UrbanInterloper

Clinton saying Obama can't "close the deal"--now that's funny! Maybe she should look into the mirror and do a little soul-searching. He's done just that, while she hasn't. posted 05/15/2008 at 17:45:33

To be fair, I don't think Clinton realizes what she's doing. After having been the target of Republican attack politics for so long, she accepts their faulty reasoning and has internalized their criticisms. In other words, she thinks like a Republican now. (Come to think of it, this would explain a lot about a certain "sincere vote" in 2002.)

The sad thing is, Clinton hasn't learned the key lesson of this election and recent progressive victories: American voters are dying to reject toxic Republican-style politics and destructive, failed Republican policies--not just because they've been sickened by them for so long--but because they're finally being offered the opposite. The alternative to faulty Republican thinking has been there all along, we finally now have Democratic candidates with the courage to sell that alternative to voters, and who are unafraid of childish Republican name-calling. What else explains Obama's status as the clear frontrunner among all remaining candidates from all parties? Against all odds and initial predictions?

The truth is, Americans genuinely like liberals and genuinely like Democrats--as proven in recent elections. All Democrats have to do is honestly and relentlessly sell the progressive agenda of equal opportunity and fairness for all. Americans are buying. This sales pitch is, after all, a politician's JOB. posted 04/16/2008 at 00:10:03

First of all and most importantly, while this question is an interesting one from a cultural perspective, I don't vote for president based on what a bunch of fundamentalist anti-American religious fantatics think. Sorry, but the "who would al Qaeda vote for" question is a stupid Fox News invention and it's not part of my reasoning, nor should it be part of any thinking American's.

Second , frontpage is right-wing "news" outlet with little of worth. Period.

Third, all three of these college profs have some serious flaws: Siegel is a Guiliani chum who embraces all that bombastic right-wing "islamofascist" crap. Herf criticizes Dems and Obama in particular for not claiming the same mantle. And Cushman is STILL defending his support of the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on false pretenses as the right thing to do (you know, that ol' chestnut about the "liberal case" for invasion and being welcomed as liberators).

Lastly, the following quote could not be more intellectually dishonest and misleading:

"there are about 1 billion Muslims in the world, many of them who are fundamentalists."

"many of them who are fundamentalists"? Gimme a break. The percentage of fundamentalists, even radical fundamentalists who advocate violence, is probably roughly equal among Muslims, Christians and Jews. It's true, these fringe minorities have accomplished lots of bloodshed and are planning more, but wrong to try to scare people by throwing around "1 billion" and "fundamentalist" in the same sentence. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:13:15

This headline ("won't rule out") is a real hoot. The bigger point is that when it comes to pre-emptive war, McCain not only doesn't rule it out, he rules it in! He prefers it.

Does no one remember that it was McCain who coined the term "rogue state rollback?" posted 04/10/2008 at 17:50:16

They must have been inspired by McCain's own song parody, "Bomb I-rain." (that sorta has "rain" in it, right?) posted 04/09/2008 at 15:41:34

Perversely, some low-lifes will actually think higher of McCain for trash talk like this. They're roughly the same group who account for Bush's 29% approval rating. So sad, how some people can only feel good about themselves by putting other people down. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:40:00

American voters do not see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a top foreign policy matter, sadly. Right here on Huffpost, an alleged bastion of engaged and informed liberal voters, this article sat for 2 hours and garnered 0 comments, while Rob Lowe got 100+. Most Americans don't care about Israelis and Palestinians, considering them a "niche" news topic like Tibet or Chechnya. Sad, but it's not really their fault. Most reporting makes no attempt to explain the conflict in the slightest, and so viewers/readers shrug and leave confused.

Today's major breaking news out of Israel cannot even be found on HuffPost:

Israeli minister threatens Iran
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107944.html

(Talk about wiping off a map.) Don't get me wrong--I agree the next president must pursue peace for Israel and Palestine. If it's a Democrat, we'll have a better chance of that. Bush has done nothing but pretend. He may have sent surrogates to the Middle East, but they went empty-handed, only to exchange empty words about supporting a peace process for support of his bloody misadventure in Iraq. Meanwhile, McCain shows little interest unless it involves bombing Iran.

The tide is slowly changing in America. We are beginning to understand and care more about Israelis and Palestinians, ironically, because of Iraq. We see the failure of parallel policies of constant fear at home and long-term occupation abroad, and suddenly, Israel's problems begin to make sense. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:17:41

With a certain type of person, the promise of "empowering individual citizens" and giving voters a seat at the table of problem-solving always seems like an empty fantasy. That's actually quite sad. That type of person has probably spent too much time being cynical and telling themselves why it can't happen, rather than trying to make it happen.

I'm on the side of making it happen. At least Obama will try. His opponents have already given up without trying. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:34:36

Newsom is as big of a Clinton backer as the editor of the Philly Gay News. They're both doing their Tanya Harding routines for Clinton, that's all. It's just politics and angling for position, not anything meaningful. I think it's a bunch of worthless words, and I don't hold it against either of them.

My advice: ask yourself which of these two Democratic proponents of gay rights would be best able to end this damn bloody disaster in Iraq and not let Bush start another one in Iran. posted 04/07/2008 at 20:25:24

Bill Clinton was a spineless traitor to the gay community for signing DOMA. He could have vetoed it, but he saw gay rights as something OK to sacrifice. It would have been one thing had he done nothing, but he actually made things worse--took equal rights away in the future. I don't think he was a coward, because that would assume he had a sincere belief in 100% equality. I believe he was an opportunist willing to put his own political fortunes ahead of gay rights.

Even if DADT was an incrementally better situation, there is no polishing the turd of DOMA. It's a fundamentally immoral piece of legislation that targets a class of citizens for denial of equal rights. Now, because of the combination of Bill Clinton's callous opportunism and Bush's Supreme Court appointees, it's unlikely to be deemed as unconstitutional as it truly is. posted 04/07/2008 at 20:11:36

Clinton has a good stance on gay equality, but Obama has the stronger stance. He would repeal DOMA, while she would repeal half of it and supports states' ability to deny recognition of legal marriages from other states. Obama also routinely includes "gender identity" in all of this LBGT speeches, writings, and yes, interviews in both the gay and mainstream press.

Also, the KKK/McClurkin analogy is fatally flawed. McClurkin considers himself an ex-gay and is an ex-substance abuser who found help through his religion - this fact is routinely left out of most articles about him. Viewed with compassion, one would pity McClurkin for his sad confusion and self-loathing, not damn him for his homophobic statements, as wrong as they are. First and foremost, it seems he hates himself. McClurkin is as much victim of homophobia and he is homophobe. So as for that flawed analogy, no white KKK clansman can claim salvation from once being black by becoming white. Clansmen are just hateful racists.

Bottom line: LGBT issues would probably be pretty well off with either of them in office. Consider the country lucky on that single issue and let's end this bloody disaster in Iraq already. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:54:50

This article does not make it clear enough that Penn is or was being paid by the government of Colombia, he was not "lobbying Colombia" as the headline all over HuffPo incorrectly states. Penn was meeting was with his client, Colombia, to discuss lobbying the U.S.

By the way, this sort of reveals more about Clinton's stunning lack of judgment than anything in particular about a trade agreement. To choose Penn was profoundly dumb. She probably means exactly what she says about opposing the Colombia trade agreement in its current form; but what's more important--and something Clinton seems not to have considered--is that Penn's allegiance clearly lies with his full-time employer, Burson-Marsteller, a huge multinational company that had worldwide sales of $303 million back in 2000, and which will be around long after the confetti flies in November 2008. Clinton's few million to Penn this election cycle are chump change.

By the way, before Penn arrived at B-M, that company had huge contracts with the Mexican government to sell the U.S. on NAFTA. This isn't a new thing.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

http://crocodyl.org/wiki/burson_marsteller posted 04/04/2008 at 17:52:22

McCain can get away with this apology because he frames it all in terms of race, which sadly has been all that America circa 2008 will allow MLK to represent. But this ignores history and diminishes MLK's full legacy.

McCain fought in Vietnam and continues to justify that war, with all of its excesses and failures, to this day. MLK was vocally against the Vietnam War, and not just that war, but American imperialism in general:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VhCvrEcPY

MLK represents exactly that which McCain openly disdains. McCain's votes against the holiday was wholly consistent with everything he represents.

At least his words today, regardless of their sincerity or lack thereof, have a power unto themselves. People will hear an apology, and that's a good thing, I suppose. posted 04/04/2008 at 17:05:54

Putting aside Clinton and Colombia for a moment - any presidential campaign run by an executive who is simultaneously on the payroll of a foreign government is simply a conflict of interest, and cannot be good for the U.S. It's exactly these slimy government-lobbyist/PR-corporate multinational ties that lie at the core of what's rotten with U.S. government and politics.

Add in the fact that foreign governments and multinational corporations actually pay Penn far more money than his currently hobby, running a presidential campaign, does, and well, you do the math.

Unfortunately, it's not just the issue of Colombia (which, sorry Mr. Sirota, you've oversimplified, despite the worthiness of this article and the topic overall--but that's another story for another day). Burson-Marsteller has also been on the payroll of the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi, Blackwater, Exxon-Mobil (after the Valdez spill), and Philip Morris (creating the fake grassroots "National Smokers Alliance" to fight the aftermath of tobacco lawsuits). Any presidential candidate with ties like these is a bad idea. I don't care what his/her last name might be. posted 04/04/2008 at 16:22:48

Just in case ya'll think I'm exaggerating, see for yourself:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Obama's clearly leading, no matter how you add it up. This is nothing against Clinton's campaign, as her numbers are pretty good too, but close just doesn't cut it in an election. (Ask Kerry.)

Popular Vote Count

State Date Obama Clinton Spread
Popular Vote Total 13,355,209 49.5% 12,638,123 46.9% Obama +717,086 +2.6%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 13,689,293 49.6% 12,861,985 46.6% Obama +827,308 +3.0%

Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,931,423 48.5% 13,509,109 47.1% Obama +422,314 +1.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,265,507 48.6% 13,732,971 46.8% Obama +532,536 +1.8%

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 13,931,423 47.6% 13,837,418 47.2% Obama +94,005 +0.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,265,507 47.6% 14,061,280 47.0% Obama +204,227 +0.6% posted 04/02/2008 at 16:05:45

You say that Obama's supporters shouldn't alienate Clinton supporters because if he wins, he will need them come the general election. I agree completely--and would add that the same goes for Clinton and her supporters.

So how about applying your logic to yourself? How about you "step away from the keyboard" and stop your childish name-calling?

"freakazoids"
"big, fat wart covered noses"
"red crusty faces"
"Hope Pope"

Look in the mirror, please, and ask yourself who's guilty of alienating supporters of another candidate. posted 04/02/2008 at 15:47:52

Thanks for the background research, Mr. Barrett. Your articles are always chock full of good info.

However, there's still one significant fact that overrides this entire article: add in the votes from Florida and Michigan, as well as all remaining states that have yet to report their final tallies, and Obama still wins the national popular vote. posted 04/02/2008 at 15:28:16

Democrats don't need to make McCain look like an out-of touch flip-flopper, he's doing a pretty fine job of it himself. They just have to get out his way, and pressure the media to cover it. (Easier said than done, I know.) posted 03/28/2008 at 17:39:16

The best thing that can happen as a result of the Wright story is that a real examination of other religious leaders and their power in U.S. politics and foreign policy occur. I'm amazed, for example, that someone as powerful and radical as Hagee can endorse McCain, and all the big news outlets point out his criticisms of the Catholics and McCain's desire to win evangelicals' votes, but not the fact that Hagee founded Christians United for Israel. Hagee preaches in favor a pre-emptive attack on Iran as necessary in bringing about the Rapture and Christian salvation--not reported. Hagee preaches that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is intrinsically morally wrong, because only Israel deserves 100% of the Holy Land and anyone who facilitates peace is anti-Christian and evil by definition--not reported. Hagee preaches that salvation requires all Jews either die or convert to Christianity--not reported. Most Americans would find these views shocking, and as radical as those who would attack the U.S., yet most Americans don't know that a man whose church numbers 10,000 holds these views. Why? Because Bill Moyers is on PBS, not CNN. America will continue to make wrong decisions as spectacularly disastrous as invading Iraq if it continues to live in ignorance of what its own citizens believe. Let's hope the door is now open to this knowledge. posted 03/28/2008 at 17:34:02

First of all, his parents didn't "name him Hussein," they named him Barack. In America, the middle name does not mean anywhere near as much as the first name.

Second of all, there is a difference between criticizing those people who believe a falsehood to be true, and merely pointing out that they believe a falsehood. There is always something good to be gained by society when its people know the truth. That is without question. And if you think for a second that there isn't a connection between some people believing lies about Obama (or any candidate, for that matter) and some people believing the lies that got us into Iraq, not to mention some people believing the lies that might still get us into Iran--you're living with your head in the sand. Falsehoods are always corrosive, and it is our duty to correct them. We would have the same obligation to dispell these lies if were about McCain or Clinton.

Furthermore, we have a greater duty to education in this country so that the numbers of people who can easily be duped by lies into supporting disastrous policies is as small as it can possibly be. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:14:43

Between 13-30% of the country doesn't finish high school (depending on what statistics you cite).

12% of the country falls below the poverty line (a figure that would be closer to 30% if the U.S. used the same calculation method as the British).

25% of anti-Obama Democrats still believe a false, toxic rumor and intend to vote accordingly.

Gee, do you think there's maybe a connection between these things? posted 03/28/2008 at 18:59:01

Your comment boils down to: blame the blacks. Your wild speculation also rests on faulty logic that neglects the fact that most black Americans are Christian, just like the majority of the country.

Even worse, you are fear-mongering just like the ones who started this rotten lie in the first place ("perhaps not such a myth" - what is this garbage? It's as toxic and as sly as "as far as I know"). Sorry if that sounds harsh, but honestly, what else are you doing here but helping to spread a dishonest rumor only to then disown responsibility for doing so?

If you truly want a Democratic president, please give it a rest. Even Clinton denied this rumor better than you have. posted 03/28/2008 at 18:28:43

Here's your "pretzel logic": You're right that Clinton flatly denied the rumor, but Mr. Levine is also right to point out that she later qualified that denial. Why is that so hard to understand? Maybe she didn't mean to open that door of doubt, but even unintentionally, she did. Some people heard it that way, and it was inevitable that they would. In the end, it's a lot like Ferraro's comments. Probably not meant to be denigrating, but clumsy nonetheless. posted 03/28/2008 at 17:58:45

Right there with you! posted 03/25/2008 at 17:27:51

Obama improving in one NC poll is probably good news to his campaign, but let's not forget a few things:

- Obama's won the national popular vote so far (even if you count Fla and Mich)
- Obama's won the delegate count so far (even if you add in superdelegates so far)
- Obama's won the most states by an overwhelming margin
- Clinton's campaign admits that she cannot change the above three facts, and can only win if the superdelegates' votes override individual citizens' votes

So while it's an interesting development that NC might pad Obama's unambiguous lead, it's sort of boring as far as "news" goes. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:01:11

Add in Fla and Mich tallies, and Obama still wins the popular vote and has the most delegates. No one can change those facts, so this whole "illegitimate" stuff is just fantasy. However, that doesn't negate any impressions people in those two states might have, and so I agree that he has some political work to do with those states' voters to make sure people are happy and feel they've been heard. I think that's a task he's proven he can handle, multiple times. Besides, the Democrats are probably going to seat those delegates at the convention anyway, and you can't blame Clinton or Obama for the DNC's bad decision (it was obvious this would become a problem at some point, but what's done is done). posted 03/25/2008 at 17:16:01

Cool. Now if Puerto Rico could either be given statehood or independence, we'd be getting somewhere. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:08:22

Carville is cynical, petty, divisive and destructive for U.S. politics in general, not just the Dems, and he needs to go. Now. Someone please cancel his TV appearance contracts. This pseudo-biblical "Judas" garbage is just his latest poison. Like many cable-TV bomb-throwers, he lowers the political bar in this country and gets his jollies doing so, with no regard for the outcome and with zero concern for the actual challenges of our citizenry and the very real problems that need to be solved. If you need any evidence of that, just read some of the unthinking bile in the comments right here on this post. That type of hostility is exactly what people like him thrive on and encourage. No thanks, Mr. Carville. This country is done with people like you. We are desperately trying to lift our political discourse up, not drag it down into the mud where you like to play. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:19:40

Carville is pure poison, and that fact is much larger and older than the 2008 campaigns. He contributes nothing to U.S. politics that isn't wholly destructive. The NY Times is also partially to blame for continuing to reserve space on its pages for him. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:43:23

Let me get this straight: the question was, "Why should the U.S. try to bring peace there?" ("there" being Israel and the occupied territories.) My answer was that it would reduce the terrorist threat to the U.S. You then said my answer was "wrong"--suggesting somehow that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would either be 1) harmful to U.S. national security, or 2) have no effect on U.S. national security. Putting aside the absurdity that peace could ever be considered undesirable, you then--rather than disprove my point about U.S. national security--change the topic to the security of Israel. While that topic merits lengthy discussion as well, I have news for you: Israel and the U.S. are two different nations, and while allied, their national security issues aren't identical. Even putting aside what specific nations we're talking about, it is simply illogical to say that what is good for the national security of one nation is always good for another, even an ally. In other words, your entire reponse about Israel's security issues is off-topic. posted 03/27/2008 at 19:51:12

The Israeli government's biggest beef these days is with Iran, a Persian state, not an Arab one. And its biggest dilemma is Palestine, which isn't even a state, not the exisiting Arab nations on its borders. But more importantly, your argument is basically that Israel cannot do anything to improve its situation; it just has to sit there armed to the teeth behind a concrete wall and wait until the enemy gives up. I reject that premise entirely. It is defeatist and self-destructive. Sixty years have passed and Israel's situation is as bad as it's ever been. Clearly, there are new and different steps that Israel can and must take to improve its security and bring peace to the region. If Israel is unwilling to acknowledge its own potential to change the situation, then it must admit that it is content with the status quo of living in a state of constant threat, armed to the teeth behind a concrete wall, constantly ducking from the boomerang of collective punishment. I find the status quo unacceptable, as does the vast majority of the world, but regardless of world opinion, the situation is inherently unstable. Do nothing and the situation will change anyway, and probably not to anyone's liking. posted 03/27/2008 at 19:23:17

The most direct answer to your question (why should the U.S. try to bring peace there?) is simple: because peace between Israel and Palestine would be the single-most effective thing anyone could could do to reduce the terrorist threat to the U.S. It would deprive terrorist recruiters of one of their signature issues. posted 03/24/2008 at 15:51:32

You are basically saying that the Israelis can never and should never lay down their arms. This is an untenable position. It's untenable for Israelis, for Palestinians, and for Americans (who are party to the conflict despite their ignorance of it). It also sounds like a tacit admission that after 60 years, Israel has not figured out how to exist in any way other than a state of constant warfare. So by your own logic (the logic of permanent militarism), you're implying that the experiment of Israel as a modern democratic nation has been a complete failure. That might sound overly simplistic, but its the logical end to your line of thinking. posted 03/24/2008 at 15:21:30

I disagree with all three of these characterizations of Obama, but honestly, entitlement? How, by any stretch of the imagination, can anyone defend the theory that Obama sees himself as unfairly entitled to the nomination? There is zero evidence of this. If he is entitled to the nomination, it is solely because he has garnered the most votes out of any candidate in 2008 from any party after building, from nothing, a grassroots organization that blows all others out of the water. Even Republicans who oppose him have acknowledged that. posted 03/24/2008 at 14:02:58

To answer your last question, I would undoubtedly say hurt. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:54:20

If the presidency requires both hard work and inspiration, Obama's got the goods. Hello? He's won the most delegates, the most votes (even if you include those disqualified states of Fla and Mich), and the most states. He's won more votes than any other candidate from any party! He's leading by every single metric there is. If that's not hard work, I don't know what is. Time to let the harder-working and more successful candidate get the nomination already, in my opinion. Clinton has been a hard-working Senator for New York, and in 2000, she campaigned hard there and won. You simply cannot say the same thing about her 2008 presidential bid (well, you can say it, but you'd be wrong). There's nothing wrong with admitting you've given it a good run and came in a close second. There's nothing shabby about being a Senator, and she can continue to serve the country and her state "in her own inimitable way," and if that position is no longer suitable to her, then she has other career options, of course.

I've also had enough Dem-bashing and I'm very disappointed to see it again here. "The Dems" aren't a monolithic group who share one brain, and I'm glad they didn't pre-ordain a candidate to be forced upon the rank and file. Unlike Republicans, Dems have different opinions and they discuss them openly, and they pledge allegiance to the U.S., not to the party's most powerful. That's a good thing. I'm glad the Dems can show this country what it's like to let democracy actually do its thing in an election, and what it's like to debate what's most important to the nation instead of competing for the titleof biggest loudmouth bully. In a lot of ways, the Dem primary in 2008 is the most interesting and truly democratic election we've seen in this country in a long time, more so than lots of presidential elections. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:52:17