Several of you are wondering who I am backing to be the next President. I have not decided on a final choice because, to be candid, I have little say in the matter. I live and vote in Maryland. By the time primary season rolls around in my neck of the woods and bay inlets, the die will be cast.
Of the current field of democratic candidates I like three in particular–Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. If I were participating in an Iowa caucus or voting in New Hampshire, I’d go for Joe. But he is not getting any traction. So that leaves me with Hillary and Edwards.
I favor giving Hillary more coverage at No Quarter for a very simple reason–no other candidate for president in my memory has been subjected to as many vile, baseless attacks as this good woman. You don’t have to be a rightwing nut to know or believe some of this garbage. According to these critics Hillary is a murderer, a practicing lesbian who is getting it on with her Saudi chief of staff, a swindler, a cheat, and a coverup artist. Oh yeah, her and Bill employ, so we are told, their own hit squad who run around silencing critics.
What I find amazing is how inept that Clinton “hit” squad is? If they were worth a damn (or REAL) then critics like this bozo in Texas, Robert Morrow, would be a worm buffet by now (I will not link to anything written by Morrow). Ain’t it amazing that Bill and Hill are known to kill their opponents and yet so many opponents and critics are still walking around unscathed?
The evil witch, bitch caricature of Hillary is a lie readily embraced by many in America. But it is not the Hillary I have met. I am not a good friend nor a close advisor. And I am not lobbying for a slot in a Clinton Administration. I’m not ready for a pay cut and I like to sleep until 9am. But I have been in her office twice and briefed her on issues concerning terrorism and Iraq. If you had asked me before my first visit in 2005 if she could be president I would have said, “There are two ways–no way and no way in hell”. Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior.
The briefing occurred shortly after I had testified on the Hill about the harm done to Valerie Plame. Senator Clinton was aware of my testimony and congratulated me on standing up for Val. The Senator was very gracious, engaging, and charismatic. And she does not have fat legs (the number of guys who have dissed her for not having great gams is obscene). She is an attractive 60-year-old woman. But that was not what stood out for me. She is scary smart.
I was not alone at the briefing–there were two other participants who are well-known experts on the Middle East and Iraq. We had not submitted our briefings in advance. We made our respective presentations and had a genuine, in-depth discussion about viable options. She asked us tough questions and could think on her feet without having to look at notes. She focused on what could be done to achieve U.S. interests in Iraq without bleeding our country’s treasury and military.
As we talked about the limits and efficacy of using military assets to go after terrorist targets, the Senator brought up the book, Not a Good Day to Die by Sean Naylor. She did more than bring it up. She described in detail the challenges that special operations military forces actually face on the ground. I was stunned. This is not an easy book to read. It is an excellent work and provides enormous detail on special operations and CIA military activities in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. But it is tough sledding for folks not familiar with military terminology. She had it nailed, and it was not a mere pre-planned politician’s trick. She knew what she was talking about.
I came out of that meeting and realized I could be seeing the next President. If people could always see the real Hillary she would win in a cake walk. I admit her main failing is to over-think the politics of every situation and, as a result, she has at times appeared rigid, robotic, and programmed. But that is not the real her. She’s funny, quick, and can think and talk on her feet without choking on a pretzel.
So if No Quarter appears to be a pro-Hillary site, it is simply me trying to balance out the mountain of shit tossed her way.
I also like John Edwards. But he has not tasted even a hint of the personal and political attacks that have been launched against Hillary. Therefore I do not feel as much of a need to “defend” him. However, I have given my friends–Wayne Williams and Brad Parker–full permission to publish any John Edwards piece they want. They are rabid Edwards promoters.
Who would be the strongest national candidate for the Democrats? I think it is Edwards. That’s my analytical conclusion. I worry that the hatred and prejudice against Senator Clinton is so deep that it will be a tough obstacle to overcome. But then I think back to a time when I had accepted the anti-Hillary propaganda and what subsequently happened to my thinking after meeting her. The Hillary I saw behind the closed doors of her office is a genuine, smart, very likable person. If America is permitted to see that woman then she has a chance.
UPDATE: Further to the point that Obama lacks the seasoning and the smarts to be President, please watch this Bush-esque performance. Obama cannot provide a clear, cogent answer to why he declined to vote in favor of allowing sexual abuse victims to have their court recrods sealed and their privacy protected. My god people. Can we afford another dummy in the White House?
I don’t think she represents real change that is needed for America 2008. In 1992 President Clinton were the new course America needed. But in 2008, she represents the past and not change.
However, I’m one of those rabid, John Edwards support.
Without giving a twisty, I’d like Hillary to answer this question:
Is Bill running for a 3rd term?
“Further to the point that Obama lacks the seasoning and the smarts to be President, please watch this Bush-esque performance…Can we afford another dummy in the White House?”
This is so over the top that I can’t believe I am actually responding to this diary. Obama is obviously a very intelligent man as Hillary is an intelligent woman. To suggest Obama will become another dummy in the Whitehouse is STUPID behind redemption.
The issue politics: want another Republican Lite in the Whitehouse or someone with new ideas that will take the country in another direction, because Hillary is more Government by Corporation, as seen by her new proposals to fund universal medical insurance, and more Neoconism by her views on Iraq and Iran. If you are asking about another dummy in the Whitehouse, you have to ask which candidate will continue Bush administration foreign policy?
It is only necessary for a president to set policy and principles under which his/her administration will work. Reagan slept through most cabinet meetings, after setting down the foundations of his policies to staff. Carter micromanaged. What the country needs today is not more of the same, but change, and it is quite evident that Hillary is the LEAST CAPABLE candidate to make change. She is experienced in the same-old government by corporation and inherited Neocon foreign policy. Get her out of here.
Back to the future with the Clintons, observes The Carpetbagger Report
Hillary’s implode a coming. It’s the dynasty thingy. No divine right to the White House.
The more people see/hear Obama, the less they like Hillary.
You have to remember that Mr. Johnson speaks for the less…obscenely reactionary wing of the CIA.
The so-called “liberal” wing.
Kinder, gentler international corporate cops.
And what he is saying here is that Hillary Clinton is their first choice. He brings up Edwards and Biden as useful red herrings because he knows damned well that they will be also-rans.
Hillary is the man, as far as his controllers are concerned.
And Obama?
He is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!!
Why…who knows?
He might even sit down and talk to some of these foreign leaders!!!
Without benefit of (CIA) counsel!!!
What good could came of something like THAT!!!
For the CIA.
It might begin to dawn on people that they are a vicious bunch of incompetent, high-level rent-a-cops and thieves.
And THEN where would they be?
His support of Clinton is the very first thing that I have seen which tempts me to switch to from Clinton to Obama as my first choice.
With enemies like that, Obama has GOT to be on the right track.
AG
Exactly. A man who spent several years of his childhood in post-Sukarno Indonesia, speaks Indonesian and thus has first-hand knowledge of the wonderful social work effected there by US intelligence over several decades… oh no! Can’t have a president like that. That’s instantly disqualifying…
That a bunch of smarter intelligence/foggy bottom types saw the obvious and came out against Bush’s folly, merely means they were smart enough to leave a sinking ship early. And not in the least that they are committed to stopping the incessant well-poisoning perpetrated by the US national security apparatus since WW2.
The really awful foreign policy authoritarians of the Clinton administration (Albright, Holbrooke, Berger, Clark…) have all come out for Clinton.
And then of course, among the bottom feeders, you have creepy crawlies like Larry Johnson, a Bush 41 Republican, whose website has become a hilarious hotbed of anti-Obama hysteria and smears…
If you haven’t looked at it, by all means do. It is comical.
Gives one a foretaste of what Republican hate sites will look like if Obama gets the nomination and wins in November.
Meanwhile: have mercy Boo and flush this icky critter down the toilet!
but I have had quite enough of Mr. Johnson right here.
His game is quite clear as it is.
AG
My, my, my, just the other day such a spirted defense of HRC.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m certain most Democrats will vote for her on the principle of the lesser evil. In the meantime, let’s fight.
Re. Hillary, it is quite evident that Nader was right when he contended that both parties were beholden to Corporate America rather than to the people. No candidate gives more proof of this contention than Hillary.
at the expense of Obama, Alice.
Never.
I DO think that much of the right wing wants to go up against him rather than Hillary Clinton.
But not the Intel services, because they have WAY too much to lose if someone is elected that has not earned their trust as opposed to someone who has already become privy to many, MANY secrets without publicly spilling the beans.
It is a three or even four-dimensional chess match, Alice.
What is going on in the lower dimensions…that which is vouchsafed to the general public through the hypno-media…is just the first layer of an onion the smell of which will get progressively more acrid as it is further opened.
Bet on it.
AG
why is a post largely about editorial content decisions at No Quarter at the top of BooTrib?
Because Larry Johnson does not deign to rewrite his stuff for this site.
NOR does he answer comments here.
Too busy, don’tcha know.
Being an ex-CIA guy is hard WORK!!!
AG
Why is this national security type shilling for Clinton given a forum on the Booman tribune for his pathetic anti-Obama smears?
AG
vote for her with no problem. But I would like a candidate that is a little more liberal and a little more anti corporate. I like Edwards for that. But you know that we would not know how a president will act once in office. Bill was known to me to be more conservative than I liked. I think his triangulating really clobbered the dems and they haven’t recovered to this day. But I didn’t really understand what happened in that mid term election.
if you are, you’re cheering for a loser:
Clinton leads “anti” candidate presidential poll
best follow your instincts here larry: …“Who would be the strongest national candidate for the Democrats? I think it is Edwards”…
lTMF’sA
Larry Johnson’s posts have always been informative and logical. But this one is so, so off base. Barack can’t answer a question about a vote from several years ago at the drop of a hat and that disqualifies him from being president. But Hillary’s in bed with Rupert Murdoch (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/577ecd2e-dfc2-11da-afe4-0000779e2340.html), and that’s OK?
no other candidate for president in my memory has been subjected to as many vile, baseless attacks as this good woman. You don’t have to be a rightwing nut to know or believe some of this garbage.
That is true. Anyone we nominate, anyone, will be subject to the same (see Somerby’s deconstruction of anti-Gore hatred). It is amazing how many people who should know better believe these lies or at least part of them.
If we want our country back we need to expose every lie.
Having said that, Clinton’s Senate career has been a huge disappointment for this observer. She is listening to all the wrong people. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman for crying out loud. There will be no accountability if she is nominated. There will be no war crimes trials. She is smart, but not clueful. She does not understand what putting our country on the right track requires.
and he’s right, in the face of the mountain of shit that is out there, reading a pro-hillary post isn’t going to kill me.
feh. she’s smart. you don’t think obama (harvard, chicago) is. you’re wrong about that last part, but i agree he just doesn’t have the experience to be prez, that is, he’s not the best choice right now. as for hillary and her deep and impressive knowledge of how special forces works- again, feh. “anyone can kill.” (old movie ref) how is she with the whole question of why are our forces on the ground overseas and why we can’t seem to get them home DESPITE THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT THEM HOME. sorry to shout, but you know, i’m just so tired of villagers shuffling off that question.
yeah, yeah, “we” “need” troops all over the world to “protect” “us.” no hajji ever called me nigger so i don’t expect hillary to spout the ‘radical’ position that the war and occupation are a bust, and there’s no “winning” in iraq. she’ll get there, but not today.
i know lots and lots of really smart people. lots. and sometimes, they are wrong. hillary has chosen her course, but i don’t think it’s going to accomplish much for me, or those stuck in iraq, or a bunch of other Little People. kudos to her for being a tough old broad in a misogynists’ field. i’ll give her that till the cows come home, she’s earned it. that’s not quite enough to make me favor her over edwards or even Constitutional Hero Dodd.
The smartest president in my lifetime was Carter–good, wise and brilliant. He got zilch accomplished. He was bamboozled at every turn by the Republicans, just too good to think they could be that bad.
That’s my sense on Obama. I don’t really care that he can’t remember the twisted legislative logic of one vote. (Chicago? There are a million stories…) But my gut sense is that while he is over-thinking every policy, the Republicans will run circles around him.
I agree with you that Senator Clinton has been painted by others for years. Even on DK people constantly right about her “ethics” but of course, can’t cite a single incident of ethics violations. (It was Bill who gave that pardon, and whose sex-capades were featured in a 600 page report exhonerating their financial dealings, remember?)
I have never had the privilege to meet her, but know several who know her reasonably well. They firmly believe she’s the better of the couple, the “mother,” who guides and calms her husband and who has the good nature to guide and calm others–especially male legislators.
I’m not sure you are right about Edwards. My sense is he’s tough as nails, but he may be a bit too idealistic about what can be accomplished.
And don’t forget – the CIA guys hated Carter too. He wanted to end their “fun and games” and install more oversight over the CIA. What did he get in turn? The Iranian Revolution, just as former CIA director Richard Helms was leaving his post of Ambassador to Iran.
There is a very cogent description of our intervention in Iran in “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” It also describes clearly how we changed from direct government intervention there to intervention by the World Bank and its covert agents.
for more on the geopolitics of energy in the ME, vis a vis, iran and russian interests in opposition to BushCo™ policies toward iran, l recommend this article in the asia times: Russia, Iran tighten the energy noose.
lTMF’sA
Hope you reconsider your “sympathy” vote for Clinton. If that is what we base our votes on now adays its no wonder we have Bush for eight years.And yes she was “picked” on but alot of what was brought up was true don’t you know?
Please reconsider. I will never vote for Hillary and if you look at the national polls her positive and negatives are the same in the 44% range. Do we really want our first woman President to be so divisive? Look at what Nancy has accomplished…not much!
You’d think a CIA guy would do more homework on Obama. You can say a lot of things about him, but calling him dumb is itself dumb. He’s very bright.
As for his experience, the experience at the local political level (he has years in his state legislator) isn’t all that difference from politics at the national level. It’s all about give and take, and holding strong to your positions when required.
I think Larry’s support of Hillary is predictable, since he’s a former Republican, and Hillary is easily the most right-wing of the three frontrunners.
I’ll support any Democrat against the Republicans. And I think they are all capable of being President. But I think Obama has the best chance to win against the Republicans in November, and would be a fabulous spokesperson for our country at a critical juncture in our history.
What a stupid analysis on Obama. Here’s an idea. Post what Edwards said about going to Iraq. And then try to show us what is different from Bush.
Now try this. Tell me where this is like Bush. Obama on the war.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
Yeah, teaching Con Law at the U of Chicago, what a dummy.