They don’t call it Hot
Air for nothing.

Murtha clarifies his statement:

The surge, he said in a statement, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,” but so far the Iraqi government has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.” “The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” said the chair of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.

There’s an important
post in Harper’s that reader Borg Warner (in Hot
Topics) also points out. Douglas Macgregor, a retired Army colonel
and a decorated Persian Gulf War combat veteran, answers six questions.

1. How big of a change has there been in recent months in the military situation in Iraq? The situation on the ground has definitely changed, but not for the reasons the Bush Administration and its generals claim. The main reasons include cash-based deals with Sunni leaders and Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr’s independent decision earlier this year to temporarily restrain his Mahdi army from attacking U.S. forces. There have also been improved force protection measures–increased commitment of emergency ordnance disposal units to clear mines from roads–and increased use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles. As a result, American casualties have declined in the last 90 days to the levels experienced in 2006. 2. Has the “surge” in troop levels played an important role here as well? Not really. Where once there was one country called Iraq, there are now three emerging states: one Kurdish, one Sunni, and one Shiite. More than two years of sectarian violence have left districts in and around Baghdad completely Sunni or completely Shiite, and that has significantly reduced violence in those districts and resulted in fewer bodies in the streets. This new strategic reality, combined with huge cash payments to the Sunni insurgent enemy, is what has given U.S. forces a respite from the chaos of the last four years. The introduction of a few thousand additional troops into Baghdad’s neighborhoods was never going to result in any kind of strategic sea change. … ..

Republicans have really taken a beating on Iraq, so what are they now doing?
Trumpeting that the country is in a whole new place because of the surge, while
simultaneously squealing that Democrats allegedly will be sunk because we can’t
handle the good news. It makes me chuckle, because in their haste to try to paint us
desperately unpatriotic they’ve forgotten one not so very small item. The political
solution remains in limbo. But ignoring this, Republicans say Democrats won’t
acknowledge the good military news. What this actually reveals is that the Republicans
don’t understand that you can’t have a country with a military alone, unless
you want it to look like Pakistan. Republicans don’t get the infrastructure
it takes to support any type of democracy. Political hacks put in charge will
do for their vision.

The other side is that their glee in accusing Democrats of not appreciating
what our military has done, which is patently false, reveals a sort of reverse gotcha that benefits Democrats, because we have stated all along that our military is doing the job, though the Iraqi parliament is clearly not. That’s our point. It’s like conservatives doubted the troops ability to quell any part of the violence in the first place.
We openly stated that unless the Iraqi government could get the job done the surge wouldn’t be enough. Guess what? It still isn’t. The political solution is
nowhere.

Unless you call making “huge cash payments” to Iraqis in a sort of gang like payoff system a success.
It’s Bush’s economic plan finally put into action in Iraq.

The reality is that no Democrat I know thought the military would do anything
but succeed in quelling some of the violence if they were put in Iraq in the
proper force make up, as well as given an actual plan.

Why are the conservatives so shocked?

Democrats are not. Our military has done everything asked of them and more…
then more… then more. We’ve said it again and again and again.

The trouble remains at the political end. So even after the military progress
we’re still stuck. Even now you have Lindsay Graham threatening al-Maliki to
get it done or, in no uncertain words, face the consequences, maybe even a coup.
If Republicans have their way, it will be regime change in Iraq, the sequel.

As an aside, James Webb will be on “Meet the Press,” having just returned home from Iraq.

“I appreciate our military’s hard work in improving the security situation in Iraq but we must start taking advantage of these gains by implementing a regional diplomatic effort that enables us to reduce our presence in Iraq and not destabilize the region any further.” – Senator James Webb

Webb is exactly correct.

Share

Hostages Taken at Clinton Camp
RESOLVED PEACEFULLY updated

Latest update at 7:19 p.m. eastern time

Frightening. One hostage has just been released, which is not reflected in the coverage below.

Shaheen said the hostages were two volunteers. “Hopefully, they’re going to negotiate this so no one gets hurt,” Shaheen told WMUR-TV in Rochester. WMUR-TV quoted a woman, Lettie Tzizik, saying she spoke to someone who said she had just been released by the man. “A young woman with a 6-month- or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, ‘You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape.’” … .. Hostages taken at Clinton N.H. office

We’ll have to obviously wait and see why this man went off, taking hostages
at the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire. But he’s obviously trying to appeal
directly to Hillary Clinton about something. It’s an obvious good sign he let a mother
and her child out.

Clinton is in Washington, but has canceled her speech today. Here’s their statement:

There is an ongoing situation in our Rochester, NH office. We are in close contact with state and local authorities and are acting at their direction. We will release additional details as appropriate.

UPDATE II: Boston Globe reports the hostage element of this crisis is over, thank God.… wrongly, because according to other news reports they got it wrong.

UPDATE: WMUR is reporting that it is a 40 year-old man with a history of mental illness. He supposedly told his son to “watch the news” today.

Share

Dueling headlines, with rumors the snack of the day.

Here’s the headline the Off the Bus editor ran on Huffington Post:

Accusations That Clinton Campaign Has Fixed Upcoming Iowa Debate

Here’s Chase
Martyn’s headline on Iowa Independent, which is the same post cross-posted above:

Rumors and Accusations Cast Shadows on Brown and Black Presidential Forum

Chase and I have become colleagues over the last months. He is a regular guest
on my radio show, and I have respect for him, but this post crosses the line
and I told him so this morning on the phone. In fact, we talked about the Brown and Black dinner this week on my show. We had a very lively discussion on the
phone today about it as well.

I don’t care who wins Iowa. Let me first get that out.

However, when rumors were flying about Obama busing people in to the Jefferson
Jackson dinner, what did the Iowa Independent write? Not one word until the
dinner was over. They evidently couldn’t prove Obama’s campaign did anything
wrong.

Too bad the Clinton camp can’t get the same treatment, which is the very definition
of what journalism is all about.

Instead, Iowa Independent runs with rumors, even though the Clinton camp denies
emphatically stacking the Brown and Black forum this weekend. Is that up front?
No. It’s buried in Chase’s post. Is the headline Clinton camp denies stacking
Iowa forum used? No. Instead Iowa Independent decides to play National
Inquirer with the upcoming event, which the Off the Bus editors at Huffington
Post make worse.

There are many rumors that the Black and Brown event has been handled
badly. If anyone in charge is stacking it towards Clinton, prove it. Wayne
Ford and Mary Campos are getting slammed pretty hard by rumors and innuendo,
and so is Clinton’s Iowa camp. If they’ve done anything wrong they will then
have to take the heat, but where is the proof as it stands today?

Whether it’s Clinton’s Iowa team rumored to be doing it this weekend, or Obama’s
team stacking the Jefferson Jackson dinner with 18 year olds, it should be exposed
as what it is: playing politics. Interesting how no one bitched about Obama
stacking the JJ dinner, including Clinton. But the Vegas debate, held in a state
where Clinton is ahead by a mile, had everyone crying that too many Clintonites
were in the audience. Can you sense the double standard?

I also have to wonder why the Iowa Independent isn’t running a story on Obama’s
health care ad, which is flatly false? Why isn’t that a big story in Iowa? After
all, Mr. Obama is asserting he will cover all Americans when it’s been proven
that his plan does not.

Again, if the organizers of the Brown and Black event, or Clinton’s
Iowa people, are doing anything corrupt, prove it. I’ll trumpet the reporting,
blast it in a post and help expose the culprits. But as of today Iowa Independent has bupkis.

One last point that is important. Iowa Independent isn’t allowed to endorse
candidates because of their status. But just because they don’t do it in an
op-ed doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it through their posts.

Share

First, if you haven’t already, read Paul Krugman.

I was on a media conference call with the Clinton campaign on health care earlier
this morning. It was mainly about an ad Obama is running, but questions were
also asked. Oddly enough, Ron Brownstein, formerly of the LA Times,
asked what share of income should be devoted to health care from someone’s salary?
Clinton answered this some time ago. Unlike other candidate she has proposed
a premium cap so that health care never becomes more than a certain percentage
of anyone’s income. Jake Tapper took off down a different road: Since Clinton
has been talking about Democrats attacking Democrats, why is she now attacking
Obama? Is it because, as the Obama team suggests, she’s sinking in the polls?
Howard Wolfson chimed up to take that question. He said that Senators Obama
and Edwards have been attacking Clinton for some time. It was not the way their
camp wanted the race to go and it was not their choice for it to head down this
path. But since Senator Obama decided “the politics of hope weren’t
working,” with Edwards joining in on the attacks, Clinton had to respond.
You can’t let opponents attack you relentlessly without responding, Wolfson
added. Then he continued by talking about Clinton’s long-term commitment to
health care and the experience she’s accumulated over the years on the issue,
adding people are tired of “all talk no action politicians.” The
main point today is about health care, which Clinton has been talking about
all week, particularly mandates.

Krugman
takes on that very issue today:

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing. Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points. … .. … … The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack. But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots. … .. Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.” … ..

As for mandates in Clinton’s plan, one of the ways Clinton will enforce them,
which was covered on the media call, is by default enrollment. When you go to
an emergency room you will automatically be enrolled. Clinton proposes working
with employers as well to get everyone covered. There’s a reason this is important,
from Krugman:

… under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.

Edwards, who is very much back on his game, which you would have seen if you
saw him on “Charlie Rose” last night, has also called Obama’s bluff
on mandates: proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance
when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have
insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically
enrolled in an insurance plan. Krugman applaud’s Edwards’ idea on this
front.

In addition, Mr. Obama is running an ad now that says that his plan covers
everyone even though it clearly does not. The Clinton campaign has made a formal
request for him to pull the ad, which is now runing in New Hampshire. I contacted the Obama camp, which responded with this statement:

“The Clinton campaign didn’t say a word when this ad was released a month ago, and the only thing that’s changed since then is the poll numbers. The truth is, Barack Obama’s universal plan will provide coverage to every single American who can’t afford it and do more to cut the cost of health care than any other plan in this race. Rather than spending their time attacking Barack Obama, the Clinton campaign should explain how exactly they plan to force every American to buy health insurance even if they can’t afford it

Obviously, they’re not going to pull the ad. But the problem is that Obama’s plan doesn’t cover everyone.
As you can see in the statement above, one issue is the cost of the plan. Clinton’s
people said it would cost more to enforce a mandate, $110 billion/year according to the call today, but as Krugman proves in
his column if you don’t have a mandate for everyone it’s hardly equitable across
the board. Frankly, leaving 15 million people uninsured is not “covering
everyone.” It’s just not.

David Plouffe Obama for America P.O. Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680 Dear David: I am writing concerning a false advertisement you are currently airing, in which Senator Obama claims that his health care plan would “cover everyone.” Your advertisement not only contradicts the judgment of health care experts, but public statements by your campaign and your candidate. Senator Obama has pledged to put “honesty first” in this campaign. In that spirit I respectfully request that you stop running this ad which is misleading voters in New Hampshire. In today’s New York Times, noted economist Paul Krugman wrote that Senator Obama proposed “a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although [Senator Obama] declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that ‘my plan begins by covering every American,’ it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.” Health care author Jonathan Cohn looked at the data and concluded that, under the most optimistic scenario, Senator Obama’s plan would leave “15 million people who are uninsured.” The Washington Post reached a similar conclusion, finding that Senator Obama’s plan would not cover “a third” of the 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured. Additionally, a constellation of the nation’s top health care experts – including MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Diane Rowland and the Urban Institute’s John Holland — have concluded that plans like Senator Obama’s, which does not include a requirement for all Americans to have health care, would leave a substantial portion of the American public without coverage. Even Senator Obama himself has admitted that his plan would not cover everyone, calling the plan “virtually universal.” Your top health care advisor, David Cutler, acknowledged that Senator Obama’s plan could leave “significant pockets” of people uninsured and said Senator Obama would “deal with that when the time comes, possibly by mandating insurance.” On an issue of this magnitude Americans are looking for more than a nice ad or a good speech. It’s not enough for Senator Obama to say he covers everyone, especially when that is inaccurate. The American people need a President who will take the action necessary and fight for health care for every single man woman and child. Until the time comes when Senator Obama has a plan that will cover everyone, you should stop running this false advertisement. The American people deserve an honest debate about health care. Sincerely, Patti Solis Doyle Campaign Manager Hillary Clinton for President

Krugman really goes after Mr. Obama today, once again calling him on his political
attacks.

Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicine”: he doesn’t want the government to “force” people to have insurance, to “penalize” people who don’t participate. I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care. What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true. Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

Honestly, this is no fun to cover. I despise Democrats going at each other’s
throats. But Mr. Obama is acting in a way that would get Hillary pilloried if she ever used such tactics. There
shouldn’t be a double standard, especially when you’re contending to cover everyone
in an ad, but you are clearly not.

Share

Washington Post Channels Drudge

I heard… Did you hear?… No, but guess what?… You’re kidding!!

The Post is really outdoing themselves today. First they swiftboat
Barack Obama. Then using second hand quotes of a convicted
Iran-contra felon, Elliot Abrams, they churn up a story that has Bill Clinton
practically salivating over the Iraq war. Trying to do a multiple bank shot
off of the former president’s recent comments in Iowa, which didn’t do Hillary
any good and gave me whiplash, they base their tale on Abrams telling former
Rice aide Hillary
Mann Leverett what he supposedly heard Bill Clinton say in a pro forma
briefing on the coming Iraq war. The Post then uses Leverett
as the sole source for their article, though she has no first hand knowledge
of the meeting. Through a method similar to the kid game telephone,
they then go to excrutiating contortions trying to prove these factoids even
though there’s no conclusive proof that Abrams was in the room with Clinton
either. This concoction has not one single provable first hand source.
Not one. This also comes at a time when we have Karl Rove out spinning
on “Charlie Rose” and everywhere else that the Iraq war resolution
in the fall of 2002 was really the Congress’s idea and not Mr. Bush’s.
It never occurs to the Post that Abrams couldn’t find the truth with
Johnny Appleseed as a guide, so their stenographers lap it right up and spit
it out instead.

A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton’s statement this week that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning,” saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion. … .. … .. Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was “shocked” and “astonished” by Clinton’s remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams “coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that ‘we have Clinton’s support.’ ” Leverett, a former career foreign service officer who said she is not involved in any presidential campaign, said the incident affected her because of her own doubts about the wisdom of an attack. “To hear President Clinton was supportive really silenced whatever questions I had,” she recalled. Leverett, who worked in the same office as Abrams at the time, said Rice and Abrams “made it a high priority” to get Clinton’s support, meeting with him at least twice. Abrams was tasked to answer Clinton’s questions and “took the responsibility very seriously,” Leverett said. “Elliott was then very focused on making sure that we followed up on Clinton’s questions to keep Clinton happy and on board.” … .. Bill Clinton’s Claim of Opposing Iraq War From Outset Disputed

Don’t you just love the quotes. Leverett was “shocked,”
she was “astonished”! I bet. Maybe because Abrams was unloading
bull. I don’t doubt Leverett’s recollections at all. But Abrams? Yeah, and the
Bushies wanted Bill Clinton happy, too. Right.

People who actually are in the position to know what happens in these circumstances
say that whenever a president decides to go to war he invites the former president
to the White House. Bush’s team, in this case, briefs Bill Clinton; they tell
him they’re going to war on such-and-such a date, using bombing, ground invasion
or whatever, but it’s simply a courtesy meeting, a pro forma back and forth.
Translation: Clinton comes in, they tell him how it’s going to go down, they
thank him for showing up, see ya, bye. Seriously, can you imagine George W.
Bush asking Bill Clinton’s advice on going to war? Bush was ignoring his generals! So now we’re supposed to buy that Bush, back in 2003,
cared what Clinton thought or said? It’s just not credible. From the moment
Bush came into office everything Bill Clinton was anathema to them, everything.

That it’s Elliot Abrams at the foundation of this convenient Iraq yarn, which
is then repeated by a senior aide that was nowhere near the briefing at the
time, well, color me highly skeptical. When I first read it this morning, the
quotes, the connections to the source, the actual source himself, then the degrees
of separation and the contorted reporting to tie it back to Iowa, well, it all
seemed just too remarkable, too coincidental. After dissecting it, as I did
on my radio show today, it’s all too incredible and unbelievable.

So yet a second time in one day the Post pens an anti Democratic screed,
the first one
targeting Obama, with this one targeting
Hillary through Bill. Now that’s triangulation. It also drums up a an anti
Democratic storyline that there’s controversy afoot, first questioning Obama’s
faith bona fides with a wingnut Muslim slur; then going to Hillary on her perceived
Iraq vulnerabilities, which the Post hopes will get the horse race
going even harder, no doubt preparing the ground for the general election. After
all, it’s good to get a jump on this stuff with a little preemptive “journalism.”
Can’t have Republicans getting creamed next year by Obama or Clinton. That doesn’t
sell papers or web advertising if you don’t bring eyes to the page.

So instead let’s get everyone to believe what a convicted Iran-contra liar
supposedly said about something Bill Clinton allegedly uttered in a briefing
we don’t even know the Iran-contra liar attended, which is offered up by an
aide who happened to be around when Abrams fed her his malarkey. Considering
the truth track record of the Bush administration, I’d say anything that comes
out of this crew should be greeted with a healthy cackle. That it started
with someone neck deep and convicted in Iran-contra says it all.

But to the Washington Post it’s news; whether it’s an Obama Muslim slur, or
going at Hill through Bill on Iraq, if it gets eyes to page and gets talked
about on cable and wingnut radio, it’s, as they say, mission accomplished.

Share

GOP Debate, and More Bad Reporting from the Washington Post

Taylor Marsh LIVE!
3:00 p.m. eastern – 12:00 pacific
Missed the show? Podcast is up.
GOP Debate Debacle; the Independent General; and Post Lies on Iraq, Bill Clinton, & HRC

Boy, do have some news. It concerns this Iraq hit piece on Bill Clinton, which is actually meant to slime Hillary. Wait until you hear what I’ve found out. You won’t want to miss it.

As for the GOP debate, Clinton was the main target as usual.

But never say die, baby. As I mentioned in a comment last night and as the video above shows, after the CNN debate a group of undecided Republicans were asked if they’d been convinced by anything they’d heard. One woman was, but not in the way anyone expected. She came out for John Edwards. Thanks to Edwards supporter “HillaryMurdoch” for posting the video in Hot Topics.

On the flip side, Eriposte over at the LeftCoaster takes down “the pledge” Edwards is asking for on his new anti Clinton site. Lots of links in the excerpt below, so make sure you read the whole post.

So, how did “populist”, “anti-special-interest”-crusader John Edwards vote in Congress after taking a sum total of ZERO dollars from PACs and lobbyists? He voted in favor of a Bankruptcy Bill not once but twice, voted against filibustering the bill and voted against some progressive amendments to the Bill, he supported NAFTA as recently as 2004, he voted in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca mountain, he voted in favor of No Child Left Behind, he voted in favor of the Andean trade agreement and easing trade relations with China – not to mention, he voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq war authorization resolution and stood by his vote in 2004, he voted against an attempt to restrict the Iraq war authorization to one year, he voted against creating an independent report on pre-war intelligence manipulation, he voted against an attempt to raise taxes to fund the war, and he voted in favor of labeling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. You get the picture. With this “pledge” stunt of his, I unfortunately have to draw the line and point out that some of us still have some brains left and don’t intend to email either the “pledge” or our brains to him. Sen. Edwards is running on a platform that says you can only trust people who take no contributions from PACs/lobbyists. As he has shown through his own career in the Senate, this claim can be catastrophically wrong. Who you take money from is a factor, but it is absolutely not the kind of defining factor that Sen. Edwards makes it out to be. What matters most is the character and ideology of the individual – NOT who they take money from.

Lots to talk about today. Lots to laugh about too. Those silly Republicans. They really are in a twist today over the CNN debate. They seem to be missing what all their bellyaching reveals. That it doesn’t matter who asks the questions, because any candidate should be able to answer what’s on the voter’s mind. It’s not a trick question to be asked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from a veteran Special Forces general, who has one goal in mind: making the U.S. military open to all who want to serve, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The telling thing is that Republicans couldn’t answer the question. All Retired Brigader General Keith Kerr wants to do is help people like him from being discriminated against in the military. Amazing the Republicans can’t see the obvious. Very telling that they can’t. To add, here’s the video on Kerr this morning on CNN. He’s given to Eliana Ross Leighton, and is a registered Independent.

Hope you can join me today.

Share

It began in January
with Fox “News” and Steve Doocy. It continued in February with
the Malcolm
X hit. In March it was Roger
Ailes. April came
Townhall. Now, as the primaries close in, it’s the Washington Post.

Obama is being swiftboated yet again. It’s despicable. It’s not surprising,
because this is what wingnuts do best. Get scurrilous whisper campaigns inside
the hack pack press, long after they’ve been debunked. South Carolina is known
for this stuff. That the Washington Post is revealing it through a
long winding piece is journalism at its worst. If it came as a warning on what’s
on wingnut radio that would be one thing. But what it actually does is provide
a platform for a rumor campaign, not to mention a preview of things to come
for Democrats. It’s John Kerry revisited, the religious version.

Conservative talk-show hosts have occasionally repeated the rumor, with Michael Savage noting Obama’s “background” in a “Muslim madrassa in Indonesia” in June, and Rush Limbaugh saying in September that he occasionally got “confused” between Obama and Osama bin Laden. Others repeatedly use the senator’s middle name, Hussein. The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails. Bryan Keelin of Charleston, S.C., who works with an organization of churches there, posted on an Internet board his suspicion that Obama is a Muslim. “I assume his father instructed him on the ways of being a Muslim,” said Keelin, who described himself in an interview as a conservative Republican who will vote for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. “The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out,” says one of the e-mails that was posted recently on a blog at BarackObama.com, the campaign’s Web site, by an Obama supporter who warned of an attempt to “Swift Boat” the candidate. “What better way to start than at the highest level, through the President of the United States, one of their own!” … .. Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

Mr. Obama has to have a signed letter attesting to his Christian faith for
assuage Iowa voters? Excuse me, but I’d tell them to go pound sand and so should
Obama’s team. The Post using this is disgusting. It’s even worse
than the flag
pin hit.

Staggering lack of impulse control and messaging by the Post. But
it gets worse.

Obama aides sharply disputed the initial stories suggesting that he was a Muslim, and in Iowa, the campaign keeps a letter at its offices, signed by five members of the local clergy, vouching for the candidate’s Christian faith. Aware that his religious belief remains an issue, Obama has denied a separate charge: that he does not hold his hand to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. This rumor stemmed from a photo that was taken while the national anthem was being played.

The phony pledge picture was just another attempt to paint Obama
as not sufficiently patriotic. I’ve never kept my hand over my heart while singing
the national anthem.

Meanwhile, it’s a three-way
tie in Iowa, with Clinton leading again, Obama second, Edwards third, but
all within the margin of error, constituting a tie.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Hillary Clinton at 27%, Barack Obama at 25%, and John Edwards at 24%. Bill Richardson is the only other Democrat in double-digits at 10% while Joe Biden earns 4% of the vote from Likely Caucus Participants.

In other news, in quite a surprising development, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has
endorsed Clinton. Frankly, I thought he’d be in for Edwards. I find this large,
though people don’t really weigh endorsements, I don’t think, when voting. I
just think this goes to something for which Clinton never gets noticed. Her
core Democratic ideology. She’s far more entrenched in Democratic foundational
guideposts than her husband ever was.

As for what’s up with Republicans, Rush is ranting about the debate last night.
They’re in full on damage control. It’s positively delicious to hear him squeal;
can’t wait to hear Hannity.

Oh, and by the way, getting back to the swiftboating of Obama, CBS has picked up the story. Our liberal media at work.

Share

It was a beautiful thing. Watching the Republicans respond to a gay veteran
Special Forces man asking a question about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That man also happens to be a Clinton supporter. It will not
be forgotten at CNN headquarters or GOP central. It’s unlikely any Republican
will forget this travesty. What a colossal collapse; worse than I could imagine.
Fred Thompson even let fly a negative ad during the debate. But Romney getting dressed
down by McCain on torture really showed the craven callousness of Slick Mitt
who is one of the most contemptible conservative caricatures ever to campaign
for higher office. One very depressed
Republican from the Weekly Standard blogged the bottom line.

So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar. The media will probably award a win to Mike Huckabee, the easy listening music candidate at home in any crowd, fluent in simpleton speak and the one man on the stage tonight who led the audience to roaring cheers by boasting that he had a special qualification to be president that none of the second-raters on the stage could match: A degree in Bible Studies from Ouachita Baptist University of Arkadelphia, Arkansas.

The people who put together the YouTubes seemed out of the 19th century. A
question about the Confederate flag. Abortion battle on who should be thrown
in jail if they can get it outlawed. What about the doctor who performed the abortion,” asked the young woman.

It was a race to the bottom from the beginning. Not only that, but CNN got
punked.

Retired Brigader General Keith Kerr, who asked the question about Don’t ask,
Don’t tell, is a known Clinton supporter and is not a secret, but CNN never checked and obviously didn’t know. CNN
responded afterwards, with Anderson Cooper doing his best at the end, but
the damage had been done.

UPDATE: CNN later learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee. CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

But the answer to the question, which came first from Duncan Hunter was an
outrageous insult to all of our troops. Hunter actually said that Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell should stay in place because our military is made up of Judeo-Christian
conservative soldiers who must have rules that comport with their values. I’ll
offer the exact quote when the transcript is done. It was an appalling insult,
including to many of you who read this blog. I was stunned. It was very obvious that none of them knew what to say to this fine veteran.

Oh, and by the way, Rudy was asked the question about billing some far out
agency for his trips. He said, hey, no biggie. Anderson said, okay. Journalism
at its finest.

UPDATE: Huckabee polled as the winner, if you can say anyone won this disaster.

Share

At Long Last the Republicans Face YouTube updated

Geez, these white guys are so scared of YouTube, how can they ever protect us from the terrorists?

It will stream live on CNN.

The RNC YouTube page is classic, though
don’t feel obliged to give them traffic. Of course, Clinton is up front and center. The Republicans are
not only afraid of YouTube, but they’re deathly afraid of Hillary.

Instead you should check out the DNC’s
brand new Flipper TV. It’s footage straight from the campaign field on Mr.
9/11, Reborn (**cough**) Rebel John, Slick Mitt and Grandpa Fred. They’ve got a good start. Check
it out.

This should be fun tonight. You’ve got to wonder if there will be any question beyond those scary immigrants. Will Fred stay awake? Will Huckabee challenge Slick Mitt to a God-off? Wonder if Anderson Cooper will get in a question
about Rudy’s latest scandal? It would be a bit beyond the format.

Via Ben
Smith and Politico.com who broke the story and deserves a hat tip.

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records. The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants. … The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani’s two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board. When the city’s fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani’s aides refused, citing “security,” said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller. But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment. Auditors “were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes,” City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000. … ..

Let the spin begin.

UPDATE II: This was a really scary debate. I’ve never seen a bunch of WHITE GUYS so set in the 20th century. The one moment that infuriated me the most was when the veteran Special Forces officer talked about don’t ask, don’t tell. Duncan Hunter had the unmitigated nerve to say that since the military is mostly conservative, keeping this policy is important for force cohesion. It compliments the conservative volunteers and their values, to paraphrase. I’ve never heard anything more insulting to our military. It was reprehensible. After that, once you start listening to them talking about illegal immigration you’ve really got to wonder where the Republican party goes from here. They have totally collapsed on their bigotry. Really remarkable performances, but not in a good way.

UPDATE: Anderson Cooper started it out by announcing there were 2,000 more YouTube’s submitted by Republicans than for the Democratic YouTube debate. That’s likely because they had months and months to do it, because the Republicans kept backing away from it. Cooper didn’t mention that, however.

Share

Edwards has launched an anti Clinton website. Via
WSJ:

Former North Carolina Sen. and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards launched a Web site today that takes a cloaked strike at front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton. … .. In keeping with Edwards’s increasingly strident (some would say angry) stump rhetoric, the site includes an “outrage of the day.” The debut outrage takes on credit-card companies, which the former North Carolina senator all but accuses of usury by deliberately making credit contracts opaque and confusing to the average consumer. The site says credit-card companies and banks have spent nearly $750 million on political contributions and lobbying since 1998. … .. Many political operatives — including some close to Edwards — suggest his kid-glove treatment of Obama makes political sense. It’s likely that the only way Edwards — or Obama for that matter — can survive a second-place finish in Iowa is if Clinton finishes third. Edwards lags far behind the other top candidates in fund-raising and has said in the past that his success depends on a good performance in Iowa. Edwards signaled his Iowa strategy in a recent meeting with reporters in Des Moines. “The differences between Sen. Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between me and Sen. Obama,” he said.

America Belongs to Us. It just doesn’t belong to the Clintons or anyone who dares to support Hillary. Got that?

Share

Taylor Marsh LIVE!
3:00 p.m. eastern – 12:00 pacific
Missed the show? Podcast on Iowa (and beyond) is up.

We’ll start out with Chase Martyn from Iowa.

Lots to talk about. Let me know what you’re hearing.

Hope you can join me.

Share

Hillary Clinton needs
this like she needs another breast.

During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.

HillaryHub diligently
defends Hillary’s other half, but this quote hardly does it: “… ..
I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it.
We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change. There’s
more than one way to do this, but if that passes and he actually disarms, then
we have to be willing to take it, and then work for regime change by supporting
the opposition to Saddam Hussein within and outside Iraq, and doing other things.”

Regime change is bad foreign policy any way you cut it, whether we’re talking
Iraq or any other country on the globe. That’s the real point that many are
missing in their harangues, which rightly point out that Mr. Clinton was abjectly
silent (to add, that is on saying that he was opposed to the war, though he said a lot of other things) on the issue when Bush was going in. Now, you can say that was out of
presidential deference, but considering we’re talking war I’d say that’s where
this stuff stops. But to former president’s war is the water’s edge where on president should not excoriate another.

Gore
thought otherwise.

The other issue is that Hillary is giving a big health care speech today. However,
the media line is all about Bill. That the stories include Iraq doesn’t do her
any good either, especially since she’s moved a football field away from where
she started. Her
letter to Bush on his enduring friendship nonsense didn’t get any press
either, even though she committed to no
permanent bases in Iraq (as has Obama and Edwards, but they’re not married to Bill), with an added punch towards the president. But
when the Big Dog barks, all pundits reply. There’s a smorgasbord of items to
choose from on which Bill could pontificate. Iraq is the worst among them. He
doesn’t know that by now?

Share

The Mormon Anti Muslim updated

Bigotry is a bitch. You’d think Slick Mitt would get it, especially with what’s happening in Iowa. Eventually you’re prejudices will be revealed.
Josh Marshall is following Mitt’s muddle every
painful step of the way. It began with Mansoor
Ijaz:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.” Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they’re too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America’s Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats. … .. A Muslim belongs in the Cabinet

Now a bit about Mr. Ijaz. He’s the man who handed Sean Hannity the rancid
nugget that Bill Clinton passed on an opportunity to go after bin Laden,
because he wouldn’t take the terrorist state of Sudan for a good partner. Mr.
Ijaz also attacked
Richard Clarke in an unabashed screed published by NRO. Mr. Ijaz is also
a member of Benador
& Assoc., along with our friend Amir
Taheri, that peddler of all Iranian propaganda, which I
helped expose a year or so ago.

Slick Mitt is an opportunistic shill, for sure, and it looks like a bigoted
liar, too. Shocking. But Mr. Ijaz isn’t exactly Mr. Wonderful. So let’s
be careful who we hoist up, because there just might be an agenda underneath,
though that doesn’t get Slick Mitt in the clear, not by a long shot. But is anyone surprised that the Mormon is being accused of being anti Muslim? Oh, the irony.

UPDATE: This story has now been confirmed three times. It’s golden.

Share

This has turned into quite a little kerfuffle, leaving the Zogby people with
a lot of explaining to do. Charles Franklin at Pollster.com takes the last Zogby
poll that purported Clinton losing to the Republican wanna bes and tears it
apart from top to bottom.

A new Zogby Interactive poll, conducted using volunteers over the internet, has produced some odd results for trial heats involving Senator Clinton against all four top Republican opponents. What makes this especially odd is that the results are not equally unusual for Obama. … .. …. .. The hugely surprising result is that the Zogby poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton losing to all four top Republicans in head-to-head trial heats. What makes that surprising is that Clinton LEADS all four of those Republicans in the trend estimates based on all other polling by between 3.8 and 11.6 points. Zogby also has Clinton losing to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by 5 points. There are too few Clinton-Huckabee trial heat polls from other organizations for me to compute a trend estimate for that comparison. …

That didn’t stop the Hillary haters from spreading their Clinton Derangement
Syndrome far and wide, on both sides of the political aisle.

But since when do big pollsters decide to defensively blog about a leading
candidate’s pollster issuing a
strong rebuke on a cable network (h/t Newsbusters),
without instead simply proving their poll data is correct. Just prove your data. Oh, that’s right, you can’t on this one. Hey, but that didn’t stop Newsbusters and others from providing a forum for Zogby in order to push the usual anti Clinton garbage.
This
response from Zogby Director of Communications Fritz Wenzel is just odd.

Mark Penn is one of the best in the polling business, which is why he works for such high-level clients as Hillary Clinton. But he should know better than almost anyone that Zogby has long been doing online polls, and doing it with as much accuracy and success as anyone in the business. How should he know this? Because no political campaign requests copies of our polling results more often than Mark Penn’s office. As Newsbusters mentions, Zogby International’s online polling division has nearly a decade of experience and is a leader in identifying a reliable and accurate methodology that matches the changes we see in how our society communicates. The vast majority of likely voters today uses the Internet to express their opinions. We are there to accurately capture those opinions.

This is classic: “Zogby has long been doing online polls, and doing
it with as much accuracy and success as anyone in the business. … The vast
majority of likely voters today uses the Internet to express their opinions.
We are there to accurately capture those opinions.”

Does anyone else besides me and reader Canaan believe a pollster who is supposed
to be neutral should rebut a campaign’s charge of a bad poll by ranting
in a blog post over it?

Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is “meaningless” as a knee–jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.

That Clinton’s lead has “shrunk” in Iowa and New Hampshire is not
surprising. Guess what? It will likely tighten up even further as we get towards the primaries. Obama or Edwards might win Iowa, which wouldn’t shock anyone, least of all the Clinton camp, I’m sure.
However, that’s not what the Zogby poll contended. It contended that Clinton
would lose to all top tier Republican candidates. That’s quite a finding when
other polls have not shown that reality.

In fact, as you may know by now, the
Gallup poll released at the same time showed Clinton in a tight race with
Republicans, but still beating them all, which is just the opposite of the Zogby
poll, but it got no play or airtime whatsoever; not on Scarborough, not on Matthews,
nowhere. It’s simply more fun to spin (and fabricate) that Clinton is collapsing whether she
is or not.

The other problem is that this isn’t just about Clinton. Whoever is our nominee could be subjected to the same nonsense from Zogby. Unfortunately, most are too stuck in their idolatry mode, preferring to hate Hillary and spout anything negative about her, and aren’t thinking that far ahead.

Share

via Huffington Post

Worst. Line. Of. Questioning. Ever.

Couric: If it’s not you, how disappointed will you be? Clinton: Well, it will be me. But of course, I’m ready to support the democratic nominee, whoever it is. Couric: I know that you’re confident it’s going to be you but there is the possibility it won’t be and clearly you have considered that possibility. Clinton: No I haven’t. You know, when you get up every day like I do and you go out and meet hundreds and thousands of people and you talk about yourself, and you talk about your dreams and hopes for the country and you talk about what you will do as president and draw the contrast with your opponents, that takes up all my time and energy, to just keep presenting myself and my candidacy. So I get up everyday intending to meet and reach as many as people as possible then I go to bed at night and then I get up and do it all over again. Couric: So you never even consider the possibility? Clinton: I don’t. I don’t.

Seriously, what is she supposed to say? I think about losing every day
and it’s made me so paranoid I can’t go on! Hand me a hanky, Katie. What was
I thinking trying to be president? It’s just too much.

Question for Katie: If you get fired, how humiliated would you be, how disappointed
that you failed? I know you’re confident that you can handle this anchor job
even though you keep screwing it up royally, but haven’t you considered the
possibility that you’re going to be canned after your ratings keep getting lower
than cricket crap? You had to have faced this reality since everyone is looking
at you wondering what in the hell you’re doing in Edward R. Murrow’s chair.

No? Yeah, I get it. How could you get up every day and face the criticism and
do your job if you kept worrying about losing what you’re fighting so hard to
accomplish? Makes sense to me.

Share

Obama Calls Rural Iowans ‘Ingrown’ updated

Uh. Oh.

Mr. Hope channels Mr. Elite.

On “Nightline” last night, which I didn’t see but was told about by friends, when talking about foreign policy and
trying to beat up on Mr. Bush and his policies, Mr. Obama really stepped in
it, especially for someone trying to win Iowa. Evidently, some of it didn’t make the cut, but the video above offers a doorway leading to big trouble for Mr. Obama, that is if anyone decides to cover it.

“But they also, surprisingly enough, even in rural Iowa, recognize the opportunity to send a signal to the world that, you know, we are not as ingrown, as parochial as you may perceive. … ..” – Barack Obama

Even in rural Iowa… you know, because them rural voters, they aren’t
as “ingrown, as parochial” as the intelligent city folk believe and by golly, they’re going to send a message!
Ingrown? Hmmm…. Coming from Columbia, Missouri myself, you know,
out beyond the big city lights, “ingrown” to me means inbred. You
know, like the Ozarks, marryin’ your brother ‘n all.

However, dumb hicks from the sticks, even in rural Iowa, want to send a signal to the
world. Country folk and Iowans are going to fight that
“ingrown” and “parochial” image, by golly.

Good grief.

Is it just me, or is Mr. Obama continually espousing lofty rhetoric in his stump speeches while
delivering mostly negative when actually analyzed? There’s
a pattern developing here. This “even in rural Iowa” Obama blurt out
reveals the heart of it.

UPDATE II: For those of you not visiting the comments, I’m offering a fuller section, though I don’t think the context and reference helps at all. “Even in rural Iowa” speaks for itself, regardless of the words around it. It also doesn’t remove the reality of what would have happened had Clinton said something like this. Look what Matthews and others are making of Clinton’s CBS interview with Katie Couric. She doesn’t think about losing, so she’s automatically saying she’s inevitable? However, Obama’s campaign asked me to put it in an update on the post itself, which I’m happy to do. In the end, no matter what I say you’ll decide, which is how it should be.

MORAN: Do you think Americans are challenged by voting potentially for a presidential candidate who didn’t have an American boyhood? OBAMA: Oh, well, I think that it is both a challenge and an opportunity. I think there’s no doubt that the fact that my name is Barack Obama and that my father was from Kenya and that I grew up in Hawaii that there’s that whole exotic aspect to me that people, I think, have to get past. But they also, surprisingly enough, even in rural Iowa, recognize the opportunity to send a signal to the world that, you know, we are not as ingrown, as parochial as you may perceive or as the Bush administration seems to have communicated, that we are, in fact, embracing the world, we are listening, we are concerned, we want to be engaged. We want to be safe. We want to be treated fairly. We want to make sure that, whether it’s on trade relations or dealing with terrorism, that our national interests are dealt with. But we also recognize that we’re part of the world community. And I think it was interesting, just here in Dunlap, you notice that some of the biggest applause was when I talked about wanting America to be respected again in the world. People understand this in a very significant way.

UPDATE: He’s on a roll. This out of New Hampshire, via email, where Mr. Obama was talking foreign policy today:

“One of the great pleasures of running for president is to go to some tiny town in Iowa and you’ve got some guy in overalls and a seahat to say what do you think about the situation in Burma, and you’re thinking that he’s going to ask you about corn, and he asks you about Burma.” – Barack Obama

Share

I noted it yesterday in Hot
Topics. But the media liked the Let’s Trash Hillary!
talking point instead.

Via
Greg Sargent:

Yesterday two polling firms — Zogby and Gallup — released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders. A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.

Here’s the truth, though if it came from me you all know what I’d get, right?
Sargent again:

I don’t need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I? The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets. By contrast, I can’t find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. … … … .. Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don’t jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.

The news media is crafting an anti Hillary message, just as Fox and Chris Matthews
pump up Rudy. Hey, but it’s okay as long as you’re trashing Hillary.

Share

Star Power Hits Iowa … Under the radar is Emily’s List.

Everyone is talking about Bill
Clinton being Oprah’s counterweight in the Iowa primaries. Weighing star
power alone it’s a two front Wow! But the real competition is actually
on a completely different front. Not surprising that Anne Kornblut doesn’t know
about it, but it’s not a minor miss.

You go girl! Emily’s List is reaching
out to women in Iowa in the hopes of getting them to caucus, having endorsed
Clinton long ago. The site is powerful. It takes Iowa caucus voters on a step-by-step
process of what to expect on January 3rd. As an aside, we’re working out
dates for the president of Emily’s List,
Ellen Malcolm, to come on my radio show. I’d ask Oprah, but that’s a high hurdle. Emily’s List is the largest PAC in
the country dedicated solely to electing Democratic women.

Oprah’s events are open to the public. There will be “preferred seating”
offered according to the campaign. Those wanting this seating will
be accommodated providing they commit to doing 4 hours of work for the Obama
campaign or commit to attending a caucus. Bringing in new people is an important
goal. The splash Oprah will make is unquestioned. She is one of the most respected
women in TV and culture in this country. Her accomplishments are awesome. However,
she’s never ventured into the political campaign arena. What her endorsement
and campaigning will mean to Barack, besides great headlines, is still unknown.

As for Emily’s List, there is no organization more equipped or committed to bringing out women to vote for their endorsed female candidates, of which Clinton is their most important.
However, no one is talking about them. Instead, people like Anne Kornblutt are
focusing on the power personalities, Bill Clinton vs. Oprah Winfrey, which is
understandable, but still a glaring omission. That means reporters are missing
a hidden powerhouse organizer for women in the Iowa race, with Emily’s List
primary goal being to elect Hillary Clinton as president, which starts in
the first primary state.

Oprah is powerful, but she’s not a caucus organizer. She will light up the
publicity in Iowa. But she’s still an outsider in caucus land.

You Go Girl! has 250 women and counting organizing
for Hillary, whose only purpose is to get women out to vote, and they’re
Iowans. Interesting that no one is covering this under the radar angle.

We won’t know until after the caucus which one mattered most, but in capacity
to turn out the women’s vote, Oprah and Emily’s List are at the very least equal in power, if not in front
page publicity.

Share

It’s desperation time.

But what would peace talks be without elements of the Israel lobby having back channel talks with the Administration?

Some Jewish and evangelical Christian groups have expressed concern that Bush is pressuring Israel to make unwise concessions, but Hadley reassured some of them yesterday in a private meeting at the White House. “He was very strong on the point that what the administration is doing is supporting a decision that Prime Minister Olmert of Israel has made” in pursuing a peace deal, said Nathan J. Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

Good grief. “Unwise concessions”? These “Jewish and evangelical Christian groups” do not have Israel’s best interest in mind, and they certainly don’t have ours.

See Steve Clemons for more, as well as analysis once this gets rolling.

An agreement signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders would need ratification by their respective parliaments, and Hamas still controls the Palestinian parliament. “Unless you bring Hamas in tune with what is happening on the peace side, you are really not fulfilling a basic requirement,” Faisal said. “One man cannot make peace; not even half a people can make peace,” he told a roundtable of U.S. journalists. “There has to be consensus about peace among the Palestinians for this to go smoothly.” Iran: The Uninvited Wildcard in Mideast Talks

The wingnuts will go off. But the truth is naked and exposed. It’s also supported
by a consensus of political minds.

The following letter on the Middle East peace conference scheduled for Annapolis, Maryland, in late November was sent by its eight original signers on October 10, 2007 to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Since then, a number of leading former public officials and intellectuals have signed on to the letter in their individual rather than institutional capacities. The letter, a joint initiative by the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program, the International Crisis Group, and the US/Middle East Project, Inc., was printed in the November 8, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books. … .. Bearing in mind the lessons of the last attempt at Camp David seven years ago at dealing with the fundamental political issues that divide the two sides, we believe that in order to be successful, the outcome of the conference must be substantive, inclusive, and relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians. The international conference should deal with the substance of a permanent peace: Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution. Israeli and Palestinian leaders should strive to reach such an agreement. If they cannot, the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN Secretary General)—under whose aegis the conference ought to be held— should put forward its own outline, based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Clinton parameters of 2000, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, and the 2003 Road Map. It should reflect the following: * Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap; * Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty; * Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them; * A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance; * Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty. The conference should not be a one-time affair. It should set in motion credible and sustained permanent status negotiations under international supervision and with a timetable for their completion, so that both a two-state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative’s full potential (normal, peaceful relations between Israel and all Arab states) can be realized. The international conference should be inclusive: * In order to enhance Israel’s confidence in the process, Arab states that currently do not enjoy diplomatic relations with Israel should attend the conference. * We commend the administration for its decision to invite Syria to the conference; it should be followed by genuine engagement. A breakthrough on this track could profoundly alter the regional landscape. At a minimum, the conference should launch Israeli-Syrian talks under international auspices. * As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point. The international conference should produce results relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians: Too often in the past, progress has been stymied by the gap between lofty political statements and dire realities on the ground. The conference therefore should also result in agreement on concrete steps to improve living conditions and security, including a mutual and comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza, an exchange of prisoners, prevention of weapons smuggling, cracking down on militias, greater Palestinian freedom of movement, the removal of unjustified checkpoints, dismantling of Israeli outposts, and other tangible measures to accelerate the process of ending the occupation. … ..

Hamas has to be at the table if you want peace and a lasting settlement. It
all depends on if the grown ups prevail.

However, the truth is that Mr. Bush hates this type of engagement, and Ms. Rice has gone from the worst national security advisor in U.S. history to a globe hopping diplomat of incalculable incompetence. If anything happens it will be in spite of these two not because of them. Meditating on a miracle.

Share

Ah yes, the politics of hope. Remember that? You know like this
and this
and this
and this,
not to mention this
and this. Hey, but IOKIYATC*, right?

Money piety is dangerous. Obama shoots himself in the leg.

This is a pretty serious issue that Obama is going to have to confront. Maybe it’s not a violation of the letter of the law (because since when is the letter enforced?), but it sure is a violation of the spirt of the law– especially for a candidate that vows to not accept PAC money. I know we had discussions with Warner’s Forward Together PAC about spending it down before the campaign started. Obama is stretching the rule to claim that his presidential campaign and his PAC activities have “no affiliation”, especially given that 68% of the PAC’s contributions are going toward officials in the states where his is campaigning 80% of the time. Obama mocks the FEC regulations with his PAC

It’s not so subtle bribery. Now imagine if this story was about Clinton.

Clinton
camp responds:

Clinton Campaign Responds To New Revelations About Obama Campaign Finance Practices In response to a report this morning in the Washington Post revealing that Senator Obama’s leadership PAC has given the majority of its campaign contributions to officials and committees in the early nominating states, the Clinton campaign released the following statement: This morning, we learned that Senator Obama has been using his leadership PAC to give political contributions to officials in the early primary states. In fact, 68 percent of contributions from his PAC have gone to those in states that are scheduled to hold nominating contests on February 5th or earlier. It is our understanding that a candidate’s campaign is barred from using the candidate’s leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down HillPAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House. On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws. Considering how often Senator Obama talks about his efforts to be transparent, we presume he will answer the following questions regarding the behavior of his PAC: 1. Who decided what contributions would be made by Hopefund? 2. Did any presidential campaign staff, consultants or advisors participate in any discussions about Hopefund contributions? Who? 3. Did the decision-makers know who was endorsing the presidential campaign? If so, how did they find this out? 4. Who told Hopefund which Iowa and New Hampshire candidates and committees should get contributions? 5. Are there any overlapping employees, consultants and advisors between Hopefund and the presidential campaign? 6. The Washington Post article suggests that Hopefund was dormant earlier in the year. Who made the decision to start making contributions again and on what basis was that decision made?

Can’t wait for Obama’s answers.

Better yet, what will the media say? How will they cope with their darling
doing money deals? Or maybe it doesn’t matter as long as it’s anyone but Clinton.

Like I told you, if you’re looking for an “anti Hillary” it isn’t Barack Obama.

*IOKIYATC: Compliments of readers gmartinez, which means It’s OK If You Are Trashing Clinton.

Share