"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith.
As I said yesterday, I think the idea of a Clinton Vice Presidency is a dreadful one, for two main reasons.
Firstly, I don't think Obama can campaign on change and then run a White House that has both Hillary and Bill roaming it's corridors, issuing their own statements of policy. And, secondly, Obama cannot be seen to endorse a woman who has said he is not fit for the office that he is now running for. That would just be too odd.
Hillary burnt her own boats with her attacks on Obama's readiness to become Commander in Chief and she must live with the consequences of what she did. She has no-one to blame but herself.
I am pleased to say that reports coming out this morning indicate that Obama will resist Hillary's attempts to become his VP and that she will, at last, stand down for the sake of party unity.
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is gearing up for a tough face-to-face confrontation with his defeated rival Hillary Clinton over her demand to become the vice-presidential candidate.
The Obama camp, though anxious to pull the party together after a bitterly fought contest with Clinton, is hostile to the idea of having her on a joint ticket. They fear that having her and Bill Clinton in the heart of the campaign and in the White House would be disruptive.
Clinton is expected to end her campaign for the White House tomorrow, bowing to pressure from Democratic leaders to help the party unite around Obama as the nominee. Her exit arrived after signs of rising frustration from Democratic members of Congress at Clinton's refusal to concede the race or congratulate Obama for clinching the nomination.
Her decision not to concede but to take time to "consider" what to do next was simply gobsmacking. What in God's name made her think that she had anything to consider? The decision was never hers, it was the decision of the Democratic party and they had made their decision and decided that they wanted Barack Obama to be their next presidential nominee.
And it appears that it was only during shouting matches with Democratic leaders who had supported Hillary that she was finally brought to her senses.
Clinton aides said she made the decision following a late afternoon conference call with 22 Democratic leaders who had been supporting her campaign. One of those supporters, the New York member of Congress, Charlie Rangel, was visibly angry, chiding Clinton in TV interviews for failing to acknowledge Obama's victory.
Since March 5th I became confused at Clinton's campaign and what she hoped to achieve. It was obvious that she could not win and yet she went on. Her supporters became ever more shrill, believing in what could only be achieved with a miracle. Even yesterday, as Obama's victory was announced, a Hillary supporter was posting this on Taylor Marsh's site::
I am surprisingly happy for some reason tonight, it just feels weird, I cannot explain it. I was sad before regarding the nomination but after her speech tonight I feel electrified and energetic and have a certain hope in my heart that she will pull it off somehow. I feel that people will wake up soon, it has already started. This election never was about the DNC members and should never be about them, it should be about us, we the people and our candidate Senator Clinton.
It was the perfect example of how deluded Hillary's entire campaign had become, with supporters believing victory would somehow come simply because Hillary had lacked the grace to concede defeat.
What Hillary needs to do now is to concede and to urge her supporters to back Barack Obama. Some of them will never do so having been so whipped up into a frenzy by Clinton and others, but it is Hillary's duty - for the sake of the party - to make an impassioned plea for her supporters to fight for the candidate who will do the most to care for the causes which Hillary fought for.
Clinton is expected to make her official announcement at an event in Washington, according to her communications director Howard Wolfson. She told staff at her campaign headquarters to stop coming to work from tomorrow.
This was Obama's first big test. How to get Hillary off the ticket. He responded to her press hints that she would accept the Vice Presidency by announcing that he is commissioning three prominent Democrats to vet potential vice-presidential candidates.
It was a perfect way to signal that Hillary was not welcome without actually stating it.
The former Democratic president Jimmy Carter highlighted the dilemma when, in a Guardian interview, he said it would be a mistake for Obama to have her as his vice-presidential nominee.
"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter, who endorsed Obama on Tuesday night. "That would accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates." Lanny Davis, a close Clinton adviser and friend, was among those who yesterday launched petition drives and websites, and writing directly to Obama. Another supporter, Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, said he wrote to the Congressional Black Caucus urging members to push Obama to choose Clinton. He said he had spoken with her on Tuesday and she was "absolutely ready" to become vice-president.
There was terrible pressure for Obama to make Hillary his VP, but I feel this would have been, as Carter says, "the worst mistake that could be made", and I am very pleased that Obama appears to have dodged that particular bullet.
Click title for full article.
UPDATE:
Am I being too suspicious when I note that she is only "suspending" her campaign rather than ending it?
This made me smile. The Washington Post have an article on Taylor Marsh in which her dilemma becomes painfully clear.
In recent weeks, as Clinton's withdrawal from the race has become all but inevitable, Marshall has tried to tiptoe toward leading her followers to accept Obama as the nominee. But every time she suggests that it might be over for Clinton, she is bombarded by comments to the contrary.
"My readers are really hurt. They've got their heart and soul in it," Marshall said. "I don't have that. I'm not angry with anyone. I just want [Democrats] to win."
I've watched recently Marsh attempts to have the mad people who comment on her blog consider voting for Obama and the shock and dire warnings that she gets about desertion from her readers every time she does so.
The problem for Marsh is that she has seen the visitors to her blog go through the roof the more outlandish she was against an Obama nomination. And the diehard Clintonistas she has been pandering to are simply not going to back Obama. They want Clinton or they fully intend to vote for McCain. Their main reason for supporting Hillary, as far as I can tell, is that she is a woman.
And they have backed Marsh as she has name called Obama supporters as "sexist" and "elitist" simply for preferring Obama to Clinton.
So what's Taylor going to do?
After the bile she has aimed towards the Obama campaign I, as someone who used to read her, have no interest at all in what she might want to say about Obama's campaign as November approaches, she has simply said too much and thrown far too much shit for me to care.
And if she tries to support the Democratic candidate, then the lunatics that have been giving her so many hits will desert her in droves as they keep threatening every time she even hints at offering Obama support.
So she really has made a Faustian pact. Those of us who used to read her no longer do, and the people who now read her will instantly hate her if she tries to be remotely supportive of Barack Obama.
She really has no-one to blame but herself for the bind she now finds herself in. She has been pouring gasoline on to the fire and the loons have been lapping it up.
Now, it's payback time.
If she tells the truth about wanting the Democrats to win, her readership is going to fall like a stone.
Listen to this parsing as she tries to explain the Washington Post article to her readers:
However, when I say I'll work against John McCain readers have said that means I'll vote forBarack Obama. So maybe on that I'm splitting reflections.
See, it's clear as muck. She wants a Democrat and will work against John McCain, but don't take it to mean that she will vote for Obama. How is it possible to want a Democrat to win and yet say that this should not be interpreted as saying you will vote for Obama? He's the nominee. Wanting the Democrats to win is wanting Obama to win.
Hillary has always argued that it's not over until the lady in the pantsuit says it's over. But even a cursory glance through today's papers tells you that her obituaries are being written.
One of the best is Suzanne Goldenberg's in today's Guardian, arguing that Clinton's air of invincibility was destroyed by "fibs, overspending, poor organisation - and Bill."
Like many progressives I was willing to back either candidate, and even went as far as to look for ways to rationalise Bill's comments after South Carolina, but it was after her comments regarding Obama's eligibility to have passed some magic marker which showed fitness to be Commander in Chief, a marker which Hillary claimed both she and McCain had passed and Obama had not, that my patience with her became exhausted. I thought it was unforgivable for a Democratic candidate to attack another Democrat whilst giving a free pass to a Republican. And, as I and many others predicted at the time, she was merely giving the Republicans weapons to throw at the presumptive Democratic nominee, weapons that they are already starting to use:
Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.
This was my final point of no return, but Goldenberg lists many other failings in Clinton's quest for the White House:
. A message out of step with an electorate that desperately wanted change.
· Failure to devise a plan B if she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa or by Super Tuesday on February 5.
· Failure to build a grassroots organisation. The campaign, caught up in its self-created myth of invincibility, also lost track of spending, burning through $120m (£61m) so fast that Clinton could not run television ads in several key states in February.
· Mishandling the campaign's greatest asset - Bill Clinton - turning him into one of his wife's greatest liabilities.
She, and her campaign, were also far too slow to adapt when it became obvious that a public yearning for change were not responding to a campaign based on "experience".
The first signs that Obama could pose a serious threat to Clinton's ambitions emerged last summer. Field organisers in Iowa reported back to headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, that voters were cool to her emphasis on experience. Iowans wanted change, and anything associated with Washington was viewed as tainted.
And yet it was not until Mark Penn left the campaign in April that Hillary seriously started trying a different tack, namely that she was the only person who could beat John McCain.
Her campaign took far too long to correct its early mis-steps. Confronted with Obama's megawatt charisma, she wheeled out her campaign's resident rock star: Bill Clinton. But the spectacle of the former president, white-haired and red-faced, ripping into his wife's opponent dredged up memories of scandal and invective - a living example of the "old politics" Obama had promised to end.
While Obama's candidacy was looking forward, Hillary Clinton's just seemed to be looking back. The backlash against Clinton in South Carolina - which she lost by 29 points - carried on through February. In traditionally Republican states Clinton lost by staggering margins: 62 points in Idaho, 48 points in Kansas.
But even after February's spectacular defeats, Clinton showed surprising areas of strength - especially among white working class males. She retooled her message, portraying herself as a populist champion for working people.
As it turned out, Clinton's campaign was as badly prepared on finances as it was to countering Obama's appeal. After outsize spending on polling, consultants, and prime venues for rallies, her campaign was broke by February. Obama outspent her on television advertising in every state - and in some states her campaign ran no ads at all. Even in states where Clinton ran strongly - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - Obama's campaign was always better at getting its supporters to the polls.
By April, Clinton was forced to dip into the family fortunes, lending her campaign a total of $11m. Her campaign crossed the finish line $20m in debt.
I think Goldenberg is correct in many of the mistakes which she lists; however, it was the claim that white non-college educated voters would not vote for Obama which eventually destroyed the Clinton brand name in the eyes of many. Her campaign was always going to look as if it had been fashioned in previous decades, as that was Hillary's time, and that was the only way she knew to fight elections. So that was understandable.
What was not understandable - or forgivable - was her argument that the Democratic party should heed the wishes of racists. The role of the Democratic party is to fight against such viewpoints and I never thought I would ever see the day when a Democratic presidential candidate would put forward the views which Hillary claimed to espouse.
Hillary - and her supporters like Taylor Marsh - were arguing for victory at all costs, even if racists had to have their foul views acknowledged in order to accomplish it. That would have been a terrible stain on the Democratic party.
What's really sad is that these people - who are Democrats - simply couldn't see the utter awfulness of the argument which they were making, so blinded were they by their desire to win at all costs.
Obama rose above that, which is why he is so deserving of his victory.
Click title for Suzanne Goldberg's entire article.
The Young Turks sum up exactly what I felt when I heard that Hillary was refusing to concede. It's simply astonishing that Hillary thinks she has things to consider. The will of the people means nothing to her. She cares about the opinion of her supporters and no-one else.
Even as Hillary, disgracefully, refuses to concede defeat; the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has passed the magic number of 2,118 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.
After a 54-contest, five-month-long fight, Obama started the day 45 delegates short of the 2,118 he needed to cross the finishing line. A steady shift of support towards Obama throughout the day turned into a flood. Among those announcing their endorsements was the former president Jimmy Carter. A number of Clinton supporters also defected to Obama.
He was four short as polls closed in the South Dakota and Montana primaries, the last two contests. But South Dakota pushed him over the line in terms of delegates - even though he lost the state to Clinton.
To deafening applause, he told a 20,000-strong victory rally in St Paul, Minnesota: "Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you, tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
He was generous towards Clinton. "Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honour to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton," he said.
The crowd was responsive to the conciliatory message, loudly cheering Clinton three or four times.
However, Hillary - true to form - has refused to actually accept that she has been defeated.
Although several Obama supporters in St Paul said they expected Clinton to behave graciously, she refused to concede or suspend her campaign.
Instead, Clinton said she wanted time to reflect before making her next move. "In the coming days, I'll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way," she said.
In a sign of hard bargaining with Obama's team over the next few days, she said she had won the votes of 18m Americans and she wanted their views respected.
What utterly appalls me about this is that the defeated candidate feels that she is in a position to negotiate at all.
Holed up at her home in Chappaqua, New York, during the day, she and Bill Clinton discussed options over the phone with a host of aides and supporters. One of four members of Congress who spoke to her urging her to press for the vice-president slot reported her saying: "I am open to it."
She also will negotiate about the transfer of her staff to Obama's campaign team, about help with her campaign debts, the possibility of jobs in his administration if he wins the presidency and incorporation of some of her policy positions, particularly on healthcare.
I am utterly opposed to Clinton being even considered for the Vice Presidency, having already said that Obama had not passed the threshold which she and McCain apparently had to become Commander in Chief. And I have no real interest in whether or not Obama pays the debts Clinton occurred whilst throwing the kitchen sink at him, but I do think - had I been allowed to donate to his campaign - that I would not be happy to see my money go towards the woman who has behaved so disgracefully over the past few months.
At this moment in time Hillary should be congratulating Obama and asking that her supporters rally behind him. She is not. That speaks volumes.
She is continuing trying to trade; putting her interests, as always, before the interests of the party.
The mindset that allows this detachment from reality was best summed up by one of Taylor Marsh's commenters, who said:
I am surprisingly happy for some reason tonight, it just feels weird, I cannot explain it. I was sad before regarding the nomination but after her speech tonight I feel electrified and energetic and have a certain hope in my heart that she will pull it off somehow. I feel that people will wake up soon, it has already started. This election never was about the DNC members and should never be about them, it should be about us, we the people and our candidate Senator Clinton.
Even when it's over, they are still waiting for us to see the light. They are "the people" and it's about them and, "our candidate Senator Hillary Clinton". This is the level of delusion that Hillary has whipped up amongst her supporters, and it's what's behind her comment when she states that she is the "leader of an 18 million strong movement".
I can't think of the number that John Kerry could have claimed to represent after his defeat to Bush at the last election, but it would have far outweighed 18 million. However, the simple fact was that he lost and that nearly never wins any prizes.
The difference here is in the assumption that Obama needs what Hillary has to offer, which is what spurs her to try and negotiate.
However, anyone who has followed this campaign through sites like Taylor Marsh's must have serious doubts that Hillary could actually deliver many of her supporters to Obama, unless he was to offer her the VP position, which I would contend is a serious non starter.
Obama can't possibly be president with both Bill and Hillary wandering around his White House carrying out their own agenda, which is why I think negotiation with her is simply a no brainer.
Thankfully, Obama's campaign are moving on.
Obama's main strategist, David Axelrod, also made it clear the general election is on - no matter what Clinton says or does. "One campaign ends today and another begins. We are very excited for that."
I am not remotely surprised by Hillary's churlish and selfish behaviour, indeed, it is simply a continuation of the deluded mindset which she has been displaying for months now.
"You chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears, but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations," he told a delirious victory celebration for 17,000 supporters in a sports arena in St. Paul, Minnesota. Another 15,000 gathered outside the arena and in nearby pubs where a "primary happy hour" carried on into the night.
"Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another," he said declaring that without nuance or hesitation he would carry the flag and oust the Republicans from the White House.
"Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States," he said.
The era of the Clinton's is over, whether Hillary acknowledges it or not, and the era of Barack Obama is just beginning. To those of us who have been inspired by Obama's message of hope, in a political landscape normally fashioned by fear, today is a great day.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded ground troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, has written a new book "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" in which he talks of the Bush administration's "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan."
He also talks of the neo-con mindset which led to the catastrophe that is the Iraq war.
In 2006, I was forced to retire by civilian leaders in the executive branch of the U.S. government. I was not ready to leave the soldiers I loved. The Army was my life. Service to my nation was my calling. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.
Are the Bush administration going to accuse Sanchez of hating the troops?
And, despite Bush always claiming that the generals make the decisions - (step forward Petraeus) - Sanchez gives a very different reading of what's actually taking place on the ground.
During that first year of our nation's occupation of Iraq, I observed intrusive civilian command of the military, rather than the civilian controlembodied in the Constitution. I saw the cynical use of war for political gains by elected officials and acquiescent military leaders. I learned how the pressure of a round-the-clock news cycle could drive crucial decisions. I witnessed those resulting political decisions override military requirements and judgments and, in turn, create conditions that caused unnecessary harm to our soldiers on the ground.
Sanchez is actually saying that political interference in military decisions harmed soldiers on the ground. That's an awful long way from the picture that Bush has been painting of a Commander in Chief being guided by military generals on the ground.
We've always known that this was a perfidious lie, but now, finally with this book, Sanchez confirms it.
And no sentence in his book deserves to undercut the myth of the Republicans love of the armed forces more than this one:
Over the fourteen months of my command in Iraq, I witnessed a blatant disregard for the lives of our young soldiers in uniform.
Sanchez should know. He was there. And that is what he witnessed. "A blatant disregard for the lives of our young soldiers in uniform."
This book deserves to have the same amount of attention that McClellan's is having, for what it says is just as important and undercuts all of the lies that Bush has been trading on since the invasion.
So Mugabe flies into Rome, which he is only allowed to do because the EU travel ban excludes any United Nations events, to attend a food summit.
The man whose policies have resulted in the starving of his people, this unelected little tyrant, has the sheer gall to sit there whilst other nations discuss food policies. It's beyond bizarre.
"Robert Mugabe going to Rome for the food summit is like Pol Pot going to a human rights convention," said Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office minister for Africa, referring to the mastermind of the Cambodian genocide.
The British representative to the meeting, Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, said Mr Mugabe's appearance was "obscene".
"This meeting is supposed to be about increasing the supply of food," Mr Alexander told BBC Radio, "while his policies have exactly the reverse effect in Zimbabwe." His presence in Rome was "an affront to all Zimbabweans who are suffering hunger, destitution and poverty as a direct result of his rule". That view was echoed by representatives from the United States, Australia and the Netherlands.
I know that Britain is always loathe to directly interfere in Zimbabwe's affairs lest Mugabe be able to play the old colonialism card that he has been touting for decades now, but I do think the international communities reaction to this tinpot dictator has been utterly disgraceful.
We have sat silently by while he brutalises any opposition to him within his own country, and now he gives us the finger by attending an international convention on food, whilst his own people face the largest inflation rate in the world and empty shelves in the shops.
Meanwhile, in Zimbabwe, as Mugabe and his wife take in the grandeur of Rome:
Death squads haunt the land: as reported on The Independent's front page yesterday, the tortured and broken body of one of Mr Mugabe's most courageous opponents, Tonderai Ndira, was found weeks after he had been dragged from his home in his underwear. In recent months, tens of thousands of Zimbabweans have fled abroad to escape the hunger, violence and desperate poverty of their homeland, where inflation is running at 165,000 per cent.
There is understandable outrage that Mugabe should be attending such an event, but we have brought it upon ourselves. Our reaction to this man has simply been spineless. We continue to look to Mbeki of South Africa to do something when it is obvious to one and all that Mbeki is never going to do bugger all about this.
Douglas Alexander, the British International Development Secretary, is facing calls that he should boycott the conference.
Some Labour MPs tabled a Commons protest motion calling for Mr Alexander to stay away and criticised ministers for double standards on Zimbabwe. Harry Cohen said: "It's unbelievable that Douglas Alexander should turn up at the same conference as Robert Mugabe after the boycott by Gordon Brown. There is a total lack of consistency and double standards by the Government." He warned: "Mugabe is facing elections and is going to play this for all it is worth ... Douglas Alexander is playing into his hands. And it will do no favours for the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai."
The calls for a boycott were supported by Ian Gibson, the former Labour chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, who said it was "shocking" that Mr Mugabe should be attending a conference on food shortages when he had wrecked the food economy of his own country.
"I don't think Mugabe will listen to a word a British minister says," said Mr Gibson. "Douglas Alexander should take his lead from Gordon Brown and stay away." But Mr Brown's official spokesman insisted last night that the minister would attend the UN meeting as planned.
Far more important than boycotting any meetings would be a UN decision to force election monitors into Zimbabwe ahead of the second election.
The people of Zimbabwe have spoken, we should be taking steps to make sure that they are heard.
I'm sorry, but I find this bloody ridiculous. Barack Obama is now only 45 short of the 2,118 delegates he needs to seal the Democratic nomination and we hear that there are discussions in the Clinton camp about when to gracefully throw in the towel.
Some of her team are pressing her to bow out gracefully and endorse Barack Obama. But die-hard loyalists are advocating she put her campaign on hold, hang on to her delegates and wait to see what turns up between now and the Democratic convention in August.
Clinton has organised a party in her home state, New York, to mark the end of the primary season with tonight's contests in South Dakota and Montana.
At her party she will thank her campaign workers for their efforts over the past five months. An insider said he would be shocked if she used the occasion to concede, insisting she had not yet made a final decision about her next move.
On Sunday Clinton refused to disclose her intentions. "We'll see when Tuesday and the day after Tuesday comes," she said. "My political obituary has yet to be written, and we're going forward. It's not over till it's over." But her campaign sent out emails to some staff advising them they were being laid off as of tonight.
I've said before that I no longer think a dignified exit is possible for the woman who has clung on far longer than she ever should have done, but to fail to concede now is simply silly.
The super delegates will declare soon enough and make the decision for her, surely it would be better before that point to gracefully concede, rather than wait until your defeat is written into stone by others?
However, disgracefully, some of her supporters are putting forward their reasoning as to why she should not concede.
Even her fiercest supporters accept Obama will pass the magic number - if not tonight then very soon after that. Their last-ditch strategy is for her to hang on until the convention, when the nominee is formally adopted, in the hope that some scandal will be unearthed by then that would so damage Obama that he would haemorrhage support from superdelegates. Some Clinton voters have also threatened to lead a mass exodus of women from the Democratic party.
So, she might refuse to concede defeat in the hope that some scandal might break and derail the Obama campaign? So we now have a fellow Democrat hoping that a scandal might hit the presumptive Democratic nominee? Could this entire affair possibly have less class?
"I think its pretty clear that she is not conceding." Elleithee said, "I think its pretty clear that she is staying in this race. She is going, in the coming days, to be aggressively courting uncommitted superdelegates aggressively courting unpledged delegates, making the case to them that she is a candidate best ready to take on John McCain."
When asked directly when Clinton will step aside, Elietthee told reporters, “as she has said dozens and dozens of times she is in this race until we have a nominee...Until there is a nominee she is going to try to win support."
He continued “until there is a nominee we are going to still work to become that nominee. When asked when they would determine a nominee would be selected –- because the Clinton campaign has refused to accept fully the 2,118 number –- Elleithee said, “we're exploring -- she has said before she wants to have this to be resolved before the convention -- we are reviewing our options.”
Eliethee continued, “We do not expect that a nominee will be clear tomorrow night … she is mostly going to be working the phones and meeting with these delegates."
When asked why Clinton was spending tomorrow in New York at an event the campaign is calling a "victory party," Clinton’s spokesperson said, “it’s a good way to close out this phase of the campaign is come to New York bring all of her supporters together, have a big celebratory election night party as we move into the next phase of the campaign which is obviously the courting of these delegates.”
Her entire campaign has been horrible, so why am I remotely surprised that it's going to end horribly as well?
Her supporters continue to live in a fantasy world where victory is always possible and probably just over the next hill.
It's the exact same mindset that Bush and McCain use to justify continuing to stay in Iraq. "Things just might improve any second now", so let's not "cut and run".
Hillary and her supporters are just as distanced from reality as the administration they hope to replace. Now that's saying something.....
Shortly after Texas and Ohio, when anyone paying attention knew that Hillary simply could no longer defeat what her supporters referred to as "the maths problem", I used to be amazed at how so many broadsheets - both here and in the US - continued to talk as if we were still witnessing a very close race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
What a difference a couple of months makes.
Hillary has just pulled of a massive 68% to 32% victory over Obama in Puerto Rico which the Guardian have referred to as "her swan song" and the Independent have labelled her campaign's "death throes."
What's taken newspapers so long to report accurately on the narrative that has actually been developing here?
Did it suit their purposes to make out that a contest, which was essentially over, was actually "neck and neck"?
Ridiculously, her campaign continue to make the argument that the super delegates should plonk for her, which isn't so much wishful thinking as further proof that her campaign team are either shameless or simply barking mad.
"Well clearly, it ultimately comes down to the delegates. But I think it's very important to note that Hillary Clinton will have received more votes than anyone ever running for president on either side in primary battle," her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe stressed on ABC television.
The claim that she has received more votes than anyone ever running for president is based on counting Michigan, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot paper, and discounting several caucus states from the tally.
The fact that Obama was awarded delegates from Michigan would appear to undermine the logic of the Clinton camps argument, but they have given up on logic a long, long time ago.
And the fact that Obama was awarded those delegates points to a much more telling truth:
Mr Ickes was signalling Hillary and Bill Clinton's fury at party leaders who once cowed before them. It was as clear a sign as any, according to the respected NBC political analyst, Chuck Todd, that "the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons ... any more."
"This is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game. He now won the inside game," Mr Todd said.
At the beginning of this campaign Hillary, with her name recognition and her twenty point lead, appeared unassailable. Somewhere along the line the Clintons lost not only the nomination but the heart and soul of the Democratic party itself.
Her campaign was vicious and nasty and, at times, appeared more concerned with damaging Obama than John McCain. She threatened to throw the kitchen sink at Obama and then went on to do just that.
I am terribly pleased that such a cynical campaign has floundered, but I also feel that she would never have been able to go on as long as she did had newspapers been reporting the true story of where both the candidates really stood regarding their chances of obtaining victory.
However, by refusing to concede when victory became impossible, Hillary fatally traded away the Clinton magic for the support of a bunch of people who now threaten to vote Republican come November. That was a very bad deal any way you look at it.
Human rights lawyers are claiming that the US is operating a series of floating prisons, utilising prison ships in an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.
Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.
Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.
The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.
It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.
According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.
This is one of the many reasons why such a great number of Europeans yearn for the day that Barack Obama takes over as US president and brings these disgusting practices to an end.
We want America back. We want a US who would never dream of behaving like a third world dictatorship, no matter what the circumstances.
It's hard when reading the following to believe that we are discussing the USA at all:
Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.
At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.
I mean the use of the word "disappeared" when referring to prisoners is the kind of thing one associates with dictatorships, it's certainly not a word that one would expect to come across in relation to the world's leading democracy and sole superpower.
And yet, under the leadership of George W Bush, such words are now routinely used to describe people held by the US.
What is the need for such secrecy? If the US has proof against these men why can't this evidence simply be presented before a court of law?
Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.
"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."
26,000 people are currently being denied the basic right of Habeas corpus. People should be marching in the streets over this, but we appear to have become overwhelmed by the illegality of the Bush administration and beaten into submission. The British Labour government which, according to it's traditions, should be loudly opposing what is taking place, acts as if it is a silent partner.
Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, called for the US and UK governments to come clean over the holding of detainees.
"Little by little, the truth is coming out on extraordinary rendition. The rest will come, in time. Better for governments to be candid now, rather than later. Greater transparency will provide increased confidence that President Bush's departure from justice and the rule of law in the aftermath of September 11 is being reversed, and can help to win back the confidence of moderate Muslim communities, whose support is crucial in tackling dangerous extremism."
The Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said: "If the Bush administration is using British territories to aid and abet illegal state abduction, it would amount to a huge breach of trust with the British government. Ministers must make absolutely clear that they would not support such illegal activity, either directly or indirectly."
Where I disagree with Andrew Tyrie is in the notion that trust is merely being lost amongst the moderate Muslim communities. Trust is actually being eroded across the board amongst everyone who believes in civil liberties and the basic rule of law.
The Bush administration has been an abomination and I feel sure one day books will be written about this disgraceful period in American history.
However, when history condemns Bush and Cheney for what they have done, a special chapter should be set aside to discuss Blair and Brown and the silent complicity they offered as human rights were shredded.
Israel released a suspected Hizbullah spy yesterday and, in return, received the remains of Israeli soldiers, sparking speculation that even more exchanges are on the way; with the most obvious candidate being the young Israeli soldier whose kidnap in Gaza was quickly followed by the kidnap of two other Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border, ostensibly, starting the Israel-Lebanon war. That young soldier was named Gilad Shalit.
Ehud Olmert invaded Lebanon and the Gaza strip in an effort to find Gilad and the two other Israeli soldiers whilst refusing to engage in the kind of prisoner swap which Israel routinely indulges in.
I said at the the time that I thought Israel's behaviour was disgraceful, especially as we all knew one day she would do the very thing she was refusing to do at the time of the war.
The country that Hariri rebuilt, against all the odds, after years of civil war and after a twenty year Israeli occupation, is being systematically torn to pieces. It's bridges, it's power plants, it's roads, it's buildings, it's airport, are all being levelled. Even the viaduct has been broken.
Beirut, the "Paris of the East", is being reduced to rubble.
And for what? For what?
When all this rampant, disgraceful destruction is over, the Israelis will still have to carry out their prisoner swap if they want their soldiers returned.
And now, having brought about billions of dollars worth of damage in Lebanon, and killing God knows how many people, Ehud Olmert is arranging the same prisoner swap which was on offer two years ago.
Had he embarked on this course then, the Israel-Lebanon war - which he lost - would never have had to be fought. It's the final proof, were any more needed, of how unfit he is to hold his office.
Israel freed a convicted Hizbullah spy yesterday and received what was believed to be the remains of Israeli soldiers in return, sparking speculation of a bigger prisoner exchange between the enemies.
Nassim Nisr, the son of a Jewish mother and Lebanese Muslim father who migrated to Israel as an adult and became a citizen, was deported by Israeli security officials after serving a six-year sentence for passing information to the Iranian-backed militia.
Israeli security officials delivered Nisr to the Red Cross and the UN, who ushered him across the border to a hero's welcome in the Lebanese border town of Naqoura, where a Hizbullah official told the crowd it had released the remains of Israeli soldiers.
Of course, Israel is denying that what we are witnessing is a swap of any kind.
Israel said it was surprised by the gesture and denied it was formal trade. "At the moment we are saying nothing," a spokesman for Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said.
Israel are demanding the release of the two soldiers whose kidnap - shortly after the kidnap of Gilad Shalit - was instrumental to the invasion of Lebanon.
Israel has also been demanding the return of two soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose capture by Hizbullah in July 2006 culminated in the outbreak of war, but the militia has refused to reveal whether they are still alive.
I am slightly appalled that Gilad Shalit is not even mentioned in this article, but I've written before about how this young man has been erased from the storyline of this particular period of Israeli history.
Thousands of people died and millions of pounds worth of damage was done to Lebanon's infrastructure to ensure the return of Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser and Gilad Shalit.
And now, finally, after all that unnecessary mayhem, Olmert, at last appears to be doing the deal. Israel may be denying that a deal is being done but the Europeans are making noises which confirm that negotiations are taking place.
While Israel played down suggestions of a larger deal, the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has been mediating between the parties, said: "I am happy that preliminary steps were taken in that direction and hope that this creates a positive dynamic, building mutual trust."
However, even whilst this swap is being arranged, young Gilad Shalit has been, once again, removed from the narrative.
The war, which was ostensibly to guarantee his rescue, eventually became about destroying Hizbullah, and it's original objectives were forgotten. As I said at the time:
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that, if the goal of this operation is to ensure the rescue of kidnapped soldiers, then it is time for a rethink. The mission is not going to plan.
But the mission has changed, the original reasoning has been discarded, the aims of the war are now the complete destruction of Hizbullah.
And, with that change of mission, young Gilad Shalit lies, like a thrown away photograph, floating down a gutter.
Now, at long last, Israel appears to be willing to do a deal to secure the rescue of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. It's a deal they should have done two years ago before so many needlessly died.
And, once again, young Gilad Shalit has dropped out of the narrative.
But I remember Gilad. And so should you. And we should all never forget how many died because Olmert refused to do then what he is doing now.
Click title for full article.
UPDATE:
We must also not forget the influence of the neo-cons in this war.
Nor will anyone who witnessed it ever forget this classic exchange.
The Republicans are making an awful lot out of McClellan's supposed treachery, but are saying very little about the substance of what he said. Sure, most of us had already come to a lot of the conclusions that McClellan's story now confirms, but the fact that our worst suspicions have now been confirmed by a member of the Texas mafia surely is more deserving to be the story than the motives behind McClellan spilling the beans?
Bill sees bias everywhere except at Fox News. Despite the fact that Scott McClellan has admitted that the White House regard Fox News as "allies".
O’REILLY: I’ll tell you what, I wouldn’t work, Bernie, and I don’t think you would either—I don’t know about Jane—for any organization like NBC which is in the tank, dishonest, has been dishonest, and doesn’t deserve any credibility. You’re working for them, you’re part of it! You’re part of it!
GOLDBERG: What do you want? You want everyone to quit?
O’REILLY: Yeah! I would! I would!
HALL: Bill, I still think you can differentiate—you never want to hear me say this—I think he will have a tough interview. The Today Show was okay. That’s different from what he’ll hear on MSNBC. I just think there’s a difference there. I know you don’t agree with me.
O’REILLY: You’re wrong. There’s no difference. It’s the same guys running both. There’s no difference, Jane. I know who these people are. You gotta make a decision in life. If FOXNews ever did what NBC News is doing. In 12 years, FOXNews has never told me what to say, how to say it, and never allowed any org…any of us…any of us! to go in the tank and attack one candidate and give the other a pass. That’s what they did at NBC. They allowed Hillary Clinton to get carved up, and they let Obama go. That’s a stain that will never go away.
O'Reilly is simply a ridiculous creature. Beyond caricature.
I watched this live online last night until they broke for lunch at 4.15 their time and dinner time my time. By the time I was ready for bed they were still to return from their lunch, but I went to bed feeling that the Hillary side had no chance as their arguments sounded incredibly weak when put forward in this kind of context.
I woke this morning and am pleased that Obama's side have held fast and the compromise has been reached, which will seat the delegates but allow them only half a vote each.
The agreement, reached by the rules committee of the Democratic National Committee behind closed doors and voted on publicly before a raucous audience of supporters of the two candidates, would give Mrs. Clinton a net gain of 24 delegates over Senator Barack Obama. But this fell far short of her hopes of winning the full votes of both delegations and moved the nomination further out of her reach.
She now lags behind Mr. Obama by about 176 delegates, according to The New York Times’s tally, in the final weekend of campaigning before the nominating contests end.
Mrs. Clinton, who led the voting in the Michigan and Florida contests, which were held in defiance of party rules, picked up 19 delegates more than Mr. Obama in Florida and 5 delegates more than Mr. Obama in Michigan.
The deal prompted one of her chief advisers, Harold Ickes, a member of the rules committee himself, to declare that Mrs. Clinton’s fight may not be over, even though Mr. Obama’s advisers say he is only days away from gaining enough delegates to claim the nomination.
Although I am noting that Hillary, to the very bitter end, is reserving the right to challenge this decision.
“Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee,” Mr. Ickes said before the final vote, raising the specter of a fight until that committee meets. His words drew cheers from Clinton supporters, including many who yelled, “Denver! Denver! Denver!” — implying that the fight could go all the way to the convention in that city.
When one listened to the Clinton team arguing in this setting their case seemed incredibly weak. They appeared to be arguing that because Obama took his name off the ballot, then he should be assigned no votes at all from Michigan. As someone pointed out, this was - in effect - demanding that Obama be punished for following the rules of the DNC.
Whilst watching this online I was simultaneously watching the comments as they appeared on Taylor Marsh's site - where some of Hillary's more deranged supporters gather - and it was obvious from there that "rules" have become a sort of swear word for these people, as anyone who demanded that they be followed was wildly jeered and ridiculed.
And the audience at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel were certainly partisan as well, with both sides cheering any point which was made which suited their candidate.
As the votes on the agreements were taken, one woman, wearing a blue “Team Hillary” shirt, shoved a man in a suit and tie wearing a small Obama button on his lapel. Another woman in a white Clinton shirt hung her head in her hands.
“That was a crime!” a man shouted.
“McCain in ’08! McCain in ’08!” a woman yelled from the back of the room. “No-bama! No-bama!”
So we are witnessing the very end of Hillary's hopes, the moment at which even she is even going to have to concede that the fight is up.
The committee voted to restore the entire Florida delegation but give each delegate only half a vote, a penalty for moving up its primary and a warning to other states that might consider doing the same in 2012. The vote was 27 in favor and 1 abstention. The committee first turned back a motion, by a vote of 15 to 12, to seat the full delegation and give each delegate full voting rights.
The committee reached essentially the same decision about Michigan, voting 19 to 8 to seat all the delegates while giving each delegate only half a vote. But the decision seemed even more tortuous than that over Florida because of the bizarre circumstances of the primary.
Mrs. Clinton received 55 percent of the vote, but Mr. Obama’s name was not on the ballot and 40 percent of voters cast their ballots for “uncommitted.” The committee approved a plan giving Mrs. Clinton 69 delegates and Mr. Obama 59.
The committee were jeered by Clinton supporters as they came to their decision. And therein lies the problem now for Obama's campaign.
How does one now unify the party when Clinton's supporters have been led up this dead end by their candidate and led to believe that victory was still within their grasp when, in truth, it's been over for Hillary for a very long time?
If I hear the word "Rules" one more time, I'm going to barf.
i can't wait to work against DNC this fall
THIS PIG on the bylaws committee....this bought and sold, paid for PIG......
HAD THIS THING RIGGED AND WANTS TO LOOK RIGHTEOUS. YOU'RE A PIG.
It is simply undeniable that certain supporters of Clinton will not be able to bring themselves to support Obama come November as they have been told that he is practically the anti-Christ by Hillary and sites like the one run by Taylor Marsh.
These fools have been inventing illogical reasonings as to why a defeated candidate might still pull off the nomination and, now that this has failed, they will stoke the feeling that their candidate has been robbed.
This will make it virtually impossible for Obama to unite certain sections of the party and will only aid John McCain and hinder the Democrats. That is what Hillary and the Taylor Marsh's of this world have actually achieved.
They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. But I know that emotion is beyond them. Their behaviour to date has proven that point.
There has been talk that Hillary is searching for a dignified exit. After tonight, I fear such a thing is simply no longer possible.
Click title for full article.
UPDATE:
Here's the reaction of one Clinton supporter:
This is how irrational many of Hillary's supporters have become. This is the anger which Hillary, and her utter stubbornness, has unleashed. I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive her.
UPDATE II
Sorry, but I will concentrate more on this story - at the expense of commenting on other things - as I think this is the biggest story going today. The reaction of bloggers who support Obama and Clinton have been interesting.
Well...a remarkable thing just happened. We just discovered that the Clintons no longer control the Democratic National Committee. They were unable to win a single argument today.
I was actually fairly shocked that they decided to seat Michigan as they did but seriously, why are Ickes and Flournoy bitching? This is about as good a result as Clinton could have hoped to get. Sure Obama took himself off the ballot in Michigan, but everyone knows a good chunk of the uncommitted vote was for Obama, so if the Clinton team is really making an intent of the voter argument then they should be pleased with this result.
The truth is that Hillary's arguments made no sense. It was ridiculous to argue that Obama should be punished for taking his name off a ballot that the Democratic leadership had stated would not count.
And, if the whole point of an election is to determine the democratic wishes of the people, how can you possibly say you have discovered that after you have told that same electorate that their votes won't count?
Some of Hillary's supporters have lost their minds of late, although the reaction of MyDD certainly gives me some hope that sense may prevail amongst some of them.
You have no idea what you've done. The fury you have unleashed. Your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance and the sheer stupidity of this "compromise," which sends a message that you just don't get it. Oh, and by the way, you've also likely just thrown the 2008 election.
Taking myself out of the equation, as well as my support for Clinton which is unending, and to encapsulte the carnage wrought by Saturday's idiocy, you have simply given Hillary's supporters the reason they were craving. Outraged already, many of Hillary's supporters were waiting for a reason to raise a ruckus, and you just gave them one. A righteous one. They were already screaming for Clinton to go to Denver. Now the decibel level is ear shattering.
Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.
The perception problem created is beyond comprehension. Honestly, you have no idea the fuse that's now been lit. But to give you an idea. I'm in the minority on my own blog when it comes to pushing back against a McCain presidency. This didn't happen because of anything Clinton did, my friends. You all cemented it all by yourselves.
Taylor refuses to even acknowledge that she - and the Clinton camp - have been pushing a lie since March 5th, telling people a Clinton win was possible when everyone knew that this simply was not the case.
And now she, and her supporters, are promising to punish the party.
I can only hope that they are part of a disgruntled minority. For any Democrat to promise to vote for John McCain is simply disgraceful. It's tough to lose. It hurts. But all the people that Hillary was fighting for, all those blue collar workers who need someone in the White House who will look out for them, won't be helped by John McCain.
Anyone who believed in Hillary's message must see that the only person fighting for the same values is Barack Obama.
UPDATE III
Despite the Clinton camp threatening to challenge this ruling, Walter Shapiro is arguing in an article entitled, "The new math in Florida and Michigan", that such a challenge by Hillary would not even be legal:
In theory, Saturday's rules committee Michigan decision can be appealed to a new body -- the convention's Credentials Committee, when it comes into existence in July. Ickes, in fact, raised just that specter in his final remarks on the Michigan vote and the Clinton acolytes in the audience chanted, "Denver! Denver!" But, in reality, a formal challenge of Saturday's decision can only be brought by a Michigan convention delegate, not by the Clinton campaign itself. The odds are prodigious that -- under almost any scenario -- the four votes that Clinton theoretically lost in the rules committee will not matter by Denver.
Here's hoping Hillary is getting ready to stop this nonsense.
UPDATE IV
On Saturday a video surfaced on YouTube containing an audio recording of Bill Clinton from a private fundraiser said to have been held on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 in North Carolina in which he discusses the Michigan and Florida delegate situation. After delivering an explanation of how the delegate deadlock came to be, Clinton concludes by saying, ""probably the only option is to seat them under our rules, as half delegates." This is significant in that the Clinton campaign has publicly insisted, right up until the DNC meeting yesterday, that it wanted each delegate restored in full.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
As I said yesterday, I think the idea of a Clinton Vice Presidency is a dreadful one, for two main reasons.
