Keith Olberman Almost Admits He Was Wrong

Remember this speech from February, 2008? Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers was introducing Hillary Clinton at a rally in Ohio.

Guess who was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight?

I wonder if Keith is beginning to regret trying so hard to get Hillary out of the race? I wonder if he remembers suggesting Hillary should be taken in a room by a superdelegate, “and only he comes out”?

Here’s the post by Dave Weigel: We Are All Tom Buffenbarger Now.

Back in 2008, Obama supporters thought Buffenbarger was a racist using right wing talking points against The Messiah. It seems he actually knew a thing or two about Barack “vote present” Obama and his tendency to fold like a cheap suit.

Kudos to Keith Olbermann for having the guts to put Buffenbarger on his show, and congratulations to Buffenbarger for handling the opportunity with class.


Saturday Reads in Sheroville

Greeting Madame Secretary. Dec. 2, 2010, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. (AP/Anvar Ilyasov)

Good morning, news junkies! Wonk here, under the weather with a terrible sinus bug. I hope this roundup is semi-coherent.

It’s Saturday, December 4th, 2010, and on this day in history in…

1791: The first edition of The Observer, the world’s first Sunday newspaper, is published; 1881: The first edition of the Los Angeles Times is published; 1943: The Works Progress Administration ends; 1961: Birth control pill ‘available to all’ (BBC)— Women who wish to take oral contraception may do so on the National Health Service; 2000: The Supremes rule on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board.

The Pill, The Papers, The Works Progress Administration, oh my! Oh, and we sure could have used another WPA instead of another Bush.

Of course, on this day in the present… Tax Cut Theatre presents… drumroll please… Inside the Beltway: A Deficit of Purpose(that’s from the NYT editorial board in today’s Gray Lady). Here’s a Reuters overview of the provisions in the Tax bill expected to fail in the Senate today. I’m sure the day will be filled with coverage of this kabuki, so enough of that for now.

Onto a Wonk the Weekend link parade, with a Shero emphasis on who else…

Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger: (Reuters) – “Hillary Clinton said Friday she would not run for president and her current job as secretary of state was probably her last public position and she would focus on women’s advocacy work after leaving office. Clinton, who has repeatedly laughed off suggestions she might still want to take command of the White House, told an audience of Bahrain students that she was not contemplating a repeat run for president after losing to Barack Obama in 2008. ‘No, I’m not,’ Clinton said. ‘I think I’ll serve as secretary of state as my last public position and then probably go back to advocacy work, particularly on behalf of women and children.’” (Alright, that’s my cue: As much as I love blogtrotting with Hillary as she travels around the globe, I can’t wait to see The Hillary Rodham Clinton Foundation finally realized when the day comes.)

It’s been a Wikileaks Week of Diplomacy Havoc for Secretary Clinton (wikileaks link goes to the Guardian’s coverage), with the Vast Right Idiocy exhaling from the grave to say their ugly-nothings (or as Taylor put it the other day, Because Dick Morris is a Jackass.”)

As Obama passes the domestic buck yet again (click for C-span video of Obama talking to troops on a surprise visit to Bagram), he is no doubt breaking the heart of yet another batch of supporters who “wanted to believe.” Then, there is his Secretary of State, connecting with the grassroots everywhere she goes —Hillary Clinton’s Bahrain ‘Townhall’ goes a-Twitter(via Meera Rani at the Khaleej Times):

“Meanwhile, in the audience, a quick poll showed that young Bahraini girls were more keenly aware of world politics than the boys. Although Hillary Clinton is too big a name for anybody to not to know, many boys said they were unclear of her exact role in the US government. Bahraini girls, on the other hand, were full of questions that they would have liked to ask her about her work-life balance, her career path and world view. Aysha Hamad, 25, said she would like to understand how Clinton got out of the shadow of her powerful husband to carve a career for herself. Perhaps the most promising observation came from Isa Aziz, 19, who shrugged that while he was not personally interested in politics, he would definitely vote for women in Bahrain because progress ‘..was about ability and not gender!'” For the rest of the Bahrain townhall, you can view the state.gov transcript.

Speaking of the Energizer Secretary, heard at the Hillary Townterview in Kyrgyzstan on Thursday (via state.gov): MODERATOR 2: How many hours do you sleep? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it really depends upon what else is going on. I’ve been kind of busy this week, so I haven’t slept many hours. But I try to get six hours. And then on the weekends, I try to make up for it, because you can’t go too long with too little sleep. It starts to impair your judgment. And so even when I can’t sleep a lot during the week, I try to catch up on the weekends.”

Also heard at the townhall in Kyrgyzstan… Hillary, in Ah-the-remnants-of-sexism wry smile mode: “MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer? SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes? MODERATOR 1: Yes. SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.) MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)”

Now that’s a charm offensive!

One more snippet: “MODERATOR 2: What inspires you? SECRETARY CLINTON: People who have the courage to stand up for human rights of themselves, and particularly others. That I find very inspiring. Leaders who put the needs of their people and their rights ahead of their own personal benefit.”

People and rights before personal profit. Obama is inspirational, but it is Hillary who is inspired. (BTW, people-over-profit, how do you translate that in Caviar commission-speak? On second thought, I can’t imagine there are any terms in the CC manual for the concept of good governance.)

Back at Hillaryland.gov (in an ideal world, that would be a valid url), on Friday: Ambassador Verveer welcomes participants to a conference on International Day of Persons With Disabilities.”

***

Need a Laugh? Try Brother Husbands! (h/t Fredster)

***

Peter Daou earlier this week: “It’s a nightmarish joke that Republicans and Tea Partiers want to assail President Obama for denying American exceptionalism, while doing everything possible to undercut it.” Perfectly said, but of course, on the other side of the mockery, the great DLC/Clinton Slayer That Never Was… wants to call himself a Blue Dog, not to mention do everything to undercut the domestic policy legacy of FDR and LBJ. Another sick joke for sure, though it is no surprise. (See Politico, March 2009: “I am a New Democrat.” –a newly inaugurated President Obama )

Of course I could quote the dead giveaways from the ’08 primaries, as well, but ’tis the season to be generous and it’s not even necessary to go to that well. This so-called Democratic president’s declarations of independence from core Democratic principles has been on trainwreck display for everyone left-of-center to see and hear with their own lying eyes and ears since his tabula rosa took the oath.

From Wednesday on nakedcapitalism. Matt Stoller says End This Fed. Check out Dakinikat’s comments on Stoller’s thread and her post if you missed it. I wanted to include it in my roundup because the image that struck me while reading all this was a bit chilling: B. Hoover Obama has stuck the shiv in the Democratic party, and the right-wing scavengers have arrived to openly feast on its remains. Yeesh!

The one other story I wanted to touch on briefly and open up for conversation is the dustup over Angelina and her Bosnia movie — link takes you to Melissa Silverstein‘s writeup of the situation at Women and Hollywood.

Also from Hollywood Reporter (H/T Minkoff Minx): “Jolie asked that the women hold their judgment until they have seen the movie, which features a love story between a Bosnian woman and Serbian man. ‘There are many twists in the plot that address the sensitive nature of the relationship between the main characters,’ she said. Jolie explained that she originally decided to write a screenplay to highlight her frustration with the length of time it takes the international community to intervene in conflicts. ‘It kept leaning toward Yugoslavia at the time, I wanted to learn more about it and the people, the more I read and learnt I was drawn to that part of the world,’ she said. ‘I met artists from that part of the world and found they were extraordinary for what they’d gone through, so I wanted to give them a platform.'”

Hmm. Reminds me of the Hindi film Pinjar (based on the novel by the same name–this is a link to a writeup on a lecture series from a couple years ago). The word literally means “skeleton,” but it can also mean “cage.”

So, let’s dish!

What’s your take on the Angelina story? Sounds to me like a case of the media’s three favorite pastimes: hype, misinformation, and mischief.

I say Let Angie Direct, and the calls for her to be stripped of her UN role over a script that we have only a vague plot idea about are over the top.

What’s next for Hillary? Will she go straight back to her public advocacy roots whenever she moves on from Foggy Bottom? Or, is she playing women-dimensional chess?

I’m skeptical as ever Hillary running again, but she still has my vote if she ever needs it.

And, back to where we started– So what about that corporate mush that will be masquerading as a Senate vote today? My two, you ask? Like I said a few days ago, it all boils down to… We are so f’d.

On that note, this is Wonk signing off and wishing everyone a serendipitous Saturday. Here is a mini-photo bomb, shero-style, to cheer you up. Click to view full size & Enjoy!

Hillary is greeted by Kyrgyz First Deputy Prime Minister Amangeldy Muraliyev at Manas airport in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Dec. 2. (AP/Maxim Shubovich)

Madame Secretary signing agreements in Uzbekistan, Dec. 2. (AP/Anvar Ilyasov)

Roza & Hillary: Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva (R) shakes hands with Secy. Clinton, Dec. 2. (Reuters)

Hillary meets with employees of the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Dec. 2. (AP/Maxim Shubovich)

What are you … …reading and ruminating on this morning?

Cross-posted at Let Them Listen, Liberal Rapture, and Taylor Marsh.


Hey, Senator Nelson! Where’d ya get that Toupee!?!!

It just never ends, does it?

 

From Huffpo (h/t Amy at the New Agenda):

Hillary Clinton On What Designers She Wears: ‘Would You Ever Ask A Man That Question?’

You’ll notice this was from an interview in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, but still, you’d think they could ask another question of the main diplomat of a the U.S.

MODERATOR 1: People always touch some personality of Hillary Clinton. We have some – not just silly questions, but (inaudible) –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I’ve never been asked a silly question in my entire life. (Laughter.)

[…]

MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?

MODERATOR 1: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)

What actually really gets to me is the HuffPo Quick poll at the end of the article.
where you get to evaluate Hillary’s answer. Your choices are:

Totally appropriate…she doesn’t need to answer!

Eh. She could have thrown a name or two out there!

Right, that’s exactly what I’d expect of an up and coming media source in the U.S. run by a woman.


A Follow-up to Dakinikat’s Latest Post on the TSA Controversy

This morning, Hillary Clinton weighed in on the enhanced searches being used by the TSA during her appearances on the morning political shows.

CBS’ Bob Schieffer asked Clinton Sunday if she would submit to a pat-down by a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent.

“Not if I could avoid it,” she replied. “No. I mean who would?”

On Meet the Press, she told David Gregory:

“I think everyone, including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public,” Clinton told NBC’s David Gregory.

“I mean obviously the vast, vast majority of people getting on these planes are law abiding citizens who are just trying to get from one place to another. But let’s not kid ourselves. The terrorists are adaptable,” she continued.

“Striking the right balance is what this is about. And I am absolutely confident that our security experts are gonna keep trying to get it better and less intrusive and more precise,” Clinton said.

Now let’s compare that with President Obama’s statement about the naked scanning machines and abusive TSA procedures, beginning with one of his patented self-referential remarks. Because everything is always about him, of course.

Responding to a request for his opinion on the matter from NBC’s Chuck Todd, President Obama opened with a confession: “I don’t go through security checks to get on planes these days, so I haven’t personally experienced some of the procedures put in place by TSA.” He then proceeded to defend this measure which he will never experience– one which everyone from Geraldo Rivera to Anderson Cooper seem taken aback by:

“I will also say that in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing, our TSA personnel are properly under enormous pressure to make sure that you don’t have somebody slipping on a plane with some sort of explosive device on their persons. And since the explosive device that was on Mr. Abdulmutallab was not detected by ordinary metal detectors, it has meant that the TSA has tried to adapt to make sure that passengers on planes on safe. Now, that’s a tough situation. One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes huge inconvenience for all of us.”

Which statement is the least obnoxious? Perhaps Obama should just defer all questions to Clinton from now on.

Here’s an interesting reaction to Obama’s remarks from Huffpo:

“What I don’t like about Obama’s statement is the sense that there’s nothing to be done about the violation of civil liberties. It is as if the TSA is not accountable to anyone, which can’t be accurate. Who oversees TSA and who is responsible for setting these policies? Who are these people accountable to–Dick Cheney?”

I totally agree with that commenter!

Now check this out: Body scanner CEO accompanied Obama to India

The CEO of one of the two companies licensed to sell full body scanners to the TSA accompanied President Barack Obama to India earlier this month, a clear sign of the deep ties between Washington politicians and the companies pushing to have body scanners installed at all US airports.

Deepak Chopra, chairman and CEO of OSI Systems and no relation to the New Age spiritualist, was one of a number of CEOs who traveled with the president on his three-day trip to India, which focused primarily on expanding business ties between the US and the emerging Asian power….

That a manufacturer of body scanners accompanied the US president on a foreign trip shows the extent of the ties between the industry and the US government. With anger growing at the intrusive news screening procedures, many observers have focused attention on Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary whose consultancy, the Chertoff Group, counts OSI as a client….

“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected ‘[the alleged Christmas Day bomber’s] explosive,” Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, told the Washington Post.

If that doesn’t make your blood boil over the way innocent Americans are being treated in U.S. airports, what would? This is all about money for corporations, not about protecting Americans from terrorism.

We are now experiencing exactly what James Ridgeway predicted earlier this year:

…airport security has always been compromised by corporate interests.When it comes to high-tech screening methods, the TSA has a dismal record of enriching private corporations with failed technologies, and there are signs that the latest miracle device may just bring more of the same.

Ridgeway calls the naked body scanners a “scam.”

Known by their opponents as “digital strip search” machines, the full-body scanners use one of two technologies—millimeter wave sensors or backscatter x-rays—to see through clothing, producing ghostly images of naked passengers. Yet critics say that these, too, are highly fallible, and are incapable of revealing explosives hidden in body cavities—an age-old method for smuggling contraband. If that’s the case, a terrorist could hide the entire bomb works within his or her body, and breeze through the virtual strip search undetected. Yesterday, the London Independent reported on “authoritative claims that officials at the [UK] Department for Transport and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.” A British defense-research firm reportedly found the machines unreliable in detecting “low-density” materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids—precisely what the underwear bomber had stuffed in his briefs.

Ridgeway lists a number of powerful Washington insiders who are profiting from the Naked body imaging scam. So what if a terrorist gets through the scan with explosives hidden in a body orifice? There are even more invasive machines available.

there’s always the next generation of security equipment: the Body Orifice Security Scanner, or BOSS chair. This contraption, which has an uncomfortable resemblance to an electric chair, is used in prisons, mostly in the UK, for tracing cell phones, shivs, and other dangerous contraband that’s been swallowed or inserted into body cavities by inmates. So far, it only detects metal, but you never know.

And of course there is always the humiliating “enhanced pat-down” process for anyone who doesn’t want to appear naked to a bunch of TSA thugs.

If you are still unconvinced that the government isn’t really protecting us with their police-state tactics, consider this:

The recent public ire toward the TSA’s new pat-down and body imaging screening methods is likely to cause more people to drive automobiles and forego airline travel, say two transportation economists who have studied the issue.

As the nation readies for one of the busiest traveling holidays, Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, told The Hill that the probable spike in road travel, caused by adverse feelings towards the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) new screening procedures, could also lead to more car-related deaths.

“Driving is much more dangerous than flying, as you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident mile-for-mile than you are in an airplane,” said Horwitz. “The result will be that the new TSA procedures will kill more Americans on the highway.”

Clifford Winston, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institute, stopped short of saying that more people could die as a result of the TSA policies, but said that the airline industry will definitely see a decline in passengers if the public’s contempt for the pat-downs and advanced-imaging technology systems continues.

It’s time to get serious about stopping terrorist attacks by using a method that actually works, instead of just focusing on further lining the the pockets of rich corporations and their CEOs.

President Obama needs to understand that he works for us. We shouldn’t have to serve as experimental subjects for his rich friends’ latest police state technological projects. We should have the right as American citizens to travel freely in our own country.

If President Obama continues to insist that we be seen naked or be groped by his TSA thugs in order to fly, then he should have to go through one of the scanning machines himself followed by an “enhanced pat-down.” And the entire humiliating process should be shown on national TV for all of us to see.


Hillary’s Gender Agenda

abc_2hillary_080128_ms Here’s some news about Hillary Clinton’s New Gender Agenda as reported last week by the NY Times.

I have to say that Hillary really captured my admiration in 1995 when she gave that powerful speech in Beijing for the United Nations Conference. The only really feminist first lady that I can recall in my life time before Hillary Clinton was Betty Ford. Although I remember reading many many things about Eleanor Roosevelt, she died before I could truly appreciate her. All the other first ladies seemed so demure by comparison! But not Hillary Clinton!

She is our third female Secretary of State. While I appreciate Condi Rice and her brilliance, she was not always arguing positions with which I agreed so I always watched her with a raised eyebrow. I do, however, admire all three of them from Madeline Albright forward. As my Irish Grandmother taught me from her very superstitious nature, the third’s always the charm! Hillary has put women’s issues front and center and I have to say brava for that! There are so many issues facing women in the world these days that it is hard to choose one as a priority. The ones that have grabbed my heart recently are that of the plight of child brides and the girls (and young boys) trafficked for the sex trade. The one I work for is microfinancing for women’s businesses all over the world. (Shameless plug here for The Confluence Lending Team at Kiva.) Here are Hillary’s priorities.

Q: In your confirmation hearing, you said you would put women’s issues at the core of American foreign policy. But as you know, in much of the world, gender equality is not accepted as a universal human right. How do you overcome that deep-seated cultural resistance?

Clinton: You have to recognize how deep-seated it is, but also reach an understanding of how without providing more rights and responsibilities for women, many of the goals we claim to pursue in our foreign policy are either unachievable or much harder to achieve.

Democracy means nothing if half the people can’t vote, or if their vote doesn’t count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. Which is why when I travel, I do events with women, I talk about women’s rights, I meet with women activists, I raise women’s concerns with the leaders I’m talking to.

I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential.

Read the rest of this entry »