Disingenuous spin from the Clinton camp

Today, in an show of disingenuousness, Hillary Clinton’s campaign decided to run an attack memo on her main opponent, Barack Obama. I will dissect the memo bit-by-bit to show how it masks the true situation in an attempt to make one of Clinton’s weaknesses seem like a strength:

Who said this?

“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.”

George Bush? Nope.

The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.

Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.

That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran’s ambitions. But that was then.

It is true that this was part of Obama’s Speech on November 20 last year to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. To show the context of the statement, here is the paragraph in which it is contained:

In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time. But only if U.S. commanders think such a force would be effective; if there is substantial movement towards a political solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi government asked us – in a public and unambiguous way – for such continued support. We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.

So, there were list of caveats for such a force, none of which have been reached by present day. Furthermore, the comparative text from the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment is much more bellicose even than the statement the Clinton campaign took out of context:

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

So, the beginning of the Clinton menu is a disingenuous quote-mine. This is an inauspicious start. Continuation after the jump.

13 Cockroaches

I’m a little ticked off that Chinese House, where I live, is infested with cockroaches. Since Thursday night, I have caught a total of 13 of them as you can see below:

10 of them came from underneath the couch in the common room, 2 were in my room, and 1 was in the kitchen. If you are wondering why I am keeping them in the container above rather than just smashing them, it is because I am waiting to present them to the exterminator, who will be here on Monday.

[Update]

As of a night later, I have caught 6 more, and given that one of them was eaten by its breathren, there are now 18 cockroaches in the container.

Lobbyists for Monsanto = Rural Americans?

According to ABC News’s Jake Tapper, Hillary Clinton is holding an event with the following invitation:

Rural Americans for Hillary
Lunch and Briefing

Join Rural Americans for Hillary for lunch and a campaign briefing
By Members of Congress and Senior Campaign Staff

When
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
12 PM

Where
401 9th Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 2004

Conference call dial-in number available upon request for those outside of DC.

The interesting thing about this is that this “Rural Americans for Hillary” event is being hosted by a DC lobbying firm that represents Monsanto, which is a big agri-biotech firm that has some ethically questionable practices.  So, while there is a rural connection, the connection to the average rural resident is tenuous at best.

But, then again, Senator Clinton is not shy about taking money from lobbyists:

I’m sure they represent real Americans, but only a small portion of real Americans who have the deep pockets of afford to pay someone to plead their case.

Brownback to drop out

According to The Politico, Senator Sam Brownback, one of the three Republican candidates for President infamous for raising their hands at the first debate to the question of to whether they didn’t believe in evolution (the other two being former Governor Mike Huckabee and Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo).

To me, this seems to help Huckabee the most, as he and Brownback were similar candidates.  Tom Tancredo may get a boost as well, but as I have posted before, he’s crazy, though that doesn’t necessarily disqualify him from the field.  It should be interesting to see, though, if Huckabee gets a boost in the polls now.

It should be noted that Brownback took a close third to Huckabee’s second place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll, a fundraising event for the Iowa Republican Party where candidates often pay supporters’ entry tickets and that their combined vote would have put them in front of the winner, Mitt Romney.  Also note that three of the four candidates that are currently considered “frontrunners” in the Republican race for President did not participate.

Democrats’ campaign finance figures and "Closing the Gap"

The paperwork for Presidential candidates’ financing is has a third quarter deadline of October 15, so now we have a clearer view of how the candidates are doing financially and how they got there.

I’ve compiled a chart of donations to each of the candidates, categorized by the size of the donation, using the data from the New York Times Election Guide 08 Finances section:

An interesting outlier can be found in Barack Obama’s campaign funds.  While he has a large pool of big donations (those over $200), he has the largest amount of small donations by far, and among the viable candidates (I’m counting all except Kucinich and Gravel as viable), he is the only one whose under $200 donation figure exceeds the figure from maximum donations ($2,300).

Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

As predicted by many in the media, former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the IPPC, a UN climate panel, today.  Of course, this has fueled speculation that he might run for the Presidency and the Draft Gore movement is at its strongest yet, even pulling out a full-page ad in the New York Times.

However, given the number of times he’s said that he’s not interested in the White House, coupled with the late start he would have, which would especially present problems for him here in Iowa where organization is king, I still find it doubtful that he’ll enter the race.  To be sure, it is still possible, but I’m not betting on it.

Of course, if he does enter the race, he will shake things up considerably, though I think I will stick to supporting Obama.  We’ll just have to wait and see.

Four candidates extend their Four-State Pledges

In order to further discredit the delinquent Michigan primary, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden have all filed to remove themselves from the Michigan primary ballot, something that was due today.  The other two candidates signing on to the Four-State Pledge, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd have declined to do so.

This is an interesting move, and is effectively a blow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, as the two states were likely to go her direction and still are, but without her major competitors on the ballot, such a win will be even more hollow.  These four candidates are likely to do the same in Florida as the filing deadline there approaches.

Chris Dodd in Grinnell

This afternoon, Chris Dodd spoke at Saint’s Rest, the most popular café in town.  After canvassing for the Obama campaign, I decided to stop by.  Saint’s Rest was far from packed: the group of people listening to Dodd was probably around 30.

My impressions?  I thought Dodd’s speech was alright.  It certainly didn’t do anything to convince me that he is a better candidate than Obama but it showed him to be at least a decent candidate.  I would prefer him to Hillary Clinton.

One thing I noticed was that the Dodd campaign’s organization was pretty poor.  They weren’t very assertive or consistent in getting people to sign in when they came in or sign supporter cards when they left…some basic actions which are absolutely vital in Iowa.  If it is true that he has scaled back his operation to Iowa, then he is in a heap of trouble.

Venter claims to be on the verge of creating artificial life

According to a report from The Guardian, the scientists working at the J Craig Venter Institute have created an artificial chromosome, using genes from Mycoplasma genitalium, which they plan to inject into a M. genitalium cell that has had its chromosome removed.  They believe that this will create the first artificially engineered life form, which they will call Mycoplasma laboritorium.

If it is successful, this will be a historic event, which has potential to be applied in a variety of ways, some constructive, some destructive.  The direction of future research and those who use the products of it will determine whether this is something that people look at as a great step forward for humanity or the start of something awful.

In the meantime, The Guardian has another story focusing on J Craig Venter, who along with Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith is heading up this effort.

Of lapels and jingoism

Today, the mass media has decided to shoot off a series of stories about Barack Obama’s decision not to wear an American flag lapel pin during the campaign.  Apparently, during an interview with a reporter for Cedar Rapids’ KCRG-TV asked him why he wasn’t wearing one, to which Obama replied:

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin.  Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.  Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

When I read this story I asked myself, “That’s news?”  It certainly seemed like a reasonable response from Obama, especially considering the level of “patriotism” that surrounded the Iraq War.

But, it appears that some outlets are making a big deal out of it.  On a whim unrelated to the lapel story, I visited the liberal-biased fact-checking website Media Matters, where one example of a discussion of the issue between pundits on Fox News was the third top story.  The pundit they chose to be anti-Obama was a guy named Mark Williams, whose first remarks were:

It uh, well first of all, Obama’s very different than those other names, in that Obama says he took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is.

For me, this was jaw dropping stupidity.  First, it ignored the facts, which was part of why Media Matters was taking it to task but it also carried the stench of jingoism with it.  Of course, the stench only grew stronger as the session went on:

He took it off after 9/11. He said that he felt that the flag was becoming something — it was becoming too noticeable, too high profile. He thought that people were wearing it in place of showing their patriotism. I mean, come on, what has Obama done to demonstrate the patriotism that he says doesn’t belong on his lapel? What’s he done to demonstrate that, except get out there, badmouth this country, and help demoralize the troops, and help do his part to undermine this nation?

This is a perfect example of jingoism, which conflates patriotism with a policy of belligerence abroad.  Obama, of course, has not “badmouthed” our country and doesn’t aim to demoralize the troops or undermine the nation.  In fact, he has been advocating a position that is more beneficial for the troops and the nation as a whole that the policy advocated by the Bush administration and apparently Mark Williams.

Media Matters has two other stories relating to media coverage of the lapel comment.  I was intrigued by the other Fox News pundit session where two pundits agreed that Obama was being unpatriotic to get votes with the anti-American left.  During that segment, they intermittently ran photos of Obama from when he was sworn into the Senate and did wear a lapel pin as an attempt to discredit him.

Typically, I never watch cable news because I think it’s too sensationalistic and geared more towards entertainment than information.   However, I never thought that the quality of content would be that low or so blatantly jingoistic, especially when the well-known motto of Fox News is “Fair and Balanced”.

Of course, Fox News wasn’t the only one to pick this story up or try to make it into a big election issue, which it should not be.  The New York Times wrote several pieces as did the Washington Post, most of the television networks, and a variety of other sources.  Basically, it was a disappointing day from the American media.