Senators Clinton and Biden on Women's Issues

This is 32:37 minutes but you might want to treat yourself.



h/t to LauraThorne at Daily Kos (who apologizes to Hillary)
--the BB

HRC delivers a great speech

I haven't spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women's rights at home and around the world . . . to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of our people.

And you haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership.

No way. No how. No McCain.

--Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention

Revisionism

I believe we call it "revisionism" when people re-write history to match some later perspective.

Yesterday while eating my lunch in the break room at work, where CNN plays endlessly, I saw Senator Clinton playing to Florida with her "every vote must count" schtick. I wanted to puke, because for all the noble sentiment (and yes, I believe every vote should count in a democracy) her phony stance on Florida and Michigan now does not match the past. She wants to change the rules in the middle of the game or, if you will, she wants to play Calvinball with the primaries.

It seemed rather like wrapping oneself in the flag when under the flag is a tissue of hypocrisy. All the crowd sees is the flag, the noble things we find easy to support.

Check out JLFinch's tour of what happened that got Florida into this situation. It does not read well for Senator Clinton. Slate is quite devastating:

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

This new-found passion for Florida votes is pure bullshit.
--the BB

Representing Real Americans

h/t to pontificator
--the BB

Definitely a Safford

Senator Clinton spoke in Eugene, Oregon, on Saturday:

Clinton said that historians will judge if her decision was the right one, but she reminded voters that Obama’s voting record on the war is not very different than hers.

“When you want to compare, compare decisions so when Senator Obama came to the Senate, he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote and that happens to be the facts.”

Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.” [Emphasis mine]

That's some fine criticizing, Senator Clinton.

Lefty Coaster adds this:

Here's how Hillary explained her vote for the War 14 months later after the war was already going very wrong.

Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

December 15, 2003
Council on Foreign Relations

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

Hillary was worried about maintaining support for the War in Iraq:

I worry a lot about how difficult it will be in the political arena to stay the course...

h/t to First Amendment

For the Safford reference, see here.

Update:
There is the unvetted health care story also. Tuzla is old hat by now but that was the beginning of a rolling snowball. I came across another story Saturday that is potentially very damaging but until I see it from multiple sources I am not going to give it credence.
--the BB

Is Hillary a Safford?

The Safford side of my family has a gift for storytelling. I don't think it runs in our blood to falsify intentionally but we all (and I include myself with all my mother's family here, as honesty requires) have a tendency to "embroider" our tales as we tell them. It so much more interesting and colorful in our retelling than it usually was in the living.

My ex will affirm that this is true of me and of that side of my family, so there's no sense in my trying to deny it or distance myself from something that I inherited so honestly.

Our collective excuse is probably that we are not generally trying to deceive or manipulate; we just have an unconscious desire to entertain.

And this leads me to the question in the header.

Much fuss and bother has arisen over Senator Clinton's description of her junket to Bosnia. A military man who was with her supports her story but contemporary sources do not. There was only one landing in Tuszla, so we cannot speculate that two different events are involved. That evasive maneuvers were taken in landing is not disputed by anyone because that was standard procedure when landing in areas that were not utterly pacified and safe. But dodging bullets? Not even.

On the one hand, it's not that big a deal. But if it's part of a pattern of claiming "experience" that is significantly overrated, it raises legitimate questions. Is this similar to claiming a higher grade point average in your job application than you really had? Most employers, if they look at your transcript and it doesn't match what you claimed, will not hire you.



I have seen various video compilations around this and some heated debate. From what I can gather this is not a distorted record. It does omit the general as he backs up Hillary's statement (sort of: he supported the evasive landing but not necessarily the rest of Clinton's account).

h/t to JedReport for compiling it and posting it.
--the BB

NO cozying up to the GOP!

h/t to kos
--the BB

About those presidential candidates-multiple updates

Well, the Republicans are a motley crew of walking disasters.

But the Dems have an opportunity to do something really spectacular.

Sen. Dodd cannot fight against telcom immunity and support the rule of law by himself. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have a chance to DO SOMETHING instead of running around the country talking. Edwards can challenge (and loan his voice) and the other two CAN SPEAK ON THE SENATE FLOOR, FILIBUSTER IF NECESSARY, AND VOTE.

Check out Jane Hamsher on this issue here, or Digby here, or Glenn Greenwald here.

Massimo Calabresi of Time is quoted by Greenwald as saying this:

The bitterest point of contention for Democrats will be the same question that divided them last summer: immunity for telecom companies that complied with Bush Administration requests for access to American phone and e-mail traffic without warrants after 9/11. After news of the Bush program broke, civil liberties groups brought cases against the companies, and since then the telecoms have in some cases refused to help the U.S. intelligence community further. Bush has said he will veto any bill that doesn't grant the telecoms immunity. The Democrats are split on the issue. Smart money bets the Democrats will cave again -- the only question is how much they fight before doing so. [Emphasis by Greenwald, underscored by me putting it in red]

We can register our wishes with the candidates. If they want our votes, they can flipping well earn them!

As Thom Hartmann likes to put it: Tag, you're it. Democracy begins with you.
[I may be misquoting him slightly, but you get the point.]

Jane says this:
You can email Senator Edwards directly at john@johnedwards.com.
[I'm not sophisticated enough to make that launch your e-mail but you're clever people.]

Digby says this:
Or you can simply go over to the campaign websites of our two frontrunners and ask them to do it yourself.

Obama Community

Clinton Community

I just sent my comments to all three of them.

UPDATE:
Is Harry Reid just selling us down the f**king river?

So Reid is not forcing the Republicans to do their filibustering "in the openness of the Senate", just the Democratic Senators who haven't pocketed money from the Teleco's.

Hubris Sonic discusses this over at Group News Blog and writes that "Greenwald points out this bill will also ensure that Bush gets vast new warrantless eavesdroppings powers and permanent protection from investigation into illegal spying." Lovely.

OK. McJoan over at Daily Kos has an update with this.

Update: Reid's staff e-mails to clarify that his challenge to Senators wishing to "talk this to death" was intended for Republicans who had been insisting on 60 vote majority on FISA votes. That is, Reid told the Republicans that if they want 60 vote threshold they will have to essentially filibuster to do so. Should the votes start tomorrow, I hope he holds that line.

McJoan's earlier post on this is here. In it she wrote:

Last month, we generated over half a million calls and e-mails to Senate offices in support of Senator Dodd's filibuster of telco amnesty. We need to double that number this week. We need to tell our Senators that we stand with the majority of Americans in opposition to amnesty, and they should be more afraid of us voters than of a lame duck, failing president.

I am just very skeptical (many times burned, very shy) and also angry that it has gotten this far. Why Reid spurned a decent committee bill earlier to bring a much inferior one to the floor is a mystery to start with. Whether he actually has any allegiance to the rule of law remains to be seen. I am very disappointed in him these days. He has a chance here to do something good and important. Keep the pressure up.

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake is trying to hold the candidates' feet to the fire:

Dear Senators Obama and Clinton: No Excuses This Time

Update: Emptywheel -- "[A]ny immunity is immunity for those who decided it was a swell idea to illegally wiretap Americans. And that list of people begins with Dick Cheney."

It's looking like the FISA battle could start as early as tonight, but Senate staff are preparing for tomorrow. Which means Chris Dodd will start his filibuster, and both of you will have plenty of time to get back to Capital Hill to help.

Look, Senators. It's not like nobody cares -- polling shows that voters overwhelmingly oppose immunity for telecom companies (PDF), and Credo's action to contact your respective campaigns took down the Obama email servers.

Jane puts it very bluntly and I agree 100%.

Look, you two came back for the farm bill. Our readers are already stocking up on popcorn, and once Dodd takes to the floor we'll be watching things on CSPAN round the clock until it finishes. I think people will notice if you try to do a Pasadena on this one again, and all of the rhetoric you have both been spouting about "change" and standing up to the Bush Administration will be reduced to instant horseshit.

Please get back to DC and do your jobs.

ANOTHER UPDATE:
John Edwards today (shared by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

--the BB