http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/A_nuclear_threat.html

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said earlier that Clinton didn’t intend to refer to nuclear weapons in her discussion of Iran, but on Olbermann, she made what seemed like a very clear nuclear threat against the gulf state.

“Massive retaliation,” as a reader pointed out, is a term of art in nuclear strategy.and a cornerstone of nuclear deterrence.

Clinton seemed aware of the term’s pedigree when Olbermann asked her about Iran.

“We used [deterrence] very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” she said.

Her quote continues after the jump, but she sure does seem to be referring to nuclear deterrence.

If they have no problem with losing the tax priviledges of ‘nonpartisanship’, then why the heck not?

I can’t get too bent out of shape about the content of what Clinton said. It wasn’t the cleverest thing in the world to say, and buying into the Rove story on MoveOn and Afghanistan is nothing to be proud of, but the rest of it has some truth to it. The activist wing of the Democratic Party isn’t all that enthusiastic about her, and neither are the netroots.

The problem is that she’s not merely pointing out that people don’t support her. Look at the language: “this is what we’re dealing with.” What is she dealing with? People getting energized and excited about this campaign? Those people not being energized and excited about her?

The fact that she fails to inspire people is her problem, not MoveOn’s.

I don’t support MoveOn, I don’t think an anti-war group has any business endorsing candidates. When I was in an anti-war group, we asked candidates pretty point-blank questions about some issues like Ballistic Missile Defense, SNC Lavalin’s war profiteering, and ending the war, and released a “voter guide” with their responses, but we did not tell people how to vote, we let the candidates words speak for themselves - since, as it turned out (and as it’s going to turn out here, as well), there was no such thing as an totally anti-war candidate. I think MoveOn’s support for Obama is going to bite them in the ass when he wins and continues destroying Iraq because he has no idea what else to do, and isn’t willing to face the political fallout of immediate withdrawal.

Personally, while I’m sincerely hoping for a democrat win, I think it’s important that we not lose perspective: things aren’t really going to suddenly become magically better when Bush is out, and there’s still going to be a real need for people willing to speak truth to power. I guess that makes me a “keep your eye on the prize” person, but the prize isn’t the presidency, it’s ending the war.

I for one am from school of free for all yell at the blog. (obviously not very popular.)

maybe a more regimented/guided analysis? with a group of blogs doing a parade? (this should be a perfect parade material it seems.)

———–

update on Hillary moveone debacle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/top-clinton-strategist-de_n_97627.html

Geoff Garin, who took over the reigns of the campaign several weeks ago from Mark Penn, sought to diffuse anger and concern over Clinton’s comments — which were reported by The Huffington Post — by casting them as nothing more than legitimate political analysis.

“The truth is that we agree with MoveOn [the Democrat group Clinton singled out] on lots of issues, disagree with them on some,” said Garin. “One of them is they’ve endorsed Senator Obama and they have been very effective in these caucuses.”

Asked to specify exactly which issues Clinton and Moveon had disagreements, Garin demurred, saying simply it was a “particular set of foreign policy issues,” not “everything.” Pressed to discuss when, as Clinton claimed, MoveOn had “flooded” caucuses and “intimidated” voters into supporting Obama, he attempted to sidestep the question.

“I don’t want to… I’m here for two weeks now, so this comment was made in, I believe, at the beginning of March,” he said. “But, look, the truth is Senator Clinton, as she said in that other clip, respects the right of MoveOn to be involved in this process, and respects the role that activists play in our party. I think the larger point is that when you move from the caucuses to the primaries where participation is much, much greater, she has done extremely well.”

It’s a Republican wet dream. Keep trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For fuck’s sake. If I didn’t know better I’d guess that the vast majority of Democrats were taking a dive.

This is not rocket science: if you are behaving exactly as your opponents want you to behave you’re doing it wrong.

Fuck.

I am normally the last with the “keep your eyes on the prize” shit but for Christ’s sake can people stop actively working towards a McCain presidency?

George Stephanopoulos (born February 10, 1961) is an American broadcaster and political adviser. He is currently ABC News’s Chief Washington Correspondent and the host of ABC’s Sunday morning news show This Week. Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became Clinton’s communications director.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos

I go with the simple explanation. When Clinton was the presumed nominee, the media tried to be nastier to her. Now that Obama seems to be ahead, ABC tried to tear him down more. Seems to me that our media just wants to shit on Democrats as much as possible.

He’s a misogynist. Call him out on it. Isn’t this a feminsit blog?

Isn’t it feminist to believe that when a woman is acting like an ass toward you, you have as much right to flip her the bird as you would a man?

(Not that he actually did, but even if so, so what?)

ABC Asked Most Scandal Questions, Obama Was Clear Target

2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4. Obama has fielded questions about his “bitter” remarks, his connections to 60s-era radical William Ayres, two questions about flag lapels, two questions about his alleged plagiarism of speeches, three questions on Louis Farrakhan, and eight about Jeremiah Wright.

Clinton has received only four such questions — two about her Bosnia trip, one about a photo of Obama in African garb that was linked to her campaign without evidence by the Drudge Report, and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton (”If your campaign can’t control the former president now, what will it be like when you’re in the White House?”).