« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

The Narrative of Calculation

October 31, 2007 9:16 PM

The esteemed Mr. Charlie Gibson was good enough to have me on his Webcast today to chat about the Democratic debate. HERE IS THAT VIDEO.

--jpt

October 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate

October 31, 2007 9:49 AM

For the first section of last night's Democratic debate -- during the entire section on that arcane Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran -- frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, held her own just fine, I thought, and her reluctance to engage in the tit-for-tat bickering served her well.

But then something must have happened during that first commercial break.

Because when we came back, she seemed obfuscatory and less than forthright.

Take the question on whether or not she would allow the National Archives to open up more records of her husband's presidency -- a pertinent one given her declaration that her eight years as First Lady constitutes "experience," not to mention her husband's request that the National Archives keep their communications sealed until 2012.

"The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," she said. 'There's about 20 million pieces of paper there.  And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process.  And I am fully in favor of that."

She was pressed on her husbands request that any communication between the two of them not be made available to the public until 2012.  "Would you lift that ban?" she was asked by moderator Tim Russert.

"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has.  But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the
National Archives permits."

Said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.  And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."

It went on like that.

Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. "Why do you have one public position and one private position?" Russert asked.

Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that "everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim.  Everybody knows that.  But I do not advocate it.  I do not support it."

Then came questions about the tax reform proposal offered by one of her biggest supporters, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Campaigning with Rangel and his wife, former President Bill Clinton on Saturday said, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."

Is that Sen. Clinton's view?

Clinton declared herself a "great admirer of Chairman Rangel." Then she said "I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal."

Then she sounded as if she was quite familiar with the details of what Rangel is recommending.

Then she said "I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about" the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her worst moment came at the end of the debate, (watch it HERE) when asked about a comment she gave to a New Hampshire newspaper that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense." 

"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally.  They are undocumented workers.  They are driving on our roads.  The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds.  It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.

Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

If you paid attention you might have felt hundreds of thousands of Americans go: HUH?

"No, no, no," Dodd said. "You said -- you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it."

"No, I didn't, Chris," said Clinton.

"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense.  Do you support his plan?"

Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense.  What is the governor supposed to do?  He is dealing with a serious problems.  We have failed.  And George Bush has failed.  Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No.  But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this?  Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York.  We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it.  We should have passed immigration reform."

It fed into the meme that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, had been pushing all night -- that Clinton is calculating and less than honest.

So they, too, pounced.

"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I think this is a real issue for the country.  I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.  Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."

Added Obama: "Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer.  I can't tell whether she was for it or against it.  And I do think that is important.  One of the things that we have to do in this country is
to be honest about the challenges that we face."

Clinton is still the frontrunner, and has a commanding lead. But it was shaky performance, with the grand finale of the debate being a devastating punch delivered by … Clinton herself.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

October 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (94) | TrackBack (0)

Manhunt 2

October 30, 2007 5:39 PM

(First off -- Forgot to post this quick GMA set-up piece on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee from this morning…)

Right now I'm crashing on an even shorter spot for World News on the latest offering from self-styled bad-boy videogame makers Rockstar Games.

"Manhunt 2" doesn't go on sale until tomorrow (Halloween) but it's already prompted the children's advocates/watchdog group Common Sense Media to warn parents to keep it out of the hands of kids.

Rockstar insists that the game "fits squarely within the horror genre and was created to be an entertainment experience specifically for those players mature enough to appreciate it."

That said, Rockstar did make changes to the game after it was given an "Adults Only" rating over the summer -- meaning many retailers wouldn't carry it. A castration scene was removed. Some of the more intricate depictions of graphic detail were blurred. Ouila -- the M rating came, opening up shelves at Circuit City, WalMart and Best Buy.

We were originally given 1:45 to do this story. Now we're told it needs to be even shorter -- closer to a minute! Yikes. We'll see if we can pull it off.

One last item before I go: I just emailed a spokesman for Rockstar whether gamers can stab people in the eyes with pens, strangle them with wire, or set fire to them?

His response?

"To describe a particular physical act in any form of entertainment, separate from the plot, is not representative of the complexity of the story line."

It's funny because it's true.

-- jpt

UPDATE: Here's the DOT-COM piece we wrote on the subject and our spot for the WEBCAST.

October 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Democratic piledrivers

October 30, 2007 9:31 AM

Those wily Clintonistas!

On HillaryHub this morning, the Clinton campaign has put up two video clips of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, earlier this year and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, talking about the need to run positive campaigns.

This just hours before a debate in which both men are anticipated to point out some, shall we say "issues" they have with Clinton. ("Issues" as in "she's winning" and they don’t want her to be…)

Of course Clinton never made such a promise. Not that she herself needs to go negative on the record.

-- jpt

October 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

More on Cheney and the Confederate Flag

October 30, 2007 8:57 AM

Aha! Now we know more about the Confederate Flag that the Rev. Al Sharpton was talking about in his statement yesterday.

The New York Post reports a "5-foot-by-5-foot Confederate flag hung in a garage attached to the club headquarters" at the hunting club Cheney visited, the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in Union Vale, NY.

The NY Daily News describes a "3-by-5 foot Dixie flag." affixed to a door of the garage.

So … now what? Should the Vice President apologize, decry the flag, promise never to hunt there again? (His spokesman still insists Mr. Cheney did not see the flag hanging from this garage door.)

Or … not? What say you?

-- jpt

October 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (204) | TrackBack (0)

Primary Colors

October 29, 2007 9:48 PM

66 days from the Iowa Caucuses, what does this crazy primary calendar mean??...READ MORE HERE...or listen to me and Mr. Charles Gibson chat about it on the World News Webcast HERE...

- jt

October 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Confederate Flag? Where?

October 29, 2007 6:21 PM

The Rev. Al Sharpton has just issued a statement criticizing Vice President Dick Cheney since it has been reported to him "by media" that the Vice President's hunting trip Monday is being conducted at the Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club in Union Vale, New York, where, Sharpton alleges, "there is a Confederate Flag hanging at the club."

I do not know this to be true.

In fact, it seems fairly clear that Rev. Sharpton does not know this to be true.

A friend of mine who has been hunting there insists he never saw such a flag hanging there.

Over at the White House, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports that Lee Anne McBride from the Vice President's office says that no one in the Vice President’s party saw a confederate flag, or was aware there was one.

"Until this issue was raised by the press, we were not even aware of this," McBride says. The VP's office cannot confirm whether in fact there IS a flag at the club.

Nonetheless, Sharpton says he's "calling on Vice President Cheney to leave immediately and denounce the club and apologize for going to a club that represents lynching, hate, and murder to black people."

That is a big jump from hearing gossip about a club to asserting that the club represents all sorts of hateful criminality.

I just called the club to get a response … no one answered; I left a message.

"In this age of Jena and hangmen nooses all over the country, for the Vice President to relax under the flag of the hangmen nooses is an unpardonable insult to all Americans, particularly Blacks," Sharpton goes on.

"He ought to leave immediately, call for the flag to be brought down at once, and apologize for being connected to an institution that would be insensitive enough to fly it in the first place."

Sharpton goes on to threaten that if the Vice President doesn't leave the club, he "will bring a delegation of clergy to lead a prayer vigil in the immediate future."

Forgive me for asking this … but does this seem rash at all to anyone?

-- jpt

UPDATE: The Sharpton team e-mails me to tell me that both the NY Post and NY Daily News will have photos of the flag that they are breaking tomorrow. I look forward to learning more. Where was the flag hanging? Whose flag is it? It's a potentially very ugly story... but these kinds of stories call for measured responses -- and facts -- from everyone.

UPDATE 2: Read more HERE.

October 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (108) | TrackBack (0)

January 3rd

October 29, 2007 3:35 PM

With the Iowa Democrats picking January 3rd as their caucus date … what does that mean for the college students targeted by Camp Obama?

This September story in the Quad City Times calls a pre-January 14 caucus a "doomsday scenario" for Obama college campus organizers.

"Iowa Democratic Party leaders have said they would move the caucus date up if other states challenge Iowa's leadoff status. If that happens, most students would be in their hometowns, some of them in other states. Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman Carrie Giddins said the party is aware that an earlier date might harm participation by college students."

Yikes.

The Obama campaign now spins this by saying those students will now have more free time to caucus for their man, instead of being on campus working on term papers, doing keg stands and such. (My language, not theirs.)

But won't many of these students be in, say, Cancun?

Or maybe back home out of state?

In any case, Obama has introduced a new TV ad today … one focused on Social Security. You get the feeling that one has a different target audience.

-- jpt

October 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

From Beyond the Grave

October 28, 2007 9:09 PM

It's rare that presidents speak from beyond the grave, much less to make a political endorsement. For that reason, perhaps it's understandable that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani hasn't had a response to the surprise announcement made in today's New York Daily News by the late President Gerald Ford.

"I think Giuliani is an electrifying guy," Ford told Daily News Washington bureau chief Tom DeFrank in May 2006. "He's a great speaker. He's had a good record of winning in New York City, and he can be tough."

Asked for a prediction as to who would be the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, Ford smiled and said, "Well, if they want to win, Giuliani. He's really good, he's articulate -- he's just a leader."

The comments were included in DeFrank's new book "Write It When I'm Gone," a collection of interviews with Ford conducted with the understanding they would be published posthumously. Ford died in December 2006.

Unelected to both the vice presidency and the presidency, Ford was the last Republican president to have supported abortion rights. Giuliani aspires to be the next.

Of course, the posthumous endorsement Giuliani would really crave would be Ronald Reagan's. No word on that yet.

-- jpt

October 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Stuff

October 27, 2007 1:55 PM

Hillary campaigns with a congressman who just unveiled a controversial tax reform plan (LINK)...

Fred Thompson on the ABC News Shuffle Podcast (LINK)...

later --

jt

October 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Clean-livin' Mitt Attacks Clinton's Family Life

October 26, 2007 2:46 PM

GOP presidential candidate and former Governor Mitt Romney once told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that "I'm not going to suggest that people's marital lives should be part of a campaign." But for at least the third time in the last two months, he has impugned the marriage of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and the tom-catting of her husband Bill.

As reported by ABC News' Matt Stuart earlier today (LINK), responding to a Halloween invitation from an Iowan in West Des Moines, Friday, Romney joked about "Hillary's House of Horrors" which he said would consist of "the 'raise your tax' room.  We'd have the 'weaker military' room.  We'd have the 'family values in shambles' room."

The "family values in shambles" room?

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson responded, "Hillary Clinton needs no lessons on character from a man who switches his positions on a daily basis."

Just yesterday in New Hampshire (LINK), Romney -- asked to comment about a controversial program to distribute birth control to middle school students in Maine -- said that "one of the ways you instill family values is by having the White House be a place that demonstrates family values... I think during the last Clinton presidency the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation's culture."

Romney added "you're gonna be under a microscope and at least during the time you're in the White House you ought to live by a high standard, because the world is looking at you, you're representing not only yourself but your country. And the kids of America are looking at you."

(Wolfson yesterday used the same line as a retort. "Hillary Clinton needs no lessons on character from a man who switches his positions on a daily basis.")

Lest we forget, two months ago, when Romney threw former endorser Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, under the bus (LINK), he told CNBC that the Craig scandal "reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton. I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget...we've seen disappointment in the White House, we've seen it in the Senate, we've seen it in Congress. And frankly, it's disgusting."

This can clearly be seen as a way of not only reminding people that Romney is still married to his first wife and has on its face a picture-perfect family life, but also that his chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination, the thrice-married former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, does not.

Romney lays this on quite thick. "I came in with my sweetheart, who's here in the front row, I think, somewhere," he said at the CPAC conference. "Ann, would you come on up and just say hi? Here comes my sweetheart, Ann Romney."

Romney isn't the only one throwing stones -- in Missouri his wife, Ann, joked, "The biggest difference between Mitt Romney and the other candidates," is that the Mormon has "only had one wife."

Romney's attacks on Clinton's marriage also stand in contrast to those of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who in July (LINK) told NPR, "this will really rankle some of my Republican colleagues: Bill Clinton and Hillary went through some horrible experiences in their marriage because of some of the reckless behavior that he has admitted he had. I am not defending him on that, it's indefensible. But they kept their marriage together. And a lot of the Republicans who have condemned them and talk about their platform of family values, interestingly, didn't keep their own families together."

Huckabee, craftily, who is also still on his first wife, praised Clinton for sticking with Bill, drawing attention to the divorces of Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others.

Romney criticizes her, doing so.

Either way, it's a lot of talk about personal stuff. What do you think?

-- jpt

October 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (75) | TrackBack (0)

On the road with Fred Thompson

October 26, 2007 11:42 AM

HERE'S the free video of our Nightline spot on former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn. We got some good access and had an interesting interview. Hope you like it….

-- jt

October 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Perfect me, Ann Coulter

October 26, 2007 11:33 AM

"Perfect me, make me petty, I want to be hateful just like Ann Coulter," sings Leah Kauffman.

Kauffman and her collaborators are probably best known for their "Obamagirl" video and song, but the latest offering takes on the controversial conservative pundit with a far more serious tone.

The song features clips of Coulter making some of her more offensive comments about John Edwards, Arabs, and the 9/11 widows. Playing off Coulter's recent pronouncement that Christians want to "perfect" Jews by converting them, Kauffman makes light of Coulter's imperfections.

You can watch it HERE.

What do you think?

-- jpt

October 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

Fred Thompson and executive power

October 25, 2007 6:28 PM

In 1974, the Nashville Tennessean quoted a 31-year-old lawyer named Fred Thompson -- the chief GOP counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee -- saying that since the nation was "really angered" by the Nixon administration's abuses of national security classifications, things would change.

"I think obviously that in the future the president is not going to be the sole individual to determine what is a matter of national security," Thompson said at the Austin Peay State University campus in Clarksville, Tennessee.

The newspaper reported that "Thompson suggested the possibility of an executive and legislative committee to take on the task."

Read the whole May 18, 1974 story HERE.

We asked Thompson about this in our Nightline swing through Florida with the former senator, turned GOP presidential candidate. (That full profile will air tonight on Nightline at 11:35 pm.)

"I thought I confiscated all of those," Thompson joked when I took out a copy of the article.

I suggested that if Thompson were to become president, he would likely not be in favor of this joint legislative and executive committee.

"My concern at that time of course was the abuses of the presidency at that time," Thompson said. "And clearly the president at that time had used the umbrella of national security to do some things that were not in fact in the interest of national security."

(You can watch this exchange, which we included in our Webcast story HERE.)

Thompson agreed that he didn't share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it’s divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Thompson described checks and balances as "a constant tug and pull. Controversy and differences of opinion over legitimate national security concerns is not a bad thing. Every branch needs to stand up for itself. And I saw that as, in effect, an attorney for the executive branch, and then as a legislator."

Thompson said he sides with the Bush administration in its struggle with Congress over "issues of surveillance," but he suggested in some of the cases on detainees that have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court he sides with the Congress.

Asked if there are any examples where you would side with the Congress over the executive branch in the past few years, Thompson said, "well, the courts have decided against the executive branch in some instances."

And you agree with the courts? I asked.

"Well, I can’t lump everything together," he said. "I don’t think anybody ought to be rubberstamped. No president should be rubber-stamped. But you have to stand firm in executive authority. All the executive authority rests in the president. So the cards are on the table and Congress is involved. And Congress can refuse funding to anything they have such strong disagreement with. You can’t just carp and criticize and go to court each time. You have to step up to the plate, and say, we’re going to cut off funding."

Thompson sees the power of the purse as Congress's "constitutional duty." Disagree with something the executive branch is doing -- cut off funding, he said.

"Each branch has its legitimate positions and the lines are clear in terms of their responsibilities," he said as we drove from Medley, Florida, to Fort Lauderdale. "The president is commander in chief. He has to stand strong for executive authority, because we’ve only got one president. Especially in times of conflict or emergency. On the other hand, Congress has an oversight responsibility. And I’ve been a part of that, in more than one occasion. Ultimately, if they disagree strongly enough with what the executive branch is doing, they can cut off funding for it."

Interesting stuff.

Watch Nightline tonight for more, or read this story about Thompson HERE...

-- jt

October 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary and Mississippi, part deux

October 25, 2007 11:53 AM

After Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, had some less-than-flattering things to say about the state of Mississippi earlier in the week, (READ MORE ABOUT THAT HERE), she called Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., to apologize.

Lott was about to rip her for her comments when his phone rang, the Washington Post reports.

"'To her credit, she called me and apologized,'" Lott said, noting that the last two lieutenant governors of Mississippi have been women. "Having lived in Arkansas, which is something of a whipping boy, too, she knows better than that."

Interestingly, there's a passage in Sally Bedell Smith's new book on the Clintons' marriage, "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years," that may be relevant to this all.

Smith tells of the Clintons attending a 1995 retreat called the "Camp David Seminar on the Future of Democracy," where a dozen scholars -- half liberals, half centrist "New Democrats" -- were there to "replicate the stresses and strains inside the Democratic party."

Hillary Clinton seemed to play the role of liberal conscience to Bill Clinton's master conciliator.
"I think we can do both," Bill Clinton would say.

Writes Smith: "Somewhat surprisingly, Hillary also attacked working-class white southerners who had forsaken the Democratic party, and in an oblique way she took on her husband as well. 'Screw 'em,' she said, 'you don't owe them a thing, Bill, they're doing nothing for you.' Bill rose to their defense, 'as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades,'" as one attendee recalled.

"'I know these boys,' Bill said. 'I grew up with them. Hardworking poor white boys who feel left out.' He pointed out that liberal reforms had often 'come at their expense' and that the Democrats had to 'find a way to include these boys in our programs.' Hillary had no rejoinder, but during cocktails after the seminar she stood apart, 'opaque and unsmiling.'"

Today's discussion point: When one runs for president, one runs for president of all 50 states. Not just the ones that one can win electorally.

Thoughts?

- jpt

October 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Banning Ron Paul

October 24, 2007 9:45 AM

As an apparent response to Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul's internet-savvy minions, the conservative website Red State is banning Paul-backing.

"Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion," the site says. "Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal."

"Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once."

Ouch.

Hey, why are Ron Paul supporters advertising on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront?

-- jpt

UPDATE: Z. Byron Wolf Notes: Paul's campaign argues they have no association or affiliation with Stormfront.org. The Paul imprint on the stormfront website, says Paul spokesman Jesse Benton, is a "widget" available on Paul's website that "anyone that wants to can download and put it on their site. Hundreds of websites have installed our widget," he said.

There are no plans at Team Paul to ask Stormfront.org to take the widget off their site. The Paulians have not heretofore dictated who can or cannot fundraise online for them.

Benton said the people at the campaign "are not losing any sleep over this."

"This is not on Dr. Paul's radar. This is a staff issue. I don't think Dr. Paul has even heard of Stormfront," Benton said.

October 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (67) | TrackBack (0)

What is Hillary implying about Mississippi?

October 23, 2007 1:27 PM

Check out this new column by David Yepsen in the Des Moines Register.

In it, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, suggests that one of the reasons she's not doing as well in Iowa as she is nationally or in other states is because she's a woman and Iowa has "never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress."

She says that's the case with Mississippi, too.

But then she seems to imply she's not surprised that's the case down South, but given the "quality," "openness" and "communitarianism" of Iowa she is surprised that's the case in Iowa.

Hard not to read that as a slam on Mississippi.

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," she said. "There has got to be something at work here...

"I think not only do I have to bring people to me, I have to maybe reassure people here maybe more than I do in New Hampshire, which has had a woman governor...

"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

Doesn't that sound like she's saying she expects Mississippi to be backward but not Iowa?

I asked Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer about this. His response: "Clearly, she was referring to the historical fact that a woman has never been elected Governor or to the House or Senate from those states."

Uh...right.

What do you think?

- jpt

October 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (114) | TrackBack (0)

Picture Edwards, Obama and Clinton in your head - what do you see?

October 22, 2007 6:49 AM

For weeks now, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, has been claiming that he's the most "electable" of the top three presidential candidates in his party. That he can win in parts of the country that Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, cannot.

The argument is that Edwards is a Southerner from a rural background and can make Red states competitive. That Edwards is culturally of a Red State. That he is able to speak the language of the Reagan Democrat, Joe Sixpack, Mike Lunchpail.

The argument is NOT, the Edwards campaign insists, that Edwards as a white man is more electable than a white woman or a black man.

At the Youtube/CNN debate in July, Edwards very clearly stated, "Anybody who's considering not voting for Senator Obama because he's black or for Senator Clinton because she's a woman, I don't want their vote."

But take a listen to these comments from Edwards (CLICK HERE) from an October 8 event in Mount Ayr, Iowa, and see whether you think there's anything in there, implicitly, about his being a white man.

"If you're running in a tough congressional district…you gotta ask yourself would you rather have Senator Obama at the top of the ticket to help, Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket to help, or John Edwards at the top of the ticket to help," Edwards asks.

Edwards goes on to say, "your instincts will tell you the right answer."

You'll want someone you agree with, of course, "but you'll also want somebody who can help pull Democrats all over the country… You gotta ask yourself who's going to turn out more Republicans to vote against us at the top of our ticket. Who's gonna attract more middle of the road voters? You know, who's gonna feel more of a connection...

“But the bottom line is. I think the easiest way to do it, honestly, is to just picture in your head, each of us, running in a tough place –- we’re in one right now –- and which one’s gonna be more helpful and which one’s not. 'Cause I think that does matter."

For weeks I've rejected the notion that Edwards is making this appeal on anything other than cultural values, his Southern twang and roots….but that "picture in your head" clause is interesting.

Especially since Edwards strategist Mudcat Saunders has heralded Edwards' ability to get the votes of poor whites all over the country.

"There's not a 50 cent difference in Bubba in Buncombe County, North Carolina, and Iowa or New Hampshire or wherever else," Saunders told Men's Vogue. "We are all from basically the same set of circumstances, and a rural campaign is not just a Southern campaign. It's about the heart and soul of rural America. And John believes strongly in it...We’re going to get some white males…The other candidates I've seen are looking at that same 19-state strategy. We're well into the twenties on our strategy.”

And some folks who don't support Edwards thought this comment from Edwards' traveling companion -- former Rep.Ben Jones, D-Georgia, who you may better know as "Cooter" from ''The Dukes of Hazard" -- was interesting.

''John Edwards is the kind of guy who can not only lead this country in these very difficult times and bring it back together," Jones said, "but he's also a Democrat who can be elected in Hazard County -- if you know what I mean -- in the red states, out in the country."

In Hazard County? (Ifyouknowwhatimean?)

Where our heroes drive around in a car festooned with the Confederate flag?

(''Let me put it this way, I think the world of Barack Obama and he is the future of this party," Jones went on. "Hillary Clinton and Slick Willie and those people, they are the past. John Edwards is the present for the Democratic Party.'')

Last week, a number of Edwards supporters -- local Democratic officials --held a conference call warning that only Edwards would be able to help other Democrats on the ticket.

“Here's the deal," said Missouri Minority Whip Connie Johnson, who is African-American, "If we don't have a good person at the top of the ticket - someone who can help stop the hemorrhaging in Missouri, then we'll go red. It's as simple as that. And it will affect state reps, state senators, treasurers, governors, everybody. If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri, we can write it off." (You can listen to her HERE)

I understand the argument that Hillary Clinton has high negatives and is polarizing....but why is Obama part of this pitch that only Edwards isn't polarizing?

Another point -- one could argue that as the vice presidential nominee, Edwards didn't really do much in 2004 -- not only did not one Southern state go for Kerry-Edwards, including Edwards' native North Carolina, the ticket lost even Edwards' hometown Robbins, and Edwards currently trails behind Clinton among Democrats in the Tarheel State.

(Edwards has argued that no one votes for vice president, which is more or less true.)

In any case, what do you make of this all?

- jpt

October 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)

I Haven't Got Time for the Pain

October 19, 2007 10:24 AM

How ya like me now, Cleveland?

I'm not a fan of the Boston Red Sox, but you've got to admire pitcher Josh Beckett.

Last night in Cleveland, the Indians had Beckett's ex-girlfriend Country music artist Danielle Peck sing the national anthem and "God Bless America" before the playoff game.

Head games?

Cleveland insisted not.

Either way, Beckett kicked butt.

BoSox won 7-1.

Zing.

-- jpt

October 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Valued Voters

October 19, 2007 10:02 AM

Good morning!

The GOP presidential candidates trek to the Washington Hilton today to speak to conservative Christian voters at the Family Research Council's "Values Voter Summit."

Every one of the frontrunners -- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain and Fred Thompson -- has had trouble solidifying this important voting bloc, for any number of reasons.

As we reported last night Mr.. Romney will go after Giuliani as too much "like Hillary Clinton" in his remarks this evening…

Unspoken will be the issues some evangelicals have with Mormons, such as Dr. Robert Jeffress at the First Baptist Church of Dallas.

Thompson is taking the approach that he is the only REAL conservative, a la his web ad on the right side of the conservative website Human Events, where he quotes Romney from 1994 and Giuliani from 1999 to buttress the argument that his views have not wavered, unlike some.

McCain will again imply that Romney is "con"ning conservatives with his changes in views over the years…

And who knows what Giuliani will say! Prediction: he will emphasize areas where he and conservative Christians agree (fiscal issues, Hillary mockery, anti-terrorism) and paraphrase Ronald Reagan saying "my 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy."

The FRC's Tony Perkins says Giuliani just needs to show up, which he is scheduled to do on Saturday. "He's dehorned by coming," Perkins says.

Onward, Christian soldiers!

What say you about this gathering?

-- jpt

October 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Krugman Drinks the Punch

October 19, 2007 9:58 AM

The New York Times' liberal columnist Paul Krugman reads "Political Punch," apparently.

Or, at least he read THIS ENTRY.

From his column today: "Here's an example of the sort of thing that makes you wonder (about Democrats): yesterday ABC News reported on its Web site that the Clinton campaign is holding a 'Rural Americans for Hillary' lunch and campaign briefing — at the offices of the Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, which lobbies for the agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto. You don't have to be a Naderite to feel uncomfortable about the implied closeness. I'd put it this way: many progressives, myself included, hope that the next president will be another F.D.R. But we worry that he or she will turn out to be another Grover Cleveland instead -- better-intentioned and much more competent than the current occupant of the White House, but too dependent on lobbyists' money to seriously confront the excesses of our new Gilded Age."

October 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Romney: Rudy 'Like Hillary'

October 18, 2007 8:18 PM

Speaking to Christian conservatives at the second annual "Values Voters Summit" tomorrow, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will assail former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with a new line of attack, saying, "We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton."

The line does not mention Giuliani by name, but it will be interpreted as aimed at the former New York mayor, who has a liberal history on many social issues such as abortion and immigration. 

Romney maintains that no Republican can win the election without utilizing the three legs of the GOP stool -- economic conservatives, national security conservatives and social conservatives.  Giuliani is, in effect, trying to replace one of those legs with anti-Islamic-terrorism conservatives, while also arguing that according to polls he poses the strongest challenge to Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and would make normally blue states like New Jersey and California competitive.

In response, Giuliani campaign communications director Katie Levinson told ABC News that "Mitt Romney's transparent pandering to anyone and everyone who wiill listen to him is clearly not going to end any time soon.  Mitt's positions of the day and personal attacks scream of desperation from a candidate who has spent millions upon millions of his own money only to find Republican voters want something he cannot offer -- true leadership."

Romney's attack comes a few days after former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., told ABC News (and then the Conservative Party of New York) that "some think we can best beat the Democrats nexy year by becoming more like them. I don't," which was also intended as a criticism of Giuliani.

-- jpt

October 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (25) | TrackBack (0)

A Stark Remark

October 18, 2007 2:32 PM

During the debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program on the House floor today, a remarkable statement came from the mouth of Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, D-Calif.

"The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children," he said.

"They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Watch it HERE. 

Stark made a similar remark a few times, until a Republican Member of Congress objected. The Chair ruled Stark's comments were not out of order according to House rules.

The House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called for Stark to apologize.

"Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas," Boehner said in a statement.

Stark has a history of making such comments, having once called an African-American in George H.W. Bush's Cabinet "a disgrace to his race," a Colorado Republican Congressman a "little fruitcake," and on and on.

More recently Stark garnered headlines for being the only admittedly atheist Member of Congress.

-- jpt

October 18, 2007 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (265) | TrackBack (0)

Yee-haw

October 18, 2007 10:06 AM

So later this month, according to THIS INVITATION, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month….

..but she's holding it in Washington, DC….

…at a lobbying firm…

… and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs…

…which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."

…A company that the website "Ethical Investing" labels "the world's most unethical and harmful investment."

Holding an agri-summit in the plush halls of the lobbyists for Monsanto doesn't sound like the kind of "rural Americans" a presidential candidate would necessarily want to be photographed with.

Particularly if Clinton's two primary opponents -- former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- don't take money from lobbyists and are trying to depict the frontrunner as too much a part of the corrupt Washington system, lobbyists, corporate America, et al….

But then again, it doesn't say Clinton will attend this luncheon -- just senior staffers and congressional endorsers! (Is that better or worse?)

Response from the Clinton campaign to come….

But what do you think?

-- jpt

UPDATE: An Edwards supporter sends along this cover of the Raleigh News & Observer showing the Carolinian -- by contrast -- "Get(ting) his Boots Dirty as he Woos Rural Voters," per the headline.

UPDATE 2: Clearly the Edwards campaign reads this blog.

Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis just issued a statement saying:

“While John Edwards was in rural Iowa yesterday talking about his plans to help family farmers, the Clinton campaign was in Washington, DC planning an event with the lobbyists from the biggest corporate agriculture company in the world. The difference between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton could not be more clear. Here’s some news for the Clinton campaign, when folks in rural Iowa talk about the problems with hog lots, they don't mean parking lots on K Street.

“John Edwards believes family-owned farms are critical to America’s future and that the corporate greed that’s killing the family farm is hurting America. Apparently, Hillary Clinton doesn’t feel the same way. While John Edwards has introduced policies to ensure family farmers can compete against big agribusiness, protect the food we eat and preserve farming communities, Hillary Clinton, beholden to Washington lobbyists, is tailoring her rural policy to reflect the needs of big agribusiness. While corporate America and lobbyists may want someone like Clinton in the White House, regular Americans are ready for someone who will stand up for them and fight for real change.”

Ouch.

UPDATE 3: Phil Singer with the Clinton campaign points out that Fortress Investments, the hedge fund Edwards used to work for, has invested in Monsanto. And one of Edwards’ top advisors, Peter Scher, is the managing partner for Mayer Brown, a firm that lobbies for Monsanto.

Singer says: "When Edwards was in the Senate, he frequently split from Hillary and supported the views of corporate agribusiness over family farms."

Singer adds, "In 2004, John Edwards said 'If you are looking for the candidate that will do the best job of attacking the other Democrats, I am not your guy.' But he’s become that guy now that his 2008 campaign has stalled."

October 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (39) | TrackBack (0)

Colberica

October 18, 2007 9:14 AM

One last note on Stephen Colbert's presidential candidacy -- HERE'S THE FREE VIDEO of our Nightline look at it all last night….

And for anyone interested, the video of Colbert as a Good Morning America reporter from way back when has indeed resurfaced -- HERE IT IS .

More in a bit --

jt

October 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Colbert 2008

October 17, 2007 9:58 PM

Here's the DOT-COM STORY on Colbert's candidacy and HERE'S THE FREE VIDEO.

cheers,

Jake

October 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Colbert for President!

October 17, 2007 2:28 PM

Trying to make World News and Nightline stories on this historic announcement worthy of the great man himself.

Suggestions?

-- jpt

October 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Republican Appeal

October 16, 2007 11:10 AM

I got a little face time with former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., yesterday for World News...(LINK) Thompson came into Manhattan to question the Republicanism of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Then on Good Morning America we took a look at the appeal -- in the legal sense -- offered this week by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, (DOT COM HERE and free video HERE).

What say you about all this?

-- jt

October 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Greengore

October 13, 2007 2:56 PM

Yes, congrats and kudos and mazal tov to former Vice President Al Gore for his Nobel Peace Prize and his commitment.

But let us also recall that as he ran for president in 2000 he downplayed his environmentalism, his consultants thinking it not electorally sage to emphasize on the stump.

Such a stance allowed Green Party candidate Ralph Nader an opening, of course, likely taking thousands of key votes from Gore in key states such as Florida. (Ahem.)

I remember covering Gore in 2000, it wasn't until the end of October, when the threat of Nader was apparent to all, that Gore gave a big speech on being green in Davenport, Iowa.

How it all played out is fascinating in retrospect.

"Now, I want to talk about the environment here today," Gore said standing on a fire truck with his jacket off.

"Now, look. Just today, we are seeing on television the new study that just comes out once ev'ry FAAAAHVE years where the scientific community around the world tells us what they've learned about this problem that these kids are gonna grow up with unless we do something and that's the problem of global warming."

Gore was referring to a United Nations report on global warming, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the same group that shared his Nobel with him this year -- that concluded it could get up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit hotter by the end of the century if greenhouse gases were not curtailed.

"We have a situation where the big polluters are supporting Gov. Bush and they are wanting to be in control of the environmental policy," Gore said, tearing into Texas' environmental rankings.

You may not be able to believe this, but at the time the Bush campaign responded by claiming that Bush was actually more of an environmentalist than Gore.

"There are only two candidates in this race who support a mandatory reduction of emissions from older power plants -- Gov. Bush and Ralph Nader," said then-Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett. "Environmental groups have harshly criticized Al Gore's record on global warming and deforestation, while Gov. Bush has offered a plan that will help protect the endangered tropical forests of Latin and South America."

Bartlett was able to cite a harsh critique of Gore from September 1999 by the Friends of the Earth PAC when the group endorsed Gore's then-opponent, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley. Calling Gore a "big disappointment," the organization "graded Gore on 16 areas of his signature issue, protection of the ozone layer" and awarded Gore a "D."

(Friends of the Earth said Gore was much better than Bush. "While we have had significant differences with the Clinton-Gore administration on some issues, there's a Grand Canyon-sized gulf of leadership between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush on the environment. If Bush is elected it will do significant and irreversible harm to the global environment," a spokesman told me.)

In Gore's speech he addressed global warming in the New Democrat shades that had aroused the wrath of Friends of the Earth.

He would perpetually describe a pending environmental apocalypse -- and then propose solutions that would be easy and fun and no big deal at all! He would say "let's pick the hard right over the easy wrong!" But then he wouldn't describe anything hard at all.

"An' I know a lotta people say that it looks like [global warming] is off in the future," Gore says. "But lemme tell you what this new study said ... Unless we act, the average temperature is gonna go up 10 or 11 degrees. The storms will get stronger, the weather patterns will change. But it does not have to happen. And it won't happen if we put our minds to solving this problem ... Here is the good news. If we take the leadership role that these kids have a right to expect us to play, we can create millions of good, new, high-paying jobs by building the new cars and trucks ... and technology to STOP the pollution and lift standards of living at the same time! ARE YA WITH ME?!"

"I laid out a plan this past summer that will create partnerships with the car companies and with the utilities and with the factories that will give tax breaks to get the new kind of technologies going," Gore says. "And we'll lead the world in those technologies and all over the rest of the world, they're wanting to buy these new kinds of technologies, and we're the ones that ought to be making them and selling them to the rest of the world."

Gore deserves credit for his work, for his passion. For his Nobel Peace Prize!

But in 2000 the Al Gore who talked about what to do about the environment was one who, environmentalists said at the time, didn't rear his head enough during the campaign. Who allowed a climate where the Bush campaign could even try to out-flank him on the Left. Who didn't really give straight talk about the kinds of sacrifices necessary.

One wonders what today's Gore would say about that Gore.

Perhaps more importantly, one wonders how the millions of voters who pulled the lever for Nader would have responded to the Gore of today.

What do you think?

- jpt

October 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (39) | TrackBack (0)

Podcast is up!

October 12, 2007 6:58 PM

Rudy is our guest, natch. Listen to our whole interview either on iTunes or HERE.

Have a great weekend!

-- jake

October 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Giuliani Gives Romney Some Advice

October 12, 2007 5:40 PM

Not that he'll take it. From the World News Webcast, WATCH HERE.

-- jt

October 12, 2007 in 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Did Hillary Flip-Flop?

October 12, 2007 1:48 PM

The Democrats in second and third place for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, united to call the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, a flip-flopper Friday. The subject, as is increasingly the case in the intense contest among the Democratic candidates, was foreign policy, specifically whether or not a U.S. President should agree to meet with the leader of Iran with no preconditions.

After criticizing Obama for such a stance in July, Clinton this week said, "here’s what I would do as president: I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions.”

"I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this," Obama said today in Des Moines, Iowa, assailing Clinton by name.

"The American people deserve a president who will tell them the truth and offer straight answers, not flip-flops and political double-speak," offered a spokesman for Edwards.

This debate began in July (LINK) during the Youtube debate when a Youtuber asked whether candidates would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Obama's response: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Clinton's response (LINK) “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.  I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

In an interview with the Quad City Times of Iowa, called Obama's answer "irresponsible and frankly naive."

But yesterday in an AP story she seemed to say the same thing, as quoted above.

So Obama today said, "a couple of months ago, Senator Clinton called me 'naïve and irresponsible' for taking this position, and said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn’t like. Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this. But I can tell you this: when I am President of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."

Obama also went on to criticize Clinton for supporting that Lieberman resolution on Iraq that he wasn't around to vote for, but says he opposes (More on that HERE and HERE)

And piling on is Edwards spox Chris Kofinis, saying: “Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans – but on everything from Iran to Iraq to Social Security, it seems she's trying to have it both ways. In July, she criticized those who said they would meet with the leaders of Iran for negotiations without preconditions, calling them ‘irresponsible’ and ‘naïve.’ But yesterday, she told New Hampshire voters she’d do just that – negotiate with Iran ‘with no conditions.’ Now, her spokesman suggests that’s not what she meant. But you can’t have it both ways – on this or any other issue.

“It is very disappointing that Senator Clinton seems determined to hedge her responses on the issues that matter most to the American people. After six years of the Bush Administration’s disastrous foreign policy, the stakes in this election are too high. The American people deserve a president who will tell them the truth and offer straight answers, not flip-flops and political double-speak.”

BUT WAIT!

The Clinton campaign says the AP story was wrong! That the line they excerpted "mischarcterized" her remarks.

"Senator Clinton did not say that the U.S. President should pre-commit to meetings with the leaders of Iran or other rogue states during the first year of her presidency," says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson."Rather, Senator Clinton was clearly referring to diplomacy between nations as she has repeatedly and consistently done for months. When Senator Clinton used the term 'no conditions,' she was referring to meetings between the United States government and Iran, not personal meetings with the President."

The Clinton campaign provides the whole transcript here (LINK)

Asked if it's acceptable for Iran to get the bomb, the junior senator from New York says "there is no doubt that we have got a difficult relationship with Iran. But here is what I would do as president. I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think it is misleading. We spent a couple of weeks paying all this attention to Ahmadinejad. He is a figurehead. He does not have the real power. The real power is held in the supreme leadership and the clerical leadership. They actually control the Iranian revolutionary guard. So I think we should engage in negotiations. And I want to have some leverage when we go into the negotiations.

"The Bush administration outsourced negotiations with Iran to the British, the French, and Germans, and nothing happened because everybody knew the United States was on the sidelines. I think we can gather information that is useful. That's what we did all through the Cold War. We never stopped talking to the Soviet Union. They had missiles pointed at us, they had leaders who said they would bury us, they ran wars against people. But we kept talking to them and gradually we acquired valuable information that assisted us in bringing about the end of the Soviet Union. ...I would negotiate with them. No conditions, but with some sticks that we could use to try to get leverage to move them in the direction we want."

Read the whole thing and tell me what you think. Is Clinton flip-flopping?

-- jpt 

NOTE: This entry was edited after I obtained the whole transcript of Clinton's remarks.

October 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Southern-Fried Rudy

October 12, 2007 8:23 AM

We interviewed the GOP frontrunner, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, for GMA this morning.

You can watch our spot