Skip to main content

Apple’s CEO; I’m Proud To Be Gay

Apple CEO Tim Cook: ‘I’m proud to be gay

Tim-cook

Apple CEO Tim Cook pictured in 2012. AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
Apple CEO Tim Cook has, for the first time, written publicly about his sexual orientation in an essay published in Businessweek on Thursday.

“I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me,” Cook writes.

In the essay, Cook says he has been open with many people about his sexual orientation for years, including Apple employees. “Plenty of colleagues at Apple know I’m gay, and it doesn’t seem to make a difference in the way they treat me.”

“Plenty of colleagues at Apple know I’m gay, and it doesn’t seem to make a difference in the way they treat me.”He adds that while he never denied his sexuality, he had not publicly acknowledged it either. Writing about his motivation to do so, the Apple boss cites Dr. Martin Luther King:

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’ I often challenge myself with that question, and I’ve come to realize that my desire for personal privacy has been holding me back from doing something more important.”

Earlier this week, Cook challenged his home state of Alabama, saying it was too slow to guarantee the rights of minorities during the civil rights era, and it is currently too slow to ensure the rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Cook has encouraged LGBT rights on a national stage as well.

In June, during a CNBC “Squawk on the Street” segment, co-anchor Simon Hobbs accidentally “outed” the CEO as being openly gay while asking columnist Jim Stewart: “I think Tim Cook is fairly open about the fact that he’s gay at the head of Apple isn’t he?”

Meet Hillary Clinton’s Bulldog

 2016 ELECTION

Meet Hillary Clinton’s Bulldog

david-brock-hillary-clinton
Stephen VossA onetime right-wing hit man, Brock has remade himself as Hillary Clinton’s fiercest defender.

Once a part of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ to destroy the Clintons, David Brock now savages the media from inside Hillaryland

We are sitting at one corner of his sprawling complex of offices, just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, where he employs 250 youthful activists to dig dirt on Republicans, plant stories in the press and punish pundits who step out of line. They work for groups with bland names that conceal their importance–Media Matters, Correct the Record, American Bridge, American Democracy Legal Fund, to name a few–on two floors that don’t look anything like a D.C. political office.

Think Cupertino startup meets Buddhist retreat meets the Jetsons, with bright molded-plastic furniture, exposed ceilings, colorful art, the occasional Japanese paper wall. Brock doesn’t look anything like a D.C. operative, either. At 53, he wears his silver hair long and pomaded behind his ears; he likes tailored shirts that fit too tight, pocket squares and skinny ties. When he drafted the office lease, he wrote in a clause for Toby, the pet schnoodle who accompanies him to work.

The question is simple and should be easy. When was the first time you saw Hillary Clinton after you defected from the conservative movement? He’s told the story before; it all happened more than a decade ago, for God’s sake. But his voice is halting. Then it cracks.

It was a Senate lunch in 2002, he says, just after he had published his third book, Blinded by the Right, a confession of all the rotten things he had ever done to liberals–from his “little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” slander of Anita Hill, who had accused then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, to his discovery of Paula Jones, which forged a trail to Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

In an ornamented room, he told the Democratic leaders about their right-wing enemy, talking for nearly an hour. Clinton, then a Senator, sat in the back, immobile, hard to see over all the balding heads and charcoal suits. “She didn’t say anything, so I was starting to wonder,” he says. “And her hand went up at the very end.” This is where he starts to lose it. “And … she just summarized everything I said. Better than I said it. And it was amazing.”

I ask if something is wrong, if he is really as emotional as he appears. “Yeah,” he says. “It was a big deal.”

Now Hillary Clinton is rising again, along with the scent of scandal and the frenzy of her enemies, and Brock has pledged to fight by her side. To understand his commitment, you must first understand the most bizarre entanglement in modern political history, which has turned Brock into one of the most powerful players in Democratic politics. Among other jobs, he currently coordinates message strategy with the Clinton campaign, leads her rapid-response super PAC, raises money and sits on the board of a separate “independent” super PAC that will pay millions for her TV ads, and has set up the group that creates all the federal Democratic opposition research for the 2016 campaigns.

In total, over a little more than a decade, he has personally raised more than $150 million from rich liberals to fund his sprawling empire, which also includes a group that files mostly spurious ethics complaints against Republicans and another that mercilessly attacks both Fox News and the New York Times. This is no small feat for a reformed liar who has never held political office. And to hear his defenders tell it, he has done it all with aplomb.

“Brilliant,” several of them tell me when I ask about Brock’s talents. “He’s like a minister,” says John Stocks, the chairman of the Democracy Alliance, an umbrella group for wealthy progressives. “He is like an artist in my mind,” explains Susie Tompkins Buell, a progressive activist, Clinton supporter and Brock’s first major donor.

But talent is not all Brock has. His relationship with Hillary Clinton is at the root of everything he has accomplished. Salvation came first to Brock, who in 1994 found himself suicidal, sitting in a running Range Rover in a closed garage in Laguna Beach, Calif., suffering for the lies he had peddled about Anita Hill. He stepped out of the car and into his next project, a takedown biography of Clinton, which had earned him a $1 million advance. But instead of writing what everyone expected, he wrote the truth as he saw it, a glowing tribute to a courageous woman. “In struggling to find Hillary’s humanity, I gradually found my own,” he explains in his latest book, Killing the Messenger, due on store shelves Sept. 15.

Salvation came to Clinton years later, after her husband’s affair with a 22-year-old White House intern became a national disgrace. As the furor grew, Brock, who remained a member of the conservative elite, became her eyes and ears, a secret agent feeding the White House real-time intelligence by way of Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal. Brock detailed it all, from the leaks coming from the independent prosecutor’s office to the secret sources of Internet bad boy Matt Drudge.

When Clinton went on NBC’s Today show in 1998 to warn the country of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” she was describing a picture Brock had painted. It was Hillary who kept a chaotic White House focused on its tormentors that year, and it was Brock who gave Hillary the ammunition. “Having knowledge restored a sense of normalcy,” Blumenthal would later write of Brock’s contribution to Hillary during those dark days.

Over time, both Bill and Hillary Clinton found they shared something else with Brock: an unnatural focus and fierceness. “What I appreciated from the right wing was you had to have political power before you could make the changes you wanted to make,” Brock explains now. “And I wasn’t afraid of that. There was a culture in the Democratic Party of weakness and nonresponse. I think some of what we did helped change that culture.”

Political knife fighting turns out to be far more complicated than the real thing. The best practitioners conceal not only the knife but also the fighter. They distort the truth without getting caught in a lie. Most important, they submerge their cutthroat instinct in a redemption story, a fight for justice and goodness, which allows people to believe in the cause–and in the need to shed more blood in its name.

Brock has such a story. Last year he traveled to the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., to make his case that the person he used to be still exists in the conservative firmament. The dark enemy would return. “I know from personal experience that the best efforts of the right wing to market political smut did not defeat the Clintons,” he said. “The truth won out in the end. And it will again.”

This time, he promised, the fight will not play out as it did before. If the New York Times stumbles in a Page One story on Hillary’s email scandal, Brock is there, penning a letter demanding an editorial “review” of the paper’s “flawed and fact-free reporting.” If Jeb Bush takes a dig at Hillary for failing to promptly turn over her emails to the government, Brock’s deputy asks the Florida state attorney to open a criminal investigation into Bush for his possibly “knowing and willful” violation of Florida public-records laws. If Trey Gowdy, the head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, asks for Clinton’s personal server, Brock counters with an open letter to Gowdy demanding the public release of “your own work-related and private email.”

Candidates have long sent kids to track their rivals with video cameras, hoping to capture a public slip-up. But Brock’s operation is the first to have a team of about 30 trackers live-stream the footage back to headquarters so that it can be more quickly cut and sent out to reporters. He has also begun to plot new ways to get his trackers more involved–in asking questions of Clinton’s rivals, perhaps even setting up dummy groups so they can buy their way into fundraising events.

Such undercover work, a trademark of conservative activists since the Nixon era, has lately been frowned on by liberals. “I am very aware of what the Democratic culture will tolerate,” Brock says. By this he means he continues to push for change, though he maintains that he will never return to peddling falsehoods. “If people understand what propaganda is,” he says, repeating a koan of his craft, “it ceases to have an effect over time.”

As time has passed, the Brock trophy case has grown. By creating bursts of outrage, he helped get Don Imus kicked off MSNBC, ended Lou Dobbs’ run at CNN, chased Fortune 500 advertisers away from Rush Limbaugh and organized a boycott of Glenn Beck’s Fox News show before its cancellation. A local Brock tracker was the first to uncover Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s bizarre comment about “legitimate rape” in 2012, and his opposition research helped ensure that Tea Party candidate Richard Mourdock won the Senate primary in Indiana, thus ensuring a Democratic pickup in the general election.

Chances are your views on Charles and David Koch, the biggest backers of conservative politics, have been shaped more by Brock’s research machine–which paints the brothers as greedy moneybags with selfish interests–than by their own multibillion-dollar operations. Before he entered the race, Jeb Bush was tripped up on camera over a question on his support for the Paycheck Fairness Act, a Democratic effort to increase wages for women. Brock’s people not only recorded the exchange, they also planted the question. Back in 2010, he even wrote a secret memo proposing the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas, a radical idea that Blumenthal forwarded to Clinton. “After the ’13 and ’14 cycle we went back and we measured the TV coverage of any piece of research that was original to us,” Brock says. “And we monetized it as if you went out and bought it as advertising. It was over $225 million in publicity, and we spent $15 million to produce it.”

Ask Brock where it ends–this constant innovation, the institutional expansion–and he gives an ice-cold answer. “The only place it can end is with the defeat of the extreme elements of the Republican Party,” he says. “A third of the Republican base thinks Obama is the Antichrist. You just can’t reason with them.” This is the language of zealots who welcome peace talks only after the total surrender of their rivals. I point out that most liberals would not talk like that. “Probably not,” he agrees.

Last January, some Democratic opponents of Brock attempted a sort of palace coup. They didn’t like his growing power, didn’t like his fundraising methods–his business partner earns a commission on nonprofit donations, an unusual practice–and they wanted to maintain the Obama hold on the party’s richest donors. A disparaging story appeared in the New York Times, detailing the complaints, and Brock abruptly quit the board of Priorities USA, the Clinton advertising effort, threatening a rift in the high-dollar Democratic-donor community. “This is the kind of dirty trick I’ve witnessed in the right wing and would not tolerate then,” Brock wrote in his resignation letter.

Within weeks, Hillary Clinton’s allies stepped in, and Brock won back what he wanted, almost completely. Obama insiders were dispatched and demoted, a Clinton confidant was put in charge of the organization, and Brock was invited back to the board, with the promise of a joint fundraising plan he had long proposed. In the coming months, even as he advises the campaign, he plans to raise millions for a joint fund, which will split its money with the pro-Clinton group he founded. Not much has been raised yet, but hopes are high. “I think we came up with 800 donors who could give $1 million or more,” he says. “That doesn’t mean they will. But they could. So that’s not a terrible number.”

As for the current scandals swirling around Hillary, he refuses to give an inch. On the private email server: “I don’t feel any criticism is due.” On the Clinton Foundation’s raising money from people Bill Clinton helped through public appearances overseas: “The attacks on the foundation are almost the most despicable because of all the good work the foundation does.” Any reason for concern over the creation of a private consulting firm, Teneo, that employed Hillary Clinton’s State Department aides while aiding Clinton Foundation donors? “No. I haven’t seen anything,” he says.

This is David Brock. When he thinks of Hillary, he doesn’t think about an awkward politician with a mechanical laugh who has lost as many public battles as she has won. He thinks of the “deep well of personal integrity” he wrote about in his 1996 book. He thinks about the time she invited him to the Clinton summer rental in Sagaponack, N.Y., when her whole family was there, the siblings, spouses, kids and dogs. He thinks about eating pizza and sipping soft drinks by the pool, then looking up after a couple of hours to see the Secretary of State walking around the yard with a trash bag, picking up garbage. “Just like something my mom would do,” he recalls.

Does that sound like propaganda to you? You could call it that. Or you could call it politics. But for David Brock it is also the truth, a lodestar for the person he has become.

Apple CEO opens up on why he decided to come out as gay

tim-cookTim Cook’s decision to reveal his sexuality to the world nearly a year ago did not come easy.

During an interview Tuesday with Stephen Colbert on CBS’ The Late Show, Apple’s CEO explained that he had long valued his privacy, but increasingly recognized the struggles of children being discriminated and bulled and felt an obligation to help change this by telling the world that the top executive of the world’s most valuable company is gay.

“It became so clear to me kids were getting bullied in school, kids were getting basically discriminated against, kids were even being disclaimed by their own parents — and I needed to do something,” Cook said in his candid remarks. “Where I valued my privacy significantly, I felt that I was valuing it too far above what I could do for other people. And so I wanted to tell everyone my truth.”

“I felt a tremendous responsibility to do it,” he added.

The original news marked a pivotal moment for the business world. Cook was and remains the only openly gay current CEO among the Fortune 500 companies. But it was not really a secret among many at Apple.

“Many people already knew, and so [for] many people it was no revelation,” he said, before throwing in a very on-brand quip: “It’s like discovering something on your iPhone it’s always done, but you didn’t quite know it. It wasn’t a revelation to a lot of people that I worked with, but it maybe was to the broader world.”

On the show, Cook talked about the rumors of Apple building self-driving cars (“I’ve read that!”), explained the new 3D Touch features on the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus and expressed frustration over the many movies about his former boss and friend, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.

“I haven’t seen them, but the Steve I knew was an amazing human being. He’s someone that you wanted to do your best for…. And I love him dearly. I miss him every day,” Cook said. “I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic, and I hate this. It’s not a great part of our world.”

Cook is third big technology executive that Colbert has had on his new show in just one week. Travis Kalanick, the CEO of ride-hailing service Uber, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, appeared on the show last week.

David Brock penned memo on impeaching Clarence Thomas

Justices Thomas And Breyer Testify On U.S. Supreme Court FY2011 Budget

 

An email sent in October 2010 by Sid Blumenthal, a close confidant of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, shared a memo from David Brock in which Brock broached the subject of impeaching Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The email, shared by Blumenthal with the subject line “H: Brock memo here, have many more ideas on this. S,” laid out a summary of interviews published that week in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Washington’s ABC affiliate, WJLA, with Lillian McEwen, a former prosecutor, law professor and judge, who said she was romantically involved with Thomas during the time of the Anita Hill scandal.

McEwen was not subpoenaed to testify by Democrats or Republicans during the infamous October 1991 hearing, even after appealing to then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, for whom she had worked on the Judiciary Committee. According to Maureen Dowd’s column cited from Oct. 23, 2010, Biden only allowed women who had professional relationships with Thomas to testify.

The memo, titled “Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas,” cited the Times article in which McEwen called pornography for Thomas “just a part of his personality structure” and that he frequented a Washington store “that catered to his needs” and allegedly bled over into his personal relationships. The assertions stood in contrast with Thomas’ sworn testimony in 1991 in which he denied having any sexual discussions with Hill.

The memo also detailed differences between McEwen’s 2010 accounts and Thomas’ testimony in terms of workplace behavior, including incidents in which Thomas remarked on the size of a woman’s breasts or her bra size, as well as making the case for suppression of evidence and intimidating witnesses.

“A fourth woman with knowledge of Thomas’s behavior, Kaye Savage, was first named in a 1994 book, “Strange Justice,” by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson. Savage was a close colleague of Thomas’ and Hill’s in the Reagan administration. Savage was interviewed by Judiciary Committee staff after she contacted the committee, and a staffer made notes, but she was never called to testify. Her story was not made public until Mayer and Abramson obtained the staff notes and interviewed Savage, who told the authors of visiting Thomas’ apartment during the time Hill was working for Thomas and observing stacks of pornographic magazines and all of the walls of the apartment papered with centerfolds of large-breasted nude women,” Brock wrote.

Brock, who as a journalist in the 1990s wrote the book, “The Real Anita Hill,” casting doubt on the former nominee’s assistant, said in 2001 that he lied in print in that book in part to protect Thomas’ reputation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-thomas-213205#ixzz3lvBF7a6H

 

Popcorn Policy

Popcorn Policy

It’s hard to quantify the real impact of a film. But here are small changes wrought by five recent movies
Super Size Me 2004Morgan Spurlock eats only McDonald’s for 30 days, gets tummy ache, earns $11.5 mil

OUTCOME: McDonald’s changes menu, adding salads and ending supersizing, but says that was planned before the film premiered

Blood Diamond 2006

Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou and a diamonds-and-war story make $57 mil

OUTCOME: The diamond industry launches a p.r. blitz to educate consumers about conflict-free diamonds; stone sales are unaffected

An Inconvenient Truth 2006

Al Gore’s global-warming slide show hits theaters, snags $24 mil, Nobel and Oscar

OUTCOME: Schools show the film, emissions rules tighten in California, but the U.S. remains a Kyoto treaty holdout

Sicko 2007

Michael Moore’s exposé on the U.S. health-care crisis makes $24.5 mil

OUTCOME: An HMO changes its hospital-discharge rules, and universal health care is a key issue in the Democratic primaries

The Kite Runner 2007

The story of childhood friends in Kabul tries to put human face on Afghanistan; earns $15 mil

OUTCOME: Not seen by many, but 70 rural libraries are built and 500 laptops distributed with money raised from audiences

~~~~~~~~By Rebecca Winters Keegan

With Reporting by Lina Lofaro and Amy Lennard Goehner

Time 3/17/2008, Vol. 171 Issue 11, p60-61. 2p. 5 Color Photographs.

Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America is a web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation – news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda – every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

http://mediamatters.org/about

Rosy Words for Clinton by ’90s Nemesis

3/31/2008 | The New York Times

To Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife qualifies as a charter member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” having bankrolled an elaborate multimillion-dollar campaign throughout the 1990s to unearth damaging information about the couple.

But in a striking about-face, Mr. Scaife now says he has changed his mind — at least about one half of the duo.

“I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today,” he wrote in an opinion article published Sunday, amid her campaign for president. “And it’s a very favorable one indeed.”

His sudden conversion from fervid Clinton basher to lukewarm Clinton fan occurred after Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York, sat down for a 90-minute interview with reporters and editors of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a newspaper owned by Mr. Scaife, the billionaire heir to the Mellon banking fortune.

Pennsylvania will hold its Democratic primary on April 22, and the Tribune-Review, the second-largest daily newspaper in Pittsburgh, has yet to endorse a candidate. Given Mr. Scaife’s record, Mrs. Clinton could not have expected a rosy reception.

But Mr. Scaife, who attended the meeting, wrote in The Tribune-Review that the senator “exhibited an impressive command of many of today’s most pressing domestic and international issues.” Her answers, he added, “were thoughtful, well-stated and often dead on.”

His compliments left some Clinton aides and allies stunned. “I never thought I would utter these words, but I would like to shake his hands for keeping his mind open despite the predisposed prejudice toward her,” said Lanny Davis, a longtime Clinton supporter who served as President Clinton’s lawyer during the late 1990s.

At the height of his anti-Clinton days, Mr. Scaife donated $1.8 million to The American Spectator magazine for what became known as the “Arkansas Project” — an unflattering excavation of the Clintons’ personal lives in Arkansas.

His objective was to publicize, if not eventually validate, accusations about the supposed involvement of the Clintons in corrupt land deals and Mr. Clinton’s extramarital affairs, among other things.

But once Mrs. Clinton began running for president, Mr. Scaife — and his thick checkbook — remained on the sidelines, surprising many who predicted he would leap at the chance to dredge up new, potentially scandalous information about her.

That apparent indifference seems to have morphed into tepid enthusiasm for her.

During the meeting at The Tribune-Review, Mr. Scaife said in his article, he found common ground with Mrs. Clinton on the need to pull troops out of Iraq; on the bumbling federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina; and on the “increasing instability in Pakistan and South America.”

Aides to Mrs. Clinton said they had not known what to expect from the March 24 meeting with Mr. Scaife and the staff of his newspaper. But sitting next to Mr. Scaife, Mrs. Clinton quickly broke the ice, remarking that she had agreed to the meeting because “it was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do.” The line drew laughter from those in the room.

There is, of course, a healthy dose of skepticism over Mr. Scaife’s motives. Some wonder if he is rooting for the candidate whom some Republicans view as easier to defeat in the general election.

“I wouldn’t trust Scaife’s motives in this,” said Robert M. Shrum, a longtime Democratic consultant who is not aligned with any campaign this year.

Mr. Scaife could not be reached for comment Sunday. Asked about Mr. Scaife’s article, Kathleen Strand, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, said, “As she showed in New York and as a senator, Hillary Clinton is in the solutions business and has demonstrated the ability to bridge old divides and get things done. Winning over Mr. Scaife is just another example.”

Mr. Scaife wrote that he was not ready to endorse Mrs. Clinton over Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in the Pennsylvania primary. Mr. Obama, he noted, has yet to meet with the Tribune-Review staff.

Word of the meeting came as the Clinton campaign continued to insist that the senator would stay in the race, despite Mr. Obama’s lead in delegates. On Sunday, one of her top backers, Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, said he would “love” to see Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on a ticket together.

Michael Cooper contributed reporting.

Hillary, Reassessed

Richard M. Scaife

Sunday, March 30, 2008 | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

 

Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper’s editors and reporters and declared, “It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do.”

The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.

More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America’s next president.

More than most modern political figures, Sen. Clinton has been criticized regularly, often harshly, by the Trib. We disagreed with many of her policies and her actions in the past. We still disagree with some of her proposals.

The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores.

Reading that, a lesser politician — one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions — might well have canceled the interview right then and there.

Sen. Clinton came to the Trib anyway and, for 90 minutes, answered questions.

Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.

Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.

Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today’s most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.

Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation’s security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America.

Like me, she believes we must pull our troops out of Iraq, because it is time for Iraqis to handle their own destiny — and, more important, because it is past time to end the toll on our soldiers there, to begin rebuilding our military, and to refocus our attention on other threats, starting with Afghanistan.

On domestic policy, Sen. Clinton and I might find more areas on which we disagree. Yet we also agree on others. Asked about the utter failure of federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans since the Katrina disaster, for example, she called it just what it has been — “not just a national disgrace (but) an international embarrassment.”

Does all this mean I’m ready to come out and recommend that our Democrat readers choose Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary?

No — not yet, anyway. In fairness, we at the Trib want to hear Sen. Barack Obama’s answers to some of the same questions and to others before we make that decision.

But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday’s meeting — and it’s a very favorable one indeed.

Call it a “counterintuitive” impression.

Richard M. Scaife is the owner of the Tribune-Review.

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_559659.html#axzz2thMXYnYj