plutorage

Hillary doesn't understand politics, except the politics of being an Empress.

The latest craze on college campuses: Compose the best question for Chelsea to answer on the subject of Monica Lewinsky. Nice going, Hillary. Why would Hillary want to be Rocky anyway? Hillary had everything going for her and just threw it away. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:12:35

After the Crusades petered out in the 13th century, the Moslems eventually invaded Europe across the Hellespont in the 14th as the Spaniards were slowly throwing them back into North Africa with good results by 16th century.

As Arianna can tell you, we pay for that invasion even today - just look at how backwards Greek culture is today compared to what it would have been if allowed to develop under Christian rule for 5 centuries from 14th to 19th centuries.

Invading Arabia is bad strategy. It will simply backfire. McCain may be quite right in suggesting that a withdrawal will encourage extremist Islam. However, that is your mistake, buddy. You should not have gone in in the first place. After Gulf War I we should have withdrawn all forces to the status quo ante bellum. Failure of Bush / Clinton to react - were they waiting for a 3 am phone call? - was fatal and when the call came it was at 0845 in the morning.

Unless somebody in power is able to exercise enough intelligence to understand that the end of the Cold War changed our role in the world, we will constantly be replaying some fantasy "Private Ryan" movie in our heads with insane results. posted 04/02/2008 at 14:49:44

The way out is the way down. At some stage people realize that all those financial certificates - stocks, CD's, bank statements, bonds, you name it, are all just, in reality, paper. They are worth whatever people believe they are worth. It is not like owning oil in the ground - like the Saudis and the Iraqis own oil in the ground. It is not like owning a farm with pigs and crops. All that paper is a little like the gold the Spaniards were so wild about. At some stage it wasn't really worth all that much because it only had as much value as people were willing to assign it. It had little intrinsic worth as compared to, say, timber, ships, mills, land, etc.

The Chinese are building wealth. The United States is spending its wealth. posted 04/06/2008 at 01:28:38

Minnesota is a prosperous, well educated state and, of course, old fashioned liberal and in the tank for Obama all the way. Kobuchar's endorsement was just a matter of course as there was little reason for anybody in Minnesota to support anybody else.

You wonder when the yahoos, in Mississippi for example, will start getting the message and move to the progressive politics that are going to keep America #1 on the planet while delivering prosperity, health and opportunity to every American. Are those idiots really going to vote for McCain's 100 year war? Maybe we should think of seceding and letting the miserable red states wallow in their ignorance and poverty. That would give us a big tax cut for sure. posted 03/31/2008 at 21:32:20

I hate to see somebody I admire as much as Hillary stooping so low. Given the mathematics of the delegate count it seems obvious to me that Hillary should be jumping in the veep saddle and riding to victory in November with gusto so she can further her political fortunes.

What is so wrong with climbing the ladder? That's politics. making the most of a situation not the worst - that is SUCCESSFUL politics. Hillary's present course just courts failure. posted 03/31/2008 at 21:38:52

Why don't you channel your feelings into a demand that Hillary get on the ticket as veep??

If Obama had half a brain he would use her to their mutual benefit.

Her political fortunes, and yours, such as they are tied to Hillary, rise with her ascension to the veep spot because it puts her out there where she will make a difference.

it's funny how somebody as dumb as George bush put Cheney on the ticket and used him as a kind of "regency" guarantee that helped him win a veerrrrry close election (if I recall correctly) but the dems seem to have a hard time understanding that if the public wants Hil and Barack on the same ticket and the math says Obama will win the delegates required for the nomination, then obviously you make a deal that puts Hil in as veep.

Just sign me "stumped in Huffpo land". posted 03/31/2008 at 21:47:19

I read this plan but it doesn't say anything. It lists three of the recommendations of the ISG (Iraq Study Group) convened by George Bush with three republicans on that august panel who recommended withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group recommendations were ignored because they were said to be a "surrender plan".

Obama can generally say: George Bush is dealing with the present situation as commander in chief in a way that McCain has fully supported and has said that it will succeed. Dems stand ready to take over the situation if the public wants a change. It is the intention of Obama to seek a regional solution to the "Iraq War", that is, a solution which will include a settlement of the Iran nuke situation and the Israeli / Palestinian question.

In other words, the question is a very broad one and if the public wants that broad question addressed then they should vote dem, if they want to continue with Bush's war they should vote for McCain.

I don't see any point in dusting off the Iraq Study Group as a way of getting into the white house in 08. posted 03/31/2008 at 21:26:14

It's hard to understand why Obama is unable to translate his mathematical certainty of winning the nomination into an "era of good feeling" in the democratic party thereby also guaranteeing him a win in November.

That's what it's all about, right?? Winning??

I guess he just doesn't have the political savoir faire of Frankllin Delano Roosevelt or John Fitzgerald Kennedy. posted 03/29/2008 at 22:17:17

Somebody isn't doing what is best for everybody involved, Republicans always excepted - they can go to hell - but I don't know who it is.

The road to the White House for dems seems like a no brainer. What gives?? posted 03/28/2008 at 21:38:35

Why shouldn't Noonan weigh in? The dems are inviting everybody to put down a dollar for three rotten tomatoes and enjoy pasting the democratic presidential candidate at will as they sit helplessly in the stocks.


Maybe democrats just don't deserve power. If they can't handle wealth and fortune, how will they handle adversity?? posted 03/28/2008 at 21:49:07

I don't see where this helps anybody. Essentially Hillary is attacking the democratic party and that means every dem running in November.

Besides this is just a pot shot. Our energy problems go way, way beyond the oil companies.

Exxon isn't the problem. Beltway inertia is the problem. posted 03/28/2008 at 21:43:52

This is a flim-flam man's explanation for a hustle he is happy to continue, as long as the public is buying.

What difference does it make to us that Iraqi live within or outside the law?? Well, of course no difference at all.

I don' t understand what we are doing in Iraq. What is the purpose. Can somebody please tell me? posted 03/28/2008 at 14:49:51

wendelgee,

Hillary is a nasty one alright, but wouldn't it be great to see it turned around and pointed at the repubs?? posted 03/28/2008 at 22:58:20

The dems should be thinking along "parliamentary" lines. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were not best buds but they worked together and each got what he wanted in the end.

We need to be working as a party at this time, not as two cults of personality factions - that just makes both factions look bad and McCain ends up looking good.

Hillary will not get to the White House by wrecking Obama and running against McCain in 2012. Her best chance is as veep and Obama should cut her a deal where the veep spot is seen more as a ministry in a parliamentary government than the lackluster role that position traditionally has played.

I think times are changing for the veep position. You already saw it a little with Al Gore and more so with Cheney. Obama and Hillary may not complement each other in personality but they need each other at this stage and should build each other up as the way to building up both.

I don't know who is at fault but either Obama or Hillay or both must come to their senses. posted 03/28/2008 at 15:00:13

If I were Obama I would invite Hillary to a mountain retreat for a 2 hour meeting face to face, just the two of them, no aides, no traveling retinue, not even any personal aides.

If I were Obama I would then ask Hillary what she wants out of the present situation.

I would tell Hillary that I was tired of Republicans stomping all over democrats every presidential election and that there was a good feeling among democrats and independents that democrats are poised to take the country in a good direction this time. I would point out that the recent developments - i.e. McCain wrapping up the nomination while dems still fight it out - was changing the dynamics of the race and that the two of them have the power to stop the republican momentum in its track by declaring a nominee and uniting all dems and independents behind one candidate.


I would offer Hillary the Veep spot with a promise that the veep spot is no longer the "warm bucket of you-know-what" of yesteryear and that Hillary could be remembered as the architect of landmark medical legislation that will go down in history, or other agenda items of a domestic nature (better not get into international affairs, not a good idea when it comes to the Clintons).

I have a feeling that Hillary would be pretty good at fending off the Reverend Wright questions, if that were her portfolio. posted 03/27/2008 at 18:30:09

Arianna, I think you will find that McCain will present a moving target.

Take a look at Brook's NY Times opinion piece today already repositioning McCain as more concerned about "alliances" and looming threats from "autocracies" than the ill fated Iraq adventure. By autocracies he means Russia and China and Iran. Brooks doesn't mention that McCain stood on the Senate floor urging bombing Serbia back to the stone age in 1999 with no concern at all for any "alliances" or what the consequences might be. One of those consequences was to bring the old KGB back in to power in Russia, the very regime that we are now told will pose our new "threat". Thus, McCain is now running as the warrior who claims he will champion us against the very threats that he himself created. As such, McCain ressembles the villain character in that old 50's sci fi gem "The Forbidden Planet".

The American political establishment and the war lobby joined to its hip are having an unduly difficult time of it getting adjusted to the fall of the Berlin Wall. McCain is the poster boy for this disability. But I guess if we bought the Iraq War we will readily buy the next one down the pike, if we aren't bankrupt and defeated by the 8 years of Bush-Cheney. Don't worry too much about Iraq, Arianna, the war lobby has picked that carcass clean and will be doing some digesting before moving on to the next "threat". posted 03/28/2008 at 15:54:32

Arianna, I think McCain does not have a glass eye at all. I think he is simply saying that "it is working" so his opponents will say "it is not working".

It is reactionary politics. What else is he supposed to do?

I think Obama will have to get into office, into the oval office and take a good look at all the options available to him and choose the best one. In the meantime, the American public will be the judge of whether McCain's surge is working or not when they go to the polls.

One thing we know is that if, on the first tuesday of November, McCain has not convinced the public that is "surge is working" then a democrat will be elected to take over the war. posted 03/27/2008 at 21:36:17

Paul needs to stock up on bananas next trip to supermarket. posted 03/30/2008 at 11:11:27

Come back little JJ

We love Hillary. We love Nancy (Pelosi, that is). We love Obama.

We are the greatest. We are going to win in November. We are going to kick McCain's butt.

Would somebody please convince Hillary to jump aboard as Veep so we can make some history here?? Does she want to disappear into oblivion or see herself on the cover of every magazine in America?? C'mon Hil', be a mensch. Have a sense of history for gosh sake. Don't listen to that dumb hubby of yours. He's over. You are our girl, no doubt about it.

Hil and Barry '08 posted 03/27/2008 at 00:18:05

I do not agree with this post at all.

With 2 out of 3 Americans against the war do you really think that a democrat elected over a pro war republican like McCain is going to side with the 1 out of 3 Americans - basically Republican faithful at that - and maintain "green zones" etc.??

Puleeeeze!

It is not just the war that is a problem, it is the entire Bush foreign policy which has alienated us from our allies and the rest of the world who don't understand what we are doing.

Protesting the war in the streets just provides the news media with footage and we know what the footage is going to look like - freaks and more freaks, because that is what sells in the news hour.

Obama's position on the war should basically come down to: "I really need to get in there, into the White House, into the situation room, sit down with the players and start controlling the process in a way that will be advantageous to American interests and take matters forward in a fresh direction, not just as far as Iraq is concerned but as far as the whole area is concerned because we are not profiting from the violence in that region of the world."

That would be good enough for me and I dare say it is good enough for the 2 out of 3 americans who are dissatisfied with the Iraq war - an electoral landslide. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:45:08

Obama probably goes to a church in the Washington area.

he needs to maneouver out of the corner his opponents want to keep him in while they slug away, perhaps by suggesting that his association with the chicago church had to do with the work they were doing in the community and his association with his DC church makes more sense as President.

He needs to stop thinking of Obama the ego as persona and start thinking of "Obama the President" as the persona he wants to cultivate. Stubborness will just be a weapon he uses on himself. posted 03/26/2008 at 14:36:38

I see Gary wrote a biography of James Monroe, which caught my attention as I have never understood why James Monroe isn't celebrated more in American history. As a person Monroe was an achiever non pareil. His administration was called the era of good feeling. One elector voted against him to deny a unanimous vote for his presidency in the electoral college, because the elector did not want anybody to match George Washington's unique feat of winning unanimous election.

It is impressive therefore that Gary Hart, a student of American history with solid political and intellectual credentials, supports Obama's candidacy. posted 03/30/2008 at 11:50:45

In school we learned that the Crusades were a mistake and it wasn't clear why they just went on and on in progressive efforts ending, if I remember correctly, with the 12th Crusade?? and somwhere in there we had a Children's Crusade led by a cleric.

So why did they just go on and on in - surges!!

You are looking at a photo of the reason above. The photo of John McCain. Nothing short of a hundred year war, his own words,will convince this nobleman of his invincibility.

McCain is determined to fail.

Vote for a winner. Vote Obama '08 posted 03/25/2008 at 16:41:50

Jane, I just heard Wolf Blitzer announcing that there is a pivotal, yes pivotal, battle going on in Iraq.

And yet when the facts are reported on who is involved it turns out that the battle being fought is simply one more battle in a war that started 1400 years ago.

For some reason Americans are convinced that, after 1400 years, they, the great white fathers, will bring civilization to Arabia and it will look like them.

The best way to understand the Iraq war is to see it as a 21st century Crusade. I guess the thirteenth crusade, or would it be the 15th? Think of Blackwater as the Knights of Malta.

How do crusades end?? We know the answer. It bores me.

That is why just now I am reading a "post Crusade" book, Tuchman's "Distant Mirror" about the 14th century. Maybe I'll learn something new. Right now I am in the middle of the Black Death. Oddly the doctors of that age did not understand contagion - contagion from rats and fleas in the case of bubonic plague. However, the towns that survived were the ones with strong rulers who burned down houses with occupants inside the minute plague was discovered in the house. posted 03/30/2008 at 11:35:51

You can't compare now with New Hampshire.

New Hampshire was the first primary.

I wish Obama and Hillary could get together. I really like Hillary. Her husband is a pain tho. posted 03/23/2008 at 23:26:51

NoFacts, I agree. The economy is tied to the war and voters have to make that connection for themselves without Obama coming on as "debbie downer" suggesting that our fighting men are responsible for all the economic woes.

massimo - wow, a whole month away?? How could they be so far off?? (just kidding).

The problem with your argument is that Republicans may very well come out in October saying the following: The War in Iraq is fully supported by the dems as otherwise why have they not had an up and down vote on troop withdrawal?? The fact is that Clinton and other dem candidates criticize the handling of the war but have not cut off funds or stopped the war which they have the power to do.

You may see it otherwise, but I am just saying what repubs are going to say in October to blunt any anti war advantage the dems might have in your estimation. You are one voter but it takes millions for dems to win. posted 03/23/2008 at 14:05:59

Xristos aneste!! (At least on my clock)

I love Cheney's reaction to the public dissatisfaction with the Iraq War which polls document over and over again: "So?"

His reaction, a question actually, does suggest the essential question dems will have to answer:

So what if the public oppose the war if dems don't have any satisfactory solutions. In other words, what does the dissatisfaction with the war signify for republican politicians if the public is even more dissatisfied with the solutions proposed by dems??

That is why it is important for Obama to focus like a laser on the economy and win that issue. posted 03/23/2008 at 03:02:32

Typical comment heard in Court - Royal Court that is - as in the Court of King William and Queen Hillary.

There is a reason why you hear people complain all the time about the Clintons' sense of "entitlement".

posted 03/23/2008 at 23:35:11

I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would be great if HiIlary doesn't want the veep spot.

I don't know much about how these veep things work, but just as a matter of parsing the electorate I think that Hispanic support for Obama will be key to his victory in November and Richardson has inside the beltway experience, including foreign policy experience, and experience as governor.

Richardson calls himself the Latino with the wasp name who looks like a native american. Putting a white wonder bread pol on as veep won't collect any votes from however many racists there are out there who will vote against Obama anyway. Richardson would have to lose more weight.

McCain doesn't go anywhere without Joe Lieberman so maybe Joe will be McCain's veep. I don't know if Lieberman is still pretending to be an "independent". Joe Lieberman is really the poster child for the war lobby and would get McCain all the money and media support he needs. Republicans don't really stand for anything besides war and tax cuts for the rich and big deficits and Lieberman would have no problem arguing the case for a continuation of all three. He would simply subsume all under the threat of world domination by "islamofascism".

I guess the republicans would insist on a loyal republican who has been toiling for the party longer than Lieberman. posted 03/23/2008 at 02:43:06