President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is reported to be deeply divided over whether to offer a post to Monica Lewinsky, the former White House Intern whose intimate relationship with President Bill Clinton led to his impeachment.
Until now, Lewinsky was one of the few high-profile figures from the Clinton Presidency who had not been recruited for the incoming Obama team. Mr. Clinton's brother Roger is another, though on Friday there were rumors he would be named ambassador to Spain.
One group, which includes David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's campaign manager who has been named his senior advisor, favors the move to balance the influence of the Clinton-era policy people by adding someone with a different perspective.
A second faction led by Mr. Obama's Chief-of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is bitterly opposed believing that a Lewinsky appointment would needlessly antagonize the Clintons and their supporters. Before being elected to Congress, Mr. Emanuel served as a senior advisor to President Clinton.
Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, who is expected to be nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services, responded to a reporter who asked about the Lewinsky rumors by pretending to receive a cell phone call. When the reporter took the phone from him and closed it while making a "we both know what you're doing" facial expression, Daschle said that appointing Lewinsky would be "like rubbing salt in the wounds of Senator Clinton at a time when we're supposed to be in a healing process." He added that Miss Lewinsky's presence in the White House would be "a huge distraction."
But New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who broke with the Clintons over his endorsement of Mr. Obama, said that Lewinsky was "a fresh face" with "a lot to offer." Richardson lost the post of Secretary of State to Senator Clinton and is now Mr. Obama's choice for the far less prestigious job of Secretary of Commerce. "The Obama adminstration should be focused on recruiting the best people to help us address the challenges of the future and not get bogged down in past history," he said.
The Clintons themselves have not commented on the possibility of a Lewinsky appointment though people close to her have said that Sen. Clinton was shocked and appalled by the idea. "It's a non-starter for her," said Philippe Raines, a longtime aide to Sen. Clinton. "She doesn't want to run into Monica in the West Wing ladies' room," he added.
However, Justin Cooper, who edited Mr. Clinton's autobiography, My Life, and has remained close to the former president, said that Mr. Clinton was cautiously supportive of the prospect. "He's always had great admiration for Monica's abilities," Cooper said. "I think he's just concerned that she might get in over her head if she were given a job as a political move."
Since the scandal, in addition to her status as a pop culture icon of sorts, Lewinsky has had a brief career as a handbag designer and then attended the London School of Economics where she received a master's degree in Social Psychology. Her thesis was titled "In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."
No decision has been reached as to exactly what sort of job Lewinsky might be offered. "With her background, I could imagine her doing something on either the jurisprudence side at the Department of Justice or on the handbag side, at either the Department of Commerce or the Department of Agriculture," said Deborah Kaye, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the Executive Branch.
Monica Lewinsky was not available for comment. Through her attorney, William Ginsburg, she released a statement, which read, in part, "I am honored and humbled by the opportunity to serve my country again at this crucial juncture in our history."
#5
Please tell me that this is a joke... with lines like "He's always had great admiration for Monica's abilities", "might get in over her head" and "a fresh face" with "a lot to offer," and "honored and humbled by the opportunity to serve my country again".
Please, tell me this is a joke - and I am not the only one with a really, really filthy mind.
On the upside, we might at last have pro-Obama comedians willing to cut loose at last.
#6
Calm down, y'all. Billy Kimball seems to be a fairly wonderfully silly writer, based on his biography page at the Huffington Post. I must admit to being shocked at headlines like "Obamas Expected to Have Sex in White House, Insiders Say" and "Sarah Palin is Rubber; Barack Obama is Glue".
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2008 21:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Where's that link to Scrappleface or The Onion?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
11/24/2008 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Mr. Kimball blogs at the Huffington Post, European Conservative. It appears someone over there has a sense of humor. Anonymoose picked up the piece via Yahoo.com's Opinion section, which is no doubt why he missed that it is a parody of some of the articles filed under Politics.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
11/24/2008 22:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Their going to have enough leakers at the white house with all those Clintons folks. The question is that now that she is older can she keep her mouth shut?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/24/2008 23:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Axelrod wants Lewinsky. Well, why not, seems to be pretty much a fitting, kinda ying-yang proposition.
In explaining why he was too fearful to vote in Jerusalem's mayoral election, an east Jerusalem Palestinian shopkeeper, Issam Abu Rmaileh, said, "I would have liked to vote because it's in our interest, but who's going to protect me and my family afterwards?"
Let's call it the Abu Rmaileh principle; it is extraordinarily important in the Middle East. Why should someone support you if you cannot protect them?
...IN WHICH way are President George Bush and his successor identical? Both believe that being liked in the Middle East will bring victory. Bush thought that by gifting the locals with a non-dictatorial Iraq and democracy they would come to love him. The opposite happened. Obama's strategy of being a nice guy and making concessions is likely to be less costly in direct terms for the United States but will also be used by the radicals for their own benefit.
...The frustrated American colonel in Iraq quoted above was bewildered by the fact that ""We poured a lot of our heart and soul into trying to help the people" only to hear them say the most inaccurate things about the United States stealing their oil, taking their land, and "turning our country over to Israel." A US pull-out may well be the right policy, but it will not bring gratitude.
...Alas, just because something isn't true doesn't mean people can't believe it. That's a truism applicable both to the Middle East and to Washington DC.
#1
I don't think Bush felt the middle east would love him. I think he knew the governments would be hostile to the idea of a Democracy in their midst. But if that mean a liberalization (in the classic sense) of Arabic society the end goal was worthwhile.
There are really two ways to react to the jaw-dropping ingratitude and nutty speculation of Arabs whose lives/kids/civlizations/dignity you've saved/restored/enhanced.
Either you keep your eye on the ball, become a machine, view them as ignorant but well-meaning folks you'll have to help despite themselves, all the time remembering that it's in OUR interest to do so.
Or, you basically give up on them.
Most people I know oscillated back and forth between those modes, as did/do I.
What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do -
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.
Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us. And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:
First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.
Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.
Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.
Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.
Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.
The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."
Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.
Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.
But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.
This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.
A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.
Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.
The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.
An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.
#1
A bit too much hyperbole here for the author to be taken seriously. Sorta the Al Gore approach. While I acknowledge the impact of an EMP attack would be devastating, I am confident that we would know how to respond. Love the "container lowered into the sea" scenario.
#4
In 1945 the Japanese Army tried to argue that the U.S. had only one bomb. Then they received word about Nagasaki.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/24/2008 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...The thing to keep in mind is that EMP is a function of burst strength and altitude. A likely Iranian bomb is going to be about the same size as the Hiroshima bomb (approx. 20 kilotons) - pop it 300 miles over Chicago, and the Windy City - along with Detroit, Madison, and a few other good sized cities - suddenly drop back to 1875, but the rest of the country is okay. We know it won't have been launched by the Norks and the Paks aren't THAT insane. That leaves the Iranians, who have (as the author points out) practiced the over-the-side scenario. The mullahs die an hour or so later.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/24/2008 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The only actual N threat I expect from Iran would be an "undeliverable" device suitable only for placing in a shipping container and detonating it in place while still on board a ship/train/truck/whatever.
It's one thing to build an operable device that will fission and quite another to produce a deliverable weapon. Besides, Iran picks its people based on loyalty, not competence.
Still, their program makes a great excuse to whack Iran, and whack them hard. Excessive force should be authorized. It's overdue by 29 years.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/24/2008 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The USN is already giving its AEGIS Ships + select Subs BMD-TMD capabilities > IMO what the USN needs now are BATTLESPACE "MOTHERSHIPS" = ARSENAL SHIPS and the like to operate BMD-TMD DIRIGIBLES, for below-orbit, end-stage/trajectory missle defense.
* MAG-LEV PLATFORMS = "AIR SKIMMERS"???
ALso, IIRC consider WIRED NEWS? > seems the USA + NASA-JPL are dev plans for FUTURE MOON-BASED "NUCLEAR BASES"???
HT to AOSHQ
We should all let President-elect Obama have some honeymoon time, but that said, so far the sudden cessation in 'hope and change' that became part of the American mindset for two years is surreal, and one of the most remarkable developments in recent American political history. Obama's Clintonite appointments, his reliance on those well-known DC fixtures credentialed by Ivy League Law Schools, and his apparent backtracking on radical tax hikes on the "wealthy", instantaneous shut-down of Gitmo, prompt withdrawal from Iraq, and repeal of anti-terror legislation seem to have delighted conservatives, relieved that the Daily Kos and Huffington Post are not calling the shots. But two minor points, it is still November, not late January. So no one knows anything yet and we should suspend judgement, despite the FDR and Lincoln daily comparisons.
Second, if we should see in January that the government really does not want to evict Khalid Sheik Mohammed & co. from Guantanamo, and does want to stay in Iraq until 2011 to finish up, and does want to let the present tax code ride for a bit, and does want to leave most Bush-enacted homeland security measures in place, then Obama has not merely embarrassed his hard-left base, but has terribly humiliated the media as well.
For years now we have been preached to that Guantanamo is a gulag where Korans are stomped and flushed (not laptops provided to the chief architect of 9/11), that we waged a foolhardy, amoral, and hopelessly 'lost' war against the Iraqi people, that the rich plundered the economy on the backs of the poor, and that the Constitution was burned so that covert agencies could play James Bond. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Given all that, are we now suddenly in 1984-fashion around late January either to be told all that was not quite so, or will we simply hear no more about how these Bush legacies have ruined America or what exactly is the party line to be? There is still such a thing, after all, as Google.
The point is that somewhere around early to mid-2007 ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, Newsweek, Time, etc. chose to become in the manner that they selected, emphasized, and presented their news stories a quasi-official Obama media, or at least a quasi-official what-they-thought-Obama-was news media. Chris Matthews' asinine statement about his investment in the success of the Obama administration was merely a crude summation of the creed of the more sober and judicious.
I don't really think they can now pull off an Animal-Farm-like 'two-legs were bad', 'now two-legs good' complete turn-about just because they've taken over the manor. I do think that the media's unprofessional lobbying for the cause of Obama not now, but in a decade or two will become a classic case study in any graduate class on journalistic ethics. Hanson's on a roll
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2008 20:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Two words: "journalistic ethics"
Two more words: "oxy moron"
With the emphasis on the moron.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/24/2008 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
A close look at Barack Obamas education policies exposes the myth that the 44th president of the United States will point the country in a brand new direction.
#1
CNN "STRATEGY SESSION" > Femme DEM STRATEGIST argues that, despite various criticisms from GOP-DEMS agz Obama, AMERICA + "DOUBTING THOMAS" US DEMOLEFTIES SHOULD HAVE FAITH/TRUST THAT POTUS-ELECT BARACK WILL EMPLOY A [Left]PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL AGENDA.
Also from CNN > MCAFFERTY FILE EMAIL RESPONDER apparently believes that REAGAN-BUSH DEREGULATION SMACKS OF GOP-RIGHT CORPORATE SOCIALISM, ergo its up to POTUS Obama and US DEMOLEFT to protect AMER CAPITALISM???
IOW, THE ANTI-CAPITALIST, PRO-REGULATION LEFT MUST PROTECT CAPITALISM [consumerism?] + RESURGENT PRO-REGULATION???
Once again, the only thing that is broke is domestic manufacturing. The "bailout" is nothing more than a domestic UAW subsidy. You can bet your arss Camacari won't close.
#1
When I worked at Ford my average co-worker was on the job for 130 days per year, and was paid for 260. They took turns milking "long term disability" benefits. As for sick pay, somehow everyone is "ill" for each of the 12 allowed sick days. Then there is the paid 8 day Christmas shutdown, and the paid 16 day Summer maintenance closures, in addition to up to 12 weeks of annual holiday. And, oh yah, drug addiction and alcoholism are designated "illnesses" in the UAW contract. No Trustee-in-Bankruptcy would allow the fraud that goes on at the Big Three.
#2
The thing we all have to understand is that the average auto worker, textile worker, steel worker, bank teller, computer programmer, electrical engineer, etc. has no more value in a global economy than his or her counterparts in other countries. It's scary for me when I think that some guy in India can produce software that's just as good as mine for a mere pittance compared to what I get. He lives in a shack while I live in a nice suburban home with a big yard, new carpet, and a 60 inch TV. But the value of my work is no greater. I'm a spoiled brat because I need a hot shower in clean water, Starbucks coffee and a nice car in which to drive to work every morning. How can I justify this extravagant lifestyle? I tell myself I have to work harder and smarter than they do but I know I don't. I'm just lucky and that's really all there is to it. If I can understand this, why can't the leaders of the UAW? Do they know something I don't or are they going to lead their people to the unemployment line just like the textile workers and steel workers before them?
#5
Everytime I hear about the Union's crap I think of the Philippines. Millions of people willing and ready to work who would be grateful and even speak english.
#1
I weep for this country and the mantle being passed to my children. It's not about political correctness anymore. There has been a sea change in this land of our's (or should I say their's). I and my ilk are a minority now and, come what may, the future is in the hand's of others. I believe in every word that VDH wrote and that makes me a pariah in all the major cities in this country as well as both coasts (save the dear old south). The only difference now is that I will not remain silent anymore and I won't go down without a fight. The retreat stops here.
Posted by: Total War ||
11/24/2008 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lest you forget, we've been witness to 7 years of bravery, extraordinary levels of competence and daily examples of what it means to be American as our military goes about its/our business in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is still plenty of hope for this country. Also, should the shit really hit the fan, it is the numbnuts you fear who will go by the wayside.
#3
Remember, it's the conservatives that have the guns. That's why the Second Amendment is so important, and why the left hates it so.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/24/2008 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
number 10 pretty much lays out the steep climb we as a country have ahead of us if the USA is to reclaim its greatness of the 20th century. It also pretty much points out why our time may be past and the reason we will fade to the background.
Posted by: Abu do you love ||
11/24/2008 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
