SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (119096)3/25/2008 1:03:39 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
The Long Defeat

By DAVID BROOKS

First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (119096)3/25/2008 1:21:43 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 173976
 
Clinton Says She ‘Misspoke’ About Dodging Sniper Fire



By PATRICK HEALY and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: March 25, 2008
BLUE BELL, Pa. — As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing in Bosnia as first lady in 1996.
Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.

The backpedaling was a rare instance of Mrs. Clinton’s acknowledging an error, and she did so on a sensitive issue: She has cited her “strength and experience” since the start of the presidential race, framing her 80 trips abroad as first lady as preparation for dealing with foreign affairs as president. That argument was behind her campaign’s “red phone” commercial, which cast her as best able to handle a crisis.

Mrs. Clinton corrected herself at a meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News editorial board; she did not explain why she had misspoken, but only admitted it and then offered a less dramatic description.

Mrs. Clinton said she had been told “that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire,” not that actual shots were being fired.

“So I misspoke,” she said.

Earlier Monday, Clinton advisers corrected the Bosnia anecdote, saying they did not want it to harm her credibility. One Clinton foreign policy adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for being candid about her mistake, said that Mrs. Clinton had been “too loose” with her words and that she risked looking as if “she was trying to pump up a somewhat risky situation into a very dangerous one.”

In her most recent account, offered last week, Mrs. Clinton described an action-packed arrival in the Balkans.

“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia,” she said, in remarks that aides described Monday as not being part of her prepared speech. “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

In interviews Monday, aides to Mrs. Clinton at the time of the trip, as well as an Associated Press photographer who was on the trip, said that she and others were briefed before landing about the possibility of sniper fire around the airport in Tuzla, Bosnia. None of the aides remembered actual sniper fire. Nor did the photographer, Doug Mills, who now works for The New York Times.

“I remember being told we were going into a war zone, but I don’t remember any commotion at the airport,” Mr. Mills said. “I don’t recall her running to cars. If that had happened, we would have made a picture of it.”

Maj. Gen. William Nash, who has since retired but was then the commander of United States troops in Bosnia and was at the Tuzla airport that day, said in an interview that there was no threat of sniper fire at the airport during Mrs. Clinton’s visit. He said she was gracious during her visit and took pictures with the soldiers, who were there to enforce the terms of the Dayton peace accord, signed five months earlier.

“She never had her head down,” General Nash said. “There was no sniper threat that I know of.”

Before Mrs. Clinton’s admission that she had misspoken, a spokesman for the campaign, Howard Wolfson, was asked Monday on a conference call with reporters to square her recent accounts with other evidence. In response, Mr. Wolfson referred to news accounts at the time that described the region as hostile.

He then added, “There is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines.”

Minutes later, when pressed to clarify his comment, Mr. Wolfson said news accounts made clear that the area in which she was landing was “a potential combat zone and was hazardous.”

He said that in her memoir, “Living History,” Mrs. Clinton wrote about sniper fire in the hills and “clearly meant to say that” when she brought it up last week. He said she had described the event many times the same way and that “in one instance, she said it slightly differently.”

In her comments Monday, Mrs. Clinton made a similar point, saying, “I didn’t say that in my book or other times.”

Mrs. Clinton had described the sniper fire in similar terms at least twice in recent weeks. She mentioned it on Feb. 29 in Waco, Tex., when she was rolling out her “red phone” commercial, recalling the trip to Bosnia and saying that the welcoming ceremony “had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.”



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (119096)3/25/2008 1:22:44 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 173976
 
According to Mrs. Clinton’s public schedule for March 25, 1996, she arrived in Tuzla at 8:55 a.m. and was greeted by the acting president of Bosnia, Ejup Ganic; the United States ambassador, John Menzies; two senior United States military officials; an 8-year-old girl, whose name was redacted from the schedule for privacy reasons; and a seventh-grade class that had been “adopted by Germany.”

The first lady’s public schedule, which was among more than 11,000 pages released by the National Archives last week, lists the greeting ceremony at the Tuzla airport this way: “Ambassador Menzies intros HRC to greeters; 8-year-old Bosnian Girl Reads Poem to HRC; HRC greets 7th grade class.”

Later that day, Mrs. Clinton spoke at a show for about 500 troops. She was joined by the comedian Sinbad and the singer Sheryl Crow, both of whom performed for the troops, according to the schedule. Later that day, Mrs. Clinton and her entourage left for Aviano Air Base in Italy.

Sinbad challenged her account of sniper fire soon after he heard it more than a week ago, saying the scariest part of the trip for him was wondering where the next meal would come from. Sinbad is supporting Senator Barack Obama for president.

Patrick Healy reported from Blue Bell, Pa., and Katharine Q. Seelye from New York. Don Van Natta contributed from New York, and Helene Cooper from Washington.

More Articles in US »



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (119096)3/25/2008 11:31:10 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 173976
 
youtube.com