In May 2001, DynCorp got (what was supposed to be) a $132 million contract for the FBI's Trilogy project, aimed at upgrading the FBI's computer networks worldwide. DynCorp's contract bid beat out bids from other companies including Lockheed Martin. (Washington Technology).
Fast forward to 2004, when the GAO audited the Trilogy project (after cost overruns and performance problems). The GAO found the actual costs tush far to be about $537 million and that a major part of the project was unfeasible despite the (tax) money so far spent.
by Damozel: Here's the difference as I understand it between Obama's
Iraq commitment and McCain's: Obama thinks that most conditions have been met for us to begin troop withdrawals and believes that withdrawals should progress as quickly as 'conditions on the ground'
permit (which is what he said). The 16 month deadline is a 'best guess.' McCain isn't willing to begin till
'conditions on the ground' permit AND we can do it 'with victory and
honor,' i.e., with all those interested others (think: government
contractors) satisfied with the arrangement. Big difference, in other
words.
To me, the pressing question at present isn't when we can be out, but when we can begin.McCain's camp repeatedly tries to blur this question. We all know already that changed conditions might cause delays. Only
an idiot would think 16 months is a firm timetable. But what specific conditions does McCain think must be met before we can START?
by Damozel | Pelosi's leadership since 2008 as Speaker of the House is no profile in courage. (In addition to her having taken impeachment off the table, I certainly haven't forgotten these allegations [that she and certain other Dems condoned the CIA's interrogation program] or these allegations [re her switcheroo on : FISA.]) As far as I know, those smears on her escutcheon haven't yet been cleared up.
But--give credit where it's due--- with the election looming, she's starting finally to denouncethe Bush administration the way it should have been denounced even before it became no longer possible to doubt its massive failures. Better late than never!
Because: 'McCain’s campaign co-chair Phil Gramm had to step down because of controversy over his comment that we were in the middle of a “mental recession.” But the truth is, John McCain threw Phil Gramm under the bus for saying, less artfully, what he himself has said repeatedly.'
by Damozel | First, this disclosure: I was a Hillary supporter, and now I support Obama. In my opinion, that's what all Democrats should do. For me, a McCain presidency ain't an option. I'm even going to donate money to Obama's campaign as soon as that debt of HRC's is retired.. I know for a fact he's going to need money.
But the name 'Democratic National Committee' is a hissing and a byword here in Florida and I am not even close to being over their shenanigans during the primaries. So even though I agree in principle with the 'party officials' who wrote this letter, I would submit that Donald Fowler ('DNC member-at-large...who was one of Hillary's most prominent supporters') and 'Alice Germond, the Secretary of the DNC) struck just exactly the wrong note (see TPM). Lambert at Corrente has a different shorter version of their email.
Posted by Damozel | Re: The value to Obama of Maliki's statement (discussed here), Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars says; 'Ooh, that’s gotta leave a mark when you make your campaign all about your foreign policy expertise.' But Josh Marshall wondered whether the White House would 'muscle Maliki into a retraction of some sort.'
Yep. As Libby says at The Impolitic, 'it didn't take long for the White House to walk Maliki back.' But --- as she and Josh Marshall say --- that's going to be a lot for the public to unswallow.
He's already said he was misinterpreted, but come on. That's a whole lot of statement to misconstrue.... [E]verybody is going to know that Maliki was forced into a retraction. (The Impolitic)
by Damozel | Here's the piece in Reuters. Certainly Maliki made it clear before now that
his government wants us out. Here's what he has said about the
16-month time frame:
When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops
should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we
are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack
Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right
timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." (Spiegel Online)
Obama
himself recently backstepped from any firm commitment, but certainly
this is a good sign that the Iraqis are prepared to enable him in
keeping his original promise.
Former U.S. senator Phil Gramm, the free-market-loving husband of Enron Wendy (a former regulator with deep Enron ties), has stepped down from his advisory position on John McCain's campaign. About a week ago, Mr. Gramm -- apparently, a die-hard optimist -- publicly said that our nation's economy is not in a real recession but is rather in more of a "mental recession." (WSJ)
Somewhere in there, Mr. Gramm said reportedly called Americans "whiners." It didn't go over well. The AP also has the story, and Memeorandum has commentary.
Starting at about a minute and a half, Jon Stewart juxtaposes video clips of President Bush and Ben Bernanke making statements about the economy. Stewart concludes that one is "a glass-half-full kind of guy, and the other is an expert on the economy." That's not all Stewart covers. Check it out: it's well worth the 8 minutes.
by Damozel | One quibble: If I were running his campaign, I wouldn't have described it at the website as his 'historic speech.' How the hell can the campaign say it's 'historic' yet? (Unprecedented, maybe.) Don't they listen? Aren't they paying attention to the mutterings about arrogance, hubris, etc.? Dial it back, Obama campaign! Let his supporters say this. 
by Damozel | The ACLU has released 
by Damozel | Yep, 
Teh Nutroots | Yep, more on McCain. Damozel 
by Damozel | Obama's getting called out for embellishing because of a misstatement to the Israeli Prime Minister. It's a minor matter, but in the interests of even-handedness, I shall discuss it before I rip into McCain. As I've made clear, I support him (though not all my cobloggers do).
By Damozel |
by Damozel | Yesterday, Elrod commented at TMV on misstatements by John McCain
which he made during his interview with Katie Couric. ‘Mysteriously,’
by Damozel | Nationally recognized legal scholar 
Posted by Damozel | Shaun Mullen discusses the ramifications for McCain’s of McCain’s argument
by Damozel | The New York Times came up with what I'd call a strange title for this article: 
by Damozel | I am supporting Obama for president now, so don't start on me if you're one of his supporters, but I'm nevertheless filled with pride that Hillary---my choice for the nomination---is justifying my faith in her. She has (in her words) 'sound[ed] the alarm' regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's pending regulations that will redefine common forms of contraception as 'abortion.' What's in a name?:
by 
by Damozel: Here's the difference as I understand it between Obama's
Iraq commitment and McCain's: Obama thinks that 
by Damozel | First, this disclosure: I was a Hillary supporter, and now I support Obama. In my opinion, that's what all Democrats should do. For me, a McCain presidency ain't an option. I'm even going to donate money to Obama's campaign as soon as that debt of HRC's is retired.. I know for a fact he's 
Posted by Damozel | Re: The value to Obama of Maliki's statement (
by Damozel | Here's the piece