Clinton Compares Obama to a Blank Screen
February 28, 2008 8:15 PMTahman Bradley-->
ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: In an interview with ABC's Cynthia McFadden, Sen. Hillary Clinton, when asked about the Barack Obama phenomenon, used a quote from Obama to describe her opponent. "I think the best description actually is in Barack's own book" Clinton said, "where he said that he is a blank screen and people of widely different views project what they want to hear." Clinton continued saying "he just hasn’t been around long enough." Clinton continued saying "But with the blank screen it gives you a chance to just really infuse it with whatever you hope for, whatever you want without knowing."
You can watch the entire interview on ABC's "Nightline" airing tonight at 11:35 pm ET.
Clinton was asked her reaction to the many women around this country who say they feel sorry for her. "I think a lot of woman project their own feelings in their lives on to me." Clinton stressed that it is a hard what she is doing but she gets up every day and thinks about what she is going to do – not dwelling on past mistakes, or what will happen if she loses Texas or Ohio.
When asked if Clinton was surprised by the outcome of how the race has shaped up, Clinton said she wasn’t but "he might be, because I think that he believed that he could, once he won Iowa, wrap it up. Then I won New Hampshire" Clinton said. When pressed on how she ever hated being treated as the front runner – Clinton complained that nothing has changed. "I’m still being treated like that – in terms of people coming after me."
Clinton says that she doesn’t listen to the pundits or the commentary about the race. "Everywhere I go people say ‘Don’t give up, don’t give up, stay with this.’" Clinton said, "There is something going on here."
_______________________________________
Meanwhile Obama is still saying nothing,words Yes
On Supporters’ "Infatuation": Obama says he can Relate to Media Skepticism
February 29, 2008 6:29 AMMichael Elmore-->
ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illi., told a crowd of 12,000 in Dallas/Ft. Worth that it’s him that is infatuated – with them.
Obama was addressing criticisms that his campaign caused people to flock to him to a delusional way.
"This isn’t about me. This is about you," Obama preached, "I'm just the excuse for what you are accomplishing, for what you are making happen all across this country. See, I am inspired by you, I'm infatuated with you!"
Obama said that the media is suspicious of his supporters' enthusiasm, offering that up as an explanation to the criticism of his supporters' reactions. He then flipped it around and offered up his own criticisms of the press, singling the out the 4th estate at the three specific times in his stump speech – two times addressing the concerns of how he can excite a crowd.
"Reporters don't know what to do. They have been shocked at the high turnout in every early states," Obama said, and later, "A lot of reporters don’t really understand what y'all are doing…"
The crowd reacted viscerally to the flipped tables, in agreement with Obama – who confirmed he knew that feeling, "So in the same way people are skeptical about you, they are skeptical about me," Obama complained, sighting how his credentials have been questioned based on years in Washington.
Obama's lines of critique of the press, comes at a time where the press are being critiqued for their coverage of him, even mentione
_______________________________________
I am completely baffled by the press they should be ripping Obama apart for his lack of experience lack of accomplishments as either Legislator of Senator and yet they don't ;ay a glove on him. Please someone explain to me in words that I can understand why this guy deserves to be elected to the presidency. He has no record to look at. In November of his first year( and only year where he showed up to vote), he put together a commitee to run for the presidency some guts I will say that.If elected and the novelty of a black in the office will he have the guts to make the TOUGH decisions? His voting record shows he mostly ducks the tough questions where he will have to make a stand.Obama will have only maybe one third of the country behind him,not the Hillary supporters and not the republicans nor the good ole boys from the south and the just plain ole "nigger haters", the last group will probably try and kill him!
Hillary is tough,smart dedicated to her country not like Mrs Obama who says she is only now proud of her country. What she hated us the rest in her past forty years or so.
I don't pray much but I am now the the people will come to their collective senses and give Hillary an over whelming victory in Texas,Ohio and Pennslyvann
_______________________________________
WHAT A WASTE AND BUSH/CHENEY WON'T BE PUNISHED FOR THIER MADNESS
Out of sight, out of mind
By: Attaturk Friday February 29, 2008 2:03 am
Of all the terrible and shallow performances of the American media in regard to Iraq, with perhaps the exception of the early cheerleading days, no topic has been more poorly covered than the war's financial cost. After nearly five years, I have still rarely seen a White House Press reporter not named Helen Thomas even broach the subject.
And yet, while the reports in general about Iraq diminish and the topic becomes less important to the public the expense becomes ever greater, up to $15 billion a month.
When McCain starts saying Obama or Clinton wants the wave the white flag, it's not only preposterous strategically, even if it were true we could not afford the white flags.
When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.
Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion...
The book, co-authored with Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, builds on previous research that was published in January 2006. The two argued then and now that the cost to America of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is wildly underestimated.
When other factors are added — such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans — they think that the wars' costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion.
"I think we really have learned that the long-term costs of taking care of the wounded and injured in this war and the long-term costs of rebuilding the military to its previous strength is going to far eclipse the cost of waging this war," Bilmes said in an interview.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Race Advantage
Media has shameful double standard on coverage of Hillary Clinton
Thomas V. DiBacco Special To The Sentinel
February 26, 2008
It's shameful that the media over the past several months has not leveled the playing field in covering Hillary Clinton's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton's every misstep has been highlighted, from staffing to campaign budgeting, and even when she has performed better than her opponent, Barack Obama, the thumbs-up from commentators goes to Obama.One example: the final debate before the Super Tuesday elections. By any reasonable yardstick, Clinton was the more articulate and knowledgeable about issues and legislation, some of which she had a hand in crafting during her seven years in the U.S. Senate. Yet pundits, with few exceptions, singled out Obama's performance because Obama hammered his opponent's voting in support of the Iraq war, no matter that he had the luxury at that time of not being a member of Congress.
To be fair, my disclosures: I'm a Republican, and the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter in 1976. For more than 28 years in the nation's capital, I served as a debate and election-night commentator for local TV and radio stations. I was not a fan of President Bill Clinton, although as a media analyst at his first inaugural, I was favorably impressed with his speech, as illustrated by my commentary for the Orlando Sentinel of Jan. 21, 1993. Throughout Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House, I was critical of many of his actions, most notably his reprehensible conduct with a young intern that led to his impeachment trial. I didn't give much thought to Hillary because she was the other half of Bill, often having to defend him.
All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.
All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.Even his 70 percent vote margin in his 2004 U. S. Senate bid cries for a downgrade. He defeated a GOP nobody, perennial candidate for public office, Alan Keyes, who took over the candidacy after the real winner of the primary stepped aside as a result of a sex scandal.Obama's speaking ability is exceptional only if the denominator of expectation is low. Shouting is scarcely an oratorical plus, nor are the "ands" and "uhs" that punctuate Obama's often rambling extemporaneous remarks.Nor do campaign stops provide concise specifics about his proposals, more akin as they are to celebrity, touchy-feely, anything-I-say-is-OK performances. His safe-harbor, oratorical retreat ("and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America") is overused and overvalued. As for Obama's lifting sentences from other speakers, at a minimum that illustrates laziness.Comedian Chris Rock was right when he noted during a performance at Madison Square Garden last year that African-American comedians can criticize whites all they want, but the reverse is not tolerated. And that regrettable tendency has been applied to the presidential race.Bill Clinton's criticism of Obama is a classic case in point. Not only did the former president have every right as a husband and obvious adviser to dig into Obama's record (the media surely wasn't doing that investigative job), but he was roundly denounced for raising the "race" issue. No matter that the 42nd president was the strongest advocate for African-Americans of any chief executive in recent history.Having tippytoed in terms of criticism of Obama because of his race, the media have lost sight of the special quality of women that makes Hillary Clinton what she is. Women are the nation's caregivers -- from childhood that nurturing trait has been stressed. And Hillary Clinton's passionate pursuit of universal health care is in the best tradition of that quality, as illustrated by her poignant remarks near the close of last Thursday's debate:"The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. . . . I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted."Shame on the media. In terms of grace, proposed programs, energy and enthusiasm, knowledge and abilities, and executive demeanor, Hillary Clinton can hold her own among any of the candidates in both parties -- and she does so in high heels.
Thomas V. DiBacco is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, D.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
_______________________________________
I Was Too Busy Running for President -Updated-
by Fleaflicker, Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
In last night's debate Hillary mentioned that Obama was Chair of the subcommittee that has oversight over NATO. And that while Chair of that Subcommittee Senator Obama held not a single substantial meeting. Not one. When confronted with this Obama's excuse was that he had only been Chair since 2007 and he has been busy running for President since then. Hmmm... we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Senator Obama is too busy running for President to hold a single meeting? Did I miss something? Surely I need a hearing aid. He didn't just state that the reason he hasn't held a single meeting of oversight was because he was too busy out raising money and running for President.
Say it ain't so O!
While searching through the web I have read some of Obama's supporters come to his defense with the typical bait and switch. "Well Hillary hasn't done anything while she has been running for President." Oh really? What about The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act? Just what has Carl Levin said about Hillary's legislative accomplishments?
Noting Senator Clinton's leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.
And somehow Hillary managed to do this in 2007 when Obama was too busy running for President to spend any time holding oversight meetings of NATO while our young women and men were being killed in Afghanistan. Too busy!
_______________________________________
The Slant Against Hillary
Stephen Schlesinger
What was astonishing about last night's debate was that the very bias which the Clinton campaign has frequently complained about against her candidacy and in favor of Obama's campaign was once again plainly and unashamedly in evidence. It was embodied in the way Tim Russert, an angry scowl on his face, honed in on Hillary Clinton on the NAFTA issue -- and kept bullying her after every answer she gave. In contrast, he kept his fury in check when addressing Obama about the same issue. The only time he really focused some ire on Obama was over the Farrakhan issue
Russert raised the idea of Obama rejecting Farrakhan rather than simply denouncing him but then never pursued it when Obama deflected the question with a non-answer. Finally it was Hillary Clinton who got Obama to agree to reject Farrakhan rather than simply denounce him. Next time Mr. Russert should watch Saturday Night Live on his own NBC network to find out what NBC's own highly regarded show thinks about the continuing bias against Hillary.
_______________________________________
Even Paranoid People Have Real Enemies
Gina Nahai
I'm not one of those women who see a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner. And I understand that Hillary has baggage, while Obama doesn't (never mind that's because he hasn't been around long enough or done much). I realize that he's taller, younger, more charming than she, and that the American people tend to vote for the taller, younger, more charming candidates. I'll confess readily to being a Hillary supporter -- because she's smart, and tough, and the most qualified of the two; because to get to where she is, she's had to be at least twice as smart and tough and dedicated as any man. But I can't believe anyone could watch last night's debate and not come away with the conclusion that the Hillary camp is right when they say that the press goes out of its way to give her a hard time, and again goes out of its way to give Obama a free pas
Just one example, and then we can move on: that NAFTA question. The aggressive manner in which Tim Russert kept interrupting Hillary as she tried to say that she would renegotiate NAFTA instead of opt out of it. Then the same question is posed to Obama, and he gives the same answer -- to a word -- with only one gentle interruption.
OK, one more: all the "this is what Hillary has said about you, how would you respond?" questions. Was this a debate, or a "let's give Obama free air-time to answer the attack ads"?
And let me tell you, I do think she's getting this treatment because she's a woman. I don't believe Russert would give himself permission to use that tone of voice with a male candidate, or to interrupt him as many times.
And I also think the reason many Democrats have gone over to Obama's side is because he's not a woman. His positions on major policy issues are very much like Hillary's. He has less experience and an obnoxious wife (remember Theresa Heinz Kerry?). And yet people (men and women -- this is the sad part) say they're voting for him because he has more charisma, or because they "just don't like" Hillary, or he's more electable. I think much of that "charisma" is in fact Obama's "maleness". Or, rather, Hillary's femaleness.
So what? You say. What's wrong with electing someone with charisma -- no matter what the source of it? So what that the press and the media happen to like Obama more than they like Hillary, and therefore give her a harder time?
So Republicans voted for GW, in spite of his lack of experience, because he was more likable. Look where that got us.
And the press gave GW a free pass for an eternity because they were either trying to curry favor with him so they wouldn't be locked out of the White House press room, or they found his jokes funny and were amused by the nicknames he had for each of them. Look where that got the press -- and us.
All you Obama-voting Democrats out there who think you're smarter than the Republicans who voted for Bush or gave him a free pass, take heed.
The truth is, I don't know if Obama can beat McCain, or what kind of president he would be if he were elected president. I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment: behind countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Liberia where the electorate has been enlightened enough to choose the more qualified candidate -- even if she is a woman.
Thomas V. DiBacco Special To The Sentinel
February 26, 2008
It's shameful that the media over the past several months has not leveled the playing field in covering Hillary Clinton's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton's every misstep has been highlighted, from staffing to campaign budgeting, and even when she has performed better than her opponent, Barack Obama, the thumbs-up from commentators goes to Obama.One example: the final debate before the Super Tuesday elections. By any reasonable yardstick, Clinton was the more articulate and knowledgeable about issues and legislation, some of which she had a hand in crafting during her seven years in the U.S. Senate. Yet pundits, with few exceptions, singled out Obama's performance because Obama hammered his opponent's voting in support of the Iraq war, no matter that he had the luxury at that time of not being a member of Congress.
To be fair, my disclosures: I'm a Republican, and the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter in 1976. For more than 28 years in the nation's capital, I served as a debate and election-night commentator for local TV and radio stations. I was not a fan of President Bill Clinton, although as a media analyst at his first inaugural, I was favorably impressed with his speech, as illustrated by my commentary for the Orlando Sentinel of Jan. 21, 1993. Throughout Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House, I was critical of many of his actions, most notably his reprehensible conduct with a young intern that led to his impeachment trial. I didn't give much thought to Hillary because she was the other half of Bill, often having to defend him.
All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.
All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.Even his 70 percent vote margin in his 2004 U. S. Senate bid cries for a downgrade. He defeated a GOP nobody, perennial candidate for public office, Alan Keyes, who took over the candidacy after the real winner of the primary stepped aside as a result of a sex scandal.Obama's speaking ability is exceptional only if the denominator of expectation is low. Shouting is scarcely an oratorical plus, nor are the "ands" and "uhs" that punctuate Obama's often rambling extemporaneous remarks.Nor do campaign stops provide concise specifics about his proposals, more akin as they are to celebrity, touchy-feely, anything-I-say-is-OK performances. His safe-harbor, oratorical retreat ("and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America") is overused and overvalued. As for Obama's lifting sentences from other speakers, at a minimum that illustrates laziness.Comedian Chris Rock was right when he noted during a performance at Madison Square Garden last year that African-American comedians can criticize whites all they want, but the reverse is not tolerated. And that regrettable tendency has been applied to the presidential race.Bill Clinton's criticism of Obama is a classic case in point. Not only did the former president have every right as a husband and obvious adviser to dig into Obama's record (the media surely wasn't doing that investigative job), but he was roundly denounced for raising the "race" issue. No matter that the 42nd president was the strongest advocate for African-Americans of any chief executive in recent history.Having tippytoed in terms of criticism of Obama because of his race, the media have lost sight of the special quality of women that makes Hillary Clinton what she is. Women are the nation's caregivers -- from childhood that nurturing trait has been stressed. And Hillary Clinton's passionate pursuit of universal health care is in the best tradition of that quality, as illustrated by her poignant remarks near the close of last Thursday's debate:"The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. . . . I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted."Shame on the media. In terms of grace, proposed programs, energy and enthusiasm, knowledge and abilities, and executive demeanor, Hillary Clinton can hold her own among any of the candidates in both parties -- and she does so in high heels.
Thomas V. DiBacco is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, D.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
_______________________________________
I Was Too Busy Running for President -Updated-
by Fleaflicker, Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
In last night's debate Hillary mentioned that Obama was Chair of the subcommittee that has oversight over NATO. And that while Chair of that Subcommittee Senator Obama held not a single substantial meeting. Not one. When confronted with this Obama's excuse was that he had only been Chair since 2007 and he has been busy running for President since then. Hmmm... we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Senator Obama is too busy running for President to hold a single meeting? Did I miss something? Surely I need a hearing aid. He didn't just state that the reason he hasn't held a single meeting of oversight was because he was too busy out raising money and running for President.
Say it ain't so O!
While searching through the web I have read some of Obama's supporters come to his defense with the typical bait and switch. "Well Hillary hasn't done anything while she has been running for President." Oh really? What about The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act? Just what has Carl Levin said about Hillary's legislative accomplishments?
Noting Senator Clinton's leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.
And somehow Hillary managed to do this in 2007 when Obama was too busy running for President to spend any time holding oversight meetings of NATO while our young women and men were being killed in Afghanistan. Too busy!
_______________________________________
The Slant Against Hillary
Stephen Schlesinger
What was astonishing about last night's debate was that the very bias which the Clinton campaign has frequently complained about against her candidacy and in favor of Obama's campaign was once again plainly and unashamedly in evidence. It was embodied in the way Tim Russert, an angry scowl on his face, honed in on Hillary Clinton on the NAFTA issue -- and kept bullying her after every answer she gave. In contrast, he kept his fury in check when addressing Obama about the same issue. The only time he really focused some ire on Obama was over the Farrakhan issue
Russert raised the idea of Obama rejecting Farrakhan rather than simply denouncing him but then never pursued it when Obama deflected the question with a non-answer. Finally it was Hillary Clinton who got Obama to agree to reject Farrakhan rather than simply denounce him. Next time Mr. Russert should watch Saturday Night Live on his own NBC network to find out what NBC's own highly regarded show thinks about the continuing bias against Hillary.
_______________________________________
Even Paranoid People Have Real Enemies
Gina Nahai
I'm not one of those women who see a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner. And I understand that Hillary has baggage, while Obama doesn't (never mind that's because he hasn't been around long enough or done much). I realize that he's taller, younger, more charming than she, and that the American people tend to vote for the taller, younger, more charming candidates. I'll confess readily to being a Hillary supporter -- because she's smart, and tough, and the most qualified of the two; because to get to where she is, she's had to be at least twice as smart and tough and dedicated as any man. But I can't believe anyone could watch last night's debate and not come away with the conclusion that the Hillary camp is right when they say that the press goes out of its way to give her a hard time, and again goes out of its way to give Obama a free pas
Just one example, and then we can move on: that NAFTA question. The aggressive manner in which Tim Russert kept interrupting Hillary as she tried to say that she would renegotiate NAFTA instead of opt out of it. Then the same question is posed to Obama, and he gives the same answer -- to a word -- with only one gentle interruption.
OK, one more: all the "this is what Hillary has said about you, how would you respond?" questions. Was this a debate, or a "let's give Obama free air-time to answer the attack ads"?
And let me tell you, I do think she's getting this treatment because she's a woman. I don't believe Russert would give himself permission to use that tone of voice with a male candidate, or to interrupt him as many times.
And I also think the reason many Democrats have gone over to Obama's side is because he's not a woman. His positions on major policy issues are very much like Hillary's. He has less experience and an obnoxious wife (remember Theresa Heinz Kerry?). And yet people (men and women -- this is the sad part) say they're voting for him because he has more charisma, or because they "just don't like" Hillary, or he's more electable. I think much of that "charisma" is in fact Obama's "maleness". Or, rather, Hillary's femaleness.
So what? You say. What's wrong with electing someone with charisma -- no matter what the source of it? So what that the press and the media happen to like Obama more than they like Hillary, and therefore give her a harder time?
So Republicans voted for GW, in spite of his lack of experience, because he was more likable. Look where that got us.
And the press gave GW a free pass for an eternity because they were either trying to curry favor with him so they wouldn't be locked out of the White House press room, or they found his jokes funny and were amused by the nicknames he had for each of them. Look where that got the press -- and us.
All you Obama-voting Democrats out there who think you're smarter than the Republicans who voted for Bush or gave him a free pass, take heed.
The truth is, I don't know if Obama can beat McCain, or what kind of president he would be if he were elected president. I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment: behind countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Liberia where the electorate has been enlightened enough to choose the more qualified candidate -- even if she is a woman.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Race Card
Race Man by Sean WilentzHow Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008
After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is
Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.
The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the
American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.
Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.
_______________________________________
Even Paranoid People Have Real Enemies
Gina Nahai
I'm not one of those women who see a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner. And I understand that Hillary has baggage, while Obama doesn't (never mind that's because he hasn't been around long enough or done much). I realize that he's taller, younger, more charming than she, and that the American people tend to vote for the taller, younger, more charming candidates. I'll confess readily to being a Hillary supporter -- because she's smart, and tough, and the most qualified of the two; because to get to where she is, she's had to be at least twice as smart and tough and dedicated as any man. But I can't believe anyone could watch last night's debate and not come away with the conclusion that the Hillary camp is right when they say that the press goes out of its way to give her a hard time, and again goes out of its way to give Obama a free pas
Just one example, and then we can move on: that NAFTA question. The aggressive manner in which Tim Russert kept interrupting Hillary as she tried to say that she would renegotiate NAFTA instead of opt out of it. Then the same question is posed to Obama, and he gives the same answer -- to a word -- with only one gentle interruption.
OK, one more: all the "this is what Hillary has said about you, how would you respond?" questions. Was this a debate, or a "let's give Obama free air-time to answer the attack ads"?
And let me tell you, I do think she's getting this treatment because she's a woman. I don't believe Russert would give himself permission to use that tone of voice with a male candidate, or to interrupt him as many times.
And I also think the reason many Democrats have gone over to Obama's side is because he's not a woman. His positions on major policy issues are very much like Hillary's. He has less experience and an obnoxious wife (remember Theresa Heinz Kerry?). And yet people (men and women -- this is the sad part) say they're voting for him because he has more charisma, or because they "just don't like" Hillary, or he's more electable. I think much of that "charisma" is in fact Obama's "maleness". Or, rather, Hillary's femaleness.
So what? You say. What's wrong with electing someone with charisma -- no matter what the source of it? So what that the press and the media happen to like Obama more than they like Hillary, and therefore give her a harder time?
So Republicans voted for GW, in spite of his lack of experience, because he was more likable. Look where that got us.
And the press gave GW a free pass for an eternity because they were either trying to curry favor with him so they wouldn't be locked out of the White House press room, or they found his jokes funny and were amused by the nicknames he had for each of them. Look where that got the press -- and us.
All you Obama-voting Democrats out there who think you're smarter than the Republicans who voted for Bush or gave him a free pass, take heed.
The truth is, I don't know if Obama can beat McCain, or what kind of president he would be if he were elected president. I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment: behind countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Liberia where the electorate has been enlightened enough to choose the more qualified candidate -- even if she is a woman.
After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is
Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.
The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the
American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.
Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.
_______________________________________
Even Paranoid People Have Real Enemies
Gina Nahai
I'm not one of those women who see a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner. And I understand that Hillary has baggage, while Obama doesn't (never mind that's because he hasn't been around long enough or done much). I realize that he's taller, younger, more charming than she, and that the American people tend to vote for the taller, younger, more charming candidates. I'll confess readily to being a Hillary supporter -- because she's smart, and tough, and the most qualified of the two; because to get to where she is, she's had to be at least twice as smart and tough and dedicated as any man. But I can't believe anyone could watch last night's debate and not come away with the conclusion that the Hillary camp is right when they say that the press goes out of its way to give her a hard time, and again goes out of its way to give Obama a free pas
Just one example, and then we can move on: that NAFTA question. The aggressive manner in which Tim Russert kept interrupting Hillary as she tried to say that she would renegotiate NAFTA instead of opt out of it. Then the same question is posed to Obama, and he gives the same answer -- to a word -- with only one gentle interruption.
OK, one more: all the "this is what Hillary has said about you, how would you respond?" questions. Was this a debate, or a "let's give Obama free air-time to answer the attack ads"?
And let me tell you, I do think she's getting this treatment because she's a woman. I don't believe Russert would give himself permission to use that tone of voice with a male candidate, or to interrupt him as many times.
And I also think the reason many Democrats have gone over to Obama's side is because he's not a woman. His positions on major policy issues are very much like Hillary's. He has less experience and an obnoxious wife (remember Theresa Heinz Kerry?). And yet people (men and women -- this is the sad part) say they're voting for him because he has more charisma, or because they "just don't like" Hillary, or he's more electable. I think much of that "charisma" is in fact Obama's "maleness". Or, rather, Hillary's femaleness.
So what? You say. What's wrong with electing someone with charisma -- no matter what the source of it? So what that the press and the media happen to like Obama more than they like Hillary, and therefore give her a harder time?
So Republicans voted for GW, in spite of his lack of experience, because he was more likable. Look where that got us.
And the press gave GW a free pass for an eternity because they were either trying to curry favor with him so they wouldn't be locked out of the White House press room, or they found his jokes funny and were amused by the nicknames he had for each of them. Look where that got the press -- and us.
All you Obama-voting Democrats out there who think you're smarter than the Republicans who voted for Bush or gave him a free pass, take heed.
The truth is, I don't know if Obama can beat McCain, or what kind of president he would be if he were elected president. I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment: behind countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Liberia where the electorate has been enlightened enough to choose the more qualified candidate -- even if she is a woman.
Obamarama
Try a Little TendernessFebruary 22, 2008; Page W14
Barack Obama's biggest draw is not his eloquence. When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That's good. He's compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him "impossibly eloquent" and say "he gave me thrills and chills." But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it--that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own--you see the speech wasn't all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate. (This was not true of John F. Kennedy's speeches, for instance, which could be read seriously as part of the literature of modern American politics, or Martin Luther King's work, which was powerful absent his voice.)
Mr. Obama is magnetic, interacts with the audience, leads a refrain: "Yes, we can." It's good, and compared with Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom seems really to enjoy giving speeches, it comes across as better than it is. But is it eloquence? No. Eloquence is deep thought expressed in clear words. With Mr. Obama the deep thought part is missing. What is present are sentiments.
Our country can be greater, it holds unachieved promise, our leaders have not led us well. "We struggle with our doubts, our fears, our cynicism." Fair enough and true enough, but he doesn't dig down to explain how to become a greater nation, what specific path to take--more power to the state, for instance, or more power to the individual. He doesn't unpack his thoughts, as they say. He asserts and keeps on walking.
So his draw is not literal eloquence but a reputation for eloquence that may, in time, become the real thing.
But his big draw is this. In a country that has throughout most of our lifetimes been tormented by, buffeted by, the question of race, a country that has endured real pain and paid in blood and treasure to work its way through and out of the mess, that for all that struggle we yielded this: a brilliant and accomplished young black man with a consensus temperament, a thoughtful and peaceful person who wishes to lead. That is his draw: "We made that." "It ended well."
People would love to be able to support that guy.
His job, in a way, is to let them, in part by not being just another operative, plaything or grievance-monger of the left-liberal establishment and left-liberal thinking. By standing, in fact, for real change.
Right now Mr. Obama is in an awkward moment. Each day he tries to nail down his party's leftist base, and take it from Mrs. Clinton. At the same time his victories have led the country as a whole to start seeing him as the probable Democratic nominee. They're looking at him in a new way, and wondering: Is he standard, old time and party line, or is he something new? Is he just a turning of the page, or is he the beginning of a new and helpful chapter?
Mr. Obama did not really have a good week, in spite of winning a primary and a caucus, and both resoundingly. I don't refer to charges that he'd plagiarized words from a Deval Patrick speech. He borrowed an argument that was in itself obvious--words matter--and used words in the public sphere. In any case Mrs. Clinton has lifted so many phrases and approaches from Mr. Obama, and other candidates, that her accusation was like the neighborhood kleptomaniac running through the street crying, "Thief! Thief!"
His problem was, is, his wife's words, not his, the speech in which she said that for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country, because Obama is winning. She later repeated it, then tried to explain it, saying of course she loves her country. But damage was done. Why? Because her statement focused attention on what I suspect are some basic and elementary questions that were starting to bubble out there anyway.
* * *
Here are a few of them.
Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like "international justice" than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?
Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?
Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it's his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America's leaders don't love America tenderly, who will?
And there is a context. So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out. They can see we are giving up our sovereignty, that our leaders will not control our borders, that we don't teach the young the old-fashioned love of America, that the government has taken to itself such power, and made things so complex, and at the end of the day when they count up sales tax, property tax, state tax, federal tax they are paying a lot of money to lose the place they loved.
And if you feel you're losing America, you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?
* * *
Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.
That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide. A lot of white working-class Americans didn't come up with those things. Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.
Does Mrs. Obama know this? I don't know. If she does, love and gratitude for the place that tries to give everyone an equal shot would seem to be in order
_______________________________________
Stan Honda
Related NPR StoriesAll Things Considered, January 23, 2008 · In Monday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards attacked Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's voting record from his days as an Illinois lawmaker.
"In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'"
The actual number of Obama's "present" votes was 129 during his eight years in the Illinois Senate. Obama's campaign says anyone criticizing his "present" votes doesn't understand how this type of vote is used in the rough-and-tumble give-and-take of the Illinois legislature.
To register a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, lawmakers have a choice of three buttons on their desk. The "yes" button is green. The "no" button is red, and the "present" button is yellow, says Rich Miller, who writes and publishes The Capitol Fax, a daily newsletter and blog on Illinois politics.
"There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow," Miller says.
But Miller says that not all "present" votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama.
"After having put some thought into it, I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills. In fact, I think he believed that he was doing the right thing, because something, in his mind, might have been unconstitutional," Miller says.
Miller points out that, at times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting "present" on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he sponsored.
Chris Mooney is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, Springfield.
"A person as cerebral as Sen. Obama might be prone to such a thing, thinking things through a little too carefully," Mooney says.
Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote "present" as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.
Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said.
Potentially more damaging for Obama is Clinton's attack about Tony Rezko, an indicted Chicago real estate developer and political fundraiser, whom Clinton characterized as a slumlord for whom Obama did legal work.
Billing records from Obama's former law firm show that he did do five hours of legal work in the late 1990s for community groups that partnered with Rezko's development company, but did not work for Rezko directly.
Still, the two have known each other since Rezko tried to recruit Obama out of law school for a job. Cindy Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform explains Rezko's place in Illinois politics.
"He's kind of been like a virus in our political culture, if you will, and he has given money to candidates on both sides of the aisle," she says.
When Obama bought a mansion in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood in 2004, Rezko's wife bought the lots next door and then sold a portion of it to Obama to expand his yard.
It happened at a time when Rezko was under federal investigation — for his fundraising activities on behalf of Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, and his role on a couple of state boards and commissions.
Though there are no allegations of wrong-doing by Obama, Canary says the relationship may hurt him.
"I think this will stand out in Sen. Obama's career as the date he wishes he'd never gone on," she says.
Tony Rezko goes on trial Feb. 25, three weeks after much of the country votes in the Super Tuesday Democratic primaries.
Barack Obama's biggest draw is not his eloquence. When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That's good. He's compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him "impossibly eloquent" and say "he gave me thrills and chills." But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it--that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own--you see the speech wasn't all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate. (This was not true of John F. Kennedy's speeches, for instance, which could be read seriously as part of the literature of modern American politics, or Martin Luther King's work, which was powerful absent his voice.)
Mr. Obama is magnetic, interacts with the audience, leads a refrain: "Yes, we can." It's good, and compared with Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom seems really to enjoy giving speeches, it comes across as better than it is. But is it eloquence? No. Eloquence is deep thought expressed in clear words. With Mr. Obama the deep thought part is missing. What is present are sentiments.
Our country can be greater, it holds unachieved promise, our leaders have not led us well. "We struggle with our doubts, our fears, our cynicism." Fair enough and true enough, but he doesn't dig down to explain how to become a greater nation, what specific path to take--more power to the state, for instance, or more power to the individual. He doesn't unpack his thoughts, as they say. He asserts and keeps on walking.
So his draw is not literal eloquence but a reputation for eloquence that may, in time, become the real thing.
But his big draw is this. In a country that has throughout most of our lifetimes been tormented by, buffeted by, the question of race, a country that has endured real pain and paid in blood and treasure to work its way through and out of the mess, that for all that struggle we yielded this: a brilliant and accomplished young black man with a consensus temperament, a thoughtful and peaceful person who wishes to lead. That is his draw: "We made that." "It ended well."
People would love to be able to support that guy.
His job, in a way, is to let them, in part by not being just another operative, plaything or grievance-monger of the left-liberal establishment and left-liberal thinking. By standing, in fact, for real change.
Right now Mr. Obama is in an awkward moment. Each day he tries to nail down his party's leftist base, and take it from Mrs. Clinton. At the same time his victories have led the country as a whole to start seeing him as the probable Democratic nominee. They're looking at him in a new way, and wondering: Is he standard, old time and party line, or is he something new? Is he just a turning of the page, or is he the beginning of a new and helpful chapter?
Mr. Obama did not really have a good week, in spite of winning a primary and a caucus, and both resoundingly. I don't refer to charges that he'd plagiarized words from a Deval Patrick speech. He borrowed an argument that was in itself obvious--words matter--and used words in the public sphere. In any case Mrs. Clinton has lifted so many phrases and approaches from Mr. Obama, and other candidates, that her accusation was like the neighborhood kleptomaniac running through the street crying, "Thief! Thief!"
His problem was, is, his wife's words, not his, the speech in which she said that for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country, because Obama is winning. She later repeated it, then tried to explain it, saying of course she loves her country. But damage was done. Why? Because her statement focused attention on what I suspect are some basic and elementary questions that were starting to bubble out there anyway.
* * *
Here are a few of them.
Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like "international justice" than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?
Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?
Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it's his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America's leaders don't love America tenderly, who will?
And there is a context. So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out. They can see we are giving up our sovereignty, that our leaders will not control our borders, that we don't teach the young the old-fashioned love of America, that the government has taken to itself such power, and made things so complex, and at the end of the day when they count up sales tax, property tax, state tax, federal tax they are paying a lot of money to lose the place they loved.
And if you feel you're losing America, you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?
* * *
Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.
That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide. A lot of white working-class Americans didn't come up with those things. Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.
Does Mrs. Obama know this? I don't know. If she does, love and gratitude for the place that tries to give everyone an equal shot would seem to be in order
_______________________________________
Stan Honda
Related NPR StoriesAll Things Considered, January 23, 2008 · In Monday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards attacked Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's voting record from his days as an Illinois lawmaker.
"In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'"
The actual number of Obama's "present" votes was 129 during his eight years in the Illinois Senate. Obama's campaign says anyone criticizing his "present" votes doesn't understand how this type of vote is used in the rough-and-tumble give-and-take of the Illinois legislature.
To register a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, lawmakers have a choice of three buttons on their desk. The "yes" button is green. The "no" button is red, and the "present" button is yellow, says Rich Miller, who writes and publishes The Capitol Fax, a daily newsletter and blog on Illinois politics.
"There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow," Miller says.
But Miller says that not all "present" votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama.
"After having put some thought into it, I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills. In fact, I think he believed that he was doing the right thing, because something, in his mind, might have been unconstitutional," Miller says.
Miller points out that, at times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting "present" on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he sponsored.
Chris Mooney is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, Springfield.
"A person as cerebral as Sen. Obama might be prone to such a thing, thinking things through a little too carefully," Mooney says.
Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote "present" as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.
Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said.
Potentially more damaging for Obama is Clinton's attack about Tony Rezko, an indicted Chicago real estate developer and political fundraiser, whom Clinton characterized as a slumlord for whom Obama did legal work.
Billing records from Obama's former law firm show that he did do five hours of legal work in the late 1990s for community groups that partnered with Rezko's development company, but did not work for Rezko directly.
Still, the two have known each other since Rezko tried to recruit Obama out of law school for a job. Cindy Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform explains Rezko's place in Illinois politics.
"He's kind of been like a virus in our political culture, if you will, and he has given money to candidates on both sides of the aisle," she says.
When Obama bought a mansion in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood in 2004, Rezko's wife bought the lots next door and then sold a portion of it to Obama to expand his yard.
It happened at a time when Rezko was under federal investigation — for his fundraising activities on behalf of Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, and his role on a couple of state boards and commissions.
Though there are no allegations of wrong-doing by Obama, Canary says the relationship may hurt him.
"I think this will stand out in Sen. Obama's career as the date he wishes he'd never gone on," she says.
Tony Rezko goes on trial Feb. 25, three weeks after much of the country votes in the Super Tuesday Democratic primaries.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I'm supposed to Vote??
February 26, 2008»
"Present" but Unaccountable: Senator Obama's Illinois Voting Record
Yesterday, the NY Times discussed Senator Obama's penchant for using a quirk of the Illinois Statehouse to sidestep contentious issues that might jeopardize his reelection chances. Or, it's simply a device that allows legislators there to voice legitimate concerns with a bill without voting either for or against it. You decide. It's called voting "present," as opposed to yea or nay, and it's pretty confusing to figure out. Is it a dirty trick or a proof that he's a smart cookie who simply knows how to be an effective politician?
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
Sometimes the "present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive
.
Taylor Marsh, at the Huffington Post is certainly steamed at Obama about it (and at Obama in general apparently from the tone of the piece). She's pretty sure he's a wolf in sheep's clothing using 'present' votes to focus more on ducking responsibility on serious issues than on dealing with those serious issues:
...Obama is continually talking about Clinton being a "triangulator," as do many of the Hillary haters. People talking about her calculations. I don't agree with all of her votes, especially on some foreign policy matters, particularly her Iraq war vote, but also Kyl-Lieberman. But when she's pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes "present" when it matters. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn't. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn't back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her in grumbling. It's what she believes, with Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson backing her. []
Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. It's a lot easier. But it's not more principled, no matter your excuse. It's triangulating. It is also quite calculating. Because what better way to hit your opponent than to duck a tough vote where she was counted, and you'd been counted months earlier, then rail against her because no one is paying attention to the facts.
So far, the issue hasn't got much traction (though Senator Clinton's team has bought attack sites with names like votingpresent.com) but these are slow news days. Come January, I'll bet the Obama folks will have spent their holidays coming up with plausible justifications for why he voted "present" rather than "no" on trying black kids as young as 15 as adults. A tough spot for any politician but this is a major part of his whole appeal - the earnest, young straight-talker versus the jaded old school Dems. Bravo for admitting to your drug use and wastrel days, now tell us why you voted "present" if you're going to keep talking about how your opponent voted for the Iraq war. I'm willing to believe he had his reasons - and that maybe they're reasons he regrets now - just tell me what they are.
______________________________________
The e-mail from Rosemary J. Dempsey, president of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, told members that Obama's record during his time in the Illinois Senate included several instances in which he voted "present" instead of yes or no on abortion-related legislation.
The e-mail quotes Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of Illinois NOW, as saying that "voting present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support," and adding: "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. . . . Voting present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable."
The Clinton campaign has made the same charge repeatedly over the past year.
_______________________________________
Stan Honda
Related NPR StoriesAll Things Considered, January 23, 2008 · In Monday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards attacked Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's voting record from his days as an Illinois lawmaker.
"In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'"
The actual number of Obama's "present" votes was 129 during his eight years in the Illinois Senate. Obama's campaign says anyone criticizing his "present" votes doesn't understand how this type of vote is used in the rough-and-tumble give-and-take of the Illinois legislature.
To register a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, lawmakers have a choice of three buttons on their desk. The "yes" button is green. The "no" button is red, and the "present" button is yellow, says Rich Miller, who writes and publishes The Capitol Fax, a daily newsletter and blog on Illinois politics.
"There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow," Miller says.
But Miller says that not all "present" votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama.
"After having put some thought into it, I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills. In fact, I think he believed that he was doing the right thing, because something, in his mind, might have been unconstitutional," Miller says.
Miller points out that, at times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting "present" on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he sponsored.
Chris Mooney is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, Springfield.
"A person as cerebral as Sen. Obama might be prone to such a thing, thinking things through a little too carefully," Mooney says.
Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote "present" as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.
Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said.
Potentially more damaging for Obama is Clinton's attack about Tony Rezko, an indicted Chicago real estate developer and political fundraiser, whom Clinton characterized as a slumlord for whom Obama did legal work.
Billing records from Obama's former law firm show that he did do five hours of legal work in the late 1990s for community groups that partnered with Rezko's development company, but did not work for Rezko directly.
Still, the two have known each other since Rezko tried to recruit Obama out of law school for a job. Cindy Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform explains Rezko's place in Illinois politics.
"He's kind of been like a virus in our political culture, if you will, and he has given money to candidates on both sides of the aisle," she says.
When Obama bought a mansion in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood in 2004, Rezko's wife bought the lots next door and then sold a portion of it to Obama to expand his yard.
It happened at a time when Rezko was under federal investigation — for his fundraising activities on behalf of Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, and his role on a couple of state boards and commissions.
Though there are no allegations of wrong-doing by Obama, Canary says the relationship may hurt him.
"I think this will stand out in Sen. Obama's career as the date he wishes he'd never gone on," she says.
"Present" but Unaccountable: Senator Obama's Illinois Voting Record
Yesterday, the NY Times discussed Senator Obama's penchant for using a quirk of the Illinois Statehouse to sidestep contentious issues that might jeopardize his reelection chances. Or, it's simply a device that allows legislators there to voice legitimate concerns with a bill without voting either for or against it. You decide. It's called voting "present," as opposed to yea or nay, and it's pretty confusing to figure out. Is it a dirty trick or a proof that he's a smart cookie who simply knows how to be an effective politician?
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
Sometimes the "present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive
.
Taylor Marsh, at the Huffington Post is certainly steamed at Obama about it (and at Obama in general apparently from the tone of the piece). She's pretty sure he's a wolf in sheep's clothing using 'present' votes to focus more on ducking responsibility on serious issues than on dealing with those serious issues:
...Obama is continually talking about Clinton being a "triangulator," as do many of the Hillary haters. People talking about her calculations. I don't agree with all of her votes, especially on some foreign policy matters, particularly her Iraq war vote, but also Kyl-Lieberman. But when she's pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes "present" when it matters. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn't. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn't back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her in grumbling. It's what she believes, with Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson backing her. []
Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. It's a lot easier. But it's not more principled, no matter your excuse. It's triangulating. It is also quite calculating. Because what better way to hit your opponent than to duck a tough vote where she was counted, and you'd been counted months earlier, then rail against her because no one is paying attention to the facts.
So far, the issue hasn't got much traction (though Senator Clinton's team has bought attack sites with names like votingpresent.com) but these are slow news days. Come January, I'll bet the Obama folks will have spent their holidays coming up with plausible justifications for why he voted "present" rather than "no" on trying black kids as young as 15 as adults. A tough spot for any politician but this is a major part of his whole appeal - the earnest, young straight-talker versus the jaded old school Dems. Bravo for admitting to your drug use and wastrel days, now tell us why you voted "present" if you're going to keep talking about how your opponent voted for the Iraq war. I'm willing to believe he had his reasons - and that maybe they're reasons he regrets now - just tell me what they are.
______________________________________
The e-mail from Rosemary J. Dempsey, president of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, told members that Obama's record during his time in the Illinois Senate included several instances in which he voted "present" instead of yes or no on abortion-related legislation.
The e-mail quotes Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of Illinois NOW, as saying that "voting present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support," and adding: "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. . . . Voting present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable."
The Clinton campaign has made the same charge repeatedly over the past year.
_______________________________________
Stan Honda
Related NPR StoriesAll Things Considered, January 23, 2008 · In Monday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards attacked Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's voting record from his days as an Illinois lawmaker.
"In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'"
The actual number of Obama's "present" votes was 129 during his eight years in the Illinois Senate. Obama's campaign says anyone criticizing his "present" votes doesn't understand how this type of vote is used in the rough-and-tumble give-and-take of the Illinois legislature.
To register a vote in the Illinois General Assembly, lawmakers have a choice of three buttons on their desk. The "yes" button is green. The "no" button is red, and the "present" button is yellow, says Rich Miller, who writes and publishes The Capitol Fax, a daily newsletter and blog on Illinois politics.
"There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow," Miller says.
But Miller says that not all "present" votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama.
"After having put some thought into it, I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills. In fact, I think he believed that he was doing the right thing, because something, in his mind, might have been unconstitutional," Miller says.
Miller points out that, at times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting "present" on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he sponsored.
Chris Mooney is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, Springfield.
"A person as cerebral as Sen. Obama might be prone to such a thing, thinking things through a little too carefully," Mooney says.
Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote "present" as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.
Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said.
Potentially more damaging for Obama is Clinton's attack about Tony Rezko, an indicted Chicago real estate developer and political fundraiser, whom Clinton characterized as a slumlord for whom Obama did legal work.
Billing records from Obama's former law firm show that he did do five hours of legal work in the late 1990s for community groups that partnered with Rezko's development company, but did not work for Rezko directly.
Still, the two have known each other since Rezko tried to recruit Obama out of law school for a job. Cindy Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform explains Rezko's place in Illinois politics.
"He's kind of been like a virus in our political culture, if you will, and he has given money to candidates on both sides of the aisle," she says.
When Obama bought a mansion in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood in 2004, Rezko's wife bought the lots next door and then sold a portion of it to Obama to expand his yard.
It happened at a time when Rezko was under federal investigation — for his fundraising activities on behalf of Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, and his role on a couple of state boards and commissions.
Though there are no allegations of wrong-doing by Obama, Canary says the relationship may hurt him.
"I think this will stand out in Sen. Obama's career as the date he wishes he'd never gone on," she says.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Nader's Issues
OK he can't win but his ideas should be incorporated into the Democratic platform. If the two metoos we have running came out with clear ideas and how to implement them it would increase their chances of winning.
When Nader talks about both candidates being owned by big business I agree, when he wants to know why the Dems haven't impeached Bush?Cheney I agree. When he talks about the degradation of the environment and the destruction of the envirnomntal rules and regulations by the Bush Admin I agree. When he says not much difference between the monies received from big corporations who will want something in return from either party I agree. When he charges that the Democratic congress not only failed to end the Iraq war they voted for the funds to continue it I agree!
I have about reached the point where neither Democratic deserves my vote and they may not get it. Because it is just same ole, same ole.
There is no doubt that Nader will hurt the Democratics in November and that is unfortunate but if they had talked about the issues he has raised it wouldn't have happened. It wouldn't have happened if Edwards was in the lead or even still in contention be he is not hense the Nader candidacy. Sure Nader has a big ego and he is arrogant but the Dems would do well to listen to him because he expresses how most of us feel about the inept Democratic candidates and those in congress. The do nothings!!
When Nader talks about both candidates being owned by big business I agree, when he wants to know why the Dems haven't impeached Bush?Cheney I agree. When he talks about the degradation of the environment and the destruction of the envirnomntal rules and regulations by the Bush Admin I agree. When he says not much difference between the monies received from big corporations who will want something in return from either party I agree. When he charges that the Democratic congress not only failed to end the Iraq war they voted for the funds to continue it I agree!
I have about reached the point where neither Democratic deserves my vote and they may not get it. Because it is just same ole, same ole.
There is no doubt that Nader will hurt the Democratics in November and that is unfortunate but if they had talked about the issues he has raised it wouldn't have happened. It wouldn't have happened if Edwards was in the lead or even still in contention be he is not hense the Nader candidacy. Sure Nader has a big ego and he is arrogant but the Dems would do well to listen to him because he expresses how most of us feel about the inept Democratic candidates and those in congress. The do nothings!!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Obama Comedown Syndrome
I think of all those poor abused cows who died to be thrown on top dump. I am sure this company will find a way to use it. Dog and cat food maybe?
The Biggest Beef Recall Ever ('The question Congress needs to ask is how many people need to get sick or die before it starts repairing and modernizing the nation’s food safety system?');
Published: February 21, 2008
A nauseating video of cows stumbling on their way to a California slaughterhouse has finally prompted action: the largest recall of meat in American history. Westland/Hallmark Meat Company has issued a full recall of more than 143 million pounds of beef produced over the last two years, including 37 million pounds that went to school-lunch programs.
_______________________________________
I never read David Brooks, but my niece said this was an interesting piece. Here it is:
When the Magic Fades
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 19, 2008
At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.
The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.
But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs
Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?
Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.
They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?
As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:
Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?
Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?
If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.
And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?
These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?
How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?
The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?
The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.
But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.
Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.
_______________________________________
Words, Words, Words
I agree, Emily, that we don't have to go to Lady Macbeth territory over Michelle Obama's ill-considered remark. (If only she had said, "I am really proud of my country" instead of "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.") But the first job of a spouse on the campaign trail is: Don't embarrass the candidate. How much damage a spouse can do is evident by the work of Bill Clinton. But as this smart column by Carol Marin points out, an Obama campaign's central belief is that "words matter"—so it matters what Michelle Obama says. Now Barack himself is giving a defensive explanation of her remark. Wouldn't it be better to have Michelle say that of course she is proud of her country and that she expressed herself poorly?
________________________________________
The Biggest Beef Recall Ever ('The question Congress needs to ask is how many people need to get sick or die before it starts repairing and modernizing the nation’s food safety system?');
Published: February 21, 2008
A nauseating video of cows stumbling on their way to a California slaughterhouse has finally prompted action: the largest recall of meat in American history. Westland/Hallmark Meat Company has issued a full recall of more than 143 million pounds of beef produced over the last two years, including 37 million pounds that went to school-lunch programs.
_______________________________________
I never read David Brooks, but my niece said this was an interesting piece. Here it is:
When the Magic Fades
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 19, 2008
At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.
The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.
But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs
Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?
Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.
They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?
As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:
Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?
Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?
If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.
And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?
These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?
How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?
The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?
The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.
But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.
Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.
_______________________________________
Words, Words, Words
I agree, Emily, that we don't have to go to Lady Macbeth territory over Michelle Obama's ill-considered remark. (If only she had said, "I am really proud of my country" instead of "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.") But the first job of a spouse on the campaign trail is: Don't embarrass the candidate. How much damage a spouse can do is evident by the work of Bill Clinton. But as this smart column by Carol Marin points out, an Obama campaign's central belief is that "words matter"—so it matters what Michelle Obama says. Now Barack himself is giving a defensive explanation of her remark. Wouldn't it be better to have Michelle say that of course she is proud of her country and that she expressed herself poorly?
________________________________________
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Ain't over til is's over
Hillary still has opportunity in Texas,Ohio and Pennslyvania!
I wish that someone would explain to me just what are the changes Obama says he will make and how are they different from that which any presidently party change would make.
What is his appeal???
I wish that someone would explain to me just what are the changes Obama says he will make and how are they different from that which any presidently party change would make.
What is his appeal???
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Stealing Words
'I Have a Dream' Becomes Obama's 'I Have a Con'
Taylor Marsh
When Senator Joe Biden was found to have lifted pieces of someone else's speech he was politically humiliated. One wonders what the reaction to Senator Obama will be, now that we find out that those all important words he's been spouting are not his own. Will the standard be different for him?
During a conference call this morning, Howard Wolfson had this to say. Via Mark Halperin:
"If you're going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own." - Howard Wolfson
Rhetorical flourishes are inspiring, especially when they're authentic. The problem comes when they're canned. Jake Tapper has a good run down on Obama's convenient oratory. It would be one thing if they came from the heart, or if what he was saying was actually original. Unfortunately, they don't and they aren't. They've all been said before. "Yes, we can reuse slogans!" says Ben Smith. "You bet your life we can," quips Deval Patrick. Si Se Puede. The word bamboozled comes to mind.
Deval Patrick in October, 2006:
" ... All I have to offer is words, just words. 'We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.' Just words. Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words. 'Ask not what your county can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.' Just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."
A reader from Massachusetts emailed me this last night:
... Guess what the lead-off story was on the local broadcast news tonight? Yes, "Plagiarism?" It was all about how Obama's "just words" riff was strikingly similar to Deval Patrick's speech from 2006. The story included a grainy video of Patrick delivering his speech, and then the clip from Obama's speech the other night. The reporter mentioned that the two shared campaign strategist, and that borrowing from others' campaigns wasn't that uncommon. However, it could cause a problem for Obama because it raises the idea that he may be just reading from a script. Then cut to the Hillary Clinton saying it's going to take more than speeches, it will take hard work.
It's what the New York Observer wrote about earlier in January. Via writer Steve Kornacki:
One small Obama-related detail from last night: The "Yes we can!" refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006.
Oh, but wait! Before the bleachers come crashing down, Governor Deval Patrick issued a statement on the mutual mission of Patrick and Obama, which also just happens to include mirrored language and speeches that are exactly alike. Patrick's statement comes complete with... wait a minute. Excuse me, but the word gypsy must have run all out. Tapper offered Patrick's ramblings in an update:
UPDATE: The Obama campaign has issued a statement from Gov. Patrick: "Sen. Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."
Tapper's comments afterwards are spot on.
The Boston Globe joined Deval Patrick with Barack Obama back in April of 2007. That was two months after I reported on Obama's flyover to skip the first issues debate in Carson City, Nevada, which was followed by his subsequent phone in presentation, as he showed up unprepared for the first health care debate. (This all happened long before I became a partisan for Clinton.) Now it's all these months later and all we've got today is a gullible traditional media sharing the same hope soda, while aiding and abetting a political con job that's sucked in independents by the droves in a DEMOCRATIC primary race.
Cons eventually catch up with you. Obama's played his supporters for suckers. They bought into the hope hype, sucking up this stuff with a straw, only to find out Obama's not an original, he's a knock off, of a governor, no less. Siphoning off of a winning campaign to try to win the presidency with a formula. Hey, it's politics. One campaign model fits 'em all. Put your twenty bucks in the bucket and shut the hell up!
The traditional media, cable talking heads, and quite a few large progressive blogs have regurgitated the Obama story like a pack of nomads wandering in the political desert in search of sustenance; people bankrupt of political or factual integrity looking for the answer and refusing to see what was in front of their faces all along. The question is whether the journalists who bought into the Obama hype, along with the cable talking heads who propped his campaign up, and the Obama blogs who didn't care one whit about the facts or his record but were only interested in spreading their Hillary hatred, have got so much invested they won't have the honesty, the integrity, and the moral courage to back peddle on their craven cave in before it's not only too late for them, but too late for the Democratic party.
Barack Obama isn't an original. He's the first 21st century L. Ron Hubbard of politics, Elmer Gantry, name your huckster.
"I have a dream" just became "I have a con."
______________________________________
Washington, Lincoln, Bush
Marty Kaplan
Here's a desirable "learning outcome" for first grade students in the public schools of Georgia: being able to answer the question, "How are Washington, Lincoln, and Bush alike?" In their classrooms, Georgia's 6-year-olds "will compare and contrast information about Washington, Lincoln, and our current president. This information will be recorded on a Venn diagragram.
I don't know how many other states require this Venn diagram to be created, or whether first-grade teachers will accept
information for the place where the three presidents' circles overlap -- commonalities like not having gills, possessing opposable thumbs, or putting on their pants one leg at a time.
But I do know that George Bush loves to say what he has in common with Washington and Lincoln: how little it matters what people say about him today. "I don't think you'll really get the full history of the Bush administration until long after I'm gone. I tell people I'm reading books on George Washington, and they're still analyzing his presidency," he told 60 Minutes. At Camp David, he told ABC's Charlie Gibson, "I tell people I read three books on Washington last year, and if they're still writing on the first guy, the 43rd guy isn't going to be around to see it... I spent a lotta time reading about Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln had no earthly idea that the Gettysburg Address was a great speech.... You know, history, it's just, it, I, I've always felt that there needs to be a long leash to history. That you can't judge an administration, immediately. And, particularly one that has pushed hard for some big ideas, like, like, my administration has done."
Ah, yes, those big Bushie ideas. Tax cuts in wartime, the unitary executive, signing statements, waterboarding, gay-baiting... You can almost imagine a first grade exercise that teaches them. Put a circle around the ones that don't belong:
A. American Revolution. B. Civil War. C. Iraq War.
A. Beware the baneful effects of the spirit of party. B. The party lash and the fear of ridicule will overawe justice and liberty.C. Democrats are terrorist-loving cut-and-runners.
Bush, of course, takes the long view of his place in presidential history. No one who saw this fly-boy swagger beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner (on the USS Abraham Lincoln, no less) is qualified to characterize that act as one of the most loathsome, preening, hubristic degradations of the presidency in all of American history because... well, because none of us is dead yet! It'll take a hundred years, and a hundred books, before people have the perspective needed to acclaim his guitar-strumming indifference to Katrina as just what our glorious Republic needed from its POTUS at the time. His flying back from a Crawford for a midnight signing of the Terry Schaivo bill? Why, the only presidential historians who can call that one correctly (a victory for the rights of the undead? a miracle of long-distance diagnosis?) will be the great-great-grandchildren of kids in first grade right now.
I have no difficulty imagining the future historians who will rank W right up there along with the Father of Our Country and Honest Abe, rather than way down there with Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce. After all, the servile savants already beatifying Bush on Fox News, right wing talk radio, and in The Washington Times are as likely to pass their genes and memes down to future generations as is slime mold, and the Snopes clan that inherits the earth in Faulkner's dark vision. And as someone who lived through the Nixon terms, and then the Nixon funeral, and the Reagan terms, and then the Reagan funeral, I'm all too familiar with the press's fondness for the revisionist airbrush. De mortuis nil nisi bonum: speak only good of the dead.
The thing I'm having trouble imagining, though, is the scenario for America's future that George W. Bush thinks will ultimately make him look good. Does he really believe that future historians will look back at his Middle East record as the happy tipping point between radical-fundamentalist-jihadist-extremism and freedom-is-on-the-march? Or does he secretly hope that the tragedy looming in that region's future will be blamed not on him, but on his successors who inherit his broken crockery? Can he really imagine that his contempt for checks and balances, and for the Bill of Rights, will one day be compared favorably to Lincoln's boldness in saving the Union? Or does he believe deep down that the fact he ended up not being impeached will in the long view of history more than outweigh any pesky lefty aspersions about his abuses of power?
Taylor Marsh
When Senator Joe Biden was found to have lifted pieces of someone else's speech he was politically humiliated. One wonders what the reaction to Senator Obama will be, now that we find out that those all important words he's been spouting are not his own. Will the standard be different for him?
During a conference call this morning, Howard Wolfson had this to say. Via Mark Halperin:
"If you're going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own." - Howard Wolfson
Rhetorical flourishes are inspiring, especially when they're authentic. The problem comes when they're canned. Jake Tapper has a good run down on Obama's convenient oratory. It would be one thing if they came from the heart, or if what he was saying was actually original. Unfortunately, they don't and they aren't. They've all been said before. "Yes, we can reuse slogans!" says Ben Smith. "You bet your life we can," quips Deval Patrick. Si Se Puede. The word bamboozled comes to mind.
Deval Patrick in October, 2006:
" ... All I have to offer is words, just words. 'We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.' Just words. Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words. 'Ask not what your county can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.' Just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."
A reader from Massachusetts emailed me this last night:
... Guess what the lead-off story was on the local broadcast news tonight? Yes, "Plagiarism?" It was all about how Obama's "just words" riff was strikingly similar to Deval Patrick's speech from 2006. The story included a grainy video of Patrick delivering his speech, and then the clip from Obama's speech the other night. The reporter mentioned that the two shared campaign strategist, and that borrowing from others' campaigns wasn't that uncommon. However, it could cause a problem for Obama because it raises the idea that he may be just reading from a script. Then cut to the Hillary Clinton saying it's going to take more than speeches, it will take hard work.
It's what the New York Observer wrote about earlier in January. Via writer Steve Kornacki:
One small Obama-related detail from last night: The "Yes we can!" refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006.
Oh, but wait! Before the bleachers come crashing down, Governor Deval Patrick issued a statement on the mutual mission of Patrick and Obama, which also just happens to include mirrored language and speeches that are exactly alike. Patrick's statement comes complete with... wait a minute. Excuse me, but the word gypsy must have run all out. Tapper offered Patrick's ramblings in an update:
UPDATE: The Obama campaign has issued a statement from Gov. Patrick: "Sen. Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."
Tapper's comments afterwards are spot on.
The Boston Globe joined Deval Patrick with Barack Obama back in April of 2007. That was two months after I reported on Obama's flyover to skip the first issues debate in Carson City, Nevada, which was followed by his subsequent phone in presentation, as he showed up unprepared for the first health care debate. (This all happened long before I became a partisan for Clinton.) Now it's all these months later and all we've got today is a gullible traditional media sharing the same hope soda, while aiding and abetting a political con job that's sucked in independents by the droves in a DEMOCRATIC primary race.
Cons eventually catch up with you. Obama's played his supporters for suckers. They bought into the hope hype, sucking up this stuff with a straw, only to find out Obama's not an original, he's a knock off, of a governor, no less. Siphoning off of a winning campaign to try to win the presidency with a formula. Hey, it's politics. One campaign model fits 'em all. Put your twenty bucks in the bucket and shut the hell up!
The traditional media, cable talking heads, and quite a few large progressive blogs have regurgitated the Obama story like a pack of nomads wandering in the political desert in search of sustenance; people bankrupt of political or factual integrity looking for the answer and refusing to see what was in front of their faces all along. The question is whether the journalists who bought into the Obama hype, along with the cable talking heads who propped his campaign up, and the Obama blogs who didn't care one whit about the facts or his record but were only interested in spreading their Hillary hatred, have got so much invested they won't have the honesty, the integrity, and the moral courage to back peddle on their craven cave in before it's not only too late for them, but too late for the Democratic party.
Barack Obama isn't an original. He's the first 21st century L. Ron Hubbard of politics, Elmer Gantry, name your huckster.
"I have a dream" just became "I have a con."
______________________________________
Washington, Lincoln, Bush
Marty Kaplan
Here's a desirable "learning outcome" for first grade students in the public schools of Georgia: being able to answer the question, "How are Washington, Lincoln, and Bush alike?" In their classrooms, Georgia's 6-year-olds "will compare and contrast information about Washington, Lincoln, and our current president. This information will be recorded on a Venn diagragram.
I don't know how many other states require this Venn diagram to be created, or whether first-grade teachers will accept
information for the place where the three presidents' circles overlap -- commonalities like not having gills, possessing opposable thumbs, or putting on their pants one leg at a time.
But I do know that George Bush loves to say what he has in common with Washington and Lincoln: how little it matters what people say about him today. "I don't think you'll really get the full history of the Bush administration until long after I'm gone. I tell people I'm reading books on George Washington, and they're still analyzing his presidency," he told 60 Minutes. At Camp David, he told ABC's Charlie Gibson, "I tell people I read three books on Washington last year, and if they're still writing on the first guy, the 43rd guy isn't going to be around to see it... I spent a lotta time reading about Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln had no earthly idea that the Gettysburg Address was a great speech.... You know, history, it's just, it, I, I've always felt that there needs to be a long leash to history. That you can't judge an administration, immediately. And, particularly one that has pushed hard for some big ideas, like, like, my administration has done."
Ah, yes, those big Bushie ideas. Tax cuts in wartime, the unitary executive, signing statements, waterboarding, gay-baiting... You can almost imagine a first grade exercise that teaches them. Put a circle around the ones that don't belong:
A. American Revolution. B. Civil War. C. Iraq War.
A. Beware the baneful effects of the spirit of party. B. The party lash and the fear of ridicule will overawe justice and liberty.C. Democrats are terrorist-loving cut-and-runners.
Bush, of course, takes the long view of his place in presidential history. No one who saw this fly-boy swagger beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner (on the USS Abraham Lincoln, no less) is qualified to characterize that act as one of the most loathsome, preening, hubristic degradations of the presidency in all of American history because... well, because none of us is dead yet! It'll take a hundred years, and a hundred books, before people have the perspective needed to acclaim his guitar-strumming indifference to Katrina as just what our glorious Republic needed from its POTUS at the time. His flying back from a Crawford for a midnight signing of the Terry Schaivo bill? Why, the only presidential historians who can call that one correctly (a victory for the rights of the undead? a miracle of long-distance diagnosis?) will be the great-great-grandchildren of kids in first grade right now.
I have no difficulty imagining the future historians who will rank W right up there along with the Father of Our Country and Honest Abe, rather than way down there with Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce. After all, the servile savants already beatifying Bush on Fox News, right wing talk radio, and in The Washington Times are as likely to pass their genes and memes down to future generations as is slime mold, and the Snopes clan that inherits the earth in Faulkner's dark vision. And as someone who lived through the Nixon terms, and then the Nixon funeral, and the Reagan terms, and then the Reagan funeral, I'm all too familiar with the press's fondness for the revisionist airbrush. De mortuis nil nisi bonum: speak only good of the dead.
The thing I'm having trouble imagining, though, is the scenario for America's future that George W. Bush thinks will ultimately make him look good. Does he really believe that future historians will look back at his Middle East record as the happy tipping point between radical-fundamentalist-jihadist-extremism and freedom-is-on-the-march? Or does he secretly hope that the tragedy looming in that region's future will be blamed not on him, but on his successors who inherit his broken crockery? Can he really imagine that his contempt for checks and balances, and for the Bill of Rights, will one day be compared favorably to Lincoln's boldness in saving the Union? Or does he believe deep down that the fact he ended up not being impeached will in the long view of history more than outweigh any pesky lefty aspersions about his abuses of power?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Trouble in Texas for Clinton
Texas Primary: Latest News, Polls On Democratic Race
Trouble For Hillary
Texas Rep. Endorses Obama (2/18): Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) -- whose district is the most Republican district in the nation that is represented by a Democrat -- has endorsed Barack Obama:
"As someone who has spent most of my adult life fighting for veterans and for military troops and their families, I am convinced that Senator Obama will be a champion for better health care, housing and quality of life for those who have sacrificed so much for the American family. He knows that standing up for our troops, our veterans and their families is the right thing to do--for them and for our nation's security."
Texas System Worries Clinton Camp (2/18): "Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest," the Washington Post reports.
Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."
The disparity in delegate distribution is just one of the unusual aspects of Texas'
complex system for apportioning delegates. The scheme has been in use for two decades but is coming under increased scrutiny because the March 4 presidential contest is the first in years that gives the state a potentially decisive voice in choosing the party's nominee.
As ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Texas bloggers are mocking the Clinton campaign for only just realizing these rules, which have been in place for some time. Here's TX blogger Publius:
Good lord, let's see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After - after - implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they 'discovered' that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).
While they were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)
Clinton's Texas Roots: "When the Texas primary campaign begins in earnest after Tuesday's vote in Wisconsin, Obama will find stories such as this [local Texas officials siding with Clinton] all over the Lone Star State. From her incidental connections...described from the 1992 campaign, to deep friendships formed working in Texas during the 1972 presidential campaign of George McGovern, to acquaintances gained from multiple visits over the past decades, Clinton is rooted in Texas as she is in few other states."
Miscellaneous News (2/18): "Ugly Betty" star America Ferrera stumps for Hillary in Texas. Dallas' delegate rich district could decide the Texas race, and here's why.
Obama Could Lose Popular Vote But Win Most Delegates: The Dallas Morning News notes that, because the number of delegates per district are decided by the turnout in the last election, when African American turnout was high, Obama could lose the popular vote in Texas but win the most delegates:
As it happens, the state Senate districts with the most delegates - Austin, Houston and Dallas - are all seen as prime Obama territory.
As a result of that and other quirks in the process, it is possible that even if Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote on March 4 - and declares victory that evening - Mr. Obama could actually come away with more delegates.
Can Texas Latinos Save Hillary? Newsweek investigates.
Volunteers Turn Out For Hillary: Over 1100 volunteers dropped by the Hillary Clinton headquarters in Austin on Saturday, according to a Clinton campaign Texas director.
Houston Chronicle Endorses Obama: The paper argues that policy-wise, there is little difference between the candidates. However, on the issue of leadership:
He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.
Obama Lands Endorsement Of Austin Mayor: Mayor Will Wynn mentioned the candidates' energy policy as a major factor in his endorsement:
"For too long, we've allowed old divisions to hold us back," Wynn said. "Recently I've had conversations about energy policy with presidential candidates from both parties, and I believe Senator Obama is the only person who can move us forward on this critical issue.
"Barack Obama gets it. He offers a commitment to confront our energy challenges in ways that will unite our country, help our economy flourish and protect our planet and national security for the next generation and beyond."
Record Turnout Expected: The Texas Democratic Party is expecting a voter turnout somewhere around 2 million people:
State party chairman Boyd Richie predicted Democratic turnout would exceed the modern record of 1.8 million voters in the 1988 presidential primary. The past two Texas presidential primaries have drawn around 800,000 Democrats each.
"I will be shocked and stunned if it isn't a new record for Texas," said Richie, who also expects unprecedented participation in precinct caucuses after the polls close. "We're seeing excitement like we've never seen before."
Obama's Texas Test: The Washington Post's Dan Balz argues that Texas represents Obama big chance to prove that he can win over Latino voters, a block that will be important in a general election:
The Latino community is a critical piece of any Democratic candidate's general election calculations. Against John McCain, who has championed comprehensive immigration reform to his detriment in the Republican primaries, the Democratic nominee will face an opponent who begins the general election with a credible chance of holding a solid minority of the Hispanic vote.
President Bush made significant inroads in the Latino community in his reelection campaign four years ago, and while there is evidence that the immigration debate has hurt Republicans with Latino voters, McCain may be able to escape the fallout from some of the angriest anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and compete for those voters.
Ground forces: Obama will open ten new state offices in Texas on February 16th.
Polls for 2/15: Hillary Clinton is leading in three of four polls released today, with a margin of victory ranging from 7-16%.
Understanding Texas: Texas combines both a primary and a caucus, where delegates are awarded according to results in each contest. Marc Ambinder explains how it will work on primacaucus day.
Trouble For Hillary
Texas Rep. Endorses Obama (2/18): Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) -- whose district is the most Republican district in the nation that is represented by a Democrat -- has endorsed Barack Obama:
"As someone who has spent most of my adult life fighting for veterans and for military troops and their families, I am convinced that Senator Obama will be a champion for better health care, housing and quality of life for those who have sacrificed so much for the American family. He knows that standing up for our troops, our veterans and their families is the right thing to do--for them and for our nation's security."
Texas System Worries Clinton Camp (2/18): "Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest," the Washington Post reports.
Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."
The disparity in delegate distribution is just one of the unusual aspects of Texas'
complex system for apportioning delegates. The scheme has been in use for two decades but is coming under increased scrutiny because the March 4 presidential contest is the first in years that gives the state a potentially decisive voice in choosing the party's nominee.
As ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Texas bloggers are mocking the Clinton campaign for only just realizing these rules, which have been in place for some time. Here's TX blogger Publius:
Good lord, let's see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After - after - implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they 'discovered' that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).
While they were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)
Clinton's Texas Roots: "When the Texas primary campaign begins in earnest after Tuesday's vote in Wisconsin, Obama will find stories such as this [local Texas officials siding with Clinton] all over the Lone Star State. From her incidental connections...described from the 1992 campaign, to deep friendships formed working in Texas during the 1972 presidential campaign of George McGovern, to acquaintances gained from multiple visits over the past decades, Clinton is rooted in Texas as she is in few other states."
Miscellaneous News (2/18): "Ugly Betty" star America Ferrera stumps for Hillary in Texas. Dallas' delegate rich district could decide the Texas race, and here's why.
Obama Could Lose Popular Vote But Win Most Delegates: The Dallas Morning News notes that, because the number of delegates per district are decided by the turnout in the last election, when African American turnout was high, Obama could lose the popular vote in Texas but win the most delegates:
As it happens, the state Senate districts with the most delegates - Austin, Houston and Dallas - are all seen as prime Obama territory.
As a result of that and other quirks in the process, it is possible that even if Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote on March 4 - and declares victory that evening - Mr. Obama could actually come away with more delegates.
Can Texas Latinos Save Hillary? Newsweek investigates.
Volunteers Turn Out For Hillary: Over 1100 volunteers dropped by the Hillary Clinton headquarters in Austin on Saturday, according to a Clinton campaign Texas director.
Houston Chronicle Endorses Obama: The paper argues that policy-wise, there is little difference between the candidates. However, on the issue of leadership:
He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.
Obama Lands Endorsement Of Austin Mayor: Mayor Will Wynn mentioned the candidates' energy policy as a major factor in his endorsement:
"For too long, we've allowed old divisions to hold us back," Wynn said. "Recently I've had conversations about energy policy with presidential candidates from both parties, and I believe Senator Obama is the only person who can move us forward on this critical issue.
"Barack Obama gets it. He offers a commitment to confront our energy challenges in ways that will unite our country, help our economy flourish and protect our planet and national security for the next generation and beyond."
Record Turnout Expected: The Texas Democratic Party is expecting a voter turnout somewhere around 2 million people:
State party chairman Boyd Richie predicted Democratic turnout would exceed the modern record of 1.8 million voters in the 1988 presidential primary. The past two Texas presidential primaries have drawn around 800,000 Democrats each.
"I will be shocked and stunned if it isn't a new record for Texas," said Richie, who also expects unprecedented participation in precinct caucuses after the polls close. "We're seeing excitement like we've never seen before."
Obama's Texas Test: The Washington Post's Dan Balz argues that Texas represents Obama big chance to prove that he can win over Latino voters, a block that will be important in a general election:
The Latino community is a critical piece of any Democratic candidate's general election calculations. Against John McCain, who has championed comprehensive immigration reform to his detriment in the Republican primaries, the Democratic nominee will face an opponent who begins the general election with a credible chance of holding a solid minority of the Hispanic vote.
President Bush made significant inroads in the Latino community in his reelection campaign four years ago, and while there is evidence that the immigration debate has hurt Republicans with Latino voters, McCain may be able to escape the fallout from some of the angriest anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and compete for those voters.
Ground forces: Obama will open ten new state offices in Texas on February 16th.
Polls for 2/15: Hillary Clinton is leading in three of four polls released today, with a margin of victory ranging from 7-16%.
Understanding Texas: Texas combines both a primary and a caucus, where delegates are awarded according to results in each contest. Marc Ambinder explains how it will work on primacaucus day.
Friday, February 15, 2008
She's Not Done Yet !!
TGIF for you working Stiffs!
A quote from Mark Penn that should go over extremely well: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."
______________________________________
In the words of that famous philosopher from Montclair NJ " It Aint't over till its over"
There remain 12 more primary states, three big ones Texas,Pennslyvainia and Ohio in wjich Hill has substantial leads!
I can't believe that the states of Florida and Michagan will be disenfrachised Hill should get those.
Contrary to what you read in the papers or see or hear on TV or radio she isn't finished.
She has more super delegates then Obama. She is good when under pressure look at her last two days in New Hampshire she was terrific.
The Media are trying to finish her off for their Hero Obama who they hope will be beaten by
McCain in November when all his teeny-bopper voters tire of the game and fail to show at the polls.
________________________________________
Clinton-Backing Civil Rights Icon Shifts To Obama
MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama
Geeze what a surprise a black civil rights leader backing a black presidential candidate. It's a good thing this election isn't racist!
_______________________________________
Clinton Wins N.M. Caucus Vote »
AP HEATHER CLARK February 14, 2008 at 06:09 PM
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton finally won the popular vote in New Mexico's Democratic caucus and picked up one extra delegate Thursday, nine days after Super Tuesday voting ended.
State Democratic Chairman Brian Colon made the announcement after a marathon hand count of 17,000 provisional ballots that had to be given to voters on Feb. 5 because of long lines and a shortage of ballots. The final statewide count gave her a 1,709-vote edge over rival Sen. Barack Obama,...
______________________________________
Timber Theft Is a Growing "Business" The Associated Press
Tree rustlers typically victimize owners who are absent, elderly or both. Overseas demand is driving prices up.
Whitesburg, Kentucky - The crime scene - a once-wooded landscape marked by tire tracks and tree stumps - makes the victim, Verna Potter, feel physically violated.
"It's just like someone cut your heart out," says the 77-year-old Potter, who lost an estimated $50,000 worth of generations-old oak trees. They were taken from her property and sold without permission while she was away.
Rogue loggers have long preyed on private properties from coast to coast, taking advantage of the elderly and the absent. And they traditionally had little to fear from law enforcement officials hesitant to pursue criminal charges, instead chalking up most complaints to property disputes. But as timber values have risen, so have the stakes for landowners - and the attitude of law enforcement is adjusting.
"The authorities who have dealt with it as a property matter are starting to look at it as more of a criminal matter," said Joseph Phaneuf, executive director of the Northeastern Loggers' Assn.
In recent years, there has been a steady movement to curb illegal logging. Some states, such as Mississippi and Virginia, have established timber-theft laws, making illegal logging on private property a felony punishable by prison time.
In Kentucky, the problem has resulted in the formation of the Appalachian Roundtable, a nonprofit that joins forestry experts, attorneys, law enforcement and victims to alert landowners to logging scams and pursue criminal charges against thieves. The group is drafting legislation to be introduced in the 2008 Kentucky General Assembly aimed at making timber theft a felony punishable by prison.
"Historically, it's been viewed by local police and the judiciary as a civil complaint," said Keith Cain, president of the Kentucky Sheriffs Assn. "But the theft of timber is a criminal issue and should be prosecuted as such."
With overseas demand for North American hardwoods growing, theft has become costlier for private landowners, whose woodlands make up 55% of U.S. timber production, forestry officials say.
Cain said the same local prosecutors who vigilantly try other felonies are reluctant to get involved in timber cases.
That's because they anticipate questions about property boundaries, and few people have the money or the resources to hire a lawyer, pay thousands of dollars for a survey or hire an expert to place a value on the timber lost.
Timber thieves manipulate these obstacles, experts say. They usually operate along adjoining property lines and claim to have either owner's permission to log.
A couple of years ago, Potter decided to move in with her grown children in Ohio with her husband, who is diabetic and blind. She visits her 25-acre property only a few times a year.
If it hadn't been for nephew Mark Combs, who lives on adjacent property, she might not have known for months that her oaks had been taken down.
Combs confronted a local logger one November day after hearing the sound of a chain saw on his aunt's property. The case is to go before a grand jury next month, though that brings Potter little satisfaction.
"Thirty-two oak trees that have been there for years," said Potter. "It was my turn to give them to my son and daughter - but you can't replace those."
A quote from Mark Penn that should go over extremely well: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."
______________________________________
In the words of that famous philosopher from Montclair NJ " It Aint't over till its over"
There remain 12 more primary states, three big ones Texas,Pennslyvainia and Ohio in wjich Hill has substantial leads!
I can't believe that the states of Florida and Michagan will be disenfrachised Hill should get those.
Contrary to what you read in the papers or see or hear on TV or radio she isn't finished.
She has more super delegates then Obama. She is good when under pressure look at her last two days in New Hampshire she was terrific.
The Media are trying to finish her off for their Hero Obama who they hope will be beaten by
McCain in November when all his teeny-bopper voters tire of the game and fail to show at the polls.
________________________________________
Clinton-Backing Civil Rights Icon Shifts To Obama
MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama
Geeze what a surprise a black civil rights leader backing a black presidential candidate. It's a good thing this election isn't racist!
_______________________________________
Clinton Wins N.M. Caucus Vote »
AP HEATHER CLARK February 14, 2008 at 06:09 PM
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton finally won the popular vote in New Mexico's Democratic caucus and picked up one extra delegate Thursday, nine days after Super Tuesday voting ended.
State Democratic Chairman Brian Colon made the announcement after a marathon hand count of 17,000 provisional ballots that had to be given to voters on Feb. 5 because of long lines and a shortage of ballots. The final statewide count gave her a 1,709-vote edge over rival Sen. Barack Obama,...
______________________________________
Timber Theft Is a Growing "Business" The Associated Press
Tree rustlers typically victimize owners who are absent, elderly or both. Overseas demand is driving prices up.
Whitesburg, Kentucky - The crime scene - a once-wooded landscape marked by tire tracks and tree stumps - makes the victim, Verna Potter, feel physically violated.
"It's just like someone cut your heart out," says the 77-year-old Potter, who lost an estimated $50,000 worth of generations-old oak trees. They were taken from her property and sold without permission while she was away.
Rogue loggers have long preyed on private properties from coast to coast, taking advantage of the elderly and the absent. And they traditionally had little to fear from law enforcement officials hesitant to pursue criminal charges, instead chalking up most complaints to property disputes. But as timber values have risen, so have the stakes for landowners - and the attitude of law enforcement is adjusting.
"The authorities who have dealt with it as a property matter are starting to look at it as more of a criminal matter," said Joseph Phaneuf, executive director of the Northeastern Loggers' Assn.
In recent years, there has been a steady movement to curb illegal logging. Some states, such as Mississippi and Virginia, have established timber-theft laws, making illegal logging on private property a felony punishable by prison time.
In Kentucky, the problem has resulted in the formation of the Appalachian Roundtable, a nonprofit that joins forestry experts, attorneys, law enforcement and victims to alert landowners to logging scams and pursue criminal charges against thieves. The group is drafting legislation to be introduced in the 2008 Kentucky General Assembly aimed at making timber theft a felony punishable by prison.
"Historically, it's been viewed by local police and the judiciary as a civil complaint," said Keith Cain, president of the Kentucky Sheriffs Assn. "But the theft of timber is a criminal issue and should be prosecuted as such."
With overseas demand for North American hardwoods growing, theft has become costlier for private landowners, whose woodlands make up 55% of U.S. timber production, forestry officials say.
Cain said the same local prosecutors who vigilantly try other felonies are reluctant to get involved in timber cases.
That's because they anticipate questions about property boundaries, and few people have the money or the resources to hire a lawyer, pay thousands of dollars for a survey or hire an expert to place a value on the timber lost.
Timber thieves manipulate these obstacles, experts say. They usually operate along adjoining property lines and claim to have either owner's permission to log.
A couple of years ago, Potter decided to move in with her grown children in Ohio with her husband, who is diabetic and blind. She visits her 25-acre property only a few times a year.
If it hadn't been for nephew Mark Combs, who lives on adjacent property, she might not have known for months that her oaks had been taken down.
Combs confronted a local logger one November day after hearing the sound of a chain saw on his aunt's property. The case is to go before a grand jury next month, though that brings Potter little satisfaction.
"Thirty-two oak trees that have been there for years," said Potter. "It was my turn to give them to my son and daughter - but you can't replace those."
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Another Meaningless Caucus
Op-Ed Columnist
Notes From a Caucus
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: February 14, 2008
Once again, we are discovering that our election process works great as long as it doesn’t actually have to decide anything.
Democrats are having an exciting race for the presidential nomination, which always means trouble. Now we’re being told that it all comes down to Ohio (currently engaged in voting-machine litigation) and Texas, which has a system that involves both a primary and a caucus.
One-third of the states that have voted for a presidential nominee so far have done it by caucus. There is an impression abroad that these caucuses are grass-roots democracy, like those cute town meetings in “The Gilmore Girls.” Even if that were true, which it’s not, consider whether you would really want a presidential nominee selected by about 20 colorful characters in a barn.
Most people have never been to a caucus, even if their state happens to have them. In Washington, the caucuses last Saturday drew a little more than 1 percent of the registered voters. Mike Huckabee won his much-heralded victory in Kansas in caucuses where less than 20,000 Republicans participated.
I was at a Democratic caucus at the South Portland High School gymnasium in Maine last weekend. It was run by some lovely, public-spirited people and was attended by about 1,000 voters who took the trouble to come out of their homes on an extremely snowy Sunday. Kudos to all. However, on the down side:
A) The parking lot was also accommodating the audience for the final performance of “High School Musical.” Hillary! Barack! Troy! Gabriella! If only they’d had Hannah Montana in the library, we could have backed up the cars into New Hampshire.
B) The gym’s seating was not constructed for people over the age of 18. If you were inspired by those Iraqis with purple fingers, envision an elderly man with a cane trying to clamber up over several tiers of benches so he could spend the afternoon sitting on a backless bench in order to vote for a presidential nominee.
C) The caucus was scheduled to open at 1 p.m. Three hours later, they were just approaching the part where people actually vote.
“I know this is not the most pleasant place to spend the afternoon,” said Larry Bliss, a state representative who seemed as close to being in charge as anyone. Babies cried. Clinton supporters diverted themselves by spelling out HILLARY over and over. The Obama supporters, who were clearly more numerous, had not remembered to bring giant letters and were having a little trouble with BARACK.
Caucuses normally work fine because somewhere around the New Hampshire primary, the presidential nominees usually become a foregone conclusion. Then the only job for the parties in other states is to conscript a handful of delegates to a state convention and ratify the inevitable choice. Caucuses are great for this. And the states like them because they don’t have to pay for a real primary. This is the crucial point. Caucuses have nothing to do with recapturing the spirit of the New England town meeting. They exist because they cost the states nothing. And you get what you pay for.
The South Portland Democrats, who were all working as volunteers, had prepared for the 1,000-odd voters who showed up. But they could not handle the very large number who were not party members and had to be registered before the caucus could get under way. Then came speeches from candidates for Congress and the State Legislature. Then the nominating speeches, which were complicated by the fact that about a dozen Dennis Kucinich partisans insisted on speaking out for their man. The attorney general of Rhode Island spoke for Obama and then introduced Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, who spoke for Obama again.
State Representative Bliss then announced that it appeared that Barack had really gotten two speeches, so there would be additional remarks by the Clinton and Kucinich camps to make everything fair.
That was about when we lost a woman who was on chemotherapy. An elderly lady with hip problems stuck it out to the bitter end and should be given a Medal of Freedom.
Finally, it was time for people to divide into groups and be counted. On one side of the gym, a leader was addressing the confused crowd through a toy megaphone, for want of any better amplification system. “I’m reading the instructions as we go along,” he said.
On the other side, once voters were divided into Clinton, Obama and Kucinich camps, and noses counted, the leaders seemed at a loss as to what to do next. “We’ll get back to you,” one of them told the crowd. About 20 minutes later, everyone was dismissed. They had yet to figure out exactly who had won what.
I can’t wait for Texas.
_______________________________________
Ron Fournier
Chickens come home to roost
Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton's campaign, say many party leaders — the so-called superdelegates — won't hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground.
"If (Barack) Obama continues to win .... the whole raison d'etre for her campaign falls apart and we'll see people running from her campaign like rats on a ship," said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.
The rats started looking for clear waters when Obama won Iowa, narrowly lost New Hampshire and trounced Clinton in South Carolina before holding his own in last week's Super Tuesday contests. He won primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia on Tuesday to extend his consecutive win streak to eight.
Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, earning the majority of delegates awarded on the basis of election results. The remaining 796 delegates are elected officials and party leaders whose votes are not tied to state primaries or caucuses; thus, they are dubbed "superdelegates."
And they are not all super fans of the Clintons.
Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.
Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point
for his 1996 re-election campaign.
Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.
Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.
Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.
Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.
Some are donors who paid for the Clintons' campaigns and his presidential library.
Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"
And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them.
Never count the Clintons out. They are brilliant politicians who defied conventional wisdom countless times in Arkansas and Washington. But time is running out.
Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They're grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can't see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row.
Clinton strategists are famous for poor-mouthing their own campaign in order to lower expectations, but these advisers have never played such games. They're legitimate, and legitimately worried.
The fear inside the Clinton camp is that Obama will win Hawaii and Wisconsin next week and head into the March 4 contests for Ohio and Texas with a 10-race winning streak. Her poll numbers will drop in Texas and Ohio, Clinton aides fear, and party leaders will start hankering for an end to the fight.
Clinton should find little comfort in the fact that she has secured 242 superdelegates to Obama's 160.
"I would make the assumption that the ... superdelegates she has now are the Clintons' loyal base. A superdelegate who is uncommitted today is clearly going to wait and see how this plays out. She's at her zenith now," Duffy said. "Whatever political capital or IOUs that exist, she's already collected."
Few Democrats want to cross the Clintons when they're on top. But how many are willing to stand by them when they're down?
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Ron Fournier has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years. On Deadline is an occasional column.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Unfairness
It is evident that the media Love Obama and hate Hillary here is another example!
Matthews: Obama Speech Caused 'Thrill Going Up My Leg'
During MSNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's presidential primary elections, after the speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain had aired, Chris Matthews expressed his latest over the top admiration for Obama's speaking skills as the MSNBC anchor admitted that Obama's speech created a "thrill" in his leg: "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." Minutes later, Brian Williams poked fun at Matthews' confession: "Let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama talks ... That seems to be the headline of this half hour." (Transcript follows)
At about 10:13 p.m., right after McCain finished his speech, which came after Obama's speech, co-anchor Keith Olbermann remarked that, due to Obama's unusual speaking skills, it was a good idea for any other speaker to speak before the Illinois Democrat instead of after him. Matthews then expressed what he referred to as an "objective assessment" of Obama's speech:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.
OLBERMANN: Steady.
MATTHEWS: No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment. John McCain is a hero. I thought it was very appropriate that Barack Obama extended that fact-
OLBERMANN: And very savvy.
MATTHEWS: -to an audience of people who were very probably liberal and probably anti-Republican. He said this is an American hero I'm running against. And then, of course, he went in to delineate his differences with him. It shows a lot of class. I think there will be class if there is such a contest come this coming summer. But I just think that McCain's problem is he's over 70, he's standing there with John Warner, who's much older than him. He's standing with Tom Davis, who's retiring. He looks like an army in retreat in Virginia. That's what it looks like tonight. The Virginia Republican party used to own that state. They could elect people that are not particularly likable. They were able to do that in the past. Now they're having a hard time even fielding a candidate against Mark Warner. The former governor's going to run for that Senate seat of John Warner's, no relation, and it's going to be very tough for them....
OLBERMANN: Where do we start with this? Brian, we haven't spoken to you tonight. Simply on the results here, are we clearer about where each of these primaries are going, how soon we will get to the nominees in both cases?
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama talks, for starters.
OLBERMANN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
WILLIAMS: That seems to be the headline of this half hour.
MATTHEWS, laughing: Let it stand, then. Don't tread on it, Brian, if it's a good line.
_______________________________________
This morning on "Morning Joe on MSNBC" he was chatting with Hillary's PR person and thet talked about hitting on Clinton and going easy on Obama. Joe didn't deny this he said Hillary has a long history so there is lots of stuff to write about whereas Obama is new and they can't lay a glove on him! Lay a glove on him? They haven't even got in the ring with him. Joe admitted that there has not been even one long hard hitting interview with Obama while Hillary has then all the time. He denied favoritism. Well read above if you want to read favoritism.
_______________________________________
This is what we need from the Hillary Camp!
McCain Opens Fire On Obama "Platitudes"
February 13, 2008 01:51 AM
In his victory speech after the Potomac primaries, John McCain took several thinly veiled shots at Barack Obama, claiming that offering "only rhetoric" to advance the country "is not the promise of hope. It is a platitute."
Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.
When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.
Matthews: Obama Speech Caused 'Thrill Going Up My Leg'
During MSNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's presidential primary elections, after the speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain had aired, Chris Matthews expressed his latest over the top admiration for Obama's speaking skills as the MSNBC anchor admitted that Obama's speech created a "thrill" in his leg: "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." Minutes later, Brian Williams poked fun at Matthews' confession: "Let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama talks ... That seems to be the headline of this half hour." (Transcript follows)
At about 10:13 p.m., right after McCain finished his speech, which came after Obama's speech, co-anchor Keith Olbermann remarked that, due to Obama's unusual speaking skills, it was a good idea for any other speaker to speak before the Illinois Democrat instead of after him. Matthews then expressed what he referred to as an "objective assessment" of Obama's speech:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.
OLBERMANN: Steady.
MATTHEWS: No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment. John McCain is a hero. I thought it was very appropriate that Barack Obama extended that fact-
OLBERMANN: And very savvy.
MATTHEWS: -to an audience of people who were very probably liberal and probably anti-Republican. He said this is an American hero I'm running against. And then, of course, he went in to delineate his differences with him. It shows a lot of class. I think there will be class if there is such a contest come this coming summer. But I just think that McCain's problem is he's over 70, he's standing there with John Warner, who's much older than him. He's standing with Tom Davis, who's retiring. He looks like an army in retreat in Virginia. That's what it looks like tonight. The Virginia Republican party used to own that state. They could elect people that are not particularly likable. They were able to do that in the past. Now they're having a hard time even fielding a candidate against Mark Warner. The former governor's going to run for that Senate seat of John Warner's, no relation, and it's going to be very tough for them....
OLBERMANN: Where do we start with this? Brian, we haven't spoken to you tonight. Simply on the results here, are we clearer about where each of these primaries are going, how soon we will get to the nominees in both cases?
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama talks, for starters.
OLBERMANN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
WILLIAMS: That seems to be the headline of this half hour.
MATTHEWS, laughing: Let it stand, then. Don't tread on it, Brian, if it's a good line.
_______________________________________
This morning on "Morning Joe on MSNBC" he was chatting with Hillary's PR person and thet talked about hitting on Clinton and going easy on Obama. Joe didn't deny this he said Hillary has a long history so there is lots of stuff to write about whereas Obama is new and they can't lay a glove on him! Lay a glove on him? They haven't even got in the ring with him. Joe admitted that there has not been even one long hard hitting interview with Obama while Hillary has then all the time. He denied favoritism. Well read above if you want to read favoritism.
_______________________________________
This is what we need from the Hillary Camp!
McCain Opens Fire On Obama "Platitudes"
February 13, 2008 01:51 AM
In his victory speech after the Potomac primaries, John McCain took several thinly veiled shots at Barack Obama, claiming that offering "only rhetoric" to advance the country "is not the promise of hope. It is a platitute."
Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.
When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)