Clinton to be America's "ambassador" if Hillary elected

I think no matter who wins the next election, Bill Clinton would be the right person for this job. Just two days ago in a business meeting here in Paris with an Italian businessman, the conversation went the way these conversations always seem to go and I was asked why Bush was "so stupid" and could America vote for Bill Clinton again? "In Italy, he's loved by everyone" I was told (again) but I hear the same basic conversation no matter where I am in Europe, Asia and a month ago in Egypt.

If Hillary Clinton wins the US presidency, Bill Clinton will be given the job of repairing America's damaged international reputation, the former president tells the Guardian in an interview today.

Mr Clinton, 61, reveals that his wife has said she would ask him to "go out and immediately restore America's standing, go out and tell people America was open for business and cooperation again" after eight years marked by unilateralist policies that have "enrage[d] the world".

For the first time in his political life, Mr Clinton says, "ordinary US voters in the heartlands are concerned about who would be most likely to restore America's standing in the world" in the wake of the Iraq war, lack of action on climate change and other policies.

"The average American knows instinctively that we have almost no problems in the world that we can solve all by ourselves," he says. "And that, I think, is helping her candidacy, because people believe - I think rightly - that if she were elected she would quickly move to restore our standing in the world, and tell people there may be a few occasions when we have to do something on our own, but our strong preference is going to be to be cooperative."

Read the rest of this post...

SNL Video: "I ran so far"

Read the rest of this post...

Cliff's Corner

The Week That Was 10/5/2007

Another week. More preposterousness to report.

Rudy Giuliani is trying to convince people he's "pro-life," Fred Thompson thinks we'd better be on the look out for that evil "Soviet Union" and John McCain believes we have a "Christian" Constitution.

Was there a meeting of GOP members where they decided that their electoral vulnerability was based upon the fact that while perhaps trying, their presidential candidates were just not reaching the zenith of Bush-level stupidity?

It seems to be a race to the bottom with these cerebrally ill-clad, Abramoffian imbeciles. After Dan Quayle, for obvious reasons (potato-E) they had to search far and wide for a bigger mumbo-brain. They found one in the persecuted personnage of George W. Bush. A guy who has trouble finding an unlocked door after press conferences or chewing pretzels without the White House taster present.

But finding someone even more mentally handicapped this time around was going to be quite a challenge. They had good 'ole country boy George Allen, if by "country boy" you mean a spoiled-brat, rich-kid from Los Angeles who liked to torture his sister. But he too openly hated black people, instead of hiding it among metaphors and code words like the rest of his klan...er, party.

So this is what they are left with. A bunch of guys who make Mitt Romney seem like his suit is only half-empty. A crew who would bring down the average IQ on Sunset Tan. A group of guys who are too afraid to debate minority issues, because perhaps they'd have to explain how expanding SCHIP hurts black kids.

Again, I must apologize for this short posting. But I have recently been asked to contribute a twice-a-week column at The Guardian, and that and my newish gig at Brave New Films are keeping me on the run. I will be back here often, just not every week right now. But I do leave you with this video of how Bo Derek is better at answering questions on minority concerns for Rudy Giuliani than Tavis Smiley. Enjoy my friends!

Read the rest of this post...

Middle East in popular media (or, "The Kingdom")

Yglesias reminds me that I've been meaning to write about "The Kingdom," a movie starring Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jason Bateman, and Jennifer Garner (!) about the aftermath of a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. I should disclose that in general I'm a pretty terrible critic because, well, I love movies and am generally entertained by most I see to at least some extent. That said, "The Kingdom" far exceeded my expectations. I figured it would be a fun shoot-em-up, with some embarrassingly jingoistic overtones and obvious cultural screwups.

To my pleasant surprise, the characters (both US and Saudi) were generally understated and realistic, and the movie did a remarkably good job with the cultural stuff. Matt says was he baffled by the end's "ideological swerve," but I really never got the sense that this was a rah-rah presentation at any point. Yes, there was the familiar tale of ground-level people fighting against a pernicious bureaucracy (which, I should say, resonates with me significantly because of my experience at DIA), but I definitely didn't feel like there was a hard power fetish going on.

If anything, the film did a great job with the very real political and bureaucratic impediments to taking action in certain types of international arenas. Foxx's character does some deft maneuvering to get a small investigative team into Saudi Arabia following an attack on an American (civilian) compound, at which point the team immediately comes face to face with . . . more political and bureaucratic impediments. In a rah-rah movie, the characters would force/will/shoot their way through the barriers; in "The Kingdom," they think and manipulate through what they can, and the rest . . . just stay barriers.

The one big problem -- which is endemic to this kind of movie, and frankly I don't think it could have been done any other way, but it's still requires suspension of disbelief -- is that the team of four (plus one or two Saudi allies) become a crack commando team when they come under fire. But even this -- and to a much greater degree, the impact and success of a team of four with regard to the investigation -- reflects the value of good training. The movie presents the Saudi investigation as essentially a CYA operation, whereas the Americans (and, again, a few local allies) want to actually *solve* the case. This is, I think, an entirely plausible rendering of a situation like this, as is the effort by sniveling bureaucrats to cut short the investigation after some minimal, threshold successes (to avoid any further problems).

As for the end, I thought it was excellent. Without giving too much away, it reflected not Victory and Triumph by the Americans, but a far more realistic observation about the intractable nature of these conflicts and problems. That kind of ending in a major Hollywood blockbuster makes me wonder if the US may really be coming around, recognizing that these issues aren't just a matter of forcing conflict and asserting ourselves at all costs. Maybe even that -- and this will be shocking, I know -- we're doing counterproductive things ostensibly in service of our security.

That thought got another little bump as I walked out of the theater and saw a poster for a movie titled, "Rendition," with the tag line, "What if someone you love . . . just disappeared?" Maybe we're really starting to turn the corner with this stuff. One can hope. Read the rest of this post...

Secret GOP pro-Limbaugh letter uncovered

You'll recall that we reported yesterday that the Republicans were rallying in support of Rush Limbaugh's bigoted comments about our troops in Iraq. A friend was able to get a hold of the first draft of the email alert the Republicans sent around for Rush yesterday. Here it is (click the image to see a larger, readable version):

Read the rest of this post...

Barney vs. Mike

Mike Signorile is going to have Barney Frank on his show at 5:15pm Eastern today to talk about ENDA. Mike and Barney are on opposite sides of the current debate, so it should be an interesting back and forth no matter what side of the issue you're on. You can register online for free to listen to the show here. (Also, Mike is going to have Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal join him at 3:30 Eastern time. Mike and Lambda are on the same side of this debate, opposing proceeding with ENDA if trans isn't included.) Read the rest of this post...

Surprise, we DO torture people, even though we said we don't

We live in a two-bit banana republic. Shining city on the hill, my ass. The Republicans have destroyed everything this country once stood for. They should be ashamed of themselves. Read the rest of this post...

The backlash begins, Part III

From gay journalist Rex Wockner:

My take is: I support equality for transgender people. I think transgender people and anyone who cares about transgender equality should work to pass laws to protect transgender people and give them equal rights. I also think politics is politics. I think if Barney can get an LGB bill through Congress, he should do it, and we should let him. If Barney and whoever else can then get a T bill through Congress, they should do that, too. Nixing an LGB job-protection bill, which would directly affect in the neighborhood of 30 million Americans, because we can't simultaneously protect an unknown, vastly smaller number of T Americans doesn't seem reasonable. In a perfect world, of course we'd include the T folks. But we don't live in a perfect world. We're trying to make it more perfect. But that takes time, it takes process, and it means grabbing opportunities when they are available....

I'm also not convinced that homosexuality and transsexuality are the same thing, and I really don't think there is such a thing as "the LGBT community." Gay men and lesbians are the same thing (homosexuals) -- and bisexuals, when they're not exercising their heterosexual option, are then exercising their gay or lesbian option. Many transsexuals I've known have had surgery and then partnered with someone of the opposite sex, at which point they are, I'd imagine, heterosexual.

Read the rest of this post...

Following Bush, GOP Presidential Candidates hate kids, too

George Bush makes decisions for the GOP. And, he's got the Republican candidates following right behind him -- even on the really stupid political decisions. Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney think Bush was right to veto health care for kids:

The four leading Republican presidential candidates have aligned themselves with President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of an expanded health insurance program for children, once again testing the political risk of appearing in lock step with a president who has low approval ratings and some critics of the veto within their party.

It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general.

Doesn't matter what the GOP candidates say about Bush's judgment or leadership. Their actions show their fealty to Bush. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

So, Bush's job is decision-making. But, every fricking decision he makes is bad for the country. And, some are downright deadly.

January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough. Read the rest of this post...

Let them be sick...

As long as we don't have socialists. Yes, that is the "debate" that is raging in certain circles within the GOP. Read the rest of this post...

Obama is spot on

People need to quit hiding behind the pin with false patriotism.

Noting the TV interview, he told the campaign crowd, "I said, you know what, I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic."

"My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals."

Read the rest of this post...

Did the USDA wait 18 days before E. coli recall?

Absolutely disgraceful but more of the same from this administration who favors business over consumers.

An e-mail from a federal inspector confirms the U.S. Department of Agriculture knew that millions of frozen hamburger patties could be contaminated with E. coli in early September but waited 18 days before concluding Topps Meat Co. should issue a recall, a lawyer for a teen sickened by the beef said Thursday.

The recall came Sept. 25, and was soon expanded to comprise 21.7 million pounds of hamburger produced by Elizabeth-based Topps, the second-largest beef recall in U.S. history.

The Florida teen was hospitalized with kidney failure in August and the meat her family bought was tested by the USDA.

If this is what the US Agriculture department thinks is the "safest in the world" (said only on Monday), someone needs to get their butt out of the office and out of the country because that is simply false.

"I think the American meat supply is the safest in the world," Raymond said in an interview on CBS's "The Early Show." "A recall like this does show that we are on the job, we are doing our inspections, our investigation, and we respond when we find problems to make sure that supply is safe."

Interesting in light of the emails that have surfaced. Where I come from, we call people like this a liar. With the risk of serious illness or death from eating contaminated beef, how can people like this sleep at night? Read the rest of this post...