Lately he had been eying a Tory safe seat. The sex scandal is referenced at the bottom.
this'll make you laugh a bit it's about a Sex Scandal in Britain (you know it's kinky now). How do conservatives connect Hillary Clinton and fascists (and thus prove the love between fascism and liberalism.)
Take it away Jonah:
"Mosley's (Oswald Mosley, Max's father) sister-in-law Jessica Mitford, one of the Mitford Sisters (natch'), was a committed Communist who wrote The American Way of Death (which by many accounts is a good book I have yet to read). When Hungarian freedom fighters were slaughtered by the Soviets, Mitford said they were "fascist traitors" who had it coming. Jessica married the Stalinist California lawyer Robert Treuhaft (this NYT obit is hagiography), for whom Hillary Clinton worked as an intern."
They are jumping all over Max Moesely's rather "interesting" sexcapade.
Let me take this other glove off
As the vox humana swells,
And the beauteous fields of Eden
Bask beneath the Abbey bells.
Here, where England's statesmen lie,
Listen to a lady's cry.
A year and some has passed since Saddam Hussein was executed, and yet we remain in combat in Iraq: Under the umbrella of the concept of balancing out Iranian influence. But that wasn't how it started, was it?
Democratic peace theorists were running around 2001-2006 suggesting that the Middle East could only find peace if Democracy was imposed on the region. It sounds plausable in the context of what happened after ww2 with a Germany democratized under British and American occupation. But that neat history ignores the real power balance that was acheived between the USSR and the US during the cold war. A balance that really characterized the period under which Germany learned the arts of democracy and peaceful coexistence with neighbours. In getting rid of Saddam Hussein, one of the most powerful and charismatic men in that region, the US ensured that the region would not achieve balance of power in a generation in contrast with the Allied effort in ww2. Chaos reigns in the place of some assured order and the promise of reconstruction. Under what Umbrella will the ME learn the arts of Peace?
It's sad to see the one bit of peacemaking America has done successfully in teh last 20 getting subtly trashed by diaries today by a Liberal Democrat who should know better.
I don't know if Hillary Clinton should claim Clinton administration's peace brokering efforts in Ireland as her own. I'm not even sure America should be bragging about getting the Irish to live together. Maybe the explaination for peace there was really about EU subsidies that finally made sure the Republic was a rich, happy and fat nation. Maybe it was Blair acting as an honest broker from Westminster, leaving Ian Paisley with nowhere to hide. Or maybe the Irish themselves were just ready to lay down arms. Here's a contemporary account of her involvement:
...in Canada. Didn't go so well did it? About as well as the frog who swam the scorpion across the river.
Obama ALWAYS emphassized labor and environmental (none / 0)
protections with trade deals. That's a fair trade position.
This looks like a trap setup by the rightwing Canadian government to corner Obama here to help the Republicans. Goolsbee should've been more careful not to fall for the trap, but it changes nothing about where Obama stands on trade. And that's fair trade, period.
Obama's Fact Check page | Hillary Clinton's war vote excuses are invalid
by N________________ on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:28:19 AM EST
Normally, a candidate for the Presidency will integrate the record of the last President from their party seamlessly into their own campaign in order to grab the residual affection of older loyalists.
Clinton's candidacy, meant that her serious competitors would be forced to run against the Clinton years. Running against that record they would be forced to raise questions about the record and voice the discontents within the party arising from those years. NAFTA, and the broader issue of freetrade is one of those issues.
It's one thing for paratroopers to fight it out to the death according to orders, but Clinton can't bluff her way out of this siege. She doesn't have the facilities to accept the surrender of Obama's Army--that much is now clear. The bluff though gallant when stated by an officer armed with hauteur and an umbrella, may become an embarrasing epitaph for Clinton when Obama finally breaks through in Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania. Give him a few million and a rally he'll replicate tonight's victory on the 4th.
To paraphrase General Model (Max Schelling), Obama is likely issuing the directives to: "Flatten Texas."
If McCain is secure in Florida, That frees up millions of ad dollars for him to plunge into Pennsylvania. If he then picks Romney as his veep, he can lock down the rocky mountain area (Nevada, Colorado, even NM) with the energized Mormon vote that would surely come his way. Romney also stands a modest chance of stealing a New England state, like NH, This means we may end up spending cash on our own turf before we even start.
Governor of SC, relatively popular, small government type. Can't be easily tagged with the religious nut label but still remains popular among that rightwing theocon constituency.
And he appears to be TV friendly.
McCain's win in South Carolina may very well have been down to his intervention with the State machine, but it was done silently.
We may as well test out this new fangled Anti-war business before before the war is ended. Glen Greenwald makes a good case about how lousy Terry McAuliffe is on the national defense front. I dunno if Obama will turn out to be less craven in November but he might be willing to puncture the warmongering with some rationality. I doubt he'd be very different from Clinton in terms of governing and eventual military policy but it would be great to a full throated anti war position argued on live TV in a national debate. Something very new.
Thought might be fun for the international comparative political analysts out there.
A leadership election was held on July 21, 1994 for the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, after the death of incumbent leader John Smith.... The system was the first held under the new leadership election rules, including an element of one member one vote, which had been introduced in 1993. Beckett had served as interim leader, whilst Blair had been Shadow Home Secretary.... The 'electoral college' system meant that members of affiliated groups (mostly trades unions), the members of constituency parties, and Labour MPs were weighted equally.
4 of my Colleagues at the Law school here were planning to vote for Obama but forgot to reregister as Dems from their indie status (they all have JDs). One of the 1-L students has voted for Huckerbee, nice kid, but he threw that one away. A couple of the porters who are Mexican American have already voted for Hillary and my wife just did as well. My boss switched from Edwards to Obama. The Reserve Librarian is vacilating between Obama and Clinton, may not vote at all. She was a former Kucinich fan.
Me? I abstain Edwards is out and no other candidate is of any interest.
California is yesterday of course. So that means--as the polls are wrapping up in the New England states, news will be filtering back to California about the results there. After seeing a few elections as an LA resident, you know you have lost or won nationally by the time you vote after work. So what will happen as the results for NE roll in before the California polls close?
Hillary may throw an early Victory bash in NYC (for NY) and then jet off to California after a stop over in Little Rock...if her numbers there are looking solid to win the East-South-West trifekta.
If she's winning in most of New England, and the results there start filtering back about her winning in NY will it depress or increase her support?
Tonight Clinton may have sollidified her potential in the Southwest with the phrase about Good Samaritans. Out here in the Sonora Desert, this phrase refers to the humanitarians who seed the desert with bottled water for border crossers.
She also balanced this out with a pratical emphasis on how workers are exploited by gang masters who divide the working class up between citizens and exploited undocumented workers.
In one fell swoop she exhibited humanitarian concern and a neatly marxist analysis of the way the upper classes divide up the workers and set them at each other's throats. bravo!
Edwards timed it brilliantly. All the polling data that the media was going to use over the weekend to push their narratives is rendered moot by his decision to allow Obama and Clinton to duke it out one on one. Now they will have to throw out their work and start again to figure out where this is heading.
This allows the voters in Supertuesday states to make up their own minds about Clinton and Obama without the influence of Luntz, Norah "Excremental" O'Donnell, Tweety pushing polls to an unsuspecting public. It also draws one final bit of attention towards Edwards issues on the eve of the Debates. And offers the challenge: Obama and Clinton, steal my agenda! Look for shifts in rhetoric during the debate to scoop up Edwards 15-20 of supporters.
