State Department Priorities?

Really? Is this what the US State Department cares about now? They're an extension of the Lady Gaga touring company? I have now officially heard more from the US Secretary of State about the work in booking Lady Gaga than about the civilians being killed in the streets in Syria. I suppose if it's rubber stamping a letter, that's not a big deal, my concern is more that the State Department has been so quiet in other areas that seem more serious.  And it's still a bit weird that the State Department is involved at all with a private musician.  But maybe that's just me.  Read the original here.

Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig
Monday, June 27, 2011
By Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the State Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for pop-rock star Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.

Clinton specifically pointed to a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event.

“And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing,” Clinton said. “Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.

“Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights,” said Clinton. “And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.”

Mrs. Clinton made the remarks at the State Department at a celebration of LGBT Pride Month co-hosted by the department and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), a group that, according to its website, “represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) personnel and their families in the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and other foreign affairs agencies and offices in the U.S. Government.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ6JMm76-5E

On June 11, Lady Gaga performed at a rally at the ancient Circus Maximus in Rome, Italy. The rally followed a gay pride march through the city of Rome.

Gaga sparked controversy earlier this year when she released a video of her song “Judas” on Easter Sunday. The video depicted Gaga as a Mary Magdalene figure--in a motorcycle gang—who becomes enamoured with Judas. “The video opens with a motorcycle gang cruising down a freeway, as Gaga clutches onto a Jesus-like figure who wears a golden crown of thorns,” said a Billboard.com description of the video.

“Oh, I'm in love with Judas, Judas,” says the song. “In the most Biblical sense I am beyond repentance. Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind.”

Who's right on Pakistan? Sen. Kerry or Sec. Clinton?

Read the original here.

Clinton Vs Kerry On Pakistan

May 17, 2011 6:04 PM

ABC News' Kirit Radia (@KiritRadia_ABC) reports: There appears to be a disconnect between what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator John Kerry, D-MA, are saying about U.S. relations with Pakistan. Administration officials, and Secretary Clinton, don’t seem particularly pleased by his recent effort in Islamabad.

Yesterday during his visit there Kerry touted that relations between Washington and Islamabad had been “re-set” after the surprise US Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil.

Yet today, when asked whether US-Pakistan relations had actually turned the corner, Clinton said there was a long way to go.

“We are working very hard to have an understanding with our counterparts in Pakistan about the best way forward,” she said. “There are important concerns and many questions that have to be addressed and worked through.”

In fact, Clinton made it clear that Kerry didn’t speak for the administration, offering perhaps a pointed dig at the fact that Kerry issued a joint statement with Pakistani officials that was billed as a joint US-Pakistan statement (administration officials insist this was Kerry freelancing).

“I appreciate very much his delivering to the Pakistanis, in his capacity as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, a clear perspective on the concerns of the United States Congress,” Clinton said today, emphasizing Kerry’s position in the legislative branch.

Clinton is dispatching her top aide on the region, Marc Grossman, who is slated to arrive in Pakistan on Thursday. It’s maybe another sign that Clinton had her own messages to deliver to Pakistani officials.

Kerry said during a hearing this morning that Pakistan had agreed to take several steps to pave the way for Clinton’s eventual visit, but he said he would leave it up to the executive branch to announce.

Asked what those steps were, Clinton offered a less than enthusiastic response.

“I’m not going to comment on any specific issue that Senator Kerry referred to in any of his public remarks, but we are going to be working very hard in the days and weeks ahead to ensure that we have a path forward that continues the progress and answers a lot of the concerns that both sides have at this point,” she said.

There has been a bit of tension between Kerry and Clinton, despite the fact that Kerry has been used to send messages for the administration to leaders around the world. In particular, officials say Clinton was not happy with Kerry’s staunch support for Syrian President Bashar al Assad, which he insisted was a reformer. Clinton was not convinced.

References
^ « Previous (blogs.abcnews.com)
^ Main (blogs.abcnews.com)
^ Next » (blogs.abcnews.com)

Is Hillary Clinton looking for the exit?

Read the original here.

OH, HILL NO - WWW.THEDAILY.COM

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to
take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign
Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s
Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would
accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Philippe Reines, an adviser and spokesman for Clinton, downplayed thesignificance of the interview, saying, “He asked, she answered. Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.”

But her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary, according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates came out against a no-fly zone almost two weeks ago, while Clinton grew closer to the Libyan opposition.

Last week, excommunicated members of Libya’s embassy to the United States set up shop in an office inside the State Department.

Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.

"I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

And to some, the firing last week of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley over disparaging remarks he made about the Pentagon detention policies had the appearance of a power move by the Defense Department more than anything else.

While the stakes in Libya could not be higher, the insider said that something far more domestic was on Clinton’s mind after she leaves the State Department: “She wants to be a grandmother more than anything."

— With Anthony DeCeglie

Would Sen. Clinton supporters vote for "Hillary Smith?"

Yet more bigoted, sexist drivel from a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Maybe Robin Gerber needs to step back and analyze her own prejudices. She honestly thinks that Hillary Clinton would be viewed differently if she was a man? Let's just set aside the straw man arguments that Ms. Gerber is postulating here, the waffling on abortion (a charge I've not personally heard) and on the war (a charge which rings very true) - her detractors are a little more concerned about things like the "vast right-wing conspiracy," her methods of dealing with the media, her former business dealings, the censorship of her notes and papers from her time as First Lady, the mysterious death of a former associate, the secrecy surrounding the Clinton White House, and the people who work for her engaged in personal destruction while working for her husband.

To address specifically the straw-man arguments and bigoted suggestions in the article. Hillary Clinton is neither effective nor qualified for the position. There is not a single piece of significant legislation she has enacted. She has never run a single thing in her life - never run a business, a city, a state, an Executive department, or even a legislative committee. She has accomplished exactly nothing as a legislator, as a First Lady, as a business manager, or as a lawyer. Further, the entire sum of her qualifications are 8 years in Congress. By that measure, there are - literally - hundreds of other lawmakers who are at least as qualified as she is.

The issue is, and always has been, that Hillary Clinton is an unsuitable candidate because of who she is - not that she happens to have two X chromosomes. Plenty of other female candidates would be much more suitable, most notably Christie Todd Whitman, Elizabeth Dole, Madeline Albright, Janet Napolitano, or Mary Jodi Rell. All of those women have actual accomplishment, have actual qualifications, and have actually led. Elizabeth Dole, in particular, is extremely well qualified.

The bottom line, however, is that the real question Ms. Gerber should be posting is not "would you vote for Hillary Clinton" but, rather, "would you vote for Hillary Smith."

Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
NewsDay.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

But they're blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

It's not the voters and her opponents think Clinton's experienced and competent, and they don't like or trust her. It's that they think she's experienced and competent and that's why they don't like or trust her.

A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the start dilemma that competent women face. In "the Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.

Funniest story of the day...

This is one of the most idiotic stories I've recently read.

Tom Baldwin of The Times of London accused Matt Drudge of conspiring with Hillary Clinton to bolster her campaign while taking cheap shots at The Times of London.

Could you ever imagine Matt Drudge trying to help out Hillary Clinton? Hasn't The Times of London heard of Monica Lewinski? Could you ever imagine Hillary Clinton, of all people, looking to Matt Drudge as an ally?

It must be the guilt, fermenting within him, of directly causing the impeachment of our country's best President (well, at least the best President that was in office when Clinton was impeached).

Even better - this is an author who is defending his paper against a perceived accusation of spreading innuendo. How does this author mount a defense? By spreading innuendo: "Why would a 'Hillary confidante' do such a thing? The mind boggles. Could it be to provide cover for other - alleged - activities at Camp Clinton and its surrounding outposts?"

History according to a "Hillary confidante" (and Matt Drudge)
The Times of London

My collegue, Tim Reid, travelled down to South Carolina last week where he soon found himself up to his ankles in what he described as the "foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America".

Tim wrote about some of the smears and innuendos already floating by in the Palmetto state. His second paragraph reported some of the extraordinary allegations being spread about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Fred Thompson and, oh yes, Hillary Clinton.

The purpose of this report (read it for yourselves) was not to suggest these claims were true, but to provide a measure of their nasty. For instance, I'm pretty sure Obama is not a "Muslim extremist".

Tim's article was duly picked up on Thursday by the Drudge Report and that, we thought was that.

This is why people hate HIllary

I was over at Slate.com and they have their "XX" feature where a few of their female opinion writers collaborate on a blog. They've been pretty universally furious about the "How do we beat the bitch?" question asked to John McCain this week. Their argument, however, is that people hate Senator Clinton and want her to fail because she's a woman. I don wonder where their anger was when Condoleezza Rice was being called much worse than that. The the point, though, the entire "don't pick on her because she is a woman" argument is getting trite.

ABC News revealed today that people who received some of President Clinton's final-hour pardons have donated money to her campaign. Considering the millions of dollars that was paid by the family and friends of the pardoned criminals to the Clinton's (through their infamous "wedding" registry, the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, and President Clinton's legal defense fund), their family members, and political organizations of their choosing, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Senator Clinton is accepting dirty money from criminals her husband pardoned. Don't forget, of course, that this group includes a group of terrorists convicted of heinous acts of violence.

The "don't pick on her because she's a woman" line needs to be turned around; non one is "picking" on Senator Clinton. She's taking the heat she deserves for being a two-faced, dirty, apparently corrupt, special-interests-focused, condescending, hypocritical, and fake politician. What the people calling for a reduction is criticism are really saying is "because she's a woman, don't pick on her."

Pardon Me?
Hillary Clinton Takes Cash From Recipients of Husband's Controversial Pardons
ABC News

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton is January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.

"It's not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it's inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback."

"One can only hope that she wasn't yet aware of who made the donations," said Sloane.

"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," said Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson, adding sarcastically, "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention."

Pardonees Donate to Clinton

One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.

Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign in August.

Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who have Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to "report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States," according to the Department of Justice.

Biggest non-story of the year

Why is anyone writing this story? It must have been a ridiculously slow news day.

Falling Flags
Political Radar for ABC News

It's been a rough stretch for Hillary Clinton -- a tough debate performance, a lost voice, and the revelation that the Clinton campaign had been coaching questioners at events.

Then, on Sunday, everything started falling down around her.

After a very Presidential-esque news conference - Clinton turned around to leave the reporters and their peppering questions. A staffer swooped open a curtain, and chaos ensues. Four large American flags came crashing in front of Senator Clinton as she headed for the door. In a controlled panic, the staffers and the Senator attempted to catch the flags before they fell to the ground.

"I think the bases are not weighted enough," Clinton said as she propped flags back up. One of Clinton's aides quickly summoned the advance man in charge to assist in the crisis.

Hillary could be innocent in this mess...

I really hate to say this, but I've done some digging on the accused terrorists from whom Hillary has taken money. In all fairness to her, I've run each of them and their organizations through publicly available software for checking against the Office of Foreign asset Control database. This database is the one in which financial companies such as banks, mortgage lenders, and insurance companies much check to ensure they aren't facilitating terrorism funding.

Not a single one of the individuals listed was found in the OFAC database, searched using the OFAC Watchdog software by Attus Technologies.

That being said, I think we really need to give Hillary and her organization a pass on this one. Assuming that she has implemented an OFAC check, these individuals would not raise flags for her organization. The bigger question is how closely she knew them, which is unclear at this point.

Hilary takes cash from terror suspects
Muslim donors targets of federal investigation
World Net Daily

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has taken thousands of dollars in cash donations from Islamists under federal investigation for terror-financing, money laundering and tax fraud, WND has learned.

The Democrat senator over the past seven months has received $1,000 from M. Yagub Mirza and another $500 from M. Omar Ashraf, federal campaign records show. Federal agents raided the Virginia homes and offices of the Muslim donors after 9/11 for ties to terrorism.

Others tied to the still-active probe also have contributed money to Clinton, including one Muslim man who after 9/11 complained to the U.S. government should focus on changing its Mideast policies instead of killing Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists.

Mirza, who also has given to other candidates, including Republicans, is said to act on behalf of Saudi millionaire Yassin al-Qadi, who the U.S. Treasury Department in October 2001 blacklisted as al-Qaida financier.

Edwards might be the best candidate for the Dems

ABC News has a report about an attack by Edwards on Clinton. His best quote, and he's right on with this:

There was a story in today's New York Times about this issue and about her vote on this issue. And some of her advisers said that she voted yes because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I may be wrong, and you'll have to tell me, have we already decided who's going to win the New Hampshire primary?...Instead of primary mode versus general election mode, instead of saying one thing in the primary and something different for the general election, how about if we do tell the truth mode all the time. How about if we say exactly what we believe and stand by that position.

He also skewers her for saying she feels that the solution to the money-in-politics issue is public campaign financing while she continues to eschewing public campaign financing.

He may be completely and utterly unqualified for the office, but John Edwards continues to strike me as the best of the candidates for the Democrat's nomination.

Edwards Attacks Clinton on Questionable Contributions
Political Radar on ABC News

After an article in Friday's "Los Angeles Times" revealed that Clinton received large donations from poor residents living in New York City's Chinatown, the Edwards campaign pounced on the opportunity to bring more attention to the questionable contributions.

"This morning we all read in L.A. Times that many Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again. Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said in a statement on Friday.

"Senator Clinton has said public financing is the answer. Senator Edwards has opted to take public financing, but Senator Clinton has not. Senator Clinton should explain why she doesn't mean what she says...The bottom line is we need a nominee who can do two things: campaign in all 50 states and challenge our broken system in Washington. With every day

the growing question has to be can Hillary Clinton do either?"

Last Sunday while campaigning in New Hampshire, Edwards sought to bring Clinton down a notch by pointing to a story "The New York Times that explained the New York Senator's vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Hillary Clinton's audacity

The audacity of Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. This is a woman who has established a PAC which has a politicization of science" division, who is allied with Al Gore who admits to exaggerating the global warming menace (most clearly by blatantly lying about Antarctic glaciers), and actively ignores the overwhelming majority of economists in setting economic policy. How does the audacity to levy the charge that anyone is manipulating science?

Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research
Hillary Rodham Clinton to Lay Out Science Proposals, Slam Bush's 'War on Science'
ABC News

If elected president, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would sign an executive order rescinding President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

She says she also would bar political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions from government research without a legitimate reason for doing so.

The New York senator was to announce these and other proposals of her science agenda in a speech in Washington on Thursday.

The address to the Carnegie Institution for Science was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. The launch, which caught U.S. scientists by surprise, helped start the U.S.-Soviet space race and led to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Quote of the Day

"The nation does not need the kind of experience that tinkers around the edges instead of doing something fundamental about how lobbyists operate in Washington."

- Barack Obama, slamming Hillary Clinton

Hillary's campaign "engaged in the politics of personal destruction"

Hillary Clinton has fired off some hypocrisy. A senior advisor took aim at Rudy Giuliani's personal life - namely his previous failed marriages and the stained relationships he has with his children. Despite a pledge to run a clean campaign and neither engage in personal attacks nor condone them among allies, Senator Clinton is refusing to condemn Tom Vilsack's personal attacks against Mayor Giuliani. Is there anyone, anywhere who's surprised?

Getting Personal: Clinton Ally Rips Giuliani
ABC News

Despite Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton's longtime state opposition to "the politics of personal destruction," one of her top advisers has attacked the personal life of Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani.

Though this may be the first such high-profile attack on the personal life of a presidential hopeful launched in this highly competitive election season, the New York senator notably refused to distance herself from the comments.

The attack come in an interview on NY1, when former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a top Clinton presidential campaign advisor, laughed when an interviewer discussed the prospect of Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee.

Asked what was so funny, Vilsack replied, "There's a lot that the rest of the country's going to get to know about Mayor Giuliani that the folks in New York City know, but the rest of the nation doesn't know."

Clinton bashes insurance companies

So, Senator Clinton is going to be announcing her health plan on Monday. No details, except that she's going to ensure that insurance companies have dramatically reduced input into deciding how health insurance is paid for in the United States.

All this goes back to the "greedy insurance company" populist line that people like to espouse, particularly on health care. I always find it amusing that most people who are in favor of a single-payer health care system use "insurance company greed" as one of their top reasons. Of course, in Michigan, that's a ridiculous point.

Health insurance in the state is provided by a reasonably large number of companies but the largest are Blue Cross of Michigan, Aetna, Health Alliance Plan, and M-CARE. Of these four, only Aetna is a for-profit company. The other three are all non-profits. I love the idea that the non-profits are "greedy."

Clinton Readies U.S. Health Insurance Plan as Pitfalls Loom
Bloomberg.com

Hillary Clinton, offering a new prescription for providing all Americans with health-care insurance, is seeking to avoid a repeat of her first, failed bid to revamp the system.

While Democratic presidential rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama released health-care plans several months ago, the issue is more complex for the senator from New York.

Clinton's previous effort gives her a voice of authority on health-care coverage now, with 65 percent of Americans in a July Gallup poll expressing "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of confidence in her on the issue. That's more than any other White House contender. At the same time, it evokes memories of the bureaucracy-laden, 1,342-page proposal that critics still call "Hillarycare."

"It's very tricky for her," said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "But she's not going to get elected president unless she can get through to people on health care," said Bob Laszewski, a Washington health policy analyst.

Obama's more qualified for President because he served in state government...?

Senator Barack Obama has come out and indicated that despite his 2 1/2 years as a Senator, he's more qualified than either Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards because he's spent more time in elected office. Technically, he has, but this is far from reassuring...

Am I the only one concerned that the three top candidates for the Democratic nomination have, combined:

17 years in Federal legislative office
0 years in executive office at any level
0 years in legislative leadership experience at any level
0 years in party leadership experience at any level
0 years in military experience at any level
0 years in corporate management experience
0 years in ambassadorial positions

People talk about George W. Bush's lack of experience, but at least he was a two-term Governor, had run a company, and was a military officer (even if it was the National Guard, it is at least something). In comparison, Senator Clinton has 8 1/2 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend her. Senator Edwards has 6 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend him. Senator Obama has 2 1/2 years in the Senate and no other experience to recommend him.

It just shocks me that other Democrats aren't doing better. There are dozens of current and former Democratic Governors, dozens of Democratic Senators and Congressmen with more than 8 years of experience, dozens of Democrats who were ambassadors, and a fair number of former Congressional leaders and former Executive department heads. Why aren't we even considering any of these much more qualified individuals?

For Obama, It's Now or Never
ABC News

ABC News' Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, said Wednesday that this may be his last change at running for president.

Asked if his '08 bid was just a strategic move to position himself for a run in 2012, Obama said he didn't think his wife would allow him to run again if it doesn't work out this time.

"Well, I'm not sure - I don't think my wife's going to let me do this twice. So let me be clear about that," Obama said while campaigning in Iowa.

Obama also sought to answer charges from his Democratic rivals that he is too inexperienced to be president, by pointing to his experience in the Illinois state legislature.

"I've been in elected office longer than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton," said Obama. "I've passed more bills I'm sure than either of them - certainly in the state legislative level."

Hey, Ben Smith, there's another similarity

Over at the Politico, Ben Smith is taking issue with John Fund bringing up the 1996 Clinton scandal involving illegal, foreign (specifically Chinese) campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign. His concern: "The only connection I can see here is his ethnic origin," pointing out that Norman Hsu, accused of giving illegal campaign funds to Hillary Clinton, is of Chinese descent.

Hey, Ben, here's something else that's a connection, although it might be hard to notice: both scandals involved the Clintons. Perhaps if the 1996 scandal shouldn't be brought up, Ben would suggest another Clinton finance scandal we should look at instead?

RNC pushing the China angle
The Politico

So is the Hsu story more sinister because Norman Hsu, the controversial donor, is Chinese-American, born in Hong Kong?

None of the Clinton's Democratic rivals have suggested that, and none of the papers covering it have even hinted at it.

But the Republican National Committee has been pushing this angle pretty hard, and apparently attempting to revive the - never proven - allegations of a Chinese "spy ring" buying its way into the 1996 Clinton campaign.

As far as I can tell, the only link here is that Hsu is Chinese American.

Could it be because it's true...?

Why is it that Democrats seem focused on the political effects of a terrorist attack and the Republicans seem focused on stopping them?

Hill: Terror Would Be GOP Boost
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold onto the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault white campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equiped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if'? 'What if'?" But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

Oops!

Why people don't trust Sen. Clinton.

This year: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Last year: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table."

What do you think her position will be next year? I don't know, either.

Clinton Discussed Use of Nukes Last Year
Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barak Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention—possibly even a nuclear strike—to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have changed since then.

Time to shut up

What is this, a race to see who can say the stupidest things? I thought Sen. Obama's public suggestion that the United States unilaterally invade an ally possessing nuclear weapons was dumb. Rep. Tom Tancredo had to go and up the ante, suggesting that we nuke Mecca and Medina. What is going on here? can someone please have some decency and shut up about things they clearly have no understanding about? Even Sen. Clinton - who's supposed to be the experienced one - is talking about the possibility of sending nukes into Pakistan to take out Al Qaeda. So far, it looks like Rep. Tancredo is winning the stupidest comment race, with Sen. Obama just ahead of Sen. Clinton a short way back.

I'm waiting on Sen. Gravel or Rep. Paul to go next. Maybe Tommy Thompson?

U.S. State Department cringes as presidential hopefuls muddy diplomatic waters
PR Inside

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.

Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.

"Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do," said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.

First it was Barak Obama's talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.

The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo's comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience.

I have to agree with Hillary

More than just saying that I agree that Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief, I am inclined to agree with Sen. Clinton's stated stances here as she criticizes Sen. Obama. Quite frankly, he's terribly raw when it comes to foreign policy. If he is going to be President some day, he really should get a bit more experience. The same, of course, goes for Sen. Edwards. The problem with Sen. Clinton involves her domestic initiatives and the fact that, while she is saying one thing right now as she's going after Sen. Obama, she would be speaking in a dramatically different manner were her opponent a Republican. The fact that you cannot tell where she stands on topic is really disconcerting to be as a citizen.

Presidential Race Goes Nuclear
ABC News

The leading Democratic candidates for president sparred with each other over the issue of nuclear weapons Thursday and the result was pure heat.

In another broadside indicating the increasingly heated race for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., implied Thursday that comments made by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., were careless and unpresidential.

Sen. Clinton was referring to Obama's statement earlier in the day that he had ruled out using nuclear weapons against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Clinton also suggested Obama's high-profile speech earlier in the week in which he said would be willing to invade Pakistan to attack high-profile al Qaeda targets, given actionable intelligence, was inappropriate, further evidence that she is painting her challenger as unprepared for the job of commander in chief.

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Clinton, asked about his remarks Thursday afternoon, took issue with them.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Who won't Bush talk to?

What was it that Hillary said last night about Bush and diplomacy? Who won't he talk with?

U.S.-Iran Talks Resume in Baghdad
ABC News

The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq sat down Tuesday for a second round of groundbreaking of talks on stabilizing Iraq, a session marred by a tense exchange over American allegations that Iran is fueling the violence.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the meeting with an impassioned appeal for help from the two nations to stabilize Iraq and warned that militants from al-Qaida and other terror groups in Iraq were now fleeing and finding refuge elsewhere.

"We are hoping that you support stability in Iraq, an Iraq that doesn't interfere in the affairs of others nor wants anyone to meddle in its own affairs," he said, according to excerpts of al-Maliki's remarks released by his office.

"The world ... must stand together and face this dangerous phenomenon and its evils, which have gone beyond the borders of Iraq after terror and al-Qaida groups received strong blows and are now running away from the fight and moving to other nations," he said.