onegoodmove

Failed to draw blood?! Boy I'm glad she snuck in Nuclear Retaliation against Iran without Keith really stickin it to her. Go Hillary, way to hoodwink that Liberal asshat Olbermann. Didn't even know what hit him. Shes done gonna keep us safe by blowin up anyone who questions Israel, whooooooooooooo-Merica!

"the mangy Keith"?

WTF? The lion's den is a place called Crawford, not Keith Olberman's show... jesus.

Hillary and Keith are dishonest.

They should have rejected the talking points about Iran being a threat. Iran's not threatened anyone. Second, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. And besides, ISRAEL is known to have nuclear weapons--a point never made during the exchange here. We know that Israel has had nuclear weapons for almost three decades.

http://www.counterpunch.org/goodman08182004.html

See this interview with Amy Goodman and Mordechai Vanunu, the man who told the world about Israel's secret nuclear weapons, and who is still seeking asylum.

This inconvenient fact was overlooked by our guy, Keith Olbermann, and Clinton (who I am hating more and more).

Wow - what a different reaction I had to Clinton from that of the previous commenter. I thought this was a really great interview. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons - I don't think that was the point of the discussion at all - I think they made it clear that Iran DOESN'T have nuclear weapons but that they are trying to get them which Clinton feels would be very dangerous for the area. I thought she answered each question reasonably and, I thought Keith's questions were all fair and good ones to pursue except the last one. He could've asked that in a completely different manner. I wish he had asked her about pursuing Obama's bitter comment because that is something that really bugs me. I would've loved to hear Keith question Obama, too. It was so nice to hear a candidate get some real time to answer a question....I'd love to hear Obama in this venue.

Personally, I think the Republicans are endorsing Hillary because they feel she is the candidate McCain can beat but...I'm just suspicious that way. Maybe they actually have seen the writing on the wall and realize the direction we are going isn't good for anyone....

I too am sick and tired of the ridiculous pretense that Israel could not themselves deliver a devastating nuclear strike against Iran in the even of a nuclear attack by Iran (which is an entirely hypothetical scenario at this point). Absolutely every serious strategic planner in the world is aware of this. As Chirac put it a year ago,

Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.

Ahhh, the things one can not say in discussions of American foreign policy.

Hillary visited the lions den, but the mangy Keith failed to draw any blood. Perhaps it was lack of time, it wasn't for lack of trying.

Ummm, Norm, could you explain what you thought were questions that fit this introduction? They seemed pretty tame and fair to me. Clinton did good politicking, not necessarily answering the question about McCain, for example. But how did Keith come across as trying to draw blood? Cause I missed that side.

Overall, I was surprised at the interview – mostly because Norm's introductory comments had led me to expect that KO was going to behave like some kind of attack dog. Quite the contrary, KO was cordial and let Hillary have all the time she wanted to expand upon and explain her views. Compare this interview with the bloviating that Keith's foil, O'Reilly, does on a regular basis and Olbermann comes off like the consummate professional.

WTF? The lion's den is a place called Crawford, not Keith Olberman's show... jesus

It's Keith Olbermann's show if your name is Hillary. He has been as anti-Clinton as anyone. Perhaps you don't watch him but he has said nary a negative word about Obama and slams Hillary night after night . What the Fuck indeed, I'll assume you don't watch the show. If you do you're out of touch.

He has been as anti-Clinton as anyone.

I can see that you have a point in that he has been boldly critical of her at times. But you lose me and most folks when you go this far.

He has never been viscous. He is hardly within 100 miles of the viscousness that Rove and fox and rush and Mallon-Scaife have planned for her.

Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.

Iran wants the bomb as a defensive measure, not offensive. Dropping a bomb on Israel would be suicide for the Islamic world, not just because of the retaliation, but because of the fallout from their own bomb.

Mohammad would be pissed if his holy land glowed.

Norm, I watch Keith every night and you sir have entered the land of make-believe. That was an extremely fair interview and she gave some good answers to a couple questions and dodged other like the pro she is. Yes, he has been critical of Hillary lately, duh! She has been campaigning like a Repub right down to the Bin Laden ad. He would have to have his head in the sand to not report the horrible campaign she is running. But then, you are swallowing hard on some Clinton Kool-Aid and see the world through those glasses only. I have been there, done that, ready to fight McCain now, not each other.

vicious, I mean.

Hillary is mostly on autopilot here. She answers questions by recontextualizing everything in broad ambiguous term. But that's what politicians do, so who am I to point it out?

I do think Hillary is probably the best suited to get the country back to a healthier financial footing more than the other candidates. Serious investigations in oil industry windfall profits are way overdue. She's very much on the right track about the Enron comparisons. It's the same deal.

jillbryant, I usually appreciate your thoughtful comments. On this, however, we disagree:

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons - I don't think that was the point of the discussion at all - I think they made it clear that Iran DOESN'T have nuclear weapons but that they are trying to get them which Clinton feels would be very dangerous for the area.

Clinton's argument is nonsense if we accept your rational reconstruction of what she said. Her argument was that if Iran gets nuclear weapons other countries in the region will feel threaten and perhaps try to acquire them themselves. That argument is moot if a country in the region--i.e. Israel-- already has them. I am also inclined to believe that Syria feels a little more threatened by Israel than by their ally Iran.

Her speculation about price-gouging is unlikely--declining oil resources, wars in the middle east, the falling dollar and inflation are sufficient to explain the current cost of gas, as even Paul Krugman, Clinton agit prop, acknowledges

What would I look for someone who was ready on day 1? Hillary asks. To begin with: Someone with enough executive experience and competence to actually manage a national presidential campaign without internal divisions, soaring debts, and an overall lack of coherent strategy which depends on waiting for your opponent to slip up. Successfully managing a campaign may not be sufficient to prove executive experience but the inability to do so is surely an indicator of evident lack of such ability.

Finally, Keith did not try to 'draw blood'--he lobbed a few soft balls and asked some sharper policy related questions he believes were ignored. He also did not ask any tough follow up questions: he should have pushed her on that cold war 'umbrella' crap, which I am convinced, given its incoherence, she just made up on the spot at the debate and has simply stuck to for consistency sake--the people she intends to put under it are the very people we can't negotiate with on Israel and Palestine; and as Iran does not yet and is not likely to have nuclear weapons anytime soon, a better question would have focused on how best to avoid that situation, not how 'tough' you'd have to be if they actually got them.

Here's some words that have come back to bite Bill Clinton: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190399.php

Ummm, Norm, could you explain what you thought were questions that fit this introduction? They seemed pretty tame and fair to me. Clinton did good politicking, not necessarily answering the question about McCain, for example. But how did Keith come across as trying to draw blood? Cause I missed that side.

I agree the interview was fair. His discussion afterwards was much more pointed. I suppose my take on Keith is not the interview alone, but the past couple of months of his decidedly one sided coverage of the campaign. He is true believer, and cheerleader for Obama on his show. He comes across to me in the same way I apparently come across to some here who support Obama from the other side. The difference I see, is that I have criticized Clinton. I don't recall a single instance where he has been critical of Obama. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it. His line is Clinton is bad Barack is wonderful. Mine is Clinton is bad Barack is worse and John McCain is hopeless.

I'd be interested in what structural changes people here think Barack would make in the system that Hillary would not, and how he would accomplish the changes.

What persuades you it is more than just rhetoric?

Is it just that you think he'll bring a new tone to Washington and that will encourage the republicans to work in a bi-partisan way?

Adam - I am inclined to agree with anyone who notices I make comments much less says they are thoughtful :) but I want to see if I can clarify what I heard or, really what I took it to mean (perhaps incorrectly)....That we are going to try and set up a standard/treaty in the M.E. One that said that we will protect any country there against nuclear attack - not just Israel - taking away both another country's excuse for trying to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S.'s unpopular position as solely Israel's protector (or probably something worse, in this group.)

It is hardline but she said she believes that is what the Democrats need to show in order to beat McCain. I don't know if that is true but Bush in 2004 shouldn't have happened either.

Jill: That we are going to try and set up a standard/treaty in the M.E. One that said that we will protect any country there against nuclear attack - not just Israel - taking away both another country's excuse for trying to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S.'s unpopular position as solely Israel's protector (or probably something worse, in this group.)

This is a reasonable construal of Clinton's remarks, and I think you state her position more clearly than she does. For all that, my point was that a cold-war security umbrella strategy only makes sense when there is a well acknowledged common enemy with overwhelming superior fire-power. Supposing the United States does not follow up on Carter's suggestions to negotiate with Hamas and Syria, which, given the recent remarks of both Obama and Clinton, seems to me incredibly unlikely, that enemy for countries in the region like Syria is Israel, not Iran, who is the ally of Syria and who sends funds to Hamas.

Saber-rattling at Iran with threats of nuclear attack will not win us friends in the region, it will only further alienate them. If Clinton wants to put them under a so-called 'security umbrella' with Israel, she needs to deal with the Palestine issue and broker treatise of non-aggression between Israel and its neighbors. In other words, either focusing on Iran is just saber-rattling or it's a massively injudicious response to a deeply flawed diagnosis of the politics of the region, at the center of which is Israel and its enormous arsenal, not Iran.

At the risk oversimplifying: Imagine you and your best friend have really big clubs--no one can get within a 100 yards of you without getting the crap beat out of them. (I assuming, of course, you are both really strong, and can wield those suckers like ninjas). Now someone who doesn't like your best friend sends word about to her circle of friends, who also all hate your friend, that she, too, wants a really big club, but only as a walking-stick, not, of course, to hurt anyone with (an energy resource as it were, not a weapon). And you say--what to the friends of your friend's enemy? Oh, no, no, no, I'll protect you all with my big club to make sure all of you remain powerless?

Forgive me if I've only been reading OGM off and on recently due to exams but

"Hillary visited the lions den, but the mangy Keith failed to draw any blood."

who killed the real Norm and replaced him with you? Since when is Keith Olbermann the enemy?

What I have been convinced of, however, is that her remark was not made up on the spot but possibly calculated.

What could bring out their contrasts more clearly? Obama proposes to have direct negotiations with Iran, a policy only regrettable, it seems to me, in not being extended to other political players in the region like Hamas. And Clinton proposes--to bomb the hell out of them.

What persuades you it is more than just rhetoric?

This question could just as fairly be asked of Clinton as well. I'm still pretty unclear in what, concrete, her so-called 'experience' consists.

Is it just that you think he'll bring a new tone to Washington and that will encourage the republicans to work in a bi-partisan way?

No, that would be naive. Obama has a long history of bringing opposition over to his side, in the IL Senate over videotape surveillance of police interrogations, which was almost unanimously opposed at first, and of crossing partisan lines in the U.S. Senate when necessary, such as the bill he put together on Blackwater. And I thought his race speech exemplified an ability of which we have ample testimony from previous colleagues--that he listens carefully to all sides of an argument, including those with whom he deeply disagrees, and reformulate the basic questions and issues in an illuminating and productive way. Post-Bush, I find that both shocking and an inspiration for a cautious hope. (By contrast, Clinton's campaign, whether fairly or not, has a reputation for being as cronyistic and based more on loyalty than competence).

Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.

Mrs. Clinton stood by Mr. Penn and Patti Solis Doyle, who was until last month her campaign manager, even as her campaign was at risk of letting Mr. Obama sew up the nomination. When some of her closest supporters pressed her to replace them, arguing that the two were clearly struggling with their jobs and had become divisive figures in the campaign, she responded by saying she would “think about it.”

Ultimately, however, I see it as a matter of political will formation. If the Republicans lose the election, how to create a governing majority with the political capital to push through proposals will be crucial. Obama packages left-wing policies in a moderate rhetoric of hope, community, and individual responsiblity; this enables him to go behind the back of conservative ideologues by appeal to their supporters in a language they understand, and is, I submit, part of his appeal to independents and conservatives. This marginalizes the ideologues in the Congress who oppose his policies because it undercuts their basis of support through the creation of a larger coalition. Clinton see politics as a matter of open contestation, appears to be comfortable with alienating those who disagree, and forcing through an agenda in the face of opposition. My bet is: that hasn't worked in the past, its minimal gains were evanescent, and I see no reason to suppose it will be a successful either as an election or a governing strategy.

My hunch--and it is a hunch--is that Clinton would spend a large part of her presidency devoted to fighting and returning smear rather than getting legislation though. Obama is at least trying to create a new political sensibility where public discussion of flag pins and 'elitism', in which Clinton shows so much interest these days, are exposed as the childish and irresponsible twaddle that they are. He may fail--but it's worth a shot.

I've been reading this site for quite some time and was just recently inspired to sign up for an account. Just to say this.

Stick to posting interesting clips and links because your analysis's are pretty bad. Or at the least completely unfair and biased.

Just remember that the right is hoping to make the left (or left leaning or whatever label you find least objectionable) into cynics. Cynics don't advocate for anyone. Cynics are less likely to vote. Cynics are likely to repeat negative talking points. etc. Cynicism will lead to a McCain victory.

Anyway K.O. has definitely been part of the Hillary bashing / Obama love fest. K.O. has been "vicious" towards Clinton. He did a special commentaryish rant against Clinton about how she crossed the line when she said something about Obama.

My hunch--and it is a hunch--is that Clinton would spend a large part of her presidency devoted to fighting and returning smear rather than getting legislation though. Obama is at least trying to create a new political sensibility where public discussion of flag pins and 'elitism', in which Clinton shows so much interest these days, are exposed as the childish and irresponsible twaddle that they are. He may fail--but it's worth a shot.

Exactly! And I share your hunch - but suspect it will be even worse. It will be the 90's rancor on steroids. Rush Limbaugh will be relevant again - and I will lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of Hillary supporters.

Judging both candidates soley based on their campaigns, hers has been short-sighted, ill-planned, and crass: she has taken every cheap shot at every opportunity she was given.

He went in promising to wage a different kind of campaign, and he has. Quibble all you want, quibblers, he has run a better, more intelligent, more graceful campaign than she has. Why should we assume their respective presidency dynamics would play any differently?

Another thing, Hillary Clinton has consistently polled very low when judged on her "trustworthiness"; lower than both McCain and Obama throughout the entire campaign.

People as a whole do not trust her and many openly despise her. Do you Hillary people think this fact will just magically disappear come November?

And -I ask AGAIN- how do Hillary supporters justify the fact that Limbaugh, Coulter, and Richard Fucking Mellon Scaife are openly rooting for her?! Three heavy-hitters in the vast-right-wing conspiracy are all championing their dartboard pin-up girl. My, these are topsy-turvy times, indeed!

Obama supporters have been maligned since day one. Yet Hillary supporters have never been made to answer for their support of a much, much more flawed candidate.

If Hillary is the nominee, and loses, I suppose we Obama supporters and our Messiah will be blamed for not properly vetting Mrs. Clinton while we were dodging kitchen sinks.

What persuades you it is more than just rhetoric?

Even if every word Obama said was just rhetoric, i'd rather have that rhetoric than saber rattling with Nuclear Arms.

Please, Norm. It's "Clinton and Obama", not "Hillary and Barack" (or, as is sometimes your wont, "Clinton and Barack"). It's amazing what simple manners can do to raise the tone of a discussion.

Hillary and Obama is appropriate, as those are the names they use on their signs.

"I'd be interested in what structural changes people here think Barack would make in the system that Hillary would not, and how he would accomplish the changes."

This is an important question, because there are many side-issues, personality tics and campaign moves that people get distracted and worked up about.

I have a few issues:

1. Foreign policy. Obama has a very different approach to it. Clinton's is better than the GOP approach, a lot better, and she has thought about it a lot. But Obama is leaving behind the whole "war on terror" attitude, while Hillary is simply taking the more liberal view of it.

2. Leadership. Obama is a young person (though not that young) and hasn't been in national office for a long time. But as I leader I think he blows away everyone the Democrats have put up since Bill Clinton himself. I think Hillary is a very Kerry-like figure. She is as a person pretty impressive, and seems very competent, but that doesn't mean she's a leader. On ideology she's very similar to Bill, on personality she's the exact opposite.

3. Hillary's use of right wing-frames to make short term political gains. A lot of what Hillary says gives me flashbacks of the 90s-era DLC.

For me, everything else is minor.

"His line is Clinton is bad Barack is wonderful. Mine is Clinton is bad Barack is worse and John McCain is hopeless."

I'll go with Obama very good, Clinton good, McCain out of his mind.

I'll go with Obama very good, Clinton good, McCain out of his mind.

I'll amend mine to Clinton good+healthcare, Obama good, McCain inflexible and out of his mind.

I'll grant you that Barack's rhetoric on foreign policy is different, but I don't believe he will convert that into different policies. When push comes to shove he'll fall in line.

Hillary Clinton touts the endorsement of Richard Mellon Scaife on her website

Political Courage: The Pittsburgh-Tribune Review endorsed Hillary

When Olbermann asked her about this endorsement, she giggled.

Oh yeah, real funny. This is the man who once told a female reporter: "You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here".

Hillary attacked Obama for not rejecting an endorsement from Louis Faraakhan (apparently denouncing him wasn't good enough for her), and yet she not only accepts an endorsement from Scaife, she proudly displays that endorsement on her website.

Shame on you Hillary Clinton.

I'll grant you that Barack's rhetoric on foreign policy is different, but I don't believe he will convert that into different policies. When push comes to shove he'll fall in line.

So the difference is that you don't believe Obama.

oh well.

Hillary said that the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

Yikes!

I agree with Obama.

"One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate,'" Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a separate ABC interview. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling."

Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America

QUESTION: …Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel 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.

HIllary Clinton frightens me!

I wonder what the Iranians are saying about her comment?

From the Iranian press:

Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran

In an interview with the ABC News, when she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel, she said "I want the Iranians to know that if I am the president we will attack Iran."

"In the next ten years, during which they might consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she added.

Clinton's support for the regime comes as Tehran has never declared any program to launch a military attack on Israel.

Israeli billionaire betting on Hillary

Ardent pro-Israel Hollywood mogul Haim Saban has been supporting Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton for president.

The recent release of the long-awaited Clintons' joint tax returns revealed that Saban is financially backing the New York senator's presidency.

According to Forbes, Saban is one of the richest men in the world. He is the founder of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution - where warmongers like Kenneth Pollack 'fantasize' about war with Iran.

The New York Times has described Saban as a 'tireless cheerleader for Israel'.

He is also one of the biggest contributors to the campaigns of pro-Israel politicians in the United States. Comatose former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon has called Saban 'a dear personal friend.'

"His contribution to strengthening ties between Israel and American political leaders from all parties has been quite remarkable and outstanding," Sharon has said, referring to Saban.

With the recent revelation that the powerful Israeli supporter is backing Senator Clinton, pundits now wonder how far the former lady would bend US foreign policy to serve the interests of Israel if elected president.

"Her speculation about price-gouging is unlikely--declining oil resources, wars in the middle east, the falling dollar and inflation are sufficient to explain the current cost of gas, as even Paul Krugman, Clinton agit prop, acknowledges"

There are still games being played by domestic oil refiners in terms of keeping supplies lean and limiting refinery production, in spite of demand. Every time gas goes up they make huge, huge record profits. How can that be OK? If it's truly all about limited resources, then why are we not seeing rationing? As long as the public mindset sees the problem as a global resource issue then the local operators who refine and distribute can operate without the scrutiny that should be applied.

I made a little graph on McCain's "Gas Tax Holiday".

I think I get the idea of the graph, Eric, but the "Consumer Surplus" and "Producer Surplus" labels don't really seem associated with anything. Perhaps you could color-code the relevant areas of the graph instead, and put that data in a legend (perhaps with more explanation of how those concepts relate to the graph and supply/price curve.)

And indeed, semi-monopolized highly privatized commodities that are not too high on the list of necessities - things like gasoline, phone plans, etc - are very much driven by "what the market will bear" ... ie. not so much the optimal price, but the maximum price consumers can be coerced by the corporations into paying.

The "competition" isn't between corporations, but between corporations and their customers... the customers don't fare so well.

I would consider giving her a pass on authorizing the Iraq invasion, given that 99% of other Democrats were equally ignorant. However, I cannot support any politician that has voted for Kyl-Lieberman. There is no excuse to be voting for this garbage. Not in this day and age.

http://tinyurl.com/yuvjd3

The answer to 30 years of Reagan/Bush/Cheeney is not Joe Lieberman. In fact I consider these types of Democrats more of a threat to our country than the Republicans at this point, since these "electable Republicans" running as Democrats are what we are left with since the Republican party is thankfully finally in shambles. We need someone like Russ Feingold, or Barbara Boxer, or.. Barack Obama. I will not be content with just any Democrat winning in November. I will be incredibly dismayed if Barack Obama is not the nominee, as I fear I will never again see a candidate this respectable get this close to being our president.

Olbermann, and MoveOn, and myself despise Hillary because we have every reason to. If you disagreee with her foreign policy as I do, she is more of a threat to this country's future than even McCain since she might actually win. I'm not saying she would be better at beating McCain, but I don't think McCain can beat either of them.

"who killed the real Norm and replaced him with you? Since when is Keith Olbermann the enemy?"

Seconded. Seriously. Find a way to get just a little less shrill. This is getting old.

Later.

Well they're simply the elements that, when combined, are used to measure social welfare. CS is important since we want to know what impact this price change will affect our well-being (it won't). I guess to explain how it relates to the downward-sloping demand curve would be that you have a diminishing marginal utility in paying for gas (especially given the existing substitutes). So here, when we experience an excess demand as a direct result from the decrease of $4 dollars (roughly) minus the tax revenue (which I just rounded off since it's something like an 18.4 cent tax), because we are no longer in equilibrium, this shortage in turn places pressure for the price to rise. How much will it rise? Well it certainly will not have an adverse effect (unless of course you count the missing revenue that would otherwise be sent to the government) but it will move back to equilibruim leaving us no better off. Here the producers are the only winners: the amount producers receive is now greater than the amount they must receive.

So Keith asks her a question, she has a seemingly unlimited amount of time to answer his question and address the audience, and Keith asks no followup questions challenging her responses.

He doesn't bring up non-issues, he doesn't make an ad hominem attack... the biggest "gotchya" he brings up is questioning why she's bragging about an endorsement of a huge prick, which is something Hillary has personally done against Obama.

Lions [sic] den? Really? Is that what we're calling anyplace where people may think differently than you and respectfully question the Goddess?