Yet Another Media Double Standard

As was reported last week, John McCain's supporter and "spiritual advisor", Ohio's Rod Parsley, has a history of language that is far more incendiary than what Obama's pastor has said. But which receives wall to wall media coverage? Why the one that scares white people half to death.

But David Corn ran into a stonewall when he attempted to get some "straight talk" from the McCain camp about Parsley.

Yesterday, I posted a piece at MotherJones.com that disclosed that a megachurch pastor whom John McCain has hailed as a "spiritual guide" has called for the destruction of the "false religion" of Islam. This fundamentalist televangelist, Rod Parsley, who is an important political ally of McCain in the all-important state of Ohio, means this quite literally. In a 2005 book, he writes that there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization" and notes, "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Being a responsible reporter, I called both Parsley and the McCain campaign's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, before posting the story. I had to leave a message for Parsley and didn't hear back from him. And I never got through to Hazelbaker, but I spoke to another communications aide at the campaign. I explained why I was calling: I was about to publish an article noting that a prominent McCain supporter, with whom McCain had campaigned in Ohio last month, advocates a holy war with the aim of eradicating Islam. "Oh," she said. Can I read you some of Parsley's quotes? I asked. Go ahead, she said reluctantly. I got through three sentences, and she said, "That's enough."

"There's a lot more," I told her. I hadn't gotten to the portions where Parsley calls Allah a "demon." I don't need any more, she said, and she asked, "Can you give me a few minutes to get a response?" Sure, I replied. She promised to call me within 15 to 20 minutes.

Twenty minutes went by. Nothing. I called after half an hour passed. This staffer, I was told, could not be reached. Another fifteen minutes. Nothing. I called again. Once more, I was told that this staffer could not come to the telephone. Hazelbaker, too, was unavailable. Yet another fifteen minutes--and another call from me to the McCain press office. I was now informed that the staffer who had promised a response was in a meeting. Would this meeting be over soon? I asked. We don't know, said the person on the phone. Can I get a message to her now? No, she's in a meeting. Can you find out if this meeting will last hours or minutes? No, I cannot. Is Jill Hazelbaker available? No.

I got the picture. Stonewall. No straight talk.

Corn goes on to suggest that maybe reporters covering the Straight Talker himself should press him every day for an answer. Go read Corn's entire piece.

Meanwhile, John Amato says Fox News has been curiously silent on the matter of Parsley. Strange.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poll: Ohioans Want a Democrat for President

From the Dayton Daily's Ohio Politics Blog:

Nearly two-thirds of Ohio adults want to see a Democrat take control of the White House in the November election, according to a new poll released Wednesday, March 12...

A key finding: 59.5 percent of the political independents wanted a Democrat to take over.

Overall, 64.1 percent favored a Democrat, while 95.9 percent of the Democrats and 14.2 percent of the Republicans wanted to see a Democrat take over.

On a related question, 69.1 percent said that regardless of how they planned to vote they thought a Democrat would carry Ohio in November. More than half of the Republicans - 55.8 percent - thought a Democrat would win, while 61.9 percent of the independents and 83.3 percent of the Democrats thought there would be a Democratic victory.

Nearly half of those surveyed - 47.5 percent - said economic issues would be most important in determining their vote for president, nearly double the 24.8 percent who said foreign policy issues such as the war in Iraq would be most important, the poll found.

Of course, whether there's a Democrat left standing by then is another question...

The poll here. One number really stands out: Respondents trusted the Democrats on the economy by a huge margin. Sixty-five percent favored the Democrats on economic issues, versus 31% for Republicans.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hillary's Outsourced Hate

In 1984 I took a visit to Michigan State University. I was a politically aware senior in high school. Right there in front of Beaumont Tower was a political rally. None other than Geraldine Ferraro came out to speak against Ronald Reagan and his divisive politics, his race baiting of welfare mothers, his draconian budget cuts. Of course Reagan seems tame by comparison now, to the race baiting divisiveness of the last eight years. But Ferraro was a dream. She was brilliant, unabashedly liberal. And symbolic as the first woman to grace a national ticket, a barrier breaker in her own right. In those final embers of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, the writing was on the wall, but she soldiered bravely on, mocking the Spartans for Reagan who had assembled a counter-rally nearby with seeming glee.

Since yesterday, when I posted this at Candide's Notebooks, I've tried to refresh my memory on Ferraro's liberal creds. When I saw Ferraro in 84, I was 18 and the only kid in town who wasn't in Club Gipper and had a subscription to Harper's, I was thrilled to hear her take down Reagan's foreign policy and opposing the tax cutting regimen that was leaving no money left for higher ed--I paid attention to that, at least--and social programs after the defense department got their cut. Remember, the Mondale campaign was crucified on the honesty of pledge to raise taxes to restore the social programs liberals like us care about.

She was anti-nukes, if I remember, the big liberal issue of the day, and refreshing my memory on wikipedia (I know, the Clinton supporters are editing her entry madly right now) I found her comments on the Contras:

We're not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased. I did not support the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua; it is a violation of international law. Congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just this week, the Congress voted in cut off covert aid to Nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it, and the Congress approves it again in March. So if Congress doesn't get laid on, the covert activities which I opposed in Nicaragua, those CIA covert activities in that specific country, are not supported by the Congress. And believe it or not, not supported by the majority of people throughout the country. (not sure about the word laid there, but you get the idea)

I'd like to have more of that in our current Congress: cutting off funding for illegal administration activities. By current standards its not only liberal but downright revolutionary.

How disgusting then, to see her now, using the worst racist dog whistles, a shameless and transparent Clinton surrogate, able to burn the fiery rhetorical turpentine that the Clinton juggernaut fuels itself on now while the candidate herself remains safely outside the ring of fire. First Ferraro argued that Obama is where is because he’s black. Think about that: he is successful because he’s black. Where then, are the other black senators? Why no black president before now, if it’s such a winning strategy? Why so few black CEO’s in America, if the top prizes are set aside for them? Ironically, as Clarence Page pointed out today on MSNBC, it wasn’t long ago that pundits wondered out loud if Obama was black enough. But now according to Ferraro, his success is all due to his race. Reminds one of the criticisms against her own 84 candidacy: Mondale chose her because she’s a woman. Wikipedia also reminded me of the controversy of Ferraro being called a "witch", while now she is the paid mudslinger. The sad irony seems lost on her.

The Obama campaign has, for once, struck back, using the righteous indignation it earned itself with the unbecoming canning of Samantha Powers, to ask the logical question, why hasn’t Clinton denounced–-pardon me, denounced and rejected--these remarks? To which Ferraro responds, turning to victimhood in classic conservative style, “any attack on Obama is racist.” A remark which is, in itself, racist, and patently dishonest. But she goes further: He’s attacking me because I’m white. Classic Bush up-is-down-ism: He’s the attacker, not me.

What a shame. The great barrier breaker becomes the Clinton camp pit bull, engaging in the worst sort of politics, the kind Americans have become sick of, the kind she once symbolized a break from. Another liberal icon fallen.

Postscript: Here is Ferraro's Who, me? defense.

"I was talking about historic candidacies and what I started off by saying (was that) if you go back to 1984 and look at my historic candidacy, which I had just talked about all these things, in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate," Ferraro said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "It had nothing to do with my qualification."

Ferraro said she has a 40-year history of opposing discrimination of all kinds, including race, and that she was outraged at criticism of her remarks by David Axelrod, Obama's chief media strategist, because he knows her and her record.

"David Axelrod, his campaign manager, has chose to spin this as a racist comment because everytime anybody makes a comment about race who is white — he did it with Bill Clinton, he was successful; he did it with (Pennsylvania governor and Clinton supporter) Ed Rendell, he was less successful; and he is certainly not going to be successful with me," Ferraro told CBS' "The Early Show." "He should have called me up ... He knows I'm not racist."

Read More...

Summary only...

Hillary Clinton: Slash and Burn Politics

(Cross posted at Candide's Notebooks)

I have always been a partisan Democrat.

But after this week, I’m not sure I can support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she wins the primary. It started with her Iraq vote. But then again, Edwards and Kerry voted the same way, and I managed to forgive them once they disavowed the vote and proved their opposition to the war and Bush’s leadership.

Then, I wasn’t happy at all about Marc Penn’s company’s defense of Blackwater.

But in the last week, Clinton’s campaign has devolved into the worst sort of dirty tricks, cheap shots, and fearmongering that we would expect from a Republican opponent. First she aired an ad showing a sleeping child and talking about the “3 AM” phone call, and who would best handle it. She said that she had crossed the national security threshhold–whatever that means, and that Barack Obama hadn’t. But, that he gave a very good speech in 2002.

Well, let’s see. There are hundreds of people in the Pentagon and Congress who would have a pretty good idea of what to do with the mysterious “3 AM phone call”. Barack Obama can appoint one of them to be his National Security Advisor. But there aren’t very many who can inspire people with their words. Can Hillary Clinton appoint someone to inspire the country? Can she appoint someone to have enough good judgement not to trust cherry picked intelligence reports?

Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that it was HER campaign, not Obama’s, that gave private reassurances to Canadian officials that the talk about NAFTA was just that. She praised John McCain’s qualifications, saying only she and McCain had crossed the "threshold" of national security. Her top advisor compared, ridiculously, Obama to Ken Starr. She’s refused to release her tax records, after public assurances that she would do so. She’s demanded to seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida–but said she would ”not accept” (as if she has the power of refusal) a caucus. But more than anything, she has simply run a mean-spirited, dishonest, and fear-mongering campaign. She seems intent on destroying her party if she can’t be the nominee.

At this point, if she were to win, I think I’d have a hard time voting for her in the general. Even Nader seems more palatable.

Gary Hart in the Huffington Post has it about right, I think:

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tuesday's Biggest News: Democratic Identification in SW Ohio

It's worth remembering that the wide margin for George Bush in red southwestern Ohio is what allowed him to carry Ohio, and ultimately the nation. With that in mind, the biggest news from Ohio's primary may be the astonishing turnout and the fact that in traditional Republican strongholds, registered Democrats now outnumber Republicans.

That's significant, because we aren't simply talking about crossover voting. In Ohio, you have to be somewhat serious about crossover voting. If it's proven that voters aren't doing it legitimately, they could be subject to prosecution.

Barack Obama's attempts to upset Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary on Tuesday rely - at least partly - on an Ohio law that allows independents and Republicans to vote a Democratic ballot.

But voters beware: Ohio's system is not a true "open" primary. And the law discourages voters from whimsically switching parties each election to vote in a more exciting race - or to create mischief.

Ohio law allows independents - or those who haven't voted in a partisan primary since 2005 - to cast a ballot in either party's primary. Any voter also can cast an issues-only ballot.

But a registered Republican who wants to vote a Democratic ballot must swear - under threat of criminal prosecution - that he "desires to be affiliated with" and "supports the principles" of the Democratic party. The same goes for registered Democrats who want to vote Republican ballots.

Prosecutors and election lawyers say indictments of fraudulent crossover voters are extremely unlikely, and perhaps unfathomable - absent some organized effort by one party to tamper with the other party's result.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the crossover isn't an attempt to game the system, but a disgust with GOP politics that the party ignores at its peril.

Take Lincoln Ware, a talk show host on the African-American-oriented radio station WDBZ. He cast an early vote with great fanfare on his radio show Tuesday.

Though a longtime registered Republican, he crossed over to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary. As a matter of law, Ware is now a Democrat.

"I'm not declaring that I am a Democrat," he said later. "I consider myself a Republican locally. The only reason I switched over is I wanted to vote for a national Democrat. I'm disgusted with the national Republican party."

That was enough to satisfy Hamilton County Elections Director John M. Williams, a guest on the show (and a registered Republican). He accepted the ballot.

Hamilton County Democratic Chairman Timothy M. Burke, who also chairs the Board of Elections, said he would happily welcome independents - and even Republicans like Ware - into the fold.

"If they believe that - in this year's election - the Democratic candidates offer the best choices, the law permits them to (cross over)," he said.

It's not just Hamilton County, either. Across Ohio, Democratic voter turnout was almost twice that of Republicans, a fact that should give the eventual nominee a leg up in November.

Results showed that the Democratic contest dominated the night in Ohio, with many unaffiliated and Republican voters choosing to vote on the Democratic side in this perennial swing state that has made a habit of picking presidents. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Democratic candidates received more than twice the number of votes than Republicans, 2.23 million votes for Democrats to 1.02 million for Republicans.

There's even bad news for John Boehner. In solidly red Butler County, which went for Bush by a 66-34 margin in 2004, Democratic ballots outnumbered Republicans by 48,991 to 39,747. Previously, there were 45,711 Republicans compared to 21,640 Democrats. No one should be naive enough to think that the Democrats will carry Butler County--but they can easily cut into the margin there and in the rest of Ohio that helped George Bush carry Ohio in 2004. That news alone shows what an uphill battle McCain has in Ohio, and exactly how hard he will have to campaign. With his recent dust up with Cinninnatian Bill Cunningham, he's not off to a good start in winning the conservative base here.

In Hamilton County, Democratic registrations now outnumber Republicans for the first time ever, according to the Enquirer.

For the first time ever, registered Democrats will outnumber registered Republicans in Hamilton County, as a surge in turnout for Tuesday’s presidential primary brought at least 84,000 new voters under the Democratic banner.

“What yesterday speaks to is some incredible excitement in the Democratic primary -- whether you were supporting Clinton or Obama,” said Hamilton County Democratic Chairman Timothy M. Burke. “And you just didn’t have that kind of excitement on the other side.”

Though New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the majority of Ohio’s delegates – and the coveted momentum that comes with winning a critical bellwether state – it was Sen. Barack Obama who carried Hamilton County.

Countywide, Obama won 62 percent of the vote, according to final, unofficial returns from the Hamilton County Board of Elections. In the city of Cincinnati, it was 72 percent. He took 25 of Cincinnati’s 26 wards.

All this means that come November, it's the Democrats' game to lose.

And as they say, as Ohio goes...

(PS: If you're an election supergeek, the Hamilton County precinct breakdown is an interesting read.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton, Obama, on Education

On the eve of the primary, it's worth examining how Obama and Clinton will approach education.

Both candidates have been critical of NCLB, with Clinton saying she wants to end it and Obama planning to return to the law's original intent of providing support for low-achieving schools. Both have terrific ideas for improving college graduation rates and improving access to college. Both are superior to the McCain approach, which is to ignore education and hope the issue goes away.

Obama has had some missteps on education that appear to be intended to prove his independence from the teachers' organizations. He's touched the third rail of vouchers, indicating a willingness to compromise on the issue. And he's flirted with the idea of merit pay, which I have written about frequently. But it's interesting that Obama hasn't made any concrete policy proposals in these areas, at least none that I've seen: just a willingness to explore proposals that the left has typically rejected. But it's hard to get too upset with his position when he expresses in sensible terms like these:

In interviews with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel prior to the Wisconsin primary, Clinton rejected private school choice outright, while Obama expressed some openness to private school vouchers -- if studies ever show they improve student achievement. Still, he made it clear that he's aware of the many problems with real-world voucher programs. "My view has been that you are not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand,” Obama said. “Instead, what you’re going to get is a few schools that cream the kids that are easiest to teach." That describes almost perfectly the problems with the Utah voucher proposal that voters in that state rejected last November.

Still he's been reliably liberal on issues like Head Start and college affordability.

Clinton has been more in tune with the unions on education issues which explains in part why she was able to secure the endorsement of the AFT. But, as my favorite education writer explains, the NEA endorsement is still up for grabs:

In a press release issued after Super Tuesday, NEA President Reg Weaver said neither Obama nor Clinton has made the case that would earn them the association's recommendation. "There have been dozens of debates but less than a handful of questions about the future role of the federal government in public education," says Weaver.

He continued: "If they haven't made education a central part of their campaigns, how can we feel confident that they will make education a central part of their administration?"

Here's a fuller comparison of their plans. I think it's safe to say that whether it's Obama or Clinton, education will receive more funding and more attention from the President than it has in the last seven years.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fluffing Obama's Pillow

I guess the media is now taking its narratives from Saturday Night Live.

If you missed it, the weekend comedy show satirized the media treatment of Obama in a sketch where reporters asked Obama during a debate if he needed anything, are you sure, and do you pillows need to be fluffed. Hillary followed up on the line in her debate last night.

Well Obama better get ready to have his pillows fluffed.

After Bill Cunningham's attack yesterday made national headlines, as did McCain's phoney apology, Obama has been subjected to a continuous news loop of the attack being replayed over and over again. All while McCain gets to keep his good name and is praised for repudiating the attack from Cunningham. With McCain's FEC troubles, it's a good thing CNN is giving him all this free advertising.

Meanwhile CNN asks, Has the media been too soft on Obama?

UPDATE: Wow, sorry to say that NPR just legitimized Cunningham by giving him an interview and a chance to say aw, shucks, I didn't mean anything by it. He did, however, say that he had a dinner last week with Portman, Deters, and DeWine during which the speech was discussed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Previous Presidents Prove: Experience Isn't Everything

Hillary Clinton went nuclear today, comparing Obama to George Bush based on experience.

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said during a foreign policy address at George Washington University.

"We can't let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

Since Clinton keeps bringing up the experience issue, let's look at history, and how much Washington experience various presidents have had. Here are some presidents without much elected experience, who probably would have been accused by Hillary Clinton of needing a manual on foreign policy:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, four years as governor of New York.

Abraham Lincoln, one term in the U. S. House of Representatives

Theodore Roosevelt, two years as Governor of New York, less than one year as Vice President before succeeding William McKinley who died in office.

Woodrow Wilson, two years as governor of New Jersey.

By contrast, Richard Nixon had 6 years in Congress and 8 years as Vice-President, roughly equivalent to Hillary Clinton's 8 years as First Lady and eight years as Senator.

Read More...

Summary only...

Debate Wrap

First: Campbell Brown is horrible.

Second: I thought Hillary's "that's not change you can believe in, that's change you can xerox"--something like that, about plaigiarism--line was garbage. That's French for bs. Glad the crowd booed.

I thought Obama answered the "ready on day one" question perfectly, saying "if I didn't think I was ready I wouldn't be running," and going on to show times when he's shown good judgement, been right on foreign policy issues. When he's good, he's good.


I thought both candidates were good on immigration, pointing out how ridiculous the idea of a wall was. And both were great at destroying Bush.

Mostly, though, more of the same. What'd you think?

PS. The ladies over at Cliff's place were swooning over Jorge from Univision. What's he got that I ain't got?! Besides style and class, I mean.

Read More...

Summary only...

Getting Real on Obama

If Obama is really about a new kind of politics, and I hope he is--see the graphic at the top of my blog--he should start thinking about actions as well as words.

Jill challenged me on my defense of Obama's plaigiarism. Is he really right to do what he did? I was asked by Michele also, what if it were a student? Well, I've argued the rules are different for politicians. But there's more to it. If Obama is trying to change those rules he needs to act differently. This is Clinton's point: if Obama is authentic, use your own words. If he wants change, he needs to show it with his actions. A better example: Campaign finance.

Obama promised to accept public financing, and McCain has said that he would agree to it. Now Obama is hedging. Well, if Obama really represents change, he needs to, when the time is right, address this issue. Is he for change or isn't he? I don't think it's that complicated. Sure, McCain might benefit from outside groups running ads for him in an effort to subvert the intent of public financing. But the left has its own outside groups that can match them if it comes to that. Move On will rise to the challenge. If Obama really represents change, he needs to help chart a different course in how elections are run.


The most disappointing moment of this campaign, to me, was when Edwards challenged Clinton on lobbyists money in one of the debates. Obama said, "No one's hands are clean on this." Wow, that's not what change is about. Change is about saying, no, I won't take money from lobbyists either.

I like Obama, and I support him at this point (after having supported Edwards) in spite of some curious statements. Most recently, he's claimed that he might support school vouchers. Dayton blogger Scott Elliott wrote about it here, and Michele McNeil wrote about it too. Change? I guess... but it's not the change in the right direction! On the other hand, Hillary doesn't need to fear-monger, a la Bush, to oppose them, either. From Scott:

Obama said he remained a "skeptic" about vouchers, but would reconsider if the research showed otherwise. There has not been a conclusive longitudinal study of the effectiveness of Milwaukee's voucher program, although a new study is underway.

Rival Hillary Clinton has been highly critical of vouchers, even warning that widespread use of them could result in public financing for kids to attend schools that teach "jihad."

And then there were the strange comments about Reagan ("I didn't say they were good ideas."), his quasi-support for merit pay, his oddly expressed desire to go after Pakistan. In spite of it all, I still think Obama's following and his energy make him a unique candidate. He's a gifted speaker and writer, and in spite of what Hillary suggests at times, words really do matter.

But so do actions. I hope his actions match his words.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama, Plagiarism, and Political Authorship

The accusation of plagiarism from the Clinton camp didn't hold much water, considering that Deval Patrick gave Obama permission to use his lines.

It brings up the larger point, though, of the authorship of political speech in the first place.

It was telling that Clinton's spokesperson Howard Wolfson in a conference call with reporters refused to guarantee that Clinton had never borrowed from anyone's speeches, or anyone else's words. That's because political speeches and political writing generally is always of dubious authorship. George Bush hasn't written his own speech once in his life. Is that plagiarism?

When a Bush administration official pens an op-ed for the New York Times or the Washington Post, does the Times or the Post verify authorship? Do they confirm that the official, and not a staff member, wrote the piece in its entirety?

Would Paul Krugman be allowed to subcontract his columns? Have a junior staff member write it? Of course not. But the privelege of attaching one's name to work written by others is granted to administration officials all the time. Did George W. Bush actually write the piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal under his name pledging bipartisanship with the new Democratic-led 110th Congress? What do you think? It's laughable to think Bush wrote any essay on his own, let alone something polished and sophisticated as one of the speeches he can't ever read aloud properly, let alone write.

The point is that leeway is often given to politicians when it comes to authorship, leeway that would not be granted to journalists or academicians. I'm not saying that's a good thing--I think leading papers shouldn't allow staff work to appear under their bosses' names--but it's a reality and it happens all the time. The degree may be different in Obama's case, but borrowing lines from a friend who suggested he do so hardly constitutes a scandal.

That the Clinton camp is trying to make it so shows how desperate they truly are.

UPDATE: David Frum, of all people, on Larry King just now, insisting that the question about Obama was what has he done, not what does he say. Ron Reagan took the words right out of my mouth--what about your guy?

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton ready for war

Clinton is ready, it appears, to tear the Democratic Party apart in order to win.

The front page story in the New York Times today by Adam Nagourney indicates as much. She is going to force the issue of seating Michigan and Florida delegates based on the votes no one showed up for in January.

If that happens, it'll be all out war in the party. If the Democrats are the part to stand up for fair elections--and I hope they are--these kinds of shenanigans can't happen.

And by the way, this just makes even more apparent what I've said all along--the initial decision to void the Florida and Michigan primaries was a really stupid decision. But it can't be undone now. See the money quote from the NYT story after the jump.

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.

Good for Al Sharpton. I have to admit, when I initially heard him speak I didn't realize it was in response to Julian Bond.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain has no interest in education

Thanks to Michele McNeil, I saw the piece in the National Review whining that McCain has no interest in education.

Of course, it's written by a Fordham guy, Mike Petrilli, so what he really means is, "McCain won't go all crazy for charter schools, which means he must now care about education."

The concern is, then, that if McCain doesn't care about it, then he'll give way to people like Petrilli to act out their radical anti-public schools agenda.

Then Michele goes on to give me heart palpitations by imagining Mike Huckabee as Education Secretary, or in this case, the Preacher to the Teachers. (Thanks, for that, Michele. My heart's almost back to a normal rhythm now. I'll be fine.) Huckabee sounds good with his touchy feely talk about arts education, which I certainly agree with. But that's just window dressing for his radical agenda to redesign public education with vouchers and charters and bible based biology books.

Seriously, if you haven't read Michele's blog you're missing out. Why don't you people ever listen to me?

Read More...

Summary only...

Menendez: Superdelegates could decide race, not voters

Here's what Bob Menendez, Clinton surrogate, said today on Late Edition:

BLITZER: All right. Well, let's talk about the last point that Senator McCaskill just made. I'm going to put some numbers, Senator Menendez, up on the screen in terms of the delegate count that we estimate here at CNN right now. We estimate that Hillary Clinton has 1,108 delegates, Barack Obama has 1,049 delegates. Remember, 2,025 are needed to get the nomination.

But those include the pledged delegates as well as the so-called superdelegates, the party leaders like you, members of the Senate, members of the House, governors, high officials in the DNC, in the Democratic National Committee.

If you just take a look at the pledged delegates out there -- those are the people who have been elected, in effect, to go forward -- you see that, on those pledge delegates, Barack Obama is now ahead 918-885.

Are you worried that the party bosses could make this decision, as opposed to those who were actually elected by rank-and-file Democrats?

MENENDEZ: Well, Wolf, first of all, this party elects its delegates in many different ways. It goes from caucuses, where small numbers of people vote, compared to the population. It goes to primaries, where millions of people vote. It goes to primaries where only Democrats can vote. It goes to primaries where Democrats and independents can vote.

So, at the end of the day -- and it includes party leadership. You call them bosses. I call them leadership. These are individuals, like Claire, like myself, who ultimately get elected statewide.

BLITZER: But you're saying it would be appropriate if you -- that the super delegates had the final say in this...

(CROSSTALK)
MENENDEZ: Well, I certainly believe that we're going to get to a convention where, it is my belief, that Senator Clinton will have the delegates necessary to win.

At the end of the day, these elected officials, who are elected statewide, not just by Democrats, by the way, but by Democrats, Republicans, and independents, are elected to make their judgment, every day in the Senate, in the House, on the critical issues of the day.

They're also, in this context elected to make critical issues as to who they believe has the strength, ability to, from day one, be able to be the next president of the United States and win.

Sounds to me like he's saying, if Obama wins the delegate count, but the superdelegates give it to Clinton, that's OK by me.

Is this the Clinton strategy going forward?

Read More...

Summary only...

"The Will of the People"

Donna Brazile is a Democratic superdelegate. Right now, on CNN she said, "The vote I cast in the District of Columbia is my vote. But my vote as a superdelegate should reflect the will of the people."

She's right. And I hope the other superdelegates agree with her.

Many Democrats have been vocal about voting irregularities in the last two elections. And now, with the closeness of this campaign, the role of superdelegates, and the stupid decision not to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, the Democrats have a chance to make the vote reflect, as Brazile says, the will of the voters.

There will be strong pressure to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida. While that was a collossally stupid decision, it's one that everyone has to live with now. The rules can't be changed midstream. And however the votes shake out at the end of this process, it has to be fair. It can't be the party insiders deciding this election based on money, pressure, and politics. If that happens, an awful lot of people will be leaving the Democratic Party.

Read More...

Summary only...

State of McCain Campaign: Day One

Yesterday was John McCain's first day of being the presumptive nominee with Romney dropping out. Let's review what happened:

Fox News called him a Democrat.

James Dobson said he would not support McCain in the general election.

Rush said he would raise money for Hillary. After years of calling her a femi-Nazi, he still likes her better than McCain!

And McCain was jeered at CPAC. Roundly, and effectively.

And Obama and Clinton haven't even gotten started on you yet. Heh. This is going to be FUN.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama video starring John Legend inspires

There's a real cult of personality developing around Barak Obama, and even though I preferred Edwards until he dropped out, it's hard not to get inspired by stuff like this:

(h/t Paddy)

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton Campaign in Disarray, Off Message

I'm really not sure what kind of messages the Clinton campaign is trying to send.

But I'm not sure I like any of them.

For one thing, I've been thinking for some time that this campaign, the first major national campaign by a woman for President, this historic moment for women in this country, is being completely overshadowed by .... a man. It's almost as if Hillary Clinton has been pushed into the background of her own campaign.

Part of that is to be expected, and natural, given the fact that her husband is the former president. It's natural that Bill Clinton would occupy a large role in the campaign. But the Clinton campaign has gone much further than simply using Bill Clinton's popularity to raise money and draw crowds. They've made the entire Clinton presidency a part of Hillary's narrative. At times Clinton's campaign almost seems like a re-election campaign for Bill. They seem to want people to believe that they are getting another four years of the Clinton White House.

I think that's a mistake. I think the campaign really needs to get back on message around Hillary's unique qualifications and her own skill sets. Interestingly, that message has been pushed most effectively by... Bill. But again, that mirrors the problem. Bill's testiness on the campaign trail hasn't helped, but the symbolic message of Bill fighting his wife's battles ultimately weakens her, takes away from her message, and pushes her off the stage. Bill should be used where he's valuable: getting crowds and raising money. Anything else is a distraction.

(Notice, by the way, how cleverly Obama has reminded voters who the candidate is: not Bill, but Hillary. You're not voting for Bill again, people, is the message when he says he feels he's running against both Clintons.)

The other messages they are sending are destructive too.

I was blown away when I read this this morning:

Each side accused the other of playing the race card, sparking a controversy that frequently involved Bill Clinton.

"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Let's be clear: this is classic Karl Rove strategizing. We're not playing the race card, they seem to say, we're just bringing it up in a way that reminds people of all of Obama's icky blackness, and by the way did you notice he's black? Whatever Clinton staffer said that Obama was being cast as the "black candidate" was either following orders, or should be fired. Because to suggest that Clinton benefits from racist attitudes implies a couple of nasty things: 1, they think Democratic primary voters are secret racists, and 2, as Josh Marshall wrote, they seem to be ok with that. The attitude is a problem, and does a great deal of harm that will be hard to undo if Hillary is the nominee and suddenly needs the support of black voters she's alienated during the primary season.

Clinton better her campaign together pretty quickly, and get it organized around a coherent communications strategy. The defensiveness and pit bull politics being played by the campaign right now isn't working, and is only reinforcing Obama's carefully crafted image of reconciliation and unity. The one who looks divisive right now is Hillary. She better get back in front of her husband, and her message. It may already be too late.

Read More...

Summary only...

Post Debate Unraveling

Go here for a good summary without reading an entire transcript. The main points are all here.

I thought Edwards did well again. After the jump I have posted a letter from Martin Luther King III that the Edwards campaign sent out yesterday. If you don't receive the campaign email, take a minute and read it. It's very moving, imploring Edwards to keep up his fight on behalf of the poor and the oppressed in the name of King's legacy. It repeats Edwards' affirmation during the debate that he's going to keep fighting for his issues, even if they aren't big vote getters.

I thought it was disgusting how many questions Obama and Clinton were asked about each other and their petty bickering. Time that could have been spent discussing issues. Instead we get, "Why don't you like him (her/her husband)?" Perfect demonstration of the failure of our political media to take the issues seriously. We have a world economic meltdown on our hands and CNN is worried about playground name calling. I wanted to smack Suzanne Malveaux.

The "sit down" part of the debate was a huge improvement, with Hillary doing a good job, I think, of putting the differences between the candidates into context. Obama at times seemed to be struggling for words. I worry about him frankly in a sparring match against a GOP opponent, although we've seen before how poorly a Republican can do in debates and still be considered the winner. Still, in spite of some winning lines, I thought Obama clearly came in third in this debate.

Edwards really drew blood tonight on the lobbyist issue. Hillary looked horrible on this issue, and when she accused Edwards of taking money from trial lawyers, he drilled her, saying it's not the same thing--lawyers represent citizens, not corporations, and they are contributing to his campaign not to enrich corporations but to be able to continue to SUE corporations on behalf of the little guy. Great answer, and shame on Hillary for trotting out the GOP trial lawyer bogey man. Then when it was Obama's turn he said, "No one's hands are clean." I thought that was a real admission of defeat on his part, really disappointing and cynical, and not indicative of the "hope" agenda he is advocating. I understand Obama is trying to be frank and candid, but he's wrong for one thing--Edwards' point is that his hands are clean--and for another, he sounds as though he's just willing to give up and let the lobbyists write the damn laws. So how, Obama, do you plan to fix it? At least Hillary went on to explain how she's fought lobbyists and supported public financing. Obama's answer was almost, "well, everyone does it." Pretty weak on what I think is a critical campaign issue. (And by the way, Russ Feingold, can you still dismiss Edwards after his comments tonight on this issue? Or is he still not as pure a liberal for you as his competitors?)

The King letter below.


Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

Read More...

Summary only...

If Feingold wanted a pure progressive why didn't he run?

Interesting piece on Russ Feingold via MyDD in which he questions Edwards' progressive credentials.

I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

I think that's obviously a fair criticism, but at least Edwards is adopting a progressive platform, even if it's a little late to the game. Feingold admits that Edwards is running on his agenda.... but he doesn't support that agenda? Doesn't make sense to me. Instead, he supports Obama and Clinton.

So it's a progressive platform, but he's not supporting it. I don't get it. Furthermore Feingold flirted with the presidency. It was pretty clear at the time that he was the most progressive Democrat considering running. If Feingold wanted a pure progressive in the race, why didn't he run? Seems like he should've if he wanted those views, and those votes, represented. Edwards' voting record isn't what I'd like--especially on Iraq--but the fact is he has come around to Feingold's point of view, the votes he stood for over the years.

But now Feingold won't support it, and says Edwards isn't "serious". I'm disappointed.

Read More...

Summary only...