The Irish reaction to Clinton’s claims that she was “instrumental” has already been documented over at Five Before Chaos by JD Ryan, but an AP article that’s making the rounds of European papers (not so much here) today is worth another look.  I found it in the Guardian.

The story is that Clinton dedicated a park in Belfast that was to become the state’s “first Catholic-Protestant playground.”  (Which is absurd in itself; Catholic kids and Protestant kids haven’t been isolated from each other in NI.)  But in her role as peacemaker, she forgot to do anything more than dedicate the park; no playground was ever built.

“She was in charge of christening this wee corner (of the park) as some kind of peace playground. It never made any sense then, and there’s nothing there today,” said Brian Feeney, a Belfast political analyst, author and teacher. “Everything she did was for the optics.”

Although Irish Taosaich Bertie Ahern, David Hume, George Mitchell have all, rather weakly, backed her claims, they offer no specifics regarding anything she actually did, nor any policy talks in which she was influential or even any that she attended.  And her recently released schedule as First Lady doesn’t back up the claims either.  According to The Daily Telegraph (London):

(The) details of her visits to Northern Ireland indicated that she went little beyond the traditional role of a president’s wife, attending social events, meeting women’s groups and greeting children.

Despite Mrs Clinton’s claim last week that she was “instrumental” in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, the schedules do not record her attending a single policy meeting.

Here’s the thing: a Clinton presidency is seen as favorable by Hume and Ahern.  They’ve already secured promises from her on a higher level of diplomacy in NI, and on Irish immigration – a bone to Hume and a bone to Ahern.  

Meanwhile, criticism among the Irish people grows (particularly in the North), and the people who had their feet on the ground, those who did the real work, seem to be a bit perturbed with her insistence on making her role in Northern Ireland a centerpiece of her foreign policy experience.   From the Guardian article:

“It’s crazy for Hillary to say she played a role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. … She seems to be confusing her record with her husband’s,” said Robin Wilson, founder of a Northern Ireland think tank, Democratic Dialogue.

All of this brings into question Clinton’s judgement, and her grasp of reality, her understanding of world affairs, and her opinion of our intelligence.  Does she really believe she played an “instrumental” role in NI peace?  Does she think dedicating a playground is peacemaking?  If the answers are no, does she really think we’re going to buy it?  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…

http://www.independent.ie/worl…

WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic Party chief Howard Dean says Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their supporters should beware of tearing each other down, demoralizing the base and damaging the party’s chances of winning the White House in November.

My Clinton fatigue is only rivaled by my Bush fatigue, and to be honest, it's made blogging, both here and at FBC, quite difficult for me lately. Whether it be the playing the race card, Bill Clinton's arrogant and asinine statements, praising John McCain, or blackmailing Pelosi and th DCCC, no politician, save Bush, enrages me on an almost daily basis.

Part of that frustration in undoubtedly rooted in a frustration with the media and Clinton's “inevitability” narrative; they've been fed this line of crap for years and seem reluctant to really talk about the real “inevitability”: – that Hillary will not win the nomination. Thankfully, the morning lede from Reuters gave me a bit of hope…

Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won…

The article goes on to explain the many reasons why this is the case, along with the obliviousness still shown by the Clinton campaign. She really doesn't seem to give a rat's patoot about how this will affect the party, reinforcing that “will do anything to win” meme. But as Stoller aptly pointed out, there's not a lot of truth to that meme (emphasis mine):

I've never liked the line 'the Clinton's will do anything to win'. Hillary Clinton won't, for instance, renounce her support of the Iraq war or get rid of an obviously incompetent Mark Penn as the captain of her campaign. And many politicians face a similar incentive structure to the Clinton's and are just as ruthless. More accurately the line should be 'the Clinton's will turn their back on you for short-term political gain'.

I still don't think this is going to go all the way to the convention. As Clinton acts more and more desperate, I really think more and more superdelegates are going to come out and do what they can to end this circus. As, Jack pointed out below, it's long past time. And it won't be a moment too soon for me.

Per a Daily Kos diary, Leahy just called on Clinton to withdraw.

I’ve been reading about the idea of the superdelegates all coming together to settle the race and get it over with.  I think that that’s a good idea, but this has to be done in such a fashion as to promote the idea that Clinton had a fair shot at it but just didn’t pull it off: that this was a battle between giants where only one could win and the other lost it fair and square.  

If Superdelegates jump in right now and virtually say “Clinton’s already lost, so don’t bother voting in Pennsylvania ’cause it won’t matter” it won’t be perceived as a fair contest.  I think it’s fine to wait for PA and NC to vote and then for them to start making real pledges towards one candidate or the other.

They should, however, be talking to Clinton privately and telling her that they will announce their support for Obama if she continues to make personal attacks on him, that the scorched earth approach will cost her considerably and that she’s pushing herself out of the nomination of this continues.  

So I’m not sure whether or not it’s a good idea to be calling for her to resign right now.  From most Senators I’d say no, but Leahy is so highly regarded within the party that it might carry weight.

Around here we think very highly of Peter Freyne and his work, so now that he's announced his retirement from his weekly reporting gig, take a listen to VPR's Vermont Edition today as they review his career.

Those are the words of Madeleine Kunin on VPR this morning, reacting to Sen. Patrick Leahy's argument that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the presidential race because she can't possibly win, and because her continued attacks on Barack Obama are hurting his chances of being elected once he wins the Democratic nomination, which is inevitable. Kunin also called the calls for Clinton to step down both unfair and patronizing.

With all the respect that Kunin is due, this is ridiculous for a couple of reaons. First, “it's not over till it's over” makes perfect sense in a baseball game, but not in a political campaign. A baseball game has a set duration: nine innings, assuming the game isn't tied after nine, and no matter how far ahead one team is, the team that's behind is never categorically eliminated from scoring enough runs to take the lead until the final out. Among other things, this means that even if you're so far behind that all the fans have filed out, and you wish you could go home too, the game still isn't over.

The primary campaign isn't like that. That's why all those other candidates, who figured out that they weren't winning any delegates and couldn't catch up, aren't still running. The primary campaign leads to the convention, but there is nothing that says that all the candidates have to stay in until Denver.

The other problem with what  Kunin said is the suggestion that somehow the party is patronizing Clinton by asking her to get out now that it's obvious that she can't win. It seems a bit patronizing to tell her 'Honey, you know you've got to drop out for the good of the Party.' Its obvious that there have been plenty of sexist attacks on Clinton during this campaign, but that's not what this is about. This is about taking her seriously, treating her like any other candidate or savvy politician, and expecting her to make the same kinds of judgments that other politicians would be expected to make.

It's time. Clinton can't win. She's hurting the party, and the country. She should go. 

Bush/Cheney often talk of History proving their policies correct .Newspaper as history’s rough draft.Here are 15 headlines from Washington Post’s White House Watch column this March

Cheney’s Unforgivable Egotism

Another Bleak Milestone

Bush’s Alternate Reality

Cheney Doesn’t Care What You Think

Bush’s Triumphalist Amnesia

Bush’s Financial Katrina

Bush’s War, Five Years On

Are We Closer to War?

Playing Constitutional Chicken

A Legacy of Torture

Why Haven’t We Been Attacked?

Bush’s Awkward Embrace

Bush’s (Mixed) Blessing

The Vacation President

The White House Plagiarist

Rough history  

For months, the Democratic Party has been wringing its hands trying to come up with a candidate to take on Douglas.  While we might be annoyed by Pollina’s early entrance to the race, blame for the lack of candidates cannot be laid at the Prog’s feet.  Nor can we say Douglas is unbeatable.  The simple fact is the man is tolerated by voters, not loved or even respected.

It is getting very late in the day for a dem candidate to get moving, but I think there is more of an opportunity for victory than the conventional wisdom would suggest. Here are my thoughts on how a Democratic candidate might actually step forward and run a winning campaign:

1) Run from the Center.  mydog and others have pointed out that Pollina’s candidacy actually gives Dems an opportunity to run from the center.  this is spot-on.  Intead of lamenting Pollina muddying the waters, use his candidacy to hammer home the differences between Dems and Progs.  Paint Pollina as a far left candidate with no experience and force the left wing of the democratic party to make a tough choice: go with Pollina and lose badly or suck it up and go with the Dems and get most of what you want.

I could be wrong, but I suspect there are a lot more independents and moderate republican voters who are in play in this election than lefty voters.  Why fight Pollina for 10% when you can battle Douglas for 30%?  By running from the center, a candidate can appeal to those voters who are looking for an alternative to Douglas, but terrified that the Dems will just hike taxes.  Running on a centrist platform will suck the oxygen right out of douglas’ core message to voters: I am all that stands between you and endless tax increases.

2) Run against the legislature.  for whatever reason, the Democratic leadership has wasted the last two years on a host of boutique issues. I realize this categorization will piss off some people, but I think it is a reasonable assessment.    

A Dem candidate for governor needs to come out and say that s/he will focus only on ‘bread and butter’ issues: education funding, economic development and health care.  Paint the legislature as captured by special interests and offer a positive vision for the state’s economic future (instead of whining about Douglas’ whining about Vermont’s high tax burden).    

3) Hammer Douglas on competence.  Given the many follies of our Governor this should be a no-brainer and it helps paint him as ‘Bush-lite.’  

Of course, the key element missing here is a candidate able and willing to run… hope springs eternal!

   

John McCain loves to promote the canard that he is disarmingly frank, and obviously he has a lot of help from his suck-ups in the press. So you'd have to know I'd need a good reason to be sending you to his web page, right?

Well, I do. Everybody's talking about the Bear Stearns bailout, or liquidation, or whatever you want to call it, and since he wants to be president he has to also, even though everybody knows he has no interest in domestic policy, and, as he puts it, he knows nothing about economics. It's not like school, though. Once they make you president, you can't just say “Pass” when they come to something you're not interested.

Still, you would think that he might be a little more circumspect when it comes to proving he knows nothing about economics, wouldn't you?  Maybe that's the disarmingly frank part.

Anyway, if you're about to lose your house because of the subprime meltdown, he's got a simple message for you: too damn bad! I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. . . .

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't.

If you're wondering who the people who were irresponsible are, here's a little hint: if you bought your house with a subprime mortgage, it's you.

But that just shows that he's callous, not economically illiterate, You have to wait just a bit for that part, right after the “refreshingly candid maverick” part of the speech.

I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now. . . . In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

 So now for the no-dogma part of the speech:

In consideration of the absence of discussion of a potential gubernatorial candidate from the Dem party, I think it may be a good time for GMDers to consider a turn away from the negative conversation regarding Anthony Pollina to a more constructive discussion on what we know about Peter Galbraith.  After all, as grassroots folks, we can only benefit the cause to educate ourselves and others about what kind of attributes, experience, and “what this means to the average Vermonter” answers Galbraith can bring to the table.

Galbraith currently reminds me of the Roman god, Janus, who represents the transition of time, conditions, and visions.  Janus sees history and the future simultaneously, hence the month of January comes from his name.  Janus is the gatekeeper of change and helps us to connect things that might otherwise seem distantly apart.

Peter Galbraith is a former US Diplomat with a strong interest and intimate knowledge of Iraq through his work there beginning in 1992.  He also happens to live in Townshend and may soon be announcing an official bid for the Governor's office.  What is the connection between being a diplomat in Iraq and a position as Vermont's #1 in command? Well, for starters let's consider the fact that Vermont has the highest per capita losses in the war.  Then there's also that bold anti-war platform Howard Dean offered to the world back in 2002.  Let's just say that Vermonters are a lot more connected to Iraq then they might ever imagine.

Peter Galbraith stands at a unique place and time of local and global politics.   As Vermont's governor, Galbraith has a platform, experience, and connections on the national and international stage.  What Bill Richardson is to New Mexico, Galbraith could be for Vermont.  

But what does this mean for Vermonters?  Can a great man who sees in two directions a single path convince the average Vermonter that he brings dual blessings?  Can he reassure independent voters and even conservatives that he can accomplish more in one year than Douglas has in three terms?  Can he speak to close to home bread and butter issues in a genuine way?

Please offer your thoughts, insights, and ideas regarding a man will represent a changing era in Vermont's political stature at home, in the Governor's Association, and internationally.