In Sunday's New York Times two Iraq stories appear on A4. Andrew E. Kramer's "Iraq, With U.S. Support, Voids a Russian Oil Contract" sketches out the foreign interference in Iraq for anyone paying attention. It's not Iran, no, it's the US. Guiding ("American legal advisers") the puppet government through a cancellation that opens the West Qurna oil field (southern area) "up for potential international investment in the future."
Kramer acknowledges the charges that the illegal war was about oil but then goes on to assert "There is little evidence to date that the war effort has given American oil companies an inside track to Iraq's reserves" while noting only the Russian deal has been cancelled. Apparently Kramer missed the whole Hunt Oil-northern Iraq wheelings and dealings as well as the Americans writing the theft of Iraqi oil (which still hasn't made it through the parliament).
Helene Coopers and Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Turkey Skeptical of Iraqi Vows to Stop Kurdish Raids" tells you that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki paints a "rosy picture." Meeting with US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday, al-Maliki offered more words (you can be sure Condi did as well) which included a fanciful tale of two raids in northern Iraq that shut down "offices of a political party affiliated with the P.K.K." but, read on, for this:
But a senior party official, Dr. Abu Bakr Majid, said later the party members had been told to go home but had not been ordered out of the city, and that officers told them their computers and other equipment would not be removed.
But al-Maliki presents it as 'getting tough.' As Turkey notes, they've seen this song and dance before.
Since this is the Times entry we'll go ahead and note a non-Iraq story that will appear tomorrow written by Ad Nags and Jeff Zeleny which features cry baby Kate saying last week's debate -- where all but Richards piled on Clinton -- is not sexism. Oh, Kate, dear, ineffective, sobbing, whimpering Kate. Go beg and plead to the Senate again not to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Put on that brave face and then, after, cry publicly about betrayal. Whine to everyone about how it's time for a change and vow you're running for the Senate only to drop that when Dem leaders ask you not to. So pathetic, so useless, so much to blame for the erosion of reproductive rights.
She's reminding me of another male-covering woman who did so much harm to women in Miami back in 1972.
Ain't it good to know you've got . . . an enabler?
Geraldine Ferraro, whom I am no fan of, gets it right (Kate supports Edwards' campaign, Ferraro supports Clinton's) when she notes that America would not have seen the same treatement of Obama. (Although, they would see it during a general election debate.) John Edwards mades the usual fool of himself declaring, "The standard should be exactly the same. I think she's entitled to be treated like every other candidate is treated, and that's exactly what I'll do." Really John-John? If you're done fluffing your hair, how about explaining how you let Obama walk all over you in early debate and never said a damn word. Or how about explaining why it took a tag-team effort for you to decide to go after Hillary? One minute, you're caught on mike whispering with her about how to eliminate other Dem candidates from the debates, the next you're joing in a dog-pile on her. Obama claims he's not 'played' the race card. That would be the bi-racial Obama who likes to pose "Black." That would be Baby Obama that no one's laid a glove on including the press. Despite that, Hillary beats him in the polls.
Ferraro, who as Isaiah noted only a few weeks back knows more than a bit about other candidates employing sexism, declares she's been "bombarded by e-mail" supporting Clinton. I'm sure she has. We caught that debate with students and they were offended. These are students who don't like Hillary's stance on the illegal war. In the discussion after, it didn't matter. They were offended. This was only echoed on every campus we visited. This may or may not translate into votes for Clinton but it is true that people are offended.
And that's really not a surprise because we've talked here many times about the conditioned response when either Bill or Hillary is attacked. And we've noted that The Nation can't take down Hillary by emulating (failed) tactics of the right.
Ferraro notes, "They say we're playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It's discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman." And she's right. The desk jockeys can make any claims they want. It's not, however, reality. Students are the most vocal against Clinton's stand on the illegal war and they were offended. Women's groups we spoke with were offended as well. And even a group of vets last week were noting how disgusting the Democratic males were in the debate.
For those wondering why the out-of-touch desk jockeys couldn't get it, they couldn't grasp that Anita Hill wasn't an issue that ended with the confirmation of Thomas. Like the treatment of Hill by the all male Senate body, the treatment of Hillary will not be set aside. This is a major issue and it will continue to be. As with Hill, it will largely happen away from the clueless mainstream press. And include the 'independent' media as well who, for the record, didn't see how big the issue of Anita Hill's treatment was either. Maybe that's because too many males and too many women trying to pass work in the media?
This isn't going away. Edwards and Obama can kid themselves that they wounded Hillary. They didn't. What they did do was drive up people's sympathy factor towards Hillary Clinton and since they (as Republicans did earlier) have tried to portray her as cold and calculating (check out the transcript of Obama's interview with Gordo and Zeleny the Times' website posted last week), driving up her sympathy factor, making her relatable was not part of their game plan the "big" "boys" were working from.
Let's break it down for the stupid. The Dems (with the exception of Mike Gravel) have largely avoided attacks. One exception was Barack's attacks on Edwards which did not lead Edwards to return fire just to wonder what happened to the politics of hope? Last week, America watched as one woman was on a stage with a group of men expecting the usual fluff and instead saw the men (all but Richards) go after the lone woman. For the idiots who can't remember, the Hill-Thomas hearing involved a similar dynamic and led to the gender quake of the 1992 election. The masculinst media, big and small, didn't see it coming because they didn't grasp how serious the issue of Anita Hill's treatment was. They are again making the same mistake.
They are saying that it's to be expected when a woman is running for president. They made similar excuses for Hill's treatment. But the thing is, America knew that was not the way all witnesses were treated by Senate committees and, the thing is, Americans know that is not how the Dems have conducted themselves in the 'debates' and that is certainly not how the men on stage have interacted with one another. This is not going away. It will simmer for some time. It will go well beyond the ones who viewed the 'debate,' well beyond those who saw the next day news stories. This isn't minor and only a lame brain press would think it was.
For visitors who will feel the urge to e-mail, the above is not an endorsement of Clinton. I haven't and won't endorse anyone.
Oh, Gina just e-mailed Ari Merbler's crap at The Nation blog ("Who's The Guy In The Obama Mask?"). He's lying about Saturday Night Live. In a skit, SNL made like the mainstream press and skewered all the Dem candidates except Obama. Actually there were two skits. He's yammering on (and lying) about the first one. He tells you Hillary was called a "witch" a few times. That is a lie. She was called a witch by all the candidates except Obama (so high roading! -- he appeared as himself in this skit). When Obama complimented her on her costume (she was a bride), even that required the Bill Clinton character to call her a "witch." The skit also had him saying of Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth, that they had a marriage the man wouldn't regret in 30 years. Ari's a liar and The Nation hates Hillary. Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden . . . all calling her a witch and Ari lies and says she was called a "witch" a few times.
Ari lies further claiming that Amy Poehler's Hillary "giggles." That wasn't a giggle.
Ari ignores the second skit (maybe it was past his beddy time?). In that one, Obama's again given a pass. Neither he nor an actor playing him appears in the skit. Though Hillary's not in the skit, she's the focus. Edwards leads the discussion of how to take out Hillary with pressure put on Bill Richardson to do the hit. In the skit, note, Richardson is called "half-Mexican." Amazingly, the same point isn't raised about bi-racial Barack. As a "half-Mexican," they all agree (except Richardson), he can hit Hillary on universal health care. As their hatred brews and simmers, Mike Gravel will announce what they need to do is kidnap Hillary. They plot who will chloroform her and who will hold her and then they'll tie her up. All agree (Kucinich holds out for a bit but finally agrees).
Liar Ari misses the obvious point of both skits which is Obama is untouchable by comedians the same way he is by the press. They give him a pass. Of course that pass hasn't translated to public support.
Well if The Nation could lie they might actually have to cover the illegal war. It should also be noted that since SNL has never (under Lorne) been known for their foward racial thinking (Eddie Murphy did not work for Lorne, he joined after Lorne left), they really don't have a cast member to play Obama. They hire only large (fat) African-American males these days who really can't play polished (in fact, as the Weekend Update sketch showed, the man can't even read his lines without breaking up in guffaws). Now if Hillary's not onscreen, they think nothing of letting Amy play Dennis Kucinich (because he's so 'womanly'?) but they wouldn't put a White performer in blackface and, unlike Mad-TV, they really don't have a role for African-American males who don't or won't play stereotypes. While I'm not endorsing anyone, it sure is interesting the kid gloves Obama and John McCain gets from all Lorne properties. I have no idea how much Lorne's given (or not given) to Obama (he has given to Chris Dodd) but I do know an original Not Ready for Primetime cast members is outraged that he's given as much to presidential candidate McCain as he has to Senate candidate and former SNL writer Al Franken ($2,300). I didn't have the heart to point out that Lorne's also given money to McCain's organization two years ago and that money -- though FEC loopholes disguise it -- also went to McCain's presidential campaign.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.
the new york times
andrew e. kramer