California may prove decisive win for Clinton

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination, historians may look to her primary win in California as key.

The reason, beyond the complexities of delegates, may come from the nation's most populous state's status as a trend-setter. A split in victories on "Super Tuesday" between New York Sen. Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the other 21 states voting made her California win all the more dramatic.

"California was very, very critical," said pollster Mervin Field, who has been following presidential elections for more than half a century. "The fact that he didn't win some people might construe as a watershed victory for Hillary Clinton, the fact that the Obama surge somehow got arrested in California."

Clinton, who could become the first woman U.S. president, worked to build on strong support for her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who embraced the state and befriended Hollywood and Silicon Valley leaders.

She won endorsements from top officials in the world's eighth largest economy, from its senior U.S. senator, Dianne Feinstein, to the mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Women and Latinos gave Clinton major support as expected, according to exit polls.

Facing a record 22 states voting on the same primary day, Obama traveled elsewhere in the days leading up to Tuesday, even going to remote Idaho, where he won. Clinton held rallies across California and her husband campaigned here for days.

Obama deployed powerhouse friends, including Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. A Sunday Los Angeles rally with Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, talk show host Oprah Winfrey and Kennedy's niece, Maria Shriver, added high-profile female counterweight to Clinton.

FEARLESS!

Risking the ire of progressive activists, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign announced that it has accepted a debate to air on Fox News on February 11, according to her chief strategist Mark Penn.

"There is an enormous interest in these debates an clamoring on the part of the Democratic Party for them," said Clinton's spokesperson Howard Wolfson. "We have not had a large number in which two people have participated. We've had multi-candidate debates... the fact is Senator Clinton has enjoyed the opportunity to debate and get her message out. Certainly as we move to the next exciting day of this nomination calendar, voters want the opportunity to see these two candidates compete against each other."

Though Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have frequently appeared on Fox News for interviews, Clinton may be debating alone. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said that no plans existed as of now for his boss to participate in upcoming forums.

"As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all," Burton told the Huffington Post. "We'll figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon."

When the Democratic candidates declined to participate in a FOX-sponsored debate last April, their choice was readily greeted by Democratic bloggers and party activists, who did not wish to legitimize the station as a neutral political forum. Officials at Fox News were apoplectic.

"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda," said Roger Ailes, the Fox News CEO.

During a campaign conference call on Tuesday, Wolfson defended the campaign's decision to accept the Fox News debate, citing the reach the network had in the Chesapeake area (the debate will be held in Washington D.C.) and prior appearances by both Clinton and Obama on station.

"Given that Senator Obama had been on the network, we've been on the network, and that the offer is a good one for this debate in terms of this upcoming primary, it made sense to accept it," he said.

The announcement by the Clinton campaign comes as both candidates are acknowledging that the Democratic primary fight will likely continue well after the results of Tuesday's voting is known. Earlier in the day, Clinton aides let it be known that the Senator would participate in two other February debates, one on ABC, the other on CNN.

"In a one-one race it is important for voters to see the [candidates] side by side and see the differences as opposed to seeing them at rallies and big events," said Penn. "We feel very good about making sure that there is a side by side comparison."

Perez Hilton Endorses Hillary!

Not that our opinion matters (any more than yours). Nor do we expect that we will influence your vote in any way, but….

Today is Super Tuesday and we feel it is our duty to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate that will be the next President of the United States.

As we have previously stated, Hillary wasn't our fist choice. We were initially swayed by the promise of change and the inspiring messages of Barack Obama.

But that's not enough!

After careful consideration and much research, we have come to the informed decision that Hillary is the right candidate for us.

We feel more confident with Hillary's abilities to lead and her proven track record of experience. But, more so than that, HER plans for universal healthcare, education reform and emphasis on equality for all are more aligned with what we want in the next President.

We watched the debates and Clinton just won us over.

Barack is great. But Hillary is the better leader, for us.

However, Obama MUST stay in the picture. This country needs him, just as we need Clinton.

It's been a great and heated campaign thus far, but we sincerely hope when it comes time for the Democratic convention that the Clinton/Obama dream ticket will be a reality!

Whether you agree with us or not, please go out and vote today.

Rock it!

[Image via WENN.]

Hillary Does Letterman On Eve Of Super Tuesday

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton made an appearance on David Letterman's late-night TV show on the eve of Super Tuesday and took the opportunity to explain the influence her husband would have if she becomes the first woman president of the United States.

"In my White House, we will know who wears the pantsuits," the New York senator told the talk show host, who asked if former president Bill Clinton might return to the presidential mansion and "be going through stuff."

Romney Reaching Out To Rush?

The Romney campaign is sending around an email highlighting one particular passage from Limbaugh's show today. Here it is:

"I think right now Romney probably -- as the campaign has coalesced and as the campaign has progressing on down the highway -- I think the one candidate of the three still out there on our side ... in saying who more closely embodies all three legs of this conservative stool, you'd have to say that it's Mitt Romney. There's actually no choice in the matter. It certainly isn't Senator McCain."

Kennedy dynasty divides over Democrat candidates

By Leonard Doyle
Tuesday, 5 February 2008

The Kennedy clan, America's largest political dynasty, is as sharply divided as the Democratic Party ahead of today's vote, with many members supporting Barack Obama while others campaign for Hillary Clinton.

Maria Shriver, niece of JFK, showed up at a rally in Los Angeles on Sunday after deciding at the last moment that she needed to make a stand for Barack Obama. The crowd went wild with enthusiasm at the sight of four of America's most formidable women – Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, Michelle Obama and Ms Shriver – on stage for Mr Obama.

"I thought, if Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California," Ms Shriver said and the crowd roared back as she ticked off his credentials: "Diverse. Open. Smart. Independent. Bucks tradition. Innovative. Inspirational. Dreamer. Leader." She was there because she wanted "an America that's about unity".

But the Kennedy clan are anything but united. "Within the family, for the first time you have different opinions," said Ms Shriver's husband Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California and a John McCain supporter. "I've been in the family 30 years, and I've never seen that.

Ethel Kennedy, widow of Robert Kennedy, supports Mr Obama, along with JFK's daughter Caroline and congressman Patrick Kennedy. Three of Robert Kennedy's children – Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert Kennedy Jnr and Kerry Kennedy – have come out for Mrs Clinton.

There are also splits in other prominent Democratic dynasties. Jesse Jackson and his son, Jesse Jnr, are backing the Obama campaign. But Mr Jackson's wife Jacqueline is a Clinton supporter.

Ms Shriver's failure to agree with her husband on politics surprised no one, given her family background. But despite phone calls from Mr Obama, she wavered until the last minute, eventually going straight to the rally from her daughter's showjumping event, with hair unbrushed and without make-up.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Hillary Clinton

James Wolcott on the Hillary Haters

Reflections in a Jaded Eye

Like Paul Newman in Hud, I have a somewhat lenient approach to certain matters--sometimes I lean a little this way, sometimes I lean a little that. That's how I am in the Hillary-Obama contest. Muddle it over as I might, I'm still not sure who I'm going to vote for in the NY primary. Some days I lean toward Hillary, other days toward Obama; sometimes I'm for Obama in the morning, tilt toward Hillary around midday, and bend like a pussywillow back toward Obama after evening meditation. But one thing I refuse to be, even if I don't vote for her, is a Hillary-hater. I'm not even a Hillary-disliker. What's baffling about the negativity towards Hillary is how personal it is, and yet how nebulous, especially when it emanates from other women. Some of the most articulate women end up resorting to pidgin English sign language trying to explain why they don't like her, pulling vague reasons out of thin air. Even writers who've had a bit more time to think about it can't quite ratchet into focus, reverting to the high school hallway Heatherisms that are Maureen Dowd's signature move whenever the subject is Hillary.

In a must-read piece, Susan Faludi, reviewing the new anthology Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers (edited by Susan Morrison of The New Yorker) in the latest New York Observer, zooms in on this phenomenon, clearing away the standard-issue narcissism of the contemporary essayist ("Many of the writers in Thirty Ways are busy reviewing their own lives and taking their own temperatures, some with notable self-regard") to get at the pathology of educated women on the petty attack* against one of their own:

The very premise of Thirty Ways invites us to disparage Hillary Clinton as a political candidate and induct her instead into a reality show pageant. More often than not, the contributors take the bait, passing judgment on Clinton’s femininity ("unnatural” and "contrived"), looks ("passably attractive") and sensuality ("it is difficult for me to imagine her in an embrace, motherly or otherwise," Susanna Moore writes). Reading through these pages, I wished for a companion volume, Thirty Ways of Looking at Women Looking at Hillary, which answered this question: Why do so many of these women writers--who have shown themselves to be graceful essayists and well-reasoned analysts in other contexts--resort to unfactual and illogical thinking and, in many cases, downright 13-year-old cattiness when the topic is Hillary?

After I'd finished Thirty Ways, I picked up a New Yorker article by one of the contributors, Lauren Collins, about a Missouri teenager driven to suicide by the taunts of mean girls on MySpace. I felt as though I were still reading Thirty Ways: The essayists' reasons for their rancor at Hillary are as immaturely nonspecific as those of that poor girl's adolescent tormentors. "I have yet to meet a woman who likes Hillary Clinton," Ms. Roiphe sniffs. "We just don't like her," she says, channeling the women she has met. "We like her husband, but we don’t like her."

Nyah, nyah!

If none of the women Katie Roiphe knows "likes" Hillary, maybe the problem isn't Hillary's "likeability" but an inane notion of niceness that's helped hold women back in so many other fields under the guise of not being feminine enough. Under the cosmetic surface of complaints and snarks about chilly smiles and steely gazes is a deeper discomfort with motherhood on the political stage that's only obliquely addressed in Thirty Ways as writer after writer gets tangled up in her own ingrown subjective verdicts. "In that regard, what's objectionable about Thirty Ways is not what’s contained between its covers, which is at times canny and thoughtful, even if at other times it's juvenile and mean," Faludi writes. "The very nature of the project is prejudicial. Underlying the summons to female writers to share their "feelings" about Hillary is a sly invitation--to demonstrate that when it comes to America’s consideration of a female candidate, the political is only personal." Hillary's job is to defeat the Republican nominee, not massage everyone's feelings, especially the feelings of writers who'd rather to hang out in the hallway with MoDo, preferring her cool menthol taste two to one over other brands.

Hillary Campaigns in Massachusetts

Big turnout expected for primaries
Mass. election officials predict 1.3 million will vote tomorrow. Above, Hillary Clinton campaigned at Clark University in Worcester this morning. (Boston Globe)

Annenberg Institute: Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context.

An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care. Specifically:

• It touts measures included in Obama's plan to help low-income individuals buy insurance but fails to mention that Clinton would provide similar financial assistance.
  
  
• It says Obama's plan would save the average family $2,500 per year an estimate provided by experts at the campaign's request but doesn't say that Clinton estimates hers will save $2,200 per year.
  
  
• It also neglects to point out that Clinton's plan isn't the only one that would have an enforcement mechanism for those who failed to purchase insurance. Obama's plan, which would require that children be insured, would need one as well, though it would affect fewer persons.

The Clinton campaign objected to the mailer on grounds that its image of a middle-class white couple is reminiscent of the "Harry and Louise" TV spots that the health insurance industry used to attack the 1993 Clinton health care plan. We see the resemblance, but fail to see the relevancy. (FactCheck.org)

At last count, Senator Clinton had the backing of 282 local elected officials in New York, including Mr. Lopez, showing her lock on the state’s political leaders. (NY TIMES)

A Sort of Homecoming

By Julie Bosman

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a teary-eyed moment on the campaign trail today during a nostalgic visit to Yale, where she graduated from law school nearly 35 years ago.

Mrs. Clinton had arrived for a roundtable to discuss children and health care at the Yale Child Study Center, where she had volunteered as a law student. She was introduced by Penn Rhodeen, a child researcher and her former boss at the Yale Child Study Center.

Standing next to the table where Mrs. Clinton sat, he told the story of how she had arrived at his door “dressed mostly in purple” in a sheepskin coat and bellbottoms. “So 1972,” he said, to laughter.

“Now we hope that you, the incomparable Hillary,” Mr. Rhodeen said, “will be president of the United States.”

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, looking teary, raised her left hand to her cheek and brushed something away with her finger.

“I said I would not tear up,” she said. “Already we’re not on that path.”

The emotional moment echoed a similar one in New Hampshire last month, when Mrs. Clinton’s eyes welled with tears as she talked about the tensions of running for president.

Mrs. Clinton was wearing the rigors of the campaign trail on her sleeve, speaking in a soft, hoarse voice, and frequently interrupting
herself by coughing and sipping water.

She reminisced about her “nostalgic” law school days, when she arrived in New Haven “in an old beat-up car with a mattress roped to the top.”

And before delving into a discussion about health care, she talked about why she wanted to win the Democratic nomination. “It does matter who our leaders are and what they do,” she said. “I’m now running for president because I think we can do better than we have.”

New Haven should have been friendly territory for Mrs. Clinton. After all, Yale was where she graduated from law school, met Bill Clinton and, by all accounts, developed a devotion to public service.

But Senator Barack Obama has drawn a considerable share of support around New Haven. Not only is he intensely popular among college students, but last week he won the endorsement of the Yale Daily News, the student newspaper.

“It would seem natural for us to endorse Hillary Clinton for president,” the editors wrote, noting that Mrs. Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. But “to endorse her would be to endorse intelligence and preparedness, but also divisiveness and the politics of manipulation.”

And on Saturday morning, Rosa DeLauro, the Congresswoman who represents New Haven, announced that she was throwing her support to Mr. Obama.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made a nostalgic visit to Yale, where she graduated from law school nearly 35 years ago. (NY TIMES)

Flawed Cindy McCain has a grudge list

Tony Allen-Mills

ON almost every step of his march towards the Republican nomination, John McCain has relied on the support of his glamorous second wife Cindy. Yet she has not always been a political asset. A Republican victory in November would bring to the White House a formidable but flawed first lady.

McCain’s marriage has long attracted attention both for the 18-year age gap between husband and wife and for their adopted Asian daughter, who became the focus of one of the most vicious dirty tricks of the 2000 presidential campaign.

The couple have also overcome daunting health problems that included McCain’s bouts with skin cancer, a stroke suffered by Cindy in 2004, and her admission a decade earlier that she had become so addicted to painkillers that she was stealing them from a medical charity she ran.

Yet somehow the McCains have emerged as a potent and durable political partnership. Cindy McCain was at her husband’s side last week as he celebrated the Florida primary victory that has put him at the front of the Republican field.

A former Arizona rodeo beauty queen and daughter of a millionaire Phoenix businessman, Cindy McCain was 25 when she met her future husband at a cocktail party in Hawaii. John McCain was a 43-year-old naval liaison officer travelling with a congressional delegation, his sights already set on a political career.

He was also still married to his first wife Carol, although the couple had recently separated. Carol later attributed the breakdown of the marriage to “John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again”. McCain fell like a brick for Cindy, who was the heir to a brewery distribution business worth millions. For several years afterwards the McCains endured Washington gossip that he had dumped his first wife - who had been crippled in a car accident - in favour of a trophy bride to enhance his political ambitions.

It was in the late 1980s, after a series of miscarriages and giving birth to three children, that Cindy developed spinal problems and was prescribed painkillers after surgery. Her husband and family had no idea she was secretly taking pills stolen from a charity she had created called the American Voluntary Medical Team, which sent mobile surgical units to war zones. When federal agents began to investigate gaps in the charity’s records, Cindy telephoned her husband, a senator in Washington, and confessed.

She admitted at the time that the 1994 episode had “nearly destroyed both of us”. But she underwent treatment and attended meetings of Narcotics Anonymous as part of a deal with prosecutors who dropped charges.

A few years earlier she had visited Bangladesh with a different charity and decided on the spur of the moment to help a little girl with a cleft palate whom she met in Mother Teresa’s orphanage.

The McCains eventually adopted the girl, named her Bridget and raised her as their daughter. She is now 16, but during McCain’s ugly presidential primary fight against George W Bush in 2000, voters in South Carolina began receiving telephone calls suggesting the senator had fathered an illegitimate black child.

The authors of the smear have never been identified, but Bush was the beneficiary and went on to win the South Carolina primary and the Republican nomination. The McCains have never publicly blamed Bush and their relations have been outwardly cordial. But Cindy recently admitted that she keeps a “grudge list”.

Cindy McCain, now 53, claims she has no interest in policy making - “I am not the legislator in this family. He is” - and that she intends to keep busy running her charities and her family’s company. As first lady, it is clear that she would play a key role. Acknowledging that McCain had made many enemies in Republican ranks, she added: “The only person my husband can trust is me.”

"Some people say, 'There she goes again, talking about her energy policy, her education policy,' " she said. "But I do it for a reason, because you know when the cameras disappear and the lights are gone and the speeches are over, you want someone in the Oval Office to make the tough decisions."

Why Hillary Is The Right Choice For Women

by Martha Burk, Gloria Feldt, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Lulu Flores, Kim Gandy, Ellen Malcolm, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, Gloria Steinem, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones

As women who have spent our careers fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, we recognize that the next president will face serious challenges to safeguard the reproductive health of women. In our opinion, there is one candidate whose leadership on this issue is unparalleled: Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has been an uncompromising leader and loyal ally for each of us in our battles to ensure and protect a woman's right to choose in America and around the world. We know she will lead the fight for women's health and justice because we have worked with her on these issues for so many years.

· We know Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who honor a woman's right to privacy because she not only voted against John Roberts and Sam Alito but also spoke on the Senate floor about the threat they pose to privacy rights and Roe v. Wade in opposing their confirmations.

· We know Hillary will expand contraceptive options because she waged a successful three-year battle with Senator Patty Murray against the Bush administration to make Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter.

· We know Hillary will expand fair work-family policies because we worked with her to pass the original Family and Medical Leave Act and then to expand it to cover military families, to provide paid leave, and to improve childcare.

· We know Hillary will fight for access to family planning services for low-income women because she has fought to increase funding for contraception and family planning through Medicaid and Title X.

· We know Hillary will work to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies because as First Lady, Hillary helped found the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancies and as Senator she spearheaded the Prevention First Act.

· We know Hillary will be mindful of the challenges that our sisters face abroad and at home because in 1995 she bravely stood before a global audience at the 1995 Women's Conference in Beijing and declared that "women's rights are human rights."

We trust Hillary Clinton because every time we needed her by our side, she has been there.

Let us be clear -- the stakes are high in this election. We firmly believe that no one is better situated to confront the challenges awaiting the next president. As a pro-choice president, Hillary Clinton will make Supreme Court appointments and decisions ensuring women's reproductive rights in this country.

We believe that Hillary Clinton is the best choice for president of the United States.

Who is this Nitwit and Why Should We Care?

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Liberal Bias In The Media" Makes Me Seem Witchy

Hillary's Health Care Plan Tops Obama's - Krugman

Paul Krugman, NYTimes: "The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It's a division that can seem technical and obscure -- and I've read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.

But as I've tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates' approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I've been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage -- a key progressive goal -- and falling far short.

Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton's would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama's -- at only slightly higher cost."

Republicans on Romney: 'No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it's not him.'

The 'I Hate Romney' Club

Ana Marie Cox, Time Magazine

Last summer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani took time out of a GOP debate to defend John McCain: "I happen to be a very big admirer of Senator McCain and I can tell you quite honestly that if I weren't running for President I would be here supporting him." Pundits speculated that the praise was simply a kind word for the man whose campaign had recently exploded, plagued by debt and defections. Privately, McCain advisers wondered if Giuliani was playing nice in order to secure McCain's endorsement after he dropped out of the race.

But this week it was Giuliani who dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, praising him as an "American hero."

The endorsement was a reflection of the authentic respect McCain and Giuliani have for each other. But that's not all the two candidates share. The endorsement deal was solidifed when both campaigns stayed at the Deerfield Hilton in Florida, following the Republican debate in Boca Raton on January 24. The two campaigns' staff mingled easily over drinks. Acknowledging that his candidate was not likely to survive a defeat in Florida, a Giuliani aide approached one of the McCain senior staffers. Come Wednesday, he said, "Just tell us what want us to do — we've got to stop him."

"Him," of course, is Mitt Romney, the candidate who seems to be uniting his Republican rivals almost as much as Hillary Clinton. "The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. While sharp words have been exchanged between practically every Republican candidate at one point or another on the campaign trail, the aversion to Romney seems to go beyond mere policy disagreements. It's also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness — what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney's "wholesale reinvention."

The Romney campaign doesn't pretend the sour attitude toward its candidate doesn't exist. But chief counselor Ben Ginsberg insists— echoing one of the campaign's main themes — the attitude stems largely from the fact that Romney is "the outsider candidate. He's not from Washington and he's going to change Washington. He's not part of their club."

At times, this apparent rancor among the other candidates toward Romney has seemed like a schoolyard pact — for example, in the many snarky comments aimed at Romney during the Republican debate on Jan. 5, just before the New Hampshire primary. The campaigns have denied there's any political collusion going on; they insist all of them simply feel the same way about Romney.

To be sure, the candidates' staffs do seem to have bonded in their dislike of Romney. "It was very common for e-mails to be flying around between the Thompson, McCain and Giuliani campaigns," says the former Thompson staffer, "Saying, 'No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it's not him.'" The staffer says that campaigns would share opposition research on Romney and offer each other tips on how best to undermine him: "Like, 'Hey, I saw you hit Mitt on immigration — have you thought about going after him on this issue?" In some cases, the attitude even extends to the top of the campaigns. The night of the Iowa caucuses, after getting a congratulatory call from McCain, Huckabee told the candidate, according to aides: "Now it's your turn to kick his butt."

Before and after debates, rival campaign staffers note, Romney tends not to mingle with the other candidates — most of whom know each other professionally — preferring instead to keep close to his family and staff. And those same staffers delight in trading stories about Romney's odd behavior. The day before the Republican primary, Huckabee mocked Romney for ordering lunch at a Kentucky Fried Chicken, then peeling off the fried coating and eating it with a knife and fork. Presented with a golf club, Huckabee said he wouldn't be very good at the game: "I'd be like Mitt Romney eating fried chicken."

But such jibes mask more substantive complaints that many of the candidates have about Romney. "What Romney has done," says a Huckabee adviser, "he's attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in." He's gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney's raised "fees" amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration.

The Republicans, of course, have no monopoly on bad feelings between candidates. In recent weeks, the bitter feuding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has made many voters wary and disappointed. Yet in recent years, Republicans have made a mantra out of Reagan's "11th Commandment": "Thou shall not criticize other Republicans." Unaligned pollster Whit Ayers notes, however, that the Clinton-Obama clashes have "tapped into racial fault lines," something missing from the anti-Mitt sentiment. "It doesn't tap into anything larger," says Ayers. "It's just personal."

Hillary Rallies Massive Crowd in LA

February 3, 2008, 9:08 am

Clinton Lays Out Differences With Obama

By Patrick Healy

ABOARD THE CLINTON PLANE OVER ARIZONA – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not explicitly say that Senator Barack Obama was a Democrat-in-Bush-clothing, but she sure left that impression during a news conference on Saturday evening that dwelled heavily on the Feb. 5 nominating contests.

Mrs. Clinton was asked if part of her argument against Mr. Obama was that he hadn’t been specific about his plans for the country. She replied that she herself had been “very specific” because she believed the next president had to be held accountable for delivering on his or her campaign promises.

And then:

“We cannot afford to elect someone, as we did with George Bush, and then be somewhat surprised by the decisions that are made and the directions that he leads the country,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The best way to avoid that is to have a candidate who will tell you what she will do, and then is held accountable for doing it once she’s in office. That’s the way I like to run my campaign, and that’s the kind of president I’ll be.”

I keyed off her remarks on Saturday morning – that her presidency would not be “a leap of faith” – and asked if she believed there was any risk for voters or America in an Obama presidency.

“Well, I have said on many previous occasions that I’m not asking voters to take a leap of faith – you know where I stand, you know my record, I’ve been vetted, I’ve been tested, probably more than anybody in the country who is in politics right now,” Mrs. Clinton said.

With that out of the way, I pressed my question again, but Mrs. Clinton was having none of it.

“I’m making the positive case for myself, and that is a really strong argument as to how best to win the general election and have a president to deliver on what the campaign is about,” she said. “And I think that’s important this time. We need a campaign that’s about the real issues facing the country; people expect to have their problems fixed. I think my campaign has offered that.”

Asked if she felt confident that she would on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton replied, “I feel confident that we are doing well in a lot of states.” She was no more forthcoming when asked if she would win more of the 22 state contests than Mr. Obama.

“I’ll leave prediction to pundits,” she said. “I just know we’re waging vigorous campaigns in most of the states that vote on Tuesday, and we’re getting good reports.”

One interesting comment: She noted that at a conversation with a small group of voters in Los Angeles Saturday morning, no one brought up the Iraq war with her.

“Voters don’t mention it to me anymore,” she said. “People have still the same level of concern and outrage about President Bush’s policy in Iraq, but there seems to be an awareness that we have to wait to have a Democrat in the White House.”

She also said she was the best Democrat to face off against Senator John McCain of Arizona, should he emerge as the Republican nominee, because her positions were sharper than Mr. Obama’s, she said, on universal health care and the economy.

Hitting Mr. Obama again for not having a plan that forced all Americans to buy, obtain, or have health insurance, she highlighted her position and then imagined a debate between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama said:

“I think my strong advocacy for universal health care puts me in a much better position to take on John McCain. You know, John McCain’s going to get up there and say, ‘I have a health plan, it’s going to cover a lot of people. How many is your plan going to leave out?’ ‘Well, I don’t know, more or less than your plan.’ That is a losing argument for Democrats. As you’ve heard me say, I’m not running for president to put Band-aids on problems, if it comes to universal health care, I think it would be a real mistake for Democrats to nominate someone who has already given up on universal health care.”

Mr. Obama has referred to his plan as universal health care and says it would end up covering everyone because he would sufficiently lower costs and broaden access that uninsured Americans could enroll in coverage plans.

She also unloaded against Mr. Obama over gun control; he said on Saturday that he supported the rights of gun owners, but the Clinton camp pointed to a 1996 questionnaire on which Mr. Obama said he opposed the manufacture and sale of handguns.

“My understanding is that really within the space of 4 or 5 years, he’s had several positions on a number of really challenging issues,” she said.

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, replied by drawing on some of Mrs. Clinton’s other recent lines of attacks against Mr. Obama.

“Only in Washington could you be attacked for supporting Ronald Reagan’s policies one week and then for being too liberal next week,” Mr. Burton. “These are just the sort of divisive, petty politics that Senator Obama is trying to change.”

Miller Goes to Jail While Novak and Rove Remain Free

New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed Wednesday for refusing to divulge a confidential source to a grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name. It added legal drama to what was already one of the most closely watched press freedom cases in recent history. Another reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after disclosing that his source had given him permission to do so hours earlier.
(AP)

Nutty Santorum Criticizes Views of Sen. Clinton

"The African proverb says, 'It takes a village to raise a child,'" Santorum writes. "The American version is 'It takes a village to raise a child _ if the village wants that child.'"

Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is sometimes touted as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. Books outlining a politician's philosophical views often precede campaign announcements.

He could face a tough re-election battle in 2006. Early polling shows him behind state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the favorite to win the Democratic primary.

In the book, Santorum makes the case that abortion puts the liberty rights of the mother before those of her child just as the liberty rights of slave owners were put before those of the slave.

"This was tried once before in America ... But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave," Santorum said.
(AP)

Katherine Harris Advocated Kabbalah Water to Treat Citrus Cankers

Four years ago, as the state labored to eradicate citrus canker by destroying trees, officials rejected other disease-fighting techniques, saying unproven methods would waste precious time and resources.

But for more than six months, the state, at the behest of then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris, did pursue one alternative method -- a very alternative method.

Researchers worked with a rabbi and a cardiologist to test "Celestial Drops," promoted as a canker inhibitor because of its "improved fractal design," "infinite levels of order" and "high energy and low entropy."

But the cure proved useless against canker. That's because it was water -- possibly, mystically blessed water.

The "product is a hoax and not based on any credible known science," the state's chief of entomology, nematology and plant pathology wrote to agriculture officials and fellow scientists after testing Celestial Drops in October 2001.
(Orlando Sentinel)

Joe Conason: World too dangerous to have Bolton in UN

Supporters of John Bolton, the president's frustrated nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tell us that this is a dangerous world. They say that the U.N. must be reformed if it is ever to fulfill its original mission of preserving peace and promoting human rights. They insist that the American ambassador must be someone who will advance our national interests.

They're right, of course. It is a dangerous world. The U.N. needs reform. And our diplomacy must be devoted to our national interests. Those are precisely the reasons why Bolton failed to win confirmation in the Senate -- and why the president should withdraw his name rather than send him to the U.N. with a recess appointment.

When conservatives of the Bolton stripe tell us that the world is dangerous, they seem to be talking about military and terrorist threats to our security, from the likes of Kim Jong Il and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (they don't talk so much about Osama bin Laden anymore). According to their worldview, the proper responses to such threats are to avoid the hindrance of arms treaties, build more nuclear weapons and missile defense systems, and beware of traditional alliances and international laws that might hamper our freedom to act.

Alan Dershowitz: Why is Novak Skating on the Rove/Plame Affair?

One of the dangers inherent in jailing journalists for not disclosing confidential sources, is that this draconian punishment can be invoked selectively against targeted journalists. Two excellent and independent reporters may go to jail while Robert Novak has not -- to my knowledge -- been presented with the tragic choice of disclosure or imprisonment. Why has he been exempted? Is it because he toes the administration's line? Is it because he knows whether Karl Rove was the source? An explanation for this apparent double standard is called for!
(huffingtonpost.com)

Protesters Demand Guantanamo Shutdown

The Bush administration "has claimed the power to kidnap men anywhere in the world and hold them, interrogate them, detain them without any process of law," said Meeropol, the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 after being convicted of conspiring to commit espionage for the Soviet Union.
(AP)

John Nichols: Not Dominion, But Liberty

As the 229th anniversary of the founding of the American experiment approached, President Bush provided a painful reminder of how far the United States has drifted from the ideals of her youth.

Speaking to soldiers who would soon be dispatched to occupy Iraq, Bush sounded an awfully lot like the King George against whom George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other revolutionaries of 1776 led their revolt.

America was founded in opposition to empire. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto against colonialism. And the founding generations abhorred imperialism.

Their opposition to empire was not merely rooted in their own bitter experience. It was, as well, rooted in a faith that American freedoms and democracy would suffer in the nation embarked upon a career of empire.

So, while Bush suggests that other lands must be occupied to preserve liberty at home, the patriots of our time recall will do well to recall words spoken on another July 4.

When America was younger and truer to her ideals, on Independence Day, 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams appeared before the US House of Representatives and declared:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for p

Breaking News...

ROVE LEAKED CIA AGENT'S IDENTITY

Lawrence O'Donnell: I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

(Huffingtonpost.com)

Time Magazine to Hand Over Reporter Notes

Breaking ranks with The New York Times, Time magazine said Thursday it would comply with a court order to hand over the notes of a reporter threatened with jail for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into the unmasking of a CIA operative.

Time relented after just days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from its White House correspondent Matt Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who have been locked in an eight-month battle with the government to protect their confidential sources.

The magazine said the high court's action will have "a chilling effect" on journalists' work but that Time had no choice but to comply.

"The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts," Time said in a statement.

Representatives for both reporters said they believe that the turning over of the notes and other material would eliminate the need for Cooper or Miller to testify before a grand jury and remove any justification for jailing them.

A special counsel is investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, a possible federal crime. U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Cooper and Miller for refusing to reveal their sources.
(AP)

June One of the Deadliest Months for US Troops in Iraq

June was one of the deadliest months of combat for U.S. troops since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 28 months ago. At least 68 U.S. soldiers, Marines and sailors were killed by hostile fire in Iraq, the fifth highest number since the war began, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a Web site that compiles official casualty reports. The June total could continue to rise as troops die from wounds sustained during the month.
(Knight Ridder)

State Department Doctors Bono Quote

A State Department release from Monday doctored remarks from U2’s Bono, twisting his quote to mean the very opposite of what he apparently believes. Here’s the State Department paragraph, two graphs below the lede [besides underlining, excerpt appears exactly as published]:

Bono, lead singer of the Irish band U2 and longtime activist for aid to Africa, echoed Geldof’s praise for President Bush as he told an American television interviewer June 26, “[Bush] has already doubled and tripled aid to Africa .… I think he has done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. 250,000 Africans are on anti-viral drugs; they literally owe their lives to America.”

In fact, Bono only said the latter half of that quote during his appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday. The first part — “[Bush] has already doubled and tripled aid to Africa” — is deceptively transplanted from an interview Bono did with Time magazine that Tim Russert quoted on the show, and the State Department has taken it entirely out of context. Here’s the full quote:

Question: Which of the G8 leaders do you think remains the toughest nut to crack?

Bono: The most important and toughest nut is still President Bush. He feels he’s already doubled and tripled aid to Africa, which he started from far too low a place. He can stand there and say he paid at the office already. He shouldn’t because he’ll be left out of the history books. But it’s hard for him because of the expense of the war and the debts.

In other words, Bono was relaying President Bush’s claim (which he repeated during his press conference with Tony Blair this month) that his administration has tripled aid to Africa. Yet we know Bono does not believe that Bush has tripled aid to Africa. On Meet the Press, Bono said that while Bush has made a commitment to triple aid, that will only be the case “if he follows through” on that pledge.

This blatant dishonesty is even more relevant in light of the study by Susan Rice that Brookings released this week. Rice’s analysis showed that…

…U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 (the last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush Administration) has not “tripled” or even doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56% (or 67% in nominal dollar terms). The majority of that increase consists of emergency food aid, rather than assistance for sustainable development of the sort Africa needs to achieve lasting poverty reduction.
(Think Progress)

Bush's Approval Rating in Rhode Island Sinks to 24%

Days after the death of a local female soldier in Iraq, the people of Rhode Island express their views on Bush and on local Democrats in a Brown University poll

U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, already at the top of Rhode Islanders' approval scale in February, climbed even higher, from 63 percent to 71 percent. Approval ratings for the other three congressmen also went up: Rep. James Langevin from 59 to 63 percent, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy from 49 to 56 percent, and Sen. Lincoln Chafee from 48 to 53 percent (Chafee is famous in the Senate for breaking from the Republican party on may key issues and for refusing to vote to re-elect Bush in 2004).

Just 24 percent of respondents described the job President Bush is doing as "good" or "excellent."
(Providence Journal)

Approval of president's Social Security efforts dips

Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling Social Security by a ratio of more than 2-to-1, a new low for the White House on its top domestic policy issue, according to the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

The poll, taken over the weekend, showed a steady erosion in the president's handling of Social Security since early February, when 43% approved. Now, 31% approve and 64% disapprove, the first time disapproval has risen above 60%.

Opposition to Bush is greatest among seniors, women, and people with lesser incomes and levels of education. Democrats disapprove by a ratio of more than 20-to-1, but Republicans back Bush's performance on the issue by a 2-to-1 ratio.
(USA Today)

Bush's Iraq-terrorism link faces skeptical US public

President George W. Bush sought support this week for the war in Iraq by invoking the September 11 attacks several times on national television, but a skeptical US public seems less afraid of another terrorist attack on US soil.

A Gallup poll last week showed that only 35 percent of Americans believe that an attack could occur soon, compared to 39 percent in January and 85 percent in October 2001, a month after the attacks.

And another Gallup poll this week found that, for the first time, one in two Americans do not believe the war in Iraq is part of Washington's global war on terror.

Bush mentioned "September 11" five times late Tuesday in a speech that sought to rally Americans behind the Iraq war amid polls showing that a majority of the US public disapproves of his handling of the conflict.

"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11," Bush said.

"Clearly a political decision has been taken in the White House that the only way that they can regain momentum is by going back to the sort of primal source of their support, September 11," said David Rothkopf, a terrorism expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"I think it is just unvarnished demagoguery," he said.

Democrats assailed the president for linking September 11 with the war in Iraq.

"Facing an historic opportunity for leadership, George Bush turned to the darkness of divisiveness, attempting to garner support for his failed policies by pandering to fear, rather than inspiring us with a plan for hope," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

In an editorial, The New York Times said "we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks."
(AFP)

Democrats fault Bush over Iraq link to Sept. 11

Democrats on Wednesday challenged President Bush's claim that America must stay the course in Iraq because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but his backers said the link was justified.

"I feel compelled ... to set the record straight about why we got into this war," said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

"It had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. It had nothing to do with al Qaeda. It had nothing to do with September 11th," Rockefeller told a news conference.

Rockefeller and other Democrats pointedly noted that the stated reason for U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which have never been found.
(Reuters)

Molly Ivins: The Republican Shopping Spree

Seriously, this administration is starting to look like that old television show in which contestants lined up their shopping carts in a grocery store and, on the signal, began running around throwing every valuable item they could find in their carts. Whoever grabbed the most high-priced items won. The contestants here and now are corporations and lobbyists.

The amusing case of the congressman whose house was bought by the founder of a defense firm for $700,000 more than it was worth is being exceptionally well-reported by the congressman's hometown paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune. You will not be amazed to learn the congressman in question (Randy Cunningham) oversees the committee that grants contracts to that very defense firm.

The story gets better by the day -- the congressman lives on a yacht in D.C. owned by the defense contractor, and employees of the defense firm say they were threatened with firing if they did not give to the company PAC. Well shut my mouth!

Meanwhile, the Senate has endorsed the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming by approving a measure that avoids mandatory reductions of heat-trapping pollution. These are the same bozos who refuse to require better mileage per gallon from the auto industry, even though the technology is readily available.

Sidney Blumenthal: Blinded by the light at the end of the tunnel

The American public is increasingly disillusioned by the Iraq war, and Bush's triumphalism only makes things worse.

On June 21, network news reported that the Pentagon had claimed that 47 enemy operatives had been killed in Operation Spear in western Iraq. Last month, the Pentagon declared 125 had been killed in Operation Matador, near the Syrian border. "We don't do body counts on other people," Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defence, stated in November 2003.

On January 29 this year, the day before the Iraqi election, President Bush announced that it was the "turning point". On May 2 2003, he stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln behind a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" and the next day proclaimed that the "mission is completed". On June 2 this year, he declared: "Our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting."
(The Guardian)

US suspected of keeping secret prisoners on warships: UN official

The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said.

While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry.

"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.
(AFP)

War injured toll soars, hits veterans health costs

As the numbers of U.S. war injured in Iraq and Afghanistan soared, the Bush administration admitted to lawmakers on Tuesday it had underestimated funds to cover health care costs for veterans and Congress would have to plug a $2.6 billion hole.

"The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA (health) services across the board," said Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson.

The Veterans Administration assumed it would have to take care of 23,553 patients who are veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but that number had been revised upward to 103,000, Nicholson told a House of Representatives panel.
(Reuters)

Santorum Blames Crisis in Catholic Church on Boston Liberals

"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
(catholic.org)

The Real News in the Downing Street Memos
By Michael Smith

It is now nine months since I obtained the first of the "Downing Street memos," thrust into my hand by someone who asked me to meet him in a quiet watering hole in London for what I imagined would just be a friendly drink.

At the time, I was defense correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and a staunch supporter of the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The source was a friend. He'd given me a few stories before but nothing nearly as interesting as this.

The six leaked documents I took away with me that night were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush.

They focused on the period leading up to the Crawford, Texas, summit between Blair and Bush in early April 2002, and were most striking for the way in which British officials warned the prime minister, with remarkable prescience, what a mess post-war Iraq would become. Even by the cynical standards of realpolitik, the decision to overrule this expert advice seemed to be criminal.

The second batch of leaks arrived in the middle of this year's British general election, by which time I was writing for a different newspaper, the Sunday Times. These documents, which came from a different source, related to a crucial meeting of Blair's war Cabinet on July 23, 2002. The timing of the leak was significant, with Blair clearly in electoral difficulties because of an unpopular war.

I did not then regard the now-infamous memo — the one that includes the minutes of the July 23 meeting — as the most important. My main article focused on the separate briefing paper for those taking part, prepared beforehand by Cabinet Office experts.

It said that Blair agreed at Crawford that "the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." Because this was illegal, the officials noted, it was "necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."

But Downing Street had a "clever" plan that it hoped would trap Hussein into giving the allies the excuse they needed to go to war. It would persuade the U.N. Security Council to give the Iraqi leader an ultimatum to let in the weapons inspectors.

Although Blair and Bush still insist the decision to go to the U.N. was about averting war, one memo states that it was, in fact, about "wrong-footing" Hussein into giving them a legal justification for war.

British officials hoped the ultimatum could be framed in words that would be so unacceptable to Hussein that he would reject it outright. But they were far from certain this would work, so there was also a Plan B.

American media coverage of the Downing Street memo has largely focused on the assertion by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, that war was seen as inevitable in Washington, where "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B.

Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.
(The Sunday Times of London)

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan: UN source

Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP.

"They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark."

UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.

The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
(AFP)

God's Chosen Envoy for America, by Norman Mailer

The following is just for the sake of it -- I want to feed the maw of the blog:

In the wake of all the fluvial funereal obsequies that the media attached to Ronald Reagan's earthly departure, I felt obliged to remark that he had been the most overrated president in American history and the second most ignorant. Then I added -- how could I not? -- guess who is the most ignorant? Half the audience applauded; the other half were outraged and groaned in true patriotic pain. Since George W. is not only a horse's ass, but vain and platitudinous to boot, it can hardly escape us that he is also serving (with all due inner incandescence) as God's chosen envoy for America.
(Huffingtonpost.com)

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.

The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.
(AP)

Florida Senate: Nelson holds commanding lead over Harris

Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson holds a commanding lead in his 2006 re-election bid over Republican U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, whose candidacy already is sharply dividing Florida voters, according to a statewide poll released Monday.

In a snapshot taken 17 months before the election, Nelson is favored 53 percent to 36 percent over Harris, with 11 percent of voters undecided. The poll also found that Harris remains a polarizing figure to many of the state's voters.

"This is one of those rare cases where, going in, the challenger has higher negative ratings than the incumbent," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., which conducted the poll for the Orlando Sentinel and WESH 2 News. "At this point, when you look at these numbers, I don't know how she's going to win this race."
(Mason-Dixon)

Six Months After

By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

IT has been nearly six months since the tsunami struck 11 nations surrounding the Indian Ocean, killing more than 200,000 people. The tragedy touched the chord of our common humanity. Forty countries committed military forces to provide food, water and shelter to the survivors. Millions of Americans contributed more than $1 billion to the relief effort. Millions of others across the world also sent contributions, and the United Nations and hundreds of charitable organizations rushed to the region.

This rapid response yielded substantial dividends. Widespread starvation was avoided. There were no epidemics.

Of course, the recovery effort has a long way to go. Hundreds of thousands of people remain homeless, and unable to work. Thousands of schools have to be built, and many of the region's children remain frightened and distressed. Fortunately, the United Nations, international financial institutions, governments, businesses and nongovernmental organizations have pledged billions of dollars to help the tsunami generation "build back better."

As the special envoy for tsunami relief for the United Nations, I am working to make good on that commitment. To achieve our goals, I have asked all those involved in tsunami relief to agree to the following agenda:

First, we are developing a joint action plan detailing precisely who will do what, where and when, to avoid duplication of effort, ensure efficient use of resources and leave no person or community behind. For example, we all agree on the need for an early warning system. The plan will identify who is responsible for financing and building the system, where it will be located, how the system will actually alert the public, and who will oversee its maintenance and reliability.

We are also devising a reporting system to ensure that donations are being used appropriately and a unified scorecard to show what we have achieved and what remains to be done.

Second, we will work to restore the livelihoods of the survivors; to finance new economic activities to raise family incomes above their pre-tsunami levels; and to increase the capacity of local governments, nongovernmental organizations and businesses to undertake the gargantuan reconstruction effort.

To diversify the affected economies, we need to make small loans - micro-credit - available for new ventures or for the expansion of existing ones. And we must help restore tourism in the entire region, especially in the Maldives, where destruction of tourism facilities, fishing operations and other enterprises and homes ran up losses in excess of 60 percent of the country's annual gross domestic product. Most tourist operations are open for business, but most potential visitors don't seem to know that.

Jobs for local people in the reconstruction will require large vocational training programs. Thousands of masons, woodworkers, supervisors and laborers are needed.

Third, we must move survivors from tents and barracks to decent transitional shelters as soon as possible. Although there are still some frustrating delays in getting government approval for contracts and for imports of machinery and materials, there are fewer bureaucratic obstacles every day. All of the affected countries have good plans, with able people in charge of executing them.

Still, the housing shortage presents a serious challenge. Last year, before the tsunami, 5,000 new homes were built in Sri Lanka. Now survivors in Sri Lanka alone need almost 100,000 homes. In Aceh Province in Indonesia, 2,000 schools and 200,000 homes must be constructed. Even the United States would have a difficult time getting a million people back into their houses in a year or two.

The construction effort also carries significant environmental risks. Wholesale, unrestricted logging can cause deforestation in some regions, particularly in Indonesia, doing great damage to rainforests and setting the stage for more natural disasters. Timber needs to be obtained legally, and conservation measures, like replanting mangrove trees rather than developing the land from which they were uprooted, should be part of the reconstruction.

The housing problem is further complicated because many ownership records were swept away by the waves. And in many small villages, such documents never existed. In some of the affected countries, up to 90 percent of displaced people have lost their identity documents. The World Bank is financing a "titling" project in Aceh to help Indonesians develop an effective property-rights system - it is an initiative that should be replicated across the region. (Sri Lanka must also resolve conflicts arising out of the government's policy largely prohibiting reconstruction within a "buffer zone" near the water. Many survivors who want to return to their old land oppose the restrictions and their concerns should be taken into account as they are in Indonesia.)

Finally, we must do all we can to assure that the voices of the most vulnerable are heard. Will women survivors be involved in the design and execution of the recovery process? Will their property rights be protected? Will the Dalits (also known as the "untouchables") of India be discriminated against? Will poor families get documentation for their assets and have access to lines of credit? Will national governments give localities greater flexibility to meet their particular needs? Will children who survived be able to get back to school? Will the disaster usher in a new chapter in the peace processes in Sri Lanka and Aceh, thereby making it easier for aid to be distributed and reconstruction to take place wherever it's needed?

Thanks to the generosity of millions of people, we will have the resources to meet these daunting challenges. The World Food Program of the United Nations is feeding more than 700,000 people daily. Unicef is making substantial commitments to meeting the area's large needs for water and sanitation. Other United Nations agencies are doing their part.

But most of the financing for reconstruction and recovery is in the hands of donor governments and charitable groups like the Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, and hundreds of other nongovernmental organizations. In order for the recovery effort to succeed, these groups have to be treated as equal partners in the planning process.

Of course, the reconstruction process will proceed more smoothly in Aceh and Sri Lanka if all parties to the longstanding conflicts there are involved. Cooperation might even lead to greater prospects for peace in both places.

On my most recent trip to the region, I visited the Jantho camp for displaced people in Aceh, where I met a woman who had lost nine of her 10 children. As one of the camp leaders, she introduced me to the youngest camp member: a 2-day-old boy. She said the child's mother wanted me to give him a name. I asked if there was an appropriate Indonesian word for "new beginning" and was told that there was: "dawn," which in their language is a boy's name. I think a lot about that little boy, and our obligation to give him a new dawn. We can do it together.

Rove Sinks to New Low; Dems Demand Apology or Resignation

Democrats said Thursday that White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for accusing liberals of wanting "therapy and understanding" for the September 11 attackers, escalating partisan rancor that threatens to consume Washington.

Rove's comments -- and the response from the political opposition -- mirrored earlier flaps over Democratic chairman Howard Dean's criticism of Republicans, a House Republican's statement that Democrats demonize Christians and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin's comparison of the Guantanamo prison to Nazi camps and Soviet gulags.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan came to Rove's defense, saying the president's chief political adviser was "simply pointing out the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."
(AP)

An open letter to the Penguin Group, publishers of "The Truth About Hillary," from David Brock

June 20, 2005

Susan Peterson Kennedy
President
Penguin Group
375 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10014


Dear Ms. Peterson Kennedy,

I'm writing today to seek a public explanation of what, if any, editorial standards and fact-checking processes the Penguin Group applies to its imprints. Specifically, I believe the public, and the Clinton family, deserve an explanation for why Penguin has chosen to publish through its Sentinel imprint Edward Klein's attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which pre-publication reports have already exposed as an obviously false and defamatory tract.
(mediamatters.org)

Read the entire text of Brock's letter by clicking here.

U.S. Senate rejects mandatory emissions cuts

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday soundly rejected a plan to force American industry to cut greenhouse gas emissions, in a vote that came a day after lawmakers approved voluntary reductions.
(Reuters)

House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag Burning

A constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate. An informal survey by The Associated Press suggested the measure doesn't have enough Senate votes to pass.

The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate as well after four failed attempts since 1989.

But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment — one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.
(AP)

Senate Republicans press Bush to turn over Bolton documents

A growing number of Senate Republicans say John Bolton won't be confirmed as United Nations ambassador unless the White House turns over documents that Democrats say they need to assess Bolton's fitness for the post.

Though the White House continued Wednesday to demand an up-or-down vote on Bolton, these Republican senators say the Senate is in a standoff that only President Bush can resolve.

"I hope the president will take a very hard look at the documents," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview with Knight Ridder. "Unless we resolve this dilemma quickly, Mr. Bolton is not going to be the U.N. ambassador. ... The president should understand that we're at an impasse. It may be more important to preserve the doctrine of separation of powers than to have John Bolton in the U.N."

Alexander's comments came after Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the former Senate majority leader, urged the White House to turn over documents to Bolton's two leading Democratic foes, Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Another Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, also called for the White House to relent.
(Knight-Ridder)

Molly Ivins: The Hyper-Rich

In addition to paying the same percentage of their income as those in the $50,000 to $75,000 range, the hyper-rich are very good at finding ways -- both legal and illegal, observes Johnston -- of sheltering a lot of income even from the taxes they are supposed to pay. The Texas billionaires and Bush buddies Charles and Sam Wyly are now under investigation by the IRS, SEC and Manhattan district attorney concerning a tax-shelter plan run out of the Isle of Man, according to the Independent of Britain.

Look, Medicare is being cut, Pell grants are way down, food stamps are being cut -- every day we get news from Washington that some new measure hurting the poor or the middle class has been put in place. At the same time, the country is running up a monstrous debt that will be passed to our children.

Sydney Blumenthal: Nixon's empire strikes back

George Bush is building a leviathan beyond Nixon's imagining. The Bush presidency is the highest stage of Nixonism. The commander-in-chief has declared himself by executive order above international law, the CIA is being purged, the justice department deploying its resources to break down thewall of separation between church and state, the Environmental Protection Agency being ordered to suppress scientific studies and the Pentagon subsuming intelligence and diplomacy, leaving the US with blunt military force as its chief foreign policy.

The three main architects of Bush's imperial presidency gained their formative experience amid Nixon's downfall. Donald Rumsfeld, Nixon's counsellor, and his deputy, Dick Cheney, one after the other, served as chief of staff to Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, both opposing congressional efforts for more transparency in the executive.
(The Guardian)

Gore Vidal: Something Rotten in Ohio

So we have seen what democracy across the water can do. All in all a jarring experience for anyone foolish enough to believe that America is democratic in anything except furiously imprisoning the innocent and joyously electing the guilty. What to do? As a first step, I invite the radicals at C-SPAN who take seriously our Constitution and Bill of Rights to address their attention to the corruption of the presidential election of 2004, particularly in the state of Ohio.
(The Nation)

Senate GOP Turns Up Heat Over Bolton

Senate Republicans sought Tuesday to turn up the political heat on Democrats stalling the nomination of President Bush's choice to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"It's been 200 days that this vacancy sign above our U.N. ambassador's door in New York has been blinking. It is now time to end that," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told reporters.

The Tennessee Republican said he would schedule a vote at the end of the week to cut off debate on Bolton so that the Senate can hold a final up-or-down vote on Bolton's nomination.

However, it's not clear Frist has enough votes to end debate. Several Democrats would have to side with all Republicans to reach the 60 votes needed to go forward.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said that holding such a vote — even if it doesn't succeed — keeps the pressure on Democrats. "I don't want people to have the impression that we just dropped the Bolton vote," he said.

Democrats complain that the administration has refused to give them access to information they need to make informed decisions on whether Bolton is the right man for the job.

G8 ministers back Africa debt deal

LONDON, England -- Finance ministers from the world's wealthiest nations have agreed to an historic accord to cancel $40 billion worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations.

The Group of Eight (G8) ministers -- meeting for a second day Saturday in London -- backed a deal that includes an immediate scrapping of 100 percent of the debt belonging to 18 countries to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank.

As many as 20 other countries could be eligible if they meet strict targets for good governance and tackling corruption, leading to a total debt relief package of more than $55 billion.

British Finance Minister Gordon Brown called the accord a "new deal" for relations between the rich and the poor countries.

Finance ministers from the United States, Britain, Japan, Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy and France agreed to the package ahead of a G8 summit July 6-8 in Gleneagles, Scotland.

Hopes of an accord on debt relief were raised Friday with reports of an agreement between the United States and Britain on writing off debt owed by the 18 countries.

The countries are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- current G8 president -- had demanded that poor countries' debts be cancelled and their aid doubled.

The debts would be written off by the lenders in an effort to allow the debtor countries to start fresh, get their books in order and eventually be able to borrow again for economic development, health, education and social programs, rather than simply to repay existing loans.

The G8 ministers discussed other issues Saturday, including concerns about the effect of high oil prices on the global economy, U.S. deficits, reform of Japan's financial sector and poor economic growth in European.

Chinese officials have been included in order for U.S. and European ministers to urge them to the float the yuan, which many see as being overvalued, leading to floods of cheap imports.

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow is urging his Chinese counterpart Jin Renqing to scrap the yuan's exchange rate peg to the U.S. dollar.
(CNN.com)

Childish Sensenbrenner Stamps His Feet and Ends Hearing

The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner declared that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., protested, raising his voice as his microphone went off, came back on, and went off again.

"We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it," he said.
(AP)

Froma Harrop: Lend your ears to Bill Clinton

KNOW WHAT THE Europeans need? They need Bill Clinton. The French and Dutch votes against the European Union constitution reflect a deep suspicion of political elites and their big plans. The workers fear being thrown on a cruise to the global economy, then sold up the river.

Clinton was a master at navigating between the demands of a modern economy and people's need for security. He is someone Europe's average Joes might trust.

Of course, Europeans must become more competitive. Their plush social benefits need revising. Employers must have more flexibility in hiring and firing people. And places like France should open the windows and let in some free-market breezes. But that doesn't mean that the French have to flood their market with low-wage workers from Eastern Europe and, as some would like, Turkey.

Clinton knew how to strike the right balance. As president, he supported freer trade and pushed for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He understood that government programs can provide the wrong incentives and endorsed welfare reform. But when the budget needed balancing, his tax increases were limited to the highest incomes.
(Providence Journal)

Nicholas D. Kristof: Sudan's policy of systematic rape

All countries have rapes, of course. But here in the refugee shantytowns of Darfur, the horrific stories that young women whisper are not of random criminality but of a systematic campaign of rape to terrorize civilians and drive them from "Arab lands" - a policy of rape.

One measure of the international community's hypocrisy is that the world is barely bothering to protest. More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp - a teeming squatters' camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages - still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.
(International Herald-Tribune)