Clinton will appear on “The Daily Show” Monday. It will be Howard Wolfson v. David Axelrod on “This Week.”

I get a lot of terrific emails. This is from one of them I received today.
It is entitled “100 Reasons to Support Hillary.” It is from a woman who is currently working hard to put Texas in Hillary’s column, forwarded
to me by her friend, also in the fight to nominate Clinton, and a woman I’ve been in contact with during the primary
season. **UPDATE: I’ve since learned that the original author is David Speakman. It is a tribute to the first viable female candidate in U.S. history; someone who has what it takes to change the world by leading this nation in a way we’ve never seen before. I thought you’d like to read it, so here it is verbatim, without any
edits, changes or additions:

Reason #1 to support Hillary:
In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system –
taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled
schools on how to improve public education.

Reason #2 to support Hillary:
In 2006, she led the fight to kill the anti-gay Republican constitutional amendment
that for the first time would have added laws to the Constitution that would
INCREASE discrimination.

Reason #3 to support Hillary:
After being pummeled by the public for trying to pass Universal Health care
while she was First Lady, she dusted herself off and in 1997, led a federal
effort that provided insurance support for children whose parents were unable
to provide them with health coverage.

Reason #4 to Support Hillary:
She was able to secure a raise in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood
asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

Reason #5 to Support Hillary:
She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Reason #6 to Support Hillary:
She’s authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services
Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our
returning Iraq veterans.

Reason #7 to Support Hillary:
She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed
raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans
and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value
and appreciate them.

Reason #8 to Support Hillary:
Since 1974 she has been fighting for a woman’s right to choose.

Reason #9 to Support Hillary:
She is fighting to lift the ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases.

Reason #10 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
(Mar 2005)

Reason #11 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Reason #12 to Support Hillary:
Vows to protect next generation by paying off national debt.

Reason #13 to Support Hillary:
Fought in Congress to “Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out
banks.” (Aug 2007)

Reason #14 to Support Hillary:
In 1962 she met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago and learned from him the
importance of equal rights for all.

Reason #15 for Supporting Hillary:
In 1965 she brought black classmates to her until-then all-white church.

Reason #16 to Support Hillary:
Since 1995 has criticized China’s human rights abuses.

Reason #17 to Support Hillary:
IN 1988 Instituted gender diversity Report Card within the American Bar Association,
which sets standards for lawyers in the U.S.

Reason #18 to Support Hillary:
In 1972 worked as a lawyer suing white-only schools, working with Marian Wright
Edelman on enforcing school desegregation in the South.

Reason #19 to Support Hillary:
In October, 2000 she said it’s not enough for America just to apologize for
slavery and move on; we need to concentrate on civil rights now.

Reason #20 to Support Hillary:
Has been pushing for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” for all Americans
since 2000.

Reason #21 to support Hillary:
Will end don’t ask, don’t tell in the military, “Gay soldiers need to shoot
straight, not be straight.” November 2003.

Reason #22 to Support Hillary:
Supports civil unions, with full equality of federal benefits.

Reason #23 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on adding violent crimes based on victim’s sexual orientation to definition
of hate crimes.

Reason #24 to support Hillary:
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

Reason #25 to support Hillary:
Freedom of Speech: Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

Reason #26 to Support Hillary: [A.K.A "Whoopi Goldberg's reason to support
Hillary"]
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
(Mar 2005)

Reason #27 to Support Hillary:
Voted more funding and stricter sentencing for prosecution of hate crimes. (Apr
2001)

Reason #28 to Support Hillary:
Voted to Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Reason #29 to Support Hillary:
Although she was in college during the height of the drug culture in the late
1960s, she was devoted to work on civil rights instead of partying and taking
drugs.

Reason #30 to Support Hillary:
She is fighting for Universal pre-kindergarten.

Reason #31 to Support Hillary:
Wants to establish an education “Bill of Rights” – Establish right
to education from pre-school thru college.

Reason #32 to Support Hillary:
Since 1998 has fought publicly to keep art and music programs in public schools.
“Arts education is needed in our schools.”

Reason #33 to Support Hillary:
‘Government should pay off all student loans for teachers who go to urban schools.”
March, 2000

Reason #34 to Support Hillary:
Wants a complete re-write, a Total change in No Child Left Behind. (August,
2007)

Reason #35 to Support Hillary:
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.

Reason #36 to Support Hillary
Voted YES on spending $448B on education & debt reduction instead of Bush’s
tax cut for the rich. (Apr 2001)

Reason #37 to Support Hillary:
Wants to “Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us.”
(Jun 2006)

Reason #38 to Support Hillary:
Wants to build a “$50B strategic energy research fund from taxing oil companies.”
(Oct 2006)

Reason #39 to Support Hillary:
Wants to Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced.

Reason #40 to Support Hillary:
Called on U.S. to Ratify Kyoto; and fund more mass transit. (Sep 2000)

Reason #41 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Reason #42 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve on national
security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Reason #43 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Reason #44 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Reason #45 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Reason #46 to Support Hillary: (listen up Louisiana!)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct
2005)

Reason #47 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Reason #48 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)

Reason #49 to Support Hillary:
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

Reason #50 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)

Reason #51 to Support Hillary:
Called on Bush to “Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually
cares.” (Aug 2007)

Reason #52 to Support Hillary:
Her Support for green-collar job training

Reason #53 to Support Hillary:
Introduced bill to Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials
coming from China.

Reason #54 to support Hillary:
Calls for the government to treat kids as “child citizens” not “minors”
under the law. (Since Dec 1999)

Reason #55 to Support Hillary:
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition

Reason #56 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include poor Eastern Europe nations. (May 2002

Reason #57 to Support Hillary:
“Smartest strategic choice is peace.” (Nov 1999)

Reason #58 to Support Hillary:
Calling for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to end Darfur genocide. (June, 2007

Reason #59 to Support Hillary:
IN the 1970s worked to pass Constitutional Amendment to allow young people aged
18, 19, 20 to vote.

Reason #60 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on allowing lobbyist gifts to Congress

Reason #61 to Support Hillary:
Pledges to support $50B for AIDS relief in US and world

Reason #62 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.

Reason #63 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr
2001)

Reason #64 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun
2001)

Reason #65 to Support Hillary:
Says, “Torture cannot be American policy, period.” (Sep 2007)

Reason #66 to Support Hillary:
She would never say anything as creepy and cult-like as “We are the ones
we have been waiting for.”

Reason #67 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.

Reason # 68 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Reason #69 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.
(Sep 2006)

Reason #70 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

Reason #71 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)

Reason #72 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

Reason #73 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)

Reason #74 to Support Hillary:
Voted: No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased.

Reason #75 to Support Hillary:
Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)

Reason #76 to Support Hillary:
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.

Reason #77 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)

Reason #78 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Reason #79 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing

Reason #80 to Support Hillary:
Admits she made mistake in believing in WMDs in Iraq after being mislead by
the Bush Administration.

Reason #81 to Support Hillary:
Reaches out to conservatives but voting record is progressive.

Reason #82 to Support Hillary:
“Karl Rove is obsessed with me because I take Republicans on & beat
them.” (Aug 2007)

Reason #83 to Support Hillary:
Served as a Staff attorney on Watergate/Nixon impeachment investigation.

Reason #84 to Support Hillary:
1976: Organized Indiana for Carter-Mondale campaign. She knows what it is like
to work on a democrat campaign in RED STATES!

Reason #85 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.

Reason #86 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Reason #87 to Support Hillary:
Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.

Reason #88 to Support Hillary:
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.

Reason #89 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.

Reason #90 to Support Hillary:
At Wellesley in 1968, steered college anti-war movement.

Reason #91 to Support Hillary:
Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women.

Reason #92 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)

Reason # 93 to Support Hillary:
1980s: Led her church to found the largest daycare in Arkansas.

Reason #94 to Support Hillary:
1978: chaired Legal Services Corp. in President Carter’s Administration – allowing
Poor Families access to legal aid

Reason #95 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report to get us out of Iraq in
a fast, safe manner.

Reason #96 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first responders eliminated
by the Bush Administration.

Reason #97 to Support Hillary:
Worked with Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and others in the 1980s to rejuvenate
the Democratic Party from within.

Reason #98 to Support Hillary:
In 1969, she entered law school as “vehicle for social change.”

Reason #99 to Support Hillary:
Calls to Increase spending for libraries.

Reason #100 to Support Hillary:
In October, 2006 – called for “Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning
immediately.”

Share

National Security Ad Outbreak updated

Clinton’s ad sure got people’s attention, including the Obama camp. But her team got what they wanted, because cable outlets have been running it all day. Free media, baby.

Ben Smith has the video of the Mondale ad, which the ads above mimic to one degree or another.

I’ve got to say, however, that it’s hilarious to hear the Obama campaign and their supporters squeal “Daisy ad!” hyperbole regarding Clinton’s ad today. As many of you know, the infamous Johnson “Daisy” ad played the nuclear option, complete with mushroom cloud. But this charge by Obama’s team is so hyperbolic you have to wonder is there’s not some split personality coming out of the Obama campaign. They preen and posture, putting out press releases and media calls that Obama is already the nominee, then freak out over Clinton asking a very simple question: Who do you want in charge when danger strikes?

Rush Limbaugh said today that Clinton had actually made an ad for McCain, citing Clinton’s ad above. As for my take on it, I think it’s long past time that Democrats feel comfortable asking national security questions Republicans would ask. We don’t have to simply rely on military men and women to speak for our candidates, though that’s an important component. Clinton has flag officers and military people who can speak for her as well and have, such as General Wesley Clark (retired) and Admiral Joe Sestak (retired), among many others. But the important issue really is that our national security is in the hands of civilians, which isn’t a minor point. Hillary Clinton asking the bottom line question puts the responsibility for our safety in the proper context: It depends on who answers the the phone in the middle of the night. Clinton believes she’d be the best commander in chief. No apologies. No hedging.

Now Obama retorts with the usual. He was against the war from the beginning, citing his 2002 speech, which is supposed to prove his judgment. One speech doesn’t signify good judgment, especially when there was no risk in giving that speech. As far as I can tell, the Illinois 13th district back in 2002, which would have been during Obama’s state senate run, was unapologetically liberal and against the war. Again, it’s not exactly a profile in courage to give an anti-war speech in an anti-war district. The pressure is quite a bit more intense in the U.S. Senate, where, as everyone knows, Obama’s votes on Iraq have been identical to Hillary Clinton’s.

It was Clinton who took on the Pentagon over a withdrawal policy in Iraq. She was attacked for doing it, but pushed back anyway. She confronted Bush on the “enduring relationship” pact he made with Iraq. Then just yesterday, Clinton proposed legislation to ban private security contractors, which an aide to Obama says he won’t support. We also know that Obama didn’t even make time to chair his own foreign relations sub-committee, because he was too busy applying for a higher office, when he’d not even done the job he was elected to do in the first place.

UPDATE: Obama team responds to Clinton’s ad. It’s good:

Share

What Will Gay and Lesbians Get for Their Obama Cash?

Boy do politicians love the cash that comes in from the gay and lesbian community. But supporting their issues and the people who stand up for them is another matter, especially for Mr. Obama it seems.

Susan over at NoQuarter posted on this earlier today and has details. I got several emails with attachments on this ad yesterday, but frankly, we can no longer afford to open attachments from people we don’t know. The ad, which evidently has gone viral, and this story speak volumes:

Seeing Mayor Gavin Newsom on the national stage with former president Bill Clinton on Monday night is a reminder of how political winds can change. On the eve of the biggest night of the presidential primaries, Newsom shared the spotlight during a town hall meeting staged and broadcast on cable TV and satellite radio by the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco. “I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama’s) request at the Waterfront restaurant,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. “And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.” …

Clinton’s support for gays and lesbians is real, no caveats, no picture ducking.

However, I must say that these unending stories of Obama’s hypocrisy is enough to make the most stalwart Democrat weary. Obama not being willing to have his picture taken with Newsom is as small as it comes, though this story has been around for years. Let me also be blunt about this. Some in the African American community, especially in the faith based part of that community, have shown a real penchant for homophobia. Obama’s embrace of people like Donnie McClurkin is another example that when juxtaposed against not wanting to shake Newsom’s hand, really makes you wonder about Obama’s sincerity on reach out, let alone his claim to be able to unite us all. Any Democratic party nominee has the right to disagree with Newsom’s tactics regarding gay marriage ceremonies in direct conflict with the law.

Advocacy for people who are fighting for equality is what you do when people who disagree with you are watching and it counts. So to be afraid to have your picture taken with a strong Democratic supporter of gays and lesbians like Newsom is just cowardly, especially if you truly believe in civil rights for gays and lesbians. It’s also contradictory to Obama’s message of being a uniter. Hey, but why quibble at this point. I don’t blame some for wondering about Obama’s commitment to gay and lesbian rights. It’s another example of presenting one picture in public, while in private trying to duck people closely associated with anti-discrimination against an entire community that is still fighting for their equality. It’s certainly not leadership

Share

Here’s
Clinton’s statement:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq. "From this war’s very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton. The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.

Obama’s evidently against it. The
Nation calls him out:

Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, one of Congress’s sharpest critics of the war contracting system, says of Schmitz’s remark, "That’s why some of us have been really careful about not just talking about a troop withdrawal but a contractor withdrawal as well." Obama, she says, should make it impossible for Schmitz and others "to think that Barack Obama would be creating new opportunities for Blackwater after our troops are withdrawn." The clearest way for him to do that would be to endorse legislation banning the use of Blackwater and other mercenary firms in Iraq. In November Schakowsky and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act, which mandates that US personnel undertake all diplomatic security in Iraq within six months of enactment. The bill has twenty-three co-sponsors in the House and one–Sanders–in the Senate. Sanders said he’d "love" it if Obama and Clinton signed on. "If either of them came on board, we’d certainly see more Democratic support," says Sanders. Will Obama do that before November? "The answer is no, in all candor," says the senior Obama adviser. "Obviously it’s a dynamic situation, and he’ll continue to analyze it." Schakowsky is pressing Obama to support the bill and says that if he becomes President she will urge him to "cancel" any remaining Blackwater contract in Iraq: "There’s plenty of justification to say this company is trouble, and there’s no point in continuing our contract with them." The senior adviser said, "Senator Obama is concerned that Blackwater remains in Iraq, and he’s concerned that they remain in Iraq and other countries totally unaccountable to US law and totally unaccountable to the law in the country in which they are operating." Which raises the question: If he’s so concerned, why not throw his support behind a ban on the use of these forces in Iraq?

Share

So, is this a big deal?

… .. The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated. However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. … .. Opponents slam Obama after CTV story on NAFTA

Hmmmm…. The Obama campaign ducking press questions. That’s what happened
to me a long time ago, before I went partisan for Clinton. Please direct
any question to the campaign headquarters. In other words, Mr. Goolsbee,
shut up.

Don’t you just hate when journalists do their job? It can be such a drag for
old style Chicago political campaigns like Obama’s trying to look like a different
kind of politics.

Now no one is surprised to have Mr. Goolsbee possibly talking to Canada. Trying to hide that fact once the story is out is another matter. However,
the problem really comes in when Obama is obviously telling Ohio voters one thing to
get their votes, while his econ guy is assuring a NAFTA partner that nothing
is going to change if he gets into the White House.

Truth is that NAFTA isn’t going to be easy to modify, whether it’s Clinton
or Obama in the White House. But the bait and switch politics, in which Obama
seems obviously engaged, is not the image he’s running on. It’s not the message
either, and now Obama’s campaign team is stiff arming journalists who want to ask questions about what’s unwinding to try to find out the truth.

Who knows, maybe this is just a big misunderstanding. The only way to know what’s
going on is for Obama to answer the questions. That his campaign seems unwilling to adds yet another chapter to this story. Not denying the Goolsbee part of the story is the other.

Share

When last we convened on this story, the entire traditional media, cable outfits
like CNN, and Obama blogs across the spectrum, were all in the tank for Obama.
They had collectively pronounced untrue the story CTV had reported about Mr.
Obama’s campaign aide(s) (senior staff, worker bees or whatever title you want
to include so as to incorporate all possible people that could have participated
in this story) tipping the Canadian government that Obama’s campaign rhetoric
on NAFTA was all hot air. Not to worry, Obama’s aide(s) said, whatever Obama
is saying in Ohio about revisiting NAFTA, it won’t apply in his presidency.

Obama’s campaign issued a statement declaring “inaccuracies,” while
Obama himself said during a plane press gaggle (likely the same one referenced
below) that the Canadian government had denied it happened. He really meant
embassy spokesperson, but let’s not quibble on a smoke screen. Meanwhile, the
embassy statement declared there was no story. None. Translation: go away you
silly media, there’s nothing here. Thus, like good little lambs, the media and
all those studious Obama bloggers went away. They’re so obedient.

Meanwhile, I reported this little nugget, after speaking personally to Greg McIsaac of CTV to get a statement:

“The facts of our story are accurate.” – Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV

Tonight, we get the video above, featuring CTV’s Tom Clark who reconfirms their original story, which they stood by in their statement to me.

Whenever I report actual facts, so many in the Obama world get their boxers
(briefs also included) in a twist. Thing is, what I report is the facts. Journalistic
stenography not applied.

However, it’s unlikely Obama will learn about what has developed, because traditional
media doesn’t care and Obama doesn’t read blogs. Explains so much, doesn’t it?

Obama, on campaign plane says he does not read blogs – Lynn Sweet

NAFTA story, developing… into something that could be a problem
for Mr. Obama. Once again, it’s about a lot more than NAFTA. It’s the measure of the man’s character that comes into question. Saying one thing in public to the American people in order to to get vote, then promising a neighboring government something else. It’s anything but a new kind of politics.

Share

Drudge Blows Prince Harry’s Cover updated

Prince Harry fighting in Afghanistan

Drudge
blows Harry’s cover. All that matters to Drudge is a scoop, so I’m not going
to link to him. But if a Democratic blogger or journalist did this the wingnuts
would rightfully blow the roof.

Some Republicans have no scruples at all when it comes to protecting or respecting
the military, whether it’s over there or over here. The story of Prince Harry’s duty was
embargoed, until Drudge blew it across his blog. Now it’s all over the media and CNN.

It’s un-American to out a solider like this, especially since it puts him and
the soldiers serving with him in danger. Because let’s face it, our enemies, as well as Britain’s, would love a royal trophy.

Drudge gets “Worst Person” and then some.

Kudos to the editors who had the integrity and sense of patriotism to honor the embargo.

UPDATE:Latest:

Prince Harry is on a plane out of Afghanistan, a source told Usmagazine.com. “He has left the base and is en route to another location,” the source told Us. The 23-year-old royal has been serving there with British troops since December, it was reported today. “We will not comment on the whereabouts of Prince Harry,” a Ministry of Defense spokesperson told Us.

Share

Wingnut radio is filled with these types of guys. Colbert takes Cunningham out. But he’s so upset with McCain! Hilarious.

Lambert’s hosting Paul Lukasiak, who has a terrific new post up on independents v. moderates, Obama v. Hillary. Check it out:

Based on available exit polling from states that held primary elections, while Obama dominates the “Independent” voter, Hillary Clinton actually does slightly better among “Moderate” voters — and this is even more true in crucial swing states. The data suggests that a more comprehensive review of all such “electability” factors is required.

Share

Call me cynical, but this move was considered last year. What is the U.S.S.
Cole going to do off the coast of Lebanon?

NBC news just reported that some suspect Syrian mischief in Lebanese elections,
which are stalemated. But again, what is this warship* going to do about it?
We’re going to get involved?

I suspect general election propping up of John McCain, the president’s candidate,
which will likely occur through November. There are a lot of ways a president
can support McCain, who will continue the policy on which Bush’s legacy depends.
This could be one of them. Not exactly an outlandish charge considering we are
talking about George W. Bush and a Republican party desperate to stay in power.

They’re going to try to beat Democrats on national security, suspecting Obama as the likely nominee. Obviously, McCain will run on experience to be commander in chief. Bush’s job, thinking cynically, is to make people aware that an experienced hand is what’s needed and John McCain’s the man.

*TM NOTE: Lots of emails from military and non-military on the Cole. TM.com reader James reminded me that the USS Missouri was the last of the Iowa class battleships to be decommissioned. Correction has been made, because I carelessly used an extinct term (battleship) that did not apply, for which I do apologize. Thanks for all the emails. I didn’t say this in the post, but as many readers realize, the U.S.S. Cole was the warship hit in the port at Yemen, no doubt an ignominious remembrance.

Share

This race is still very tight.

The delegate count: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,192, Clinton 1,036. Obama picked up two more superdelegates last night and this morning bringing the superdelegate total to Clinton 254, Obama 203. (Since Feb. 5, Obama has picked up 33; Clinton has lost a net of six.) That’s a grand total of Obama 1,395, Clinton 1,290. So when you include superdelegates into the mix, Obama has a 105-delegate lead. – First Read

No one is doubting Obama’s string of victories. He’s had a powerful string
of wins. In some aspects, the general has already begun, with McCain and Obama
taking jabs at one another, leaving Clinton out. To be certain, Clinton needs
wins next Tuesday, not big ones, but she needs to win Texas, Ohio and, say,
Rhode Island as well.

But Jonathan Alter’s column
urging Clinton to get out of the race continues to seem vastly overwrought.

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she’d drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I’m hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary’s political career. She won’t, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she’s in so much trouble in the first place. Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win chance to win the nomination, but she doesn’t. … ..

This is the type of drivel that should embarrass Newsweek: But imagine
if, instead of waiting to be marginalized or forced out, Hillary decided to
defy the stereotype we have of her family? … .. The conventional view is that
the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon—they’ll
give it up only when it’s wrenched from their cold, dead fingers. … ..

Oh, by all means, Jonathan, Clinton should get out on the basis of blowing
away the “conventional view” of “her family,” never mind
that it was the traditional media that helped create this image of the Clinton’s
in the first place.

Share

Quite a kerfuffle stirring. The above should be even more alarming to the Obama
campaign than the other video being circulated. A report out of Canada says Obama’s
promise on NAFTA is just words.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

When contacted, an Obama aide basically delivers a non-denial denial, as you
can see in the video. Obama keeps his promises? What kind of blathering is that? When
you think about Obama’s moves on Exelon, rewriting legislation for them, juxtaposed
against him telling Iowa voters tougher legislation had passed, instead of the
truth, I’ve done enough research on the guy to know when smoke is being blown for votes.
Obama’s team is not denying the conversation CTV is reporting and it’s quite
plausible the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not
be taken at face value, and to add, because Obama has no intention of doing
what he’s campaigning on with regards to NAFTA. Obama welshing on his pledge to take public financing for the general election also comes to mind. It’s not like Obama hasn’t said one thing then done another before.

The Clinton campaign, however, said no one directly or indirectly contacted the Canadian
government. But in addition, the Clinton campaign said that they give
the Canadian government “blanket immunity” to reveal who supposedly
called them. I’ve confirmed both with the Clinton campaign.

On the flip side you’ve got allies a bit upset.

…..”Mexico does not support reopening Nafta,” he said. “It would be like throwing a monkey wrench into the engine of North American competitiveness.” Mexican diplomats believe a renegotiation could resurrect the commercial disputes and barriers to trade that the agreement itself was designed to overcome. Jim Flaherty, Canada’s finance minister, also expressed “concern” about the remarks by the Democratic candidates. “Nafta is a tremendous benefit to Americans and perhaps the [candidates] have not had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the benefit to Americans and the American economy of Nafta,” he said. Nafta, which removed ­tariffs on most trade between the US, Canada and Mexico when it was implemented in 1994, has become the focus of debate about the exodus of manufacturing jobs from Ohio ahead of the state’s presidential primary on Tuesday. … .. Candidates rebuked for attacks on Nafta

Canada is a huge trading partner, including oil importer, and they rely on NAFTA. The above exchange from the FT is likely at the heart of the Obama camp’s non-denial denial.

One question will nail this story down.

Will Barack Obama’s team also give “blanket
immunity” to the Canadian government, as Cinton’s team did, to release
the name of the person who called them to say the criticisms are only campaign
rhetoric, so don’t take them at face value?

Via Ben Smith:

“None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta,” Landry said.

It’s the easiest way to clear this up once and for all.

Oh, and to add, “inaccurate” is not the same as a flat denial.

Share

Welcome to John McCain TV. We’re going to see a lot of it.

Since the topic is turning to Iraq anew, the latest developments are not good news. If Obama is hoping to earn respect on military matters, he needs to keep articles like this from popping up.

No matter who the Democratic nominee is, you can bet Iraq will sound something
like this. Obama was up yesterday, taking incoming from John McCain:

Despite McCain’s war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq. The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops “if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.” “I have some news,” McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. “Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called ‘al-Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender.” … ..

McCain hasn’t lost the “my friends” line yet? It’s awful.

Olbermann got into a telling back and forth with Margaret Carlson on Iraq, talking about this same back and forth between Obama and McCain, and it simply ended with Carlson saying she couldn’t imagine withstanding what McCain had, doubting she had his courage. At this point Olbermann started mumbling. This scene is going to play out over and over again.

Whoever the Democrats nominee is, with Obama clearly with the wind at his back, starting out
thinking despite McCain’s war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience is ignoring that there isn’t any “despite” on this one. Neither Clinton or Obama will have an easy time of it. Truth is that Democrats
forfeited Iraq as an issue after the new Democratic Congress squandered the vote of confidence they got though
the 2006 election. We won’t get another benefit of the doubt moment, especially up against John McCain, and not with the way he views this battle. Through Iraq he sees Vietnam, with the same thing playing out, which he’s determined to stop. No doubt he believes we lost the war back then because we didn’t fight it out and win. That’s driving him. Never underestimate an old warrior settling a score.

Share

The background to Sean Wilentz’s “Race Man,” is important for the clip above. Make sure you read it.

Share

… .. You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.” (source)

It’s the same drive that brought Clinton to the State of the Black Union forum in New Orleans over the weekend, while Obama ducked it in order to campaign. It’s about commitment to purpose, which goes beyond preening in front of the people, but to actually doing your job when the cameras aren’t rolling and there is no praise except the satisfaction of the work itself and a job well done. It’s the difference between serving and duty versus ego.

Share

Got Scrutiny? bumped

The media fluff fest on Mr. O. is ending. Dan
Balz wrote yesterday that is was “time to question Obama, too.”
But the conversation that really needs to begin is what started here a while
back, when everyone was piling on Clinton. Today Sean Wilentz goes at the heart of the Obama campaign’s hypocrisy, which also just happens to be a weapon of race:

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. … .. … .. 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. … .. Race Man by Sean Wilentz How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.

I asked back in January: Who
is injecting race?

Craig Crawford did
too:

CRAWFORD: … .. I mean, we’ve gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, “Well, where’s the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?” you’re accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton — if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, “Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts,” the media would say, “Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can’t trust him.” I really think it’s a problem. … ..

Let’s also remember who took the time to show up at Tavis Smiley’s event this
past weekend. The Clinton’s have a lifelong history of supporting African Americans
and causes they hold dear, like rising economically, which is just what happened
in the 1990s. The Obama campaign knew they had to sever the Clinton’s ties with
African Americans in order to get the vote. That’s exactly what they did.

It started with the Johnson comment, which guest poster Michael
Fauntroy demolished, by way of being related to someone who was there. But
that didn’t stop what Obama’s campaign had planned. Back to Wilentz:

Among those dismayed by Obama’s tactics and his supporters’ was Bill Moyers. In a special segment on his weekly PBS broadcast in mid-January, Moyers, who as a young man had been an aide to President Johnson, demolished the charge that Clinton had warped history in order to race-bait Obama. “There was nothing in [Clinton's] quote about race,” he observed. By the time the Obama campaign backed off from agitating the King-Johnson pseudo-scandal, it had already trained its sights on Bill Clinton–by far the most popular U.S. president among African Americans over the past quarter-century. Not only were Bill and Hillary supposedly ganging up on Obama in South Carolina–”I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” Obama complained during the South Carolina debate–the former president was supposedly off on a race-baiting tear of his own. Yet, once again, the charges were either distortions or outright inventions.

To encapsulate where all of this stands today, all you have to do is listen
to Rush and his “official Obama criticizer,” meant to mock all the people to spineless to scrutinize a man who wants to be president. If Obama is the general
election candidate for Democrats, you can bet Republicans won’t be bamboozled
into letting him slide.

Jesse Jackson Jr., Obama’s national co-chair, can’t threaten everyone.

It’s long past time Mr. Obama was held to the same standards as everyone else,
including when he runs as a unifier, but who behind the scene is doing everything to divide. Playing
the race card won’t work forever, though it certainly is one of the dishonest tactics, among many, that’s gotten his campaign this far.

It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate’s campaign and its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign–and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months–with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages and on cable television, mocked by “SNL” as in the tank for Obama. They promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary.

Share

Right-wing Radio Host Gets Smacked by McCain updated

“They told me to fire up the crowd. You’re talking to conservatives,” Cunningham said of the McCain campaign. “Get them fired up and give them some red meat. And I did. In fact, when I left, John, the crowd was cheering,” Cunningham told host John Roberts. – Cunningham fires back

It was another head on collision
between the Republican nominee and wingnut radio. But seriously, how ignorant
are McCain’s advance people? Cunningham’s stock and trade is shock politics.
He was asked to rev up the crowd, so he did it. but afterwards McCain seemed none too pleased.

“It’s my understanding,” he said, “that before I came in here a person who was on the program before I spoke made some disparaging remarks about my two colleagues in the Senate, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. I have repeatedly stated my respect for Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, that I will treat them with respect. I will call them Senator. We will have a respectful debate, as I have said on hundreds of occasions. I regret any comments that may have been made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans.” Responding to questions from reporters, Mr. McCain said he did not hear what Mr. Cunningham had said; when he arrived, Mr. Portman was on stage, he said. “Whatever suggestion that was made that was any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton was wrong,” Mr. McCain said. “I condemn it, and if I have any responsibility, I will take the responsibility, and I apologize for it.” Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama a “man of integrity” and said he was someone he had come to know “pretty well and I admire.” He also said that it was not appropriate to invoke Mr. Obama’s middle name. “I absolutely repudiate such comments,” Mr. McCain said. “It will never happen again.” Mr. McCain was criticized in November when he failed to admonish a woman in South Carolina who, in asking a question about Mrs. Clinton, referred to her as a “bitch.” … A Host Disparages Obama, and McCain Quickly Apologizes

Evidently, we’re supposed to believe that McCain learned his lesson from his
supporter asking “How do we beat the bitch.” Or maybe Tina Fey’s “Bitch
is the new black” has already had an impact? Both are equally implausible.
However, the traditional press will jump to McCain’s aid, even as right-wing
radio attacks, because Mack is their man. All you had to do was listen to Tim
Russert last night emoting on Iraq to know that whenever McCain’s in a tough
spot, his press buddies will be there to bail him out. However, that’s not going to help him with the base that is a lot of things, but not stupid. They know when they’re being used. Mack better watch his back.

Share

Clinton fights for children and families.

She fights for women’s rights around the world.

She fights for health care. She fights for veterans’ health care too.

After a year in the primary season, Hillary Clinton has found her theme: I’m
a fighter.

It does not go unnoticed that she’s fighting to win this nomination even as
people want to push her out of this race.

The first part of the debate it was obvious that it was three on one. Conservative women noticed it too.

How Dare the Patriarchy! How Dare He — All of Them [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Tim Russert wants to keep me down. It’s clear that women have it worse than blacks in America, the way Hillary Clinton is being questioned tonight. Does he realize she could be the first woman president ? Does he realize I cried during Geena Davis’s show? We gals all did, naturally. I know I have Gloria Steinem’s cell number somewhere here. I need her to talk me through this. Michelle Obama can’t be proud of this.

Too bad so many men in The Progressive Village are dumber than conservative Republicans (snark above notwithstanding). But that’s where “progressives” stand today.

Clinton
didn’t flinch at first, then finally let it rip.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don’t mind. I — you know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw “Saturday Night Live,” you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I’m happy to answer it.

It was clear she was furious. The flash from her eyes was obvious, but it
was organic so the rest of the debate washed over it, as everything settled
back down.

Clinton also finally cornered Obama about the NATO sub-committee on which
he has yet to convene a hearing. He admitted that was the case, that since January
2007 he hasn’t. But his answer was basically that he was too busy. Unfortunately,
there was no follow up to ask: why? Afghanistan is going to hell and Obama’s
too busy to get involved in his own sub-committee. This just doesn’t pass the
test. There is no excuse considering what’s happening in Afghanistan. It was
a prime opportunity for Obama to lead, which he failed. Clinton nailed him on
it.

Time and again Clinton fought back to make an additional point on subjects
that are important to her, fighting her way through Obama’s continual word blizzards.

Russert then threw out a question on Russia, which he later said on MSNBC was
a “jump ball.” Over at the The Corner, my reaction to Russert was the same as theirs:

Gotcha BS [Andy McCarthy] Good for Hil getting the name of the new president of Russia right (more or less). Catty of Russert to ask. She got the essential part of the question right — he’s Putin’s marionette. Did she really need to know the guy’s name off the top of her head to convince us she understood what’s happening in Russia?

Dmitry Medvede is the name.

On the next issue, I’m playing the contrarian again.

Because it was on Louis Farrakhan that the debate shifted and you really saw
the differences in these candidates. As much as it’s popular to beat up on Bill
Clinton these days, at least he knew a moment when a marker is laid down. Last
night, Barack Obama missed his Sister
Souljah moment by a mile.

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan. MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support? SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

Word blizzard again. It’s really simple. You don’t go near anyone like Louis
Farrakhan.

Clinton then took Obama to school.

CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country. And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that. RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle? CLINTON: No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching. OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce. CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama’s tepid response to Farrakhan, and was
appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn’t alone. That Obama
had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost
mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our “special relationship”
with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It’s about moral
courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven’t earned and don’t deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.

So the winner in political terms was Clinton, because she found her
theme and it fits.

Obama was a push, because he remained cool throughout. For me that’s a draw
back. I like my politicians with passion, but pontificating on an air filled hill suits some. But conceding the point on Farrakhan was important and showed a bit more of the man, which is good, even though he had to be led to it.

Take away of the night: Clinton, the fighter. That’s for sure.

Share

Whew, Clinton and Russert do not like each other, that’s for sure.

But Timmy channeling his Iraq roots is just too much to take. However, it was the best Clinton has ever been on Iraq, the clearest, too. She’s also finally got a theme: She’s a fighter.

Discuss.

Share