Bill Bradley attacks on NewsHour w/Jim Lehrer

I couldn't find another blog about this, but usually timid, niceguy Obama supporter Bill Bradley unloaded a bombshell last night on the NewHour in a discussion with Geraldine Ferraro and Leon Panetta (HRC supporters) and Jessie Jackson (Obama supporter).  

BILL BRADLEY: I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.

And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain.

Could this and should this be an indication that it's finally okay for Barack to point out some of the underhanded Clinton playbook, including patterns of unsavory tactics they have used in the past? I say have at it Barack - there's a lot more we need to know about Mrs. Clinton, not going back as far as Billary's White House years, just since she adopted New York as her place of residence in order to become a Senator here.

Will this hurt the Democratic party? As long as it's presented in the form of questions and the peoples' right to know, I think it's all fair game.

Here's the link to the NewHour discussion

•  Bill Bradley is a great progressive

  and a hell of hoop star!

  by mos1133 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:47 AM PDT

  •  He's a centrist

    ...just like an Obama administration would be.

    by jmknapp on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:03:14 AM PDT

    •  explain

      by mos1133 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:03:56 AM PDT

      •  Don't expect much from this guy. n/t

        by Scoopster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:07:35 AM PDT

        •  Here's the thing

          It's true, no one knows for sure what an Obama administration would do.  It could be a centrist Clinton-like administration that does nothing to push a progressive agenda.  It could be a Carter-like attempt to push progressive policies, but mainly failed, or it could be FDR-like.  

          Obviously I have my opinions, but it's really not known.

          What is known is what a Hillary Clinton administration would look like.  Exactly like her husbands.  That's not horrible, but it certainly doesn't move the country forward.

          Don't be so fucking scared of the unknown, especially when the known ain't so great.

          by bawbie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:10:46 AM PDT

          •  Swish!!!

            by serrano on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:22:30 AM PDT

            •  Perfect Guy to Attack Hillary

              It is perfect for a guy like Bradley to be one in the attack mode.  It is hard to hate this guy.

              by JPZenger on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:04:26 AM PDT

              •  I believe Obama will tap him for VP

                Bradley has been extremely visible lately.  I think it is with Obama's blessing. Bradely would be a great choice.

                by abarefootboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:56:46 AM PDT

                •  ...

                  I've been pushing Bradley for the VP short list for a while.

                  I still like names like General Wes Clark and Senator Jack Reed.  But Bradley would be a solid choice.

                  by nocore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:13:25 AM PDT

                  •  can you explain why?

                    I've been pushing Bradley for the VP short list for a while.

                    I'm not jerking your chain, I just don't know where the enthusiasm comes from. I remember him when he was a presidential contender, and I didn't understand the appeal at that time, either. Could you mention a couple of things that make you think he'd be an asset to the ticket, or a good president if called upon?

                    by Christopher Walker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM PDT

                    •  Bradley

                      - Raw intellect:  Princeton educated, Rhodes Scholar, notorious policy wonk.

                      - Universal Health Care: He's been pushing for it since the '80s, long before it was the "Progressive" thing to do.

                      - 2000: He ran to the left of Gore.  

                      - Campaign finance reform: He was a staunch advocate in the Senate.

                      - "Welfare reform": he opposed huge swaths of this Clintonian travesty.

                      - Endorsements: He was the candidate of Paul Wellstone, Cornel West, Mario Cuomo, etc. etc.

                      - Experience: He entered public service in 1978.  He doesn't do a shabby job of balancing out Barack in this regard.

                      And the intangible electoral stuff:

                      - Likablity: Even when he's getting tough like last night, people just love the guy.  Warm, affable, solid character.  

                      - Crossover: NBA Hall of Famer, Olympic Gold Medalist, All-American.  

                      Now, I'm not saying he's FDR II or that he's a perfect candidate.  But, then, I wouldn't say that about anyone.  I am saying, however, that he's a very solid Progressive choice.

                      by nocore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:56 AM PDT

                      •  Bradley will stand toe to toe with McCain

                        and punch his lights out ... !

                        Bradley has intellectual weight and clarity .. and he has the verbal eloquence to hit McCain squarely and with force rather like a political Mohammed Ali.

                        by abarefootboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:04:21 AM PDT

                      •  Does he have any...

                        foreign affairs chops?  I forget...his Senatorial tenure was a while ago.

                        by mayan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM PDT

                      •  Nocore, your comment has no core

                        You left a few things out.  Not everyone likes Bradley.  I think he's an arrogant prick who was a big supporter of the Reagan Tax Cuts.  How come you left that out of your detailed analysis of what Bradley is?  Was it an accident or maybe you wanted to leave that out?  

                        Bradley surprised us liberals like Obama may make you rue the day you supported him.

                        by cpa1 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:43:10 AM PDT

                        •  Boy

                          Whooooaa.  Easy there, Big Fella.  Everything's gonna be ok.  

                          I was asked to name some positive things about Bradley.  So I did.  There are many to name. I also said at the end that I don't think he's perfect; I very clearly acknowledged that.  But that I think he's solid.  

                          I have some disagreements with Bradley.  But I have far, far more agreements.  I think Paul Wellstone felt the same way, and he acknowledged as much when he enthusiastically endorsed Bradley for President.

                          Hmm, cpa1 or Paul Wellstone?  Who's the Daily Kos community gonna agree with?

                          by nocore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM PDT

                          •  I dont see any great VPs yet....

                            Most likely Obama would go one of these centrist types, or exmilitary. Obama is almost surely going to have to pick a VP that is right of him.

                            Personally i dont think it matters. Few of the VP choices could have a Cheney-like hold over Obama.

                            by Unseen majority on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:21:51 PM PDT

                            •  May I Make Another Suggestion Then?

                              Senator Jack Reed:

                              He's a West Point and Harvard-educated Army Ranger and 82nd Airborne paratrooper badass who forcefully opposed the Iraq War from day one and who- yes, it's almost too good to be true- is more Progressive than anyone currently being mentioned, including Edwards.

                              He is consistently called a liberal "hero" by the ADA for a record that, year in and year out, hovers at or near 100%. And he has a #3 lifetime liberal rating among current Senators. And there's not a skeleton or even an innuendo within a mile of this guy; pure character. Duty, honor, country all the way. This guy is a major win/win.  He gives you unassailable military credentials and experience, and he gives you over-the-top Progressivism.

                              Just something to consider.

                              by nocore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM PDT

                              •  and his seat's safe

                                Jack Reed wouldn't expose a vulnerable seat in the Senate; we can keep that seat. The drawback to Reed is not so much that his state is small, but that he's low-profile. He doesn't bring a ready-made legion of ardent fans to the table.  

                                That would be another plus for Bradley, I suppose; putting him on the ticket wouldn't take him out of some office we'd have to then recruit for and defend. And he does have admirers who might be lukewarm supporters of our eventual nominee.

                                I'd have to re-inform myself about Bradley if he runs for office again. I really remember only two things about him.

                                One is that being a big sports star cuts no ice with me: if I wanted to vote for sports stars, I would have sent the money I sent to Larry Kissell, NC-08, to Heath Shuler, NC-06; and I would have voted for the harmless but deplorably unqualified Lynn Swann, when he ran against Ed Rendell for Governor. Now, if Doug Flutie runs for office, we can talk.

                                The other is that I ruled Bradley out very early in the game, when he ran for the presidential nomination. And it wasn't because I was a passionate partisan of VP Al Gore in 1999/2000. I love Al Gore now, but at that time I was lukewarm about him.

                                My memory is hazy, but Bradley seemed way too centrist, to me. He had Wellstone's support, that's true, but he also had the support of party-flipper Ed Koch and Republican Lowell Weicker, of Daniel Moynihan, a conservative collaborationist with a big intellect but way too much of a taste for co-sponsoring Republican legislation, who had beaten some strong progressives to get into office; Mario Cuomo, a fat-cat party hack from the deep center of the party and one of the new dynasts, a trend I don't like; of Bob Kerrey, a complete weathervane on my issues; and a coterie of celebrity dilettantes. The unions didn't like him. He had flip-flopped on school vouchers. I was suspicious of his tax ideas and I think he favors gun control, doesn't he? - which is a deal-breaker for voters in many key states.  

                                It's hard to remember the earliest stages of that cycle when we know what happened in the end, but I seem to remember being interested in Wellstone himself, and being willing to consider Gephardt (whom I'd like to see now in the Cabinet, but not on the ticket). I had no interest in Bradley at all. But it's true that he had admirers and it wasn't so long ago that they're not still around.

                                by Christopher Walker on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:46:18 AM PDT

                          •  We are talking about leaving out relevant facts

                            Here is a link from the News Hour: http://www.pbs.org/...

                            Onethink I have to say is that Bradley lies as easily as Obama does.

                            MARGARET WARNER: Vice President Gore has taken your record - and, as you know, in the last couple of weeks - said, essentially, "he's not a good Democrat, he's not a loyal Democrat" - he points to your vote for the Reagan tax cuts; he also points to the fact you left the Senate shortly after the Republicans took over; you thought of running as an independent for President. Do you think those two issues are legitimate issues to raise?

                            SEN. BILL BRADLEY: I think anybody can raise any issue they want.

                            MARGARET WARNER: I guess what I'm asking is: What's your response to that?

                            SEN. BILL BRADLEY: Well, my response to that is - I don't know, sometimes when I hear it, I actually laugh a little bit, because it's so off the mark.
                            ...

                            Bradley lies so easily: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            And if - at the end of the day I ended up voting for the budget cuts -- if everybody in Congress had voted the way I had voted -- against the tax cut but for the budget cuts -- there wouldn't have been the big deficits of the 1980s and 90s; we would have had more economic growth, we would have had more money coming into the Treasury, just as today we have more money coming into the Treasury because of economic growth --

                            This is from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

                            The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986, (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted 1986-10-22) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Although often referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was actually officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.

                            That's like Obama saying all I did for Rezko was 5 hours of billing.  Obama and Bradley have a lot in common and they would be dangerous.

                            As far as Wellstone, I don't know that he did support Bradley over Gore and if he did, he was wrong.  Show us a link telling us he did and why.

                            by cpa1 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:08:57 PM PDT

                        •  ...

                          Also, back in Realityland, Bradley supported some Reagan spending cuts because he believed that we should be engaging in deficit reduction, but he in fact was one of only 3 Senators to oppose the parallel Reagan tax cut.

                          But let's not let facts get in the way of a good temper tantrum.

                          by nocore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM PDT

                •  That would make quite a basketball team too.

                  by Timmethy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:17:58 AM PDT

                  •  Princeton basketball ties

                    Bradley is the leading all-time scorer at Princeton, and Obama's brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, is the 4th leading scorer of all time at Princeton.  

                    There is probably something there too. Bradley as VP is interesting but I don't see it as the reason for Bradley's strong support.

                    I wouldn't be surprised if one of Obama's daughters shines on the basketball court one day.

                    by Ben Brackley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:47:04 AM PDT

                •  I've been holding a candle

                  for Bill Bradley since 2000.  An Obama/Bradley ticket would make me ecstatic, personally.  But I wonder if he's been out of Washington/political office too long...  Will Barack need someone who is actively in office or has just recently left to balance out the ticket?

                  by Jentutsy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:18:27 AM PDT

                  •  Me, too

                    Al Gore really let me down in 2000 when he didn't choose Bradley as his running mate.  Instead he went for that...other guy. Blechhh!

                    by sja on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:22:06 AM PDT

                  •  Obama/Bradley!

                    That would be awesome!

                    But my guess is he would pick someone more conservative and reassuring to the "national security" crowd. Maybe someone with a military background. (Clark? I dunno.)

                    Although I wouldn't mind Bill Richardson, either.

                    by cal in cali on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:39:20 AM PDT

                    •  ...

                      Bradley is the best option among people not named Jack Reed or Wes Clark.

                      by nocore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM PDT

                •  In complete and full disclosure .. i should add

                  Speaking as an honest, transparent and 'hope' full visual artist, Bill Bradley and his wife Ernestine display one of my works in their home.

                  ok ok ... tootlin' my own horn a bit .. and so do Barack and Michelle.  

                  by abarefootboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:13 AM PDT

                  •  Hey,

                    that's worth talking about!

                    How about a diary on it.

                    by kpardue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM PDT

                    •   Thanks kpardue .. I will ponder on it

                      I've not done a diary but have thought to.    Not ever thought to write here on my work.

                      I will begin to delve into the 'how to ' here on diary craft.

                      If I do something I'll drop you a note.

                       

                      by abarefootboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:19:24 PM PDT

                      •  Please do.

                        I will be watching for it.

                        by kpardue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

                      •  Wow, sounds interesting....!

                          Please let me know also, if you write about your work.....  always very interested to hear about artists who actually turn a buck at their craft.

                          I've done some political cartoons here on this site.....  Just regular ol' pencil and paper.  Am thinking about really teaching myself to paint with oils.....  very daunting.....

                          Cheers,

                                   Dave.

                        by Dave the Rave on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM PDT

                •  A great choice

                  We have always held him in high regard.

                  by Heart of the Rockies on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM PDT

                •  Think of all those NBA fans Obama'd attract (nt)

                  by Apphouse50 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:28:04 AM PDT

          •  Nicely said n/t

            by Mother of Zeus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:23:21 AM PDT

          •  Carter wasn't a liberal

            Carter represented exactly the same centrist wing of the party that gave us Clinton.  He was not a would-be progressive.  He started deregulation, he appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed, he started the Reagan military build-up, etc.

            by jlkenney on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:00 AM PDT

            •  he put solar panel on the White House

              that Reagan took down. And if we listened to him we would not be having the energy crisis we are in now with oil going for over $104 dollars a barrel. So yes on some things I think Carter was progressive.

              by ronnied on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:37:38 AM PDT

              •  In a Reality Based Community

                Putting solar panels on buildings (and wearing sweaters) is a cost-effective strategy that reduces our dependency on foreign oil.  It is smart and fiscally responsible. It only seems progressive because the idiots on the other side are either:

                1. So in bed with Big Oil

                2. So pro-Status quo

                3. So in hate with Al Gore, or

                4. So stupid...

                As to not take it up as a bi-partisan issue.

                Carters energy policy by itself is not evidence that he is a progressive.

                by sydopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM PDT

                •  asdf

                  Carters energy policy by itself is not evidence that he is a progressive.

                  Unless... pragmatism is a progressive value.

                  It did prove that he was sane, and a pragmatist who was willing to actually look for solutions to problems rather than kick them down the road for another generation like the Reaganites did.

                  by Mad Kossack on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:58:25 AM PDT

                  •  Pragmatism is a progressive value.

                    Pragmatism for the sake of the country, including the poor and middle class and the environment, is most definitely a progressive value. Pragmatism in the name of big corporate profits and more power for the few at the expense of the poor and middle class and the environment is a conservative value.

                    Carter was conservative in many ways (deregulation, military buildup, etc.) but he was mostly progressive on energy issues and relatively progressive compared to other administrations in his focus on human rights in foreign policy.

                    by miasmo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:31:11 AM PDT

              •  And he kept the temp. turned down.

                Those were sweater years in the White House.

                by juca on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM PDT

            •  Exactly - Carter was the precursor to Clinton -

              bizarre that no one remembered in the 1990s that  Clinton's "third way" approach had already been tried by Carter and been very much a failure . .

              by alba on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:45:32 AM PDT

            •  Carter was a southern progressive

              Which northeastern liberals like Senator Ted Kennedy and Speaker of the House Tip O'neil could not understand.

              It does us no good to narrowly define "liberal" to mean only "Massachusetts liberal".

              by Ed in Montana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:05:32 AM PDT

              •  Well said

                Carter had a lot of Progressive Policies despite his industry deregulation, and in fact they put him well left-of-center.  Not a hard Progressive, but definitely a Liberal.

                The industry deregulation actually served a Populist purpose and Massachusetts Liberal Ted Kennedy started it under Gerald Ford's administration in order to lower costs to passengers, so you can't really claim that it was a conservative bill in context.

                by NotablyZen on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:26:57 AM PDT

                •  I no longer use hard and fast definitions

                  Of what is a liberal.

                  Our Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is a progressive populist, who happens to be against any form of gun control and is a promoter of "clean" coal technology. These views cause him to be called "not a real liberal" by many Montana lefties, ignoring his role in promoting wind power and solar power along with his other progressive initiatves.

                  Nobody's perfect it seems.

                  by Ed in Montana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:38:47 AM PDT

                  •  Nobody's perfect....

                    and "clean coal" is an oxymoron.

                    Too bad about Schweitzer.

                    Why do you think he's taken the position he has on coal?  It seems to me that solar and wind would be the two best energy generators for Montana.
                    
                    
                    `````
                    peace
                    
                    

                    by peace voter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:04 AM PDT

                    •  From what I have heard

                      From Schweitzer's aides, the Governor truly believes that the United States can be (is) held hostage to radical regimes in the Middle East, and that the only way we can break out of the situation is to develop "clean" coal as a bridge to more renewable energy technologies. Governor Schweitzer has worked in the middle east and understands energy technology, so I believe that he is not ignorantly blowing smoke on this issue, although I disagree with his clean coal stance.

                      by Ed in Montana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:51 PM PDT

                  •  Ed,

                    Would you please tell these pollyannas who and what Bill Bradley is?  Tell them how he was a strong supporter of the Reagan tax cuts and that he never liked Bill Clinton because even though Bradley was the Rhodes Scholar, Clinton ran circles around him.  Bradley always had a hard-on for the Clinton and Gore.  

                    These kids have no sense of history and if we don't tell them they will make some terrible mistakes.

                    by cpa1 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM PDT

                    •  True

                      Senator Bradley disliked both Bill Clinton and Al Gore intensely. But both Clinton and Gore achieved much more legislatively than Bradley ever did from his few terms in the Senate.

                      by Ed in Montana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM PDT

                •  A liberal in 1976 is not the same as the 2008

                  model.  No matter if he is a southern, northeastern, or midwestern.

                  Many of Nixon's policies today would be considered liberal.  We have gone so far to the right, that liberal does not have the same connotation or meaning as it did 40 years ago.  

                  by Do Tell on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:11:20 AM PDT

                •  There is no such thing as a Southern Liberal

                  Not an elected one, anyway. They do not survive that environment in Liberal form.

                  I would most definitely include LBJ in this non liberal tradition. His great society was a sham. You couldn't design a more fucked up system to better discredit the liberal idea.

                  by Asherd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM PDT

              •  opposite day?

                When the rabid RW media (from Rush to Wolf (what's with the goofy names anyway?)) refer to everything and everybody not in lockstep agreement with George Bush and Dick (again, that name thing) Cheney as a LIBRUL, it's a wonder anybody knows what the hell that epithet smear label means anymore.
                Politics insists on its labels, i guess, but reality has moved on. The climate crisis won't just go away if we elect somebody who ignores it. Neither will the problems in the Middle East, voter intimidation, or the drowning-in-debt economy. Ideology cannot provide answers to these challenges.

                by kamarvt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:45:58 AM PDT

              •  Amen to that!

                The word "progressive' has different shades of meaning in different parts of the country. There is very little way, for example, that a guy as liberal as Ted Kennedy could win a statewide race here in North Carolina. But a guy like Jimmy Carter certainly could.

                And Jimmy Carter advocated a national energy policy. Ronald Reagan and his henchmen did as much as they could to negate it. And we as a nation paid a dear price for that--and we're still paying that price. We're also paying the price for environmental de-regulation, corporatism over the rights of individuals, more government interference in our lives (which is, ironically, what Repubs have crowed about that they're against), and making the U.S. hated, not respected, around the world. Jimmy Carter also advocated a policy of respecting human rights as the forefront of his foreign policy. What did we get for that? Oh, just the Camp David Agreement. More Americans were kidnapped, hijacked and killed overseas under Reagan than under Jimmy Carter and his three predecessors combined.

                So yes, I consider Jimmy Carter a progressive. As was Clinton in some ways--though not in others. Expanding the National Parks System was one example; secret deals with industrial polluters who had made big-time contributions to his campaigns was not. Signing the Family and Medical Leave Act was one example; supporting NAFTA was not.

                Hillary is going to have to answer questions about her secrecy in several instances; if she doesn't, she'll prove to be no better than Dub & Company in that department. Thus proving her unqualified to answer that 3:00 a.m. phone call--from Day One.

                by GainesT1958 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:03:29 AM PDT

            •  Was appointing Volker such a bad idea?

              He was finally able to beat the 15-20% inflation coupled with extraordinarily sluggish growth.

              Granted, he did it by triggering the worst recession since the Great Depression but all in all I think you could make the argument that Volker helped to put the nation's economy on the trajectory that it would ride until Dubya came to office.

              Greenspan I won't argue about because he injected the Fed into politics in ways it never should have been.

              by ndhapple on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:16:19 AM PDT

              •  Inflation could have been beaten without...

                such a high cost to working folks.

                by jeroly on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:59:24 AM PDT

                •  That's an assertion.

                  Not an argument.

                  Make the case--I'd love to see it.

                  by ogre on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

            •  Carter the Liberal (in a Phil Ochsian Sense)

              Carter reinstated draft registration for young men.  

              Airline deregulation?  That happened under Carter.

              Carter was responsible for the Trident missile submarine program, the beginnings of the MX missile program and, in general, upping the nuclear arms race with the USSR several notches.  

              Carter and Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski were the geniuses who originally came up with the idea of arming Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight against the secular allies of the Soviet Union.  They also got the ball rolling on having the rest of the conservative Islamic world to intervene in Afghanistan.  Osama bin Laden is one of Carter's progeny.

              Carter's Defense Department, not Reagan's, was the one that began funding for the sponsors of death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala. Archbishop Romero was assassinated while Carter was president and El Salvador kept receiving military aid from the U.S.

              Carter listened to Henry Kissinger and let the former Shah of Iran come to the U.S. for cancer treatment, which precipitated the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis.

              Love him, love him, love him, Carter's a liberal

              by kaleidescope on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:03 AM PDT

              •  and all that's peanuts

                to our conservative President's achievements

                by Christian Coulon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:35:23 AM PDT

              •  He did one good thing though

                To his credit, Carter shut down the WIPP project in southern New Mexico.

                WIPP is the dump for plutonium contaminated nuclear weapons waste that was closed down by Carter - resurrected by Reagan and opened by Bills Clinton and Richardson.

                Solar power thrived in New Mexico during Carter's presidency.

                I'm not saying the man was perfect, but he did the right thing when he stopped WIPP.  Too bad Clinton & Richardson blew it - big time.
                
                
                `````
                peace
                
                

                by peace voter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

              •  Some good, Some bad

                In my wise old age I've come to accept, sadly, that I will never agree 100% with any president.  President Carter was no exception. So to balance out out your list I offer up his appointment of Sam Brown as Director of ACTION. Brown was one of the chief organizers of the Moratorium to End the War. I was working for ACTION at the time and we were thrilled (and flabbergasted) that "one of us" was running the agency.

                He also appointed Andrew Young as Ambassador to the UN.  Ambassador Young had been the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and was one of Dr. King's most staunchest allies and friends.  I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Africa at the time and he turned us in to rock stars.  People were so inspired that the US was actually putting human rights at the top of its agenda.

                Jimmy Carter perfect? No, of course not.  But he was, and still is, an intelligent, complicated, if flawed, leader.

                by sja on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM PDT

              •  Real ice ... just to hear the name Phil Ochs

                Aaaah .... those were the days when the word ' liberal' carried good juju.

                by abarefootboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM PDT

                •  jeesh ... I meant NICE ... not ice.

                  often .. my mind is slower then my fingers.

                  at 63 years of age .. oxidation is having it's way with me.

                  by abarefootboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:44:09 AM PDT

                •  Small circle of friends!

                  by mayan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:38 AM PDT

            •  Carter wasn't a liberal

              with regard to his Democratic opposition like Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, or Ted Kennedy.  Nor was he a liberal when compared to previous candidates like Gene McCarthy and George McGovern.

              But he governed progressively.  Any comparison to Reagan or even Clinton is a complete joke!

              Carter was ahead of his time with respect to alternative energy (not just solar panels @1600 but creating the Dept. of Energy to begin with), he was ahead of his time with respect to diplomacy (Panama Canal), he was ahead of his time with respect to acknowledging the same democracies (Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua) that US often performed coups on, he was ahead of his time in not allowing Israel to dictate our policy in the Middle East, while also pushing Sadat to recognize his neighbor.  He was ahead of his time in naming Andrew Young the first black US Ambassador to the UN, Hell, he was even ahead of his time on his views of decriminalizing marijuana.

              As far as a military build up, aside from Operation Eagle Claw, the failed attempt at rescuing our hostages, not a single bullet, not one, was fired by American troops in 4 years of the Carter Presidency!  

              While most former presidents spend their remaining days playing golf, Carter was also ahead of his time in embracing too many humanitarian causes to list in this one post.  

              Not a liberal?  I'd say at least the most liberal President we've seen since LBJ's Great Society, and maybe the most liberal one we've seen since FDR's New Deal.

              by BrooklynJohnny on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:45:31 AM PDT

              •  whatever may be said about his Presidency

                Jimmy Carter is hands-down the best former president we have seen since maybe Martin van Buren or John Quincy Adams.

                by Christopher Walker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:22:33 AM PDT

                •  I don't think anybody will ever beat Adams

                  But Carter is a better former President than Van Buren.

                  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM PDT

                  •  interesting historical diary idea

                    TBHP/Chris Walker, maybe one of you guys can write up a seperate Adams diary? I'm curious to know more about his post presidency.

                    Despite this being the party of Jefferson and Jackson, I know that if I was around back then, both JA and JQA would have gotten my votes instead.

                    Don't know much about Van Buren either.  Except that he's from my parts and that back in the day, George Costanza was a target of those crazy VB Boys!

                    by BrooklynJohnny on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM PDT

                    •  QA ran for Congress, won served for 25 years

                      And was the Congressional Leader of the radical abolitionists in Congress. From his House seat, he effected domestic and foreign policy.  

                      by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM PDT

                      •  very cool

                        thanks for the JQA info, gonna hafta look more into that!!!  I know his son (JA's grandson) was close to Lincoln, but future generations turned to the right.  Think the last Adams to be active in politics spent most of his time on his sail boat before being bumped to Sec of Navy by Cooledge.
                         
                        (Finally, the MVB boys got a Seinfeld episode, that's gotta count for something)

                        by BrooklynJohnny on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:56:22 AM PDT

                        •  Actually it was 19 years

                          He died in 1848, and entered the House in 1829.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                          (I know wikipedia, but the sources link at the bottom is always a good start).

                          Lincoln's two year term in Congress between 1847-1849 was also Adams' last term. I do not know how well they knew each other, if at all. They were of the same (whig) party.

                          by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:05:50 PM PDT

                          •  Lincoln/Adams

                            Thanks for the link, but I was referring to JQA's son, Charles Francis Adams. Like Lincoln he was a Whig/free soil type (abolishionist as well) who later became an early leader of the Republican party.  Served as Abe's "minister" (really an Ambassador but never officially confirmed by congress) to the UK during the Civil War.

                            by BrooklynJohnny on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM PDT

                            •  Minister

                              doesn't mean not confirmed by Congress.  C.F. Adams was confirmed by congress to be th e United States's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary (minister, in short) to Britain.

                              This was a full diplomatic representative, but at a lower level than an ambassador.  Basically, countries only send ambassadors to countries that send them ambassadors.  Right now, that's more or less everybody, but in the 19th century, only the European great powers, the Pope, and a few former great powers like Spain and the Ottoman Empire exchanged ambassadors.  Everyone else exchanged ministers.

                              The US started accrediting ambassadors only in the 1880s or 1890s.

                              by jlkenney on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:37:39 AM PDT

                              •  interesting

                                I thought Lincoln couldn't get CF Adams confirmed b/c CF Adams had some enemies in congress, so with the country at war, Abe just made him "minister" instead.  Thanks for the clear up.

                                (Good explanation of Carter's battles with his own more liberal, yet less "clean" Demo-dominated congress as well!)

                                by BrooklynJohnny on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:56:35 AM PDT