TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Hillary Clinton

So Much for Mr. Nice Guy

By on 15 June 2007
Notice the headline treatments?


Well, well, well, isn’t this just swell. According to a
story in the New York Times today, Obama’s above the fray image
is going to need a patch up job. Mind you, I never thought politics was anything
but a contact sport, so to speak. However, that’s not exactly Obama’s pitch.


I’ve been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics.
… But challenging as they are, it’s not the magnitude of our problems that
concerns me the most. It’s the smallness of our politics. …

A Message From
Barack Obama

Right, the smallness of our politics.

According to the Times, in April, the Clintons decided to divest themselves of stocks they held
in a blind trust. (A blind trust means that trustees buy the stocks for you
and you don’t know what you’re holding.) The blind trust, valued at between
$5 – $25 million, had to be dissolved because of her presidential bid, in order
for Clinton to disclose what she held, which is the law. After finding out what
they’d owned they didn’t like where their money was invested. The blowback could
have been more trouble than the money was worth, because voters can be picky
about a candidate’s investments. They didn’t have to make the move, which came
with whopping capital gains taxes, according to the Times, but they sold off everything in the blind trust.


They ultimately decided that they were better off, with Mrs. Clinton in office
and running for the presidency, to liquidate the entire blind trust and not
keep the stock or reinvest the money for the duration of her campaign, their
advisers said. Senators are not required to have blind trusts.

This is where it gets interesting.

When the Obama campaign found out about Clinton’s investments, they decided
to do a hit on her regarding one in particular. The thing is, they did it anonymously.


Mr. Clinton also has $15,001 to $50,000 in Easy Bill Ltd., an India-based
company that works on electronic transactions and business services for Indians.

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information,
the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to
news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis
— a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton
(D-Punjab)” in its headline. The document referred to the investment
in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans.
The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in
speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American
jobs to India.

Charming, isn’t it. Now this type of hit job isn’t anything new in the political world, but for a candidate that prides himself on being above petty politics, or beyond the smallness of politics, this is just a tad bit disingenuous. So if you want to keep your squeaky clean image intact, this type of move only works if you cover your tracks. The Obama camp
blew it and Clinton’s campaign found out.


A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which
provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long
been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above
the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread
disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

The coup de grace is that, according to Obama’s spokesman, this isn’t a problem at all.


Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: “We
did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things
that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don’t
see why anyone would take umbrage with that.”

Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected
to the document, Mr. Burton replied, “I’m going to leave my comment
at that.” …

To
Avoid Conflicts, Clintons Liquidate Holdings (emphasis added)

The next thing we’ll hear is that Candidate Obama didn’t know anything about
it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

AP Story on Clinton

By on 30 May 2007

This is interesting.


Clinton was on her fourth campaign trip to Nevada, the site of the nation’s
second caucus, Jan. 19. She met with hotel and casino workers at a union hall
in Las Vegas, and addressed several hundred people at a town hall speech at
a North Las Vegas high school.

In both venues, Clinton struck populist notes, criticizing disparities between
the rich and poor, bemoaning the diminishing middle class and complaining
about soaring pay and benefits for chief executives in corporate America.

In an interview with the AP, Clinton defended her own acceptance of discounted
rides on private jets. … ..

Clinton
defends Iraq war funding vote

Bemoaning?

Complaining?

Oh, and make sure you take a look at the AP photo.

I happened to be seated next to Kathleen Hennessey, the AP reporter who wrote
the story above. I can’t help but wonder how she counts crowds. “Several
hundred people” is off by a couple of thousand, maybe even a three thousand. That “North Las Vegas
high school” was a fairly new magnet school with a very impressive agenda
for the students. It’s not called Canyon Springs High School and the Leadership
and Law Prepatory Academy for nothing. It’s actually part of the story.
But to read Ms. Hennessey’s story you’d think it was just your average high
school. Hardly.

CorrentWire caught the crap Hennessey was spewing.


Clinton initially opposed cutting off funds for the troops, but said Wednesday that she believed last week’s vote was cast in support of soldiers abroad.

Cutting off funds for the troops. Beautiful. Any other wingnut talking point you’d like to insert in your article, Ms. Hennessey?

There was an easy remedy to keep Republican talking points from showing up in the AP article, so I guess the Clinton camp got what they deserved. It’s long past time to question a campaign’s judgment in providing an interview with
the AP, but not reaching out to others, including myself or any number of others at the event. I’d at least have bothered with
important facts, while also leaving out adjectives and the Fox “News” type Iraqi analysis. It’s not only lazy of the AP writer, but the adjectives used
reveal open judgments that a reporter shouldn’t offer. Bias, anyone? We’ve been here before with the AP.

Bloggers are being offered media passes, but the actual access we are granted
for interviews remains paltry, especially with top tier candidates. Considering
the lack of accuracy in stories like the one represented above by the AP you
really have to wonder what campaigns have to lose by expanding involvement of
media types, including bloggers. Must be nice to get paid for thin pieces like this one. I guess as long as you offer sound bites about the war that confirm Republican talking points about Democrats, and something a bit controversial as a bonus, the rest of the details don’t matter much. But when stories like the one above go out on the
wires it would be nice if they actually were accurate and offered a true flavor
of the event. The Clinton camp was wrong not to expand the interview field.
But it’s not exactly news that they didn’t.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton’s Snapshot of America

By on 30 May 2007


Black, Hispanic, disabled, old, middle aged, young, students, everyone
was included. Talk about melting pot and you're talking about Clinton's audience
today in North Las Vegas. A stump speech gathering and town hall question and
answer period is different from a health care forum or the presidential candidate debates. It was a chance to see what Clinton delivers across America, day after
day after day. It didn't move me or the media sitting around watching
it, but the same cannot be said for Clinton's fans that packed the auditorium, which holds between 3,000-3,600, depending on whom you ask. The most striking thing besides the audience today was the school in which
the event was held: Canyon
Springs High School and the Leadership and Law Prepatory Academy, which
is a high achievement magnet school that is very new. The message was clear.

But first the announcements, a “Governors Council,” as well as a
Hispanic Leadership Council, with an African American Leadership Council established
just recently, in fact I think they said last night, but it was hard to hear.


The Governors Council is a national panel of current and former top state
executives who will advise the campaign on policy issues and both state and
regional outreach strategies.

Translation: networks in states across the country to tap into voters in states
where governors and other “former top state executives” can help the
Clinton camp. Former Nevada Governor Miller, the longest serving in the state's
history, was named co-chair. Miller is a principle of Dutko
Worldwide, and also worked to elect Bill Clinton.

Another announcement, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
endorsed Clinton today. Governor Richardson is making light of the move, but it's anything but small.

Things that stood out in Clinton's speech today included a tidbit that when
figuring out the number of prison beds to be included in a new facility, third
grade reading classes and the scores of those students often tell the long-term
tale. Pay for schooling now, or “pay on the back end,” said Clinton.
That's why she's for pre-kindergarten for all four year old children. Clinton also told a story about Madeleine Albright going back to her home in the Czech Republic and seeing American flags with forty-eight stars on them. These flags had been saved and passed down from generation to generation, cherished by the Czech people after their liberation. It was a moment meant to convey what our country means to the world. It worked.

Of course, Candidate Clinton didn't miss the opportunity to remind everyone
of Bill, and why should she? In the 90s, the economy worked for everybody, she said. She and Bill
didn't have money when they were in the White House, but now Bill has started
makin' it. That's fine with her. She also made sure to point out that
though the stock market is doing well, the middle class is “running to
stay in place” and getting nowhere.

When Clinton talked about ending the war in Iraq it was her first standing
ovation, that is besides the thunderous applause she got when she was first introduced. She got several big applause lines on the war, including the one where
she says if Bush doesn't end the war, “as president, I will.” This
wasn't an event for specifics on Iraq, however.

The questions she took from the audience were as follows. Sorry no audio, besides my tech troubles, the
sound just didn't cut it.

  • What about the ERA; young people don't seem to understand how hard women
    fought for equal pay? Clinton brought up the Supreme Court decision yesterday,
    which she boiled down to SCOTUS telling the woman who sued that “she
    didn't complain soon enough.” She said, “We're going to change that
    law,” working with senators and representatives.
  • How to rebound and heal the healthcare system. Clinton: not just about uninsured;
    must cut costs for those insured; insurance companies can't keep doing busines
    the way they are today. (That last one got big applause.)
  • What about affordable housing for seniors and the homeless? Clinton responded
    that “we need a federal program to help.” (Lost me on that answer.)
  • Immigration. Clinton's for a “comprehensive” immigration plan:
    tighten the border, but add more border agents too; hold employers accountable,
    because unless we do people will continue to stream in for jobs; work with
    and convince “our neighbors to the south” that they need to do something
    about providing jobs for their people; bring the 12 million “out of the
    shadows,” but deport the criminals.
  • What about a draft. Clinton: emphatic no.
  • Long, rambling statement and question about foreign involvement in war. Clinton said she'd be more
    thoughtful about when we engage.
  • Hispanic gentlemen stood up and gave a pro Clinton mini speech.

Oh, and by the way, the questioners were picked at random by Candidate Clinton. Nothing stacked.

Clinton also made a strong point of talking about solar energy and wind power.
This cannot be said enough to the people of Nevada. It borders on the morally negligent that Nevada hasn't done both by now. It's something I just do not understand.

Candidate Clinton stayed for an hour, then asked people to feel free to stay
afterwards. She took pictures with the audience from the stage, Secret Service
at the ready. But this was an audience of adoring fans. They cheered on cue.
They believe in Hillary Clinton. There was a feeling of excitement and building
momentum among the crowd and among those to whom I spoke. They sure didn't get
the sense that this was a speech she gives all the time across the country,
in state after state, or that this event was anything but just for them. It
was likely a picture perfect microcosm of what's happening across this country
from Candidate Clinton and her campaign. Sure it's a full out pep rally, but
it's a formidable operation.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Covering Clinton

By on 30 May 2007

I’ll be watching Candidate Clinton today at an event until early afternoon.
I’ll report back what went down.

So my radio show will be back tomorrow.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Chris Matthews’ Creepy Clinton Obsession

By on 24 May 2007
VIDEO: Chris Matthews’ Obsession

Dear Chris Matthews,

You know, Chris, can I call you Chris? Never mind that question, because I’m
going to do it anyway. You know, I like you. You were out in front on Dick Cheney before most people, questioning his power as vice president to hijack our foreign policy. You were all over the Libby case. You even called Rudy‘s statement on President Clinton’s Iraq stance this week on Letterman, “bs,” which was true. But when it comes to the Clinton marriage, I’m really starting to worry about you. This week
really was the clincher. May I suggest you watch the tape yourself? Seriously,
an intervention is needed, so let me oblige.

I’m starting to wonder if you’re getting enough. By “getting enough”
I mean, you know, marital canoodling, you know. Because your continual curiosity about the Clinton’s marital logistics is starting to, well, creep
me out.

I can’t help but wonder why you’re so worried about former President Bill Clinton
and Candidate Clinton’s possible “long-distance marriage,” and why
you find that so odd. It’s not like these two people don’t have serious jobs
that take them around the globe and often in different directions. They’re also
not newlyweds. In fact, looking at my own marriage, my husband and I talked
about the very real possibility that I would live in one place and he in another
when my radio show moves cities, as well as when my political responsibilities and travels take me elsewhere.
It didn’t phase him at all. We’d steal time when we could until we could work out something else.


MATTHEWS: What‘s their deal? What is their deal, Jonathan? You must
have done some reporting on this. Let‘s not get into the particular
human details of their relationship because who knows about any relationship,
but do they live in the same world? Are they in like what you‘d call
a long-distance marriage, where one person works in one city, the other works
in an another? How often do they actually see each other?

How much time the Clintons are spending together, especially during a red hot campaign season, is important to us, why, exactly?


MATTHEWS: Are they living on the same planet? Do they ever see each other
physically?

“Do they ever see each other physically?”

What exactly are you driving at, Chris? You recently complained about
Mike Wallace asking Mitt Romney a pre-marital sex question. Was it because he
was a reportedly religious Republican that bothered you? Is sex between Democratic
partners your only interest, especially if one of them is a woman running for
president? Let me be more blunt. Is it that you just can’t get over Monica Lewinski? Candidate Clinton (and the American people) has forgiven her husband, which I’m sure was no easy walk. What’s your problem?



“C’mon. He’d be embarrassing upstairs at the White House. So I think she’d have a hard time. I think a woman president would have to be very conservative to get elected.” – Chris Matthews

Ah, I see. A woman candidate for president needs to be conservative. That so explains your National Enquirer type questioning.


MATTHEWS: How many days of the year are they actually together in the same
roof overnight, if you will?

Or dare I ask the question, Chris? Are you not getting enough at home? Seriously,
with all due respect, maybe your marital relations just aren’t up to
snuff so peeking into the Clinton’s private world, into their very bedroom,
looking under the sheets is what gets you off. Now, I know you love “your
queen,” as you call your wife. But just maybe she’s become a little too,
ahem, frosty. Now, really, I don’t mean any disrespect, because, after
all, people do deserve their privacy, right? But all this peeping Tom political
porn on “Hardball” is starting to make me worry about your
marriage.

Oh, that’s right, you’re not a candidate for president. I also forgot just
how important it is to know the prurient details of the former president and
his presidential candidate wife’s connubial togetherness.

It also makes me wonder why you’re not obsessing about Rudy Giuliani marrying his third cousin, or why he humiliated his wife in public to such an extent that his
children have practically disowned him. I appreciate you going after Rudy’s “Giulianiisms,” but really, why does he get a pass on his marriage while the Clintons do not?


MATTHEWS: Well, how many is it? Is it 20 days a year? How many days of the
year are they actually together in the same roof overnight, if you will?

ROMANO: I think—I think that I saw a report that said it was about
half a month.

MATTHEWS: A year?

ROMANO: Yes. Well, a half a month every month. So whatever—half a year,
yes.

MATTHEWS: Oh, really? I would recheck the reporting. …

And what is your reporting on this earth shattering issue, Mr. Matthews?

**crickets**

There seems to be something very personal in your attacks on the Clintons.
You even had to bring up the Big Dog during the GOP debate; obviously thinking
that it was so clever of you. Instead, it came off just plain creepy.

Maybe your Clinton marriage obsession is because Keith Olbermann got the first interview with Candidate Clinton,
or that you have to share the stage with Keith in all the big political events
now. Or maybe it’s because you’re suffering in the ratings, so tabloid presidential
porn press is your only hope to stay alive, especially where the Clintons are
concerned. Or maybe it’s because your friendship with Sean Hannity is taking
hold in your soul. Or maybe it’s because you’re secretly jealous of the Big Dog and want a little of what he’s got. Then again, it may be because you’re
just not getting enough at home. I wish I could help, because you certainly
need it.


MATTHEWS: You put a cover piece, so I‘m going to keep pounding on you.
Is he going to live in the White House, if they win? Why are you laughing,
Lois?

ROMANO: Because—what is your obsession with logistics here? Of course,
he‘s going to live in the White House and…

MATTHEWS: Because I‘m talking to three reporters, and I‘m trying
to get three straight answers, so I don‘t want attitude about this.
It‘s a point of view—I want facts. Tell me what the facts are,
Lois, if you know them. If you don‘t, I don‘t know what you‘re
arguing about.

ROMANO: Of course, he‘s going to—of course, he‘s going
to—look, they‘re dancing a very delicate dance now. He doesn‘t
want to be too influential. He doesn‘t want to be around too much. He
wants to advise her. Of course they‘re going to say he‘s not going
to be at the White House 24/7 because then everybody will say, Oh, he‘s
going to be president.

But I believe he‘s going to live in the White House, and I believe…

MATTHEWS: You don‘t think it‘s—Lois, you don‘t think
it‘s a relevant story for people who are going to vote in this election?

ROMANO: No. I don‘t.

MATTHEWS: You don‘t think it‘s relevant whether Bill Clinton
comes back and lives in the White House. You don‘t think that‘s
relevant.

ROMANO: It is relevant because people are going to be concerned that he‘s
going to be the president. People that want him to be the president will like
that, and others that don‘t like either of them will keep bringing that
up. But I mean, I think it‘s crazy to think he‘s not going to
live in the White House. Is he going to travel and do other stuff? Of course,
he‘s going to do that.

MATTHEWS: I think this is a bigger issue than you think. …

“Hardball” – transcript

Believe me, Chris, we all know you think it’s “a bigger issue.” The
question is why are you so obsessed? It’s reached the clinical point, pal. It’s time to get some
help.

Sincerely,

Just another Keith Olbermann fan.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton Challenges the Pentagon

By on 23 May 2007

What would a female commander in chief look like in action? How would she lead?

Exhibit A:


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in both a letter to Defense Secretary Robert
M. Gates and in a private meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Peter Pace, called on the Pentagon to brief the Congress on any existing
plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, or provide an explanation
as to why such plans have not been properly created.

“The seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission
in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and
properly equip our men and women in uniform,” Senator Clinton wrote.
“Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without
any unnecessary danger.”

Clinton
Calls on Pentagon to Plan for Withdrawal From Iraq
Presses Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Begin Proper Planning

Her full letter to Gates and Pace can be found at the link above, which JustaDem put in Hot Topics this morning. Clinton's letter is an example
of extraordinary seriousness, especially considering the alarming NPR story
out recently that reported Pace saying there were no plans on the table to withdraw
from Iraq, no order for complete drawdown. None.



“We have published no orders directing the planning for the overall
withdrawal of forces,” Pace replied. “We do have ongoing replacements
of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system
is available to either plus-up or draw down, but we have published no orders
saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown.” – General
Peter Pace

Senate Clinton's letter comes at a good time. Leadership is the order of the
day on Iraq. Anything less would prove disastrous to her presidential campaign.
She rose to the occasion yet again.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Courting the Women’s Vote

By on 15 May 2007

But this isn't just about courting the women's vote. It's also about those
21 million women who remain unregistered non-voters. It's the key to a Democratic
win every time, but also critical to winning the presidency and holding both houses of
Congress.

So it's about time there was an article out there with this kind of headline:
Clinton
courting non-voters. That its focus is candidate Clinton doesn't
surprise me at all.

Obviously, the other candidates are working to get the women's
vote too. But let's be honest. No candidate has the the potential to move more
women than Clinton, for very obvious reasons. But Clinton also knows nothing could move
the election more than if she could tap into the 21 million unregistered female voters
that Democrats have not captured in years and years.


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton includes a biographical section on her campaign
Web site titled “Mother and Advocate.” On the issues she is called
“A Champion for Women.” She also has a calculator for women to enter
their age, race, education level and home state to learn how much money they
are losing for want of an equal-pay law.

Those are but a few of the campaign's small tips of the hat to women, the
largest segment of the electorate and a crucial component of Clinton's strategy
to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. “A big piece of
what we're working on is finding ways to reach women,” said Ann Lewis,
a senior adviser to the campaign.

But in addition to targeting women voters, her campaign is going after a
far more elusive goal: women who have not even registered to vote. Surveys
show the former first lady far outstrips her rivals among registered women
voters, but also among unregistered women, a substantial target that includes
21 million people under the age of 44. … ..

Clinton
courting non-voters
The N.Y. Democrat's presidential campaign is going after a far more elusive
goal than female voters: Women who have not even registered, a target that
includes 21 million under age 44

Kudos to Clinton. There is nothing more important than getting these 21
million women to vote.

I've done significant research on independent female non-voters over many,
many years. One more recent project started out of Firedoglake, which I ran
for Jane Hamsher (with help from Pach and some FDL volunteers), but then I got
into it and ran with it on my own. I've learned a lot about the basics on why
independent single women don't vote.

Of course, Page Gardner and Anna Greenberg and the others at Women’s
Voices Women’s Votes, a non-partisan, non-profit group, are the experts
on this stuff. They were incredible help. WVWV has pages and pages of invaluable research. Through conference calls and their
website, which provided source material and facts, among other
sources, I was able to put the basics together that is a jumping off point for
anyone who has never thought about the challenge of tapping those 21 million
independent single women (ISW) non-voters.

Oh, and just a word about the term “independent single women,” which
I use throughout the information below. The term most frequently used has always
been “unmarried single women.” When I began working with the FDL volunteers
and Pach there was a lot of talk about how to refer to these women. I have always
had a big problem with the old term, “unmarried single women.” As
if single women should only be referred to as “unmarried,” which in
itself connotes something negative and also “un” about a woman's life if she's not married. Some women actually happily choose to remain
“unmarried.” In the modern era women actually choose to remain independent and single.
I should know, because I was one of those “unmarried” women until
four years ago. So I decided on “independent single women” as having
just about the right tone. It includes unmarried women, divorced women, single
moms and everything in between, including all ages.

This is just a beginning, but it puts the obvious and the not so obvious together.
I don't claim to be an expert like the people over at WVWV,
but I am fully studied and equipped to dissect some of the problems, though
there are many more issues to address than what I've compiled below. Again,
this is just a jumping off point (formal pdf version of the info not included below), but it's invaluable information for those
people in the political world who have never given this subject a second thought.
Believe it or not there are a lot of those types of people out there even today.


REACHING UNREGISTERED INDEPENDENT SINGLE WOMEN VOTERS
PART ONE:

Title: Independent Women Staying Informed

Many independent single women (ISW) say they don’t have enough information
to get involved or to be sure about the issues.

Independent, single women (ISW) often don’t seek out this information.

ISW receive their information passively from local news and local papers,
but they rarely go to news for political information.

Younger independent, single women use the web to get their news.

PART TWO:

Title: Reaching Independent Single Women Through Media

Independent, single women (ISW) are cynical about the media.

Non-partisan organizations are seen as more trustworthy and unbiased because
they are simply dispensing information not cheerleading for one side or the
other.

Highly partisan material is a turn off for ISW.

Any candidate information should present both people’s views.

Offering sources and web links to check information being given is seen as
crucial to ISW. Again, they are cynical about the media and don’t automatically
trust what they are being told.

PART THREE

Title: GOTWV Design has an Impact

How voting information is presented matters to ISW.

Women in all materials must look like average women and not super models.
This goes for single mom images too. Multi-tasking images also rings true
to women.

ISW are as moved by patriotic images as anyone else.

Images in voter information should be emotional and bring patriotic feelings
to the surface. Duty calls: vote.

PART FOUR

Title: Reach ISW with Words

The word “guide” is likely to be effective on voter information
covers, according to WVWV studies.

Women’s Voices, Women’s Vote found that “guide” inspires
women to look inside voter pamphlets to find out more information on the candidates
or initiatives.

ISW want to have information so they can make their own choices and decisions.

When using wording it’s important to impart the voting is powerful.

ISW are smart, so you don’t have to hit them over the head with messaging.

PART FIVE

Title: Sloganeering

WVWV offers some guidelines…

“You can’t change America if you don’t vote.”
“Make a change, make a difference, go vote.”
“Your voice matters, your vote makes them listen.”
“Make a choice. Make a difference. Vote.”
“Voting has never been more important.”
“Don’t let someone else make the choice for you. Vote.”

Slogans for single women regarding the duty to their children and the world
they will lead their children could also be effective. As WVWV
research has shown, independent single women are as moved by patriotic slogans
as anyone. That's why the slogans above work. They move through emotion, which
is the most powerful incentive.

PART SIX

Title: Reaching ISW Through Technology

Websites with voter registration links.

Websites with candidate links that offer both Rep. & Dem.

Blogs that post information about candidates vying for office offering contrasts
of records or viewpoints. Again, both views of candidates must be shown. ISW
want to make their own decisions.

Text messaging angles: On Dem mailers provide text message alerts to get
emails. ISW receiving these door knockers may be more likely to respond with
email addresses.

On Election Day, remind ISW it’s time to vote through text messaging.

They’re interested but very busy women. Reaching out could make the
difference.

PART SEVEN

Title: Helping Single Mothers Vote

Provide names of childcare opportunities in neighborhoods and cities.

Recruiting childcare businesses to help on Election Day. It’s good
advertising and a positive contribution to the community.

PART EIGHT

Title: Transportation to the Polls

Provide information re: local transportation to polls.

Hotline transportation

Help women find where their voting place is.

PART NINE

Title: ID Alert

ISW need to be educated about having an ID with them to vote.

Know your rights: If you do not have an ID you can sign an Affirmation of
Identity form stating that you are who you claim you are. You must then be
allowed to vote like everyone else.

If you are not on the lists you have a legal right to a provisional ballot.

Provide phone number to local Dem office if problems arise.

PART TEN

Title: Where Women Hang Out

Before election set up GOTWV booths to register women at bookstores.

Before election set up tables to hand out information on voting.

PART ELEVEN

Title: Negative Ads and ISW

ISW are cynical about the media so negative ads may work for many people
but they likely turn off ISW.

They have the potential of driving turn out of ISW down.

When negative ads rule, other ways of reaching ISW are critical. Remember,
one-sided ads don’t reach ISW. They want both sides so they can make
their own decision, their own choices.

Democrats have got to find a way to reach ISW when negative ads are the norm
on airwaves.

Negative ads could cause ISW to tune out.

PART TWELVE

Title: Don’t Be Intimidated – Voter Suppression

You are the voter, so you have the power.

Look out for off duty police officers intimidating voters, especially in
minority zones, as well as police vehicles.

If the polling place is open and you are registered to vote, you have an
inalienable right to do so.

If the machines are down, officials are obligated to provide a paper ballot.

If you are in line by the time polls close, even if the line is halfway down
the street, officials are obligated to let you vote.

Any irregularities should be reported immediately. There is always a national
hotline.

Make sure local legal number is available so women can report intimidation,
for instance: 1-888-DEM-VOTE, which was used in 2006.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton Sees the Road Ahead

By on 04 May 2007


This is very interesting. Senator Clinton is joining Robert C. Byrd in reining
in Mr. Bush. Their target date? They're shooting for October 11, 2007. Why then?
Because that's when the damnable authorization for the Iraq war turns five.
It's a date wherein Clinton and Byrd intend to put an expiration date on the president's
escalating war fetish, so that it can be assured the war is really and finally
put to an end. Because it would demand Bush come back to Congress to reauthorize his actions. We all know Mr. Bush won't do that, so Clinton is joining Byrd to make sure the Iraq war authorization
is finally sunset. They're intent is permanently hemming the president in.


Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to
announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October
11, 2007 — the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing
the use of force in Iraq — as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force
has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President
Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will
of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding
for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our
troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and
to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported
the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original
authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms
and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the
president to do just that. … ..

Hillary
Statement on Deauthorizing the War

No doubt some will wonder why the fall and why not now?

The eagerness to end
the Iraq war cannot be overestimated. But Clinton knows where the votes are
today and also knows that Reid and Pelosi are moving hell and earth and quite
a few Blue Dog Dems, not to mention Republicans, to get anything concrete done
and sent back to the president for signing. In fact, we've even got trouble on our side. There's the Murtha –
Obey contingent versus the Hoyer – Blue Dog group; the former wanting to send
the bill back without 100% funding and also making the president come back to
Congress in two months, with the latter willing to give the president 100% of
the money now. With even Democrats divided on the next step post veto, Clinton knows a deauthorization
of the war wouldn't get the votes she needs, because she also needs Republicans
to get the job done. It's just not going to happen today.

So Clinton is joining Byrd with a date that allows for time to play out, patience
to run out and the election to be seen coming straight at some Republicans who
today wouldn't join her if held at gun point. It's going to take all of the
next five months to get the votes needed and to bring her colleagues to their
side.

It may seem like a long way off, but the five year date for authorization of
this disastrous misadventure in Iraq will be here sooner than you think. Come
October it could be quite a dramatic step, especially if Iraq continues to unwind
and the American people grow more and more impatient with Bush's escalation and Republicans propping him up, which is a very good bet.
The pressure is building, but by fall it will have reached the end. Even Republicans
are talking about a September look at where we are in Iraq. Clinton's action warns of a reality yet to come, but most assuredly guaranteed.

Finally, Clinton joining Bryd in no way precludes actions today. But with Murtha and Hoyer factions at odds in the House it's going to be tough going forward. So thinking ahead to when the authorization would be declared at long last dead actually dangles a very long rope in front of the president and the Republicans on which this war can be finally be hung around their collective chickenhawk necks.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hos, Imus, and Hillary

By on 10 April 2007

Sitting in the dentist chair this morning I got to thinking… ..

Imus’s radio show has hit the fan. So has the subject of racism and misogyny,
but let’s not forget hypocrisy. Oh, and did I mention Hillary? There’s no doubt
that Imus’s remarks were racist, but considering he’s a shock jock who’s been
left to spew venom for years is anyone surprised? The real problem will be if
Dan Abrams of MSNBC has to replace the three plus hours of easy programming.
Infomercials here they come? We shall see. But seriously, when we’re talking
about “hos,” you really can’t talk about this slander used against
the Rutgers team without also mentioning the Democratic “front-runner,”
at least when it comes to most polls, Hillary Clinton. Because without a calculator
you cannot count the number of times Clinton has been called a “money whore”
and worse in comment sections across the blogosphere, including this very site.
The hard part to take about this is that it’s coming from Democrats and so-called progressives in
our own party. What does that say about us? If the Democratic front-runner remains
Hillary and Democratic progressives refer to her as a “money whore” and more, what will happen if she’s our nominee? The language against this powerful, competent
and electrically charged female is sure to get worse as things get amped up. Remember what the wingnuts did to Hillary in the 1990′s? It’s almost a right of passage to power to slander Hillary Clinton if you’re a Republican, especially on radio.

Headlines like the one below never please anyone, especially Barack Obama’s people. I’ve been called every name in the book in emails, with my honesty challenged in comment sections because I dare to challenge Obama, though no one should attach these attacks to Mr. Obama, who would have none of it I am sure. When I trumpeted Hillary’s competence and star power, that’s when the vitriol spiked. I was even called a racist.
When rightly reporting on a positive performance from Hillary, that’s when commenters and others really went after Clinton. When I
wrote about her amazing performance at the Nevada health care forum all hell broke loose. Saying Hillary
shined was just too much for some to take. I got “money whore” comments
on this blog. I can’t say that I was shocked but I was disappointed. Hillary
deserves better. Women deserve better. The Democratic progressive cause that has trumpeted women’s rights deserves a lot better, too. But the dominance of this smart, powerful
and competent female is impossible to ignore so it’s likely the attacks will only get
worse instead of better. She’s again besting everyone in the field in the
latest poll just released.


Sen. Hillary Clinton remains the dominant presidential front-runner among
Democrats nationally, with twice the support as her nearest challenger. Sen.
Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, and former Vice President Al Gore
are tightly bunched in second place, with all other candidates in low single
digits. If Gore is removed from the ballot and his supporters’ second-place
choices substituted, Clinton’s lead becomes even more dominant, with Obama
and Edwards tied far behind.

Hillary Clinton Remains
Dominant Front-Runner Among Democrats
Obama and Edwards close in second place

Imus’s purposeful slander against the Rutgers team is nothing different than
what black rap artists do to women every day in studios and on CDs across this
country. Some female rap artists join in. Now everyone is recalibrating and
looking inward. Yesterday Jesse Jackson had the audacity to come after MSNBC
for not having a black anchor that has producers and writers and a staff, all
the while David Gregory repeated more than twice that Alison Stewart is an
African American with her own show. Jackson ignored it. Why? Because Stewart
is a black woman and she doesn’t count? Was Jackson making another point, pushing
his own agenda? Nah, that would never happen. Never mind that Alison Stewart
is one of the most talented women in cable news today. Yet yesterday on “Hardball”
Jackson ignored that she indeed has her own show no matter how many times Gregory said it. Why? Women are never given their due and the higher we rise the worse it becomes for us all, especially when we criticize one type of slander while ignoring another.

The hypocrisy is knee deep right now, which extends to what even Democrats are calling Hillary Clinton. I don’t care if you want her as the nominee or if you’re
working for Edwards or Obama. If you think Imus was wrong and racist then it’s
time you check your own language if you’re one of the people whose disrespect
for the first viable female candidate for president turns towards shock jock
territory in a slanderous attack that has you calling Hillary a “money
whore” or something equally derogatory; some talking about how she is a lesbian, or how Bill was bad because of Hillary, which is a staple on wingnut radio. It’s the same insult against women, one of color and one
of power. Race, misogyny and power are often entwined.

The Rutgers team and
Hillary Clinton may be of different races, but the issue is still the same. Disrespect and the disempowerment of women who are going for the brass ring, which takes incredible courage, power and personal accomplishment, while having to duck vile language that is meant to limit us and which makes us all less.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton – Obama have Same Votes on Iraq

By on 06 April 2007

Mike
Lux is right, at least in part. All of our Democratic presidential hopefuls
beat the Republican litter by a mile. That said, considering the foreign policy
challenges we’ll be handed in ’09, it’s imperative to compare each of our candidates.
I’m only talking about three, but in case they’re not your three let me offer
the candidates below the top tier as well: Biden
who also has a head to head match up
of the candidates on Iraq; then there is Dodd,
Richardson, Kucinich,
Gravel.

TPM has compared the
Iraq war votes of Clinton
and Edwards, as well as Clinton
and Obama, with a chart on Clinton,
Obama and Lieberman. You will find it interesting, let’s just say. Also,
Howie has some thoughts on Chris Dodd, who is the first
senator running for president to support Feingold-Reid.

What I found very illuminating is that Senators
Clinton and Obama have the exact same Iraq war voting record except
for one vote: General
George Casey‘s appointment to Army chief of staff. On that vote Clinton
agreed with McCain: no.

John
Edwards missed quite a few votes during the ’04 presidential cycle, which
is evident in the
chart. It’s also interesting that Edwards starts out right of Clinton, but
in 2003 has a strong change of heart and moves left on the war. Edwards voted
against the $87 billion appropriation, with Clinton voting for it. Obama wasn’t
in the Senate at the time. It’s also important to note that John
Edwards long ago recanted his vote and said “I
was wrong.” To add, news just broke that Edwards continues his strong stance against Fox “News” as well.

As for Clinton,
she will not recant her ’02 vote, yada-yada-yada. Period. She has finally
offered some candid
thoughts on Iraq if she becomes president. It was a positive sign, though
clearly not enough for many. However, Clinton’s performance at the health care
forum was outstanding.
She was prepared, on fire and out shined all of her opponents. Hillary doesn’t
have a health care plan laid out, but who can blame her? It’s not that she doesn’t
know the subject.

Edwards’ health
care plan has received positive reviews, here
and here, with some raising questions, but still liking it.

As for Obama’s plan on health care… **crickets**… … unless you count
listening
and learning and “status
quo” warnings pabulum a positive position at this point, while he waits a couple of months until he figures
it out. This from a man who claims to be ready to hold the presidency is not electrifying. Shouldn’t Obama be the one leading instead
of learning at this point? It’s one thing to be learning what the people feel
and think, but it’s quite another to be learning about health care policies
because you haven’t got a plan in place.

But Barack Obama’s instincts on Iraq were right from the start. However, he
wasn’t in the Senate and didn’t have to vote on it. This is not a minor point.
Recent statements
still have me wondering what he would have done if he’d been in the Senate at
the time. Honestly, we’ll never know. The one sense I continue to get about
Mr.
Obama is that he eschews confrontations. He also has to come up with more
than platitudes and empty phrases of hope. Maybe now that he’s officially the
frontrunner he will. John
Edwards has challenged Obama, as well as reporters covering him, to do just
that.

Barack Obama’s campaign strategy is also a bit off putting. He’s decided to
run his campaign not on the strength of liberal Democratic ideology and philosophy,
but on the power of his personality.


Axelrod’s is a less grand, postideological approach, and his
campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s
life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology
is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity.

Obama’s
Narrator

Personality power is fine for the candidate running for president, but where
does that leave Senate and House candidates all the way down to the local level?
One of the criticisms of Bill Clinton by many progressive activists, though
not myself, is that Bill Clinton was gifted with political star power, but many
progressives fault him for what he left (or didn’t leave) in his wake; fewer
Democrats in power on all levels of government, up and down the chain. Sure, he was a community organizer, but rallying
the troops is not just about party unity. It’s about delineating differences between Republicans
and Democrats. The last thing I want to see is a convention like we had in ’04, which offered the positives, but didn’t call Bush out on his horrendous policies. There’s no doubt Obama is smart and gifted,
with personality power that can take him far, but what if our candidates for
Senate and House and local offices don’t have the personality to pull it off
by sheer political charisma? It would be good to have a progressive ideology
to trumpet, don’t ya think?

Then there’s Barack
Obama’s unqualified support and backing for Joe Lieberman in ’06. That action is un acceptable, especially as we look at the Senate votes on Iraq. Some have written that Lieberman was Obama’s “mentor” and
though that may be an overstatement it’s become the
talking point. I don’t care about that, but I do care that Obama walked away from the progressive candidate in ’08. That speaks volumes. Translated it means that Barack Obama
supported a war hawk over the anti war candidate, who also happened to
be the people’s choice and the only one the Iraq war.



“I know that some in the party have differences with Joe,” Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. “I’m going to go ahead and say it. It’s the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don’t agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman’s a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America.”

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: “I am absolutely certain that Connecticut’s going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate.” That time, people cheered loudly.

Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate

If Obama is truly against the Iraq war why wouldn’t he support the one candidate who could help end it in the Senate? Tagaris called Obama: “Quite possibly the biggest disappointment … period.”

Clinton was the
first to cut Lamont a check, but I can’t let that be the last word, because
my friend Pach had much more to say about Bill’s
roll in it all.

As for Edwards, he campaigned
hard for Lamont.

One last thought. David Sirota wrote a piece yesterday that draws stronger
distinctions between the candidates. I urge you to read it and follow the links.
For the first time he also endorses John Edwards. He also offers his reasons
for why.


CAMPAIGN THEMES

To date, it’s fair to say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns have
been about themselves. Whether that’s their own fault, a deliberate strategy
or a media distortion is not important – the fact is, neither of these candidates
has made any headway in staking out themes any more coherent than fuzzy poll-tested
rhetoric like “leadership” or “hope,” textbook rhetoric
of history’s past false prophets and vapid cults of personality – and that’s
the good stuff. More often on major issues like Iraq, we get Clinton trying
to justify her continued support for the war and Obama
either singing the praises of his “mentors” like pro-war
icons like Joe Lieberman or undercutting
fellow Senate Democrats who are trying to take an aggressive posture against
President Bush.

Edwards, by contrast, has been extremely disciplined in making economic class
issues the central focus of his race (he has also taken a strong, consistent
stand on the war first by apologizing for his initial vote, and then unequivocally
supporting aggressive efforts to end it). Whether he was kicking off his campaign
in hurricane-battered New Orleans or using his clout to help union drives,
he has worked very hard to shine a light on the “two Americas” crisis
that has, unfortunately, been aided and abetted by the Wall Street-Clinton
administration pact which still dominates the Democratic Party establishment
in Washington, D.C. Edwards among the three is the only one who has shown
a commitment to taking stands on the core economic issues that Wall Street
would rather no Democratic candidates even talk about. On “free”
trade and the ability of K Street lobbyists to buy off politicians, for instance,
he’s been a populist
champion since way back in 2004.

He has even called for the renegotiation
of the North American Free Trade Agreement – an issue Bloomberg News shows
that Hillary Clinton can’t even talk about coherently, and an issue which,
as I saw in my 2006 interview with him, Barack Obama desperately tries to
dance around (not surprising, considering his top policy aide was the top
policy aide to NAFTA proponent Bob Rubin). … ..

John
Edwards: The People Party Candidate of 2008

On the other side, will Bloomberg be the Nader of ’08? I’m
with Chris.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rep. Rangel: Obama Not Ready

By on 01 April 2007

Clinton gives Rangel a hug.


Republicans are in a tailspin over Bush’s war, content to wait out escalation
until the “fall” or late August while we watch our troops and the
Iraqis die by the dozen. Andrew Sullivan says the only thing that can change
that fact is a woman and her name is Hillary Clinton. Talking on Chris Mathews’ half-hour NBC show, Sullivan said that if Democrats decide Hillary is the nominee
the heavens will open and their hatred for Hillary will be the wind beneath
their wings. Her negatives are high, helped out by the oppo research being unfurled and the general attack
dog mentality of the media that is out there in force. So maybe Sullivan is right, but I believe
he’s reading the wrong signals. I think there is great acceptance in many
Republican circles that Hillary not only will be the nominee, but will win in
’08, which will then bring the Republicans back with a vengeance. But that hardly
matters right now, because first she’s got to get the nomination. Obama is breathing
down her neck, and the steady progress of John Edwards should not be discounted,
especially since Obama tripped over his own inexperience today, while also getting stiff armed by Charlie Rangel. These are not
minor events.


MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to presidential politics. You encouraged Barack
Obama, the senator from Illinois, to run from president. Why?

REP. RANGEL: Because he was a young, attractive minority candidate
that had so much wind under his wings that I told him if he didn’t run,
he’d spend the rest of his life regretting it. I don’t think that
he will be there for the final rounds, but he’s a young candidate, and
he’s got a bright future in the Senate, and he gets another chance at
it in eight years.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re supporting Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Why?

REP. RANGEL: Well, first of all, she’s an exciting, qualified candidate
with eight years experience in the White House, she’s my junior senator
from New York, and she’s our favorite daughter. And, and quite frankly,
I don’t think anyone comes near to her qualifications to be a great
president.

MR. RUSSERT: You don’t think Senator Obama is as qualified as Hillary
Clinton?

REP. RANGEL: You don’t mean qualified, of course not. But he’s
exciting, and he’s catching on in terms of popularity. But in terms
of qualification and background, I don’t think anyone says that he has
it now. But it doesn’t mean that bright people can’t acquire the
talents that’re necessary. But at this point in time, I think
it’s fair to say he’s eloquent, he’s bright, and not as
qualified as Hillary Clinton. … ..

“Meet the Press”

Senator Clinton is getting creamed in the press, but women are used to bad press when we step out of our homemaker box, especially when it’s to take on national security issues. But one thing no one can say with any legitimacy is that Hillary is unprepared. She also wouldn’t get caught handing the White House more wiggle room on Iraq, which is exactly what Obama did today.

John Edwards has been strong on Iraq since he moved away from his Iraq vote in the Senate, so you can bet he wouldn’t get tripped
up in the press on this one either.

Mr. Obama illustrated today what Rangel was talking about on “Meet the Press.” It’s great to have
instincts and to have been against the war back in 2002 when you didn’t have to cast a
vote on it, but you can’t live on history forever. I also wonder exactly what Mr. Obama would have done if he’d been a United States senator in ’02, especially when he tees up beauties like this one.


“I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,”
said Obama. “I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the
belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

“Obviously we’re constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who
also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position,” Obama
said.

(snip)

The senator said it is up to war opponents to be vocal about their position.

“If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue
to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able
to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction,”
the senator said. … ..

Obama
says Congress will fund Iraq war

“I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the
ground.”?

That is a stupid thing to say. Nobody, especially the Democrats, intend to “play
chicken with our troops on the ground.” I’d like for him to say that to Senator James Webb or the other veteran Democrats in the House. This is an amateur error of the
first order. I only wish it was the only one he made today. However, Mr. Obama goes on to
say that, hey, it’s not my job to push the president and use my senatorial power
to stop a war 60% of the American people want stopped. YOU do it. That’s right, America, it’s your job to provide cover for the senator so he can then get up the spine to do his job. Because
he simply can’t stand up and lead on something like this when Mr. Bush will veto
it anyway. So get busy, will ya?

Just exactly who is playing chicken, Mr. Obama? I’m beginning to think Rangel is right.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Another ‘Hardball’ Hit Job

By on 31 March 2007

As I said yesterday, I needed a good laugh as the week closed out. Unfortunately, I didn’t get it on “Hardball.”

At one point in the show on Thursday the topic of discussion turned to a USAToday
poll. But no, it wasn’t about Hillary’s chances for president. It is one
of Chris Matthews’ favorite topics, the Clinton marriage. It’s a renewing theme
on “Hardball” and it seems to make Chris Matthews giggle like a
little girl. For whatever reason, Matthews and people like Patrick Healy just can’t get over the
Big Dog’s big mistake of the 1990s. If Hillary has made peace* with it, why can’t they? Here
was one of the questions in the poll.


“Do you personally believe that since he left the White House, Bill
Clinton has learned his lessons from these scandals or is the same person
he always was?”

Greg Sargent, who also has the
transcript, thinks it was a joke, however inane.

Actually, I don’t think it’s meant as a joke. I think it’s meant to hurt Hillary,
especially among some Democrats who think she’s too polarizing or that she
and Bill bring too much baggage, as is talked about in comment sections, but most particularly,
in the DC press. Matthews has done this before. Or maybe it’s that Clinton was interviewed by Keith and not Chris? Nah, that couldn’t be it.

The Clinton marriage has become a voyeuristic
hobby of Mr. Matthews and he brings it up whenever given the opportunity, accompanied by laughs and snide comments, as he then puts the DC Democratic pundit playing “Hardball” that day on the spot. According to Matthews, America is still fascinated
by Bill and Hill’s marriage, but most especially by Bubba’s alleged bad side, which
Chris simply knows is still in play, especially for voters. Actually, most people are sick of revisiting the ridiculous spectacle we all remember, compliments of a Republican Party that concentrated on Bill’s zipper instead of terrorism.

But what about that poll question; has Bill changed? Does it matter? That’s for primary voters to decide.

Chris is having fun, but it’s nothing less than a swipe at Bill meant to harm Hillary. Because when you look at the real numbers, voters not only believe
Bill Clinton is a huge asset, but that he’ll help Hillary. No one is looking back on Bill Clinton’s two-term presidency, especially when compared to Bush, as anything but a golden eight years. Some Democrats make the case that we lost clout in state legislatures, as well as the Senate and House, but our infrastructure problem didn’t start with Bill Clinton. However, only Chris Matthews would bring high school gossip into a political conversation and openly masquerade it as “hardball.”

* Correction made.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Taking Incoming

By on 28 March 2007


Read
Greenwald.


Last night, The Politico\’s Mike Allen published a petty,
trite hit piece on Barack Obama — entitled Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama
— claiming that Obama \”has also shown a tendency toward seemingly minor
contradictions and rhetorical slips\” and referencing \”imprecise
or incomplete statements by Obama over the years.\” As Bunch noticed,
Allen\’s story was \”highlighted on the Drudge Report no later than 18
minutes after it was filed by Allen (how does he do it!).\” Drudge continues
prominently to promote The Politico\’s story today … ..

Then read Boehlert.

More from Greg
Sargent, with The Carpetbagger having the most fitting headline.

Then the
Swamp chimed in, offering up a link to something that stirred up the storm
this past weekend. It\’s a story about Barack Obama from the Chicago Tribune.


In his best-selling autobiography, \”Dreams from My Father,\” Obama
describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student,
\”Ray.\” The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese.
In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered
himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an
angry young black man.

He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that
his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa
said, were not about race. \”Not even close,\” he said, adding that
Obama was dealing with \”some inner turmoil\” in those days.

\”But it wasn\’t a race thing,\” he said. \”Barry\’s biggest struggles
then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were his feelings of
abandonment. The idea that his biggest struggle was race is [bull].\”

Then there\’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial
awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs
of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts
to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don\’t exist,
say the magazine\’s own historians. … ..

The
not-so-simple story of Barack Obama\’s youth

The AP\’s Pickler has a story on Obama, too, covering something that I also
witnessed this past weekend.


The differences among the Democratic candidates were on display Saturday
in Las Vegas, where the contenders answered questions about health care.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the only other candidate to serve
less time in elective office than Obama, described in detail his health care
plan to provide insurance for all Americans. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
doesn\’t have a written plan yet, but no one questions her expertise, since
she was the chief proponent of the issue during her husband\’s presidency.

Daniel Romo, 45, a clerk at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles and a member
of the Service Employees International Union that sponsored the forum, left
with Clinton and Edwards as his top choices. Obama did not impress him.

\”I believe that he needed to know a little more about health care issues
and he was just unprepared,\” Romo said. … ..

Obama
yet to address perception he\’s style over substance

There\’s a big difference between Mike Allen\’s \”petty, trite hit piece,\”
as Greenwald rightly describes it, with Allen joining up with Drudge to smear Barack
Obama, and serious questions being raised about the preparedness of Obama and
his team. It simply cannot be ignored by any of us, especially given the events of this past
weekend and Mr. Obama\’s lack of preparedness on health care, which came with his
own statement that he\’d be ready with a plan in two months. Mr. Obama is leaving
himself wide open for Mike Allen – Matt Drudge attack dog pettiness, because
he\’s shown up unprepared on the policy side at least once. When comparing Obama to Edwards and Clinton on health care, you
simply cannot escape the judgment, if you\’re being honest about it.
Obama and his supporters need to have a come to Jesus with and about their candidate and his team. That much is obvious, but they also have to face their own willingness to take constructive criticisms when they occur, as well as the challenges to an Obama candidacy when they arise and push back hard with something other than attacking the messenger. Silence is not golden in presidential primary politics.

It brings to mind something John McCain said recently on AIDS, which
I covered.


And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to
prevent the spread of AIDS.

\”I\’m sure I\’ve taken a position on it in the past,\” he stammered
as he looked to his communications director. \”I\’m sure I\’m opposed to
government funding.\”

Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about
sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence,
like President Bush wants?

\”I think I support the president\’s present policy,\” he said, tentatively.

More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?

A long pause.

A stern look. … ..

McCain
is stumped on the stump

McCain got slammed on his being unprepared, which was deserved. He also deserves scrutiny over his latest Iraq fantasy he\’s pushing.

There\’s another issue, which few are mentioning. Barack Obama is talented, even gifted, and his adversaries are looking for a weak spot. It\’s obvious that the wingnuts think they\’ve found it. It\’s up to Barack Obama to push back and prove they have not.

We\’re in a very hot contested primary year. If you\’re reading this
blog or listening to my radio show you better come to grips with one thing. No matter the candidate,
I\’m going to take out after him or her when something happens that reveals a
positive or a negative that shines a light on the candidate. No candidate is exempt, because I\’m not
representing anyone in the \’08 primaries right now and may not the whole way
through. For some reason, the Democrats who have already taken sides, which is a good thing mind you, think their candidate is to be held above criticism, fact challenges and honest reporting, something that isn\’t a good thing. Though credit is deserved to one California contingent who actually apologized to me in an email for some of the comments/emails I got, saying they looked forward to changing my mind on Obama over the next months. Just to clarify, I have no opinion of Mr. Obama in general terms, just that this past weekend was not a good one for him.

Right now Barack Obama is taking incoming, much of which is ridiculous wingnut
hit jobs helped along by the GOP, but other criticisms and issues being raised
are justified, especially when they are born about by the facts like what happened this past weekend. Mind you, that\’s only one event, but with Barack\’s numbers rising the scrutiny was bound to rise with it. We need to be able
to separate the two types of criticisms. Oh, and before Obama fans start screaming, remember that I was threatened with a lawsuit in a post where I dared to push back for Barack. Besides, Clinton and Edwards would catch heat for being unprepared.
Barack Obama should too, because if Obama is our candidate for \’08, this is nothing compared to what the Republican machine will do.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hillary Shines, Obama Punts

By on 24 March 2007

Yes, my fellow Americans, there is an issue beyond Iraq. It might even be one that outlasts the war. Consider that before you read on, because long after we’re out of Iraq we’ll still be dealing with the current health care crisis in America that reaches from single people to families to veterans to seniors.

Sitting in the bleachers among the voters today at the CAP/SEIU event, I learned many things. One is that some candidates don’t make it past the stage; that is their message doesn’t carry and neither do they. As a former Broadway babe this is something I not only appreciate politically, but also know matters in electoral politics. It was part of the reason a clear winner stood out today, regardless of your willingness to swallow your prejudices and judgments and preconceived notions and accept someone who on certain issues stands above the rest. But way a minute, that’s too small. It’s not about “certain issues.” It’s about shining above the rest in message, performance and personality.

The clear winner today was Hillary Clinton. Period. No one came close to her passion, energy and details, as well as the humor and, yes, humility she brought to the subject at hand: health care. After the health care defeat she suffered during her husband’s tenure it’s clear she has come to terms with the issue as well as cultivated a sense of humor about her mistakes.

The big loser today was Barack Obama, who wasn’t at all prepared.

But don\’t take my word for either judgment.

An African American man sitting next to me in the bleachers wearing an SEIU shirt said he liked Barack Obama but he “wasn’t prepared” today, because he didn’t even have a plan ready. The look on his face said it all. He wasn’t ready, he continued, but he just “had to come.”

“She’s probably the brightest person on the trail,” the woman sitting next to me (also an African American) said when I asked her if she liked Hillary Clinton. But the problem, she continued shaking her head, is Hillary getting her message out because so many people in the country don’t like her. Her frustration was evident. She clapped throughout Hillary’s opener and discussion segment.

What I came away with from Obama was that he punted. He felt he absolutely did have to show up in Nevada, especially after flying over the state previously, but he simply wasn’t prepared. It was obvious. His speech was on point and he’s a gifted man in front of people; clearly comfortable with speaking without a
script, unlike so many other politicians, but when he talked about the series of round table discussions he had planned before he announced his health care ideas my eyes glazed over. It was obvious he wasn’t up to speed for this event. I can’t say it more plainly, except to add that no one in the audience was fooled. Barack Obama blew it. Hey, but it’s one event.

As for John Edwards, he was on his message, with Elizabeth thankfully by his side looking fabulous, but there was something missing. It’s been one hell of a week for John Edwards, no doubt, but he’s lacking serious excitement and energy, in my opinion. This has been the case for a while. Considering what he’s been through it’s understandable, but it’s clear the stress is taking its toll. As an aside, I can’t seem to get my emails returned from the Edwards camp either, which is infuriating. (Hillary camp always responds.) I hope Edwards regroups, because his stance on the Fox “News” debate was right on, he’s brilliant on unions, as well as health care, but he also had the courage to admit his mistake on Iraq. However the communication gap signals a larger problem, especially when they contacted me to see if I’d have conversations with John Edwards as the campaign evolved. So far, nothing. Not a good sign. But I think you’ve got to give Edwards a pass for this week. His performance and content, especially, were good today, but he was just weary, which anyone can appreciate.

As an aside, I keep waiting for Bill Richardson to make his mark. Today he spoke well, but he wasn’t focused and looked clearly off balance. I also just don’t get the cowboy boots with a suit, especially as we all try to put the current cowboy in the White House in our rear view. I’ve got fancy Justin cowboy boots, so I get the appeal, but the fact that Richardson couldn’t seem to walk in them was a problem. It was a distraction.

Now to Hillary Clinton. She was the star today. If you were in the room, listening, watching and taking it all in, she simply rose way above everyone else. That she came after Obama did her some good, because she, quite frankly, made him look like an amateur. She was personable. Likable. Knowledgeable in the extreme. There were also specifics to her delivery that were unmistakable and could not be ignored, except by those who refuse to give her a chance. The voters in the room took to her and got her, responding with laughter and applause. I specifically appreciated her choice to stand rather than sit next to Karen Tumulty, the moderator. She was comfortable and natural in the setting, clearly loving this new role, something I can only imagine she’s dreamed of manifesting her whole life. Her Midwestern twang is definitely back, which I can appreciate, though it illustrates something else. Hillary Clinton is coming into her own. She’s feeling some momentum or maybe she’s just having a damn fine time. Whatever it is it shows. Could it be contagious? One never knows, but that brings me back to where this day started. Three GOP white guys with signs slamming liberal women. This is a challenge for Hillary and the rest of us. As Clinton continues to take heat, much of it justified, what also shows up is the over the top criticism and judgments that few males have to endure. Clinton is going to take a hit for her stance on Iraq, so be it. But when you consider the other issues we’re all facing today, health care is one of the most important to us all, individually and in our families, it’s a mistake not to give someone as bright and well prepared as Senator Clinton serious consideration. Hillary Clinton did herself a lot of good today. Whether it’s something she can build on is up to you.

UPDATE (12:30 p.m. – 3.25.07): More fodder: a pro and con Clinton president debate.

UPDATE: The emails are getting weirder, not to mention very ill-informed. Seriously, get a grip.

Hilary and the big dog should read the writing on the wall. Back out. The rightwing is salivating at the thought of the Clinton’s as the Democratic standard bearers. This is a huge opportunity to take the White house back and try to fix the carnage. Trying to paint Obama will not work. Out here we are more in tune with the Dickhead Morris triangulation than you “sophisticated” politicos think. We will not be detered by polls and how much money the Clinton’s raise. I myself like other of the like minded will not vote for rightwingers as we are aware of their bull@#*!. But, we are watching the subtle shots by the Clintonista at whoever to stay in front in the Dem party. The media polls show Hil in front but, we know otherwise. Obama is our chance to beat the rightwing and your Hilary cheerleading is being noted. Hilary can’t win. Our guy can. And the young shall lead us. You’ll see….. We will forgive you IF you keep the ripping to a minimum. We know you can’t. – bf

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iraq, Obama and Hillary

By on 20 March 2007


Senator Clinton responds to ad below

Today a Gallup Poll
came out illustrating one clear thing. Democrats are paying the price for not
acting more aggressively on Iraq. Bowers has much more. Pelosi is pulling out all the stops, starting
with backing Murtha for majority leader, but she\’s taking heat over the pork in the legislation meant to lure no votes into the fold. The GOP is furious, calling it \”vote buying,\”
but Pelosi
is willing to play hardball to get the House on record on the war.


Bottom Line

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely what is behind the drop off in optimism
about Congress among Democrats. One possibility is that Democrats are disappointed
that their party has been unable to do anything substantive about the Iraq
war — the dominant issue in last November\’s midterm elections. The increase
in the price of gas and/or other economic concerns may also be a factor. Overall
satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States and ratings
of economic optimism are both down in the March Gallup Poll.

Gallup

Now read
this.

The fact is that the American people see stories about Walter Reed, the U.S.
military \”death spiral,\” as well as \”the surge\” in action,
with the feeling that Democrats can do more. Democratic Party voters expect more too.

Iraq still rules, so it\’s not surprising that the same argument has hit Obama
– Hillary contest, this time at Harvard. When the bell rings, candidates, go to your corners.


Mark Penn, appearing Monday with top strategists for the leading 2008 Democratic
presidential campaigns, also cited two quotes he said undercut Obama\’s oft-cited
opposition to an October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing military
action in Iraq.

Clinton, a senator from New York, voted in favor of the resolution. Obama,
now a U.S. senator from Illinois, was a state senator at the time.

In one, Obama said \”there\’s not much of a difference\” between his
views on the war and those of President Bush. On other occasions, Obama said
he was not sure how he would have voted if he had been a senator at the time,
were he to have had access to government intelligence.

Both citations prompted a furious reaction from David Axelrod, the Chicago
political consultant advising Obama. He said the quotes lacked context, were
incomplete and were examples of the kind of political \”savaging\”
that is alienating voters.

\”I really think that it is important, if we\’re going to run the kind
of campaign that will unify our party and move this country forward, that
we do it in an honest way, and that was not an honest answer,\” he said.

Penn refused to relent, saying Axelrod was presenting a \”false choice.\”
Joining them on stage was Jonathan Prince, an adviser to former Sen. John
Edwards, D-N.C. He jokingly pushed his chair from between the two men as they
started to argue.

Penn said: \”When they got to the Senate, Sen. Obama\’s votes were exactly
the same. So let\’s not try to create false differences when we both agree
it\’s time to deescalate, when we both agree it\’s time to end this war, and
let\’s be clear that Sen. Clinton thinks that, Sen. Obama thinks that, former
Sen. Edwards thinks that, and once we agree on that, I think we can go together
quite well as a party.\”

Axelrod retorted: \”The immutable fact is that had we followed Sen. Obama\’s
advice in 2002, we wouldn\’t be talking about de-escalation right now.\”
Edwards, like Clinton, voted for the resolution. Unlike her, however, he now
says his vote was a mistake. … ..

Democrats
clash over war positions at Harvard campaign forum

Obama\’s campaign better get ready. The closer he gets to Hillary in the polls
the harder Camp Hillary will play. Mind you, there\’s nothing wrong with playing
hardball. I\’m all for it. But the question of whether Obama and his team are
tough enough for what comes at candidates is yet to be proven. After the swiftboating
of John Kerry, any candidate we choose better be ready for the GOP presidentical
bare knuckle brawl.

The good news is that Obama isn\’t shy about his anti Iraq war stance, which is featured
prominently on the site, complete with a timeline. His team says it was put together for the 4 year commemoration, but it serves as a tough counterpunch to Camp Hillary.

Clinton\’s latest stance on Iraq has been moving since Take Back America last
year. We heard her most recent and most candid assessment late last week. One difference is
that Clinton does not have Iraq prominently featured on her homepage.

Barack Obama does, with the caption
Leadership on Iraq. Opposed the war from the start – A clear plan to end
it.

Oh, and about that ad, Obama and his team deny any involvement. If you want
the rundown on it, here
it is.

Clinton\’s response to the ad came via email:


Q: What do you think of the video?

\”I haven\’t seen it but I\’m pleased that it seems to be taking attention away from what used to be on YouTube and getting a lot of hits, namely me singing \”The Star Spangled Banner.\” Everybody in the world now knows I can\’t carry a tune. I thank heavens for small favors and the attention has shifted, so maybe people won\’t have to tune in and hear me screeching about \”The Star Spangled Banner.\”

Q: Should the video be removed?

\”You know, that\’s for somebody else to decide. I don\’t have an opinion one way of another. I think anything that drives interest in these campaigns and gets people who otherwise are not at all interested in politics, I think that\’s pretty good. I might quibble a little bit about the content but if we get more people, especially young people, thinking about politics, I\’m happy about that.\”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rare Clinton Candor on Iraq

By on 15 March 2007

When Hillary decided an apology wasn’t a road she could travel, we got this statement.

“If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.” – candidate Hillary Clinton

I never believed it. Why? Because no one can end this war on a dime. If they
could, Murtha would be House majority leader and Pelosi would be getting a clean bill
out of the House, instead of some Blue Dog drivel. As for the Senate, Reid
isn\’t going to touch the funds, so Iraq will be an \’08 reality.

The other issue was that I thought her idea to collapse Iraqi funds if they\’re
not making progress was a horrendous strategy. However, I don\’t
think anyone believes our military presence in Iraq will evaporate in \’09. That\’s
why the campaign statement she made at the top was silly to say from the start. There\’s no way, if you look at Clinton\’s evolution on Iraq, this is where she\’d landed. No evidence to support it. Wishful thinking.

But today in The New York Times, what we\’re actually getting is a rare bit
of candor from Senator Clinton. You may not like what she\’s saying, but I believe
it\’s actually her real military thoughts on the matter of Iraq and what will
happen should she be elected president. It\’s a clear strategy, whether you agree with it or not.


While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop
presence, she indicated that they might be based north of Baghdad and in the
western Anbar Province.

“It would be fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can
do is to almost take a line north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and
basically put our troops into that region the ones that are going to remain
for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability
to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called
for, for the Iraqis.”

Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints. “We would
not be doing patrols,” she added. “We would not be kicking in
doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the
various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that’s a smart or
achievable mission for American forces.” … ..

Clinton
Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

For some time many people have been talking about taking our troops out of
Baghdad and from the middle of the sectarian violence, but having them on the
outskirts in case anything erupted. That presumes a very stark reality: the
weak central government in Baghdad will continue to be incompetent and feckless.
Based on all evidence the last years I think that assessment is correct. So,
the first order of business is make our troops accessible, but invisible, though
that\’s going to be very tough.

Let\’s note, however, that the issue of permanent bases has not been addressed
by anyone on either side of the aisle. We must not keep football fields of U.S.
military bases in Iraq. Period. Someone has to come to grips with this at some
point, but it\’s likely not going to be during the campaign unless someone asks
the question in a debate. Stay tuned.

The “prevent Iran from crossing the border and trying to have too
much influence in Iraq” is something everyone is saying and it\’s
just annoying. Farsi is spoken in southern Iraq, okay? This is your standard
ode to AIPAC.

Here, however, is the lede: In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her
Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that
she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in
Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence —
even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is unacceptable, but with our troops inside Iraq it\’s also a canard. Sectarian violence is not ethnic cleansing, but talk about driving the
point home. Shorter Clinton: U.S. forces will not get in the middle of a civil
war on my watch. Period.

Military experts weigh in, too.


… Senator Clinton’s proposal is also likely to stir up debate among
military specialists. Some counterinsurgency experts say the plan is unrealistic
because Iraqis are unlikely to provide useful tips about Al Qaeda operatives
if American troops curtail their interaction with the Iraqi public and end
their efforts to protect Iraqi neighborhoods. But a former Pentagon official
argued that such an approach would minimize American casualties and thus make
it easier politically to sustain a long-term military presence that might
prevent the fighting from spreading throughout the region.

Shorter Clinton, one more time: No regional war on my watch. The goal is to
keep the Saudis, Egyptians and other Sunni nations out of Iraq.

But make no mistake about it, Clinton gets the bottom line.


“Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. … ..\”
– candidate Hillary Clinton

This is a sober, mature lay out of her view of reality on Iraq from candidate Clinton. Will people like it? Frankly, it\’s unlikely anyone will recognize it, because it\’s not very often we get any modicum of transparency from her. Senator Clinton would do well to make greater efforts at candor in the future. Both Obama and Edwards speak a lot plainer. Could it be she\’s rising to their challenge? Regardless, it\’s a step in the right direction for Clinton on openness. Whether you agree with her or not is another matter entirely.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton, the Military, and Gonzales

By on 14 March 2007

She\’s looking presidential in this one.

Flawless production values.

Good script.

Compassionate delivery.

As for subject matter, it\’s nothing short of the most important issue we face today. Because if we don\’t keep faith with our troops we lose our nation\’s soul. Clinton gets this one right and delivers it perfectly. Her Armed Services experience and what she\’s learned in the committee has served her very well, which is why she wanted the assignment. Hillary\’s comfort in talking military issues shines through.

Clinton will also come out, as Edwards did yesterday, to call for Gonzales\’s resignation. It happens on \”Good Morning America\” today.



In an exclusive interview to air Wednesday morning, March 14, on \”Good
Morning America,\” Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the front-runner for
the Democratic presidential nomination, for the first time called for the
resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

\”The buck should stop somewhere,\” Clinton told ABC News senior
political correspondent Jake Tapper, \”and the attorney general —
who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president\’s personal attorney
with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should
resign.

(snip)

When Clinton\’s husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his
attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked
how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

\”There is a great difference,\” Clinton said. \”When a new president
comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It\’s not done on a case-by-case
basis where you didn\’t do what some senator or member of Congress told you
to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is \’Let\’s start afresh\’
and every president has done that.\”

When asked what she\’d like to see from President Bush and White House aide
Karl Rove, Clinton said, \”The president needs to be very forthcoming
— what did he say, what did he know, what did he do? And Karl Rove is
clearly in the middle of this from all the evidence we have seen so far, and
I think he owes the Congress and the country an explanation.\”

EXCLUSIVE:
Hillary Clinton Calls for Gonzales\’ Resignation

UPDATE (1:41 p.m.): Ignore Sean Hannity (what else is old?). Bill Clinton didn\’t act like Bush on U.S. attorney firings.

UPDATE (10:35 a.m.): National outcry calling for Gonzales to resign.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Novak Swings at Hillary and Misses

By on 12 March 2007

Fire, aim, er…

This is just ridiculous. Novak has finally jumped the senility barrier.


Of course, no political candidate should have to explain inconsistencies
from her high school days. What Clinton said at Selma is significant because
it betrays her campaign\’s panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Obama
as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.

(snip)

Speaking at Selma\’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the \”Bloody
Sunday\” freedom march, Clinton declared: \”As a young girl, I had
the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963.
My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January
night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening
to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were
waging on behalf of a more perfect union.\”

(snip)

While Clinton was reinventing her past, her campaign was shaken by the first
serious public, internal Democratic criticism of the Clintons in years. …

Padding
Her Civil Rights Résumé

Inconsistensies? Reinventing her past?

If Mr. Novak had read Hillary\’s book, published in \’03, he\’d have been clued in before he made
a jackass of himself today in the Post.


… .. Rev. Jones stressed that a Christian life was \”faith in action.\”
I had never met anyone like him. Don called his Sunday and Thursday night
Methodist Youth Fellowship sessions \”the University of Life.\” He
was eager to work with us because he hoped we would become more aware of life
outside Park Ridge [IL]. He sure met his goals with me. … We visited black
and Hispanic churches in Chicago\’s inner city for exchanges with their youth
groups.

In the discussions we had sitting around church basements, I learned that,
despite the obvious differences in our environments, these kids were more
like me than I ever could have imagined. They also knew more about what was
happening in the civil rights movement in the South. I had only vaguely heard
of Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, but these discussions sparked my
interest.

So, when Don announced one week that he would take us to hear Dr. King speak
at Orchestra Hall, I was excited. My parents gave me permission, but some
of my friends\’ parents refused to let them go hear such a \”rabble-rouser.\”

Dr. King\’s speech was entitled, \”Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.\”
Until then, I had been dimly aware of the social revolution occurring in our
country, but Dr. King\’s words illuminated the struggle taking place and challenged
our indifference: \”We now stand on the border of the Promised Land of
integration. The old order is passing away and a new one is coming in. We
should all accept this order and learn to live together as brothers in a world
society, or we shall perish together.\”

Though my eyes were opening, I still mostly parroted the conventional
wisdom of Park Ridge\’s and my father\’s politics. … ..

Living History, by Hillary Clinton (pgs. 22-23)
(TM review of Hillary\’s book)

Media Matters covered
this when the New York Times\’s Patrick Healy tried it after the Selma
speech. The truth is in print for anyone to see.

You can argue all day about Senator Clinton and Iraq, which I\’ve done.

It\’s also plain political
reality that Barack Obama\’s strengths have made Camp Hillary adjust their game
plan. That\’s good and shows her acceptance of a dynamic challenger. It will
also make Hillary stronger in the general election. Let\’s also understand that the criticism coming at her
is all part of the \’08 vetting process, which you can bet she expected. If Hillary can withstand the heat she\’s
taking today she\’ll be more prepared for the onslaught the Republicans will sling at her. But Novak taking on
her past by critiquing her Selma speech, especially on Dr. King, while throwing Barack
Obama in for emphasis, is conjuring up an issue out of whole cloth. Hillary
has written about Dr. King before. If Novak knew more about Hillary than what he reads or hears on the Fox \”News\” grapevine, he\’d have known this. He hasn\’t bothered so he doesn\’t.

Any young person, especially a young woman, myself included, who became interested
in politics in college (or before), most likely parroted or was influenced by
her father or older male sibling, in my case. It\’s absurd to think otherwise. Some women were influenced by activist mothers, no doubt, but not in my midwestern house. Hillary coming
from a Goldwater Republican household, so it only follows she would take up
part of that charge as a young woman. No big political crime to make your family\’s
political tradition the starting point of your education. Many of us have done
it, myself included. However, my education didn\’t stop at that point and neither did Hillary\’s.

Who wouldn\’t have been \”illuminated\” by hearing Dr. King in those
days? Only Mr. Novak, I imagine.

Novak took a cheap shot at candidate Clinton. It\’s embarrassing how widely
he missed his mark.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Vote Hillary: ‘We’ll Never Know Unless We Try’

By on 11 March 2007

If that's Hillary's new slogan, she's screwed. However, with the new schedule
focusing on New Hampshire, she'll likely get a pass. Armstrongs' post is instructive.

But what a difference a few months and a hot presidential campaign can make.
Even Bob Dole now refuses to “bet the farm” on Hillary winning the
Democratic nomination and will now only commit to betting his barn.

In New Hampshire, it is clear that Hillary is assessing Mr. Obama's rise and
her leveling out, with Edwards remaining steady after some tough challenges, and they've come up with a new strategy to explain it all. Camp Hillary is now going to assert that their candidate is the
underdog. In doing so, Hillary invokes a sacred comparison,
John F. Kennedy. If Romney can, why not Hillary?


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the campaign of the nation's lone Catholic
president, John Kennedy, last night as she talked about her challenge in becoming
the first female commander-in-chief.

“He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic.
A lot of people back then [1960] said, 'America will never elect a Catholic
as president,' ” the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats'
100 Club fund-raiser here.

“But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better,”
she said. “They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would
give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

Noting women are “the majority” of voters and are in the workforce
in “record numbers,” she added, “So when people tell me 'a
woman can never be president,' I say, we'll never know unless we try.”

Kennedy's name is most often invoked by supporters of Clinton's main Democratic
rival, Sen. Barack Obama, usually comparing their charisma. … ..

HILL:
I'M THE JFK OF 2008
VOWS TO BEAT ODDS

Having studied, written and done a political show on John F. Kennedy, this
is a subject to which I have expertise. What Kennedy faced through his Catholicism is one thing. What Hillary
faces as a woman is quite another. To compare the two is not only odd but a
far stretch, especially since she also seems to be shedding her experience in the process.
However, that's not the biggest issue about it for me. Hillary is choosing to
switch from Candidate Inevitable to mounting a new campaign claiming she's an underdog because she's a woman. J.F.K. may have been the first Catholic, but he was also
a well known war hero. Hillary stands up as a former first lady, a senator,
but also as a woman who has never served in the military who is asking to be commander in chief. There's also such a thing as recognizing an idea whose time has come. Hillary choosing a slogan that wipes away her bona fides is madness, especially looking to the general, but therein lies the reality in what Hillary now faces.

To start saying“We'll never know unless we try” about electing
a woman commander in chief hardly seems like an endorsement for primary voters to vote female.
Given the mess we're in around the globe and at home, including our Armed Forces, it seems wholly daft. Foreign policy isn't some gender crap shoot and neither
is military strategy. Hillary certainly knows this, so this female underdog
strategy may seem a logical next play given what's occurred over the last few
months with Obama's rise and Edwards' steady progress. But given that New Hampshire is likely out of play
for the former you've got to wonder what she's thinking. She's certainly not playing
to a general election voter anymore, which is the biggest news in all of this.
Candidate Inevitable is no longer so inevitable and that has got to be explained somehow.
Enter the underdog gender card. But as commander in chief you also need someone
who knows what she is doing and can play ball with the boys, so to speak.

What
the hell, let's give it a try is the worst rationale I've ever heard for
electing a woman president and commander in chief.

What is camp Hillary thinking? Are they softening the inevitable mantle, because Obama has caught up and so has reality, while also making people
more willing to come home to Hillary in the primaries; something that was once assured but is no longer? We've come a long way from when she launched.

The fact remains that America loves to champion the underdog. But two things
come to mind. Number one: I don't know how in the world Hillary Clinton can
claim that title fits her. Number two: Why in the world would anyone vote for
a woman as commander in chief who's slogan is “We'll never know unless
we try”?

I guarantee you that Give 'em Hell Harry Truman never said that when unloading
the bombs on Japan.

Speaking as a woman, I liked Hillary better when she was inevitable.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hillary’s Thesis

By on 02 March 2007
PHOTO: Stimmell/Wellesley College Archives
Hillary Rodham addressing the 1969 graduating class at Wellesley:
\”Fear is always with us but we just don\’t have time for it. Not now.\”


I\’ve read countless books on Hillary Clinton, including the right-wing screeds that tear her apart. But there is something invigorating about looking at the idealistic college student that didn\’t know where her life would lead, but now finds herself running for president. The first viable female candidate in U.S. history.



“In spite of his being featured in the Sunday New York Times,\”
she wrote of Alinsky, \”and living a comfortable, expenses-paid life,
he considers himself a revolutionary. In a very important way he is. If the
ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.
Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition
of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that
Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political
philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt
Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most
radical of political faiths — democracy.” – Hillary Diane Rodham

This is fascinating to me. From secrets to open air, Senator Clinton\’s 92-page
college thesis about Saul
Alinsky, her mentor, is now being read and dissected to see if it says anything
about her. One reason is that Alinsky\’s two books use the one word Republicans
are dying to hang around Clinton\’s neck: Reveille for Radicals and
Rules for Radicals. Radical? Hillary Clinton? That\’s simply hilarious.
I don\’t know about you, but I\’m a fairly different being than I was in college.
That said, my values have stayed the same. As for my politics, well, I was way
too young to be a Goldwater girl like Hillary, but I was a Reagan Democrat.
As life goes by you change. I haven\’t voted Republican since and likely never
will. If Hillary Clinton is a \”radical,\” well, then the word has lost
its meaning.

The problem is that yesterday\’s college thesis can become today\’s oppo research.
I haven\’t read the paper, because you have to travel to Wellesley to do so,
but I thought the article\’s break out of Saul Alinsky\’s “rules of power
tactics\” was instructive. I think you\’ll recognize the tactics, but they\’re
used far beyond just \”radicals.\”


\”Personalize it\”

Saul Alinsky\’s rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book \”Rules
for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals\”

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man\’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into
its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Talking to one of the original swiftboater ad producers, Chris Lacivita, at
the end of the article, you already can see the nasty general election campaign
coming.


\”Maybe you look at the contrast. What year did Hillary write this paper?
1969.

\”And where was John McCain in 1969? A POW in Vietnam.\”

I get it. Hillary was young. McCain was a war hero. So now Hillary is what exactly? As for McCain, sorry, but being 72 at his inauguration makes John an old man.

Read full story · Comments are closed