Tag Archives: clinton

Larry King Wasn’t Opinionated on CNN? Remembering His Shots at the ‘Far-Right Wacko Element’

Larry King’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his perch at CNN has been declared an end to a cable news era. On The Early Show on CBS Wednesday morning, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wondered “Is there still room in an increasingly partisan cable television universe for this kind of variety show, where you talk to a president one day and Lady Gaga the next? I mean, Larry losing the ratings to Sean Hannity at Fox, Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, it’s a lot more opinionated out there than Larry ever allowed himself to be.” Signaling the end of King’s long reign last month, New York Times TV writer Brian Stelter sounded a similar note: “Larry King Live is the last trace of an earlier age of cable TV, one that had little interest in the opinions of its hosts.” King’s show is definitely not in the Hannity or Olbermann molds, but to suggest he didn’t venture an opinion would not match the record. Conservatives remember his occasional shot at “wackos” on the “far right,” especially in the Clinton years. Here’s a short listing of a few King items we published in our Notable Quotables newsletter:  Dan Rather: “I don’t do editorials. And about that perhaps you and I will just — I hope in good humor — agree to disagree that we don’t do editorializing. And I’m either famous or infamous, depending on your point of view, saying we don’t editorialize; we don’t want to editorialize, in no way, shape, or form….” King: “Over all these fifteen years, how do you react to the constant, especially, far right-wing criticism that the news on CBS is mainstream biased?” Rather: “Well, I don’t quite know what mainstream is.” King: “I don’t know what it means either, but they say it. I’m just quoting ’em.” Rather: “Oh, no. I understand. Well, my answer to that is basically a good Texas phrase, which is bullfeathers.” – Exchange on Larry King Live, March 11, 1996. “When I heard the quote it sounded to me like it was Limbaugh or Liddy or Ollie North. It was like wacko talk radio . It didn’t sound like Brinkley. In other words, Brinkley’s always been irreverent, but always kind of classy.” — CNN’s Larry King on David Brinkley’s election night comments that Clinton is a “bore” and his speech delivered “more goddamn nonsense,” November 7, 1996 Larry King Live. “All right. So what if we made this case — OK, he’s pretty tough with fundraising. But there’s no proof that the Chinese had any in, except they gave money. He did a bad deal for you. And he has turned on his friends maybe a little. But nobody made big money in Whitewater. It was years ago. He was in Arkansas. He’s a good President. I am happy. No boy is dying overseas. Country seems to be coming around. Supreme Court is pretty good. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Yes. What I if I made that case?” — Larry King to Whitewater scandal figure Jim McDougal, April 21, 1997 CNN Larry King Live. “Let’s run some things down: the travel office, was that an example of your saying ‘I’m unhappy,’ and then people taking it further than that? Was that an example of what you spoke about earlier, you have to think of everything you say. What did happen?…Have you felt, like with grand juries and the like, beleaguered, put upon?…You may be too close to the forest for the trees, but with all the attacks that have occurred, how do you explain the popularity of Bill Clinton?….Mr. [Webster] Hubbell, were you just being a friend?” — Some of King’s probing questions to Hillary Clinton, April 29, 1997. Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal: “What kind of country has a mother go in and testify against her daughter?” Larry King: “But that they could always do, right?” Mark Geragos, McDougal’s attorney: “They can always do that, but…” King: “Germany did it, too.” — Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live, February 24, 1998. “You’re also talking to people who are not popular because they closed the government; they’re not popular because they never came up with campaign finance reform, which they promised — that could be a moral issue, too, taking money from people to vote. So morality covers a lot of areas and some of the people you’re talking to have the questionable morals themselves.” — CNN’s Larry King to Focus on the Family head James Dobson, May 6, 1998 Larry King Live. Greta Van Susteren: “If the Southern Baptists want to do this, they have an absolute right to do it, and especially when you examine the history and see how many wars are fought in the name of religion, how many people are critical of other religions – you’ll see how dangerous it is.” Larry King: “Greta, the Ku Klux Klan said it was religious . Would it have been rude to criticize them?” Van Susteren: “Well, they also violated the law. They started killing people.” King: “When they violated the law. But on their edict it was wrong to criticize them that whites were superior…” — Exchange on Southern Baptist statement that a wife should “submit graciously” to her husband, who is to “love his wife as Christ loved the Church,” CNN’s Larry King Live, June 12, 1998. “Why, Lesley, do you think he’s so hated [Clinton]? He’s a moderate to a conservative right, basically?” — CNN’s Larry King to CBS reporter Lesley Stahl, February 2, 1999. “So it was not the, as has been termed, the wacko element? The far right or those who are conspicuously anti-Clinton who were pressuring her?” — CNN’s Larry King to the son of Clinton sexual-assault accuser Juanita Broaddrick after he said she only came forward to correct misleading stories, March 8, 1999. “Tipper, one of the things that Elian Gonzalez’s father said that I guess would be hard to argue with, that his boy’s safer in a school in Havana than in a school in Miami. He would not be shot in a school in Havana. Good point?” –­ CNN’s Larry King to Tipper Gore, April 20, 2000. That [Democratic congressional victory] may be the first defeat for the far right tonight….Since the far right did get into that race in upstate New York, is this a legitimate defeat for them tonight?…Do you see the far right as evidenced by — we all know who they are — as a threat to your party?” — CNN’s Larry King to various guests during his network’s election night coverage just after midnight, November 4, 2009.

More here:
Larry King Wasn’t Opinionated on CNN? Remembering His Shots at the ‘Far-Right Wacko Element’

Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

“For the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a ‘trailblazer’ in action,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer trumpeted Tuesday night before Jonathan Karl framed his story on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s hearing around how “a confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor.” Like NBC, Karl featured Kagan joking about how she was probably at a Chinese restaurant on Christmas day. The three broadcast network evening newscasts, as well as CNN and FNC, highlighted Senator Jeff Sessions pressing Kagan on her treatment of military recruiters. Karl used the exchange to praise Kagan: “We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office….She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” CBS’s Jan Crawford declared Kagan “held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground,” while NBC’s Pete Williams touted how “she displayed flashes of humor.” ( CNN expressed concern Kagan wasn’t liberal enough : “Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats.” More below.) NBC’s Peter Williams raised her liberal position on one issue: “She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. ‘I’m not sympathetic,’ she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms.” On FNC’s Special Report, however, Carl Cameron pointed out the previous court nominee flipped on guns from the position she presented to the Senate committee: CARL CAMERON: She urged a ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration that many consider a threat to gun rights, but she was unequivocal about Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. KAGAN: That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case, so that is settled law. CAMERON: …But President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, also said the 2nd amendment was an individual right in her confirmation hearings, then once on the court joined dissenting justices who said the right is not fundamental. CNN’s The Situation Room highlighted a controversy where in some notes Kagan seemed to equate the KKK and NRA, but the topic disappeared from CNN’s story reviewing the hearings. Setting up a panel discussion in the 5 PM EDT hour, fill-in anchor Suzanne Malveaux related: One of the things that they talked about was this 1996 hand-written note that conservative commentators went after, saying that they believe that she was against [for] gun control because of some comparisons she made between the NRA and the KKK. Senator Jon Kyl called her out on this, and here’s how she responded. But at the top of the 6 PM EDT hour, Dana Bash checked in with a rundown of the hearing and didn’t mention the NRA/KKK matter as she concluded by conveying liberal fears that Kagan may not be liberal enough: Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats. For example, on gun rights she said that she considers recent cases before the Supreme Court, rulings upholding the 2nd amendment, a good precedent going forward. From Monday night, “ Kagan Hearings, Day 1: Evening Newscasts Downplay; NBC Offers Just 24 Seconds ” The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these transcripts from Tuesday night, June 29: ABC’s World News: DIANE SAWYER: And next, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Senators began questioning her today – the former Harvard Law School dean – and, for the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a “trailblazer” in action. What did we learn about her? Jon Karl was in the hearing room. Jon? JONATHAN KARL: Diane, Kagan faced some tough questions. And while she may not have won over her critics, she certainly held her ground. A confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor. This is what happened when Senator Lindsey Graham pressed her on where she was when the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda Rights. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? ELENA KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KARL: The humor was contagious. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): We have to have a little back and forth every once in awhile or this place would be boring as hell, I’ll tell you. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KAGAN: And it gets the spotlight off me. KARL: We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy. KAGAN: I respect, and, indeed, I revere the military. My father was a veteran. KARL: She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. KAGAN: I have repeatedly said that I believe that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is unwise and unjust. I believed it then and I believe it now. KARL: We also learned she favors televising Supreme Court proceedings. KAGAN: I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and, more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people. KARL: But even that recommendation came with a joke. KAGAN: It means I’d have to get my hair done more often. KARL: As for Kagan’s now-famous criticism of previous nominees for turning hearings into a vapid and hollow charade, she acknowledged that things looked a lot differently now that she is the nominee. So when it came to specific questions of the law, Diane, she kept things just as vapid and hollow as her predecessors. SAWYER: All depends on where you sit – in her case, really sit. Thank you, Jon. Following Karl, Terry Moran reviewed what happened at Harvard with the military recruiters, noting Kagan’s passion in place of legal reasoning: “…but she kept fighting, joining several other law professors in a case against the military which the Supreme Court rejected eight to zero.” CBS Evening News: ERICA HILL: Things got a little tougher today for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. After mostly listening on day one of her confirmation hearing, today she answered sharp questions from Republican Senators. Jan Crawford is our chief legal correspondent. Jan, good evening. JAN CRAWFORD: Good evening, Erica. You know, the first questions were also some of the toughest, and they focused on her efforts when she was dean at Harvard Law School to limit military recruiting there on campus because of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Now, Kagan tried to explain that today, but Republicans weren’t buying it. ELENA KAGAN: The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. KAGAN: Later sessions questioned her intellectual honesty during that part of her testimony, and that wasn’t the only issue Republicans hammered her on. They also focused on gun rights, coming off yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights nationwide. Now, Erica, Kagan said that she accepted that decision. She didn’t say, though, that she would have voted for it. And that’s that delicate dance these nominees try to do. So today she held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground. NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: On Capitol Hill, there were two critical events. We’ll begin with the first day of questions from the Senate for Elena Kagan, the woman nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. As our Justice correspondent Pete Williams reports, she faced a range of questions, beginning with her position on one hot-button military issue. PETE WILLIAMS: Republicans accused Elena Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was Harvard Law dean, enforcing an anti-discrimination policy that kept recruiters out of the school’s placement center because of the ban on gays in the military. But she said recruiters were never barred from campus. ELENA KAGAN: Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. PETE WILLIAMS: She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. “I’m not sympathetic,” she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms. KAGAN: The state of the law was very different. No court – not the Supreme Court and no appellate court – had held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. PETE WILLIAMS: Her answers to some questions were, for Supreme Court hearings, unusually straightforward. Example, would she favor televising Supreme Court cases? KAGAN: I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. PETE WILLIAMS: And she displayed flashes of humor, especially in response to some unfocused questions. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? KAGAN: I’m assuming that the question, you mean, is whether a person who was apprehended in the United States is- GRAHAM: No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas? (AUDIENCE AND KAGAN LAUGH) KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) PETE WILLIAMS: The questions continue tomorrow and possibly Thursday. Pete Williams, NBC News, Washington.

Continue reading here:
Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

The Facebook Adventures of Accused Russian Spy Mikhail Semenko [Exclusive]

Accused spy Anna Chapman wasn’t the only suspected Russian agent on Facebook . A tipster with access to co-defendant Mikhail Semenko ‘s Facebook photos sent us some of his pictures. Want to see an alleged spy in a Bill Clinton costume? More

Weekend Captionfest

Bill Clinton and Mick Jagger at the USA-Ghana World Cup match, June 26, 2010.

Link:
Weekend Captionfest

NPR Twice Promoted David Weigel as Chronicler of Conservative Extremism

The idea that Washington Post writer David Weigel was supposed to be a conservative — and not merely someone reporting on the conservative movement — was clearly not based on a review of Weigel’s output. Weigel didn’t just deconstruct conservatives for the Post, but was also presented twice recently by National Public Radio as a wise man assessing the fringiness of conservatives. Last October , they wanted to know how strange Fox News was, and whether they could be blamed for Tea Party protests. Weigel called their influence “massive.” Weigel typically suggested Fox and Glenn Beck were not “realistic” in painting President Obama as connected to ACORN and the SEIU. On NPR’s Fresh Air on February 23 , before he joined the Post, Weigel reported on CPAC and the Tea Party and embraced host Terry Gross’s idea that conservatives shouldn’t be big fans of government-enhancing Dick Cheney:  GROSS: So if the conservative movement is glad that Bush isn’t around anymore, and if they think that he embraced big government, why was Dick Cheney such a rock star at CPAC? I mean, if anything, Cheney is the person most responsible for the expansion of the powers of the executive branch. WEIGEL: Well… GROSS: And Cheney was the person who – was the architect in a – one of the architects of the war in Iraq, which was certainly government getting us into a very long war, a war that many people think was not only fought on false premises but many people believe has been very destructive both to America and Iraq. So why did he get such the rousing welcome that he did, if in many ways he represented the expansion of government’s power? WEIGEL: That’s an excellent point, it’s just that he represents a specific kind of government expansion, the expansion of the national security state and the expansion of America’s role in spreading democracy around the world with military action. Those are very popular with conservatives, and that’s a dispute. CPAC was pretty convivial this year, but the dispute that existed there was between more Ron Paul-type activists who think America should pull back from engagement in the world and wiretapping and all these debates that are hot right now, and the more traditional conservatives, who think anything that the president needs to kill terrorists is justifiable . So that’s why he was cheered. Cheney was a surprise guest who was introduced by his daughter, Liz Cheney, who has become a pretty successful pundit, basically making that argument, arguing sometimes against reality that everything Barack Obama does is aiding terrorists and making America less safe. That got huge cheers. Weigel also talked about how CPAC organizers were downplaying a presidential straw poll that Ron Paul won, and the idea that Weigel’s libertarian doesn’t come through in this segment: WEIGEL: But conservatives were united in trying to diminish this result, because they don’t want their image to the American people to be a septuagenarian politician who bangs on about the need to pull – you know, to close down American bases and speaks at meetings of the John Birch Society. I mean, it was accidentally very revealing of how far right the party has gotten. GROSS: Do you mean that Paul’s victory is representative of how far right the party has gotten? WEIGEL: Oh, yeah, this is an unscientific straw poll that was conducted, but they’ve all been unscientific straw polls, and they usually don’t end with this very libertarian – and libertarian is a term that gets tossed around a lot. Paul specifically is one of these guys who thinks we just really need to roll back the federal government to at least what it was like before 1912, before the progressive movement. Actually, I correct myself: before Teddy Roosevelt. Weigel also suggested the Tea Party movement weren’t Dick Armey’s puppets, but they didn’t know which bills to oppose until Armey told them:  GROSS: The Tea Party movement wants to be something new and different and have some impact on the Republican Party. But one of the chief funders of parts of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey, through his organization Freedom Works. And Dick Armey is really, you know, a voice of the past. I mean he was one of the – he was a Republican leader during the Clinton administration and goes back before that. Like, when was he in Congress? WEIGEL: He was elected in 1984 and he left on his own volition in 2002. I mean he was in no danger of being defeated. He just retired to become, like a lot of former congressmen, a lobbyist with some political interests. GROSS: Okay. So what are his interests in funding the Tea Party movement? WEIGEL: One thing Armey would say is that he doesnt fund the Tea Party movement. He loves to contrast what they see as union thugs and ACORN putting Democratic rallies together with Tea Party people gassing up their cars and driving to Washington for his rallies. There’s some dishonesty there. (Laughter) I mean Freedom Works is always on the scene. It helps set these things up. It’s got full-time activists who help get permits. And I mean I’ve been to a couple of events at Freedom Works’ office where theyll have huge, you know, nice buffet spreads and things like that for Tea Party activists and conservative bloggers to meet and strategize. But it’s not a ton of money they’re spending. He has figured out that the very libertarian beliefs he’s had for a long time, which he always thought had some sort of, you know, if not a majority support, some huge support in the country he just couldnt locate, well, that support’s been located. So he is happily steering these guys and giving them candidates they can support and giving them policies they can support. I mean Tea Party activists are not – do not come to these rallies with a set of political goals. They generally believe the things I’ve been talking about – about the Constitution, about how Obama’s trying to wreck it. But for them to come out against a bill or believe that that bill contains a provision that’s going to kill their grandmothers, something like that, that is coming from people like Armey, who have these interests – have lobbying interests in some respects, who want that message to get out there. And that’s what you see. I mean I dont – I really don’t think that conservative activists at the top like Armey have been puppeteering this movement. I mean they’re right, it was – it did spring out of some part of the American map in reaction to Obama’s policies. But they are telling it what it should stand for as much as Fox News is informing them what Obama is doing that they should be opposing.

See more here:
NPR Twice Promoted David Weigel as Chronicler of Conservative Extremism

Daily Kos on Gen. McChrystal: ‘Ruthless, Bullying Criminal’ Like a ’13-Year-Old Skateboarder’

If the bloggers at Daily Kos can imply that Keith Olbermann isn’t pro-Obama enough for them, you can only imagine what they think of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The Kosmonaut known simply as “Overlander” relayed that the general has written short stories with plots about presidential assassination, so clearly it’s a “fantasy” of his: I hope the Secret Service strip searches this monstrous thug before his meeting with Obama in the White House Wednesday. For the humiliation, mainly. But you can’t be too careful with this devil. Hastings’ article reveals that sometimes, America’s military is not made up of our best and brightest, but of our sickest and most pathological criminals. Half frat boy, half eighth-grader, half murderer and all evil, McChrystal is a sad remnant of Donald Rumsfeld’s dysfunctional Pentagon who should have been kicked out of the military in West Point rather than be allowed to slouch his way through a brutal career and find his way into the White House. Armed only with an article in Rolling Stone, a magazine that’s been infatuated with every powerful Democrat from Clinton to Gore to Obama, this oracle of Kos knows this immature Bushie must be stripped of responsibility: Obama has allowed McChrystal to write his Afghanistan policy. But McChrystal still whimpers and whines and tosses off junior high insults when talking about the minimal constraints our weak civilian government places on our runaway military. Obama should sack McChrystal because McChrystal is a ruthless, bullying criminal with the emotional development of a 13-year-old skateboarder. This blogger can upbraid a general as an emotionally stunted criminal, but he or she doesn’t even have the guts to sign their name to it. It’s appropriate that Keith Olbermann would rejoin this screed-writing band of self-righteous leftists.

Read the original post:
Daily Kos on Gen. McChrystal: ‘Ruthless, Bullying Criminal’ Like a ’13-Year-Old Skateboarder’

Hillary Clinton: Gay Rights Are Human Rights

Obama, Clinton vow to defend gay rights, adding 'it's not who we are as Americans' By Elise Labott, CNN Senior State Department Producer June 23, 2010 1:48 a.m. EDT Washington (CNN) — President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to end violence and discrimination against gays and lesbians at home and abroad Tuesday, as the Obama administration moves to extend further benefits to gays working in the federal government. “It's not right, it's not who we are as Americans, and we're going to put a stop to it,” Obama told a raucous White House reception honoring Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Earlier, Clinton received several standing ovations from a standing-room only crowd of several hundred during her address at an event co-hosted by the State Department's Office of Civil Rights and GLIFAA, the organization for Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. “We are moving together in the right direction,” said Clinton. “We reaffirm our commitment to protect the rights of all human beings.” The White House event invited politicians and government officials as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American from across the country, including young people “who have stood up for equality,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye. At a similar event last year, six months after Obama took office, participants expressed frustration over what they called a lack of progress in confronting discrimination issues that the president had promised to resolve. This time, Obama received loud applause, cheers and whistles as he cited steps his administration has taken, including a new hate crimes law, extending federal benefits to gay employees and a push for an employee discrimination bill. The Obama administration is expected to announce Wednesday that gay workers will be able to take medical leave to care for the sick or newborn children of their same-sex partners as part of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which generally allows those working for companies with 50 or more employees to take 12 unpaid weeks off to care for newborns or children with serious health issues. “And finally, we're going to end “don't ask, don't tell,” Obama said Tuesday of the policy that prohibits openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service. A bill that would repeal the policy after a Pentagon review is completed in December is before Congress, the president noted. “We have never been closer to ending this discriminatory policy, and I'm going to keep on fighting until that bill is on my desk,” he said to cheers. Attending the event was Janice Langbehn of Lacey, Washington, who was denied hospital visitation rights when her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm while on vacation in Florida. Obama mentioned her story on Tuesday, calling the way she was treated “wrong” and “cruel.” Earlier, Clinton said she is asking embassies in Africa and elsewhere to report on rights of the local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. The State Department also is placing more attention on ensuring gays around the world have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and providing grants to human rights activists who are persecuted either because they are gay or defend gay rights, she said. “These dangers are not gay issues. This is a human rights issue,” Clinton said. She drew more rousing applause when she declared “human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights,” a variation on the phrase she famously delivered in Beijing 10 years ago declaring “women's rights are human rights.” Clinton said she is equally concerned about creating an environment at the State Department in which gay employees feel valued and “can give 100 percent.” That is why, she said, she supported offering equal benefits to same-sex partners of State Department employees, a move that encouraged Obama to authorize such benefits for gays throughout the federal government. She noted the State Department also has made it easier for transgender people to change their passports and, for the first time, the agency's “equal opportunity statement” will include gender identity. It already includes sexual orientation. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report added by: EthicalVegan

Sally Quinn: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Should Switch Jobs

Sally Quinn really wants to be helpful to both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, the result of her laughable suggestion that Hillary and Vice-President Biden switch jobs is that it would only highlight the desperate political situation that the current administration has gotten itself into. Here is Sally trying to be helpful with her bizarre recommendation : Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs. Really. Really? Of course this job switch, a first in history for a vice president to switch places with a cabinet member, would be one more indication of Obama trying to pull himself out of the political abyss he finds himself in. That thought seems not to have entered Sally’s mind as she happily chirps on about this scenario which includes a big plug for Hillary: It makes sense for the Democrats, actually. Clinton has done an incredible job as secretary of state. First of all, she has worked harder than anyone should ever be expected to. She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama’s good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and supportive to the president and has maintained a good relationship with him and with others in the White House. If she is being left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.  Sally sounds more like she is promoting Hillary for sainthood than for the vice-presidency. In fact, Sally believes that the Hillary “magic” would be enough to ward off the “evil” Sarah Palin spell: She is tireless and relentless. Given the combination of votes that she and Obama got in the 2008 primary campaign, they would be a near-unbeatable team. Clinton also appeals to independents, but importantly, she would neutralize the effect of Sarah Palin. Whatever Palin came up with, Hillary could best her — and the Tea Party crowd as well. The Republicans would lose their “year of the woman” argument. And based on experience alone, Hillary is far more qualified to be president than any of the Republicans being considered today, including Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Palin.  And what of Joe Biden? How would he handle what is essentially a demotion? According to Sally, he would happily swallow his pride because he secretly wants to become Secretary of State: True, Joe Biden has been rehabilitated. A recent profile in The Post portrayed him as a successful and intelligent man whose foreign policy advice is valued by the president. The gaffe-prone former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems to have worked out the kinks. Clearly, he is aware that he is no longer an independent voice but, rather, a representative of the president. But Biden has no intention of running for president in six years. His passion is foreign policy. He would have been an ideal choice for secretary of state had he not been Obama’s running mate. And those who know him have said that secretary of state is his dream job.  So welcome to Sally’s World in which a simple job switch would cause the “evil” Republicans to melt away make everything right again for the liberal agenda. Sally saved her best laugh line about this job switch suggestion for the final sentence: Take it seriously.  Oh yes, Sally, we  certainly will… BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Read more:
Sally Quinn: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Should Switch Jobs

MSNBC Panel Not Impressed By Obama Speech

On a special edition of Tuesday’s Countdown show on MSNBC which aired after President Obama address to the nation, the panel of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman were not impressed by the President’s speech, as the group complained that it was not “specific” enough and lacked details. Matthews complained that in the Obama administration, “meritocracy is going too far,” and asserted that it was “ludicrous” that the President had mentioned that Energy Secretary Carol Browner has a Nobal Prize. Matthews: Well, I thought a couple of things were surprising to me. Why does he continue to say that the secretary of energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We have Carol Browner do it again tonight. I know I`ve mocked him for doing it, saying I`d barf if he did it one more time. But it`s not important. This meritocracy is going too far. This I`m the new guy here, the head the MMS. I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, June 15, Countdown show on MSNBC:  KEITH OLBERMANN: Chris, I`m going to start with you. Maybe I missed something. I thought it was a great speech if you`ve been on another planet for the last 57 days. But was that what was needed tonight? Did he shoot really low? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I thought there was a bit of news there and I don`t whether it`s optimistic beyond belief, which is, in the coming days or weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. Well, that`s the first I`ve heard of that. In coming days, we`re going to have this thing capped. We`re going to effectively solve the problem? Secondly, he didn`t mention what power he has as chief executive of the country to make them understand they need to put this escrow account in third party hands. Is he going to litigate? Is he going to file an amicus brief with class action suit? Wait seven years for this to happen? Or is he really going to demand it to happen? He said, I can ask them to do this. I`m amazed he just says he has that power. We`ll see. And as for the energy bill, I think you hit on something important there. Cap and trade passed the House. It hasn`t gotten anywhere in the Senate. And one reason it has gotten there is, remember how he jump- lined for immigration after Harry Reid for a while there? He had the bill in the queue. He pushed this aside for immigration, knowing he wasn`t going to be able to get immigration through, or even come with an I.D. card as part of a comprehensive solution. And then he pushed it aside and then he put it back in line again. It`s not clear. Now, the hard part of this is the heavy-lifting of energy transition. He said we have to accelerate this thing, accelerate the transition to renewables. That is the hardest thing in the world. That`s what broke Jimmy Carter. That`s what Ronald Reagan took a buy on completely. And Bill Clinton didn`t do anything. It`s the hardest thing in the world. He`s saying, I`m going to do it, and then no more information. OLBERMANN: Nothing. Nothing specific. Nothing specific at all. MATTHEWS: The best you can do, if you do it, and the question: Is he going to do it this year? Is there going to be a bill that goes from cap and trade to something like Lugar? Is there a particular direction he`s going in? He didn`t tell us. OLBERMANN: But he didn`t even say the Senate needs to pass the bill that`s already on the table. MATTHEWS: Well, at least something. You need to go to conference. OLBERMANN: Howard, I got the feeling, Howard, that the president would have said, hey, I was as surprised by this as you were. He talked about how he had approved the expansion of the offshore drilling and said he`d been assured everything was going to go all right. And then he had the analogy, which many people expected would be more contemporary about 9/11, was instead about World War II. And he said something I found just extraordinary, it`s nice- speechifying. But let me read it again. “Our determination to fight for the America we want for our children, even if we`re unsure exactly what that looks like, even if we don`t yet know precisely how we`re going to get there, we know we`ll get there.” It`s nice, but again, how? Where was the “how” in this speech when the nation is crying out for how? HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. you said he aimed too low. I don`t think he was specific enough, Keith. You talked about the energy bill. The fact is that Harry Reid has told him there aren`t 60 votes in the Senate to get beyond a filibuster with cap and trade. That`s the detail of it. But beyond that, I think the American people, both in the Gulf and everywhere else, wanted to know more how this was going. Somewhere between earlier today and tonight, this went from being a war and all about an assault on the Gulf to an epidemic. That`s one thing that I thought was interesting. The commander-in-chief thing was lost. And I thought it was, he had to confess but in a way didn`t confess enough. Why he had approved offshore oil drilling and he had accepted these assurances? Who were these assurances from? Who were they from? Now, if you connected the dots between that paragraph and the one below where he said the MMS was a disaster and a mess, you might get a little bit of an idea why that it happened. I think this is a war. I think he was commander-in-chief or should have been commander-in-chief tonight. I think, just, if he`s going to make the analogy to World War II, it should have been like Franklin Roosevelt explaining exactly what was happening in Europe, where Patton was going, where the troops were going, what the losses were, what the advances were, what the troop`s strengths were. Tell everybody. They` been watching television for the last 59 days. They want to know how we`re doing. OLBERMANN: Right. Even if we don`t know precisely how we`re going to get there we know we`ll get there. There wasn`t any specificity to it. FINEMAN: Yes. OLBERMANN: I`m going to revise my remark, Chris. I don`t think he aimed low. I don`t think he aimed at all about this. It`s startling to have heard this, isn`t it? MATTHEWS: Well, I thought a couple of things were surprising to me. Why does he continue to say that the secretary of energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We have Carol Browner do it again tonight. I know I`ve mocked him for doing it, saying I`d barf if he did it one more time. But it`s not important. This meritocracy is going too far. This I`m the new guy here, the head the MMS. I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas. I think it`s interesting. We have a blue ribbon panel now that`s going to look in to what went wrong. Can`t we move a little quicker than that, than to name a commission? That`s what they`ve done here. Another commission and another guy mentioned — they mentioned for having a Nobel Prize. I think there`s a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk here. References — you know what they don`t refer to, his cabinet. Now, this is cabinet government like I`ve never seen before. I asked Admiral Allen the other day, “Who do you work for?” Because there`s been concern in the Gulf as to the lack of a clear-cut chain of command, like the president of the United States, Rahm Emanuel, cabinet does what they`re told. Now, I asked Allen, “Who do you work for?” Well, he says, “I work for Janet Napolitano over at homeland security and then she sort of reports to the president.” And go — wait a minute, isn`t the president calling the shots here? And here he was delineating everybody`s job like Admiral Allen and he`s got this Nobel Prize guy and then he`s got this blue-ribbon panel. I don`t sense executive command. And I thought that was the purpose of this speech tonight, command and control. I`m calling the shots. My name is Barack Obama. I`m the boss. I`m telling people what to do. I didn`t get that clarity. And I think that command and control, a phrase that`s made, worked its way around the White House is essential here. He must be chief executive. He can no longer be Vatican observer or intellectual, or a guy calling in experts, or naming commissioners or whatever. I think he`s, or citing people for their Nobel prizes, I think he has to be the boss. And he never mentioned here anything beyond BP, like, aren`t there other oil companies that could help clean up this mess? You know, we`ve had Hofmeister on, the former Shell executive, saying you`ve got to get all these tankers in there, all these people out there skimming. I don`t sense this as a real national effort yet.

See the original post here:
MSNBC Panel Not Impressed By Obama Speech

Robert Scheer Interviews Susan McDougal – Part Two

Author: truthdig Added: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:10:59 -0800 Duration: 694 From Truthdig.com: When Susan McDougal refused to implicate the Clintons in the Whitewater fiasco, she was thrown in prison, left alone with murderers and her own stubborn dignity. Savaged by Republicans and abandoned by Democrats, she would emerge from that dark chapter of American history a hero. Here she joins Truthdig editor Robert Scheer to tell her amazing story.

http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.swf?mediaId=143213

Follow this link:
Robert Scheer Interviews Susan McDougal – Part Two