benil81241

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1185085.aspx

Webb doesn't want to be VP Posted: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:16 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray Virginia Sen. Jim Webb just issued a statement from his Senate office saying that -- "[u]nder no circumstances" -- does he want to be considered as Obama's veep. "Last week I communicated to Sen. Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.

But Webb also said he would campaign hard to help Obama win the battleground of Virginia in the general election. "He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them," he said. "I will proudly campaign for him."

Below is the full statement...

"Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.

"A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the U.S. Senate. I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America's national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate.

"In this regard, the bipartisan legislative template we were able to put into effect through 18 months of work in order to enact the new, landmark GI Bill will serve as a prototype for my future endeavors in government. This process, wherein we brought 58 Senators from both parties to the table as co-sponsors, along with more than 300 members of the House, gives me renewed confidence that the Congress can indeed work effectively across party lines and address the concerns of our citizens.

"At this time I am also renewing my commitment to work hard to make sure that Senator Obama wins both Virginia and the presidency this November. He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them. I will proudly campaign for him."

This was spoken by a CIA lawyer, not some crackpot dictator. This came up in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the treatment of detainees. I saw the post by Frank James on swamppolitics.com. Posted June 17, 2008 2:38 PM

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/if_detainee_dies_youre_doing_i.html#more

Here is some of the post, please read it all for yourself.

"...One of the most memorable and chilling lines from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the treatment of detainees came when Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat who chairs the committee, referred to the back-and-forth between U.S. government officials as they discussed interrogation techniques that could be used on detainees.

The line, from Jonathan Fredman, a senior Central Intelligence Agency lawyer at the time was: "If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong."

This led Levin to say, with enough introspection for everyone in the room:

How on earth did we get to the point where a senior U.S. government lawyer would say whether or not an interrogation technique is torture is, quote, "subject to perception," and that if, quote, "the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong?"

The Senate hearing's purpose was to examine how Pentagon lawyers trying to come up with acceptable interrogation techniques received help from U.S. military officials responsible for training American servicemembers on how to handle harsh interrogation techniques should they become prisoners of war..."

"...Pentagon officials were interested in using tougher interrogation techniques against detainees at Guantanamo, Cuba as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. And this was despite concerns expressed by lawyers in the uniformed services who thought what Pentafon officials wanted to do crossed the line.

According to Levin:

Those techniques included the use of stress positions, keeping detainees naked, use of dogs, and hooding during interrogations..."

"... So it wasn't low-level functionaries who went off the reservation, according to Levin:

Were these actions the result of a, quote, "few bad apples" acting on their own? It would be a lot easier to accept if it were, but that's not the case. The truth is that senior officials in the U.S. government sought information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. In the process, they damaged our ability to collect intelligence that could save lives..."

WTF! The ends justify the means!? Maybe I am just too old, my idealism is showing, and I just don't get it. I thought we are "the good guys" and we don't torture. Or do we "have to destroy the village in order to save it?" Fight fire with fire? Well, I for one am going to continue to believe if we don't stand for something, we stand for nothing.

See post by Alex Koppelman, Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Friday, June 13, 2008 11:03 EDT Clark: "What does John McCain really believe?"

"...Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who ran for president as a Democrat in 2004, has been making a splash lately with some particularly unsparing criticisms of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported on an interview Clark gave the Web site in which he said McCain is, "in national security terms ... largely untested and untried." Friday morning, in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Clark hit out at McCain again.

Defending his earlier comments about McCain, Clark compared his own service -- especially the duration of his service, and the positions he attained along the way -- with McCain's. Then, referring to his leadership of NATO forces in Kosovo, Clark said, "John McCain was a senator, he supported my actions. But his support was rhetorical. He wasn't responsible, he's not been responsible, he hasn't felt the brunt of the responsibility, he hasn't felt the anguish of uncertainty, and that makes a big difference."

Then questioned by MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski -- who said McCain had credibility on issues like war and torture because of his experience as a POW -- Clark referred to McCain's "personal courage," but said, "On the other hand, he's changed his position on torture ... So what does John McCain really believe? Who is he? ... Is he just a guy who wants to be president and he'll say what's necessary to get the job?..."

There is a video clip of the interview and he really held his own. He looked very smooth, articulate and intelligent.

See also Andrew Romano's comments:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/02/the-obama-veepwatch-vol-3-wesley-clark.aspx

Money Quote:

"...Odds: Strong--precisely because he's a Clinton loyalist. Actually, on paper Clark may be the only veep candidate who meets every single one of Obama's requirements--UPDATE: or at least what experts say Obama needs, politically-speaking, in a second fiddle. He's white. Check. He's Southern. Check. And he has the two kinds of experience Obama most desperately lacks: military and executive. A Vietnam war hero, McCain will hammer his Democratic rival on national security and insist that the Illinois senator, whose foreign policy resume is painfully short, doesn't have necessary gravitas to serve as Commander in Chief; Clark, who served for 34 years at the Department of Defense and retired as Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, provides Obama with an effective counterargument. What's more, while McCain fought in a war (and legislated his way through others), Clark boasts what some voters might see as a more relevant resume point given our current situation in Iraq: he actually ran one. (See: the highly effective U.S. intervention in Kosovo--not to mention the fact the Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, finished first in his class at West Point, and McCain finished fifth from last in his class at Annapolis.) In short, Clark would not only help Obama blunt McCain's major line of attack but also give him a leg up on some key military matters (while adding a dash of administrative competence to boot). And like Obama, Clark was against the Iraq war from the start..."

This is a really good sign. I hope the healing has begun.

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1098737

Feminist pioneer: Hillary has made history, now vote Obama By Margery Eagan Thursday, June 5, 2008

Opening paragraph:

"...The feminist icon whose writings inspired thousands of American women to a passionate support of Hillary Clinton said yesterday she was not at all crushed by Hillary’s loss and believes her race has “absolutely” been good for women. But she now not only supports Democratic nominee Barack Obama, she’ll volunteer for him, too..."

If you have seen or heard Liz Trotta comment on Fox News when she call Obama "Osama" and said we should knock both off if we could, you can protest to Fox News at:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fox-news-has-to-sack-liz-trotta

You can see her original comment and her lame apology at:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/Fox_analyst_apologizes_for_Obama_assassination_joke.html

There is no place for such "humor" or thoughtless commentary.

Joe Sudbay has an interest blog on the prospects of Hillary as VP. Check out his thoughts on Hillary and the VP vetting process.

http://www.americablog.com/

"...Could Hillary and Bill even survive the Vice Presidential vetting process? by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/22/2008 10:25:00 PM ET · Link

Two rumors circulated today. One is that Obama has begun the process of selecting a Vice President. The other, which seems to have gained steam through the day, is that Bill Clinton wants Hillary to be Obama's Vice President.

While I think Hillary as V.P. is a horrible idea, all the buzz got me wondering: could Hillary even survive the Vice Presidential vetting process? Some background, courtesy of Marc Ambinder, about Jim Johnson who is leading the search for Obama -- and the vetting process: Johnson, a former CEO of Fannie Mae who is currently vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a merchant bank, also vetted vice presidential candidates for Walter Mondale, whose campaign he chaired. On the eve of the convention in 1984, Mr. Mondale was set to choose Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, only to find irreconcilable political problems with the business dealings of Ms. Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro instead. Ironically, questions about Ferraro's husband, a real estate developer, would dog her throughout the general election campaign. Mr. Johnson said later that the experience if 1984 had taught him to start much earlier and vet much more thoroughly.

The vetting process entails a rigorous schedule of interviews focusing on everything from politics to potential embarrassments -- Did they ever employ a nanny on whose behalf they did not pay Social Security taxes, for example; did they experiment with drugs or people in college? -- and potential candidates are required to give the search team access to their tax returns and other financial records. This sounds pretty rigorous -- and the potential V.P. nominees have to comply.

Hillary always claims she's fully vetted, but that's not true. And, the vetting process includes the spouse.

Basically, this means Obama's vetting team would have access to all the Clinton's records -- all the stuff that hasn't become public. The Clintons would have to open up the library funders and foundation donors. They'd have to name everyone who has paid Bill Clinton to speak or do any other work. They'd investigate all of Bill's dealings with Ron Burkle, for example. And, for sure, they'd have to investigate a lot of other rumors that swirl about.

The Clintons can keep their own secrets when they run the show. But, this won't be their show. They won't have Howard Wolfson and his team stonewalling reporters who are asking prying questions.

If the Clintons want the V.P. job, they can't say no to any question asked. And, it's pretty clear that Jim Johnson knows what questions to ask. That seems like a risky..."

His concluding paragraph makes a great point. Would the Clintons be willing to open up all their secrets to prying eyes?

There are some interesting posts asserting that Hillary has already ask to be Obama's VP and he said NO.

Read The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead By Al Giordano:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

He says:

"...The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn’t say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August..."

Interesting when combined with an article in Time:

What Does Hillary Want? Thursday, May. 22, 2008 By KAREN TUMULTY http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1808470,00.html

Tulmulty says Bill want Hillary to be VP.

"...It also raises the question, What will Clinton's terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill "is pushing real hard for this to happen," says a friend..."

Will the Democratic Party's long nightmare, the endless primary, ever end?

Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer

http://www.observer.com/2008/popular-vote-math-made-easy

has a very good article today: Popular-Vote Math Made Easy.

He begins the article:

"...With Hillary Clinton renewing her declaration of a popular-vote lead in the Democratic nomination contest, it’s worth checking in on the actual math. Deriving an exact popular-vote count is tricky, since there are several ways of computing it. Here’s a step-by-step look at how the various tallies are reached.

The Baseline

If you count all of the states and U.S. possessions that have held officially sanctioned primaries or caucuses in which exact popular vote tallies were maintained, the current tally (with a scattering of votes in Oregon yet to be added) is:

Obama: 16,577,001

Clinton: 16,161,025

Difference: Obama +415,976..."

He then covers the math is several ways: Baseline + Florida; Baseline + Florida and Michigan (without uncommitted); Baseline + Florida and Michigan (with uncommitted); The Four Caucuses;

He ends with a great summary:

"...The Remaining Primaries

The final wrinkle is what will happen in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.

Obama should win South Dakota and Montana handily, resulting in a net gain of somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 votes.

Clinton should win Puerto Rico decisively and supporters have been talking up the possibility of very high turnout in that commonwealth – perhaps 1,000,000 voters. However, a more reasonable turnout estimate is probably around 600,000, a figure provided by Puerto Rican election expert Manuel Alvarez-Rivera, who advises that U.S. presidential politics do not stir the passions of islanders nearly to the degree that their own politics do. Also, last Saturday’s El Nuevo Dia reported that the number of polling stations for the June 1 primary had been slashed due to low turnout estimates and a lack of volunteer poll workers. A 20-point Clinton win with a turnout of 600,000 would produce for her a plurality of 120,000 votes.

Roughly speaking, then, Clinton is likely to post a net gain of around 50,000-75,000 votes in the final three contests. This is just an estimate, obviously – high turnout in Puerto Rico could swell her number substantially, just as Obama could eat into it if he fares better in Puerto Rico than conventional assumptions say he will.

The bottom line is that if Clinton picks up a net gain of 75,000 votes in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, she will be able to claim a popular-vote lead over Obama, but only under two narrow standards: counting Michigan, and giving the uncommitted votes to Obama, but not counting the four caucus states; or counting the four caucus states, but without giving the uncommitted vote from Michigan..."

I have never liked George Will. While I acknowledge his obivous intellect, his conservative philosphy repels me. Today he has a thoughtful column that I recommend:

May 18, 2008 The Prize Clinton Isn't Owed By George Will

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/equality_means_having_to_be_di.html

"...In America, however, nothing ages as fast as novelty, and efforts to encourage Clinton to pack it in are heartening evidence that the novelty has worn off: The female candidate is like all other candidates. This is what equality looks like -- life as an equal opportunity dispenser of disappointments..."

"...Some of Clinton's supporters seem to be cultivating, for a purpose, a permutation of the entitlement mentality that many voters thought they discerned in her candidacy and found off-putting. She seemed to feel entitled to the Democrats' nomination, and having been denied it, she may feel really entitled to be Obama's running mate. But for him, choosing her would be even more dangerous than Bosnian sniper fire. She would solve none of his problems, and would create others..."

"...Clinton has been carrying categories of voters that Obama has had trouble attracting. But it is implausible that she is the only Democrat who would enhance Obama's appeal to white, blue-collar Democrats.

Finally, Clinton is not entitled to a consolation prize. Robert Frost provided a warning for those who become too accustomed to the limelight:

No memory of having starred

Atones for later disregard,

Or keeps the end from being hard.

Harder than, say, working the night shift as a short-order cook at a truck stop out on the interstate? Or being a nurse in a pediatric oncology ward? Maybe not.

More than 300 million Americans living at this hour will never be president. They will never even be senator from New York. That office is not chopped liver. Neither is it a form of disregard.

georgewill@washpost.com Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group"

Read his entire column. Wow, I recommended a George Will column!

Jack Trapper's entry on Political Punch (ABC.com) is very disturbing.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/bill-clintons-m.html

Bill Clinton's Message to Rural America May 10, 2008 2:43 PM

"As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., avoids any real campaigning in West Virginia, the former president of the United States is out there ginning up resentments.

Bill Clinton has the right to say whatever he wants, of course. But he's a smart man. Brilliant, even.

He can do the math. He must know that it's quite improbable that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

So what purpose does it serve for him to barnstorm a state like West Virginia and tell rural voters that Obama and his elitist political/media cabal allies are mocking Appalachia?

He's using the kind of language Democrats typically use against Republicans -- as in, stuff you say when you don't want voters to vote for the other guy under any circumstance.

This is tough stuff to walk back from.

Per ABC News' Sarah Amos, this is what the 42nd president of the United States said Friday in Ripley, W.Va.:

"Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say," Clinton said. "And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you're as smart as they are. She thinks you've got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I'd rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her."

In Madison, W.Va.:

"It is very interesting, from the very beginning of this race there has been a sharp divide in the vote -- the people who need a president, who need to turn the economy around, who need to restore the middle class, who need to give poor people a chance to work their way into the middle class, who need to give our children a better future, who need to restore our standing in the world and the war in Iraq, but do it in a way that rebuilds our military and stands up for America's security and standing around the world -- they have been for her from the get-go."

And on and on... Ginning up the resentments and the class divide (and maybe other divisions). ... His message to these voters: Obama and the media are laughing at you and think you're stupid!!!

Obama has a clear problem with white working class voters. This kind of rhetoric exacerbates it. Clinton knows that -- he's trying to drive up turnout to maximize his wife's popular vote argument to superdelegates. He has every right to do so -- the race is not over, no nominee exists yet.

But this is what keeps Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi up at night.

• jpt"

How can Obama expect win West Virginia with the animosity against him being generated by Bill Clinton? Another example of the Clinton style of "screw the Democratic Party, do what you have to do to help a Clinton win an election!" This is hurting the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. Hillary may have left the kitchen, but Bill is still tossing the sink. How could I have ever supported that man?