« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

Obama Pushback on National Journal Rankings

January 31, 2008 8:17 PM

The Obama campaign is taking serious issue with the National Journal rankings of him as the most liberal Senator in 2007.

Spokesman Bill Burton points out that because Sen. Obama was campaigning for much of 2007, he missed 32 out of the 99 votes the NJ used for its rankings.

Of the remaining 67, Obama and Clinton  (who also missed many votes because she was campaigning, as did John McCain, etc), were both there to vote for 65.

They voted the same way on 63 of them.

On one where they differed, Obama voted with an amendment from Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind - Conn., to create an Office of Public Integrity and Clinton voted against it.   

On the other, Obama voted for an amendment from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, allowing "Y" visa holders to stay in the U.S. while renewing their visas, while Clinton -- who has staked out a more conservative position on illegal immigration -- voted against it.

And yet somehow he becomes the most liberal Senator, and she the 16th most.

Odd.

"Only in Washington can you get falsely attacked for being like Reagan one week and labeled the most liberal the next," Burton says. "The tendency of Washington to apply a misleading label to every person and idea is just one of the many things we need to change about how things operate inside the Beltway."

What say you?

- jpt

January 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

Whither Conservatives?

January 31, 2008 6:25 PM

They dislike McCain, they distrust Romney, they don't think Huckabee or Ron Paul are serious candidates.

What next for them?

Read more HERE

Or watch the World News report HERE.

- jpt

January 31, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Couple Things

January 31, 2008 6:02 PM

First, because a few of you have I asked, I have nothing to do with which comments get deleted.

ABCNews.com has certain standards for what posts they consider unacceptable -- I think personal attacks and cursing do not meet those standards, for example -- and people at ABCNews.com make those decisions. I have zero to do with it. I don't delete posts.

I know some blogs have an "open comment" policy, which has its pluses and its minuses -- witness Markos getting tagged unfairly by O'Reilly because of hateful posts at DailyKos.

ABCNews.com has a different policy, and that's how it is.

Certainly, saying that I'm wrong, or taking issue with my stories or blog postings, does not constitute objectionable writing. Indeed, getting a dialogue going is what blogging is supposed to be about. If someone is deleting comments that don't violate ABC News policy, you should object to that, and I will join you.

Now.

That said.

I'm taking some heat here and on liberal blogs for my questioning this morning of what President Clinton said about action against greenhouse gases slowing our economy.

To try to clarify -- because obviously I didn't do a good enough job explaining what I was driving at this morning -- I wasn't trying to declare that he was saying one thing or another. (Though my headline implied that, and I regret that.)

I wrote at the time that I wasn't sure what he meant:

"I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

"He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

"So there was something of a contradiction there.

"Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

"Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain.

"You can watch that one clip HERE or you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE."

I then provided the full context of the quote. Lots of you -- and the Clinton campaign -- argue that it's obvious that Bill Clinton was spelling out that last point, he was describing what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort, that he was setting up a straw man, because this is a false argument.

I can certainly accept that's what he meant. I don't think it was clear. But I wasn't certain.

That's why I provided the video links, the full quote, and gave a number of options as to what he meant.

And again, I think the larger point -- bigger than me, bigger than one president's comment -- is what would it cost to take action against global warming? There seems to be a consensus -- a climate change, if you will -- on this issue. If John McCain wins the GOP nomination, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, the two major-party presidential candidates will agree that serious action needs to be taken.

What action? How much will it cost? What possible "slowing" could it do to the economy? Is it worth it to you?  That's what I'd love to hear from you about below.

- jpt

January 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Was THE Most Liberal Senator Last Year?

January 31, 2008 1:37 PM

In the National Journal's annual ratings of senators' standings on the political prism you have to hang a Left before you find Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Pass Barbara Boxer...Ted Kennedy...keep going.

Pass Sheldon Whitehouse....Robert Menendez...

Keep going....

Oh, look, here's Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist...

Keep going.

Ah, at the waaaaaaay end. 

Senator Obama, good to see you sir.

"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate," the National Journal writes. "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator. " 

Read more HERE.

-- jpt

UPDATE: The Obama campaign has some major pushback on this that is worth reading, it calls into serious question these rankings. Check it out HERE.

January 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)

Being Accused of "Parsing" By the Clinton Campaign

January 31, 2008 12:01 PM

Wow, I hardly know how to take this.

This morning, trying to understand what former President Bill Clinton was driving at when he made a statement about effort to combat global warming, I posted a quote of his, put it in context, provided video links, and asked what he meant.

The Clinton campaign did not provide for me, as requested, an explanation of what he meant.

Instead, the response from the Clinton campaign is to post an item on its "fact" hub and accuse me of "parsing."

I will plead guilty to "parsing" -- the dictionary definition of the word -- "To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components" or "To make sense of; comprehend."

But I suspect the Clinton campaign thinks of the word "parsing" in its more colloquial sense -- as in "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

I guess I should defer to their expertise.

Apologies for taking a confusing public comment from a former president about a major world issue and trying to make sense of it.

- jpt

UPDATE: Bill Clinton finds a defender/explainer over at the National Review, where Iain Murray takes a look at what an effort to reduce greenhouse gases would do to the U.S. economy and concludes that "while Tapper isn't entirely accurate in characterizing what Bill said, he's pretty accurate in summarizing the effects of the policies he recommends. Bill Clinton's economic stimulus plan is to slow down our economy."

This is the much more important issue here. Any serious effort to reduce greenhouses gases will have an impact on the economy and, initially, that impact could be negative.

There are ways to work towards having the impact in the long-term be neutral or perhaps even positive. But any serious effort will cost a lot of money and slow the economy, whether the world is in it together or the U.S. and industrialized nations go it alone. (I stand accused of saying that former President Clinton spoke honestly about that.)

That's not to say it should not be done -- it's just to acknowledge that, as with all things ambitious, there will be a cost.

January 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)

Well, This Will Get Him the Votes of All My College Friends

January 31, 2008 10:18 AM

Obama favors decriminalizing marijuana. 

Obama: The "green" party candidate?...

Obama: Spleef Through Strength…

Obama: A Kinder, Gentler, Bud…

I got a million of 'em.

Thank you! I'll be here all week! Try the veal!

- jpt

January 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

What Did Bill Clinton Mean By "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming?

January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain.

You can watch that one clip HERE or you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE.

It's worth watching -- he also pushed back against a 9/11 conspiracy theorist heckling him.

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

In other Bubba News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told the spectacular Kate Snow yesterday that this is her campaign, not Bill's, and told Nightline anchor Cynthia McFadden last night that she can control him.

(Which begs the question -- does she want to slow down the economy?)

-- jpt

UPDATE: Not so difficult to predict -- the RNC just issued a statement in response to the former President's comment. 

“Senator Clinton’s campaign now says we must ‘slow down the economy’ to stop global warming," said Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman. "Clinton needs to come back to Earth. Her ‘tax-it, spend-it, regulate-it’ attitude would really bring the economy crashing down. No amount of special effects will hide Clinton’s liberal record.”

Sen. Clinton's campaign, meanwhile, has a new TV ad (watch it HERE) that calls her "the person you can depend on to fix the economy and protect our future."

UPDATE 2: The original headline of this post was too definitive, while the larger blog post tried to express that I wasn't sure just what Clinton meant by his statement. So I changed the headline to reflect that. I understand after many, many emails that many folks think I misunderstood what the President was saying.

January 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (598) | TrackBack (0)

Kathleen Willey Warns Obama About Clintons

January 30, 2008 3:41 PM

In an open letter to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on the conservative website WorldNetDaily, self-described Clinton victim Kathleen Willey warns him to no be naïve….to watch out …and to get a shredder…among other advice.

Among the unusual warnings she issues, she tells Obama to beware of "the Clintons' secret private-investigator army, which no doubt has already been deployed to counter the threat that you present. I know that army's tactics well. They have threatened my children and my friend's children. They've threatened and killed my pets. They've vandalized my car. They've entered my home and stolen my book manuscript."

Well!

-- jpt

January 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)

The Edwards Endorsement

January 30, 2008 2:59 PM

Something to keep in mind about John Edwards and endorsing…

He has never come out and said he would endorse Barack Obama, but he has always made it clear that he preferred Obama's politics to Clinton's.

Before the Iowa caucus, he explained it this way to me: "One of them believes change is necessary and the system doesn't work, and the other defends the system."

More on that HERE.

- jpt

January 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (39) | TrackBack (0)

Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream

January 30, 2008 1:57 PM

It was January 17, 2001, and Illinois state senator Barack Obama was on WTTW11’s “Chicago Tonight."

Discussing his opposition to Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, Obama praised newly-elected President Bush's new nominee for Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

“The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I dont think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.

"So I don’t want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive," Obama continued. "I think it’s legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn’t agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman’s right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn’t be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don’t think I would object. And I think that’s a fair position to take.”

You can watch the specific part about Rumsfeld HERE ….which some Democrats may not particularly care for….

Rumsfeld danced through his confirmation hearings and was confirmed by the Senate in a voice vote, meaning no one -- including then-newly elected Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY -- objected.

But some liberal voices opposed him from the get-go.

"Rumsfeld is a throwback to Reagan- era approaches to defense policy and spending," editorialized The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal "'Donald Rumsfeld is a dyed-in-the-wool hawk,' says John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. The record confirms that assessment. Rumsfeld's unquestioning support of the Star Wars national missile defense plan; his support for flawed weapon systems such as the B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear missile and the MX missile; and his history of opposition to the SALT II nuclear arms treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war mark him as a primitive Cold Warrior.

Concluded the liberal newspaper, "Rumsfeld belongs in the history books, not in the Cabinet."

I should note that this video clip did not come to me from the Clinton campaign or anyone affiliated with her operation -- though I suspect it may be something her campaign tries to use against Obama, to paint him as insufficiently Democratic.

The underlying question that this clip raises with me is -- what else is there about Obama that we don't know about? What other clips? What other comments?

Obama is on the cusp of doing well on Super Duper Tuesday and has still never had a negative TV ad run against him, and it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is correct in her implication -- he has not been fully "vetted."

There's a lot voters -- and the media -- do not know about him.

- jpt

January 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (152) | TrackBack (0)

Rudy and Edwards...OUT

January 30, 2008 9:17 AM

So today come the announcements of the withdrawal from the presidential race of Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards.

What do you think went wrong?

- jpt

January 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (28) | TrackBack (0)

Race-baiting v Rudeness

January 30, 2008 8:35 AM

Did Bill's behavior hurt Hillary in South Carolina?

"It may have," she told the New York Daily News.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign is trying to shift attention from Bill's chaos to Obama's arrogance.

She added fuel to the fire of his alleged "snub" of her at the State of the Union, by telling Fox News (!) last night, asked if she felt snubbed, that "I reached out my hand in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out. And I look forward to shaking his hand when I see him at the debate in California."

And this morning TIME's Mark Halperin reports on "the snub before 'the snub,'" that "(l)eading Democrats wanted rivals to sit together for the sake of party unity" and "Clinton was willing, but Obama chose to sit with newly-minted supporter Ted Kennedy."

Read more HERE.

- jpt

January 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Giuliani's Thank You List Omissions

January 29, 2008 10:54 PM

"First, I want to thank my wife, Judith, for being a loving, patient and supportive partner," Giuliani said last night. "I want to thank (stepdaughter) Whitney for her loving support."

"I want to thank my campaign chairman, Pat Oxford, who has been remarkable," he continued. "My campaign manager, Mike DuHaime. My senior campaign adviser, Tony Carbonetti.

Then a long list:

"And then, my remarkable Florida team, the very best Florida team anybody could have, headed by Attorney General Bill McCollum. And a few of our people here in Florida.  I can't mention all of them, but, of course, Ingrid McCollum, who gave me the single best introduction of my campaign. Mayor Julio Robaina, Karen Unger, Joe Fogg, Dan Sargeant, Al Austin, my friend John Sale, and so many of my friends that are all here, and so many of our senior staff, all of whom really came to Florida."

Unmentioned? His son and daughter.

-- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

How You Really Know the Giuliani Campaign Is Not Expecting a Good Night

January 29, 2008 7:15 PM

First sign that greets his supporters at his "celebration" party here at the Loews Portofino Bay Hotel in Orlando:

"CASH BAR."

….winners usually pay for drinks.

Polls in the panhandle close in 49 minutes.

-- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Tick tock

January 29, 2008 6:09 PM

Rudy Giuliani is thanking volunteers at his Orange County HQ in Winter Park, Florida.

"Thank you for your hard work very, very much," he says.

He looks at his wristwatch.

"One hour and 10 minutes to go," he says, "and then two hours and 10 minutes to go in the panhandle."

He sees a young woman wearing a T-shirt with a recognizable icon.

"'I love Rudy,'" he says, "oh, I thought it was 'I love New York.'"

"Same thing," says a young male volunteer.

He finds out where the college-age students are from. "All over," he says.

"Thank you very, very much," he says.

"Thank you," adds his wife, Judith.

"Thank you for running!" says a volunteer.

"We love you, Rudy!" exclaims another one, a young man with a deep voice.

Giuliani signs a few baseballs and then it's off to his Orlando hotel, site of his "victory" party.

- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Jon Voight Unplugged

January 29, 2008 4:46 PM

As we waited on the tarmac to leave Ft. Lauderdale and arrive in Orlando, Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight joined reporters in the back of the Giuliani campaign press plane to chat about acting, politics, and his choice for president, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Voight said Giuliani “understands the threat we face from terrorism” like no other candidate. “He’s my guy.”

On everyone’s mind, of course, is the prospect that Giuliani will not do well in the Florida primary today, and Voight's guy might not make it to Super Duper Tuesday next week.

Voight said he has no second choice should Giuliani drop out, though it likely will be a Republican since “the two (Democratic) frontrunners don’t get it yet” in terms of the terrorist threat.

“Of the two, I think Hillary is better, though economically she’s a socialist," he said.

The estranged father of Angelina Jolie said he was still hoping for a Giuliani win tonight, though he expressed regret at how the media was covering Florida as essentially a two-man race between Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

He also said Giuliani had been picked on by Giuliani’s enemies in the press – especially the New York Times and Vanity Fair magazine, “which just published some not-so-nice things about him by his son.”

Did he think Giuliani’s strategy of bypassing primaries and caucuses in early states such as Iowa and South Carolina was faulty?

“There will be time to assess all that after today, and maybe it should be assessed,” he said.

Despite Hollywood’s liberal bent – which Voight ascribes to guilt for making so much money for little work – the star of “Midnight Cowboy” and “Deliverance” says no moguls have given him any guff for backing a Republican.

He came down to Florida last week to help out any way he could. His strong support for Israel – he says “a litmus test to figuring out where evil is in the world is to see who hates the Jews” – might have helped Giuliani in some of the more Yiddische sections of Southern Florida, he hopes.

Voight’s next project is “Pride and Glory,” about policemen in New York City, which stars Ed Norton and Colin Farrell. He begged off saying which film project was his favorite, or least favorite, though he acknowledged having tried and failed to get the lead roles in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Schindler’s List.” He turned down the lead role in “Love Story.”

Giuliani is planning to fly to California tomorrow for the GOP debate Wednesday evening at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. Voight will hitch a ride to the Golden State. “That’s home,” he says.

- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Rudy and Karate Dog

January 29, 2008 12:59 PM

ABC NEWS' JAN SIMMONDS WRITES:

Oscar winning actor Jon Voight has been fighting the fight the last two weeks to help Rudy Giuliani win the state of Florida and go on to be elected president.  But back in 2004, he was fighting a trash-talking pooch with ninja skills named Cho Cho.

In the little known children's film "Karate Dog", in which Voight executive produced, the former Midnight Cowboy plays a Ninja Villain who does battle karate canine.  You can watch the infamous, or soon to be, battle HERE.

I talked with Voight today about his on-screen battle with some of my fellow reporters.

"I can take dogs, but that was a super dog, you know what I'm saying? It's just the luck," said Voight about his man versus dog battle in which he threw everything including the kitchen sink -- only to come up short.

With our greatest journalistic skills, we went on to ask the legendary actor if he could draw any comparisons between his fight with Karate Dog and the battle Rudy Giuliani is currently to win Florida today.

"Look we are in a battle, we have to stay alert, you what I'm saying?" said Voight. "And we gotta stay away from dogs, that's the whole thing."

- Jan Simmonds

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Dirge

January 29, 2008 11:53 AM

A sad farewell as Rudy makes his final Florida swing. Read more HERE.

- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Snubs Hillary

January 29, 2008 11:42 AM

The caption to the New York Times photograph reads: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton greeting Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Monday night as Senator Barack Obama turns away."

And the Chicago Tribune's blog says that "At the SOTU, Obama's Clinton snub was the news."

Obama strategist David Axelrod was asked about this on Morning Joe this a.m.

"Now, there's a picture that we're seeing, that we saw across the wires from last night's State of the Union address," Joe Scarborough said, "where it appears that Barack Obama turns his back on Hillary Clinton, snubs her, and people on the floor said that it was -– appeared to be intentional, that he didn't want to be around, didn't want to shake her hand when Ted Kennedy was there. Can you comment on that picture?"

"No, I don't think he snubbed her at all," Axelrod said. "First of all, they acknowledged each other as they entered the chamber. But I think he knew that Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton were friends. This was obviously an awkward day from that standpoint, and I don't think he wanted to stand there while Senator Kennedy was greeting Senator Clinton. And I think that was an appropriate sentiment. Unfortunately, the camera caught it in a different way, and so it got interpreted that way. And that's the kind of environment we're in right now. It's a very competitive race, so every little thing is going to be interpreted in that way. But it was really a matter of letting Senator Kennedy have his own conversation, his own greeting with Senator Clinton without him hovering over them."

Continued Axelrod, "in this environment, every single thing can be – can be inflated and interpreted and will in a political – in a hyper-political light. But it is what I suggested. I think it's understandable that he would not want to stand there with Senator Kennedy as if he were lording it over her. You know, I understand that."

Speaking of Senator Kennedy, while its most famous resident backed Obama yesterday, Cape Cod's newspaper went with Clinton.

- jpt

UPDATE: ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that Obama has pooh-poohed any idea that he was snubbing Clinton. Read more HERE.

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (83) | TrackBack (0)

Let's Go to the Videotape

January 29, 2008 10:22 AM

With at least tacit encouragement of the Clinton campaign, enough left-wing bloggers and emailers have accused ABC News of somehow doctoring the transcript of former President Bill Clinton's comments in which he compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson that we're going to post the entire 11 minute video.

I recognize that some people are so hopelessly partisan this will not satisfy them. They will change the subject, or even perhaps insanely accuse us of doctoring the video, CGI-style.

They don't want to believe that Bill Clinton did this the way the media portrayed it. And desire can be a powerful emotion.

That said, facts are stubborn things.

Fact: on the morning of the South Carolina primary, when it was clear to her campaign that Sen. Hillary Clinton was on her way to a massive defeat, Bill Clinton, unprompted, compared Obama's win to Jackson's.

Fact: he had not been asked by anyone about Jackson when he did so. 

Fact: despite claims from the Clinton campaign, he had not been asked whether an African-American could win the state when he did so.

Fact: Bill Clinton didn't compare Obama's (then pending, but obvious to the Clinton campaign) state win to those of John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, or even his own win in 1992. He reached back to 1984 and 1988 when Jesse Jackson won.

Fact: our transcript bears this out.

Fact: the video bears this out.

But hey, don't take our word for it. Watch for yourself HERE.

- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

False pushback from the Clinton campaign itself

January 29, 2008 7:53 AM

The Clinton campaign is now officially -- and erroneously -- challenging how the media reported former President Bill Clinton's comparison of Sen. Barack Obama to Rev. Jesse Jackson.

On CNN a Clinton senior adviser claimed before he made his comments about Jackson the former president had been "asked about historic voting in South Carolina," said Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Florida.

Watch Meek HERE

"The real issue is the reporting of what the president is actually saying," Meek said, accusing the media of "clip and snip."

Read the transcript for yourself HERE.

What Meek says happened is simply not so. No one brought up historic voting in South Carolina.

-- jpt

January 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (25) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Flashback: Ted Kennedy Is Old and Needs a Spine

January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

So, apparently, JFK has been reborn. Who knew?

Barack Obama was understandably appreciative of Ted Kennedy passing the torch to him today.

A few years ago, though, Obama wasn't as appreciative of the liberal lion.

Attending a 2003 AFL-CIO forum, the then-state senator took issue with the prescription drug bill Congress was putting together, which Kennedy was helping to negotiate.

"We gotta call not just Republicans," Obama said. "We gotta call up Ted Kennedy, and say, 'Ted, you're getting a little old now, and maybe, you been a fighter for us before. I don't know what's happening right now, Ted, get some spine. Stand up to the Republicans."

Watch the video HERE.

Ouch.

- jpt

UPDATE: A writer from the  Huffington Post e-mails to say they broke this a few weeks ago. I did not know this -- I got the link from YouTube -- but credit where credit is due. Here's the HuffPo link.

January 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)

False Pushback from Clinton Allies

January 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Some supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, are inaccurately saying that her husband's comparison of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to Rev. Jesse Jackson came only because a reporter had asked the former president whether a black candidate can win South Carolina, thus raising the subject.

The larger charge is that reporters were falsely painting the president as race-baiting.

It's not true. Clinton brought up Jackson with no mention of Jackson by reporters, and with no mention of the subject of whether an African-American can win by reporters.

Here's the whole transcript:

Bill Clinton: Wow. Hi, Everybody.

Reporter: How’s it going for you this morning, Mr. President?

BC: Oh, good. You know, I like election days and I think it’s interesting they vote on Saturday here, it makes it easier for working people to go. You know, there’s really not much you can do to change a lot of votes, but by stirring around you may induce people who are for you to go ahead and vote when they might not have.

Reporter: You proud of what you’ve done here in South Carolina?

BC: Oh yeah, we’ve done our best, and we’ve had, I particularly have enjoyed, you know, my role here has been almost exclusively to go around and do town meetings and answer questions, that’s most of what I’ve done, and I’ve really enjoyed that. I think it’s been immensely impressive to me to see in the audiences whether they were predominately African American, predominately white, or totally integrated, there has not been a great deal of difference in the questions people ask.

If the voters really are intensely interested in what we can do to change the economic direction of the country, what we can do about healthcare, what we can do to restore our country’s standing in the world.

And there doesn’t seem to be even a great deal of difference in the questions asked, depending on who they’re supporting, so I’ve – I like that, because, you know, I just answer questions. They know I know some things about this stuff, I make the case for Hillary as best I can, but basically I just tell them why I’m for Hillary, and then I answer their questions.

Reporter: That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race baiting here.

BC: Yeah, well I would refer them to what John Lewis and Andrew Young – two people left who were with Martin Luther King every step of the way – said. I don’t have to defend myself on civil rights, and John Lewis and Andrew Young said what needed to be said about that. There’s nothing left for me to say.

Reporter: Mr. President, Senator Kerry that – had some critical comments too about some of the things that have gone on this week. He said being a former president doesn’t give you a license to abuse the truth. Just wanted your reaction to that.

BC: Yes, but did you notice he didn’t specify anything? You notice that? They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing is specified. I’m not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me, and I have no -- he can support whomever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, but there’s nothing for me to respond to because I don’t believe in labeling, I think he should have specifics, so today we just want everybody to vote.

David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?
BC: [Laughs] That’s just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere, he’s got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization.

DW: He says he is sometimes not sure who his opponent is, you or his wife.

BC: That is bait, too.

DW: Your wife, rather, sorry.

BC: I am working for my wife because I believe she’d be the best president. If weren't married, I'd be working for her if she asked me to. And his wife’s done a good job for him, and --

DW: She’s not an ex-president of the United States, though.

BC: I know but that doesn’t mean that – I’m still a citizen now, when, you know, I can't wait to get back to my foundation work. I’m not a direct, directly involved in politics but I am concerned about my country and I think she’d be the best president.

And I would be working for her if we had never been married. She’s the best qualified person I’ve had a chance to support for president in my lifetime. For, because of the variety of experiences she’s had but because of the things she has done in every stage of her life to change other people’s lives for the better, and that’s what I say, my message has been 99.9 percent positive for 100 percent of this campaign.

Not only about her, but about the other candidates. And I think that when I think she’s being misrepresented I have a right to try to, with factual accuracy, set the record straight, which is what I have tried to do.
Andy Fies: Do you feel that you’re more actively involved than you ever thought you’d be at this point?

BC: Not exactly, I just –

AF: Or out on the trail more?

BC: No, I just, you know -- before what I was doing was trying to help her raise funds and not make any public impression, because I wanted America to have time to get to know her, the way New Yorkers have, the way people in Arkansas do. You know, she’s doing terrifically well in the polls down there because they know her. She did well in the Republican as well as Democratic areas of New York because they know her. She’s done immensely well in the U.S. Senate, passing bills with Republicans with stunning levels of success because they know her.

So - but now, you know, what happened is there’s so many elections happening so fast that you need all your family members, I mean I think Chelsea’s working in a way I’m not sure she thought she would be, we just all wanted to be hands on deck and I think it’s been the right thing, it’s kind of a family affair. My 88-year-old mother-in-law is working harder than she thought she would, but she likes it.

Oh yeah, I like this, I like the one thing I’ve been criticized for that I think is accurate - I have not said anything that is factually inaccurate and that’s why when people say I have they never specify because they know I’ll win the fight. But the - but I do think that the difference between now and running when I ran for myself, shoot, when I ran in ‘92 I could have cared less what anybody said about me.

Really, I didn’t. I mean, you just go right on, you’ve got your positive message, you stay on message, if somebody has an argument, you have an argument. When it’s your, spouse I think it’s harder to take when you hear people say things and call them names for months. That’s harder, you know, and I think I was a little hot in New Hampshire, and I think I got criticized for that, and one person said to me, she said, I talked to one person who had been critical, who said, look you told the truth, everything you said was true, but people don't want to see you mad about it. Just relax, chill out. And I think that’s, that was right, and I think that’s advice that I should have taken and I have tried to take.

David Wright: That’s Congressman Clyburn said too, chill out.

BC: Yeah, but he, Congressman Clyburn is a good man and he, he didn't dispute the accuracy of what I said, he just said that, that, people, we don’t want to get mad, and I agree with that, I don’t – I agree with that. We have got to try and hold everything together here because we’ve got a big campaign to win in the fall, whatever happens in this primary, and our side wants to change the economic and foreign policy direction of this country. And in order to do it, we’ve after – we’ll have a vigorous primary fight then we’ve got to put our party back together. And I am looking forward to that. I --

DW: But is that going to be tougher to do after the ugliness of South Carolina?

BC: No, man you've never been in very many campaigns if you think this was ugly, this was a cakewalk. This is not any big deal. This is a, you know I -- ever since, when I first stared running for president I was used to people just mauling me. You know, in some ways it hasn't been as ugly as Iowa was, you know it just didn’t get, the ugliness just was not publicized. The differences were not publicized.

[Crosstalk]

Well, I mean Hillary was called untruthful, manipulative, changing her position on everything, you know, a lot of things. You’ve just got to blow through this, that just all happens, it’s just part of politics, and you just shouldn't take the bait, you should be positive and go on and make our cases. But when it’s over, if you listen to - the most important thing to happen in that debate, that achieved no notice, was when they all sat down and cooled down, in the second part of the debate here in South Carolina, and all of them observed that they were all discussing their different approaches to issues that weren't even being discussed in the Republican primary. That’s the most important thing, because keep in mind, you have -- I am not being critical. But you have to cover this race as a horse race between candidates, but the really, the thing that matters to the people who are going there and voting is how their lives are going to change. So in the end the election is really about the American people and how their lives will change.

So for me as a citizen the most important thing that happened in that last debate was to see Senator Obama and Senator Edwards and Hillary agree that they were talking about things and caring about things that were not even being discussed in the other primary and that keeps saying to America we need to make a change and that means that whoever we nominate in this process can still be elected in the fall, that’s what we’ve got to do.

We’ve all got to hold it -- They should argue, it’s healthy, heck, let them argue about who’s got the best healthcare plan, who’s got the best stimulus plan, let them do that. But the main thing is to do it in a way that makes it clear to the American people that our party represents the fundamental departure in American needs, and that’s what I think’s going to happen. I basically feel good about it. But, you know, by the standards of southern politics and what I went through in the ‘80s at home, and even the ‘92 campaign, this has been a walk in the park there’s not much negative. We just need get this show on the road and get back to making our positive cases. All of us.

Staff: Thanks, guys.

Reporter: [unintelligible]

BC: Yeah I think they both did a good job, if you look at it, the campaign, the debate ended on a positive note and nearly as I can tell from just the press coverage I read, you know, I mean he put a few licks on her, and other people said what they said, but both of these, these campaigns are making a very -- three different distinct, positive appeals to their voters. [Crosstalk] And that’s what I think, and I think you’re going to it because I think we’ll have a good turnout today, but I -- you shouldn’t, you guys, you know, that stuff happens, but it’s very bad to have 100 percent of the interpretation of the campaign come out of 2 or 3 percent at most of what is said. If you look at the general thing, the Democrats offer a rather dramatic change in economic and foreign policy from the Republicans. And that’s what the American people are looking for. And I say -- Ok, so you’re going to change, so how will the healthcare deal work, how will the economic deal work. I’ve been going -- all I do is go to these meetings and let people ask questions, so I know how they look at it. And that’s good for us. And we’ll keep it together, it’ll be fine.

BC: Thank you.

- jpt

January 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (48) | TrackBack (0)

Jesse Not Upset at Bubba Slam

January 28, 2008 12:21 PM

Over at the New York Times, our friend Kit Seelye checks in with Rev. Jesse Jackson to see what he made of the comments of former President Bill Clinton, in which he compared Sen. Barack Obama's South Carolina victory not to John Edwards' in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, or even himself in 1992, but to Jackson in 1984 and 1988.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, Jackson was not offended. (Read more HERE)

"I don't read anything negative into Clinton's observation," Jackson said.

He said he spoke with Obama on Saturday. "He told me what Bill had said. And I said to Barack, as a tactical matter, resist any temptation to come down to that level. There may be temptations, especially when the media keeps saying 'Barack is black,' and they never said 'Dukakis is white' or 'Hillary is white.' Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."

It would seem to me that in order to consider a comparison of Obama with Jackson as an insult, you would have to think of "Jesse Jackson" as a pejorative.

Why would anyone expect Jesse Jackson to consider "Jesse Jackson" as pejorative?

- jpt

January 28, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

I see dead people

January 28, 2008 8:22 AM

Uh-oh.

"Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are running neck and neck among Florida likely Republican voters, with 32 percent for McCain and 31 percent for Romney, as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani gets 14 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee gets 13 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."

Is Rudy like Bruce Willis in "The Sixth Sense"? Everyone except for him knows he's not alive?

- jpt

January 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Assessing Bush's State of the Unions through his Skutniks

January 28, 2008 7:38 AM

Tonight, the President of the United States will try to avoid quacking, and limping, but that may prove difficult.

The Lenny Skutniks tell the tale of Mr. Bush's push for relevance.

(Skutnik dove into an icy Potomac River in 1982 to save the life of the victim of a plane crash. President Reagan honored him with recognition at the 1982 State of the Union, and Skutniks have been a tradition ever since.)

President Bush's Skutniks for his 2001 address to Congress were taxpayers and a mayor who supported the notion of a faith-based initiative.

2002 Skutniks were two flight attendants who thwarted the shoe bomber, and guests from Afghanistan including President Hamid Karzai, the minister of Women's Affairs and the widow of a CIA officer killed there. There were no Skutniks in 2003.

In 2004, Skutniks were the daughter of a victim of Saddam Hussein's brutality, and the president of the Iraqi Governing Council. In 2005, parents of a soldier killed in Fallujah were the president's guests. In 2006, the parents and widow of  a Marine killed in Fallujah sat in the honored seats.

In 2007, some domestic Skutniks showed up again. In addition to a Silver Star recipient, Skutniks included the founder of Baby Einstein, the hero who saved a man from he subway tracks in Harlem, and a basketball star from the Congo who built a hospital in his native country.

Tonight, per ABC News' Ann Compton, the president's Skutniks will include an Indiana mom who faced foreclosure on her home, an Army Staff Sergeant seriously wounded in Iraq but now home and his unit will not be replaced, the mother of a Cuban journalist who is held as a political prisoner, an ER nurse, an HIV-positive mother from Tanzania, the head of a university in Afghanistan, Bob Dole and Donna Shalala who headed the Wounded Warriors commission, and a hero of the Virginia Tech massacre.

Some other tidbits:

The 2002 State of the Union was the first such speech available live on the web. 2004 was the first available in high-def.

The president's two most famous lines from his SOTUs may be: "States like these" -- Iran, North Korea, and Iraq -- "and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." And in 2003, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

In 2005, on his walk through the congressional masses after the speech, the president planted a wet one on Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

Partly because of that kiss he soon became Sen. Joe Lieberman, Independent Democrat - Conn.

The President's 2001 and 2002 addresses had the fewest words. Last year's had the most.

Happy viewing!

- jpt

January 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Bubba and Jesse Jackson, Part III

January 27, 2008 11:09 AM

Another thing, as former President Bill Clinton must surely know, the Rev. Al Sharpton ran in South Carolina -- and came in third. (LINK)

Sharpton garnered 10% of the vote, behind John Edwards (45%) and John Kerry (30%).

Jesse Jackson's victories there can surely be attributed at least in part to Jackson's being FROM South Carolina.

But then again, if the point is to get the media and the political world talking about race … I guess he succeeded, at least with me, this morning.

-- jpt

January 27, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)

Rudy's Florida Flashback

January 27, 2008 10:01 AM

Meet the Press, December 9.

Tim Russert quotes an Iowa poll.

Giuliani's response: "I wish you had shown Florida. It would have looked better, where we have an 18-point lead." He says he needs to "win Florida for sure."

Russert shows other polls. New Hampshire. South Carolina. Nevada.

"Now do Florida," Giuliani says. "Do Florida."

"We haven’t done Florida," says Russert. "But we’ll get there eventually."

Here we are!!

- jpt

January 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Bubba & Jesse Jackson, Part II

January 27, 2008 8:43 AM

You can watch Clinton's out-of-nowhere mention of Jesse Jackson, when asked about Obama by ABC News' David Wright, HERE  courtesy of Talking Points Memo.

Some other Democrats who won the South Carolina primary, whom Bill Clinton curiously didn't mention:

John Edwards, beating John Kerry, in 2004.

Al Gore, beating Bill Bradley, in 2000.

Bill Clinton, beating Paul Tsongas, in 1992.

Dick Morris may have a spotty record as a pundit, but he knows the Clintons pretty well. Two weeks ago he wrote in his blog that the "race for the Democratic presidential nomination will be about race. The essential Clinton argument will be that Obama cannot win because he is black. The attack will be cloaked in seemingly innocuous rhetoric and code words will abound, but the fact will remain that the Clintons will be telling Democrats: Don’t take a chance on an African American nominee."

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man whose words are carefully chosen and who's often thinking ten moves ahead on the political chess board.

A son of the South, Clinton may have a strong record on civil rights issues as the NAACP sees it, but he is no stranger to racial code, having introduced "Sister Souljah moment" into the political lexicon by chastising a little-known female rapper who'd made some idiotic comments as well as her host at a Rainbow Coalition Conference, none other than Jesse Jackson.

Clinton's "Machiavellian maneuver," Jackson said at the time was intended "purely to appeal to conservative whites by containing Jackson and isolating Jackson."

Interestingly, the one group of Americans that was there for Clinton during his impeachment were African-Americans.

''People would say, 'Take care of the President, take care of my man,' '' civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia,(who is endorsing Hillary Clinton this year) said in 1998. ''They don't want to see him resign. They don't want to see him impeached. They just want us to leave him alone because there's this deep feeling in the black community that this President has been there for us.''

- jpt

January 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

The Race Factor

January 26, 2008 11:23 PM

An African-American pal of mine writes me the following tonight, which I share because too many of those commenting on this all are melanin-deprived.

He writes: "Of all the things Bill Clinton has said, that comparison to Jesse Jackson is the most obvious -- and odious -- race baiting that he's done."

"I actually thought some of the other examples have been overblown. My feeling has been that the man is working hard for his wife, who cares if he's allowed himself a little hyperbole. It's the least he could do."

"But this Jesse comment takes the cake and is going to p--- a lot of people off. Hillary got pasted, and they can't take it, so they do their best to diminish Obama's victory. They know they can do this, because the national press corps will let him get away with it. . ."

"The initial reports I have seen suggest Obama got 25 percent of the white vote in the primary, and Clinton and Edwards split the rest. But here's my take on it: if Clinton and Edwards split 75 percent of the white vote, that means they each got about 10 percentage points more than Obama did. So who cares if he got third...he got 25 percent of the white vote in a Southern state...A state where both candidates were much more well known. A state where one of the candidates was born!"

"The only way he can be pushed into the box of being a race-only candidate is if the media allows it to happens, and focuses on nothing other than than the numbers, without reflection or context. Obama has already shown that white folks will vote for him by winning Iowa and placing a close second in NH. If the Bill Clinton's Jesse comparison is allowed to stand, without that context, it will be a sad reflection on the media today."

"The bottom line is that Obama won because he got 80 percent of the black vote, and was able to essentially split the white vote. I think the real question is whether white people will backlash against Obama simply because he won so many black votes...And that's the real reason this is race baiting. In one fell swoop, Bill Clinton's comments remind swing voters, and others who are thinking about coming back to the Democratic fold out of disgust with the Bush administration, that Obama's overwhelming support among African Americans threatens to undermine all of the third-party triangulating he did to bring those white folks back..."

"Sad....really sad."

What do you think?

- jpt

January 26, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (39) | TrackBack (0)

Bubba: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson

January 26, 2008 8:18 PM

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign.  And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

-- jpt

January 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (533) | TrackBack (0)

A Win for Obama -- Or Is It?

January 26, 2008 8:06 PM

As Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, jets off to Nashville and leaves the palmettos of South Carolina far behind her, it seems clear that judging by the harsh assessments out there, Team Clinton would not win a Beltway Elites Caucus this evening.

"The Clintons are in the process of doing the impossible: making the 2008 election a referendum on them, rather than on the Republicans," opines the Economist.  "And the Republicans are inching towards nominating their one candidate, Mr. McCain, who has broad popular appeal. If what ought to be a stroll in the park in November becomes a real fight, then the Democrats will know who to blame."

"Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along?" asks New Republican Jon Chait in the Los Angeles Times.

Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine re-examines  his Dec. 23 assessment that Bill "Clinton doesn’t like to play an overtly political role anymore; he enjoys the statesmanlike aura that surrounds any ex-president, and he is not about to undermine it, even for his wife’s campaign.” Bai says "When I saw Mr. Clinton speak in Walterboro, S.C., yesterday, his 'statesmanlike aura,' which had been blinding when I saw him a few months ago, seemed to have dimmed."

"Billary loves to whine about the 'politics of personal destruction,'" says Colby King in the Washington Post. "But Billary's campaign has taken to the low road."

"The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy," headlines Newsweek's Jon Alter  "The latest attacks on Obama insult voters' intelligence."

The question is whether tonight's is a Pyrrhic Victory for Mr. Obama.

That's if the Clintons have succeeded in their "larger campaign to polarize voters around race and marginalize Obama (in the insidious words of one of her top advisers) as 'The Black Candidate,'" as the incisive Ron Fournier writes.

What do you think? Or do you reject the premise entirely -- as no doubt President Clinton publicly would.

January 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

The Florida Firewall

January 25, 2008 8:39 PM

...is on fire.

Watch our World News report HERE.

-- jpt

January 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary and Johnny, Sittin' in a Tree…

January 25, 2008 8:38 PM

CNN reports that former President Bill Clinton said today that his wife and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are BFF.*

"She and John McCain are very close," Clinton said in Spartanburg, SC. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

The remarks were the second unwelcome endorsement for the senator in the last day, coming as they did a day after an endorsement from the liberal editorial board of the New York Times.

A skeptic might note that the Clintons have everything to gain in embracing McCain. She can try to come across as moderate while McCain gets tarred as liberal - and since polls currently indicate he would beat her in a hypothetical match-up, that wouldn't be such a bad thing for her.

Campaigning in New Hampshire, a McCain stronghold, Clinton made sure to mention McCain frequently.

“He and I have done some traveling together,” she joked. “What happens on the road stays on the road.”

But despite this obvious dynamic, there seems to be truth in the story of their friendship. And McCain is well aware of the potential liability of being friends with Clinton, and his distancing from her has on occasion reached comic levels.

In 2004, McCain returned from a congressional delegation trip to Estonia raving about how nice he found Clinton.

“One of the guys," he said, regaling friends with tales about a vodka drinking contest they and their companions -- including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and John Sununu, Jr., R-NH -- engaged in.

The story ended up on the front page of the New York Times.

McCain denied the story to Jay Leno.

"Didn't happen," he said.

"Not true," he told Fox News, in what might be described as not quite straight talk.

"I did not have drinks with that woman!" mocked Maureen Dowd.

Joshua Green of the Atlantic found the Senator more fond in his recollections.

"It’s been 50 years since I’d been in a drinking game," he told Green, adding "admiringly, ‘She can really hold her liquor.’ ”

-- jpt

* Best Friends Forever

January 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)