« February 2004 | Main | April 2004 »
March 31, 2004
Bought and Misguided
No question...Clarke was right. Bush and Rice were completely blowing off al qaeda in favor of missile defense, Iraq, and other diversions designed to line the pockets of their campaign contributors.
...This budget I submitted to Congress makes national defense a priority. I've asked Congress to provide the largest increase in military spending since Ronald Reagan was the President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
And to meet any dangers, our administration will begin building the military of the future. We must and we will make major investments in research and development. And we are committed to defending America and our allies against ballistic missile attacks, against weapons of mass destruction held by rogue leaders in rogue nations that hate America, hate our values and hate what we stand for.
We have a clear eye on foreign policy. We recognize it's a dangerous world. I know this nation still has enemies, and we cannot expect them to be idle. And that's why security is my first responsibility. And I will not permit any course that leaves America undefended. ...
--President Bush, San Antonio, TX, August 29, 2001 (link)
On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.
The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.
The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.
The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.
...
In April 2002, Rice followed through on her postponed Sept. 11 speaking engagement at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. But the speech she delivered did not contain any of the original text, former U.S. officials said.
In the revamped speech, Rice's focus was on the threat of international terrorists -- and missile defense was mentioned only once, almost in passing.
--Washington Post, 4/1/2004 (link)
Posted on 11:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 29, 2004
Kerry Needs Some Tech Help
I received an email from the Kerry campaign the other day, thanking me for my contribution. That's nice and I appreciate it, but can't we dump the HTML-based email? If you can't do that, then at least do it right, so that my HTML-aware text-based email client (yes, Pine) doesn't barf on it? You'd think these guys would try this kind of thing out before they blanket thousands of people with junky-looking email. Its so unprofessional that it embarrasses me to have given them money.
Here's what I see in Pine (email changes are mine):
From: John Kerry
Reply-To: John Kerry <[snip] (at) activate.johnkerry.com>
To: [snip]
Subject: A Big Thank You from John Kerry
Parts/Attachments:
1 OK ~49 lines Text
2 Shown ~94 lines Text
----------------------------------------
BODY { FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,tahoma,helvetica;
color : #333333; MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; }
TD { FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,tahoma,helvetica; color
: #333333; } h1, h2, h3, h4 { font-weight: bold; } h1 { font-size: 18px;
padding-bottom: 19px; } h2 { font-size: 16px; padding-bottom: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px } h3 { font-size: 18px; padding-bottom: 19px; } h4 {
font-size: 16px; padding-bottom: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px }
From the Desk of John Kerry
Dear ...,
This March, you broke every grassroots fundraising record in the book! In the past ten days alone, we've raised over $10.3 million dollars, and we're still counting. Thank you for your help in making our "$10 Million in 10 Days" campaign a huge success. I'm honored and humbled by your support, and I intend to continue to earn your trust every day -- now, and as your President.
[snip decent looking text]
Thanks for standing with me. I will continue to stand and fight for you every day.
Warm regards,
John Kerry
www.johnkerry.com forward this email to friend(s)
[FORM]
using this feature will insure that the current formatting is maintained
multiple email addresses should be separated by commas
We apologize if you received this message in error. Click here to
unsubscribe from our mailing list.
Contributions or gifts to John Kerry for President, Inc. are not
deductible for federal income tax purposes.
National Headquarters: 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20005, U.S.A.
Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.
[t?c=67817&r=304&l=6823&t=10&s=40345296] [sf?r=304&l=6823&s=40345296&f=2]
The news is inded good news, of course. Hey Kerry, if you need help, drop me a line and we'll talk. Oh, and don't even get me started about the quality of their HTML...
Posted on 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Times Wakes Up?
In the NY Times today:
The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.
[...]
The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda.
In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke recounts that the president pulled him and several other aides into the White House Situation Room on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, and instructed them "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.
Mr. Bush answered: "I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred," according to Mr. Clarke's account. Mr. Clarke added in later interviews that he felt he was being intimidated to find a link between the attacks and Iraq.
Last week, the White House said it had no record that Mr. Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. Although administration officials stopped short of denying the account, they used it to cast doubt on Mr. Clarke's credibility as they sought to debunk the charge that the administration played down the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks and worried instead about Iraq.
(emphasis is mine)
Perhaps the Times might be actually waking up and reporting the news. That the White House says one thing one week and totally makes a 180 the next is news. I'm glad they finally agree. I think the only thing I'd prefer to change is the headline to "White House Admits President Asked Aide to Explore Iraq Link to 9/11", but I guess I might be getting greedy.
I urge you to read the rest of the article as its a decent summary of yesterday's events. Yeah, I cut out Condi's rebuttal with that [...] but its just lies anyway.
Posted on 12:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 23, 2004
The Case Against Edwards for VP
I was an early fan of John Edwards to win the democratic nomination. His performance in the run-up to Iowa revealed him as a skilled communicator in the style of Clinton. I felt at the time (and still do) that his being a strong communicator would draw the votes of independents, and would help him differentiate himself from the incumbent.
After watching Edwards a few more times I became less enamored with his one-issue, unwavering stump speech, but he never lost that ability to communicate clearly.
There has been a lot of call for Kerry to select Edwards as his VP. Edwards came in 2nd in the primaries. He's from the south. He balances the ticket. Etc., etc. Supporters of this idea think he would draw in votes that Kerry would otherwise lose.
The time has clearly come for the Kerry campaign to add some more warm bodies to take it to the Bush administration. I have my own problems with Kerry taking a vacation in the middle of a political dogfight for the future of this country. But regardless of when he decides to come to his senses, he needs more people supporting him.
Look at the media in the last two days since the Clarke interview. You've had Rice, Rumsfeld, McClellan, Cheney, Powell, Bartlett and now Bush defending the administration against Clarke's charges. On the other side, you've got Clarke, and thankfully, Daschle. While we certainly need Kerry (see my last blog entry), we need some more people joining this fight.
And that's where my argument against Edwards stems from. He's clearly not the guy to get down and dirty with scathing critiques of Bush's idiocy. He's not the person to lay the blame for 3000 American deaths at Bush's door. He won't be comfortable dispelling the myths that Bush was a great leader after 9/11.
Whomever Kerry picks needs to fulfill the role of unapologetic Bush critic. That's why I think Clarke might fit the bill. Clearly, Edwards is just too nice a guy to fight these republican dogs.
Update (3/23, 11:39p): Another poll out has Bush in the lead again. With Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission tomorrow, it will be the Bushies worst nightmare. Kerry needs to get on this now now now.
Posted on 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 22, 2004
Some Freebies for the Senator
What is wrong with this guy? From the Post:
Change the tone? What the? The most scathing, revealing interview about Bush comes out yesterday and today Kerry wants to change the tone? Its time to get off the slopes and fight back, John.
Here's a press conference script for you (no charge):
Kerry: When the nation's leading counter-terrorism official, who served in that capacity for four presidents since Reagan says that President Bush blew off the al qaeda threat from day 1 while he concentrated on Iraq, people should demand an explanation. When Clarke says that he couldn't get a meeting together on the impending attack because everyone was too busy, the american people should ask why? When Clarke says that on 9/12 that Bush practically told him to fabricate a reason to bomb Iraq when he knew they had nothing to do with it--that should lead the congress to call for impeachment.
Q. But what about the White House's charge that he's just angry over being demoted?
Kerry: The question isn't whether Clarke is angry--of course he's angry. His warnings went ignored, his urgent memos tossed aside. The real question is why did Bush downgrade the position of counter-terrorism advisor? I'll tell you why...because this president was so irresponsible that it didn't matter what the truth was. He was determined to make sure that nothing Clinton supported during his term would be continued. Not jobs, not a healthy economy, not peace, and certainly not a heightened alert for terrorism and a hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Q. Senator, the White House suggests that he's just got a grudge to bear.
Kerry: Look, there are no secrets about what this administration will do to those who cross them. Look at Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Look at Paul O'Neil. Look at what happened with Medicare. Do you really think that Richard Clarke expected anything less than he's getting? Would anyone set out to tell this story unless they thought it had to be told? Perhaps it will sell a few books, but it stands to ruin the rest of his career.
You see, this administration knows that it doesn't tell the truth. It knows its full of lies. Its just trying to hold it all together until November. By that point they won't care if the whole things falls wide open because it will be too late for the American people.
Q. They suggest maybe he's just lobbying for a job with your administration?
Kerry: Well, he sure has my attention if that was his goal. I need someone on my team who understands the urgency of the terrorist threat against this country. I need someone who is willing to stand up for what they believe in--for what they know is true and just. The country needs someone like Richard Clarke, and so do I. The Vice Presidential nomination is his if its a job he's looking for.
Really, Senator, take it. You don't even have to quote me.
Ok, how about it--Clarke for VP? Wouldn't that send a statement? The Bush administration thinks this guy is a liar, but Kerry needs someone with honor and integrity that stands up for themself. I haven't seen this suggested anywhere else, but I'll give this idea away for free too.
Seriously. Kerry needs to get back on the offensive and give up this stupid idea of "changing the tone." The Bushies will never change the tone--they will beat Kerry down with their $200 million in TV ads before anyone even hears Kerry's sweet nothings.
Posted on 11:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 21, 2004
Bush Deserves Blame for 9/11
As if on cue from my last post, Billmon over at Whiskey Bar has posted a great original script for a Kerry campaign commercial. Cmon, Kerry, hire these bloggers! Or at least rip them off.
Most of this is stemming from Richard Clarke's upcoming book on the failures of the Bush administration to address the terrorism situation when they came into office. This quote from Paul Wolfowitz in April of 2001 sums it up:
The Bush administration wasn't just caught off guard, they were deliberately blowing off the al qaeda threat in favor of missle defense and ousting Saddam. Don't forget that in the summer of 2001 that Bush's numbers were in the doldrums, and things weren't looking good at all. These guys already had a war planned to payback the campaign contributors and to change the subject.
Do you wonder why Bush didn't want the 9/11 commission at all? Then, when he reluctantly agreed, he obstructs its access to documents? Then he won't let Condi testify in public. Then he wouldn't speak for more than an hour? These guys have major failures to hide.
Kerry needs to talk about this. Talk about the lies. Talk about the failures. If this was done right, my grandma could get elected over Bushco.
Posted on 05:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 20, 2004
Its his credibility, stupid
I don't link that often to other blogs because everybody reads the popular blogs anyway, but if you haven't read today's entry by Josh Marshall, you should. Its a great analysis of the campaign strategies of Kerry and Bush so far, and it lays out how poorly Kerry has done in the last week or two.
Over the last two weeks I've certainly felt like Kerry gave up. I think a lot of his problems started when he all of the sudden refused to relentlessly stand behind any previous statement of his. So he said the republicans are lying crooks? They are! Say so, say it again and again. Give examples. Everybody knows they're crooks, so don't back off that statement. So he said other leaders (not foreign leaders as first reported) want him elected? Say it again! Don't back off. Its true. Its obvious. Nobody will think he's wrong. Come right out and say that he won't reveal private conversations, but that its obvious the world hates Bush and is cringing just as much as we are at the thought of another four more years of this crap.
Bush never tells the truth. He's practically incapable of it. Remember the mushroom clouds?
--George W. Bush, October 7, 2002, Cincinatti
Its the politics of fear. Its the politics of lie so much that nobody even knows where to start. Its time to start. Its time to start telling everybody you know, anybody you can find about the latest Bush lie. Or heck, start cataloging old ones and publish them on street corners. This administration took us to war on a long line of lies, and they continue to keep us there with them.
A nice index to the lies surrounding the war has been produced by congressman Henry Waxman at Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq. This might be a place to start.
I suppose it's easy to sit back and criticize from the sidelines, but I don't see why its that hard from any vantage point. The only answer to this 200 million dollar Bush machine is to fight back every step of the way, every day. Instead, Kerry goes skiing. He hasn't had a day off in three months? I don't care--neither have I. Neither have lots of people.
You have to wonder...why doesn't the Kerry campaign just go out and hire all these bloggers to consult with the campaign? Some of these people are really thoughtful and have great ideas on how to fight back. They generate compelling analyses of the various topics. They don't have any problem uncovering lie after lie.
I hope somebody in the Kerry campaign is at least reading all of these blogs. The bloggers are clear--Bush lies. Lets talk about it. Make it the central issue. Push it hard enough, and everything else will get drowned out.
Posted on 12:41 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 18, 2004
WICD-TV Slants Coverage of UIUC Student Referendum
This piece was originally written for the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center's newswire (permalink to the story here). Some background for those not local to Urbana-Champaign: the University of Illinois' sports mascot is a native american caricature named "Chief Illiniwek." A movement has been growing for years to oust the racist symbol, but the politically-appointed board of trustees has refused to vote on it since affirming the mascot in 1990. For more information on this issue, I suggest the following: In Whose Honor--an excellent documentary on the subject, the Progressive Resource Coalition's anti-chief page, and the Honor the Chief Society's website.
The symbol is so divisive that the University's chancellor, Nancy Cantor, finally took a job at Syracuse after enduring several rounds of billboards around town urging "Retire Cantor, Retain the Chief."
---
Tonight on their 10pm local newscast, WICD, the local NBC television affiliate failed to report the basic facts of the recent student referendum vote on whether or not students wanted to retain the chief as the official symbol of the university. WICD reported that the students "overwhelmingly support" keeping the chief. They interviewed the winning student trustee who ran on his support of the racist symbol. Finally, they mentioned that anti-chief groups would not be deterred and interviewed someone who said they would continue to fight against the symbol.
What they failed to mention was the actual vote, which was 9161 in favor, 4027 against. In other words, over 30% of the students voted against keeping the racist symbol.
An objective observer might consider 4000 students voting to retire the "unifying symbol" of the university newsworthy. One might think the local television station might want to mention the actual vote. A listener to this broadcast wouldn't even have known if anyone had voted against the chief at all.
Perhaps they couldn't spare the extra 8 seconds it would take to accurately convey the whole story because then they wouldn't have been able to spend so much time on the other clips in the broadcast. These all important clips included the following: the weather, the Illini basketball team's progress in the NCAA tournament, a segment on migraine headches, some playful chatty banter about girl scout cookies, and a pre-packaged opinion piece critical of Moveon.org and ACT, two organizations that support a change in Washington this November.
This last segment, a commentary dressed up to look like it might have been produced locally, is actually the opinion of Mark Hyman, the "Vice President for Corporate Relations for Sinclair, the nation’s largest operator of television stations." Sinclair has been called the Clear Channel of television news because of its style of producing news content centrally, and then distributing it to "local" news organizations which pass it off as local news.
Of course, these "local" stations are no longer local--they are simply local fronts for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of WICD 15. According to their website, "Sinclair owns, operates, programs or provides sales and services to 62 television stations in 39 markets. Sinclair's television group reaches approximately 24% of US television households and includes ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB and UPN affiliates." According to Wes Vernon at Newsmax.com, Sinclair "says it's tired of left-leaning news reporting and wants to offer Americans a fair and balanced perspective, just as Fox News Channel does."
Perhaps Sinclair ought to reprimand WICD for its slanted reporting since they are so interested in a fair and balanced perspective.
If you are dismayed by this biased coverage, I encourage you to contact Ray Wilck, WICD's news director to complain at 217-351-8500, or news (at) wicd15.com. You might also drop a line to Mark Hyman telling him how much you like his commentary. You could also call Sinclair Broadcast Group at 410-568-1500 and encourage them to produce balanced stories.
For more info:
WICD
Chief Vote Results
Mark Hyman bio
Commentary on Sinclair from TV Barn
Sinclair's website
See also:
It's Official: The "Chief" No Longer Symbol of Unity
Posted on 11:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 17, 2004
Oops
Well, not that the Bushies don't lie on a regular basis, but what isn't so normal is for the press to call them on it when it happens. It happened last Sunday on Face the Nation, when Rumsfeld tried to claim that the "imminent threat" propoganda spouted by Bush and friends for over a year was just folklore--it never happened.
Moveon.Org decided to make a commercial out of it, and it rocks.
I expect we'll start to see more of this type of thing over the next few months, as the press gets more comfortable with the potential for Bush to lose in November.
Posted on 10:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Say No More
John Kerry visits the bookstore and most likely also reads the books he buys. Do you need any additional information that distinguishes him from Bush that will encourage you to vote for him?
Sorry I've been away for a while...I have been unbelieveably busy at work. Usually it just takes my days and bits of my evenings and weekends, but over the last 2-3 weeks its taken my days and *all* of my time on evenings and weekends.
I keep up by reading a few other blogs out there, including TPM, kos, atrios, calpundit, billmon, and goddard.
I also keep up by checking some blog indexers occasionally, including blogdex, daypop, and a new one, blogrunner. These sites read the XML feeds off of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of blogs many times each day, and catalogs all kinds of interesting things, including the most-linked links amongst the blogs, the most linked blogs by other blogs, etc. Its a good way to catch a new site on the web that people are reading but that the press isn't reporting.
Posted on 02:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 06, 2004
Revised Downward
The February jobs numbers that came out Friday just don't make any sense. Unemployment "held steady" at 5.6%, while the number of new jobs created were a paltry 21,000. In general, economists think 150,000 new jobs are needed every month to keep up with population growth (frankly, this number always freaks me out--are we really having that many babies?). In January, 97,000 were created (supposedly...I'll get to that in a minute).
Ok, so 150,000 minus 21,000 is 129,000 people who weren't looking for a job in January but needed to find one in February, but couldn't find one. Wouldn't that add to the unemployment numbers? The reported answer is that the number didn't go up because so many people got so discouraged that they stopped looking for work.
Uh, excuse me, but wouldn't you call these people who can't find a job unemployed? I would. Also, that 97,000 number I mentioned was actually originally reported as 112,000--it was later "revised downward." "Revised downard" is one of those great new terms to come out of the Bush administration. Announce a number that is way better than reality, give a speech about how things are getting better, then, when nobody is paying attention, revise those numbers downward. How about giving the right numbers right up front? Or, imagine this, waiting until you have the right numbers to report them?
Let's see, if they were off by 15,000 jobs last month, then maybe this month there were only 6,000 jobs added. In December, it was originally reported as 16,000, only to be revised downward to 8,000 later, and eventually to 1,000.
On March 4, Bush gave a speech where he said:
Well, lets check his math.
February, '04: initial: 21,000, revised: TBA
January, '04: initial: 112,000, revised: 97,000
December, '03: initial: 16,000, revised: 1,000
November, '03: initial: 57,000, revised: 43,000
October, '03: initial: 126,000, revised: 100,000
After revisions, you get 262,000 jobs in the last five months. Heck, even before revisions you get 332,000. (For a comparison, Clinton averaged 248,000/month during his administration.) Nevermind the fact that just to keep up with all those new eighteen-year-olds, you need an average of 150k/month, or 750,000 over the last five months. Obviously, Bush just figured he'd fib a little, get a nice headline, and nobody would notice.
Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Now don't forget to revise that answer downward next month.
Posted on 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 04, 2004
$1.5 million---Our President Hard at Work
I doubt anyone is surprised that Bush is politicizing 9/11 for the purposes of his reelection campaign, although I wonder if Bushco is surprised by its negative front-page coverage on major news sites.
However, the most disturbing thing I read in an article on the subject was this:
That's $1.5 million in 2 days. Bush has about $100 million in the bank. Kerry is in the hole for $5 million. That's an unbelievable difference. It was enough to push me to give to Kerry. Perhaps it will be for you too.
Posted on 11:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 02, 2004
Gimme Back my AK-47
The democrats managed to head off an NRA (er, GOP) bill aimed at immunizing the gun industry from lawsuits today. They managed to pass two amendments to the bill before the final vote--one reauthorizing the assault weapons ban that is about to expire, and the other closing the so-called gun show loophole. The weapons ban is known to have reduced their use in crimes by two-thirds. The gun show loophole allows any convicted murderer to pickup a semiautomatic and a box of ammo at any gunshow without a background check.
Once these two terrible amendments had been added, the bill's sponsor declared it "so wounded that it should not pass." The NRA had been pressuring senators since the minute the amendments passed.
So let me get this straight. The right is so controlled by the gun lobby that they wouldn't pass a law immunizing the gun industry from liability lawsuits because they're too afraid of giving up the option of selling machine guns to convicted criminals at gun shows without a background check? Unbelievable.
Bush has previously said that he supports the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban, but obviously he wasn't expecting to see it on his desk. "Some are simply more interested in undermining that piece of legislation than they are in necessarily getting the other legislation passed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said today. No Scott, its called democracy.
The democrats (and many republicans too) should be proud of this vote. Even Kerry and Edwards both showed up to cast their first votes of the year. This immunization law should never have come up in the first place. Can you name any other industry that has blanket immunity from liability lawsuits? Now, even if you could think of one (you can't because there aren't any), does their product have any use besides killing people?
Incidentally, this bill was foreshadowed in a great book by Richard North Patterson titled "Balance of Power", which I mentioned in a previous article. If you're interested in the NRA's control over the congress, gun issues specifically, and politics in general, I highly recommend the book.
Posted on 05:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 01, 2004
A U.S Coup D'état in Haiti?
Democracy Now has a long story outlining former Haitian president Aristide's claims that he was forced out of the country by armed US military forces. Congress members Rangel and Waters say they have spoken to Aristide personally, and that he has confirmed as much. The White House has a typical denial in today's briefing. By typical, I mean that McClellan never really says "we did not kidnap Aristide and force him out." Here's an example:
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just answered Terry's question to that effect. As I said, it's nonsense. And conspiracy theories like that do nothing to help the Haitian people realize the future that they aspire to -- which is a better future, a more free future, and a more prosperous future. We took steps to protect Mr. Aristide. We took steps to protect his family as they departed Haiti. It was Mr. Aristide's decision to resign, and he spelled out his reasons why.
Q Yes, but there were some third-party reports that were coming out of Haiti, which could be specious, as they go up the telephone chain, but this is coming directly from Aristide. What do you think he's up to here? Is he trying to save face?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't speak for Mr. Aristide, I speak for the President and this administration.
Q Are you denying -- are you denying that he was kidnapped?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I just said it's complete nonsense. (Laughter.)
Q Why don't you just say it didn't -- it's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just did. I just said it's complete nonsense.
He just will not say "The United States did not kidnap Aristide. We had no forcible involvement in his leaving the country." Instead, he says "its complete nonsense." I guess this is so that he can argue the "its" someday if he has to.
This is all irrespective of how Haiti got here over the last week. Aristide was a democratically-elected president in Haiti, and a lot of people in this country think the U.S. should have supported his staying in power instead of sitting idly by--until the moment he left, when Bush finally sent in troops. Now add in the charge that Aristide and it all starts sounding really fishy. What it adds up to, I don't know, but lets see if the media keeps this alive or lets the White House drive the story.
Whiskey Bar and Daily Kos also have stories up on this.
Posted on 09:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Why Edwards Will Lose
Pretty much no question at this point that Edwards will not win the nomination. Unless the polls for super Tuesday are way off, he's going to get creamed in the delegate-rich states.
I first became interested in Edwards a good bit before the primary season got underway, because I came across his book, titled "Four Trials," which chronicles four different court cases in which he participated as an attorney. The first case is a rather moving account of a medical neglicence suit where his client was given an overdose of medication that turned him from a trying-to-recover alchoholic into a paraplegic, unable-to-talk, wheelchair-bound mess. At trial, his first big one as I recall, he tried the case well enough to elicit a $750k settlement offer from the doctor's insurance company. He was told by the judge that he was crazy if he didn't take it, because South Carolina juries never awarded money in these types of cases. Everyone else he knew thought he should take it. His client, a working-class guy, thought this was wonderful news and was happy to take it.
But something didn't sit with Edwards about this. He knew that $750k wasn't enough to care for this man for the rest of his life...not even close. He finally told his client all of this, and explained the risk he would be taking if he declined the settlement (high chance of no money at all). The client, who could only communicate by typing on a keyboard, finally told Edwards "I trust you"-- and now his life was in Edwards' hands. This, understandably, scared Edwards to death, and left him wondering how he, who no matter what would go on to the next case and keep living his life, could or should really have this much control over someone else's fate.
For those wondering what happened, the jury came back with a verdict of $2.x million--the largest at that time in any case in the state for that type of case. The story was well-told, and really kept me on the edge of my seat in the bookstore, and I quickly relayed the emotional narrative to my friends. We sat around and talked about Edwards, and how someone who shared their fears and interests like this might not be such a bad choice for President.
So what does any of this have to do with him losing the nomination? Well, Edwards wrote an opinion piece in the NY Times today that is a retelling of this story, with the theme that the country should "trust him," just as this client chose to. That people have put their trust in him before, and that they will soon, and that you should now.
There are two problems with the op-ed, and they are both indicative of larger problems for the Senator and his bid for the presidency.
First, the re-telling of this story is not very well done...he does not provide the same sort of suspense that I think even I did above (read the article and see what you think). And for someone who has depended so heavily on the retelling of a small number of stories, he needs to get better at it. Certainly I'm not the only one to notice that Edwards' stump speech is generally invariable, and that for those who hear it more than a couple times, it grows boring and worrisome. When he's at his best, his speech is reminiscent of Clinton--he becomes someone who knows what he's talking about, knows how you hear it, and thus knows how to talk to everyone about it. But different than Clinton, he isn't able to wax so eloquently on any and every topic that comes across his desk...he's limited to just a few.
Second, is that he hasn't given people enough reason to just trust him given his lack of experience. People can "just trust" people with vision, but for people without great vision, they need history--some evidence of where they might go and what they might do, based on where they've been and what they've done.
The second problem is compounded by the first of course. I was willing to toss his lack of experience to the wind after the first few stories and first few speeches, but no longer. Had he shown vision, or maybe even a different story (heck, I only read the first one in the book before returning it to the shelf--he could have just used the second in the book!) I might be more sympathetic.
When he loses tomorrow, he should drop out and do his best to join Kerry as the VP. He brings a strong character to the ticket, and has that most important of all skills for almost any job, but especially for politics--the ability to communicate. However, just as an utter lack of communication skills doesn't totally disqualify one to "win" the presidency (Bush is a great example), communication skills as one's primary substantive skill doesn't guarantee it.
Posted on 09:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack