Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke to The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board on Tuesday.
…Clinton said Tuesday it would be “the height of political foolishness” for Democrats to back a Republican, or not vote at all, if they’re disappointed by the outcome of the long-running nomination battle between her and Barack Obama.
“Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other” in the general election, Clinton said during an hourlong meeting with The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board. “I’m going to shout that from the mountaintops and the valleys and everywhere I can, no matter what the outcome of the nominating process is.”
The Associated Press is reporting that in a new head-to-head matchup, Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 50 to 41 precent. This makes Clinton the front runner for the White House. Sen. Obama is ahead of McCain 46 to 44 percent, which is within the margin of error.
Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama.
Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.
The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.
Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.
Job creation is certainly a key issue for my family and friends living in Indiana. And I think Sen. Clinton is the best person to fix the mess left by Bush & Co.
Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s position on NAFTA, and Taylor Marsh hopes this will put the issue to rest.
From Sally Bedell Smith’s book on the Clintons I excised two short snippets. Now, Ms. Smith is not pro-Clinton. As far as I know she’s not anti-Clinton. She also did a tough biography and Jack and Jackie Kennedy’s marriage. One thing she does have is access, which produced nuggets that dismantle the Obama team’s drivel that Hillary was ever pro NAFTA. Sally Bedell Smith is rough enough on the Clintons in her book that you can take these two sections, which reveal the heart of Hillary’s antipathy towards NAFTA, to the bank.
… The economic team and other key advisors, including Mack McLarty, Mickey Kantor, and David Gergen, were likewise urging Bil to use his momentum to push for congressional ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). …had been negotiated by the Bush administration and was slated to expire if not ratified by January 1, 1994. Liberal Democrats, including Hillary, opposed it primarily because it could take jobs away from American workers. But as an advocate of global economic cooperation, Bill was drawn to its free-trade philosophy. … ..
For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith (pg. 117)
Opponents of Clinton, including Senator Obama and his Obama bloggers, like to point to NAFTA saying that Hillary was for it when her husband was pushing for ratification in January 1994. When was the last time a first lady openly opposed an important policy of her president husband? This, evidently, is what Hillary Clinton was expected to do. It’s nonsense.
… ..Another evending, the Jordans arranged a dinner at a restaurant with Paul Allaire, the chairman of Xerox, and his wife, Kay. “Clinton really wanted to talk to Paul about NAFTA, to get the view of business,” recalled Kay Allaire. “Hillary made clear that she opposed NAFTA. The President was curious, asking lots of questions, listening carefully. Hillary remained aloof and said little. …”
For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith (pg. 120)
Some of us have been saying for a while now that we don’t think Sen. Barack Obama is ready for prime time. Now it seems MoveOn might agree. Here’s what Adam Greene, a spokesperson for MoveOn, had to say:
It was a mistake for Obama to go on FOX’s Sunday show and treat the experience as if it was a real news interview. Democratic politicians need to understand that FOX is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as a news outlet. [...] And that’s why Democratic politicians should never treat FOX like a real news outlet – including FOX’s Sunday show.
Barack Obama’s campaign made a promise before this weekend’s appearance. They said he would “take FOX on” [...]
The interview began with a question about Obama’s race – implying that white people won’t vote for him. Instead of “taking FOX on” and saying FOX’s questions are premised on Republican talking points, Obama simply answered. So, Wallace kept going – asking more than 10 straight race-related questions, all skewed against Obama. … One of these rigged questions [about Rev. Wright] got Obama to say, “The fact that he is my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue” – resulting in John McCain quoting Obama hours later, hinting to right-wing allies that Rev. Wright is fair game.
FOX also asked a bunch of questions aimed at getting Obama to distance himself from Democrats and progressives. Because Obama didn’t “take on” the Republican framing of these questions, Obama was cornered into saying things like, “I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea [than Democrats]“ … .
Face it folks, Obama is simply NOT ready for prime time!
Fundamentalist leaders like James Dobson might take umbrage at my use of the word “prey” instead of “pray” … but hey, isn’t this exactly what the Religious Right is doing? Frederick Clarkson has a post up about the National Day of Prayer.
Every year, there are controversies over the “National Day of Prayer,” which has somehow become the exclusive province of the Dobson empire. This year it is being held on May first — and the fireworks have already started.
But lest you think that this is an obscure bit of Bush administration taxpayer financed pandering — note that even Democratic governors in blue states — such as the Democratic governor of my state, Massachussetts, Deval Patrick — are issuing proclamations as drafted by Focus on the Family. See for yourself here.
The Interfaith Alliance, Jews on First!, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, (and probably others) are calling them out on this discriminatory, Christian nationalist vanity project that comes with the Congressionally mandated imprimatur of the people of the United States.
Above right, from May 2007, Bush marks National Day of Prayer in Washington,DC with James and Shirley Dobson.
Sen. Obama has made it pretty clear — no more debates! It seems he’s done debating Sen. Clinton. He’s done being in a situation where he has to answer questions about some of his personal decisions. He’s done with debates that don’t address important issues of the day until 45 minutes into a debate. Sen. Obama is done.
But what if there were no moderators? What if the two candidates could simply talk about important issues of the day, and how they propose to solve the myriad of problems being left behind by George W. Bush? What if each of them could speak for say, two or three minutes, and then the other one would talk. Now that sounds like a good idea. I only wish I’d thought of it myself! ha
Sen. Barack Obama says he’s done debating, but he’s facing a double team effort to force him into another one-on-one session with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The New York Senator again challenged him to a debate in Indiana, but with a new twist: no moderators.
“Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions,” Clinton said to a crowd of several thousand at a rally held at a minor-league baseball stadium here. “We’ll set whatever rules seem fair.”
Check out the look on White House Press Secretary Dana Perino’s face as she calls on Helen Thomas. Perino looks like she is about to throw up … as she should.
This post is very after-the-fact, but I just watched the above video and HAD to put it up for a couple of reasons. First: I love Helen Thomas. She may be the ONLY investigative journalist left in this country. And second: This is yet another example of how blatantly this administration has lied to us.
Listen to the exchange, particularly this section near the end:
THOMAS: “You are denying in this room that we torture, that we have tortured?”
PERINO: “I am denying that.”
One has to wonder how Perino can say that with a straight face considering the evidence.
… this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them. [...]
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
I must agree with Ms. Thomas, who appears at the end to be asking the other reporters in the room to step up to the plate: “where is everybody … for God sakes”
Sean Bell was celebrating with friends the night before he was to be married. It was a bachelor party turned tragic when in the wee hours of the morning — on his wedding day — Bell was killed as police officers fired 50 shots at the unarmed man.
The three officers on trial for the shooting were acquitted of all charges today. This simply cannot be justice.
Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.
Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a Queens courtroom packed with spectators, including victim Sean Bell’s fiancee and parents, as at least 200 people gathered outside the building. [...]
The officers, complaining that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers, opted to have the judge decide the case rather than a jury.
Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren’t charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.
A conviction on manslaughter could have brought up to 25 years in prison; the penalty for reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor, is a year behind bars.
The case brought back painful memories of other NYPD shootings, such as the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo — an African immigrant who was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case created a storm of protest, with hundreds arrested after taking to the streets in demonstration.
Pictured above is Sean Bell with his fiancee Nicole Paultre and their daughter.
~ click image to go to video ~
