mercredi 26 septembre 2007

Another sign that Hillary Clinton has as little respect for a free press as Bush does

And it's no better when it's done by someone who's supposed to be on our side.

Tim Grieve, at Salon:

Remember that story in GQ about the infighting within Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign? No, you don't, because no such story ever ran. Why's that? Sources tell the Politico's Ben Smith that the Clinton campaign gave GQ an ultimatum: Kill the infighting story or forget about traveling with Bill Clinton to Africa for another GQ piece.


Now you know why Hillary Clinton is being touted by the media as a shoo-in -- because if they don't, they lose their access.

Sound familiar?

You DO still have a choice. She CAN still be stopped.

Democrats, this is how it's done

Not by cowering in the corner, frantic with worry over what the Davids Brooks and Broder are going to say, but by pointing out when the Republicans are being idiotic.

Al Franken shows you how easy it is:

I'm a satirist by trade. And as a satirist, my job was to point out the absurd, the hypocritical, the ridiculous in life.

It's been a banner week for ridiculous.

Case in point: On Tuesday, Sen. Norm Coleman took out an ad in this paper criticizing me for criticizing a Senate resolution that criticized MoveOn.org for taking out an ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus.

It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end. And it's doubly ridiculous that Coleman, of all people, is still playing politics with this issue.

After all, he voted last week against a resolution that condemned personal attacks on anyone who had served our nation honorably. That would include Democrats like Max Cleland, John Kerry and John Murtha -- proud American veterans who were the targets of political attacks not just on their character, but on their patriotism. In 2004, when Murtha (a Silver Star winner) called for better armor for our troops, Coleman himself accused him of "emboldening the enemy" and "undermining the morale of our troops."

And as his reelection campaign gets underway, it's worth noting that Coleman has hired the same media consultant who ran ads in Georgia that juxtaposed pictures of Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, with Osama bin Laden.

I guess now it's my turn to be attacked. I've been to Iraq four times to visit our troops; I know the incredible sacrifice our men and women in uniform make every day in service to our nation. But Norm Coleman is who he is -- so he's accusing me of "undermining our troops."

Frankly, I'm used to this kind of smear -- it's what happens when you speak truth to power in George W. Bush's America. But I think Minnesotans have had enough of this kind of political gamesmanship. As I go around the state, I don't hear a whole lot about ads in the New York Times. What I do hear is that Minnesotans want this war to end, and that if this president won't end it, they want the Senate to force him to end it.

There are more than 160,000 troops currently serving in Iraq. We should honor their service by providing them with the best possible medical care when they return. We should honor their sacrifice by refusing to allow this president to keep them there in the middle of a civil war. And we should honor them by taking seriously the difficult debate about the best way, or at least the least bad way, to end our engagement in Iraq.


And that, my friends, is how you do it.

Dear Atrios,

Jon Swift did it first.

Your friend in Blogtopia&trade (a term Skippy coined, so don't steal that either, please.),

Jill

Easy Peasy Peanut Butter Biscuits

Homemade peanut butter biscuitsDespite the current schoolyard crisis around peanut allergies, I can't imagine a childhood without peanut butter. Peanut butter sandwiches eaten with a glass of milk; peanut butter on warm toast with thick slices of banana; peanut butter and strawberry jam on fluffy white bread; peanut butter on thick rounds of rice cake slathered generously with butter...These

Isn't it funny how the advocates of globalization are in no danger of having their own jobs outsourced?

Whether it's Thomas Friedman writing The World is Flat or Jim Cramer screaming that the UAW must be busted, it always seems to be those whose jobs are in NO danger of being outsourced to lower-cost countries who are the biggest advocates of eliminating American jobs.

C&L has this video of Jim Cramer saying on Hardball last night that the union MUST be busted for General Motors to deliver to shareholders:





Funny too how Cramer never, ever calls for a lid on executive compensation. It's always ONLY about health benefits and retiree pensions. I have no sympathy for GM about retiree pensions; this is a promise made to workers who planned accordingly. You can't pull the rug out from under them now. But as far as employee health benefits are concerned, isn't this an argument for a single-payer plan that gets health care costs out of the balance sheets for corporations? And isn't it funny how single-payer never plays into Jim Cramer's whining about poor, set-upon corporations?

I'd like to see Jim Cramer's pundit job being outsourced to someone from the developing world who will do what he does for a fraction of the cost. Jim Cramer made $2.4 million in 2006. I'll bet an economist from India would do it for fifty grand.

Meanwhile, GM and the UAW have reached a tentative agreement:

The United Automobile Workers union and General Motors reached a landmark agreement early today, ending a two-day strike. The key provision of the new contract is a health care trust that would get G.M.’s massive liability off its books.

G.M. said the tentative agreement was reached at 3:05 a.m. Eastern. The U.A.W. recessed the strike and said if the contract was not ratified, workers could return to picket lines. The agreement included a memorandum of understanding to establish an independent health care trust, as well as other changes to the national agreement.

G.M. said implementation of the trust would be subject to court approval, as well as a review by G.M.’s accounting for the trust by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The memorandum apparently establishes the principle of the trust, and allows the two sides to complete its details later. Analysts had predicted the union and the company might have to take that step, because of the complexity of such a trust.

“There’s no question this was one of the most complex and difficult bargaining sessions in the history of the G.M./U.A.W. relationship,” Rick Wagoner, G.M.’s chief executive, said in a statement.

U.A.W. leaders are likely to meet on Friday to consider the contract. If approved, it would go to workers for a vote.

The union’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said the new contract “will absolutely protect their jobs and keep jobs from being reduced.” He said, while not offering specifics, that the number of jobs at G.M. would be “pretty much the same if not higher” when the contract concludes in 2011.

Later, Mr. Gettelfinger confirmed in a radio interview that there was a signing bonus for workers, but declined to state its size. He also declined comment on reports that the contract contained a two-tier wage program, with sharply lower rates for any new workers hired by G.M.


This health care trust, if it goes through, is only a partial victory for the union, because it apparently also contains a two-tier pay structure, which continues the race to the bottom for blue collar manufacturing workers. There was a time when the ability for such workers to earn a decent living meant a burgeoning middle class. Of course, with Republican policies designed to eliminate the middle class and return us to the socioeconomic structure that existed at the turn of the 20th century, where the rich owned everything and everyone else scrambled at the bottom for scraps, those days are over.

But hey, looky over there! Isn't that an illegal immigrant?

Sorry, Katie...as long as you shill for the Bush Administration on the air, you are an enabler

Katie Couric wants everyone to know, or at least the few hundred people she addressed at the National Press Club Tuesday night, that she thinks the Iraq War was mismanaged:


“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”

Further, Couric said the Bush administration botched the war effort, calling it “accepted truths” that it erred by“disbanding the Iraq military, and leaving 100,000 Sunni men feeling marginalized and angry...[and] whether there were enough boots on the ground, the feeling that we’d be welcomed as liberators and didn’t need to focus as much on security.” She added “I’d feel totally comfortable saying any of that at some point, if required, on television.”

The former “Today” show anchor traced her discomfort with the administration’s march to war back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.”


Not difficult enough to not join in the jingoistic chorus, though.

If Couric is so troubled by the conduct of this war, then whence this puff-piece about Petraeus, in which she dutifully parrots the Administration's talking points?





Sorry, Katie, you don't get a pass on this one. You had a unique opportunity, with your popularity and the clout you had as co-anchor of Today to educate the very Americans who need it most -- the people scrambling around to get ready for work and get the kids ready for school, the ones whose only exposure to what's happening in the world around them is what their ears pick up by osmosis from the morning news/talk shows. And instead you decided to dutifully spout the Bush Administration's talking points and pump up David Petraeus until the Fox News gasbags and their followers were no longer able to distinguish Petraeus from Jesus.

What geek girls fantasize about

Other women may fantasize about a roll in the hay with Viggo Mortensen or even Colin Firth. Women like me think talking about disaster capitalism in Iraq with John Cusack is the height of awesomeness:



(article at and video from HuffPo)

John Cusack: the thinking woman's sex symbol for nearly two decades.