home

ABC: Gore Asked Clinton To Go To North Korea; Kim "Pardons" Journalists

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:03:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

UPDATE: Kim "Pardons" Journalists. Hope to be flying back home tonight.

This is pretty interesting:

Sources told ABC News that Clinton's trip [to North Korea], while a surprise to some, was planned weeks ago and that it was former Vice President Al Gore who asked Clinton to go.

Gore's involvement is more than understandable. Good for Clinton and Gore working together on this. Of course, some folks can't get over their Clinton hate.

Speaking for me only

< The Counter | Laffer-able >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    ABC: Gore Asked Clinton To Go To North Korea; Kim "Pardons" Journalists | 139 comments (139 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    All Democrats, too. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    When it comes to foreign relations, I don't remember Republicans stepping up.  (They may have, I just don't remember it happening.)

    BTW - thanks, but no thanks on the booman link.  With friends like that, who needs Republicans?

    I can't believe I just gave that lunatic (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    Booman traffic.  BTD must be feeling sorry for him today and it's win/win exposing his insanity :)  I personally believe that BTD hopes to rehabilitate Booman :)  God that man hates him some Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    GOP (none / 0) (#9)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    Nixon and China
    Reagan and Gorbachev

    Parent
    That was in office (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    not afterwards.

    Parent
    You forgot (none / 0) (#93)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    Carter and Begin and Sadat.

    Oh wait, Carter was a Democrat...

    Parent

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    is alive and well at Booman.  It's somewhat shocking and sad to me to realize that this still persists in the left blogosphere.  

    To be fair (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    It is pretty limited now.

    Other than Booman and Al Giordano, you really do not see it much anymore.

    Parent

    Not to long ago (none / 0) (#12)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    it was here in some respect when this blog was chiding PUMA's.

    Parent
    PUMAs aren't the Clintons (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    I mean Larry Johnson is a Birther now for crissakes.

    Oh wait, so are you . . .

    Parent

    By logical extencion (none / 0) (#34)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    PUMA's are Hillary. You see, or maybe you don't, when you were chiding PUMA's you were trying to pull support away from Hillary. And even if it was after Obama had the nomination people have the right to support and vote or not vote for who they want to. To try to beat down the supporters of someone is to beat down the person they are supporting.

    And let's see here - would 'not a nickels worth a difference between the two' qualify as CDS? Just asking.

    Yes I am a birther - Where were you born? lol

    Parent

    Birther logic (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:42:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Now you're (none / 0) (#45)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    complementing birthers!

    Parent
    Sanity (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    is the complement, in a manner of speaking, to insanity.

    Parent
    So then (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    using your construct...

    'not a nickels worth a difference between the two'     is the complement, in a manner of speaking, to Sanity.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    A very very very small faction of those who voted for Hillary in the primary decided that they were not going to vote for Obama.

    Hillary does not represent that group, it is a fringe extremist group. Quite vocal, but statistically irrelevant compared to the vast majority of us who voted for Hillary in the primary and naturally moved on to Obama when he won the Democratic nomination for POTUS.

    Most of us did not see much difference policy wise between the two Democratic contenders, their difference was almost entirely one of style.

    Parent

    I don't want to go off-topic (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    But I think there are significant differences in their domestic policy proposals (foreign policy, not so much). I also think it's a case where "style" - the consensus-building, start from compromise - will greatly determine substance.

    (yeah, I voted for him. was not happy about it)

    Parent

    Smoke & Mirrors IMO (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:42:32 PM EST
    This little bit, just posted by BTD sums it up quite nicely.

    And one of the hardest things for me [Obama], during the primary, was finding differences with Hillary.

    My guess is that Hillary had the same problem.


    Parent

    "What Hillary just said." (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:19:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#49)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:58:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    Well 66,882,230 voted for Obama and 58,343,671 voted for McCain.  Obama won by 8,538,559 votes.

    Seems to me that the people who voted for Hillary in the primary and did not vote for Obama in the GE are a statistically irrelevant group.

    Do you have some data that suggests otherwise?

    Here is someone who has done the math, and comes up with about 20,270 people who associate with the group of people who voted for Hillary in the primary and will not vote for Obama in the GE.

    Parent

    That is really silly (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    I have no idea how we got back on this stupid topic, but obviously there were a lot more than 20,000 people who voted for Hillary in the primary and didn't vote for Obama in the general election.  Clinton and Obama got roughly 13 million votes apiece in the primary; that would mean that Obama successfully got over 99.8% of Hillary's primary voters.  Surely we can all agree that such a conclusion defies common sense.

    Parent
    Silly? (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    Are you willing to argue that the group of activists who refused to vote for Obama because they believed that Hilary was 'the one' are a statistically significant group?

    If you believe that to be true, please show me your data.

    One month before the election an average selection of polls showed 88% of reg dems voting along party lines as opposed to 85.3 GOPers.

    CNN exit polls showed 89% democrats voted along party lines 90% GOP voted along party lines. In 2004 89% of dems voted along party lines to 93% GOP, in 2000 86% dems voted along party lines to 91% GOPers.

    Parent

    Which, of course (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    Does not account for those not affiliated with a party.

    Parent
    Non Sequitur (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    The group of voters who voted for Hillary and said that they would not vote for Obama had a stated mission. That mission was to disunite the Party. The Party in this case could only mean the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 08:58:44 PM EST
    You obviously think that these people are a very organized group.

    Ridiculous.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:13:23 PM EST
    It would appear that if you were claiming to be part of that group, you would want to claim as many members as possible. Of course taking it to the most absurd level would be to claim that everyone who voted against Obama was part of your group.

    And work your way down from that, eventually coming to the much smaller number of well organized activists who decided that, because Hillary did not win the Democratic nomination they would do everything they could to fracture the Democratic party as pay back.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#115)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    how you define "statistically significant," but a lamppost could tell you that the number has to be a lot more than 20,000.  I can't believe you're even arguing with me.

    The national exit polls showed that Democrats who favored Clinton in the primary voted 83% for Obama, 16% for McCain.

    Roughly 130 million people voted in the general election.  If 14% of them were "Clinton Democrats," and 16% of that number voted for McCain, that would be 2.9 million voters in the category you're talking about.

    Of course, many of those people probably didn't vote in the primary, even if they told the pollster that they wanted Hillary to win.  The numbers are necessarily imprecise.  But I think it's safe to say that the number is far, far greater than 20,000, as common sense should have told us all along.

    Parent

    More Significant Comparison (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:17:12 PM EST
    Is to compare the cnn exit polls of Democrats that voted along party lines from the last three elections, which I provided above.

    If there were a significant change in the number of Democrats breaking party ranks I would be convinced that the group in question is significant on a practical level. That is not the case.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#138)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:52:19 AM EST
    And yet, given those defection numbers election after election, you are seriously willing to suggest that 99.8% of Hillary's 13 million voters went for Obama?  Based upon someone's ad hoc calculations of hits to one website?  This makes Talex look rational.

    Parent
    Not Basing It On Ad Hoc Calculations (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 08:18:34 AM EST
    All I am saying that the number appears to have had no measurable effect on the election. I do not know what the actual number of self identified member is. I am basing it on cnn exit poll comparison.

    Parent
    For someone who swore off referring (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    to people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries/caucusi and didn't vote for Obama in the GE, we are sure hearing alot about those people the last few days.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    I assume that you are talking to me, although in your usual oblique way. If you are you are making things up. Please reread the comment you are referring to, to get up to date.

    Parent
    Yup ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:00:54 PM EST
    and politically sometimes your best allies are those that push you to be better.

    Pols, for the most part, aren't leaders.  They are spineless followers.  They need strong activists to lead them in the right direction.

    Parent

    No Kidding (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    That is a truism.

    Parent
    He's a birther? OMG! (none / 0) (#112)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:47:01 PM EST
    Now I really have heard everything.

    Parent
    It's over (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    They're all on they're way back, apparently.

    Damn (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    Beat me by 18 seconds.

    Parent
    Thanks both of you! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    So glad to hear!!

    Parent
    In honor of Steve M, andgarden (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    I think you mean "They're all on their way back..." : )

    Parent
    :blush: (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    I never, ever, ever, ever, ever make that mistake. iPhone therefore iErr.

    Parent
    The nuns made me do it (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    During all those years of Catholic school, the nuns pounded grammar, spelling and punctuation into our heads. I am sure it will be the very last thing I remember as my aging memory fails.

    Parent
    My iPhone (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    automatically inserts apostrophes, which is handy when typing on that little keyboard (in other words "dont" automatically turns into "don't"), but this goes so far as to automatically turn "its" into "it's."  Tell me, how does it know I don't actually want to type "its"?

    Parent
    I think I've had the "wrong" correction (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    made more than once. I don't know if there's a way to turn it off selectively.

    I figure that most people have no idea when to use either (though I find it's fairly easy to figure out). ;)

    Parent

    What I wish is that it would notice (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    that I have typed a v when I meant to hit the space bar. Does it really think thisvisvavword? I do that all the time and it never corrects it!

    Parent
    Use the horizontal keyboard when you can (none / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    It makes a big difference.

    Parent
    By the time these initial stories ... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    hit the news media, they're already a done deal.

    Lower level diplomats probably ironed out most of this a week ago or more.

    And the big guns come to affirm, and for the photo-op.

    Parent

    I said so in the (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    first place.

    Still, nice to see the "ink on the page."

    Parent

    Sorry ... missed that ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    skimming today between much needed bouts of ... ahem ... work!

    Parent
    A good sign (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    I think that the fact that Obama let Clinton do this - taking center stage as it were - is a good thing. It puts the accomplishment of a mission above ego.

    I also saw this : Obama and Helen Thomas

    I like this kind of gesture. It has class.

    I am probably a sap, but for the moment these two gestures by Obama give me a sense of optimism.

    That's really adorable (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    Happy birthday to the both of them.

    Parent
    You are a sap (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    but a nice one. :-)  Obama is very good at this kind of gesture, and I applaud him heartily for it.  But that's not the problem.  It's the substantive stuff I'm worried about.

    Parent
    A nice sap still waiting for that pony. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:10:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Very cool (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    Gore gets a high profile, high powered citizen diplomat to try to get his girls out and Clinton thrusts himself upon the international scene again.

    I have no doubt that this trip had Hillary's blessing.

    It will be interesting to see what the two reporters were thinking when they crossed over into North Korea from China without a North Korean visa.

    "His girls"? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:06:45 PM EST


    Parent
    The far left is as delusional (2.00 / 1) (#133)
    by AX10 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    as the far right.

    As for booman, he can read this:

    I, AX10 do not like nor trust Ted Kennedy.
    Mr. Kennedy used his power to get an easy sentence.
    The Chappaquidick incident does not sit right with many people.

    Bill Clinton bailed out Teddy in 94' when Romney of all people had him on the ropes.  Ted's ego got to him.  He could not stand that Hillary gave proper credit for the Civil Rights bill to LBJ, where it belonged.  JFK did not have it in him to act on big issues, LBJ did.

    Granted that we do agree on some things, I could not vote for Mr. Kennedy
    I know of many main street Democrats(moderates) who do not like him due to the Chappaquidick episode.

    Odd thing, how people react to presidents. (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    There are some folks who can't get over their Reagan and/or Bush hate. Me, I'm still not a big fan of the peanut farmer...

    JECarter (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    will never make my top ten POTUS list, but he'll make my top ten post-POTUS list!

    Parent
    Me either (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    But then he destroyed the Dem Party for a decade.

    Parent
    Apparently his judicial appts were mostly ok (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    Everything else. . .meh.

    Parent
    Meh. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:07:13 PM EST
    I wrote out a list of all his accomplishments, then decided it wasn't worth it. It certainly wont change misinformed minds.

    All I'll say is that he is the only modern president to leave office with even an once of his integrity left.

    But yeah, whatever.

    Meh.

    Parent

    i've been able to track (none / 0) (#137)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:37:04 AM EST
    an inverse proportional relationship between integrity and job performance.

    well.  at least enough for me to conclude with total certainty that america is smart enough to make a distinction between people they like and people they think are doing a good job.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#22)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    Panama Canal Treaty - Sucked

    Camp David Accords - Sucked

    Normalizing relations with China - Sucked

    I can't believe President Clinton honored the peanut farmer with Medal of Freedom.  That reflects badly on Clinton.

    Parent

    2 comments left (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:36:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Never was a fan of ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    Carter.  But I don't buy this argument either.

    The coalition which gave Nixon a landslide in '72 really just reformed for Reagan in '80.  The Southern strategy and all that.

    Shortly after Carter's win in '76, one of his chief pollsters told him that his victory coalition wouldn't hold.

    Parent

    Oh it is true (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:30:27 PM EST
    Carter buried the Dem Party for a decade.

    Bill Clinton helped to save it.

    Parent

    I don't believe ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    to the "great man" theory of history.

    Parent
    Neither do I (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    It did not take a great man to save the Dem Party.

    Parent
    Heh ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    "mediocre man theory" then.

    You just seem to tie too much of the situation of the party to individual politicians, imho.

    Parent

    Well I cast my first ever vote (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 RI Democratic Presidential primary.  Had Ted won the nomination, the Dems would still have lost to Reagan.  It is too simple to blame Carter.  Carter's post presidency has been terrific.

    Clinton co-opted GOP policies in "saving" the Democratic Party.  Obama, unfortunately like Clinton, is also what we used to be known as a Rockefeller Republican type.  Better than today's GOP I guess, if you believe that is where the bar should be set.  I don't.

    No one has saved the Democratic Party of my youth and of the New Deal.  It died.

    Parent

    He saved it by destroying it. (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    Carter didn't lose the House and Senate, what's his name did.

    Parent
    1 comment left (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:37:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Bill didn't lose the house (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:05:50 PM EST
    and then the senate.  That is myth.  Read up and put that in some context.  Like, the Democrats themselves, the rise of the southern republican majorities, etc. etc. Go read up!!!

    Parent
    Well, Jimmy didn't exactly (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    win in a landslide against a fumbling, bumbling, Nixon-pardoning, non-elected incumbent by the name of Jerry Ford.   So, he mostly lucked out and slipped into office.

    Of course, these days I tend to cut him some slack generally and for 1980, considering the evidence suggesting the Rethugs probably stole that one with those shenanigans by Poppy and Casey over in Paree with the Iranians.

    We could have gotten some measure of revenge against Ronnie and Poppy in 1988, but we nominated non-fighter supreme Mike Dukakis ...

    Parent

    We all lucked out (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    a Ford Adminsitration in 76-80 would have been a disaster far worse than Carter.  How would Ford have reacted to the Iranian Revolution?  Would Ford have negotiated Camp David?  Panama Canal?  What good would possibly have happened?  

    Ford certainly would have appointed horrible judges feeling the heat from his Right.  That is a sure thing.  Would Ford's failure have prevented Reagan in 1980?  I doubt it.  The same economic problems would have existed , the malaise etc.  I cannot imagine how the country would possibly have moved to the left in 1980.

    We hit bottom in the late 70s and the only politics available that represented a change from the status quo was, tragically, Reagan and the right.   We are at bottom again and the Democrats, unfortunately, do not seem to realize in such times people want to upset the status quo.  We could be moving left in much more progressive way but unlike the Republicans, Democratic leaders are far too timid to follow their base.

    Parent

    We're still living with the consequences (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    of Bush.  Give it time.

    Reagan, who's Reagan?  Never heard of him :)

    Parent

    LOL... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    you would have if we grew up togther and you ever hung at my house...I thought Reagan's first name was "That sc*mbag" till I hit junior high, thanks to my old man:)

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    Reminds me of the last few years...my father hates talking politics, and hated when we all got together and started talking politics, but whenever W's face came on the TV, he would cross his arms and just mutter "That a$$hole."

    Parent
    My experience with Nixon (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    My parents despised Nixon. My mother, in particular, hated him, had hated him since his 1950 Senate race against Helen Gahagan Douglas ( she gave him the nickname "Tricky Dick"). I usually heard him referred to as "That god d@mn Nixon!"

    Nixon's political career was very long. It lasted from before I was born until the end of college. My entire childhood peppered with "That god d@mn Nixon!"

    Parent

    Ike could have (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    saved this country and the world a whole lotta grief had he gone with his initial instincts both in 1952 and 1956 and dumped the crook from his ticket.  

    But Tricky called him on it both times -- yeah, the younger poker-playing guy telling the older war hero to put up or shut up -- and the rest is history.

    Yet another reason I don't rate Ike highly in my presidential rankings -- Average at best -- couldn't even stand up to his vice president ...

    Parent

    How clean is that ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    actually?

    ;)

    Parent

    Ike (none / 0) (#82)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    was watching the telecast and towards the end was still expecting Nixon to announce that for the good of the party and their nominee, he was stepping aside.  

    Then at the very end (just before his alloted time was out and the network would cut him off) Dick made the direct pitch to the public to contact the RNC whether or not he should stay.

    Ike allegedly at that point angrily jammed his pencil into his notepad, knowing politically what had just happened and how Nixon had craftily taken the decision out of his hands.  

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#100)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    that $##@@@*&^ Nixon was commonly heard in RI too!

    Parent
    Same here (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:05:17 PM EST
    Nixon was the boogeyman under the bed in our house when I was growing up.

    Parent
    To be fair (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    I did grow up knowing that Reagan

    -caused AIDS
    -destroyed the inner cities
    -ate tiny children

    but all that stuff is vague background noise

    Parent

    Get a mirror (none / 0) (#11)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    Dude,

    CDS is sad, especially considering how well Hillary and Obama get along.

    But who are you to point a finger.  Read through the Obama derangement syndrome comments in earlier threads.  

    Not only that the constant whining about the primaries. It's been over year, already.

    Put it this way, put up a obama approval/disapproval poll.

    The results would be hilarious.  If he received a 5% approval rating on this site, I would be shocked.

    3 more comments today (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:26:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    Can you really not tell the difference between what is written on the front page of a blog and what's in the comments?

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    thinking about the wrong blog, I think.

    Parent
    Criticism of (none / 0) (#23)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    some of Obama's policies is not exactly CDS - dude.

    As for past primaries or elections general many are pissed and will be for a long time over Gore/Bush. FYI there is no time limit on how long people can feel as they do about primaries or elections - just in case you didn't know that.

    Parent

    ahahahahahhahahahhahahahahha (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    That's rich, coming from the Lou Dobbs of this site.

    you're the one who spent yesterday afternoon making a big deal about Obama's birth certificate.

    Parent

    See you tomorrow (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:38:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Idearc (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    is a chatterer, see the comment rules, and a blogclogger. He/she is limited to four comments a day and if he/she doesn't stop the mocking and insulting tone, will be banned from the site.

    Parent
    Misery (none / 0) (#14)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    When I read a post like Booman's (or that Washington Post story he links), I feel like the Kathy Bates character in Misery.  "Does everyone here have amnesia?  He didn't get out of the cock-a-doody car!"

    So much of the evidence "cited" is - dare I say - a fairytale.

    The funny part is (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    he admits that he did not think most of it was "racial."

    BTW, some of it was imo.

    Particularly President Clinton's remarks in South Carolina. I blasted him for it right at this site.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    It's weird that he gives Kennedy credit for views he himself believes are wrong.  I guess since they lead to the "correct" conclusion.

    The Post piece just makes me think poorly of Kennedy if he really slavishly followed CW talking points in that fashion.  (And Axelrod most definitely did imply HRC was responsible for Bhutto's assasination.  Amnesia!)

    Parent

    The thing is (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    Kennedy was for Obama the whole time.

    This idea that he decided late is transparently nonsense.

    To be honest, I think the part that pi**ed him off was giving credit to LBJ and not crediting JFK.

    The Kennedys always hated LBJ, and vice versa.

    Teddy has a long memory.

    Parent

    I also think (none / 0) (#42)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    That Kennedy was never a fan of B. Clinton's efforts to take on some of the Camelot mystique when he was President.  Ted likely thought that was his gift to give, not someone else's to take.

    Parent
    I always thought ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    the "Boys Nation" clip of a young Clinton shaking JFK's hand, used in "A Man From Hope", stuck in the Kennedy Clan's craw.

    Because it sold the idea to a lot of people of a figurative torch being passed.

    Parent

    I'm not sure about (none / 0) (#94)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    that, RP.  I would have thought that Ted and the family would have welcomed a Dem nominee who had that personal, if fleeting, association with JFK.

    And after that the Kennedys, including Jackie, visited with both Clintons at Hyannis and Martha's Vineyard.

    Though Ted might have been somewhat disappointed that budge-balancing centrist Bill didn't end up governing in the sort of progressive way that his brother did or tried to.

    Parent

    JFK was no progressive folks (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:33:17 PM EST


    Parent
    No difference between him and Nixon (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    on civil rights in 1960. Arguably, Nixon had more room to maneuver then.

    Parent
    As for comparisons w/Nixon (none / 0) (#122)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:18:00 PM EST
    in 60, the clearest one was what happened when word got out that  MLK had gotten a sentence of hard time in that notorious southern jail for an infraction.

    His wife expressed her grave concern about his safety, and soon enough JFK and Bobby both were on the phone, JFK talking to Coretta and RFK with the judge asking for Dr King to be released.  They got him out of jail.  Could have cost him white southern votes, though.

    As president, Pres Kennedy took another politically risky move with the CR bill he proposed mid-63.  That took courage too.

    By contrast, Nixon had an opportunity to at least call Mrs King and express his concern, but no, nothing from Dick.

    Which is probably how he would have responded on civil rights if he had been elected in 60.

    Parent

    Well, that was mostly symbolism, though (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    I won't argue with you that it was quite significant. One of the major events you'd put on a timeline of 20th century realignment.

    Parent
    Yeah, not really (none / 0) (#125)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    His Civil Rights bill was not considered to be very good by civil rights proponents - essentially focusing on banning discrimination in public accomodations.  It was the chair of the Judiciary Committee in the House who added a number of necessary provisions dealing with cracking down on police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, providing greater protections for black voters, etc.

    The bill got through that committee but was bottled up until LBJ took over.  A lot of people have felt (and wrote) that JFK was fine with that status quo as he didn't really want to rile up the South until after re-election.  

    Parent

    Re JFK's CR bill, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:52:14 PM EST
    it was actually considered a strong one, including enforcement provisions, especially compared to the weak tea Lyndon helped pass in 57.  

    Dr King was in favor for instance.  If he thought otherwise, he would have said so at the March on Washington speech, don't you think?

    The bill was slowly making its way through House committees by the time of Dallas, but it was always going to be a dicey matter for any Dem president to pass it through that Congress.  Arguably, the tragic events of Dallas made its passage more likely.  And even then it took overcoming the longest filibuster in history, along with some fine parliamentary and behind-scenes work from Leader Mansfield and floor leader Humphrey, working on Repub leader Dirksen, to get it all done.  LBJ basically left it to these people and RFK to do the heavy lifting.

    And, if JFK didn't want to rile up the South, he would have either done nothing with CR until after Nov 64 or left it to the liberals in Congress to draw up the bill on their own, rather than Kennedy himself putting his name on the bill.

    Parent

    the '57 bill (none / 0) (#140)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    was the first civil rights bill to pass in about 80 years at that point.  Just breaking through the logjam was considered to be a huge accomplishment and certainly opened the door for how it could be done with stronger legislation later.

    the organizers of the March on Washington had a lot of ambivalence about the Kennedy bill.  Some thought it was a good effort, many others thought it did not go nearly far enough (and the Kennedy Administration put a ton of restrictions on the March itself which doesn't exactly speak to 100% coordination).  Regardless, merely introducing a bill means very little if you are not willing to use some political muscle to make it happen.  And apparently RFK was asking to soften some of the changes made in the House.

    Regardless, for the first two and a half years Kennedy did not propose any civil rights legislation and when he did, it was considered to be inadequate to many leaders of the movement.  I guess you can say he was better than some, but he was hardly on the level of FDR, Truman or LBJ in pushing civil rights.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#126)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:01:34 PM EST
    His campaign in 1960 spent a lot of time attacking Nixon from the right for not being enough of a Cold War warrior - all that rhetoric about the "missile gap" and all.

    Parent
    First get elected -- #1 priority (none / 0) (#131)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:59:13 PM EST
    for those seeking higher office and wanting to make fundamental changes.  

    He wasn't about to let Nixon paint him as "weak and pink" in the campaign.  Moreover, he was getting conflicting info from the Ike admin and the Pentagon about our missile status -- JFK therefore decided to err on the side of thinking the US had been asleep at the wheel (not an entirely unreasonable assumption given some of the track record of Ike's presidency).

    But generally, what's more important in judging an elected official is not what he says on the stump but what he does in office.  By that standard, Kennedy when you look at the actual record (and not the anti-Kennedy propaganda promoted by the haters) comes out with solid progressive marks both in foreign and domestic policy.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#141)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 08:54:38 AM EST
    I understand why Kennedy would run as a hawk, but the fact that he did so negates the idea he was "progressive".  And the "missile gap" itself was a myth - further weakening Kennedy's "progressive" credentials.

    Parent
    The record overall (none / 0) (#119)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    shows a progressive president in action.  

    Just too bad he didn't live long enough to see his progressive bills on Medicare (2d time around) and Civil Rts passed in Congress, though the latter was making progress by the time of Dallas.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    No real record to speak of except cutting taxes and being a Cold Warrior, not that there is anything wrong with either.

    Parent
    Actually it was quite (none / 0) (#124)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:25:20 PM EST
    a good liberal record for only 2 yrs 10 months and 2 days in office.

    He kept us from crossing the line into all-out war over Berlin, Cuba and in Nam (not to mention Laos).  Meanwhile the actual Cold Warriors were all advising him to escalate, attack, or act preemptively.

    In the meantime, the actual record shows, he was beginning to work with Chairman Khrushchev to achieve detente.  

    Even asked K to join the US in the venture to the Moon.

    Strong economy domestically, with real problems in CR being addressed.  

    One of the best presidents, even for such a short time in office.

     

    Parent

    Oh you bubble-burster. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 06:13:53 PM EST


    Parent
    that may have pissed him off (none / 0) (#102)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    but I think Kennedy sincerely saw how Obama inspired young people and he recognized the value of that.  

    Clinton pissed alot of Dmeocrats off with the nature of his attacks on Obama.  He was certainly entitled to question Obama's record and qualificaitons but he was undoubtedly attempting to create doubts about a black man's electability.   I think that only solidified, encouraged the Yes We Can feeling.  Probably a good thing in retrospect.

    Parent

    All of it was racial (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    It is always with us.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:13:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, the oh so credible (none / 0) (#27)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    John Bolton has opened his big yap.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    If you had any doubts whether this was a good idea or not, Bolton seals it. If he is against it, then I must be for it.

    Parent
    Exactly! n/t (none / 0) (#48)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:56:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Worried that N. Korea is going to punk the USA by (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    ...promising Obama the release of the two journalists by sending Clinton, and then send him home empty handed.

    I think its worth the risk to get these women out of there, but the right-wing is going to crow about Obama's weakness if Clinton comes home without them.

    Doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:41:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Woot! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by magster on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    I was wrong, they are coming home!

    Parent
    The modus operandi (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    is for the jackdaws of talk radio and negligible quantities like the Washington Times and The Spectator to do all the irrational crowing, while the more mainstream conservative outlets maintain plausible deniability.

    Parent
    Looks like it worked (none / 0) (#62)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:19:22 PM EST
    CNN reporting North Korea pardoned the journalists.

    Fabulous news!!!!!! (none / 0) (#70)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:27:34 PM EST
    Do you all think that Obama and Hillary decided to send Bill?  I can't believe that he would go without their approval, regardless of what Al Gore might want.  Al doesn't have a position in this administration does he?  Perhaps I have forgotten?  Is he one of the Czars?  Something else?  

    Thanks.  

    Parent

    No way Bill went to N. Korea (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    without the knowledge and approval of Obama and Hillary. Bill is not some global loose cannon and neither is Gore.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#79)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    But why Bill rather than Hillary?  And what's Al Gore got to do with it?  

    In any event, I'm just thrilled that it worked.  

    Parent

    Making it "unofficial" was a concession (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    that the Obama Administration likely demanded. No one was fooled, of course.

    Parent
    Ling and Lee work for Gore's (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    company Current-TV. See link in BTD's post above. Gore has been quietly working behind the scenes to get them released all along.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:45:46 PM EST
    I didn't know that Al Gore had a news network.  

    Parent
    Gore understands (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    the power of the media.

    I find it fascinating that Gore took that route.  Smart guy, Gore.  

    Parent

    Me neither. But now we do. Very (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    clever marketing tool Al.

    Parent
    A president, (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    even an ex, always trumps a SoS or an ex VP.

    Plus Hillary a few weeks ago had made some snarky comment about how the NK regime was rather adolescent in their attitudes.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    That remark really sent the NKs around the bend. Good cop bad cop, imo.

    Parent
    On this we agree n/t (none / 0) (#90)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:46:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Prestige of the Presidency for Kim (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    without risking Kim using the visit to embarass the sitting President.  Same thing when Carter went early during the Clinton Amdinistrationn to work on the nuke deal.

    Parent
    Because they were working (none / 0) (#83)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    for Al Gore's "Current" news.

    Parent
    Hillary and Bill, CoSecretaries of State? (none / 0) (#76)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    Two for the price of one?  Just like when they were CoPresidents?   Bill sure pulled this one off!  Go Bill and Hill!  

    why the link? (none / 0) (#142)
    by nycvoter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    yeah, why would you have a link to the Kennedy article?

    ABC: Gore Asked Clinton To Go To North Korea; Kim "Pardons" Journalists | 139 comments (139 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment