OK, I officially never want to hear about the 2000 US Presidential election again from anybody who does not question this decision : The White House has ended weeks of hesitation over how to respond to the Afghan election by accepting President Karzai as the winner despite evidence that up to 20 per cent of ballots cast may have been fraudulent. Abandoning its previous policy of not prejudging investigations of vote rigging, the Obama Administration has conceded that Mr Karzai will be President for another five years on the basis that even if he were forced into a second round of voting he would almost certainly win it. The decision will increase pressure on President Obama to justify further US troop deployments to Afghanistan to prop up a regime now regarded as systemically corrupt. The acceptance was conveyed by Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, in a meeting with her Afghan counterpart hours before Mr Obama received a formal request from General Stanley McChrystal, the comman...

... is this what he really thinks, or is this the first step in either setting up Hillary for a primary challenge in 2010 or insulating himself from the new interview tapes? Whichever it happens to be, former President Bill Clinton draws a distinctive line between himself and Jimmy Carter on CNN : (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton told CNN Monday that he thinks some of the criticism directed at President Obama is racially motivated, but added that not all of Obama’s detractors are racist and urged his fellow Democrats to remain focused on trying to enact health care reform. “I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president,” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in an interview to air Monday evening. “But I don’t believe that all the people who oppose him on health care – and all the conservatives – are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who oppose...

It is particulary bemusing (although not at all amusing) to watch the Obama administration extend and expand the Bushco program of military interventionism into new global fields. Now we are admitting that we have been fueling the fighting in Somalia with shipments of weapons for a couple of months, and intend to increase our involvement: Hillary Clinton pledged US military and other support for Somalia’s besieged transitional Government, and warned nearby Eritrea that it would take action if it does not stop supporting Islamist insurgents terrorising the war-torn nation. Speaking after a meeting with Somalia’s President in Nairobi, the US Secretary of State said that the actions of Eritrea, which is widely accused of supporting the militant group al-Shabaab with arms and money, were “unacceptable”. Eritrea’s Government denies the accusations. “It is long past time for Eritrea to cease and desist its support for al-Shabaab,” she said.... In June the US admitted that it had sent a ship...

From Anti-war.com : In a high-profile policy address before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the US wouldn’t not hesitate to use its military to “defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people” during the segment discussing Iran. She elaborated on the declaration with “this is not an option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise.” Clinton also warned Iran that the US offer to hold talks, which she had previously said she didn’t expect to work to begin with, would not be open-ended and that “our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness.” Today’s comments are the latest in a long line of bellicose rhetoric coming from the Secretary of State. Last month during a television interview she said that Iran was risking the possibility of a US invasion, citing the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq as a model. And in the we-never-seem-to-learn category, she's advocating this position despite the lack of evidence t...

... or at least that's the conclusion you might draw after this warning from the wizened old men in Bejing has received international coverage without a single statement in response from our State Department : BEIJING, March 7 (Reuters) - China's foreign minister, speaking ahead of two sensitive anniversaries next week, warned other countries on Saturday not to let the Dalai Lama use their territory to try to sever Tibet from Chinese control. Beijing abruptly cancelled a China-EU summit last year, angry over French President Nicolas Sarkozy's meeting with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader whom Beijing condemns as a separatist. The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in March 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, says he only wants greater autonomy for the remote region in China's far west rather than outright independence. "In developing relations with China, other countries should not allow the Dalai Lama to visit their countries and should not allow their ...

Secretary of State Clinton discussing the rationale for US-sponsored missile defense in Eastern Europe: Clinton focused on the administration's assertion that the European missile defense system is not aimed at Russia but is necessary to deter Iran. "Missiles not only with a nuclear warhead but a conventional warhead or some other chemical, biological weapon could very well be in the hands of a regime like Iran's, which we know will use whatever advantage they have to intimidate as far as they think their voice can reach, and who are actively pursuing a missile development program," she said. On the other hand, Clinton seemed to suggest that the project in Europe is not entirely about Iran either. "We have real potential threats, and obviously Iran is the name we put to them, but it is a kind of stand-in for the range of threats we foresee," she said. You want to run that last one by me again...?

... one of the chief tenets of the Obama campaign is that the United States would commit to diplomatic rather than militarily inteventionist solutions to the world's problems. So what does it mean, only a month into the new administration, when the Secretary of State publicly announces that she doesn't think diplomacy will succeed in resolving the question of Iran's nuclear program? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she has serious doubts that Iran would respond to the Obama Administration’s interest to engage in diplomacy on its nuclear program, and that “our eyes are wide open on Iran.” Secretary Clinton apparently did not believe that the Iranian President’s remarks during last month’s 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution celebration that his nation was ready to talk with the United States constituted a response. Nor apparently did the numerous other times since President Obama’s elections in which the Iranian government spoke of its eagerness to improve rela...

Human rights groups couldn't wait to give the new Secretary of State a boatload of criticism over her down-playing of human-rights issues with China: WaPo : BEIJING, Feb. 20 -- Human rights violations by China cannot block the possibility of significant cooperation between Washington and Beijing on the global economic crisis, climate change and security threats such as North Korea's nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday. "We pretty much know what they are going to say" on human rights issues such as greater freedoms for Tibet, Clinton told reporters traveling with her on a tour of Asia. "We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere" with dialogue on other crucial topics. Clinton's remarks elicited sharp condemnation from Amnesty International, which has urged her to move human rights near the top of the U.S.-China agenda. The organization accused Clinton of saying "that huma...

... or, at least, that seems to be the tenor of American democracy in the first days of Hillary Clinton running the State Department. You may recall President Obama saying at the Inauguration that we would extend the hand of friendship to nations like Iran if they unclenched their fist. Only when we unclench our fist, it's to flip Iran the bird. Yesterday, after claiming they were acting irresponsibly for launching their first indigenous satellite with 50-year-old technology, Hillary is flouncing around Europe telling Iran to play nicer or there will be consequences : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier today, and said that while “President Obama has signaled his intention to support tough and direct diplomacy with Iran,” the US intends to punish the Iranian government if it continues to decline cooperation with the assorted demands made by the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA. “If Tehran does not comply with Uni...

Having nominated as Secretary of Stat e a woman who believes (as did Dubya before her) that NATO should continue to expand into the former Soviet republics , it is unlikely that President Barack Obama will rethink the US involvement in that organization. Which is, as Douglas Bandow points out at AWC , is unfortunate: America and Europe should continue to cooperate on issues of shared interest. But it is time for Washington to turn European security over to Europe. In 1948 the world was in the midst of the Cold War. War-ravaged Europe remained an economic laggard vulnerable to communist subversion, democratic left-wing movements, and Soviet pressure. Joseph Stalin may never have contemplated an invasion of the West, but a U.S.-led alliance became the obvious means to, in Lord Hastings Ismay’s immortal words, keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down... By the 1980s, NATO’s justification had grown threadbare. The sclerotic Soviet empire was still evil, but totally i...

The Moscow Post is predicting that either Senator Barack Obama or John McCain will appoint Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The article is worth reading in the automated translation for sentences like this: Such a purely campaign speech Clinton and Obama, made by them after the funeral ceremony, led to sharp anger among supporters of the Republican Party who believe that the funeral ceremony - this is not the time for the pre-election campaign. However, it appears that Democrats do not miss any opportunity to raise its rating. This is justified by the fact that the war Russia and Georgia, top McCain scored more than 50% and the top ahead of Obama. As a result, a black senator was in the minority. Now he needs to win to make as much effort and tightening under their banners as much as possible supporters. Ah, yes, the wonders of Babblefish : "a black senator was in the minority." Besides, you gotta love the photo they ran with the article:

... when former campaign strategist Mark Penn condemns the media coverage of Sarah Palin : I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they’re not doing on the other candidates. And that’s going to subject them to people concluding that they’re giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, “Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time.” What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them. Let's see what we've got here: Point one: Hillary avoids being used as an Obama counter-weapon against Sarah Palin . Point two: Mark Penn, noted Democratic strategist and Clintonista , criticizes the media's treatment of Sarah Palin. I...

From The Australian [h/t Real World Libertarian], we discover first that Senator Hillary Clinton has declined to become a major anti-Sarah Palin surrogate for the Barack Obama campaign (perhaps because she recalls that this is exactly the strategy Obama used against her): HILLARY Clinton may be the most obvious choice to throw into the ring against the new darling of American politics, Sarah Palin, but the failed Democratic presidential candidate is refusing the job. "We're not going to be anybody's attack dog against Sarah Palin," a Clinton insider said yesterday.... Her refusal to roll up her sleeves against Palin, who describes herself as "a pit bull with lipstick", has already come under questioning by Democratic apparatchiks. "The strategic imperative right now is to do something about Palin and prevent her cutting through the race," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. This in reference to ...the roster of prominent women deployed by Obama ...

I reported a few weeks back that Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate for the Georgia Senate, had broken through at On the Issues with his own page of quotations (a first for a Libertarian candidate in a State race, I believe). Now the VoteMatch section of On the Issues has placed Buckley as a "Centrist" --in the Moderate range just shy of Libertarian--on the Nolan Chart. If you read their scoring, and you're familiar with Buckley's positions on the issues I think you'll agree with me that he should move up a couple squares into the Libertarian corner of the diamond, but then, let's look at good ole boy Saxby Chambliss' score... I suppose the big surprise would be Bob Barr's rating , now that they've finally gotten him on the site. Of course, the problem is, which Bob Barr do you use for the scoring? If you read the positions scored by On the Issues, about half of them are old Barr positions before he saw the light and drank the kool-aid , w...

. . . if so, you haven't seen the video currently adorning the website of Ex-Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain , where the logo claims, We are over 35,000 strong and growing. This is a ANTI-OBAMA web site. The use of this site is for people to post information about the truth of Obama. We DO NOT ALLOW ANY OBAMA LIES here. Here's what Wired says about the site and the movement : "We're going to run campaign ads to defeat Obama," says Ed Hale, a 63-year-old rancher and a Clinton supporter from Wellington, Texas. "We have doctors, lawyers, CPAs, the blue bloods, and then we have rednecks like me. It's a very diversified organization." The apparent peeling off of a portion of Clinton's supporters from the Democratic party illustrates the difficult task party officials now face in rallying the troops behind Obama. Open dissent within party ranks provides Republicans with openings to exploit. Hale launched the "Hillary Clinton Supporters...

. . . at least if the new PAC WomenCount has anything to say about it. The problem for Senator Barack Obama is not necessarily race vs gender, but the passion that Hillary has somehow instilled in her supporters. I was particularly struck by this comment at Crack the Bell , which managed to compare the 2008 Democratic National Committee favoring Obama to the 2000 Supreme Court handing Florida to Dubya: The WomenCount PAC had a wonderful article in the USA Today paper regarding the representation of we the people, the voters. It expressed my thoughts exactly. I am so disappointed in the DNC, that they would interrupt democracy in such a historic race. First we had the Supreme Court deciding our election in 2000 and now the news media and the DNC are deciding the election in 2008. I am very disallusioned with this whole process. I truly believe the popular vote should decide a candidacy, in an election, not the delegates or superdelegates. Because the DNC has made such a mess of this ...

I hope you visit Delaware Curmudgeon frequently, but if not, you certainly should not pass up her assessment of the raw political expediency exhibited by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in endorsing the current farm bill . The next time somebody tells me about all the corporate welfare that the GOP pimps for, I'm going to refer them back to this. After all, what's the difference between Archer Daniels Midland and Shell Oil? (And while we're at it, Libertarians, let's recall that Bob Barr supports Saxby "I love farm subsidies for big agricultural corporations" Chambliss over Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley.)

So listen to a February 2008 interview--well before the current controversies over Rev. Wright and bittergate--in which he assesses Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (with a slight piece on John McCain as well). What's especially interesting is to hear Nader make the point about Barack Obama with regard to military spending and military interventionism that I have been making here for some time. h/t to Third Party Watch

I'm actually going to write something positive about Senator Hillary Clinton today; but first: Here is President Bush, speaking through The National Security Strategy of the United States on the doctrine of pre-emptive war: Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option.We cannot let our enemies strike first. In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations. Now, here's Senat...

I've already disavowed John McCain because he will not himself disavow the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war . I'm watching the Democratic debate. Senator Barack Obama has just said, relative to keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, "I will not take any options off the table." The context of the question, and Obama's former comments make it clear that part of what he's not taking off the table is the option of a first strike against a nuclear-armed Iran . That's unacceptable. As I wrote before, if the United States survived the Cold War, when a Soviet first strike could have almost instantly immolated 100 million Americans, with a doctrine of no first strike , in the era where the absolute worst a terrorist group or rogue nation can do is represented either in September 11, a tactical nuke, or a dirty bomb, then there is NO moral justification for pre-emptive war today . Massive retaliation, yes . A first strike, no . Senator Hillary Clinton dance...