Oh, Dear Lord, Three Things I Pray

Benen’s recounting of McCain’s flipping and flopping on the Bergdahl release is a thing to behold and worthy of a full read. Our former POW would-be President is all over the map on a daily basis.

This behavior is similar to a dog being trained with an invisible fence. The hot dog on just the other side is so goddam tempting, but as soon as our pup approaches the flags and hears the beep, he knows that he’ll be hurting if he crosses the line.

If you buy that tortured analogy, the hot dog in this case is Obama’s impeachment for not consulting Congress (or whatever, you fill in that blank). The beep is the fact that it’s political poison to advocate leaving POWs behind. That’s why these guys are all acting like six-month-old carpet-pissing mutts.

149 replies
  1. 1
    Baud says:

    One of the worst things to happen to America was Benen moving to that god-awful MSNBC website.

    As to McCain, I recall a Daily Show bit in 2008 where Stewart compared McCain to Gollum fighting with himself. It was perfect. Rand Paul is probably the only GOP senator less coherent than McCain.

  2. 2
    MattF says:

    Yeah, “that man”, the Kenyan Usurper, keeps presenting poor old John with awful dilemmas. What we need here is some country that needs to be invaded, pronto.

    ETA: And I agree that Benen news to be somewhere I can actuallly read what he has to say.

  3. 3
    Randy P says:

    Is it political poison? Some veterans are rightly appalled, but your Ollie North types are fully onboard with the Fox party line. Is there any evidence this will peel away more voters, or are we going to see laughing delegates wearing this years’ POW version of the purple Band-Aids?

  4. 4
    Suffern ACE says:

    I wonder if 30 years of chest thumping on the national stage has finally taken its toll. I know a lot of effort has gone into studying brain injuries from football. I think NIH needs to study long term chest thumping by public officials.

  5. 5
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Randy P: I’m actually concerned that this is the ground zero mosque of 2014. Ridiculous in its surface, but then the polls will come out and 70 percent of the country will be mad that “we handed the Taliban a victory. Never Surrender! Never negotiate!”

  6. 6
    aimai says:

    @Randy P: I agree. I see no evidence that the Republicans aren’t going to “win” this round of hippie hate with the voters they care about.

  7. 7
    Baud says:

    @aimai:

    You’re in for a miserable life if you care about what the voters the Republicans care about think.

  8. 8
    Belafon says:

    @Suffern ACE: Thing is, we have a simple slogan that works, “Leave no one behind”. I hate to reduce this to a soundbite, but in this case they’re the ones that will have to explain why they would leave an American there.

  9. 9
    rikyrah says:

    Uh huh
    Uh huh
    ……………………………………………

    Hillary Clinton Was Skeptical of Taliban-Bergdahl Swap
    By Josh Rogin

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was personally and intensely involved in the debate over swapping five Taliban commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2011 and 2012. But she had severe reservations about the potential deal, and demanded stricter conditions for the release of the prisoners than what President Obama settled for last week.

    Despite that the White House’s claim this week that the United States
    did not negotiate “directly” with the Taliban to secure the Bergdahl
    swap, the State Department, Defense Department, and White House
    officials did meet several times with Taliban leaders in 2011 and 2012 to discuss the deal. The negotiations, held in in Munich and Doha, fell apart in early 2012. But before they did, Clinton had a framework deal drawn up that was much tougher on the Taliban than what ultimately got done two years later.

    Three former administration officials who were involved in the process told The Daily Beast that Clinton was worried about the ability to enforce the deal and disinclined to trust the Taliban or the Haqqani
    network in Pakistan, which held Bergdahl until this weekend. Clinton was so concerned, the former officials added, that she may not have even signed off if the negotiations had succeeded.

    …Clinton was not the only top member of the Obama administration skeptical of the deal. Three U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast on Monday that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, saying there was too high a risk these Taliban commanders would return to the battlefield and orchestrate attacks against Americans. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declined to certify that the United States could mitigate the risk of releasing the Taliban commanders.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-swap.html

  10. 10
    Eric U. says:

    the republicans have demonstrated fairly well that they hate veterans and they hate our soldiers. Except for the short period of time where they can use them as political tools, but you know they hate them even then. So it’s best to do the right thing and ignore it. I hope Obama gets asked about this and just comes out and says it.

  11. 11
    Mr Stagger Lee says:

    That post by John from the blogger Stonekettle Station last night was A-1 classic, ought to be read by anyone with at least a functioning brain cell. Shame that Jim Wright can’t talk some sense into his fellow Alaskan Snowbilly Snooki who actually called for the nation to pray for Sgt. Bergdahl and his family, but now is pulling the Apostle Peter act.

  12. 12
    Kay says:

    Did Anderson Cooper ask McCain if he was okaying “negotiating with terrorists”? I’m wondering why Susan Rice was asked that question after the fact, and McCain wasn’t asked that question prior, when obviously Congress was tossing around various terms for “negotiating with terrorists” since 2011 and The Washington Post (at least) has known the US was negotiating with terrorists since 2011.

    The way this was presented by Candy Crowley it was my understanding that it was unthinkable to “negotiate with terrorists”. When did that become unthinkable? When Republicans adopted it as a campaign line?

    If Congress and media disapprove of the terms of the deal, they should say that. This whole “line in the sand” theme is nonsense, and they know it.

  13. 13
    Chris says:

    “Possibly responsible for the deaths of thousands,” sayeth McCain. Are people not sick of this yet? Ticking time bomb scenarios that never happened, terrorist attacks that our Emergency Measures after 9/11 totally prevented but they can’t tell us or then they’d have to kill us, people we can’t release because they might be terrorists but we’re not sure because no one ever bothered to establish their guilt before throwing them in the slammer… Could we have something other than “well, it COULD happen” just fucking once?

  14. 14
    Hill Dweller says:

    Apparently the 5 Taliban members we released are the greatest criminal masterminds in history. ‘Merica will have a hard time continuing its existence with those geniuses running around in Qatar.

  15. 15
    aimai says:

    @Baud: I am having a miserable life because there are too many goddamned republicans in my national voter pool.

  16. 16
    rikyrah says:

    White House first discussed Bergdahl prisoner exchange with lawmakers in 2011

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he first learned about the prisoner swap on Saturday and that a formal written White House notification arrived on Monday.

    Asked if he would have liked to have known sooner, Levin said: “If possible, sure, but the president says he has the authority, if necessary, to move more quickly, under the Constitution,” he said. “That’s been a presidential position under various different kinds of circumstances as long as there have been presidents.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-nov-2011/

  17. 17
    aimai says:

    @Kay: I thought that was ridiculous as well. Just the total abdication of serious, adult, thought by Crowley and everyone else who parrotted that stupid line. Its like the word Terrorist has magical powers to these people. We always negotiate with our counterparties in wars and insurgencies–always. There is never going to be a clean conquest that ends the necessity for negotiations despite these goober’s fantasies.

  18. 18
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Kay: I don’t think they know it. They are buffoons.

  19. 19
    rikyrah says:

    Add me to the list of those absolutely still pissed about Benen’s moving to The Maddow Blog. That whole redesign sucks.

  20. 20
    Belafon says:

    @rikyrah: Everyone was skeptical of the operation to get bin Laden as well. That’s why the president makes the decisions.

  21. 21
    Chris says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    I thought of GZM, too. They’re both manufactured controversies about non issues that all the important people knew about months in advance and had no problem with, but suddenly decided to turn into the political crisis of the year when they saw an opportunity. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the public reacted the same way, either.

  22. 22
    evodevo says:

    @Baud: YES. I really miss being able to read Steve daily at Political Animal. Trying to sort through the Maddow site to find him is a pain. I don’t go there very often.

  23. 23
    LAC says:

    @Baud: exactly. Fuck them. The president could cure cancer tomorrow and they would sit thisclose to the tv, mouths drooling, waiting to see what Fox News has to criticize about it.

  24. 24
    Patrick says:

    @Kay:

    The way this was presented by Candy Crowley it was my understanding that it was unthinkable to “negotiate with terrorists”. When did that become unthinkable?

    No clue. Hell, Bush/Cheney/Petraeus negotiated with terrorists in Iraq. Heck, that’s what made the so called surge successful. Patraues himself negotiated with Moqtada and his militias.

    Why the f*** are people like Crowley so intentionally dumb? We have negotiated with terrorists since like forever. And, oh by the way, the country of Israel that the far far right seems to admire so much, has done the same.

    Apparently it is only when Obama does it when it is not OK. Fricking hypocrites!!!

  25. 25
    Hill Dweller says:

    We not only negotiated with terrorists who had killed American soldiers in Iraq, we paid them for years.

  26. 26
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    This decision to bring Sgt. Bergdahl home … it is a mistake,

    Maybe we should have left McCain in Niet Nam.

    I hope some one is stock piling these for the next election cycle. That one, along with Boehner stating “I’m not qualified …”

  27. 27
    beltane says:

    @Patrick: Intentionally dumb or not, media dumbasses like Crowley pose much more of a threat to this country than the Taliban.

  28. 28
    jo6pac says:

    Here’s another one on jm and yes I know about lr

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/201.....i/go-bowe/

  29. 29
    D58826 says:

    The one thing I’ve learned over the years is if you are looking for certainty and moral clarity in military/diplomatic affairs on the world stage you are in the wrong business. As more and more details come out about Bergdahl its obvious that this is on more judgment call by the President where he has to add up the plus and minus of a murky set of facts in the present and make guesses about the unknowable future. That is what he gets paid for. Sometimes he gets it right and sometimes he gets it wrong. That’s life.

    There is a story over on Daily Beast about an army captain killed while searching for Bergdahl. He left a pregnant wife and 2 year old son. The family was lied to about the soldiers were doing that day. It is inexcusable but then so was Pat Tillman and the woman soldier in Iraq Jessica (forget her last name). Planes were lost during the cold war and the families were lied to. The captain died saving the lives of some of his men. So have other soldiers on other missions. Do we now decide that certain soldiers aren’t worth rescuing?

    The Taliban are a nasty piece of work but The US has had no problem with dealing with the Shah of Iran, Sadaam in the 1980’s and all manner of dictators in Latin America with their death squads. Many of the warlords that the US deals with in Afghanistan are not a whole lot different than the Taliban. As FDR said about one Latin American dictator ‘he’s an sob but he is our sob’.
    The real world is not some fairy tale morality plan. The GOP is just up to its usual tricks and would be screaming no matter what Obama did.

  30. 30
    Chris says:

    @Patrick:

    “We don’t negotiate with terrorists” is like “America has the best health care in the world;” transparently false chest thumping bullshit that nevertheless is widely accepted and taken at face value cause it sounds good.

  31. 31
    RSA says:

    Rebublicans are like the blowhards you sometimes run into at work, who say, “NO NO UR DOIN IT WRONG,” but they never actually explain what they would do differently, much less actually do the work. We see this in the Bergdalhl situation, health care, poverty measures–almost everything I can think of.

  32. 32
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    “More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups,” says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    LINK

    On 27 September 1996, the Taliban, with military support by Pakistan and financial support from Saudi Arabia, seized Kabul and founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

    LINK

    Odd that negotiating with so-called terrorists is dead out, but remaining cozy with those who fund and support them is perfectly okay.

  33. 33
    beth says:

    @LAC: The president could cure cancer tomorrow and they would sit thisclose to the tv, mouths drooling, waiting to see what Fox News has to criticize about it.

    The headline would be “President puts thousands of health care workers out of work”.

  34. 34
    beltane says:

    @D58826: Also recall that how the Republicans screeched when Bill Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan in 1998. They said it was done to deflect attention away from Monica Lewinsky.

    The GOP has only one playbook in dealing with a Democratic president. The tragedy is, however, that the Republican party is the one that best represents the sub-humanly stupid, lazy, and hateful id of white America, and so they get away with it every single time.

  35. 35
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    Can anyone explain to me how if he was a deserter that he was promoted twice while he was AWOL? Isn’t that a little strange to say the least?

  36. 36
    Mark S. says:

    This issue is a complete loser for the GOP. They should go back to being outraged by #bringbackourgirls.

  37. 37
    Fred says:

    I stopped by the Chris Mathews show and was disgusted by his blather about The Dangerous Terroristas being set loose to kill Americans. Howsabout we throw everybody in jail and end all crime? If they can’t find something to put these guys on trial for then they are not criminals. That’s kinda a central theme in our founding document.
    Further, Mathews has Bergdahl tried, convicted and awaiting execution for desertion and consorting with the enemy. Let’s face it: Somebody said he won’t drink beer or eat pork Bar-B-Q so ya know ya just cain’t trust THAT kind, I tells ya. His daddy grew a beard too! Don’t waste money and time on a trial, just shoot the guy.
    Mathews is always annoying, never letting ANYONE finish saying anything (That “Let Me Finish” thing he does must be a self knowing joke about that) but he usually has a reasonable point to make but this crap is beyond the pale. Screw that smug bastahd.

  38. 38
    Richard Grant says:

    Is it possible that establishment party figures are now less concerned about being labeled Republican In Name Only by conservative members and are now more concerned about being labeled Sociopath in Name Only?

  39. 39
    MomSense says:

    @Fred:

    I loved how he went on and on about how there must have been a good reason they were being held at Guantanamo. It didn’t matter what the prosecutor said about not enough evidence to try them in the 12 years they have been held there.

  40. 40
    Patrick says:

    @Mark S.:

    Or outraged by Michelle Obama promoting healthier eating for our nation’s children. Does the GOP ever realize how completely nuts and out of touch they are?

  41. 41
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Baud:

    Rand Paul is probably the only GOP senator less coherent than McCain.

    Rand Paul probably would be very consistent if he thought his real views would get him closer to the presidency. McCain is just an angry ignoramus.

  42. 42
    jak says:

    The Michael Hastings 2012 Rolling Stone piece (referenced in NYT editorial 4 June) is worth a reread. Sounds like Bergdahl’s unit was fucked up from the getgo. How soon before we see some pushback on those unit members that are featured in the republican strategist’s videos?

  43. 43
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    @rikyrah: Lots of carping from the same people who would not have been able to decide to kill Bin Laden. This is what we have to look forward to after 2016.

  44. 44

    Reporting from the home base. I am back after the 3 week trip to India. Still a bit tired and jet lagged but relaxed and happy.

  45. 45
    Patrick says:

    @MomSense:

    I loved how he went on and on about how there must have been a good reason they were being held at Guantanamo.

    Does Matthews even realize that hundreds of people have been released from Gitmo?

    Senator Kennedy was once on the no fly list. I guess Matthews must have claimed there must have been a good reason Kennedy was on the no fly list.

  46. 46
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Let’s be absolutely clear about this…no Democratic President can do anything right as far as the Rethugs are concerned, domestically or overseas, and it’s even worse when that Democratic President is a ni*CLANG*.

    Rethuglicans, all of them, are the scum of the earth. Fuck them all.

  47. 47
    Princess says:

    @rikyrah: Triangulating weasel.

    Broken glass to vote, and all, but I am officially looking for another primary candidate as of today and because of this.

  48. 48
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Fred: Awful human beings.

  49. 49
    aimai says:

    @beth: I believe the classic is

    President Obama Walks On Water…Republicans Say “He Can’t Swim!”

  50. 50
    FlipYrWhig says:

    This is the same story as the asinine “You can’t transfer Guantanamo prisoners to American prisons! Or try them in regular courts!” freakout. It’s just as stupid. And it’s leading to just as many wussbag Democrats running for cover, again.

  51. 51
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Belafon:

    “Leave no one behind”.

    Yeah, but the press seems convinced that the prisoner in this case was Hanoi Jane in Combat Boots. There was a time when men were men and crybaby boys like him would be shot by Patton, don’tcha know. And we were better fer it, I tell yah.

  52. 52
    aimai says:

    @Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937: I don’t agree. Obama triangulated plenty when he had to, and temporized too–and even when he didn’t have to in his first term. The buck stops at the head of the table and it will whoever is the next President. When it comes to an up or down choice on a particular thing you can’t know for sure whether the person who advises caution because they are just giving advice to the head of the table would, themselves, take the cautious route when there is no one higher up to take the burden of decision from them.

  53. 53
    beltane says:

    @Princess: The Clintons stand for nothing and will fight for no one but themselves. Of course I’d enthusiastically vote for Hillary in a general election, but I am under absolutely no illusions as to the type of “leader” she’d be.

  54. 54
    SatanicPanic says:

    @rikyrah: Great. Just great. Who else is running?

  55. 55
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mr Stagger Lee:

    ought to be read by anyone with at least a functioning brain cell.

    Well, that excludes the 27%, right there.

  56. 56
    D58826 says:

    There are legitimate policy questions that this episode raises and hearing run by adults determined to find a better way forward would be useful. Note I said adults. For example how do we deal with a hostage situation in a world full of failed states (Syria) and non-state actors (El Qaeda)? These situations will happen again in the future. President’s will have to make decisions that in future years look bad but at the time seemed like the least bad choice. Turning everything into an impeachment play will not improve the US ability to deal with an unruly world.

    Syria is a good example. the same people screaming about negotiation with the evil terrorist Taliban want the US to get more deeply involved in the Syrian civil was. This of course runs the risk of Americans being killed or captured by terrorists. MCCain will then demand Obama do everything possible to get them back, Palin will pray for them, Rich Lowry will have starbursts and Tweetie will go mad. Once the hostage is returned and the ‘ransom’ paid all of the above will freak out and deny that they ever said what they said.

    The law that Obama is said to have broken was passed the the GOP and cowardly democrats to prevent the closing of Gitmo. Never mind that Bush said it should close and he was slowly releasing prisoners. Never mind that some of them went back to their old terrorist ways. It was ok when Bush did it. The right has spend 13 years creating the myth Terminator the terrorist. I never could figure out why if the terrorists could break out of a super max by jumping over the walls, they could not just break out of Gitmo and swim home.
    As long as the gop continues to successfully sell this nonsense to enough people to retain control of Congress we will never approach these problems like adults.

  57. 57
    sparrow says:

    @Princess: I think we need to massively push Liz Warren to run. I know she said she won’t, and in a sane year she would stay a senator, but this is one of those “key moments in history” times and she’s the best person. Strangely enough, she even gets support from some on the right (those few that are not rabid tea-baggers) for her populist message. I think if she ran it will be a much bigger victory than Hillary could pull off.

  58. 58
    PurpleGirl says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: It’s been 3 weeks already!? Welcome back.

  59. 59
    GregB says:

    It was unthinkable to negotiate with terrorists after Ronald Reagan gave the Iranian mullahs 1.500 missiles in exchange for some Americans in Lebanon.

    After that it was the biggest outrage evah!

    I hate the 90% of the media.

  60. 60
    Cacti says:

    Per Wikileaks from the Manning document dump, Taliban chatter suggested that Bergdahl was nabbed while he was voiding his bowels/bladder.

    Truly, Bergdahl is the Benedict Arnold of our time. Rather than say, a bookish loner who was disliked by his “brothers in arms” because he preferred studying Rosetta Stone, instead of swilling budweiser with the boys.

    Given that Wikileaks has no great love for Obama or reason to provide him political cover, I’m inclined to believe them.

  61. 61
    smith says:

    @Fred:

    Mathews has Bergdahl tried, convicted and awaiting execution for desertion and consorting with the enemy.

    All the idjits who wanted us to leave him there have done this. Apparently, not only do the inmates at Gitmo not deserve a fair trial, neither do our own soldiers. Why doesn’t someone ask them why the guy shouldn’t be given a chance to come home and defend himself? Instead, we just should sentence him to life with the Taliban based on somebody’s suspicion? Nice rule of law we have here.

  62. 62
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @FlipYrWhig: The reason you can’t try them in regular courts is the judge would order their immediate release due to lack of evidence.

    A healthy percentage of the Gitmo prisoners are there because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, not because they did anything meriting detention.

    The irony here is the people who screaming that Obama broke the law and should be impeached are basically defending one of the most obscene violations of basic American law in history. They’re not going to acknowledge it, either…they at least have a tiny sliver of honesty left in them that is in utter denial of this reality.

  63. 63
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @smith: These people seem to be convinced that this sort of thing will NEVER come around, eventually, to bite THEM in the ass.

    The tumbrels will roll, and no one will be there to object, only to cheer.

  64. 64
    beltane says:

    @Cacti: A real patriot doesn’t need to void his bowels. Being full of shit doesn’t seem to hurt the Republicans or the media.

  65. 65

    @Princess: I am not surprised by this at all. This is who she is.

  66. 66
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @D58826:

    Syria is a good example. the same people screaming about negotiation with the evil terrorist Taliban want the US to get more deeply involved in the Syrian civil was

    Hasn’t McCain himself in his various adventures through the Middle East repeatedly been photographed standing side-by-side with terrorists, sectarians, and committers of atrocities?

  67. 67
    Chris says:

    @sparrow:

    Unfortunately, it’ll always be a “key moment” as long as the RWNJ control a major party.

  68. 68
    D58826 says:

    @aimai: Hillary apparently wasn’t the only one with doubts. Panetta and the intell community were opposed. Regardless of the merits of the argument in this particular case I would rather have Hillary, or whomever, pushing back and raising question, even if only as devils advocate, than simple yes persons rubber stamping the Presidents decisions. That type of advice worked so well in Vietnam and Iraq.

  69. 69
    aimai says:

    @sparrow: Nonsense. She would get zero support from anyone on the right if she were actually running. She doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell and she’s my own wonderful Senator. People should stop acting as though politics is some kind of fantasy baseball system. Its not and Warren doesn’t think it is.

  70. 70
    Cacti says:

    From the wikileaks Bergdahl report, the Taliban’s original exchange demand also appeared to be 15 prisons for Bergdahl.

    So, they were negotiated down to 1/3 of the original demand.

  71. 71
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Cacti: It’s Negotiating 101! :P

  72. 72
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @jak:

    How soon before we see some pushback on those unit members that are featured in the republican strategist’s videos?

    The MSM has decided on the narrative for this. Getting pushback against that narrative will be difficult to pull off. The narrative rules, you know. Can’t go against the narrative.

  73. 73
    Belafon says:

    @aimai: And remember how much people wanted the president to bring the one POW in Afghanistan home. The right is really sticking to their support for that.

  74. 74
    Svensker says:

    @rikyrah:

    Gdamn it. Wingnuts have already posted this on FB to show that “even the liberal Hillary” thinks Obama messed up. This woman is seriously pissing me off. Her instincts are just all wrong.

  75. 75
  76. 76
    Princess says:

    @beltane: I had been (foolishly it seems) hoping she’d learned something. And she is falling into the exact trap Al Gore fell into and lost because of: criticizing a same-party president in the hopes of being his successor.

  77. 77
    Chris says:

    @Princess:

    It blows my mind that supposedly adult folk like her make the same mistake again, especially Clinton’s wife. What’s next, another Nader?

  78. 78
    Eric U. says:

    @beltane: Candy Crowley is a de facto Republican Party operative. Really hard to find a group of people as rich as her in the U.S. that aren’t republicans. She doesn’t try to hide it as far as I’m concerned.

    Regan not only negotiated with terrorists, he sold them weapons.

  79. 79
    Cacti says:

    @Eric U.:

    Regan not only negotiated with terrorists, he sold them weapons.

    NewsMax TV had Oliver North, of all people, condemning the Bergdahl prisoner exchange.

    I wonder if some cheeky soul will ask him if he’d feel differently if it involved a cake and 1,500 missiles.

  80. 80
    catclub says:

    @Princess: That article quoted nothing where Hillary publicly opposed this deal. I think it could easily be a Democrats in Disarray article ordered by some editor.

  81. 81
    catclub says:

    @Cacti: I have previously suggested that Jay Carney announce that as part of the deal we are selling missiles to Iran. … Then correct himself.

  82. 82
    RaflW says:

    FYWP.

  83. 83
    D58826 says:

    Long article over on NYT that all of the soldiers killed during the search may not have died as a result of the search. They were combat casualties in a Talban hotpot. In fact the first two were killed in an attack on the basecamp. According to the article air assets were moved in to the sector from other areas so the claim that thje troops had been stripped of air support may not be true either. The records are spotty and lack detail so its hard to know for sure but some of it seems to that the soldiers were angry at what Bergdahl had done so it was a short straight line between him and a causality

  84. 84
    RaflW says:

    I know I needn’t say it here, but, once again, fuck Ron Fournier with a red-hot-on-both-sides fire iron.*

    That is all.

    *loses something when made FYWP-compliant, but y’know what I mean, yeah?

  85. 85
    Chyron HR says:

    @D58826:

    Regardless of the merits of the argument in this particular case I would rather have Hillary, or whomever, pushing back and raising question, even if only as devils advocate, than simple yes persons rubber stamping the Presidents decisions. That type of advice worked so well in Vietnam and Iraq.

    Yes, of course. When Ms. Clinton goes on TV to express her opposition to a decision that:

    A) Has already been made, and
    B) Was made after she left the Obama administration,

    She’s just playing devil’s advocate for Obama! WHY DO YOU OBOTS LOVE VIETNAM SO MUCH?!

  86. 86
    aimai says:

    @Svensker: Oh for fuck’s sake. How many times do people have to fall for this shit? I don’t mean Hillary, I mean commenters on blogs. Pull quotes, scare tactics, the assertion that Bergdahl’s father “consecrated the white house as a mosque” by speaking a few words of Pushtu there–when will you people learn that everything the right wing says to its membership is a lie including the and and the “the.” Why don’t you blame the President for having the temerity to discuss options with his cabinet? There is always more than one choice in how to skin the cat and each choice comes with dangers for the political actors. Obama himself weighs the pros and cons. Why you think that any other politician or president won’t or shouldn’t is beyond me.

  87. 87
    D58826 says:

    @Chyron HR: No you mis-understood. I was talking about when she was Sec. of state and just the general principle that you want people to push back when advising the president

  88. 88
    beltane says:

    @Princess: Maybe she is still being advised by the same team of professional losers who helped her win the nomination in 2008.

  89. 89
    Dupe70 says:

    Good lord. People are acting like we are releasing five super villains. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the conservative wimps in the Republican party, we did not just release Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom, Magneto, The Joker, and Ultron upon the universe. We truly didn’t. Honest.

  90. 90
    Hill Dweller says:

    Even if Hillary advised against the deal two years ago, the circumstances have changed since then, making it a different calculation for all involved.

    I do find it annoying that people close to her are leaking this shit to Tina Brown’s rag.

  91. 91

    @rikyrah:
    Oh, look, another anonymous source inside the White House says Democrats are in disarray. I remember when they were telling me Obama was going to announce Social Security cuts in his Sate of the Union address.

    @Kay:
    We’ve never negotiated with terrorists since Reagan said so. Oh, sure, he actually did negotiate with terrorists, but it’s cowboys who talk tough that keep America safe. Actions are meaningless. (Skin color is apparently pretty important.)

    @Fred:
    The media loves their tough talking cowboys more than anyone, and Reagan is their god-king who protects us from the Evil Empire in the afterlife and handed down the sacred scriptures about rich people creating jobs and poor (black) people needing tougher love.

  92. 92
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @aimai:

    Do you have a point looming out there somewhere?

  93. 93
    D58826 says:

    Article on Huffington – a ex- bushie said W would have made the same deal. The Taliban 5 did not commit any crimes that they could be charged with in an article 3 proceeding and we would have to had let them go once the last American troops were out of Afghanistan. He actually had the nerve to say it on Faux news.

  94. 94
    RaflW says:

    @D58826:

    Turning everything into an impeachment play will not improve the US ability to deal with an unruly world.

    Yes. And this is how we know the GOP is fundamentally unserious about governing, has adopted short-term electioneering as the lode star (besides tax cuts for the rich), and that they neither hate nor love America but view the nation as their disposable plaything to be batted about and abused as suits them.

  95. 95
    RaflW says:

    @D58826: Facts like those bounce right off, when one is generously coated with right wing rage.

  96. 96
    Cacti says:

    @D58826:

    The Taliban 5 did not commit any crimes that they could be charged with in an article 3 proceeding

    I’ve heard the wingers describe them as 5 dangerous terrorists, by my impertinent rejoinder has been “so what terrorist attacks are they linked to?”.

    Words have meanings, and “terrorist” under the previous administration became so degraded, that it became a catch all for “brown person who opposes US policy”.

  97. 97
    Thunderbird says:

    I swear to FSM, the President could go on national TV and pull a Budd Dwyer, and within the hour, he’d be criticized by the right-wing for not using a big enough gun.

    This shit’s getting old. I think a break for a bit might be in order for me.

  98. 98
    hrumpole says:

    @rikyrah:

    LOL. Let the ass covering begin…

    JFC on crack. Either (a) bring the guy home, keeping a promise we (supposedly) make to every soldier; or (b) tell Congress at the risk that right-wing panty-wetting hysterics queer the deal. Hmm. Which would you do? Seems to me that (legalities aside) he made the right call.

    With respect to those, the Greenwald point is a really good one (e.g., if the only thing stopping the closing of gitmo is Congress, and you can transfer these detainees without permission, then why not close Gitmo?)

    There was one Navy guy (ret) on the idiot box who basically said that if you fall overboard, we turn the boat around and come get you. Period. It doesn’t matter if you jumped, fell, or got pushed. Seems to me they kept the promise to this soldier and his family. The consequences of his leaving are for the military to decide, not the Taliban. That’s not a complicated point. And I wish BO would get on the TV to ask why the Republicans in Congress hate the military.

    To quote Pierce, when Fox News anchors walk by on the street, decent people should spit. The right wing went after his dad for f’s sake. I can’t even imagine what his family went through. Not much that I see on TV makes me inclined to actually punch someone in the face, but that clip did. Asshole doesn’t begin to cover it.

  99. 99
    D58826 says:

    @Dupe70: Political right has been at this stick for as long a I can remember. In the 1950’s it was only a matter of time before the Russian hordes marching across the Atlantic would meet up with the many million man (the number varied) hiding in Mexico.

  100. 100
    Mnemosyne says:

    @catclub:
    @Frankensteinbeck:

    I’m with you guys. Seriously, how many times does the media have to punk us before we realize they hate Democrats and will do anything they can to undermine them?

  101. 101
    aimai says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: Yes, I do, and I think its pretty obvious. The amount of Hillary Hate here based on some kind of notion that Obama is pure and above politics while she’s some trimmer is just absurd. Obama made plenty of compromises, triangulated, trimmed, compromised and just plain botched some issues in his first term and lots of lefty liberals were just aghast and horrified. HRC is no worse, and probably a lot better, than most of the politicians who are going to run in 2016. She’s no different from Obama at this time in his own campaigns. The idea that she is specially evil, or specially political, or specially likely to choose the wrong thing out of selfish motives is ahistorical and stems from some kind of animus against her rather than a serious evaluation of the kinds of policies she has backed, or is likely to back in the future.

    I get that there’s a lot of HRC hate around. I myself did not support her in the original campaign. But she is not a terrible person, she’s not more political or more selfish than any other politician who the system will throw up and how she advised the President originally on the Bergdahl situation doesn’t indicate anything nor do snatches of right wing propaganda.

  102. 102
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Cacti:

    IIRC, with some of the previously released detainees, the “proof” that they had returned to terrorism was that they had given media interviews in Europe and their home countries about their experience in Guantanamo. Some of them even appeared in documentaries and books!

  103. 103
    Mnemosyne says:

    @aimai:

    Personally, I think Hillary is smart enough that, if she gets the nomination, she’s going to run as Obama II and pledge to extend all of his policies. But given how so many other prominent Democrats have been trying to make their bones by opposing Obama (I’m looking at you, Dianne fucking Feinstein), I can see why people are nervous that she’ll go the losing route of turning her back on his two successful terms.

  104. 104
    Elizabelle says:

    A dog and an invisible fence.

    Laughing out loud here. So true.

  105. 105
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @aimai:
    I am under no illusions about Obama’s purity or about his competence. Those two things don’t mean shit to me when considering Clinton. My considered opinion is that Clinton stinks on ice. Restating my reasons for that would be redundant.

  106. 106
    flukebucket says:

    @Mr Stagger Lee:

    That post by John from the blogger Stonekettle Station last night was A-1 classic, ought to be read by anyone with at least a functioning brain cell.

    Thank you so much for that. I put that up on my Facebook page. My God, I needed a pack of cigarettes after that one.

  107. 107
    Chyron HR says:

    @D58826:

    Yes, she did (allegedly) push back from within the administration when she was SOS.

    Now she’s running for President and trash-talking the current administration’s decision in a transparently self-serving attempt to inoculate herself from the Bergtroversy. Which–regardless of whether or not you think Democrats are obligated to support Obama on the issue–is really fucking stupid because it never ever works.

  108. 108
    Cacti says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Which–regardless of whether or not you think Democrats are obligated to support Obama on the issue–is really fucking stupid because it never ever works.

    “Democrat” Alison Lundergan Grimes is now running ads in Kentucky attacking Obama over EPA regulations.

    McConnell’s going to clean her clock.

  109. 109
    chopper says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    i have hope, but if the words ‘mark penn’ get floated any time soon that hope will vanish like the feathery snow in summer’s running brooks.

  110. 110
    catclub says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Now she’s running for President and trash-talking the current administration’s decision

    link? All I saw was an article quoting unnamed staffers saying she had disagreed in the past ( in private).

  111. 111
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Chyron HR: Is she running for President? Or do a lot of people think she is, and therefore view everything she does through that lens?

  112. 112
    feebog says:

    Democrats need to push back on the “return to the battlefield” meme being touted by Faux Noose and their ilk. We are going to be down to less than 10K troops within six months. Those remaining troops will be withdrawn by 2016. There will be no battlefield, at least not for American troops.

    Secondly, Hillary Clinton was doing her job as Secretary of State. I’d much rather have someone who felt confident enough to push back on what she thought was a bad deal than a yes man/woman in that position.

    Thirdly, John McCain can suck it.

  113. 113

    @aimai: I am under no illusions about either Obama or Hillary. I am not a big fan of his economic policies, too cautious and tending towards neoliberalism. He wasted 2 years trying to compromise with the austerity pushers too.
    I don’t think Hillary is evil, but I don’t think she has learnt anything from 2008 experience. She made many self goals in that campaign. Also, I cannot forgive her so easily for her pandering to the racists in the 2008 primaries along with that ducking sniper fire lies and continuing the primary battle when she had absolutely no chance of winning.
    Hillary’s supporters are the ones living in fantasy land in my honest opinion if they think she will win handily and with Republican support. She is a better candidate on paper than in reality.
    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: Agreed.

  114. 114
    RaflW says:

    @catclub: One of the many reasons I dread a Clinton presidency (though far less than I’d dread any R presidency) is the absolutely horrible leakiness of the previous Clinton presidency.

    I just don’t see Hillary bringing all that different a discipline to the WH.

  115. 115
    catclub says:

    @Chyron HR: I found this in WAPO:

    Clinton replied in writing to the written concerns of lawmakers in between the various meetings, according to House aides. The contents of her responses were deemed classified and were not available for review by reporters, the aides said Tuesday. Clinton, now considering a run for president in 2016, on Tuesday publicly endorsed the deal to free Bergdahl that the official said she once privately opposed.

    what links do you have saying otherwise?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

    Now she’s running for President and trash-talking the current administration’s decision in a transparently self-serving attempt to inoculate herself from the Bergtroversy.

  116. 116

    @RaflW: Plus, what is she going to do with the loose cannon that is her husband?

  117. 117
    chopper says:

    @Chyron HR:

    watch out, you’ll be labeled a ‘gop ratfucker’ if you go much farther.

  118. 118
    catclub says:

    @RaflW: heck, I am not that much of a fan, but posters here are apparently reading what was in the posted bit, and interpreting it as something it ain’t.

  119. 119
    Patrick says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Now she’s running for President and trash-talking the current administration’s decision in a transparently self-serving attempt to inoculate herself from the Bergtroversy. Which–regardless of whether or not you think Democrats are obligated to support Obama on the issue–is really fucking stupid because it never ever works.

    Amen. It never works. Republicans would never vote for her anyway. And it would really piss off Democrats like me. It really would question why I should vote for her or simply just stay home on election day. I hope she has learned something from 2008.

    Having said all that, we don’t know if she really said all that. Apparently it is based on unnamed staffers.

  120. 120
    sixthdoctor says:

    @Cacti: Agreed. But for now at least when i donate via ActBlue I can focus on the tossup senate races listed in NYTimes Upshot, since Kentucky’s now likely R…

  121. 121
    Mandalay says:

    @Princess:

    Triangulating weasel. Broken glass to vote, and all, but I am officially looking for another primary candidate as of today and because of this.

    The basis of the article is anonymous sources. If you change your candidate every time you read a negative article about them based on unnamed sources you will never vote for anyone.

    Whenever you come across a political article predicated on unnamed sources IGNORE IT. You will lose a couple of notable scoops and a huge mountain of festering shit.

  122. 122
    Svensker says:

    @aimai:

    Wha? I don’t believe any stuff about the mosque or about Bergdahl’s dad or any of that. I don’t think Hillary should be talking about how she would have done the deal differently — undermining Obama on this at all is wrong. Am I misreading that she said it?

  123. 123
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    Nonsense. She would get zero support from anyone on the right if she were actually running. She doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell and she’s my own wonderful Senator. People should stop acting as though politics is some kind of fantasy baseball system. Its not and Warren doesn’t think it is.

    @aimai: Thank you for saying this. Warren is, at this point, not electable nationally. And she knows it quite well, she’s one of the smartest pols out there.

    Hillary is the next Democratic nominee. Support her or don’t, but don’t pretend like there’s a viable alternative waiting in the wings, because there isn’t.

    And speaking of alternatives, the Democratic party really needs to start building up “farm team” talent. We just aren’t good at it, and need to get a lot better. Quickly.

  124. 124
  125. 125
    aimai says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I don’t think any Democrat will win with Republican support. I think the argument is that some racist Democrats, such as West Virginia, will come back to the party when Obama isn’t our standard bearer but I’ve never heard the argument that Republicans will vote for her.

    I think she’s learned plenty of lessons and I think that the fact that she loyally served Obama as Secretary of State should really put the racism charges to rest w/r/t her as Biden’s serving as VP and support for the President ended the kerfuffle over “he’s articulate.” But that’s just me. I understand that the AA community and many of our co-commenters here feel differently and I respect that. People have to vote their ideals and their beliefs.

    I believe she is a strong candidate and a strong campaigner. I’ll look hard at the team of people who she surrounds herself with on the campaign. But I think she’ll do fine on the campaign trail and I think she’ll do well as President. At least as well as the fantasy perfect person everyone dreams of who never shows up.

  126. 126
    aimai says:

    @Svensker: Sorry, I did not mean to appear to accuse you of believing the mosque/white house story. Its just another example of right wing ratfucking that appears, like the HIllary story and like innumerable stories about things Obama himself is supposed to have said that newsmax and fox like to trumpet as a kind of “gotcha.” You frequently see them on Talking Points Memo and then when you read the fine print you see the story evaporates in a cloud of fakery and lies.

  127. 127
    Emma says:

    @Chyron HR: Link? Because this is what I found http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....soner-swap
    and she’s defending the president’s actions.

  128. 128
    LAC says:

    @beth: lol! Exactly! Of course thrown in: “The president’s controversial plan to end cancer that some say is too soon”. That would be CNN.

  129. 129
    HelpThe99ers says:

    This isn’t the first time Fox tried this #Bergdahlghazi narrative: the first time was in 2009, and the Pentagon was not at all pleased:

    Pentagon Furious at Fox News Analyst for Calling For Execution of Captured Soldier

    Fox News analyst Ralph Peters said on July 19 that the Taliban should murder 23-year-old Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl.

  130. 130
    e.a.f. says:

    absolutely loved the last part of it, “carpet-pissing” , yes that is about all this is. These politicians making these comments, they sit in cushy offices in the U.S.A. with their aides, clean water, food, comfort, getting laid, etc. Besides McCann most wouldn’t last 5 minutes in enemy hands.

    So the U.S.A. traded 5 guys to get back an American? Whats the big deal? Did they want the solider to die? That is the question here? Did you want the man to die and did you want soliders to get the message, we will let you die if you are captured.

    There maybe allegations regarding the young man’s “departure”, but there has been no evidence, no trial. Remember, this is America and you are innocent until proven guilty.

    Now as to trading the 5 “bad guys”, get over it. They have long ago been replaced in their organizations and their work goes on. These 5 guys will have to fight their way back into their own organizations and as such may actually be more disruptive to the organizations than the status quo.

    When the Americans “traded” these guys they actually opened doors of dialogue. You know where you speak with your enemies, get to know them. As the old saying goes, hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer. AMericans, generally don’t understand or know their enemies. This is a good place to start.

    At some point Gitmo has to close. its a waste of money and a blight on the American constitution. It is no different than any camp in Russia or China.

  131. 131
    e.a.f. says:

    absolutely loved the last part of it, “carpet-pissing” , yes that is about all this is. These politicians making these comments, they sit in cushy offices in the U.S.A. with their aides, clean water, food, comfort, getting laid, etc. Besides McCann most wouldn’t last 5 minutes in enemy hands.

    So the U.S.A. traded 5 guys to get back an American? Whats the big deal? Did they want the solider to die? That is the question here? Did you want the man to die and did you want soliders to get the message, we will let you die if you are captured.

    There maybe allegations regarding the young man’s “departure”, but there has been no evidence, no trial. Remember, this is America and you are innocent until proven guilty.

    Now as to trading the 5 “bad guys”, get over it. They have long ago been replaced in their organizations and their work goes on. These 5 guys will have to fight their way back into their own organizations and as such may actually be more disruptive to the organizations than the status quo.

    When the Americans “traded” these guys they actually opened doors of dialogue. You know where you speak with your enemies, get to know them. As the old saying goes, hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer. AMericans, generally don’t understand or know their enemies. This is a good place to start.

    At some point Gitmo has to close. its a waste of money and a blight on the American constitution. It is no different than any camp in Russia or China.

  132. 132
    Alex says:

    Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer’s apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you’ve turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.

    At National Review Online by Fox News Strategic Analyst Ralph Peters

    Umm guys… maybe you might want to tone it back a bit. And maybe, I don’t know, try to figure out who actually is in charge of your emotions and anger.

    But yeah, keep saying how much you hate a returned POW. Remind us over and over again that military members better keep in line, or else fuck them.

  133. 133
    RaflW says:

    @catclub: Never overestimate the ability of blog commentariat to make shit up.

  134. 134
    Someguy says:

    All these Swiftboat, Chapter II thugs have claimed that they signed non-disclosure agreements. If that is so, then the DOJ (or JAG corps, as appropriate) should prosecute the hell out of them for violation of the agreements they signed.

    If there are no prosecutions, then there probably weren’t ever any NDAs.

  135. 135
    D58826 says:

    @Someguy: Just speculating but they might have expired once he was back in US hands so they would now be free to talk

  136. 136
    danimal says:

    From the mainstream GOP perspective, this is a perfect issue. It allows the crazies to make noises about impeachment in the House, while it is small potatoes enough to never actually see a conviction in the Senate. While the conservatives are all tending to their four hour erections, it’s possible to create some space for some actual deal-making and legislating.

    I don’t think they can pull it off, but I bet that’s what they are hoping for.

  137. 137
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Alex: Yep. Basically it is not sufficient for an enlisted soldier to follow orders. Its not enough for him to keep his opinions to himself. The only soldiers worth their salt are those who like their orders. Otherwise, they should be killed without trial, the sooner the better.

    I am trying to figure out what these hyperventalating nuts think our miliatary should be like. It is an imaginary military where a volunteer army is disciplined repeatedly at the whim of officers who decide which soldiers are fit and which deserve to die.

  138. 138
    Svensker says:

    @Alex:

    God. Every time I think they’ve reached bottom.

  139. 139
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Svensker: “I hate you for making me hate a PoW by asking me to like him. If only you’d share my hate, we’d get along.”

    /National Review

  140. 140
    Original Lee says:

    @beltane: The 2008 Clinton Campaign Brain Trust is the main reason I’m not enthusiastic about Hillary’s 2016 campaign.

  141. 141
    Trollhattan says:

    @Fred:

    It’s the same damn cohort of scardycats who couldn’t TOLERATE the idea of Gitmo residents being tried in the actual courts in the States, proper. Their unused superpowers would be enabled, and before you knew it they’d be swooping around the country, frying us from the sky with their Laser Eyes!

    And we can’t have that.

    Everybody who’s an actual as opposed to a theoretical Democrat needs to form a unified voice and support the President on this non-controversy. Period. Let the wingtards have all the rope they’d like.

  142. 142
    D58826 says:

    @Alex: The same guy wanted the Taliban to shot the soldier to save the US the expense of a trial. In a way I can understand the anger/hate directed at Obama as a public figure, but why this poor soldier and his family. In the grand scheme of things they are non-entities. If he hadn’t been captured no one would even know his name.

  143. 143
    Ben Cisco says:

    Just going to leave this here: http://t.co/6rsQ9XdXFh

  144. 144
    Suffern ACE says:

    @D58826: Violence really is the only thing our soldiers understand, you see. If they didn’t face death at the hands of the enemy or their own officers ordering summary executions, army discipline would break down. I long for the days when commanders could just decimate their troops. We had a much better army then.

  145. 145
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @sparrow: I would vote for Liz Warren in a second. But the moment she declares a run for President, the people thinking of her as a lefty dream candidate will discover that her foreign-policy positions are impure, and we’ll be back where we started.

  146. 146
    MJ says:

    @aimai:

    I think she’s learned plenty of lessons and I think that the fact that she loyally served Obama as Secretary of State should really put the racism charges to rest w/r/t her as Biden’s serving as VP and support for the President ended the kerfuffle over “he’s articulate.” But that’s just me. I understand that the AA community and many of our co-commenters here feel differently and I respect that.

    AA comentor here. I respected HRC’s work as Sec of State and will happily support her candidacy should she win the nomination. I’m sure that AA voters (who historically have the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party) will happily do the same.

    But, it’s got to be said that if HRC wants to regain the full trust of AA voters, she’ll have to deal with her campaign’s downright questionable behavior wrt AA voters throughout the ’08 campaign.

    Below is a list of some of the stuff HRC will have to address if she wants to stop getting the side-eye from many AA voters:
    -HRC’s I’ve got the support of “hard-working white Americans” comment; Bill’s “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice”, (per Rep. Clyburn) Bill’s sketchy statements to Sen. Ted Kennedy re: what Obama would have been doing a few yers before running; Mark Penn’s strategic decision to other Obama in the public eye by questioning whether Obama was “fundamentally American” in his thinking and values.

    I agree that politics is for grown-ups and politically astute folks have to learn how to move on when its in their best interest. AA voters have no problem forgiving questionable behavior on the part of people who are on our side (i.e. Joe Biden & the articulate comment). Moreover, many AAs I know were ride or die for BC throughout his presidency, even after he made some decisions that disproportionately hurt vulnerable members of our community (i.e. welfare reform & some of his “tough on drugs” policies). But, let’s not act like some of this hurt/mistrust towards the Clintons was unwarranted, or that HRC doesn’t have to clean up some of the mess left behind by her 2008 campaign.

  147. 147
    MJ says:

    @aimai:

    FYWP: Reposed w/o block-quote and links to see if I can get around moderation.

    AA comentor here. I respected HRC’s work as Sec of State and will happily support her candidacy should she win the nomination. I’m sure that AA voters (who historically have the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party) will happily do the same.

    But, it’s got to be said that if HRC wants to regain the full trust of AA voters, she’ll have to deal with her campaign’s downright questionable behavior wrt AA voters throughout the ’08 campaign.

    Below is a list of some of the stuff HRC will have to address if she wants to stop getting the side-eye from many AA voters:
    -HRC’s I’ve got the support of “hard-working white Americans” comment; Bill’s “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice”, (per Rep. Clyburn) Bill’s sketchy statements to Sen. Ted Kennedy re: what Obama would have been doing a few years before running; Mark Penn’s strategic decision to other Obama in the public eye by questioning whether Obama was “fundamentally American” in his thinking and values.

    I agree that politics is for grown-ups and politically astute folks have to learn how to move on when its in their best interest. AA voters have no problem forgiving questionable behavior on the part of people who are on our side (i.e. Joe Biden & the articulate comment). Moreover, many AAs I know were ride or die for BC throughout his presidency, even after he made some decisions that disproportionately hurt vulnerable members of our community (i.e. welfare reform & some of his “tough on drugs” policies). But, let’s not act like some of this hurt/mistrust towards the Clintons was unwarranted, or that HRC doesn’t have to clean up some of the mess left behind by her 2008 campaign.

  148. 148
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Dupe70: Huckleberry Closetcase (se Noisemax headlines) has actually said that he five exchanged prisoners are a Taliban “dream team”.

    Yes, he is that fucking stupid.

  149. 149
    WaterGirl says:

    @Ben Cisco: BlackTrack. Perfect description.

Comments are closed.