IRAN: Hillary's threat to "obliterate" in war reverberates

LA Times

Better be careful what you say in the heat of a political campaign. It could have global repercussions.

Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's vow to "obliterate" Iran, presumably with nuclear weapons, if it attacked Israel on her watch was duly noted in the U.S.

[UPDATE: To see a video and full transcript of the comment, click here.]

Jaded American insiders shrugged off the remark as typical campaign season bluster, filed away with myriad other exaggerations and gaffes.

But it prompted shock overseas as well as headlines from Bulgaria to New Zealand.

The statement triggered alarm bells in the Persian Gulf, which would likely suffer the consequences of any war between Iran and the U.S. In a harshly worded editorial, the Saudi-based daily Arab News trashed Clinton's comment today as insane:

This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.

(Continued here.)

Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

by Paul Rogat Loeb | March 6, 2008
from SmirkingChimp

(TM note: see also Toronto Globe and Mail article, further down.)

Suppose someone in the North Korean government released a false story that shifted a key American election. If Bush were negatively affected, we might be bombing Pyongyang by now. But this just happened with what Hillary Clinton called "NAFTAgate" Without it, she might never have won Ohio, or her margin would have been minuscule. But as a Canadian Broadcasting Company story reveals, practically the entire story was a lie, one that played so central a role in Clinton's Ohio victory that any claim she raises about emerging with a swing state mandate is thoroughly tainted.

As the Ohio primary approached, Obama was steadily closing what a month earlier had been a 20-point lead in the polls. He argued that the NAFTA trade agreement, a centerpiece of Bill Clinton's term on which Bill had staked his entire political capital, cost massive numbers of industrial jobs in Ohio and other manufacturing states. Instead of creating a trade-fueled boom, it helped hollow out America's industrial base, with over 200,000 manufacturing jobs disappearing in Ohio since the 2000 election. Even Republicans I talked with while calling Ohio before the vote made clear that they thought NAFTA was a disaster.

Given these sentiments, Hillary chose not to defend her husband's actions, but instead claimed Obama was distorting her position because she'd privately opposed the agreement at the time, had "long been a critic" and now similarly supported stronger labor and environmental standards. Echoing her reinvention on the Iraq War, these claims were flat-out nonsense. As David Sirota points out, she'd praised NAFTA repeatedly in public settings from the time of its inception. And as Obama highlighted their contrasting positions and approaches on this and other issues, he was gaining in the polls.

(Continued here.)

Clinton backers fault campaign

Supporters outline errors as focus turns to big states

By Paul West, Baltimore Sun

It may be hard to recall the shield of inevitability that once surrounded Hillary Clinton, but a December 2007 cover story in a liberal magazine is a reminder.

"Has Hillary Locked It Up?" asked The American Prospect, which unabashedly promotes its "Liberal Intelligence." The article lauded the "strategic and tactical brilliance of her campaign" and "her political adeptness," concluding that Clinton had pulled so far ahead that the race might be over once the first votes were cast.

Now, after falling behind Barack Obama, her campaign is being vilified by some of her supporters. They say she made the strategic mistake of believing that she was inevitable, allowing herself to be positioned, in effect, as an incumbent in an election about change.

Her advisers apparently assumed that the nomination would be decided by the Super Tuesday primaries Feb. 5, when more than half the states would have voted. Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Clinton supporter, was quoted as saying last week that "it sure didn't look like they had a game plan after Super Tuesday."

Among recent problems: a shortage of campaign cash and, some supporters say, a surplus of loose talk by her husband, the former president.

(Continued here.)

FISA Bill: Clinton and Obama to Vote “No” on Cloture

from Firedoglake

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton To Vote “No” On Cloture Tomorrow
UPDATE: Barack Obama Will Be There Too

By: Jane Hamsher Sunday January 27, 2008 7:12 pm

According to the Clinton campaign, Hillary Clinton will be in the Senate tomorrow to vote "no" on cloture on the Intel version of the FISA bill. The vote is scheduled to take place at 4:30 pm Monday.

I've also been trying to confirm whether Barack Obama will be there. His campaign people have not gotten back to me, but Obama does have a 4pm fundraiser scheduled in Washington DC.

Bravo, Senator Clinton. Well done.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign confirms that Senator Obama will be there too, and voting "no." Way to go, Senator.

Looks like we're gonna have quite a CSPAN liveblog party tomorrow.

Hillary Ambivalence Syndrome

Finally! Something from Fox News that makes us laugh!