Populism pander alert!

Next she'll be saying she's the daughter of a millworker:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) trashed an array of corporate interests in an economic speech in Ohio Thursday, vowing that as president she would go after oil, credit-card, insurance, pharmaceutical, investment and loan firms.

But is this fight "deeply personal" to her?

Comments

[JT]

How about McCain voting against the torture bill? I thought this guy was against torture. Sounds like he's pandering to talk radio wing of his party. He's already done a 180 on his immigration bill and on the Bush taxcuts. What's next?

[Derek]

CLINTON WINS* NEW MEXICO!!!

*By "wins," I mean "secures one-delegate advantage in New Mexico."

But seriously, were you going to have a "populism pander alert!" for Obama as well?

I didn't spend my career in the halls of Washington, I began it in the shadow of a closed steel mill on the South Side of Chicago.

A steel mill! Almost a millworker... almost.

[yea]

anyone read about bloomberg specifically praising one of obama's solutions today? thats pretty suprising considering that a lot of people on this site say obama has no substance.

[Derek]

JT, the so-called "torture" bill would outlaw various forms of interrogation that McCain does not consider torture, such as sleep deprivation and threats against family members. Waterboarding was among those items listed, but McCain refused to throw out the baby with the bathwater (if sleep deprivation could be considered the "baby" in this case).

Whether those other forms of, dare I say, "enhanced interrogation" that are not waterboarding rise to the level of "torture" is a matter of debate, to be sure. But I don't believe it represents a "180" in McCain's position. Had the bill merely prohibited waterboarding, I imagine (but can only imagine) that McCain would have supported it enthusiastically.

[Derek]

yea, I did see that Obama proposed a New Deal-like plan (just this week, I believe) for taxpayer-funded national infrastructure jobs, totaling $60B and 2 million jobs. I don't mean "New Deal-like" in the pejorative; I mean it in the descriptive, as in, the way to shore up a sagging economy is for the government to assist a struggling economy.

I'm curious how people will react to the package. Bloomberg clearly supports it, given his praise. But it seems pretty typical for a Democrat. But maybe that's just what Obama needs--some typical proposals, as long as there's some meat on them. Doing so, of course, risks divisiveness, because it gives opponents something to latch onto (such as calling the program "New Deal-like" in the pejorative). But the way Obama's packaged it, as "tax increases for the rich, and ending the war on Iraq and using money here," might be palatable for those eager to hear the substance behind his message of "hope."

[yea]

two bigtime unions endorse obama. lets hope they help more than the nevada union endorsement did.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/seiu-expected-to-endorse-obama

[David K.]

and threats against family members

Yeah, that should definitely be allowed, nothing wrong at all about that /sarcasm

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I'm sure Hillary wasn't protesting too much when Slick Willy was cashing those consulting checks from the oil, credit-card, insurance, pharmaceutical, investment and loan firms which helped pay for that $5 million loan. Unlike the Kerry Campaign, Obama's Campaign can smell blood and go after it. Hillary is going to be very sorry she brought this up.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I'm sure Hillary wasn't protesting too much when Slick Willy was cashing those consulting checks from the oil, credit-card, insurance, pharmaceutical, investment and loan firms which helped pay for that $5 million loan. Unlike the Kerry Campaign, Obama's Campaign can smell blood and go after it. Hillary is going to be very sorry she brought this up.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

"But Clinton, who earned fees from $100,000 to $450,000, commands far more per speech than Giuliani or Edwards. He has been paid speaking fees by such corporations as IBM, General Motors, and Cisco Systems and trade groups such as the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association."

I wonder if Bill Clinton chastised the Realtors and Mortgage Bankers for sub-prime loans while he was taking their $100K to $450K?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Here is a list of Hillary's campaign contributors. Note the "investment and loan" firms she hates so much?

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z167/liberalamerican/hillarycontributors.jpg

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Actually, try this link...

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/the-tangled-finances-of-hillary-clinton-follow-the-money-part-two.html

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Anyway, donors include

Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
Citigroup
Merrill Lynch
Greenberg Traurig (Jack Abramoff's old lobbying firm)
And - my favorite - Patton Boggs...a major lobbying firm that represents oil and gas companies, the pharmaceutical industry and financial services.

Gotta love a "populist" with street cred like that.

[David K.]

I'm no huge fan of Hillary, but your 7:23 post about who Bill has been paid to speak in from of hardly seems relevant to me. Just because his wife may have problems with some of the things they have done he is supposed to completely boycott them?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

David K-

But the fact is Hillary doesn't have a problem with them based on the fact she is taking money from them. For instance, Patton Boggs, which represents Big Oil and Big Pharma, gave her campaign six figures.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. She is a fraud. And she will lose talking about how she is going to take on these corporate interests because they are underwriting her.

[David K.]

Fine, but thats NOT the point you were making when you were talking about Bill's speaking engagements.

[Derek]

David K., I don't know if that came out right. I mean, for instance, saying to a detainee, "We'll kill your family if you don't talk." Not a threat to the family, like calling the 16-year-old kid and threatening him.

I don't know that it actually helps, but I, for one, would be more inclined to find the latter more reprehensible than the former.

Mad Max, is that list particularly reprehensible for some reason? Is it really hypocritical? Obama, for instance, has received money from Morgan Chase, and Time Warner. Overlaps between Clinton and Obama (from your list) include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Patton Boggs, at least.

I really don't think receiving money from anyone is that big of a deal... but I know it can be a big deal to some. But I don't get why you'd pick on Clinton for it. Everyone accepts it, so it seems like you should criticize them all, or none.

[Joe Loy]

"But is this fight 'deeply personal' to her?"

Maybe it's Becoming so. Rumors on the Cablenewsieses :> seem to hint that Snarlin' Johnny's endorsement of her (!!) might be in the Offing. (This per a cablenewsy screenbottom "Crawl", aka "What Lies Beneath" :}.

"...McCain refused to throw out the baby with the bathwater (if sleep deprivation could be considered the 'baby' in this case)."

Actually, Derek, I believe sleep deprivation would be considered the Form of torture inflicted By the baby upon the Parents ;> but Reliable sources tell me it's very Ineffective at inducing them to Reveal any signs of Actionable Intelligence :] (no no no... :)

Seriously though, I was watching some of the Senate debate on CSPAN and I gathered (??) that the measure, rather than merely Banning certain Specified "interrogation techniques", would instead strictly limit the Permissible methods ~ for any & All governmentally-conducted, um, Interviews :0 ~ to those set forth as Allowable in the widely-published U.S. Army Field Manual.

Perhaps Senator McCain simply agreed with his fellow Republicans' argument that the Army Standard would unduly restrict the CIA and suchlike spooks ;> in their Conversations with Highvalue jihadis, by prohibiting (per the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius) various methodologies which are Not Army but also (they said) Not Torture AND ~ they claimed ~ not Known to the foreign Foe via his Resistance-training research of the Fieldmanual on the Internets & so forth. / Anyway, Derek, I'd agree that it's not necessarily ~ indeed, given his experiences & his temperament, Not Bloodylikely ~ a 180 flipflop on Torture by John McCain.

[David K.]

Derek, the first is just as reprehensible. Even threatening to kill innoncents in a non-combat area is morally repugnant, but if we are threatening it, that means to have any credibility we have to actually do it sometimes as well. I don't want the government of my country becoming like the totalitarian regimes of the past or the terrorists themselves and using threats against family members as a means of coercion, if thats the price of freedom then we have failed and don't deserve it. There are other, better ways.

[Machievelli]

David, where are your balls?

[Andrew]

When it comes to foreign policy and intelligence gathering, David has no balls. While our enemies are busy pulling mentally ill patients from Arab psychiatric wards, strapping bombs to them, and blowing them up in markets to kill dozens of innocent people, David would prefer to howl about CIA and military agents threatening captured terrorists' families or depriving them of sleep in order to extract potentially life-saving information about future attacks. I mean, David really has his morals in perspective, doesn't he.

/sarcasm

[Andrew]

As a provocative preview of that analysis, let me just add that I believe Obama has a greater likelihood of being the Democrats' Goldwater than he does their Reagan. Although I will venture that Obama's candidacy will spark a future Democratic revolution in a much shorter time than Goldwater's candidacy sparked the Reagan revolution.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Derek-

It's not only hypocritical of Hillary, it is blatantly dishonest. As for Obama, I haven't heard him using the same line of attack, so I'm not going to condemn him for it.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

David K-

To your point, Hillary Clinton has been a public servant since 2000. There is no way she earned the $5 million to support her campaign. That came from Bill, who got it from the same companies she is condemning.

You can piss and moan about semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Hillary has some friggin' balls for trying to ape John Edward's "outsider" shtick.

[David K.]

Andrew, you are, yet again, an idiot. You are assuming that there are only two options, let the terrorists win or support torture. Guess what? Some of us believe its possible to get information WITHOUT torture, and given the fact that intelligence experts have said the same thing, and pointed out how unreliable torture gathered information is. But thats ok, you keep hanging on to the FUD defense, try and make everyone so scared they give in to your despicable methods, cause thats what this country is about, keeping us physically safe at all costs! Screw ideals like freedom, justice, those aren't important.

[Jim]

"I mean, David really has his morals in perspective, doesn't he."

Did you write that with a straight face? I mean, you could make an argument that tactically torture is useful. But I don't think you can assault anyone's morals for opposing torture.

[Andrew]

I mean, you could make an argument that tactically torture is useful. But I don't think you can assault anyone's morals for opposing torture.

Sure you can. Suppose there is a terrorist that knows where the bomb is and how to defuse it, and the clock is ticking. You know the chance of normal questioning getting you the combo to defuse the bomb is near nil, but if you torture the bastard, he might talk. If you refuse to torture, the terrorist doesn't talk, and people die, your "morality" is immoral and beyond rationality, IMO. Basically, if you believe the end can never justify the means, your morality is not worth the paper of a thousand philosophy books.

Andrew, you are, yet again, an idiot. You are assuming that there are only two options, let the terrorists win or support torture. Guess what? Some of us believe its possible to get information WITHOUT torture, and given the fact that intelligence experts have said the same thing, and pointed out how unreliable torture gathered information is. But thats ok, you keep hanging on to the FUD defense, try and make everyone so scared they give in to your despicable methods, cause thats what this country is about, keeping us physically safe at all costs! Screw ideals like freedom, justice, those aren't important.

Wait a minute, just who is the hyperbolic Manichean here? I don't know what FUD is, so you're going to have to educate me on that one, but if you honestly believe that those of us who support the use of torture in limited circumstances have no respect for the ideals of freedom and justice, fuck you and the planet you're from. Reasonable people can disagree, but you're just being unreasonable and irrational. I am not saying the choice is between letting the terrorists win and supporting torture, I am saying unilateral disarmament of useful tactics against enemies whose tactics are more evil by a magnitude of thousands is just plain ludicrous and reflects poorly on your ability to take anything at all into perspective. Nobody is saying torture is always effective and always should be used; the fact is, certain techniques work in some circumstances and not others. But your position allows for no gray whatsoever, and that is not the real world, and it is not acceptable.

[David K.]

Andrew, you gave up on gray space and reasonable discourse when you assumed that by opposing torture as a method of obtaining information I wanted the terrorists to win.

FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, the hallmarks of this administration and its supporters like yourself. Oh no the terrorists are comming to get us! Be afraid! Give up on our ideals! Torture! Wiretap!

When you start arguing that torture is ok, you are sacrificing the values of this nation. I grant that reasonable people can disagree on the war, they can disagree on Bush's economic plan, or his stance on numerous issues, but torture isn't a gray area. It is not only of highly questionable use in obtaining useful information in the first place, its also lowering ourselves to their level, at which point there IS no freedom to fight for.

[David K.]

P.S. If you want reasoned discourse start by not being an asshole, the rest of us are just treating you like you treat others.

If the terrorists think their families are in danger if they talk, then they have already won. Oh wait, that is completely retarded.

[Brian Foster]

As for Obama, I haven't heard him using the same line of attack, so I'm not going to condemn him for it.

Interesting. Who exactly do you suppose are the "cynics" and the "lobbyists" that Obama says will no longer be naysaying against us, or setting the agenda in Washington, once we link arms and hope as one for change?

For example:

"And it's a Washington that has thrown open its doors to lobbyists and special interests who've riddled our tax code with loopholes that let corporations avoid paying their taxes while you're paying more. They've been allowed to write an energy policy that's keeping us addicted to oil when there are families choosing between gas and groceries. They've used money and influence to kill health care reform at a time when half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and then they've rigged our bankruptcy laws to make it harder to climb out of debt. They don't represent ordinary Americans, they don't fund my campaign, and they won't drown out the voices of working families when I am President."

"These are the Americans who need real change - the kind of change that's about more than switching the party in the White House. They need a change in our politics - a leader who can end the division in Washington so we can stop talking about our challenges and start solving them; who doesn't defend lobbyists as part of the system, but sees them as part of the problem; who will carry your voices and your hopes into the White House every single day for the next four years. And that is the kind of President I want to be."

[Derek]

David K., the debate is not about whether or not "torture" is okay. I believe that at least 98% of Americans, if not more, would agree that "torture" is never okay, except with potentially, and I do mean potentially, in the oft-repeated-but-oh-so-elusive "ticking time bomb" scenario.

The debate is about what "torture" means. Pretty much everyone agrees that cutting off fingers is torture. Pretty much everyone agrees that asking somebody a question is not torture. But the question is whether the so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques are: waterboarding, threats against family members, sleep deprivation.

To me, I would be inclined (I think) classify waterboarding as torture, but not threats against family members or sleep deprivation. So when you say, "Some of us believe its possible to get information WITHOUT torture," I entirely agree. Of course, we just have wildly different definitions of "torture."

Before you continue your indignant outrage at all things torture, it would be helpful if you could engage in a definition of "torture" that isn't simply "stuff Bush does that I disagree with," which is the connotation derived from your posts.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Thanks, David K. And here I thought FUD was just trying to get that "wascally wabbit."

[Angrier and Angrier]

Andrew-

You need to cut the crap with the Jack Bauer scenarios. Someone being tortured is going to tell their tormentor what they want to hear, whether it is the truth or not. If some member of Military Intelligence is waterboarding a guy and saying, "We hear there is a bomb that is going to go off in New York City," the guy being tortured is going to say, "The blue trash can in Times Square." Never mind the fact the bomb might actually be in Boston.

" Never mind the fact the bomb might actually be in Boston."

And the guy knows he can get away with this because under current law, once the feds find out he gave them bad info, they can't come back and use his "false confession' against him because the interogation method is inadmissible. And they won't just beat the shit out of the guy for lying becuase their's rules against that too.

These rules need to be changed so that terrorists know if they lie to stop the interogation, there iwll be consequences for that lie so severe that it's much better for them to tell the truth, ideally before the "toture" even begins.

[Andrew]

Someone being tortured is going to tell their tormentor what they want to hear, whether it is the truth or not.

You're strengthening my point without realizing it. In my extreme scenario, if you don't torture, the torturer gets nothing out of the tormented -- truthful or otherwise. If you torture, you get something, and you then have to determine how much truth is in it. So, No Torture = ~ 1% chance of success; Torture = ~50% chance of success.

It is not only of highly questionable use in obtaining useful information in the first place, its also lowering ourselves to their level, at which point there IS no freedom to fight for.

I'll gladly let the experts at the CIA decide when the use of torture is useful or questionable, thank you very much. Beyond that, the rest of your statement is absurd on its face. If we torture a terrorist, does that mean the Bill of Rights is nullified and we revert to a dictatorship? Of course not. So yes, you can become the dragon to defeat the dragon, and no, doing so does not cause all liberties and freedoms to cease. So you prefer to remain a saint and not torture? Peace be with you, sir, and go on your merry way. But that means somebody else has to do the dirty job of shooting, bombing, killing, and maiming people to accomplish official state objectives, and that person's job success shouldn't be subject to your personal moral qualms, it should only be subject to empirical knowledge of what actually works in each particular situation.

[Alasdair]

Regarding the morality side of this discussion, an excellent author - L E Modesitt, Jr. - in his book Flash - has his character express the problem/dilemma succinctly - "Sunday was church again, and the sermon wasn't too bad. It even made sense without having to rely on divine authority and grace. That kind of preaching - the kind that inspired human striving towards a better worl - I could take, at least in small doses. Larger doses might have been harder, because I was definiteyl guilty of some significant sin, especially in the old sense of the word, and it didn't make that much difference to my own feelings of guilt that I really hadn't had much choice in the matter. I suppose that was one of the things that bothered me about the moralists - either the secular or the religious kinds. They both had lists of immoral acts, but no one talked about the structures in society and religion that often put people like me in a situation where the only "moral" course was to get killed or to take great abuse, or both. I had both personal and philosophical objections to any system where martyrdon was the most moral course." ...

Personally, I have problems with a system where those who have the ability/power to correct a wrong purposefully choose not to, while claiming "being moral" as their justification for their choice of inaction ...

[Alasdair]

With that said, how about we restrict forcible interrogation techniques to those (as I understand it) experienced as part of US Navy Seal training ?

Physical hardships, extremes of heat and cold, sleep deprivation, food restrictions, being placed in psychologically-stressful situations ... and, yes, as I said, as I understand it, that would include waterboarding (done so that the US Navy Seal knows what might happen and their response to it) ...

In defence of my kids, if I believed it would obtain information that would save them from significant harm, you had better believe that I would consider using waterboarding on someone who would do them harm ... and I suspect that Brendan and Becky understand why I say that, now that they have Loyette as their joy and their responsibility ...