Your repeated confusion of policy competency and political competency puts your career in an interesting light. So does the ever-more-twisted logic you employ in your near-maniacal obsession with assaulting Obama. Let's see: thus far you've told us that Hillary has excellent foreign policy credentials because you briefed her once and she did not fall asleep in her coffee, that Rice was responsible for Rwanda, and now that an unfortunate slip by a foreign policy advisor - on a strictly political issue - in some way discredits her understanding of foreign policy. I'm sure you must be capable of better judgment than this - surely someone so nakedly desperate to impose an agenda on the facts would not long be tolerated in the intelligence community. Unfortunately, like many once respected and sharp-minded folks, you are allowing your obsessions to turn you into a crackpot. Still, I look forward to your next post and the fresh absurdities it will offer. Your dissolution as a credible commentator, while tragic, has an undeniable voyeuristic appeal.

P.S.: Obama is known for seeking out opinions contrary to his own in his advisors, and in fact spent a lot of time on the phone with a former colleague at the University of Chicago debating this very issue before he cemented his decision. It is apparently your conviction that the President should surround himself with an army of yes-men.

Yes, how completely awful of Obama's advisors to speak candidly about complex issues like how best to get out of a stupid intractable war you didn't start or how to improve a lousy trade agreement your opponent's husband wrote with corporate lobbyists and Republicans.

You won't catch Hillary's team acknowledging complexity. They are "too experienced" to tell the truth. I mean, just because they were the ones who first reached out to Canadian officials about their NAFTA rhetoric shouldn't stop them from slamming Obama for it. If he was experienced he would have been able to keep it secret like they did.

The only way Obama would be as unready to lead as you suggest would be if he was dumb enough to stick to a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that was two years old.

We started with the Austan Goolsbee flap. You know, Barack’s senior economics advisor who told the Canadians essentially that Senator Obama’s public comments about NAFTA did not reflect his true feelings.

Stunning.

You're actually repeating this, after it's been dispelled?

Here's the Guardian, from today:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

That's exactly the *opposite* of what you're saying.

Truly stunning.

Republican alumni from the U.S. intelligence community who seek business as government contractors are not often taken as credible sources of guidance by liberal voters.

Just sayin'.

You seem to have established a reputation as someone who doubts Obama's righful place in the Pantheon by questioning him, his campaign, and his team of advisors.

Don't forget, Larry is also questioning Obama's scary "Muslim relatives" among other insanities.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/16148/3931

It's when he goes off on his spittle-flecked rants that I lose any respect that I may have had for him. And, unfortunately, it's part and parcel of the Larry Johnson of today.

Larry,

You need to calm down.

Please keep doing this, Larry. You are doing yeoman's duty in pulling voters away from Sen. Clinton and embarrassing both yourself and your candidate.

A few more weeks of this, and Obama may actually win the PA primary.

Max&Michael
Don't you guys have anything else to throw at Larry than cheap innuendo and faux outrage?

For once, refute any point that Larry has made against Obama and his comical entourage. You don't. All you do is question his motives, his past, blah blah bla(Max) or keep whining about Hillary's (unfair?) hits against Obama (Michael). Don't you guys have anything more SUBSTANTIVE against what Larry is presenting to this audience at TPM Cafe than snide innuendos and sour grapes?

Larry's point if you are too dense to get it is that Obama has absolutely NO experience other than a speech he made in 2002 to a constituency that would probably have voted for Alan Keys if he had not spoken out against the war at the time. He backs it up with details of the Obama Follies and you come up with zilch against THAT.

That's pretty lame

Listen
The coin of THIS realm is demonstrable FACTS backing up a position. Larry has presented what he says are a series of damning FACTS against Obama and his "team" and made his position clear: OBAMA IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. You guys can't refute a single point Larry has made yet you make smug and snide remarks about Larry. That's classic ad hominem . It does not look like a good case for why anybody should prefer Obama over Hillary. Is this the best you can do? And we are supposed to--what--bow down to your superior "intellects" and fall in line? Get real.

For once, refute any point that Larry has made against Obama and his comical entourage. You don't. All you do is question his motives, his past...

Word.

Seems to me Mr. Johnson is doing his best to be civil. That, however isn't good enough. I doubt anything other than jackbooted compliance will satisfy some of these clowns..

day after day, this Johnson guy rails against Obama with only the slimmest of facts and the greatest of self-righteous bilge. Josh, why are you allowing this guy to take up valuable space?

LOL.

The MIAPS contribution to the Irish mess? Another kisskiss a la Suha Arafat:

"Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. 'She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already,' he said. Mrs Clinton was 'a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument' he added.

'She really lost all credibility when on Bill Clinton’s last visit to Northern Ireland [in December 2000] when she hugged and kissed [Sinn Fein leaders] Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

You select members of your press office for their ability to stay "on message." You select foreign policy people and economists for their expertise and for their analytic ability and not because they agree with your every position.

A lot of the reason for the incompetance of the Bush administration is that he has hired people more for their loyalty to his message rather than their expertise.

I'm not a big fan of what he did on the NAFTA thing, but the truth is that he's never claimed or said that NAFTA was 100 percent bad or that he didn't support free trade. In fact, he openly said -- in Ohio before the election -- that he supported free trade.

People PRESUMED that the NAFTA mailer meant that Obama completely opposed NAFTA because we all tend to assume that when someone attacks someone for having a position, it must mean they have the opposite position. In fact, as Obama explained over and over to audiences, his position was more nuanced than that. He opposed the lack of labor and environmental agreements, which is of course also Hillary's position, although one wonders why she hasn't tried to change NAFTA in her two terms in the Senate if she felt that way.

The main purpose of the mailer in my view was to undermine the populist message Hillary was trying to push rather than to say that Obama was more populist than her.

When I started reading these comments I thought I had gotten on Dailykos. Too bad the candidate wars have taken over TPM also.

I don't like Obama much or Clinton either.

If the candidates are being dishonest the public should know that. Too bad that we were not informed about Reagan playing patty cake with Iran before he was elected President. He was one of th worst Presidents in history. Oh, wait, Cheney was running the Country then too.

Well you're right, Larry. Obama's not fully prepared to be President of the United States on day 1. I mean, he's never been President before, has he? Well then! There you go. Unprepared.

And his advisors don't even agree with him! How on earth could anyone

Here's a slogan for you... I offer this to you gratis....

Obama. His advisors have their own opinions, AND he's never even been President!

Unlike, for instance, George Bush. He must have been ready to be President... because you voted for him. And certainly his advisors never disagree with him. And since you seem to be the arbiter of who's ready and who's not.... well he must have been fully vetted, tested, rested, and ready for the job. On day 1.

Now me, I'm clearly not as smart as you are... because I had the opportunity to vote for George Bush four times.... twice as Governor, and twice as President.... and I voted for Democratic candidate in each case. How dumb was I? Pretty dang dumb.

And I just had a chance to vote for Hillary in the Texas primary, and I didn't! Even though I have always admired Hillary, and think she'd probably be a pretty decent POTUS, I voted for the other guy -- because I think he'd be a little better. Holy crap!

God help us all.

The piety and righteousness of some in the Obama legion is truly impressive.

Now I wouldn't vote for Hillary for President so if given the choice between the two I'll pick Obama, but not because I think he's anything other than a slightly better choice than she is. He most certainly has his faults and weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Both of them are just more of the same corporate centrist DC Democrat crap IMO. That strain of politics is at least as responsible for all the rotten things the Republicans have done these past 7 years because their unending desire for compromise (among other things)muted Democratic positions at the very times our party had a responsiblity to strongly oppose things like the war and the outrageous tax cuts for the rich that became law.

Both candidates have some good things to bring to the table, but substantive change on any major issue ain't one of em folks. Wake up and smell the centrism! I can pretty much guarantee you that whichever of them wins the nomination, (if they actually do get elected) you're going to be sorely disappointed in the results and it won't take four years for it to come to that either. The disappointment will set in a whole lot sooner than that.

Sure, it will be better to have one of them than McCain, but only on the margins. The basic course of any major policy, foreign or domestic will not change. How can it if they pursue the policies they promise to pursue? They say change but they support the status quo. You can't have it both ways. Of course, that's just my opinion, but time will tell.

So, it is from that perspective that I look at certain of the Obama minion in wonder. This crowd of true believers accuse Hillary of every bad motive possible in a human being. These same folks heap criticism upon her every word, every move and openly disdain everyone working for or supporting her including The Big Dog who all these same folks have no doubt liked at one time or another. Many have even spent a good deal of time calling her and Bill racists the past month or so. But because they have found the light of Obama and he clearly is destined to be the nominee (though he can't get enough elected delegates outright to win the nomination)they are therefore allowed to heap scorn, derision, smarmy self-righteousness, and cast aspersions on anyone at any time who engages in the slightest criticism of their chosen one and God formid anyone launch into an outright attack on their favored politician. Hell (currently) hath no fury like the true Obamaite who detects criticism of their guy. Anyone hinting at criticism of Obama is fair game with no holds barred. It's just silly folks.

For those who have gotten caught up in it that bad, you have to take a step back. Everyone falls into that trap from time to time, but the first step to recovery is admitting the problem right? He's just another politician. I know he's your guy this time around, but there's no guarantee in this game that he'll win even though it looks real favorable for him. He, nor anyone else, has no right to the nomination either this year or any other. Hillary, much as I hate to admit it, has a right to fight for the nomination and that's what she's doing. Hillary's supporters also have a right to fight on her behalf as you all do for Obama. But the virtual heckling and namecalling at anyone who isn't in your corner is just as unbecoming of you all as it is when Hillary's true believers start whining and making personal attacks, etc...

Please note, I'm definitely not trying to say that all Obama people are this way anymore than all Hillary people are. Just those that have gotten to the point of seeing enemies under every rock and pernicious motives behind every criticism.

I encourage everyone to go watch the full interview with Susan Rice on Tucker Carlson show on MSNBC. I think you will find that it reassures you about Obama and Rice rather than -- as Larry would have it -- showing bad judgement.

Here's the link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063292/

It's the video link titled Obama's weaknesses exposed.

The version Larry has on his website that he links to here is edited to make her look bad.

Ah I see we need "guidance" by the right sort of chaps. Far be it for us to check Larry's assertions out for veracity. That's over our heads. You Max will guide us in the right direction into Obamaland.LOL

If I were you I'd be looking for guidance wherever I could find it.

"Larry, you show no effort to understand the facts and your comments are monumentally intemperate"

He's ugly too.

Hillary's Foreign Policy Follies:

Saluting George Bush and saying, I trust you Mr. Bush, you've got my vote and support for your war for oil and to get that man who 'tried to kill your daddy'. Now you go and take my vote and fight your war, maybe oil prices will climb to $100 and you and your oil buddies will get RICHER. Who cares if a few thousand young American men and woman have to die. Just collateral damage huh Mr. George. Who cares if it cost the American taxpayers a few trillion Mr. George, you and your oil and defense contractors will get RICH baby.

Just because someone is an adviser doesn't mean the candidate agrees with him on every single issue. Indeed, it may be a sign of strength that the candidate chooses advisers who don't always agree with him. See Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals."

But superficial cheap shots are Larry Johnson's specialty. He fits right in on the Clinton team.

This quote of Johnson's, relative to his 2005 "briefing" of Clinton, is all I needed to hear to know that the guy is a real dope.

“Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior.”

Why should nyone who would took the least bit seriously the nonsense proffered during the 1990s by the multi-billion dollar Clinton hate industry deserve our attention.

I do give credit to Johnson for apparently parlaying his rather modest intelligence and national security resume into a lucrative consulting career.

McCain supports torture, and........

Hillary has been running around endorsing John McCain. He has said that he is going to have the same foreign and domestic policies as George W. Bush. Yet Hillary has endorsed him, over Senator Obama. That makes Hillary just another traitor to the party. She is just the same as Joe Lieberman, and should be given the same treatment. She should be driven out of the party. She is not a loyal Democrat, any more than Joe Lieberman was.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008
Page 1 of 2

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

Hillary Clinton keeps endorsing Republican John McCain over Democrat Senator Obama. McCain has now come out in favor of TORTURE. This is the guy Hillary keeps endorsing. Read all about it.

Published on Sunday, February 17, 2008 by The New York Times
McCain Draws Criticism For Torture Vote
by Michael Cooper

Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid.0217 01The bill, which the Senate passed Wednesday by 51 to 45, would force the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods.

Mr. McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has led the battle in recent years on a number of bills to end torture by the United States. He said he voted against the bill Wednesday because legislation he had helped to pass already prohibits the C.I.A. from “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he believed it would be a mistake to limit C.I.A. interrogators to using only those techniques that were enumerated in the Field Manual, which he noted was a public document.

“When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques,” Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. “None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”

The problem, human rights advocates say, is that disagreement remains over which tactics are prohibited. Mr. McCain, for example, said waterboarding - a simulated drowning technique - was an illegal form of torture. But while the C.I.A. says it no longer uses waterboarding, the Bush administration has not ruled out its use in the future.

“It’s disappointing,” said Jennifer Daskal, a senior counsel at Human Rights Watch, “that Senator McCain, who has long made it clear that Congress had intended to outlaw abusive interrogation techniques including waterboarding, won’t stand up to an administration that continues to say waterboarding is O.K. in certain circumstances.”

Although Mr. McCain has battled the Bush administration over whether waterboarding is illegal, his vote on Wednesday allied him with President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill.

Democrats have used the vote to suggest that Mr. McCain was trying to curry favor with conservatives in the Republican Party, who have viewed him with suspicion and whose support he needs as he tries to unite the party behind his presidential campaign. The Democratic National Committee said in a statement last week that Mr. McCain had chosen “pandering over his principles.”

Mr. McCain said the vote was consistent, noting in a statement he submitted to the Congressional Record that when Congress voted in 2005 to apply the Army Field Manual to the entire Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the C.I.A.

Mr. McCain, according to a Senate aide of his, believes that while the C.I.A. should be - and is - prohibited from using cruel and inhumane and degrading tactics, it should have the flexibility to use acceptable tactics that are not listed in the Field Manual.

Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First, said given the administration’s refusal to clearly ban abusive techniques, it made sense for Congress to be more explicit about what should and should not be allowed. Requiring the C.I.A. to follow the Field Manual, Ms. Massimino added, would be a welcome step in that direction.

“We’re very disappointed in his vote,” she said of Mr. McCain. “Because of his personal history and his leadership on this issue, it sends a terrible message to the rest of the world, to Americans, to the troops.”

Mr. McCain, in his statement to the Congressional Record, faulted the Bush administration for declining to declare waterboarding illegal. He said Congress intended to outlaw the practice when it passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006 and was even reassured by the administration that it had been.

“Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard,” Mr. McCain said in the statement. “Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. government, prohibited waterboarding.”

“It is unfortunate,” he continued, “that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to nonmilitary intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law - that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.”

Today Bush did what John McCain urged him to. Hillary endorses John McCain.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

It is obvious TPM has lent itself out part and parcel to the Clinton machine. The facts about this are clear and present. The Clinton Machine approached the Canadian Government, gave its assurances, then when word got out, accused Obama of doing it. There is a contingent of media who are Clinton's willing executioners. They have swiftly made this about Obama, when it is Clinton who did this.

This is now a battle of the minions. Clinton has the more polished and experienced minions.

But here is the joke. Clinton has no chance of winning the nomination, then winning in November. McCain beats her in all polls.

So when Obama wins in November, I hope has a nice, notated list of those who tried to shit can him with this kind of flim flam.

I would happily let Barack Obama answer the red phone at 3am. I would not trust Hillary to deliver a pizza to my door on time.

@workerbee -

Re: "Nice piece of revisionist history" -
It certainly was clear to ME that Bush was intent on war based on any excuse. Of course, I started voting against him in 1994, so I had longer experience with his deceitfulness than many voters. Still, it was enough to observe that Bush was following the well-known neocon playbook. I grant that Clinton is at least as intelligent as I am (probably much more). She could and should have figured this our herself. I'm sure she did but found it expedient to pretend that Bush was sincere.

I'll still vote for her in the general but I don't have any illusions about that vote - nor about her vote for Kyl-Lieberman after she HAD to have known that it was a fig leaf for yet another war. (No illusions about Obama just having to skip that vote, either.)

cscs...it would be nice if you'd get your facts right before you post...lies...just like Obama!

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for - or received - any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.