Thats what I believe. I believe that current foreign policy, the Iraq War in particular, have little if anything to do with the situation in Pakistan, certainly not enough to justify the blame game on Hillary Clinton.

I reject the notion that had we not invaded Iraq but simply focused on Afghanistan that the situation in Pakistan would be any different. The Taliban would still have retreated into Pakistan, the Pakistani army would still be unable to stop it, the Pakistani's would still not have allowed us to militarily invade Pakistan territory, and Pashtun sectarian slaughter and radicalism, which has been around at least as long as the British Raj, would have continued to fester and grow ads it has over the past decades (not months).

I think Axelrod is dead wrong in his analysis and comments and they are naive and simplistic. But then again, he (or Obama) has also said that Kyl-Lieberman justifies on its own Bush going to war with Iran, which it most clearly does not, and I think making that argument is positively irresponsible. So I have to wonder about the depth of the analysis here as compared to petty political partisanship which leads to silly comments based on historical ignorance.

Posted at December 28, 2007 1:45 PM in response to Hillary, Murdering Bitch

Larry, well said and much needed commentary. Thank you for the guts to say this.

Posted at December 23, 2007 6:43 AM in response to Am I a Hillary Cheerleader?

You know, if I had heard Obama or Edwards people decrying the politics of personal destruction when they were saying in debates she is a liar (untrustworthy, cant be believed, same thing), or standing up proudly to be counted when she was variously accused by others of being a murderer, a liar, an enabler of a sexual predator, a drug dealer (yes, do your research), a shrew, a bitch, a cackler, having big ankles, etc. etc. etc., or that Bill was a lousy President who screwed the poor and was not a true Democrat, and oh wasnt it funny what he said about pot, and doesnt that show him to be a liar, etc. etc. I might have some sympathy here. But they didnt, so I dont. Its a thin skin indeed when you react with outrage when someone points out what the other side will do to a candidate. I have had to listen to that crap about HRC all season, from DEMOCRATS. Few if any of our brave commentators have defended her.

Oh and by the way, there is nothing remotely racial about the comments made and I am highly suspicious when people leap to make it a racial issue. If you try to make criticism of him a racial issue you watch how fast he collapses in a general election. Secondly, he put the story out there. Can you please let us know in advance if there are other parts of his book we are not allowed to comment on?

Posted at December 13, 2007 7:38 AM in response to Billy Shaheen Goes Too Far

Sorry, I must disagree with the thread to some extent. The estate tax problem is and always has been that it is set at absurdly high levels that strike people as confiscatory. I am one of those people. If it was set at levels less than 50% plus state taxes (obviously once you cross the exemption threshold) it would be more palatable and subject to less criticism. There are too many examples that I know of of parents that were desperately trying to avoid the conundrum of passing on, after taxes, nothing more than non liquid assets with high costs to maintain. I do not favor abolishing the tax at all, but I do favor reducing the rates and providing an exemption for, e.g., the first $3-5 million.

Posted at December 10, 2007 3:51 PM in response to Whoopi Goldberg is Wrong and Greedy

Thank you for one of the few articles I have read recently that isnt utterly crazy or needlessly personal and insulting. I too want Hillary tested hard by the primaries. I want to like Obama but he hasnt shown me toughness yet (meaning to toughness to take on what the Repubs will certainly throw at him). Someone said he demonstrated grace under pressure at the debate, which I thought was utterly nuts since he was under no pressure at all. And frankly, having listened now to her response on the immigration - license issue three times, I fail to see where she said different things. I thought her answer was crystal clear. She is not personally in favor of it from a national policy perspective but will let governors call their own shots on public safety. What is wrong with that? The fact that Edwards immediately accused her of saying two things, which she didnt, has left a bad taste in my mouth for Edwards. The media of course want nothing more than to tear down whomever the front runner is, but that seems to only apply to Hillary as I hear very little about how uniquely unqualified Giuliani is except from Biden (God Bless Biden). On the other hand Hillary had better be more adept at dealing with attacks since she will be attacked mercilessly if she is the nominee. Frankly, what appeals to me about her is she is tough, Machiavellian, shrewd, cunning and super smart: just the sort of person I want sitting across the table from Putin et al.

But eliminate all nuclear weapons? I dont see that happening ever. The fact is that they are here to stay, and the best control we have ever had over them is mutually assured destruction.

Finally, for those who think she is a corporatist sell out, I dont see it. What she and Bill do strongly believe in is that in our system sometimes you get 30% of the loaf, not 100%. Some people think that is selling out. I say that is representative democracy in action. I am frankly sick and damn tired of people drawing lines in the sand and refusing to find common ground and compromise. Thats exactly where we are on immigration and....so....we do nothing. Sometimes getting less than all you want seems like selling out, but it isnt. The sell out comes from those who refuse compromise and thereby lock us into complete inaction. The failure to tackle issues with bi-partisan compromise over the past 20 years is one of our most damning failures, in my opinion. Mind you I blame the Repubs far more than the Dems. But we had better find a way out of our perpetual gridlock or we are truly doomed.

Posted at November 2, 2007 9:53 AM in response to Hillary Clinton: A Different Kind of Democrat?

hcberkowitz: I agree with almost everything you wrote although I do think she would be a good President and I'll be damned if I vote for a Repub or a spoiler if she is the nominee. I thought we should have outright declared war on Afghanistan for what happened on 9-11: after all, this happened with the aid and support of the Afgani government. And I would like to see us use the old Declaration of War by Congress more often than we seem to want to post WWII and stay away from Presidential action on a unilateral basis. And I agree that the terror war is mainly for special ops, Black ops and forums for negotiations and understanding and the like, and not raw military might.

I guess what I am saying is the heck with an apology, its not worth anything. What matters is what people do, not what they say they might have done in retrospect. And I think we are all so very brave to criticize everyone's war vote today and forget what the climate was like in 2003. I do not forget. The press was almost 100% behind this as were most elected reps. Everyone agreed that it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam. You were a traitor if you argued against it or voted against it, the right wing press was in full display and power. I dont fault anyone who gave W the power to use force with the caveat that all negotiated resolutions and solutions, a strong inspection regime and UN action should first be exhausted, with the threat of force the stick to ensure compliance. I fault W for what he did with that power.

I maintain again, and challenge anyone to argue against it, that a President Hillary would not have invaded Iraq, would not have gone to war there, and would not have left us in the rat hole we find ourselves in.

Posted at February 20, 2007 11:03 AM in response to Clinton, Edwards, Obama & The War

I guess I just dont get it. I am not the least bit interested in any "apologies" from anyone. Edwards apology does not give me any comfort. I have reviewed Hillary's statement at the time of the senate resolution and I am satisfied she felt it was the best way to proceed (to use the threat of force to coerce cooperation) and she does not regret that. I also strongly believe, and would challenge anyone to produce contrary arguments, that a president Hillary would not have undergone this war at that time, maybe at all, certainly not in the manner it was undertaken. And we do face a terrorist enemy and we better realize it and take it seriously. It is said the Japanese fix problems and Americans fix blame. It certainly applies here. No apology litmus tests please. Base your decisions on policies and electability

Posted at February 20, 2007 8:36 AM in response to Clinton, Edwards, Obama & The War

Oh puleazzzze. This is about the tenth article today I have read focusing almost exclusively on blaming the Dems, the party out of power, for the screwups of the current administration. No wonder Bush's numbers go up as the "war on terror" heads down the toilet. What in Gods name is a party without any power to do in this situation? They speak and no one listens. Hillary has been speaking, Kerry has been speaking, as well as others, but no one listens, they just hurl jokes at "poor inept" Kerry and state with vehemence that that will never vote for Hillary ( I suppose they will vote for Frist, or sit out the election ala the Nader vote in 2000). The Dems cannot affect any congressional vote, they arent included in negotiations or drafting of legislation, i.e., THEY HAVE NO POWER. But the avalanche of articles continues criticising THEM as if they called all the shots. Carter had it right: the American people get a government as good as them. How about we criticise the people in power calling ALL of the shots, wait for the Dems to put forward candidates for 2008, and make up our minds then?

Posted at September 28, 2006 9:08 AM in response to Dems Disappoint

I read that orginally Vinnick (Alda) was to win the presidency but when they were cancelled they thought, what the heck, and switched over to Santos. Dont know if its true, but it was written and the person claimed sourcing from Lawrence O'Donnell, the democratic advisor to the show and said he pushed for the Alda to Santos switch. I always thought they could have tried to build a new season on Alda's presidency as an example of what a 'good' republican could be as president but its true that would have required wholesale cast revisions adn would have been essentially a sequel and as someone here pointed out: sequels dont work. Still, it would have been nice to try. Clearly, after Spencer died and they were cancelled, they just finished out the season without committing any great resources to great writing. Heck, NBC wouldnt even pay the actors for a retrospective episode to precede the finale, opting instead for the super cheap re-airing of the first episode. They did sign Rob Lowe to apear in the last 2 episodes, but were so cheap they cut it to one and he appears a few seconds only.

Posted at May 18, 2006 7:47 AM in response to 2 More Years of Bush Without The West Wing

'Sigh'  The Republicans have screwed everything up royally so......must be time to attack the Democrats.  Hey all of the present media do it, why not Molly?  Seriously why do we engage in this vitriolic self flaggellation and cannibalism?  I recall Bill Clinton as a pretty damn good president, triangulation, DLC and all.  He showed us how to win remember?  If you dont win you are useless.  If you all think Feingold has a chance of carrying any states beyond the NE, Wisconsin and California, go ahead and support him.  We lost a damn good president in Al Gore when many Dems voted for Nader nd we got Dubya.  We lost Hubert Humphrey when Dems bolted to McCarthy and we got Nixon.  The Dems have blown it time and time again with pacifism and I see them all lined up to do it all over again.  I live in the midwest and it just doesnt fly out here.  I dont see him having a chance at all but his voice is needed in the debate thats for sure.  But the road to victory is not lined with pure Bush hating and pacifism and you all better figure that out before its too late.  Question: what will you propose to do about Iran?  They seek nuclear weapons and they want Israel destroyed.  Last I checked, oh, around 1939, it would behoove us to take with deadly seriousness someone's declaration that they wish to exterminate the Jews.  Dont tell me they dont mean it.  What do you propose to do about the raging radical Islamists whose entire culture seems to be inconsistent with democracy and free speech and who are chanting death to America (and have been for decades: this is not because of Iraq) as they seek nuclear weapons?  How will you convince the country that you can defend it?  The fact that people no longer trust the Repubs to defend us gives the Dems a great opening, if they can fill it.  If not, well, you would be surprised at how many people will end up voting for a Repub president again particularly if the congress is held by the dems after 2006.

So bring it on Molly, you are great and I love your work and always have.  But frankly, if I hear another Dem react to the failure of the Repubs by attacking the Dems,  I will scream.  And if I hear more dems saying that ANYONE who supported the Iraq war at the start is automatically not qualified to be President?  Well lets just say I wont place any bets on a dem president in 2008.

Posted at March 16, 2006 10:53 AM in response to Molly Ivins for President