Open Thread

13 Comments

1. 

   AP on March 11, 2008 at 12:43 pm

   Apparently, it’s “Craiged.” I didn’t realize it was a verb now.

   I thought it was an a noun meaning “closeted hypocrite.”

2. 

   dada on March 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm

   according to glenn greenwald, the house version of the bill will contain a provision that

   …instead of granting amnesty — would allow telecoms to submit any classified information to the court to demonstrate that they did not break the law.

   The primary excuse from telecoms has been that, while they acted legally, they are unfairly barred from proving their innocence in court because the administration has asserted a “state secret” privilege over the exculpatory documents, thus preventing them from using those documents in court to defend themselves. That claim has always been deceitful, because under FISA (50 USC 1806(f)), telecoms are already explicitly permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses — including classified evidence — in secret (in camera, ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it.

   But this provision in the House bill would eliminate all doubt and remove the central excuse as to why telecoms need amnesty if they did nothing wrong. In that regard, that provision has the potential to change the nature of the debate. The problem with these improved provisions in the House bill, however, is clear:

   With some conservative Democrats in the House favoring immunity for the phone companies, Democratic leaders conceded that the proposal would face opposition even within their own party. And they said that even if it were approved by the House, it was certain to face strong opposition from the White House and probable defeat in the Senate

   “This is not the end of the road,” the House Democratic staff member acknowledged. “We’re trying to build support for the provision.”

   salon

   keep calling your: representatives, speaker pelosi, and just for grins your senators, and harry reid too.

3. 

   fabooj on March 11, 2008 at 12:54 pm

   That’s comedy gold, right there.

   In other news, I saw the Obama memo Greg Sargent posted at TPM.  It’s nice to relish in those exceedingly rare moments he’s not detailing every minute of the Clinton’s conference calls.  The memo hits Clinton hard on her supposed foreign policy experience.  Some key highlights:

   Kosovo:

   Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

   The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

   And my favorite:

   China:

   Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

   But her Northen Ireland, Rwanda and Bosnia claims are hit too.

   • 

     colinski on March 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

     Was the Kosovo visit with the USO show featuring Sheryl Crow and Sinbad?

     It’s not that I don’t give Hillary credit for actual experience, but it’s curious that she needs to exaggerate these events past the point of straining credulity.

     It’s to her credit that she met with women’s groups in many areas of the world, but I don’t consider this foreign policy experience.  

     • 

       fabooj on March 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm

       Over at WaPo’s The Sleuth:

       In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the “scariest” part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat next. “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.'”

       Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. “They said there might be sniper fire,” Clinton said.

       Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn’t remember that, either.

       “I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I’m going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'”

       In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.”

       Say what? As Sinbad put it: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ’cause I might get shot so I’m going to end my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'”

   • 

     mainsailset on March 11, 2008 at 4:41 pm

     AmericaBlog has a sliver of the interivew with Sinbad about the trip. Hillarious.

     http://www.americablog.com/

4. 

   RandyH on March 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

   In Minnesota, Mike Ciresi dropped out of the race for US Senate, leaving Al Franken to take the nomination.

   • 

     BooMan on March 11, 2008 at 1:21 pm

     you should put a link in the midwest thread (up top).  I wish more people would use them for stories like that.

   • 

     fabooj on March 11, 2008 at 2:29 pm

     I was hoping that Ciresi would taken on Franken and go on to win the Senate race.

5. 

   AliceDem on March 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm

   what do members of this community think should be done.

   clearly we cannot nominate a candidate without delegations from MI and FL.

   • 

     dada on March 11, 2008 at 2:01 pm

     there’s a potential solution proposed, but nobody’s willing to pony up the money:

     Mail-in ballot suggested as possible Florida-Michigan fix, an dean’s holding his ground:

     The problem, Dean said, is figuring out who would foot the bill.

     “The two things, I think, that are established is [Florida] isn’t going to pay for it because their governor, who is a [John] McCain supporter, has said they won’t pay for it,” he said, speaking of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

     The DNC is not going to pay for it, he said, because it must devote its resources to running against presumptive GOP nominee McCain.
     .
     .
     .
     Dean says Florida and Michigan cannot be given passes for violating rules that were clear to them.

     “The rules were set a year and a half ago. Florida and Michigan voted for them and then decided that they didn’t need to abide by the rules. When you’re in a contest, you do need to abide by the rules,” he said last week.

     “You cannot violate the rules of the process and then expect to get forgiven for it,” he said.

     Dean said he has to run a process that yields an honest result. “The only way to do that is to stick to the rules that were agreed to by everybody at the beginning,” he said.

     what he said.

     • 

       RandyH on March 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm

       There’s another problem in Florida. Apparently a mail-in ballot is not legal per FL state law.

       “The following elections may not be conducted by mail ballot… An election at which any candidate is nominated, elected, retained, or recalled…”

       It’s not being discussed on the talking heads shows yet, but no doubt it will soon enough. I wonder if they really aren’t serious about any of this and are just trying to create so much noise that the powers that be just let them seat the delegates as is, breaking the rules. Good luck with that, Hillary.

   • 

     fabooj on March 11, 2008 at 2:31 pm

     I don’t know why the DNC and everyone else should cave because these two state parties decided to move their election days up knowing what the reprecussions would be.  

     If the DNC does cave, then I suggest that each state gets half their delegates stripped and the remaining delegates distributed equally.