hillary clinton

Blogging over at the Plumline, Jonathan Bernstein brings up a very interesting question:

As Pema Levy reports in a nice item, the message among neutral Republicans over the weekend was simple: It’s time to shut down GOP WH 2012 before somebody gets hurt – in particular, the “somebody” being the very likely but ever-vulnerable Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. As she notes, this replaces a previous Republican case of Obama-Clinton envy, in which many GOP insiders decided that Barack Obama helped himself in 2008 by fighting a long nomination battle.

There’s inconclusive political science literature about the effects of divisive primaries. Those studying the problem have recognized two competing effects. On the one hand, a hard-fought primary may energize the party and the winning campaign may have been forced to build an effective electioneering operation; on the other, the losing side may defect or stay home in the general election, and attacks made by same-party candidates may lend credibility to general election attacks from the other party.

There’s no particular reason to believe going in which of these effects are strong; it’s an empirical question, and one that’s proved difficult to answer. What’s more, most studies have been in statewide or House races. It’s not clear how any of this translates into presidential elections, and it’s harder to assess presidential races effectively because there just aren’t that many of them.

What we have happening in the primary this year is nothing like the Obama/Clinton battle of 2008. In 2008 people chose a candidate they liked and supported them. This year Republicans are picking a candidate they don't like then choosing an alternative, with the only real exception being the Ron Paul supporters.

That is a big problem.

Leave it to Fox Nation to come up with the most idiotic arguments one can ever think of.  Just check out this headline:

Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

Oh my – Bush must have been far more loved by the world than Obama! I mean Bush had 30 coalition countries and Obama only has 15.

But what does that really prove?

Well the first thing it proves is that FOX can’t even comprehend the difference between a full war and a no-fly zone. Why don’t we compare like scenarios instead? How about when the no-fly zone was put into effect in Iraq in 1992? Then the first President Bush only had a coalition of 9! He couldn’t even break into double digits and the only countries actually doing anything were the US, France and Britain.

Then we get to the issue of the actual build-up to the Iraq war. I know I’ve been very busy the last few weeks, so I might have missed it, but did Obama send Hillary Clinton to the U.N. to do a presentation about WMD’s Gadhafi was manufacturing? Did we have a State of the Union address where President Obama said Gadhafi was trying to get yellow cake uranium from Niger? In other words – did President Obama go on a huge campaign to lie the world into war? Absolutely not!

There are reports that David Shuster taped a pilot for a new CNN program

It appears Shuster may be in the MSNBC doghouse again after reports he shot a CNN pilot recently, which apparently happened without his MSNBC bosses knowing.

On Friday Shuster didn’t host his 3:00 show, but did host the 10am show, highlighting that this story does have some legs. Today we find out Shuster won’t be hosting either show:

MSNBC bad boy David Shuster may be on his third strike.

Shuster won't be on the air today for his 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. shows, according to MSNBC insiders. Whether he returns before his contract expires in December is up for debate.

Shuster's last appearance was at 10 a.m. Friday. MSNBC boss Phil Griffin pulled him from his 3 p.m. gig after learning, via The New York Observer, that the anchor had recently shot a pilot for CNN without having informed his bosses.

And as the article reminds us, Shuster has been a constant scapegoat for MSNBC:

In February 2008, Shuster was suspended for two weeks and forced to apologize after a tasteless on-air crack about Chelsea Clinton's presidential politicking for her mother, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Something interesting has happened since Byron Dorgan announced his retirement from the Senate Tuesday night. We now see a movement developing to get Ed Schultz to hang up the microphone and hit the campaign trail. Today Bob Fertik over at democrats.com started an online petition to draft Ed.

I have been critical of some of Schultz’s positions in the past, particularly the very negative views he took of Hillary Clinton during the primary, but to me Schultz would be a great replacement for Dorgan. Politically they are much aligned and Ed has the demeanor needed to keep North Dakota in the blue column.

Given all that, the man who is retiring doesn’t think Ed will run:

Outgoing North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan predicted on Thursday that MSNBC host Ed Schultz would not run for the seat he will soon vacate.

"Ed is not going to run for the Senate," Dorgan said during an appearance on The Bill Press Show. "He is a good guy. I like Ed. He is a friend. He has a great show. I'm proud that he is on MSNBC. I understand that [North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party leader Merle] Boucher from state legislature called him. But I don't think Ed is going to be running for the Senate."

Press asked why not. "He is not going to leave his MSNBC show to go out and run for the Senate," said Dorgan, who announced his retirement from office on Tuesday evening.

Short of another candidate with the appeal of Schultz, I don’t think the Democrats have much of a chance of holding onto the North Dakota seat, so we really should get Ed to run. One promising thing is that Ed hasn’t totally written off the idea yet. His responses to a possible run have had a great candidate quality of not being very clear.

I’m still catching up on all the news of Honduras, but I found this article to not be that newsworthy:

The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelaya's ouster, said a senior U.S. official. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Barack Obama wouldn't support any nondemocratic transfer of power in the Central American country.

"We had some indication that a move against Mr. Zelaya was afoot," said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. "We made it clear it was something we didn't support."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Obama Sunday in criticizing the Honduran coup and calling for the restoration of the democratic process.

Sounds logical. Any sort of coup leads to political instability in a nation, and we don’t need anymore instability in the world right now. Like I said, not really news. Well not really until you start reading how the right is taking it:

Figures... Barack Obama meddled and worked to prevent the ouster of this leftist tinpot dictator.
...When a Leftist dictator's career is on the line, Obama finds reason to meddle.
When Iranian democracy protesters are slaughtered on the street, Obama refuses to insert himself into the "debate."

One thing I have always had against interest groups is their ability to look at a situation as a whole. I am an avid environmentalist, but if there was a scenario in which 1000’s of acres of forest had to be leveled for a group of people to survive then I say go for it.

Likewise, I also fully support human rights:

Amnesty International and a pro-Tibet group voiced shock Friday after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed not to let human rights concerns hinder cooperation with China.

Paying her first visit to Asia as the top US diplomat, Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet.

"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing.

Clinton’s reasoning is sound enough, but there is actually more to it than Amnesty International is acknowledging:

With the export-heavy Chinese economy reeling from the U.S. downturn, Clinton sought in meetings with Premier Wen Jiabao and other top Chinese government leaders to reassure Beijing that its massive holdings of U.S. Treasury notes and other government debt would remain a good investment.

"I appreciate greatly the Chinese government's continuing confidence in United States treasuries. I think that's a well-grounded confidence," Clinton told reporters at a joint news conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.

Funny how the lone Senator to vote against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation is the same one named in a prostitution scandal – David Vitter.