Bob Schieffer's Weekly Commentary: James Jones for National Security

Whilst Hillary Clinton may have stolen the headlines and the focus last week as the possible Secretary Of State, Bob Schieffer highlights another possible appointee, this time for National Security Adviser, James L Jones.



Bob Schieffer is usually the commentator of reason in a punditry that seems to be more about noise than accuracy. This is why I continue to highlight his weekly commentaries on Face The Nation, and I will continue to do so.

Campaign to boycott MSNBC over Clinton... from Canada???

Inside Cable News is reporting a story about a website set up to promote a boycott of MSNBC, the cable network, and NBC News over what they see as the unfair treatment that NBC and MSNBC gave New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during the race for the Democratic Party nomination, a nomination that Barack Obama won.

But a little trip to Whois.net is very revealing, in a strange kind of way.  The site is registered via a company that specialises in hiding the identities of those who register with them.  This leads me to believe that this site is a hit job, put together by someone who has something to hide.

Perhaps it's a hit job by Clinton supporters who dislike Obama, or by Republicans trying to damage Obama by association, or perhaps it was a Fox News or other similar Murdoch organ attacking GE through it's NBC subsidiary and also attacking Keith Olbermann through MSNBC.  Remember there were reports about high level meetings between top brass at Fox News and GE, over the whole Keith Olbermann vs Bill O'Reilly feud.

Whatever it is, the company that it is registered with, called Domain Privacy Group Inc., is based in... Toronto, Ontario, Canada!!! And according to Whois.net, the domain was registered on Super Tuesday, February 5 2008.  The first allegations of bias against Clinton at NBC and MSNBC came on February 7th, two days later!  I smell a rat.  This seems to be a pre-determined plan, which was designed to try and overturn the positive sentiment towards Obama, not just in the media, but in the country.  So far, that campaign, mostly by the likes of Rush Limburger Limbaugh, has failed.

Whoever is behind this, they should do the honourable and decent thing and come clean about it.  Own up to this website.  But I seriously doubt anybody will, cos their motive will be revealed to be dishonourable and malevolent.  This kind of sniping, whether it relates to Obama or the media, in unnecessary, unwarranted, and most of all, a blatant, out and out lie! 

They want you to...

"...FIGHT BACK against the completely unacceptable, unprofessional, reprehensible, over-the-top actions, attitudes and behaviors of MSNBC/NBC and their on-air employees and talking head pundits..."

Take out MSNBC/NBC and replace it with Fox News Channel, and you'd be nearer the mark. 

This kind of hit job is unacceptable, reprehensible, over the top and completely shameless.  It does nothing for political discourse and as for attacking the media, well, what an easy target for you to pick.  Your candidate, Hillary Clinton, was behaving in a manner that was more like a Republican, than a Democrat.  And whoever you are behind this website, if you consider yourself to be a Democratic Party supporter, I urge you to pull your website now.  It does nothing for party unity, and even less for your country.

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Hillary Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare?

This is the third Special Comment from Keith Olbermann in two weeks.  He rarely does quite so many in that shorter space of time, but whilst the first two railed against President George W Bush, this one railed against Senator Hillary Clinton for invoking the memory of the death of Robert F Kennedy during the 1968 primary election process.

 

 

WIth so much American political history steeped in assassinations and attempted assassinations, even as recently as 1981, I have to agree with Keith, invoking even the word assassination during any election process is practically criminal.

Obama is almost the nominee, so why is Clinton still running?

According to the figures on the MSNBC website, Barack Obama needs just 65 delegates to achieve the Democratic Party nomination.

Barack Obama	1,961 delegates
Hillary Clinton	1,784 delegates

The target is 2,026 delegates.  Obama is so close to the nomination.  There's only 3 Democratic primaries to go.  Puerto Rico on June 1 and both Montana and South Dakota on June 3.  Puerto Rico has 55 delegates available whilst Montana has 15 and South Dakota has 16.  That totals 87 delegates.  Whilst Obama is not expected to win 65 out of those 87 delegates, it does appear that the remaining Super Delegates will push Obama over the line.

Pollster.com reports that according to the polls, in Puerto Rico, Clinton holds a 13 point lead, 50% to 37%, with 13% undecided.  That poll however was released back in April, so we have no current polling to tell us what the current situation is.

The last poll done in Montana was pre-2008. and that showed Clinton in a 112 point lead, but only 29% to 17%.  We need more information.

In South Dakota, in a poll released back in April, Obama had the 12 point lead, 46% to 34%, with 10% claiming undecided.

Nationally, Obama has at least a 16 point lead over Hillary Clinton according to the two latest polls.  Gallup puts it at 55% to 39% whilst Zogby puts it at 59% to 33%, a massive 26 point lead.  It seems pretty certain to me.  Barack Obama will be the nominee, and it seems pointless for Hillary Clinton to even try to continue.

Yet, she shows no signs of coming close to admitting defeat.  She almost seems to be in denial.  The trouble is, when a Democratic Party candidate starts acting and sounding like a Republican candidate, then it's time to stop.  Hillary, you started sounding like a Republican about 2-3 weeks ago.  You started acting like a Republican, when you failed to deal with Geraldine Ferraro.

It's time you left the campaign trail behind for 2008, and throw your weight and political influence behind Obama.   Do it for the party, if you can't do it for yourself.

Senator Kennedy has a brain tumour.

CNN and MSNBC are amongst the news sites and networks covering the news that Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat: Massachusetts) has a malignant brain tumour, according to doctors treating the senator at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

The news has overshadowed the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon today, where a total of 103 delegates are up for grabs.  If Barack Obama manages to win a majority of those delegates, he'll be so close to the winning line that Hillary Clinton will have to admit defeat.

But my thoughts and prayers are with the family of Senator Kennedy and the whole Kennedy clan.  I wish Senator Kennedy all the best.

Viewpoint Extra: Is it time for Hillary to step aside?

In a follow up to my previous post about Hillary Clinton's presdiential campaign, two stories to bring you. The first comes from NBC's Today show where Andrea Mitchell reports on the differences between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.



Whilst Huffington Post reports that Hillary's husband, former President Bill Clinton, has switched his allegence from his wife to Barack Obama.

I'm afraid I hear The Dead March being played at Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: Obama locks up the nomination.

I've said it once or twice, but Bill O'Reilly and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things. But I do agree with Bill O on much of what he says in his latest Talking Points Memo, Wednesday night on the Factor. Obama, to all intents and purposes, does indeed have the nomination locked up, and deep down, Hillary Clinton knows it.



I also agree with Bill when he says that the Obama vs McCain race will be intense. And indeed, race will be a factor.

As for VP nominations, I think Barack Obama could do a lot worse than having New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, as his running mate. As for McCain, it is likely that either Senator Lindsay Graham or Senator Joseph Lieberman, the so called "Independent Democrat", will be his running mate.

Viewpoint Special: Is it time for Hillary to step aside?

And now, from Viewpoint, an extra special commentary on the Democratic nomination process.

On Tuesday 13th May, the continuing saga of the Democratic Party nomination process moves to West Virginia. A week later, Kentucky and Oregon. June 1st sees Puerto Rico voting before June 3rd ends the process in South Dakota and Montana. A total of 217 delegates up for grabs.

There are a total of 795 super delegates in this process and so far, 529 super delegates have declared. That leaves 266 super delegates to be declared. Overall, a total of 483 delegates available to Obama and Clinton. Obama only needs 181 delegates whilst Clinton needs 330.

Whilst the maths might say that Clinton can still win this, common sense must be kicking in soon. Clinton needs a combination of pledged delegates and super delegates. Obama mathematically can win the nomination without another super delegate, although in reality, he will need super delegates too. Obama is that much closer to the line and Clinton must realise that soon, the numbers will be against her and there will be no way for her to win.

Hillary Clinton, give up this fight now, you will lose it, without question. What's more, you will have almost single handedly destroyed the Clinton legacy by not knowing that now, IS the right time to bow out. Your chances of winning are slim and you risk doing more damage to the party than anything else. If you truly care about the fact that the Democrats MUST win in November, you should bow out now gracefully and give yourself a chance in 8 years time, to become the nominee again.

Newsbusters actually reports factually, whilst trying to insinuate bias!

Newsbusters is a blog from the right wing Media Research Center which supposedly highlights liberal media bias. However, this time, they actually managed to report something completely factually, whilst trying to insinuate that bias was involved.

The entry by Brent Baker highlights comments by syndicated columnist Mark Shields, on the programme Inside Washington, produced by Washington DC ABC affiliate WJLA. Mark Shields describes how right wing radio attacks will make Hillary Clinton somewhat as a sympathy figure, in the same way, as NPR's Nina Tottenberg pointed out, as she was elected to the New York Senate seat in her first Senate run.

The whole entry is written with lots of quotes, to insinuate that there is bias in the statements, whereas in fact, what was stated was factual. We have seen it happen before, we could see it happen again.

From the 22nd Amendment, to Hilary-bashing!

It strikes me just how afraid the conservative/republican movement in the USA is of Hilary Clinton, when I read this commentary from David E Marion at the conservative Washington Times.

Basically, the 22nd Amendment is the one that prohibits any President from being in office for more than 2 terms of office. David E Marion uses this idea to suggest that Hilary Clinton's candidacy may be in violation of the spirit of the amendment, even if it isn't literally in violation of it.

Now, David E Marion is not your average political pundit, he's a college professor of Political Science, so he has some decent grounding, but the trouble is, his article has the definite pro-republican/anti-democrat undercurrent that Fox News and the rest of the conservative media love.

For instance, in one paragraph he says...

"... In all fairness, the wisdom of limiting presidents to two terms is open to debate. Ronald Reagan, among a group that has included Bill Clinton, believed there was much practical wisdom in Alexander Hamilton's assertion in the Federalist Papers that unlimited terms advance the cause of both effective and accountable government. But the important fact as we look ahead to 2008 is that the Hamiltonian side lost the debate on the 22nd Amendment. What won out was the argument that the benefits of institutionalizing change and curbing excessive ambition in the executive department outweigh whatever undesirable consequences Hamilton might have conjured up."

Note the positive spin is in Reagan's favour, more than Clinton's. How can we know whether a third Reagan term wouldn't have been more damaging to both the US and the Republicans than the Bush 41 term turned out to be.

The article raises some good points, but all spoiled by the definite pro-republican stance, and the opportunity to take a seemingly desperate constitutional pot-shot at Hilary Clinton, which quite frankly, would legally hold about as much water as a tea-strainer!