Yahoo! Buzz: Top Politics Stories

Please, No Obama/Clinton Nightmare

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:33:28 PDT

Now that it is apparent to all, except perhaps Hillary Clinton and some of her die-hard supporters, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee, the drumbeat for a "dream" ticket [Obama/Clinton] is starting. But before this goes too far, we need to ask, whose "dream" are we talking about? Our Republican opponent's dream or ours? John McCain is in deep trouble, and not just because of the legacy of George Bush. He is in trouble with much of the Republican base, particularly the religious Right, who never have trusted him. It is no accident that turnout in nearly all Republican primaries has been low, that McCain's fundraising has been dismal and that in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, nearly 25% of Republican voters voted against him, despite the fact that he clearly will be the Republican nominee. While McCain was the strongest in a weak field of Republican candidates, his candidacy clearly is not galvanizing conservatives. There is only one candidate who can do that: Hillary Clinton. To the conservative base of the Republican Party, she is the Democratic demon and the candidate the Republicans' want to face. She is Rush Limbaugh's candidate of choice. She is the candidate who the Right would use to raise money and turn out volunteers. She is the only potential Democratic VP who would build Republican enthusiasm and inspire the grassroots Republican campaign. She also is the candidate who consistently measures the highest "unfavorable" ratings of anyone who ever has run for the presidency. In an ABC News poll, Clinton polls 54 percent unfavorable; perhaps even worse, 58 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. Both Clintons stand out for the amount of voter antipathy they attract: Thirty-nine percent of voters have a "strongly unfavorable" opinion of Hillary Clinton; only 22 percent have a "strongly favorable" view. Thirty-four percent are strongly negative on Bill Clinton and 51 percent have an "unfavorable" opinion of him. And Hillary's low-road campaign has had an impact: 41 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters describe the tone of the Democratic campaign as "mostly negative," and by nearly a 4 to 1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent, blame Clinton. Is taking baggage like this into the general election anyone's "dream" but a Republican's? Worse than Hillary's high unfavorables, a Obama/Clinton ticket would create a continuing crossfire -- not between McCain and Obama, but between Obama and Clinton. Every one of Clinton's interactions with the media would feature questions like, "Do you still think Barack Obama lacks experience to be Commander-in-Chief?" "Do you still think Obama is an elitist?" "That he doesn't understand the problems of the white working class?" "Do you still think his past association with Reverend Wright is very troublesome?" Obama would be asked, "During the primary campaign, your VP said your healthcare plan sucked? Was she right? Does it suck?" "Do you want to obliterate Iran, too, like your vice-president?" And, when the press wasn't asking these questions, John McCain would ask them. Or, maybe we all could be reminded of Bill's talk of a Clinton v. McCain contest, where we would have a campaign of "two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," unlike Obama. Even worse than this scenario, Barack Obama would be cast in the position of having to defend his own VP's past attacks on himself. By doing so, he would not simply look like a hypocrite, he would, in fact, be a hypocrite -- thus putting into jeopardy his coin of the realm, his honesty and integrity. The general campaign wouldn't be about Obama v. McCain, it would be Act Two of a very bad marriage, with Obama sacrificing his integrity trying to explain away his own VPs past attacks on him. If you think her snarky, negative primary campaign was a thing of the past, think again because the Republicans and the press would offer us deja vu all over again. Lost in this dialogue of the past would be Obama's opportunity to explain how he wants to take America into a more productive future. Those who "dream" of an Obama/Clinton ticket also fail to recognize something significant: Hillary has been a lousy candidate. I used to think that Al Gore and John Kerry ran the worst campaigns for president ever, but Hillary's ineptitude set new records. Five months ago, Hillary had a 20+ point lead in Democratic polling, the greatest name recognition of any candidate, the most money, support from a popular former Democratic president who was actively campaigning for her, nostalgia for the Clinton era of "peace and prosperity," a ton of endorsements, the aura of "inevitability" -- and she squandered it all with an inexorable series of misjudgments, abetted by her, Bill's and her campaign's unrelenting arrogance. By contrast, Obama ran down and exposed the dinosaur for what it was not simply with a brilliantly executed campaign, but with a core understanding that voters were tired of the type of old-style politics and old-style campaigning Bill and Hillary so ably represent. Why should he now forge an alliance with one of the most ineffective old-style campaigns ever, not to mention take on the Big Dog [Bill] as his new pal -- in this case, an uncontrollable pal who would try to run not only Hillary's campaign, but Obama's, as well? This is my definition of a Living and Breathing Nightmare -- one with plenty of 3 am calls from Bill! Even worse than sharing a campaign with Bill and Hill, allying with the Clintons would undermine the very essence of the Obama message -- that real change is needed in Washington. It would be seen as completely inauthentic, the worst type of marriage of convenience. And unlike the shotgun marriage JFK made with LBJ, Hillary brings nothing to the table; unlike LBJ, she can't bring a swing state into the Democratic column. Obama could win New York with Daffy Duck as his VP. Then there are the revelations to come. Does anyone think that a man with a documented 30-year history of philandering with a long list of bowling alley queens has magically stopped playing the field, or that the Republicans will not exploit this? Does anyone think the Republicans will not exploit Bill's fundraising associations with some of the questionable people who have given him millions for his library and foundation in favor of his deal-making with oil oligarchs, or exploit his 11th hour pardons of some pretty disreputable characters, including two convicted bomb-carrying members of the Weather Underground? How much more baggage can Hillary sustain? There are, of course, many strong Vice-presidential candidates for Obama to choose from. In light of Clinton's and McCain's challenging Obama's national security credentials, a VP such as General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb or Governor Bill Richardson would add substantial national security/foreign policy heft. General Clark is our last successful commanding general and a smart, attractive spokesperson. He comes from the Clinton camp, but is no hawk like Hillary; Clark understands not only the uses of military power, but also its limitations. He would fit well with the new direction in foreign policy we hope a President Obama would take the country, as well as add great credibility to new security initiatives. Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, has been perhaps the most out-spoken and effective critic of the War in Iraq and Bush/Cheney foreign policy belligerence. He won in Virginia, a swing state, against all odds and an incumbent Republican, and is a great campaigner. Governor Richardson has spent most of his adult life working in the foreign policy arena, he is a popular governor in a swing state and is a Hispanic to boot -- a near-perfect trifecta of qualifications. He also has an incisive sense-of-humor, which politics and political combat could use a bit more of. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is another VP possibility many have mentioned positively. And, there are solid women VP candidates: Senator Claire McCaskill won her Senate seat in Missouri, a swing state in any Presidential election; she has a tough law and order background as a former Attorney General, and is smart and articulate. Kansas Governor Kathy Sibelious has proven to be an effective governor who works well with the opposition and knows how to win in a Republican state. This short list certainly is missing many other potentially good candidates, but the point is simple: There is no dearth of qualified VP candidates for the Democrats and there is no reason to take on the baggage and negatives of the Clintons, let alone try to work closely and cooperatively with them for 4-8 years. Hillary, Bill and surrogates like James Carville have graphically challenged Obama's toughness, even his "cojones." I recognize that Obama is a conciliator, but conciliation should not come at the cost of getting rolled by the Clintons. That first act of a Demcratic Presidential candidate would show strength to no one [including the Clintons] at a time when voters still need to be convinced that Obama not only is an inspiring leader, but a tough and strong leader, as well.

Ex-officials: Bush admin. ignored Iraq corruption

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:29:56 PDT

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees. Arthur Brennan, who briefly served in Baghdad as head of the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency last year, and James Mattil, who worked as the chief of staff, told Senate Democrats on Monday that their office was understaffed and its warnings and recommendations ignored. Brennan also alleges the State Department prevented a congressional aide visiting Baghdad from talking with staffers by insisting they were too busy. In reality, Brennan said, office members were watching movies at the embassy and on their computers. The staffers' workload had been cut dramatically because of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's "evisceration" of Iraq's top anti-corruption office, he said. The State Department's policies "not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government," Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. The U.S. embassy "effort against corruption _ including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency _ was little more than 'window dressing,'" he added. Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration takes the issue of corruption seriously and pointed to its recent appointment of Lawrence Benedict as coordinator for anti-corruption initiatives at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Benedict's appointment "is another demonstration that we are working at very senior levels to help the Iraqis deal with this issue," Casey said. "Any assertion that we have not taken this issue seriously or given it the attention it deserves is simply untrue." The Office of Accountability and Transparency, or "OAT" team, was intended to provide assistance and training to Iraq's anti-corruption agencies. It was dismantled last December, after it alleged in a draft report leaked to the media that al-Maliki's office had derailed or prevented investigations into Shiite-controlled agencies. The draft report sparked hearings in Congress and prompted a showdown between Democrats and senior State Department officials on whether the public has a right to know the extent to which al-Maliki was involved in corruption cases. Brennan charges the State Department never responded to his team's report, which was retroactively classified because agency officials said it could hurt bilateral relations with Iraq. Other recommendations by the group also were kept secret, including a negative assessment of Iraq's Joint Anti-Corruption Committee, Brennan said. In July 2007, the OAT team concluded that the committee's only purpose was to provide a forum for complaints against Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, a top anti-corruption official in Baghdad whom many U.S. officials have hailed as the most effective in exposing fraud and abuse. But information later released by the embassy ignored the team's assessment and ultimately "failed to even mention what a disaster" the committee "really was," Brennan said. Brennan said he approved the embassy report against his better judgment but later regretted it. Mattil, who worked with Brennan, made similar allegations. Specifically, he said the U.S. "remained silent in the face of an unrelenting campaign" by senior Iraqi officials to subvert Baghdad's Commission on Public Integrity, which had been led by al-Radhi. Then, the U.S. turned its back on Iraqis who fled to the United States after being threatened for pursuing anti-corruption cases, he said. "Since we have done so little (to undercut corruption), it's easy to see why the government of Iraq has not done more," said Mattil, who left the accountability office last October after having served for a year as its chief of staff. "We have demanded no better." Brennan was appointed as OAT director last summer and arrived in Baghdad in July. He left only a few weeks later after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. He stepped down from his position in August. Iraqi government officials could not be reached for comment. Sen. Byron Dorgan, head of the Democratic Policy Committee, said the testimony was critical in light of upcoming legislation that would appropriate more than $170 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate Appropriations Committee, of which Dorgan is a member, is expected to approve the legislation Thursday. "It is a cruel irony if we are appropriating money next Thursday or did appropriate money last month or last year and that money ends up actually providing the resources for an insurgency in Iraq which ends up killing Americans," said Dorgan, D-N.D.

McCain runs strong despite low Bush ratings: poll

Mon, 12 May 2008 18:15:45 PDT

Reuters - Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain remains a strong candidate despite a gloomy national mood and record low ratings for President George W. Bush, according to a Washington Post-ABC New poll released on Monday.

Clinton going all out in hopes of strong finish

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:30:00 PDT

Forget the calls for her to quit the presidential race: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is determined to rack up two big primary victories in the next eight days — in West Virginia and Kentucky — as she seeks to prove her continued political viability and claim bargaining chips that might help her exit the race on her terms, her advisers say.

McCain's Age Again Seen As Major Problem For Voters

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:48:10 PDT

Yet another poll, this one by the Washington Post and ABC News, has found that Sen. John McCain's age appears to be a major hang-up for voters, far more so than Sen. Barack Obama's race. From ABC's write up: Age continues to look like a major hurdle for McCain. Thirty-nine percent of Americans say they'd be uncomfortable with a president first taking office at age 72, far more than say they'd be uncomfortable with a woman (16 percent) or African-American (12 percent) as president. The greatest risk of losing votes is among those who are "entirely" uncomfortable with the idea; that's 15 percent for a 72-year-old president, vs. 6 and 7 percent, respectively, for a black or female president. Slightly more seniors say they'd be entirely uncomfortable with a president that age, 20 percent, as do adults under 65, 14 percent. Interestingly, voters who are concerned with Obama's race appear to be those very blue-collar whites that have become such a hot topic in recent weeks: While overall discomfort with an African-American president is much lower, it rises among less-educated whites - the same group that's been a challenge for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Among whites who haven't gone through college, 17 percent say they'd be at least somewhat uncomfortable with a black president; that compares with just 4 percent of white college graduates. Clinton may face a similar problem, however; less-educated whites also are more apt to be uncomfortable with a woman president (21 percent, vs. 7 percent of white college graduates). This poll -- like the last ABC News/Washington Post survey -- finds no apparent damage to Obama in the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Six in 10 Americans, and 73 percent of Democrats, say Obama has done "the right amount" to distance himself from Wright, rather than too little or too much.

Senator eyes deal to help pass Colombia pact

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:47:52 PDT

Reuters - A senior Republican senator said on Monday he was optimistic a deal could be reached with Democrats that would lead to congressional approval of a free trade agreement with Colombia before the November U.S. elections.

West Virginia Votes

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:36:06 PDT

Polls open from 6:30 am to 7:30 pm ET in the Mountain State. 28 delegates at stake in Tuesday’s contest. Weather reports show sunny skies, temperatures expected to be high 68, low 40. Get latest forecast here. NY Times on West Virginia and Kentucky: “Sizable victories… might put pressure on Mr. Obama to agree to her demands to [...]

Osama bin Laden's Media Director Puts on a Show at Guantanamo

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:18:39 PDT

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - The hearings for Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al-Bahlul before the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were supposed to have some gravitas. Bahlul, who is charged with conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism, is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's media director and reportedly prepared the videotaped will of 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. To differentiate him from the other detainees who have gone before the military commissions, Bahlul's hearing was the first to take place in the newly-constructed $12 million courthouse the military erected to try terrorism suspects here. But if the US government wanted solemn proceedings, it got nothing of the sort. Bahlul, who is 37 and has close-cropped dark hair and a full beard, refused to sit with his assigned defense counsel or interpreter and promptly announced that he didn't plan to participate in his trial by waving a handwritten sign above his head that read "boycott" in both Arabic and English. The military judge, Col. Peter Brownback, asked Bahlul if he would like to make a statement, and the accused began speaking, but the audio equipment malfunctioned, leaving the courtroom observers (who sit behind a wall of bullet-proof glass) and at times those in the courtroom, unable to hear the translation of what he was saying. After two recesses to address the technical difficulties, the power to the courthouse went out. As the lights went down, military guards rushed to surround the accused. Judge Brownback, by that time no longer sitting on the bench, but on the courtroom floor because his microphone had malfunctioned, was clearly frustrated by the delays and technical problems and ordered the court to wrap up proceedings in the dark. In between technical glitches, Judge Brownback tried to ascertain whether or not Bahlul wanted to boycott in total (in which case the rules of the military commissions allow proceedings to take place without him) or if he wanted to represent himself. But Bahlul refused to speak and instead handed the judge three pieces of paper. Written in large Arabic script, they read: "Decision of rejection of the court," "Decision of continuation of boycott," and "Decision of renewed allegiance to Osama bin Laden." Judge Brownback ordered the writings entered into the court record and turned to Bahlul's defense counsel, Air Force Major David Frakt, who had been called up from the reserves and assigned to represent Bahlul only 10 days earlier. "Your honor, Mr. al-Bahlul has asked me not to represent him or make any statements on his behalf or go into your chambers to meet with you," Frakt said. In 2005, when Bahlul appeared before the first round of military commissions, he indicated then that he wanted to choose a lawyer from Yemen, his home country. That request was denied, because the rules of the military commissions require that defense counsel be an American citizen. Bahlul later said that he wanted to represent himself, a request that was denied at the time. Under the rules of the new military commissions, enacted by Congress in 2006, the accused are permitted to represent themselves. Brownback explained to Bahlul that Major Frakt was being made available to him, but that he could also request someone else, if that person met the necessary qualifications and was available. In addition, he now had the right to represent himself. The judge then asked Bahlul what he wished to do. Bahlul stood mute. When Major Frakt rose to speak, Bahlul waved his hands aggressively, signaling his defense counsel to sit down - a gesture that angered the judge. "That is not a choice," Brownback said to Bahlul. "If you wish to tell me by whom you wish to be represented, then you will be represented by that person. ... If you stand mute, Major Frakt will represent you and you won't be allowed to make silencing motions." How Major Frakt is going to represent a hostile detainee who refuses to speak to him is unclear. In spite of his sign-waving and insistence on not speaking, Bahlul did take the opportunity to address the court when the judge asked if he had anything he would like to say. Waving his finger at the judge, Bahlul spoke for more than an hour. Exactly what he said remains unknown, because the audio feed into the courtroom went down twice and was often interrupted by static and feedback, but some of the highlights included the following: Bahlul renounced his Yemeni citizenship because Yemen was cooperating with the United States and had thus sworn allegiance to the enemy. "From this position, I announce that I have given up my Yemeni citizenship," he said. He renewed his allegiance to Osama bin Laden. "Today I say to you that I will never deny that I have participated with Osama bin Laden in fighting you and your allies, the Jews, because I'm looking for a greater day than today," he said. "I am responsible for my actions in this world and in the next world, meaning I don't care if you imprison me or kill me." He lambasted the United States for "casting aside the rule of law" after 9/11 and said that he would be judged in the court of Allah. "We believe no one has the right to set laws for the people. This right belongs to Allah and the Almighty." He said he wanted Americans to imagine that one day they would be judged in an Islamic court and that they would then have to pay. "You perceive yourself as the gods, but we believe there is only one God in heaven," he said. "Do not fight Allah by writing laws." He warned that Muslims around the world would continue to fight America and said that the West was engaged in a clash with the Muslim world. "We see the world from one point of view, you see it from another. ... I'm telling you that the measures of innocence and guilt are different in those two worlds. You think Osama bin Laden is a criminal, but we think George Bush is a criminal." Bahlul said he didn't care that he was imprisoned in Cuba - for all he cared, the Americans could send him to the moon (though he said he believed travel to the moon never actually happened and was US propaganda), because his Muslim brothers would continue the war against America. "I'm telling you," Bahlul said, "You will be the losers." He acknowledged that he had worked with Osama bin Laden as his media advisor and said the court would surely turn up evidence and witnesses showing this to be true. "I have no problem with that. Take your legal actions. The war against you shall continue." Throughout his speech, Bahlul showed that he had a good command of English by occasionally stopping to correct the court interpreter. "No, not American laws, international laws," he chastised once. "Not a tape of 39 minutes, 40 seconds, a tape of 39 or 40 minutes," he corrected another time. After just over an hour, Judge Brownback interrupted. "Mr. al-Bahlul, I listened to your discussion and I listened especially to your discussion of innocence and criminality and how it depends on your viewpoint," he said. "But I am not here today to determine innocence or guilt. I'm here to find out certain matters, among them, do you want to represent yourself?" Bahlul refused to answer the question and raised his "boycott sign" above his head. Judge Brownback then stated that if Bahlul insisted on boycotting, he could not represent himself, and turned to the defense counsel. "Consequently Major Frakt, you are by default representing Mr. al-Bahlul." Major Frakt protested, telling the judge that he believed it was the defendant's right to represent himself and not proceed with a defense and that he "would prefer to respect Mr. al-Bahlul's wishes," but it was not to be. Major Frakt was assigned to act as standby counsel. The prosecution read out the charges against Bahlul, and Judge Brownback asked the accused how he pleaded. Bahlul stood mute. "Mr. al-Bahlul," Judge Brownback said, "When I asked you how do you plead, you were arraigned. If the future, if you are not present and the judge determines your absence is voluntary, the commissions can and will proceed against you. Do you understand?" Bahlul again refused to answer and the proceedings were adjourned. The next hearings are scheduled for June 26-27.

Cheney Makes Appearance for House Hopeful

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:00:00 PDT

SOUTHAVEN, Miss., May 12 -- Vice President Cheney traveled to this Memphis suburb on Monday in an eleventh-hour effort by the Republican Party to hang on to a U.S. House seat that it has long held but that appears at risk of becoming the third Democratic gain this year.

Mississippi Showdown to Make or Break Democratic Winning Streak

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:03:21 PDT

CQPolitics.com - Democratic and Republican top party officials may be more focused on Mississippi tonight than on the West Virginia presidential primary. After all, the primary's outcome is already predicted, while the outcome of the Mississippi's 1st Congressional District special election is much less certain.

Few immigrants but lots of debate before W. Virginia votes

Mon, 12 May 2008 22:30:00 PDT

Here in tiny Bruceton Mills — one of the least Hispanic towns in the union's least Hispanic state, which hosts a Democratic primary today — the subject of illegal immigration has become a hot topic.