The Osterley Times

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

UK's special relationship with US needs to be recalibrated, Obama tells ex-pats in Britain

I have often said that the phrase "special relationship" which is usually used to describe the relationship between the US and UK is a joke, and that the only "special relationship" the US has is with Israel and not with the UK.

Now it appears that Barack Obama realises that the UK acts as if it is an US aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe, without gaining any advantage for such servitude. Obama is making it clear that he would like to change that.

Barack Obama has called for the "special relationship" between the US and Britain to be "recalibrated" to make it a fairer, more equal partnership, the Guardian has learned
"We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner," Obama told more than 200 American expatriates gathered at the Notting Hill home of Elisabeth Murdoch, the head of Shine television production company and daughter of the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

The event, which raised more than $400,000 for the Obama campaign, was intended to be confidential, but several guests have since confirmed the senator's remarks. A foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign said the remarks on the US-UK relationship reflected the senator's general foreign policy approach.

"It's no longer going to be that we are in the lead and everyone follows us. Full partners not only listen to each other, they also occasionally follow each other," the adviser said.

I support Obama because he has said that he wants to end the war in Iraq, close Guantanamo Bay and restore Habeas Corpus. Anyone who promises all that understands all that is wrong with the neo-con presidency. But to turn to the Special Relationship and understand what a bloody fraud it is, means that none of my wildest hopes about this guy have been wrong. He really does get it.

The general opinion among the Obama foreign policy team is that Tony Blair got very little in return for his support of the Iraq invasion, in terms of promoting his agenda for multilateral action on global issues and for a Washington-led push towards forging a settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Prime minister Gordon Brown's foreign policy team agrees with that assessment, arguing Blair put too much emphasis on Britain being a bridge between the US and Europe.

"The trouble with being a bridge is that people walk over you," one senior British official said recently. Brown has previously had close relations with the Clinton camp, but his first meeting with Obama, in Washington last month, was said by both sides to have gone very well.

Blair's relationship with the Bush presidency did more than anything else to destroy his premiership, where his relationship with President Clinton had added credence to Blair as a world leader. This came down to the simple fact that, whether true or not, Clinton appeared to listen to other world leaders. Bush has made it seem as if he "decides" and others simply go along or be deemed to be outside the tent pissing in.

Anyone, even someone like Blair who agreed with the policy regarding Iraq, will always be perceived as weak and being bullied within their own country.

If the US President is saying "My way or the highway" it is hard to take any national pride in a Prime Minister who chooses the President's way, as it is implied that an act of surrender is taking place. Bush and the neo-cons have never fully appreciated this nuance, as they truly believe that the US is omnipotent and that the rest of the world should simply do as they say. That they do this whilst preaching "democracy" is simply another example of the hypocrisy which is at the centre of their creed.

Obama appears to understand that partners want to be listened to. And that, occasionally, partners might see things differently and say things that you don't want to hear.

Obama has told his supporters that one of the things he wants to signal to the world with his presidency is that "America is back!"

The rest of the world doesn't ask for much. Indeed, we loved Clinton, in many ways, because he pretended to listen. We're an easy bunch to please. Bush always seemed to go out of his way to let us know how uninterested he was in what the rest of the planet thought. And when Europe disagreed with him over Iraq - and Britain, shamefully under Blair, sided with the US - it was Europe who were, in the end, proven to be on the side of the Gods.

Obama is promising to restore an equality of sorts to the relationship. It is long overdue and it will be much welcomed.

Click title for full article.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Clinton: It's Obama's fault.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.

"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."

Oh dear, the woman who wanted to throw the kitchen sink at her Democratic rival suddenly finds it unfair to have anyone do the same thing to her.

Beyond pathetic.

And, of course, she's talking nonsense.

"We're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up," Axelrod said.

And, even if the Obama camp were behind this, why can't Clinton take what she regularly dishes out?

Just Words....

Karl Rove's Non-Denial Denial on Siegelman Case

Rove said that he would not respond to a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee imploring his testimony in the Siegelman case. Asked if he had ever made contact with the Justice Department, the man known as Bush's brain said:

"I read about -- I'm going to simply say what I've said before, which is I found out about Don Siegelman's investigation and indictment by reading it in the newspaper."

"But that's not a denial," said the host George Stephanopoulos.

"I've -- you know, I read - I heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper," Rove replied.

Fox News Jokes About Killing Obama

While commenting on Hillary's RFK gaffe, Liz Trotta on Fox News Channel first referred to Barack Obama as "Osama" and then laughed, realising her mistake, and said that they should both be killed.

Carter urges 'supine' Europe to break with US over Gaza blockade

Jimmy Carter is calling on Britain and the rest of Europe to break with the US over the embargo on Gaza and has described the EU's position on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as "supine" and its failure to criticise the Israeli blockade of Gaza as "embarrassing".

Referring to the possibility of Europe breaking with the US in an interview with the Guardian, he said: "Why not? They're not our vassals. They occupy an equal position with the US."

The blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza, imposed by the US, EU, UN and Russia - the so-called Quartet - after the organisation's election victory in 2006, was "one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth," since it meant the "imprisonment of 1.6 million people, 1 million of whom are refugees". "Most families in Gaza are eating only one meal per day. To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing," Carter said.

I couldn't agree with him more. Since Hamas were democratically elected, Europe's decision to go along with the American boycott has been a disgrace and a mark of shame on the entire continent.

Why are we punishing these people? Because we disagree with the democratic choice they made?

How can we say that we favour democracy and then punish people for choosing democratic representatives that we dislike? It has already been revealed that Israel is having discussions with Hamas through an Egyptian mediator, so why are we keeping up this awful boycott?

I have talked a lot recently about the various ways that Gordon Brown should define his Labour government as different from Blair's New Labour government, and a break with the US over the way it treats the Palestinians would be an ideal place to start. Traditional Labour supporters identify strongly with the occupied people and not with the occupiers as Blair did. The US treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza is immoral and wrong and amounts to collective punishment. I have no faith that Brown will do so, but his Labour government should break with the US on this subject and Carter is bang on the money and very brave for publicly coming out and pointing the way.

There is no need for us to join the US in this disgraceful act towards an occupied people.

He [Carter] called on the EU to reassess its stance if Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza. "Let the Europeans lift the embargo and say we will protect the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, and even send observers to Rafah gate [Gaza's crossing into Egypt] to ensure the Palestinians don't violate it."

Although it is 27 years since he left the White House, Carter recently met Hamas leaders in Damascus. He declared a breakthrough in persuading the organisation to offer a Gaza ceasefire and a halt to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel if Israel stopped its air and ground strikes on the territory.

Carter described western governments' self-imposed ban on talking to Hamas as unrealistic and said everyone knew Israel was negotiating with the organisation through an Egyptian mediator, Omar Suleiman. Suleiman took the Hamas ceasefire offer to Jerusalem last week.

Israel was still hesitating over the ceasefire, Carter confirmed yesterday. "I talked to Mr Suleiman the day before yesterday. I hope the Israelis will accept," he said.

The decision of Bush and Olmert to ignore the democratic wishes of the Palestinian people - and to punish them for making a decision that the US and Israel do not like - is only turning the population of the West Bank towards Hamas and away from Fatah and Abbas:

While being scrupulously polite to the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who represent the Fatah movement, he was scathing about their exclusion of Hamas. He described the Fatah-only government as a "subterfuge" aimed at getting round Hamas's election victory two years ago. "The top opinion pollster in Ramallah told me the other day that opinion on the West Bank is shifting to Hamas, because people believe Fatah has sold out to Israel and the US," he said.

And Carter has also brought up who has drafted the conditions of the agreement that Europe, Israel and the US are now imposing on Gaza:

Carter said the Quartet's policy of not talking to Hamas unless it recognised Israel and fulfilled two other conditions had been drafted by Elliot Abrams, an official in the national security council at the White House. He called Abrams "a very militant supporter of Israel".
"The Quartet's final document had been drafted in Washington in advance, and not a line was changed," he said.

It'll never happen in a million years, for the simple reason that the Palestinians are too weak and Israel is too strong for Europe to break with the US over this, but if Gordon Brown is looking for a moral stance to define his government then this is it.

For the first time in history the international community is imposing sanctions on an occupied people rather than on their occupiers. And we are doing so because we disagree with the democratic choice that they made.

This is simply disgraceful. Carter is pointing the way. Europe should break with the virulently pro-Israeli nutbags who currently occupy the White House and do what is right. What's Brown afraid of? Bush is already a dreadful lame duck president; break with him, and do what is morally right.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Marshians have lost their marbles.

Taylor Marsh has finally lost her marbles as the press react to Hillary's mind-numbingly stupid and crass remark regarding Bobby Kennedy's assassination:

She highlights an article in the Huffington Post which shows three headlines from The New York Post, Daily News and Newsday and screams:

Sense the glee. It reveals the desperation.

This is it.
Now she's done it!

This may be our last chance!

This is coming from the woman who reacted to the Wright debacle as if she was running John McCain's campaign, such was her glee at Obama's discomfort, and now she has the sheer gall to describe glee as indicative of desperation. The woman clearly has no sense of irony.

The Obama wing of the Let's Lose Another Election section of the Democratic Party simply couldn't wait to blast Clinton's comment across the web.

I presume when Taylor continually blasted the Reverend Wright's comments across the web that she wasn't attempting to lose another election for the Democrats?

But it's who she imagines is behind this press reaction which says she is totally losing the plot:

What this obvious over-reaction to Hillary's RFK statement, for which she immediately apologized, has revealed is politically unseemly. It also shows how desperate the Obama camp is to stop Hillary's nomination hopes.

Firstly, Hillary has no "nomination hopes" and it's simply delusional at this point to pretend that she has.

Secondly, the idea that "the Obama camp" have the power to orchestrate the front pages of these three newspapers is quite deranged.

But this is what Marsh and her fellow Marshians have been reduced to. They see Obama led plots everywhere attempting to derail a campaign that hasn't had any tracks since March 5th of this year.

Rather than recognise that Hillary made a dreadful mistake bringing up RFK's assassination during a campaign in which that is a genuine worry, Marsh prefers to see Obama scheming to "derail" a candidate who he now simply ignores, such is her irrelevance. Indeed, since Obama has heard that Clinton made the remarks he has never publicly even commented on the matter.

But in Taylor Marsh's world, Hillary is still neck and neck with Obama and this contest could go either way. There is simply no way of dealing with people who are that far removed from reality.

And yet, this mindset is what Hillary's campaign has spawned, a group of delusional people who think everyone else is scheming to deny them a prize which was long ago lost.

They'd be deserving of our pity if they weren't so spiteful towards their fellow Democratic candidate.

Click title for full article.

McCain excludes Malkin from blogger conference calls.

John McCain has just gone up in my estimation. He is apparently inviting both liberal and conservative bloggers to take part in conference calls, and he has upset Michelle Malkin by not inviting her along. She is not taking it very well.

Yesterday, I learned that several far left-wing blogs were invited to participate in The Maverick’s blogger conference call session (it’s part of that Big Vision Thing). I e-mailed McCain’s New Media guy, Patrick Hynes, asking if I could participate in the next blogger conference call.

After all, McCain said yesterday he’ll “listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse” and “will set a new standard for transparency and accountability” and “will work with anyone, of either party, to make this country safe, prosperous and proud.”

If he’s willing to take questions from hostile liberal bloggers, why not take some from conservative bloggers who represent substantial readerships with dissenting views on how best to make this country “safe, prosperous, and proud?”

Malkin is one of the most hate filled people in the blogosphere, a poisonous odious creature obsessed with immigration and motivated purely by her anger and bile.

At a time when McCain is distancing himself from the Hagee's of this world, he has made a very wise decision to exclude this horrible person from his conference calls. Even a right wing nut like Geraldo Rivera has recognised Malkin as "the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met … It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in N.Y. I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

After all, this is a woman whose views are so extreme that even Bill O'Reilly has felt the need to distance himself from them. Like her views on detainees at Guantanamo Bay committing suicide:

MALKIN: And really, the reaction to the suicides should be, “Boo-freakin-hoo.”

O’REILLY: Well, I don’t know about that. I don’t want anybody, you know, killing themselves, but I do believe it was a political statement. Anyway —

MALKIN: Exactly.

O’REILLY: If I were in Guantanamo Bay, and I couldn’t get out — and these guys will never get out, believe me — I might commit suicide too.

When Bill O'Reilly thinks you have gone too far then you have actually become certifiable. So, hats off to John McCain. He's distancing himself from a truly hateful gasbag.

Click title for full article.

Labour chiefs tell Brown: appoint a leader-in-waiting

Things are getting worse for Gordon Brown with Labour chiefs now demanding that he appoint a deputy who could replace him should power continue 'hemorrhaging' from his New Labour government.

If Brown loses a vote on his terrorism bill in two weeks' time, as expected, that would become the catalyst. The justice secretary Jack Straw, who has already privately signalled concerns about the measures to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days, is regarded as the most likely senior figure to move against him.

Ministers plan to demand Brown appoints a deputy Prime Minister to bolster his flagging appeal, ostensibly to free him up to focus on major issues - but offering potential rivals like David Miliband, Alan Johnson or Straw the chance to shine in the role. The deputy would then be in position for a smooth transition if Brown were forced out.

'The debate is about having a deputy Prime Minister, either somebody with that title or who fulfils that role,' said a senior minister. 'It is possible the game is not actually to wield the knife (against Brown directly) but to put Gordon in a position where he has no alternative but to agree to a deputy.'

One source close to Brown said he 'may not resist too hard', even though he scrapped the deputy Prime Minister post once held by John Prescott when he entered Number 10.

I have never understood why Brown is persisting with this ridiculous 42 day extension bill, as this was one of the only places where Blair ever suffered a Commons defeat. Should Brown also suffer a defeat in this area he is not in the position of strength which Blair enjoyed and which enabled Blair to ride out the storm.

There is now talk that amongst Brown's inner circle people are urging him to go for broke and to pursue policies which, until now, he has feared as too controversial. I don't know what these policies are, but if they are Labour policies - as opposed to New Labour policies - the he should go for it. He desperately needs to put some distance between himself and the Tory party. In the past Blair stuck rigidly to the middle ground forcing whichever Tory leader he faced further and further to the right, essentially making themselves unelectable.

Cameron is not falling for that trick and is sticking just as rigidly to the middle ground as Blair once did, making the battle between Brown and Cameron essentially about which one of them comes across better on television, a battle which Gordon will always lose. Nothing hurt him more than his decision to remove the 10p income tax rate, which was seen as an attack on some of Britain's poorest citizens, something was is unforgivable in a Labour leader.

I think there is a genuine wish for him to return to Labour values and to stop offering us a lighter version of the Tory party.

It now appears that everyone is telling him the same thing, that if he continues on his present course then he is heading for almost certain electoral defeat. I hope he has the boldness to pursue Labour values and show Cameron as the fake that he actually is. One things for sure, he has nothing to lose at this stage.

Click title for full article.

Sacked Grant dubbed a 'loser' by Mourinho

He couldn't possibly return could he? In the wake of Chelsea's European Cup defeat - and the announcement yesterday that Avram Grant has been fired - up pops Jose Mourinho to denounce Grant as "a loser" and to reveal that the Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, has gifted him a rare Ferarri worth almost £2million.

Asked if Chelsea's campaign had been the good one Grant depicted it as, Mourinho said: 'That depends on your philosophy of leadership. In my philosophy it was a very bad one because in football "almost" means defeat and Chelsea almost won the Carling Cup, almost won the Champions League, and almost won the Premier League. Almost is nothing.

'After two titles per season for the last three years there were zero titles this season, which in my philosophy means a really bad season. Maybe in the philosophy of a loser this was a great season, which I respect.'

'The best team lost the Champions League final, like last season the best team lost the Champions League semi-final,' Mourinho said. 'That is football. I have always said that details make the difference at this level - and luck is a really big detail.

'I am very sad about what happened. In the last two years this team lost a Champions League final and a Champions League semi-final on penalties. The supporters deserve more, Roman and the board deserve more, top people like [Frank] Lampard, [Michael] Essien, [Claude] Makelele, Ashley [Cole], Didier [Drogba], [Ricardo] Carvalho, [and coaches] Steve Clarke, Mick McGiven and some others deserve happiness. I still think of them as my boys.

Now, of course, Mourinho is being slightly dishonest here as Grant managed to get Chelsea into the Champion's League final, a feat which always remained beyond his good self. But the comment that "I still think of them as my boys", and the astonishing news that Abramovich is sending him expensive gifts, leaves the door open for one of the most audacious returns in the history of the game.

The chances of Mourinho returning as Chelsea manager have increased significantly in recent weeks. Mourinho was astounded when Chelsea director Eugene Tenenbaum called in February to inform him that Abramovich had purchased a rare Ferrari for the man he had removed from Stamford Bridge five months previously.

Customised specially for Mourinho, the 612 Scaglietti was one of just 60 produced to commemorate Ferrari's 60th anniversary. While still at Chelsea, Mourinho had told Abramovich that if he could have his choice of cars, the four-seat Scaglietti would be it. The list price is around £250,000, but such is its rarity the secondary-market value is as much as eight times that amount.

Abramovich's gift was made at a time at which he had begun to consider replacing Grant as manager, with Mourinho's name raised as a potential appointment.

Mourinho was one of the most annoying men who ever managed a football team. He never, ever, lost with any grace and always - at the end of any game in which he was defeated - would give a ridiculous account of why his team actually had won, despite the score sheet telling a completely different story.

But, for all that, he was a character. And the English Premier League has been a duller place since his departure. So, I, for one, would reluctantly welcome the old codger's return. If only because hating him always added something to the passion I felt about the Premiership.

Click title for full article.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Olbermann on Hillary and Assassination Comments.

Keith's take on this is that Hillary is actually saying that she's "sticking around in case the other guy gets shot."

Hillary goes where even Nixon refused to tread.

Manila Ryce over at The Largest Minority has brought up a brilliant point regarding Hillary and some of her recent comments regarding Obama's electability:

When Nixon was running against Kennedy, he acknowledged that much of his support was due to the anti-Catholic prejudices of Protestant fundamentalists, and denounced this bigotry. Nixon stated that he did not want the vote of anyone who was making their decision based on religious prejudices.

Hillary Clinton has done the opposite, showing that she has even less integrity than Nixon. Rather than denounce the attitudes of Americans who will not vote for Obama because he is black, she has given a nod and a wink to her “broader base” of “whites who had not completed college”, allowing them to vote their prejudices – prejudices amplified by the continuous spin of ratings-driven content.

Quite brilliant. That is exactly what Hillary is doing and, as Manila states, it's actually worse than Nixon. Click title to go to Largest Minority and hear Mumia Abu-Jamal discuss "The Politics of Ignorance and Fear"

Click title for full article.

McCain: I'll be too old for President in 2008.

His own words in 2000.

Shame on her.

I'm sick of Hillary trying to make deals regarding how she should accept the simple fact that she has been beaten. The notion that she should be offered the VP is simply a non starter, and it's astonishing that she should be demanding that she, at least, be offered this before she will stand down and, if not, she will bring about a split in the Democratic party.

Her behaviour and that of her supporters simply disgusts me. She's now resorting to outright blackmail. She should be ashamed of herself. But I have long ago realised that she is incapable of feeling any shame at all.

Jesse Ventura weighs in on Gay Marriage.

Ventura sums the argument up perfectly, "Love is bigger than government. Who the Hell are we, as a government, to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it‘s absurd the fact that it‘s even being debated."

As Ventura points out, civil rights have nothing to do with the wishes of the majority, as if that were the case the US might still have slavery.

Glenn Greenwald perfectly covered this very point yesterday:

Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes' extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.

Pat Robertson also gets taken apart later on in this clip regarding McCain's decision to chase Hagee's endorsement.

PM isolated as ministers decide: 'Brown can't win'

"Be careful what you wish for as you might just get it" could have been a phrase invented to warn Gordon Brown about his long stated wish to inherit Tony Blair's premiership. He started with a relatively good couple of weeks during which he came across as sober and statesmanlike, but it's very quickly come apart and turned into an almost invisible premiership.

With the recent dreadful results from Crewe and Nantwich, it was inevitable that there would be calls for him to stand down.

"People are not far away from thinking that we cannot win under Gordon Brown," a senior Labour figure said last night. "We wish it was different from what it is. But it is hard to avoid looking at the facts."

The growing collapse in confidence in Brown's leadership became clear yesterday in the wake of Labour's poor byelection performance as the Tories won on a swing of 17.6% - the sort of figure that would place David Cameron in Downing Street with a susbstantial majority.

Had the byelection happened on its own, Brown would probably face no more than a whispering campaign, senior sources say. But two factors are convincing cabinet ministers that Labour's poor performance is directly linked to the prime minister: the local election reverses earlier this month, and Brown's decision to give away £2.7bn in tax cuts in an emergency mini-budget designed to solve the crisis provoked by the abolition of the 10p starting rate of tax in his last budget as chancellor last year.

The mini-budget was intended to wrongfoot the Tories and avoid a parliamentary crisis that would have been provoked if Labour rebels had voted down the finance bill. "Gordon threw £2.7bn at this and the result in Crewe and Nantwich was worse than we feared," the senior party figure said.

Many of us had hoped that a Brown premiership would be very different from the Blair one, and have been bitterly disappointed to watch Brown push forward on Blairite principles like the 42 day extension for holding terrorist suspects.

All of which makes me feel less inclined to defend him when he finds himself under this kind of attack.

Brown could be a great Prime Minister if he finds his own voice rather than simply presenting himself as a continuation of Blair. Maybe he's been conning us all these years by promising that he offers an alternative to Blair, or maybe we simply imagined that this was what he was offering because that's what we wanted to believe.

Either way, I am disinclined to defend him as my disappointment in him is profound.

If he carries on the way he is going then Labour are guaranteed to lose the next election. If people want a Tory, then they'll vote for Cameron. They won't vote for a Labour government which is offering Tory-Lite policies.

Brown needs to find his voice. He needs to point out the differences between Labour and Conservative principles. At the moment, under his style of leadership, there appears to be none.

Click title for full article.

Clinton expresses regret after assassination remark

Someone, anyone, help me please. What exactly is this woman saying now?

In a filmed meeting with editors of a newspaper in South Dakota, which holds the final primary of the Democratic race on June 3, Clinton hinted that she might not concede the nomination to Obama until the August nominating convention.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

I honestly don't get the point that she is making here or why she would ever bring up the assassination of RFK.

There has been understandable outrage over the remarks, as it could be inferred that she is staying in the nomination in case Obama is assassinated. Now, even I can't bring myself to believe that she would be that crass, but I am utterly at a loss as to what point she is actually trying to make.

Her statements trying to explain why she said what she said are equally confusing.

Clinton released a statement attributing her Kennedy reference to this week's brain cancer diagnosis of Democratic senator Edward Kennedy, the youngest of the US dynasty's three iconic brothers.

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family, was in any way offensive," Clinton said. "I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

The terrible news about Edward Kennedy is no reason to bring up the assassination of Robert, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether or not Hillary should keep campaigning past the point when most of us have worked out that she cannot win.

It's an insane and utterly tasteless thing to say, whatever reasons one has for saying it.

I'm going to give her a pass on it though, as I think exhaustion is the only way one can reasonably explain this. The other reasons are simply unthinkable.

Click title for full article.

UPDATE:

Politics TV has a good comeback on the accuracy of Hillary's claims:

…and people have been trying to (1) push me out of this since Iowa… I find it curious… It is (2) unprecedented in history… You know between (3) my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this… And you know (4) historically it makes no sense and I find it a bit of a mystery…

Q: you don’t buy the party unity argument?

A: I don’t because again I’ve been around long enough… You know (5) my husband did not wrap up the nomination until he won the CA primary sometime in (6) the middle of June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in CA.
ERRORS, OMISSIONS, AND MISTATEMENTS

1. The first notable call for Hillary to exit came from Sen. Pat Leahy at the end of March 28 - nearly three months after Iowa.
2. Candidates dropping out before the end of the primary season is the rule, not the exception. Indeed, for President Clinton’s reelect, Harold Ickes said avoiding any primary challenge at all is key to winning, as recalled in Bob Woodward’s The Choice.
3. Sen. Obama has gone to great lengths NOT to call on Sen. Clinton to drop out - as anyone following the race knows.
Again, historically, once candidates are mathematically eliminated, the custom is to refrain from active campaigning, much less personal attacks. Exhibit A: Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul.
4. Wrong. Bill Clinton effectively clinched with New York, when Tsongas had suspended his campaign, and Brown was marginalized with a third place showing. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDF103CF934A15750C0A964958260
5. Wrong again. The 92 California primary was on June 2.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Terry Spits on Tevez.

I spoke yesterday about the sympathy I felt for John Terry after his penalty miss contributed to his team losing the European Champions League. I wish to take that back and now view his miss as Divine Retribution.

Today, Tevez claims in the paper that John Terry spat on him just after Drogba was sent off and I have found a video that appears to confirm that this was, indeed, what he did. Watch closely as Terry approaches Tevez pretending to blow his nose to cover what he is saying. Then very quickly he appears to spit in Tevez's direction. Tevez quite clearly reacts to something hitting the back of his neck.

Today, Terry says that this is something he would never do and Chelsea have demanded evidence from Tevez. In the age of You Tube it hasn't taken long for someone to provide it.

I hope Terry gets a three match ban. It's simply disgusting what he did. And he can cry all summer as far as I am concerned, my sympathy for him is gone.

McCain officially rejects Hagee endorsement

At long bloody last. McCain eventually accepts the inevitable.

In the face of mounting controversy over headline grabbing statements from Pastor John Hagee, CNN has learned presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has decided to reject his endorsement.

The Huffington Post had published a recording of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God’s will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” McCain said in a statement to CNN Thursday.

You could never accuse McCain of acting hastily or of jumping the gun. He's known of these remarks for weeks and weeks now - unless he lives in a different solar system - and yet this is him just getting round to doing what he was always going to have to do from the minute these remarks became public.

So, not only is he a dreadful flip-flopper, he's a dreadful procrastinator as well. He should have done this weeks ago and it's only the fact that the press are giving him such an easy ride that has allowed him to ignore this for so very long.

Of course, he's quick to get a dig in at Obama.

He added that his relationship with Hagee did not compare with Obama’s lengthy association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views.

But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today,” said McCain.

It was understandable that Obama would be less likely to want to cut off a friend of twenty years standing because of views which he did not agree with, but McCain doesn't even have that excuse. He is actively seeking the backing of bigots simply because he wants to please the religious right.

Indeed, he's now accepting the endorsement of people who he once described as "agents of intolerance".

There are so many things which McCain used to believe in which he now rejects that it's very hard to keep up. However, this is one change of heart that is to be welcomed, even if it took him far too long to come to the right conclusion.

Click title for full article.

Ellen DeGeneres nails McCain.

I suppose he goes on these shows because he's trying to be all things to all people. However, DeGeneres utterly nails him, and he's left "respectfully disagreeing" and sounding as if he comes from another century.