MICHAEL O. ALLEN

Menu
Tag

Clinton

“Special relationship” with one side

By HomepageNo Comments

Obama got a birds-eye view of the Holy Land with Livni, right, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak
newsweek

If Obama Is Serious He should get tough with Israel by Aaron David Miller, NEWSWEEK, from the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009
Jews worry for a living; their tragic history compels them to do so. In the next few years, there will be plenty to worry about, particularly when it comes to Israel. The current operation in Gaza won’t do much to ease these worries or to address Israel’s longer-term security needs. The potential for a nuclear Iran, combined with the growing accuracy and lethality of Hamas and Hizbullah rockets, will create tremendous concern. Anxiety may also be provoked by something else: an Obama administration determined to repair America’s image and credibility and to reach a deal in the Middle East.
Don’t get me wrong. Barack Obama—as every other U.S. president before him—will protect the special relationship with Israel. But the days of America’s exclusive ties to Israel may be coming to an end. Despite efforts to sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it’s serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
The departure point for a viable peace deal—either with Syria or the Palestinians—must not be based purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the requirements of all sides. The new president seems tougher and more focused than his predecessors; he’s unlikely to become enthralled by either of Israel’s two leading candidates for prime minister—centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, or Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, if it’s the latter, he may well find himself (like Clinton) privately frustrated with Netanyahu’s tough policies. Unlike Clinton, if Israeli behavior crosses the line, he should allow those frustrations to surface publicly in the service of American national interests.

January 12, 2009
Love0

Uri Avnery’s peace proposal

By HomepageNo Comments

MEMO FOR OBAMA ON ISRAEL

For: the President-Elect, Mr. Barack Obama.

From: Uri Avnery, Israel.

The following humble suggestions are based on my 70 years of experience as an underground fighter, special forces soldier in the 1948 war, editor-in-chief of a newsmagazine, member of the Knesset and founding member of a peace movement:

-1- As far as Israeli-Arab peace is concerned, you should act from Day One.

-2- Israeli elections are due to take place in February 2009. You can have an indirect but important and constructive impact on the outcome, by announcing your unequivocal determination to achieve Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-all-Arab peace in 2009.

-3- Unfortunately, all your predecessors since 1967 have played a double game. While paying lip service to peace, and sometimes going through the motions of making some effort for peace, they have in practice supported our governments in moving in the very opposite direction. In particular, they have given tacit approval to the building and enlargement of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories, each of which is a land mine on the road to peace.

-4- All the settlements are illegal in international law. The distinction sometimes made between “illegal” outposts and the other settlements is a propaganda ploy designed to obscure this simple truth.

-5- All the settlements since 1967 have been built with the express purpose of making a Palestinian state – and hence peace – impossible, by cutting the territory of the prospective State of Palestine into ribbons. Practically all our government departments and the army have openly or secretly helped to build, consolidate and enlarge the settlements – as confirmed by the 2005 report prepared for the government (!) by Lawyer Talia Sasson.

-6- By now, the number of settlers in the West Bank has reached some 250,000 (apart from the 200,000 settlers in the Greater Jerusalem area, whose status is somewhat different.) They are politically isolated, and sometimes detested by the majority of the Israel public, but enjoy significant support in the army and government ministries.

-7- No Israeli government would dare to confront the concentrated political and material might of the settlers. Such a confrontation would need very strong leadership and the unstinting support of the President of the United States to have any chance of success.

-8- Lacking these, all “peace negotiations” are a sham. The Israeli government and its US backers have done everything possible to prevent the negotiations with both the Palestinians and the Syrians from reaching any conclusion, for fear of provoking a confrontation with the settlers and their supporters. The present “Annapolis” negotiations are as hollow as all the preceding ones, each side keeping up the pretense for its own political interests.

-9- The Clinton administration, and even more so the Bush administration, allowed the Israeli government to keep up this pretense. It is therefore imperative to prevent members of these administrations from diverting your Middle Eastern policy into the old channels.

-10- It is important for you to make a complete new start, and to state this publicly. Discredited ideas and failed initiatives – such as the Bush “vision”, the Road Map, Annapolis and the like – should by thrown into the junkyard of history.

-11- To make a new start, the aim of American policy should be stated clearly and succinctly. This should be: to achieve a peace based on the Two-State Solution within a defined time-span (say by the end of 2009).

-12- It should be pointed out that this aim is based on a reassessment of the American national interest, in order to extract the poison from American-Arab and American-Muslim relations, strengthen peace-oriented regimes, defeat al-Qaeda-type terrorism, end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and achieve a viable accommodation with Iran.

-13- The terms of Israeli-Palestinian peace are clear. They have been crystallized in thousands of hours of negotiations, conferences, meetings and conversations. They are:

13.1 A sovereign and viable State of Palestine will be established side by side with the State of Israel.

13.2 The border between the two states will be based on the pre-1967 Armistice Line (the “Green Line”). Insubstantial alterations can be arrived at by mutual agreement on an exchange of territories on a 1:1 basis.

13.3 East Jerusalem, including the Haram-al-Sharif (“Temple Mount”) and all Arab neighborhoods will serve as the capital of Palestine. West Jerusalem, including the Western Wall and all Jewish neighborhoods, will serve as the capital of Israel. A joint municipal authority, based on equality, may be established by mutual consent to administer the city as one territorial unit.

13.4 All Israeli settlements – except any which might be joined to Israel in the framework of a mutually agreed exchange of territories – will be evacuated (see 15 below).

13.5 Israel will recognize in principle the right of the refugees to return. A Joint Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, composed of Palestinian, Israeli and international historians, will examine the events of 1948 and 1967 and determine who was responsible for what. Each individual refugee will be given the choice between (1) repatriation to the State of Palestine, (2) remaining where he/she is living now and receiving generous compensation, (3) returning to Israel and being resettled, (4) emigrating to any other country, with generous compensation. The number of refugees who will return to Israeli territory will be fixed by mutual agreement, it being understood that nothing will be done that materially alters the demographic composition of the Israeli population. The large funds needed for the implementation of this solution must be provided by the international community in the interest of world peace. This will save much of the money spent today on military expenditure and direct grants from the US.

13.6 The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip constitute one national unit. An extraterritorial connection (road, railway, tunnel or bridge) will connect the West Bank with the Gaza Strip.

13.7 Israel and Syria will sign a peace agreement. Israel will withdraw to the pre-1967 line and all settlements on the Golan Heights will be dismantled. Syria will cease all anti-Israeli activities conducted directly or by proxy. The two parties will establish normal relations between them.

13.8 In accordance with the Saudi Peace Initiative, all member states of the Arab League will recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it. Talks about a future Middle Eastern Union, on the model of the EU, possibly to include Turkey and Iran, may be considered.

-14- Palestinian unity is essential for peace. Peace made with only one section of the people is worthless. The US will facilitate Palestinian reconciliation and the unification of Palestinian structures. To this end, the US will end its boycott of Hamas, which won the last elections, start a political dialogue with the movement and encourage Israel to do the same. The US will respect any result of democratic Palestinian elections.

-15- The US will aid the government of Israel in confronting the settlement problem. As from now, settlers will be given one year to leave the occupied territories voluntarily in return for compensation that will allow them to build their homes in Israel proper. After that, all settlements – except those within any areas to be joined to Israel under the peace agreement – will be evacuated.

-16- I suggest that you, as President of the United States, come to Israel and address the Israeli people personally, not only from the rostrum of the Knesset but also at a mass rally in Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt came to Israel in 1977, and, by addressing the Israeli people directly, completely changed their attitude towards peace with Egypt. At present, most Israelis feel insecure, uncertain and afraid of any daring peace initiative, partly because of a deep distrust of anything coming from the Arab side. Your personal intervention, at the critical moment, could literally do wonders in creating the psychological basis for peace.

This article was published in the current issue of the progressive Jewish-American monthly TIKKUN.

January 4, 2009
Love0

Presumption

By HomepageNo Comments

I have no problem whatsoever with Caroline Kennedy being named to the United States Senate seat from New York that Hillary Clinton will be vacating if she is confirmed as the new Secretary of State. In fact, I could offer a couple of powerful argument why Ms. Kennedy should be named (and I will later in this post) but an artist friend, Zina Saunders, sent me this piece that I could not resist posting:

Her Highn… I Mean, Senator Caroline Kennedy (by Zina Saunders, December 26th, 2008)

There’s been a lot of talk lately about Caroline Kennedy’s quest for the Senate seat being left vacant by Hillary Clinton. Questions have been raised about Kennedy’s qualifications and experience and financial entanglements …to read more, go here and here.

Caroline Kennedy’s bid is audacious, sure, and carries a certain presumptuousness that I think Ms. Saunders sought to puncture in this art. I love the piece. It is great, especially her depiction of the putative kingmakers, the Rev. Al and Uncle Moneybags. But her audacity is precisely the reason why I think Ms.Kennedy should be named to this seat. She has the stature to be presumptuous, to expect that the seat would be handed to her.

Yes, some of the people handling Ms. Kennedy’s bid have made missteps, including the efforts to strong-arm some political leaders to jump on-board. They need to show some class. But I blame New York Gov. David Paterson for most of the backlash that is beginning to build against Ms. Kennedy. The governor is outspoken and plainspoken and, often, that is part of his charm. Not in this case. Paterson has appeared, at times, petulant.  with reporters when discussing Ms. Kennedy’s bid. He needs to show some class.

Any of New York’s political class who gets the nod, Andrew Cuomo included, would come into the role with a tremendous status gap that the 51-year-old daughter of a martyred president of the United States has never known since the day she was born and would never suffer from as long as she lives.

Who could better serve the interest of New Yorkers? A woman who comes the closest to being America’s royalty, or some sweaty New York politician? Yeah, Chuck Schumer is great and Al D’Amato was, whatever, but it should not be that hard. I can understand wanting to puncture the kind of presumptuousness that attend to people like Caroline Kennedy, certainly. It can be unbecoming.

But Ms. Kennedy brings to her bid a record of public service equal to, if not better than, that of many who have sought the office.

When our carpet-bagging First Lady, Hillary Clinton, first sought the office, was she really that much more qualified than Caroline Kennedy is now? No. I believe New Yorkers start out way ahead with Caroline as their United States senator.

December 26, 2008
Love0

“I want to gather talents from everywhere”

By HomepageOne Comment
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv7K8S4kGQM[/youtube]

Moderator: Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton’s former national security advisor, state department policy advisor and Navy secretary, among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisors and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you’re promising voters.

Much laughter, including Mrs. Hillary Clinton distinctive laugh before she offered this crack.

Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton: I want to hear that.

Candidate Barack Obama: Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well.

Much applause.

Sen. Obama, with a big smile on his face, continued as the applause rolled: I want to gather up talent from everywhere. You know, we haven’t talked too much about the war but one of the points that I’ve tried to make during the course of this year during the campaign is I want to change the mindset that got us into war because I think that, since 9/11, we’ve had a president who essentially fed us a politics of fear and distorted our foreign policy in profound ways. I think that there are a lot of good people in the Clinton years, in the Carter years, George Bush I, who understand that our military power is just one component of our power, and I revere what our military does. I will do whatever it takes, as commander-in-chief, to keep the American people safe but I know that part of making us safe is restoring our respect in the world and I think those who are advising me agree with that. Part of the agenda that we’re putting forward in terms of talking not just to our friends but also to our enemies, initiating contacts with Muslim leaders around the world, doubling our efforts in terms of foreign aid, all those are designed to create long term security by creating long-term prosperity around the world.

And so it has come to pass, that little noted exchange during a debate in Iowa has largely come true. On stage that day almost a year ago were Obama, HRC, Sen. Joe Biden, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and former Senator John Edwards. Well, Biden is now the Vice-President, Richardson is Commerce Secretary, and HRC is Secretary of State.

Only Edwards, who disgraced himself by having an affair on his cancer-stricken wife, did not make the cut.

They are calling it a “Team of Rivals.”

Obama, as he has resolutely built his administration with people recognized as stalwarts in their fields, says he’s simply gathering the very best talent available to lead America. We may quibble (my views on HRC are very well known) on some of the names, but it is clear that the President-elect (God, how I love writing that!) knows very well where he wants to lead the nation and how.

December 1, 2008
Love0

Another inauguration morning

By HomepageNo Comments

Inaugural Poem, 20 January 1993

On the Pulse of the Morning
by Maya Angelou

A Rock, A River, A Tree
Hosts to species long since departed,
Marked the mastodon.

The dinosaur, who left dry tokens
Of their sojourn here
On our planet floor,
Any broad alarm of their hastening doom
Is lost in the gloom of dust and ages.

But today, the Rock cries out to us, clearly, forcefully,
Come, you may stand upon my
Back and face your distant destiny,
But seek no haven in my shadow.

I will give you no more hiding place down here.

You, created only a little lower than
The angels, have crouched too long in
The bruising darkness,
Have lain too long
Face down in ignorance.

Your mouths spilling words
Armed for slaughter.

The Rock cries out today, you may stand on me,
But do not hide your face.

Across the wall of the world,
A River sings a beautiful song,
Come rest here by my side.

Each of you a bordered country,
Delicate and strangely made proud,
Yet thrusting perpetually under siege.

Your armed struggles for profit
Have left collars of waste upon
My shore, currents of debris upon my breast.

Yet, today I call you to my riverside,
If you will study war no more. Come,

Clad in peace and I will sing the songs
The Creator gave to me when I and the
Tree and the stone were one.

Before cynicism was a bloody sear across your
Brow and when you yet knew you still
Knew nothing.

The River sings and sings on.

There is a true yearning to respond to
The singing River and the wise Rock.

So say the Asian, the Hispanic, the Jew
The African and Native American, the Sioux,
The Catholic, the Muslim, the French, the Greek
The Irish, the Rabbi, the Priest, the Sheikh,
The Gay, the Straight, the Preacher,
The privileged, the homeless, the Teacher.
They hear. They all hear
The speaking of the Tree.

Today, the first and last of every Tree
Speaks to humankind. Come to me, here beside the River.

Plant yourself beside me, here beside the River.

Each of you, descendant of some passed
On traveller, has been paid for.

You, who gave me my first name, you
Pawnee, Apache and Seneca, you
Cherokee Nation, who rested with me, then
Forced on bloody feet, left me to the employment of
Other seekers–desperate for gain,
Starving for gold.

You, the Turk, the Swede, the German, the Scot …
You the Ashanti, the Yoruba, the Kru, bought
Sold, stolen, arriving on a nightmare
Praying for a dream.

Here, root yourselves beside me.

I am the Tree planted by the River,
Which will not be moved.

I, the Rock, I the River, I the Tree
I am yours–your Passages have been paid.

Lift up your faces, you have a piercing need
For this bright morning dawning for you.

History, despite its wrenching pain,
Cannot be unlived, and if faced
With courage, need not be lived again.

Lift up your eyes upon
The day breaking for you.

Give birth again
To the dream.

Women, children, men,
Take it into the palms of your hands.

Mold it into the shape of your most
Private need. Sculpt it into
The image of your most public self.
Lift up your hearts
Each new hour holds new chances
For new beginnings.

Do not be wedded forever
To fear, yoked eternally
To brutishness.

The horizon leans forward,
Offering you space to place new steps of change.
Here, on the pulse of this fine day
You may have the courage
To look up and out upon me, the
Rock, the River, the Tree, your country.

No less to Midas than the mendicant.

No less to you now than the mastodon then.

Here on the pulse of this new day
You may have the grace to look up and out
And into your sister’s eyes, into
Your brother’s face, your country
And say simply
Very simply

With hope

Good morning.

 

November 24, 2008
Love0

Why Senator Clinton Should Accept

By HomepageNo Comments

I like the idea of Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State — mostly for the reasons that Andrew Sullivan points out here and here. And now comes word that President-Elect Obama has offered her the position and that she asked for time to consider it.

I hope she accepts. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I supported Senator Clinton in the Georgia primary.) Here’s why.

1. Symbolism. A diplomatic team with Obama and Clinton at the top would send a powerful message of change to the rest of the world. It would go a long way toward re-establishing our standing with our allies and foes alike.

2. Impact. There’s little doubt Senator Clinton could do a lot of good by remaining in the Senate for years to come, but the position of Secretary of State has the potential to have a bigger impact on the world. This is particularly true after eight years of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy, two lengthy wars, and a global economic crisis. It will be a challenging time, to be sure, but if she’s able to rise to that challenge — and I think she is — it would be a waste of her talent to have her remain in the Senate.

3. Future. Die-hard Clinton haters like Andrew Sullivan may never come around, but joining the Obama cabinet may offer the best opportunity for Senator Clinton to put some distance between herself and her husband’s presidency. I think it offers her the best shot at a future run for the presidency on her own.

November 17, 2008
Love0

A step back in time

By HomepageNo Comments

Prior to the debate in Tennessee, C-Span re-broadcast the Oct. 15, 1992 debate between incumbent President George H. W. Bush, then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, and crackpot businessman H. Ross Perot. Some of you will recall that debate as the town hall style debate where Pres. Bush doomed his re-election by impatiently looking at his watch, as if he had somewhere better he’d rather be.

What the re-broadcast made evident 16 years later is how phenomenal a candidate Bill Clinton was. He was so young but so wise and so brilliant. He played the audience masterfully, like a master violinist playing a rare Stradivarius, connecting many questions he answered that night to many members of the audience.

Carole Simpson, the ABC News correspondent who was the moderator that night, asked a question that I did not remember until I saw it again tonight but which struck me as important:

“We have very little time left and it occurs to me that we have talked all this time and there has not been one question about some of the racial tensions and ethnic tensions in America. Is there anyone in this audience that would like to pose a question to the candidates on this?”

AUDIENCE QUESTION: What I’d like to know, and this is to any of the three of you, is aside from the recent accomplishment of your party, aside from those accomplishments in racial representation, and wit-hout citing any of your current appointments or successful elections, when do you estimate your party will both nominate and elect an Afro-American and female ticket to the presidency of the U.S.?

SIMPSON: Governor Clinton, why don’t you answer that first?

CLINTON: Well, I don’t have any idea but I hope it will happen some time in my lifetime.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: I do, too.

CLINTON: I believe that this country is electing more and more African Americans and Latinos and Asian Americans who are representing districts that are themselves not necessarily of a majority of their race. The American people are beginning to vote across racial lines, and I hope it will happen more and more.

More and more women are being elected. Look at all these women Senate candidates we have here. And you know, according to my mother and my wife and my daughter, this world would be a lot better place if women were running it most of the time.

I do think there are special experiences and judgments and backgrounds and understandings that women bring to this process, by the way. This lady said here, how have you been affected by the economy. I mean, women know what’s it like to be paid an unequal amount for equal work. They know what it’s like not to have flexible working hours. They know what it’s like not to have family leave or childcare. So I think it would be a good thing for America if it happened. And I think it will happen in my lifetime.

SIMPSON: Okay. I’m sorry. We have just a little bit of time left. Let’s try to get responses from each of them. President Bush or Mr. Perot?

BUSH: I think if Barbara Bush were running this year she’d be elected. But it’s too late.

(Laughter) You don’t want us to mention appointees, but when you see the quality of people in our administration, see how Colin Powell performed — I say administration —

AUDIENCE QUESTION: (Inaudible).

BUSH: You weren’t impressed with the fact that he —

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m extremely impressed with that.

BUSH: Yeah, but wouldn’t that suggest to the American people, then, here’s a quality person, if he decided that he could automatically get the nomination of either party?

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Sure — I just wanted to know — yes.

BUSH: Huh?

AUDIENCE QUESTION: I’m totally impressed with that. I just wanted to know is, when’s your-

BUSH: Oh, I see.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: When?

BUSH: You mean, time?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.

BUSH: I don’t know — starting after 4 years.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Laughs)

BUSH: No, I think you’ll see —

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot.

BUSH: I think you’ll see more minority candidates and women candidates coming forward.

SIMPSON: We have — thank you.

BUSH: This is supposed to be the year of the women in the Senate. Let’s see how they do. I hope a lot of —

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot — I don’t want to cut you off any more but we only have a minute left.

PEROT: I have a fearless forecast. A message just won’t do it. Colin Powell will be on somebody’s ticket 4 years from now — right? Right? He wanted that said — 4 years.

SIMPSON: How about a woman?

PEROT: Now, if won’t be, General Waller would be — you say, why do you keep picking military people. These are people that I just happen to know and have a high regard for. I’m sure there are hundreds of others.

BUSH: How about Dr. Lou Sullivan?

PEROT: Absolutely.

BUSH: Yeah, a good man.

SIMPSON: What about a woman?

PEROT: Oh, oh.

BUSH: (Inaudible) totally agree. My candidate’s back there.

SIMPSON: (Laughs)

PEROT: Okay. I can think of many.

SIMPSON: Many?

PEROT: Absolutely.

SIMPSON: When?

PEROT: All right. How about Sandra Day O’Connor as an example?

SIMPSON: Hm-hm.

PEROT: Dr. Bernadine Healy —

SIMPSON: Good.

PEROT: National Institutes of Health. I’ll yield the floor.

BUSH: All good Republicans.

PEROT: Name some more.

(Laughter)

SIMPSON: Thank you. I want to apologize to our audience because there were 209 people here and there were 209 questions. We only got to a fraction of them and I’m sorry to those of you that didn’t get to ask your questions but we must move to the conclusion of the program.

October 7, 2008
Love0

Did Sarah Palin really say that?!?

By HomepageNo Comments

Gawd, I hope this isn’t true. There’s a rumor circulating around the internet today that Governor Palin used racist and sexist slurs to refer to Senators Obama and Clinton:

So Sambo beat the bitch.

The rumor is thinly sourced to a woman named “Lucille,” who allegedly overheard the governor make the statement at a diner in Alaska.

I don’t think it’s worth getting hysterical over a thinly sourced rumor, but I do think that this particular rumor is serious enough that questions need to be asked. Here’s hoping that some enterprising journalist tries to find Lucille and gets her story on the record if she exists.

The press also ought to ask the Governor for her side of the story. The problem is that the McCain camp is now saying that Palin might not be available for a press conference for about two weeks. Yikes.

So let’s put this one in the tickler file for September 21. In addition to asking specifically about Lucille’s allegation, I’d like to know what her views are on race more generally. Does anyone have any clue?

Cross-posted from Facebook.

September 7, 2008
Love0

No Hillary Roll Call at Convention

By HomepageNo Comments

The potential for Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) mischief is too great. Bill thinks he knows what’s best for Democrats and the country, and that’s for Hillary to be president.

RUSH “the Great Idiot” Limbaugh (speaking alternatively as himself and Bill Clinton): Remember all those times, ladies and gentlemen, I warned you never, ever trust a Clinton?  Nothing that happens with the Clintons is a coincidence?  Isn’t it interesting, with the Lord Barack Obama plunging in the polls, there’s a story today from the Huffington Post about how he’s losing in Pennsylvania, and they can’t believe it.  He ought to be cleaning up in Pennsylvania.  We can believe it.  We saw him lose Pennsylvania to Mrs. Clinton, and there was no evidence that he was going to pick up the votes that she won, so they’re all concerned about that.  And Bill’s out there now starting to give interviews about whether or not Obama is qualified, and of course Bill’s also doing some other things out there.  You know, he’s probably picking up the phone, he’s making phone calls.  You know he is. (doing Clinton impression) “Look, this guy can’t win.  Look at that media contention, went over there, went over there to Europe, and he’s plummeting in the polls.  The guy can’t win, he can’t win. His numbers are sliding.  I warned you. I warned this is going to happen.”  You know those phone calls are being made.  Mrs. Clinton, after earlier in the week saying she did not want her name placed in nomination at the convention, now says she does.

What’s to prevent HRC’s supporters, egged on by Bill behind the curtain, from hijacking the convention? If not for the nomination itselt, then for the VP slot (even if one had already be designated)? If not that, then some other outrageous demands.

Already, Clintonites are questioning why Obama is not up higher in the polls, despite their handing the McCain campaign a playbook to use to attack Obama.

Now, Clinton staffers, aided by some in the media, are asking questions about the Edwards affair and what impact it might have had on the nomination race if it had been known last year and Edwards was not in the race. As I remember, Edwards won no state (maybe one or two), his support nationwide, despite a galvanizing message, negligible.

HRC had the advantage of money, name-recognition and the entire Democratic party establishment and machinery behind her and lost to a virtual unknown, including a run of 11 straight loses at one point.

Some fear that Clinton’s mischief is not so much to get the nomination this time but to drive down Obama’s support so McCain wins so she can then run in 2012. HRC generously praised McCain during the primary, at one point even saying that she and McCain had crossed some leadership threshold that prepared them to lead the nation whereas all Sen. Obama had was some speech he made.

McCain’s campaign manager said over the weekend that he could consider making a pledge to serve only one term if elected.

Clinton is now saying that some of her supporters would like her quest to be validated with a roll call vote on the nomination on the convention floor in Denver. The roll call vote is usually a proforma affair, with the outcome foregone. Except, these are the Clintons we’re talking about.

Why won’t the Clintons just go away already?

August 11, 2008
Love0