« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »

End-of-Week Thoughts

February 29, 2008 10:42 PM

* Obama responds to Clinton's TV ad HERE

* "One of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare ya and the other one's trying get ya to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -- former President Bill Clinton, 2004

* John McCain: "Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not. I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society."

* A far more cut-and-dried case of plagiarism at the White House

* My "Good Morning America" report on politics -- with a live open and close that was for the birds

- jpt

February 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (107) | TrackBack (0)

John McCain Enters the Autism Wars

February 29, 2008 7:11 PM

At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.

McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by thimerosal.

"We’ve been waiting for years for kind of a responsible answer to this question, and are hoping that you can help us out there," the woman said.

McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

McCain said there’s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it."

The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it sound, however. Overwhelmingly the "credible scientists," at least as the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side against McCain's view.

Moreover, those scientists and organizations fear that powerful people lending credence to the thimerosal theory could dissuade parents from getting their children immunized -- which in their view would lead to a very real health crisis.

The Centers for Disease Control says "There is no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says"No scientific data link thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines with any pediatric neurologic disorder, including autism."

The Food and Drug Administration conducted a review in 1999 -- the year thimerosal was ordered to be removed from most vaccines -- and said that it "found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions."

The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded "that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."

And a study of California Department of Developmental Services data published last month indicated that there was "an increase in autism in California despite the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines."

Yet there is a vocal, determined, passionate group -- including some medical researchers and organizations -- who vehemently dispute what the established medical community says about this wrenching issue. One of the questions they ask is why would the thimerosal have been removed from the vaccines if there was no real harm?

(The answer according to the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers was "because any potential risk is of concern.")

In any case, here we have a major political figure, the presumptive Republican nominee, who stated that he at the very least isn’t as sure about thimerosal as the medical establishment is.

Moreover, he made it sound as if the thimerosal is still in vaccines -- though as I understand it, thimerosal is all but gone in almost every childhood vaccine now, and has been for years.

This could be quite controversial.

- jpt

February 29, 2008 in 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (179) | TrackBack (0)

Behind the Scenes with Obama, Clinton & McCain

February 29, 2008 6:43 PM

Yep, I hopped around with all three of them this week.

Here's what it was like behind the scenes -- watch HERE .

- jpt

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

Hagee Endorsement for McCain Comes Under Fire

February 29, 2008 11:19 AM

Calling Pastor John Hagee a "bigot," the conservative Catholic League is calling for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to denounce/renounce/reject his endorsement Wednesday.

With a Youtube link to prove his point, Catholic League president Bill Donohue said Hagee "has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’ ...“Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee.”

Today Donohue noted that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee expressed disappointment that he hadn't received Hagee's backing.

“If Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were fighting over the support of Louis Farrakhan, we’d say they’re nuts," Donohue said. "So what are we to conclude about McCain’s embrace of Hagee, and Huckabee’s lament for not getting the bigot’s endorsement?"

What indeed?

- jpt

McCain spox Jill Hazelbaker says, "Hagee endorsed John McCain.  While we welcome his support, it shouldn’t be seen as a wholesale endorsement of all of Mr. Hagee’s views."

February 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary: Barack Obama Won't Keep Your Kids Safe

February 29, 2008 10:23 AM

Entering a proud tradition of Democrats trying to scare the beejesus out of voters by implying the rival candidate may be responsible for a nuclear holocaust, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, began airing a new TV ad today.

Watch it HERE.

The ad has already been compared with LBJ's ground-breaking fear-mongering ad "Daisy," which you can watch HERE...

...as well as Walter Mondale's 1984 classic "Red Phone," which you can watch HERE.

Noted the Mondale ad: “The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone.

"The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about.

"Vote as if the future of the world is at stake, because it is. Mondale. This President will know what he’s doing, and that’s the difference.”

The Clinton ad isn't quite that stark, but it makes the same point.

And what do you think?

- jpt

UPDATE: ABC News' Teddy Davis reports that on a conference call this morning, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said that "Sen. Clinton has already had her red phone moment," referring to Clinton voting wito authorize the use of force in Iraq. Plouffe also criticized Clinton for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate pertaining to pre-war Iraq, saying that she did not do "her homework."

UPDATE 2: The Obama campaign just sent around its candidate's prepared remarks at a VFW Hall in Houston, Texas, which includesthe following:

"I just want to take a moment to respond to an ad that Senator Clinton is apparently running today that asks, 'Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it’s 3am and something has happened in the world?'

"We’ve seen these ads before.  They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.

"Well it won’t work this time.  Because the question is not about picking up the phone.  The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer?  We’ve had a red phone moment.  It was the decision to invade Iraq.  And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer.  George Bush gave the wrong answer.  John McCain gave the wrong answer.

"But I stood up and said that a war in Iraq would cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars.  I said that it would distract us from the real threat we face – and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, and that’s the kind of judgment I’ll show when I answer that phone in the White House as President of the United States – the judgment to keep us safe, to go after our real enemies, and to provide the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States with the equipment they need when we do send them into battle, and the respect and care they have earned when they come home.  And I’ll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies.  That’s the judgment we need at 3am. And that’s the judgment that I am running for President to provide."

February 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (91) | TrackBack (0)

Angelina Jolie: US Must Stay In Iraq

February 29, 2008 8:01 AM

In a Washington Post op-ed all-but-ignored by most of the media, actress and United Nations High Commission for Refugees goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie writes seems to make the case against an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

"My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis," she writes.

"Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

"What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. ...As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible…"

Weird that this didn't get more play.

- jpt

February 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)

More on that Canadian Television Story About Obama and NAFTA

February 29, 2008 7:56 AM

The latest from Canadian Television (LINK ) on that story that a senior member of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign team had reached out to the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. to tell him not to take seriously Obama's fiery anti-NAFTA rhetoric includes questions about a conversation on this subject between Obama senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told us yesterday as we flew from Houston to Dallas. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

ABC News' Jennifer Parker spoke to Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economics professor, Thursday who would not confirm or deny that he had a conversation with Georges Rioux, the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

"They contacted me at one point to say 'hello' because their office is around the corner but it is not correct that I contacted them at all," Goolsbee told ABC News Thursday.

Rioux, in meetings this week in Ottawa, would also neither confirm nor deny any conversation took place. Both men did say that they know each other.

Both Obama and the Canadian Embassy have denied that the CTV story is true.

- jpt

February 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (95) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton: Playing Field for Her as Candidate Not Even Because of Her Gender

February 28, 2008 8:44 PM

In an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden to air on this evening's "Nightline," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., says it's tougher for her to run as a woman than it is for her male opponent.

Asked why she thinks so many women may be feeling sorry for her, Clinton said, "I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives onto me, and they see how hard this is.  It's hard.  It's hard being a woman out there.  It is obviously challenging with some of the things that are said that are not even personal to me so much as they are about women.

"And I think women just sort of shake their head," Clinton continued. "My friends do.  They say, 'Oh, my gosh, this is so hard.' Well, it's supposed to be hard.  I'm running for the hardest job in the world.  No one has ever done this.  No woman has ever won a presidential primary before I won New Hampshire.  This is hard. And I don't expect any sympathy, I don't expect any kind of, you know, allowances or special privileges, because I knew what I was getting myself into.

"Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field," she said, "but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."

Of course, it might be observed that it likely hasn't exactly been a complete walk in the park for an African-American to run for president, either.

But apparently Clinton thinks -- based on this comment -- that the "playing field" is easier for a black man than a white woman.

I also wonder if former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. -- and all the other men vanquished by Clinton (and Obama) so handily -- think that they had an easy go of it.

What do you think?

- jpt

February 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (592) | TrackBack (0)

McCain's 'Liberal' Misstep

February 28, 2008 8:16 PM

At a town hall meeting in Richardson, Texas, Thursday afternoon, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., made a gaffe that will surely provide myriad conservative radio talk show hosts confirmation of their views, by accidentally calling himself a liberal.

"I will conduct a respectful debate," McCain told the crowd at Texas Instruments, per ABC News' Bret Hovell. "Now, it will be spirited because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica--- conservative Republican," he said, catching himself. "Hello?" he said as the crowd laughed. "Easy there."

Take two: "Let me say this: I am a proud conservative Republican and both of my possible or likely opponents today are liberal Democrats!"

Cue Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, et al.

- jpt

February 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (56) | TrackBack (0)

Bad Clinton Advance Work in St. Clairsville, Ohio

February 28, 2008 4:11 PM

February 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)

Bloomberg Throws Down Post-Partisan Gauntlet

February 28, 2008 9:51 AM

In the New York Times this morning, Mayor Mike Bloomberg writes that he "will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach -- and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy -- I'll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."

Subject for discussion: among Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., who is most likely to lay claim to this challenge?

Supporters of McCain argue that in the Senate, McCain has taken more risks to reach across the aisle -- immigration reform, campaign finance reform, reducing greenhouse gases, the patients bill of rights, the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial nominees -- than have the two Democrats, at far greater political cost.

What say you?

-jpt

February 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (32) | TrackBack (0)

The Tennessee GOP Edits Its Obama Hit Piece

February 28, 2008 9:17 AM

The Tennessee GOP Edits Its Obama Hit Piece

After issuing a full-throated guilt-by-remote-association attack on Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, the Tennessee GOP back-pedals.

The TN GOP writes: "Clarification: This release originally referenced a photo of Sen. Obama and incorrectly termed it to be 'Muslim' garb. It is, in fact, Somali tribal garb, hence, we have deleted the photo. Also, in order to diffuse attempts by Democrats and the Left to divert attention from the main point of this release - that Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and recieved (sic) endorsements from people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel - we have deleted the use of Barack Obama’s middle name."

How nice of them!

- jpt

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

SNL Skits Hillary Clinton Won't Be Referencing Anytime Soon

February 28, 2008 8:42 AM

Since Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., thinks a "Saturday Night Live" skit skewering media infatuation with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is so poignant, perhaps it's worth mentioning other skits from that show should be considered authoritative sources as well?

The show, it should be pointed out, has done skits in the past poking fun of the media being unfair to her during debates...

Such as this one from eight years ago where "Tim Russert" is portrayed as being unfair to her during a Senate debate.

But then there are some other skits that maybe Clinton wouldn't find as amusing

Such as the brilliant one from last year where Amy Poehler as "Hillary Clinton" discusses her Iraq war vote on "Hardball."

"Chris, I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere," Poehler-as-Clinton says. "Of course, knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it."

Or this one where "Hillary Clinton," played by Ana Gasteyer, gives incriminating information about Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, to Larry Flynt.

Or this one from eight years ago where "she" announces her Senate candidacy as the "new" Hillary, contrasted with the old Hillary..."driven by blind ambition and fueled by rage over her wasted potential and her husband's chronic skank-pronging"...

Or this 1993 skit with Jan Hooks playing "Clinton" in "Real Stories of the Arkansas Highway Patrol" ('nuff said)...

And on and on...

SNL -- the new authority on politics, according to the Clinton campaign. Right?

-jpt

February 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (59) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton-Backer: Tough to Criticize Obama Without Being Accused of Playing the Race Card

February 27, 2008 3:33 PM

Lanny Davis -- the former White House special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and backer of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY -- said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning, "It's very hard to criticize Sen. Obama without being accused of playing the race card."

Watch HERE.

h/t - TPM

- jpt

February 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (202) | TrackBack (0)

Sneak Peek of This Fall's Election?

February 27, 2008 3:07 PM

The question to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, at last night's debate: "Do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq once you have withdrawn with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?"

Obama's answer: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan. I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations. But if they are planning attacks on Americans like what happened on 9/11, it is my job, it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down."

At a town hall meeting in Tyler, Texas, this morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took issue with Obama's "if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq" phrase.

"I am not embarrassed to tell you that I did not watch the Democratic debate last night, but I am told that Sen. Obama made a statement that is Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws, after the American troops are withdrawn, then he would send military troops back to its Al Qaeda established base in Iraq.

"I have some news -- Al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said to laughter. "It's called: 'Al Qaeda in Iraq."

"And my friends, if we left, they would not be establishing a base. They would be taking a country and I am not going to allow that to happen. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda."

Watch the video HERE.

As reported by ABC News' Bret Hovell and Sunlen Miller, Obama responded to this, saying, "I said well I would always reserve the right to go in and strike against al Qaeda if they were in Iraq, so ya know, this is how politics works. McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying 'well let me give you some news Barack, al Qaeda IS in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like I -- like I didn't know what was going on. Well, first of all, I DO know that al Qaeda is in Iraq, that's€™s why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq! I've got some news for John McCain: he took us into war along with George bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged."

Obama finished, "I've been paying attention, John McCain! That's the news. So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I intend to bring [it] to an end so that we can actually start going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place! That's the news John McCain!"

I don't doubt that Obama knew that Al Qaeda in Iraq exists, but I also think it's clear he doesn't think of the group as a threat to stability in the region as much as McCain does.

Expect McCain to hit Obama on national security over and over and over.

McCain's interest in kitchen table issues beyond knowing the difference between Medicaid and Gatorade might not impress you, but his depth of knowledge -- if not his judgment -- on national security issues and foreign affairs is leaps and bounds more encyclopedic than Obama's.

And I suspect presented with month after month of McCain pounding Obama as out of his depth on life-or-death issues, suburban moms and swing voters may not be as forgiving of Obama's various misstatements and missteps as Madison liberals and, well, some in the media.

Discuss.

- jpt

February 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (60) | TrackBack (0)

From the Fact Check Desk: Clinton's Questions Question

February 27, 2008 12:21 PM

The charge was an interesting one.

"Could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time?" Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said at last night's debate in Cleveland. "And I don't mind. You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues, but I'm happy to answer it."

According to Fact Check Desk Associate Fact Checker Melissa Ruiz's research, in the two debates previous to last night's -- in California and Texas, the only two two-candidate debates before last night -- Clinton had been asked the first question in 14 rounds, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in 11.

Last night the number was 9 for Clinton, 7 for Obama.

So overall in the last three debates, Clinton has been asked the first question in 23 rounds, Obama in 18.

So a minor disparity does exist, but Clinton's curious complaint that "in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time?" is inaccurate.

Not to mention likely of not much relevance to the lives of the voters of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

- jpt

February 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (101) | TrackBack (0)

'Sometimes You Eat the B'ar and Sometimes the B'ar, Wal, He Eats You' (Or: A Contemplation of Senator Clinton's Humanity)

February 27, 2008 8:55 AM

Clinton-detractors/haters/critics be forewarned, I intend to contemplate her as a human being in this blog post.

Just something buzzing through my head for discussion purposes.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, entered this presidential race with the media thinking she's too calculated, too cold, too contrived.

In the last few days/weeks, we've seen a different side of her. (Or sides.)

Whatever you think of her, she has in some ways "let it all hang out," as her generation used to say. Showing affection one day, anger the next, sarcasm another, stoicism the next, frustration last night.

Maybe that's not on message, or even presidential, but it is human.

They say that a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. We've seen in the last couple debates Sen. Clinton let her guard down and show how she's really feeling.  Whether it was her valedictory mood in the Texas debate or her annoyance with the media last night.

Now, here's the thing. When you're down and out, self-pity is a natural impulse. We've all been there. And the self-pity can weigh you down even more, making an ascent even tougher.

You know what that feels like. I know what it feels like.

Luckily for us, we don't have to go through that with 300 million people watching.

When the history of Clinton's presidential campaign is written -- and who knows, it could be written after her two terms as president of the U.S. -- pundits will contemplate the Obama phenomenon, the role of the media, and her campaign's myriad missteps.

Her campaign has not risen to the level of what she offers as a candidate, and how she's come across as a candidate does not equal who she seems to be in real life. For someone whose claim to the presidency is her preparedness, Clinton has not shown the kind of agility in this campaign that her supporters might have hoped for.

And as the candidate, she is ultimately responsible for all of it. You think Romney thought the prejudice against (and media fascination with) his religion was fair? You think John McCain thinks last week's New York Times story about him was fair? You think Rudy Giuliani thinks the media treatment of him was particularly kind? Is John Edwards of the belief that the media paid sufficient attention to his ideas and proposals? Chris Dodd? Joe Biden?

Them's the breaks, no one ever said any of this was fair. Certainly George H.W. Bush didn't think the media coverage was fair when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992, and he had a point, too. (As The Stranger put it in The Big Lebowski: "Wal, a wiser fella than m'self once said, sometimes you eat the b'ar and sometimes the b'ar, wal, he eats you.")

But Clinton's reaction to it all has all been, at the very least, very human. Unfortunately for her, humanity often means fallibility. Maybe you think it seems desperate, or whiny.

But it does seem human. You gotta give her that.

Or don't you? What do you think?

- jpt

February 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (55) | TrackBack (0)

Cleveland Rocks?

February 27, 2008 7:46 AM

We took a look at the debate last night HERE. And you can watch our GMA report HERE.

Did you watch it? What did you think?

Sen. Clinton's campaign said she would draw stark contrasts with Sen. Obama on the economy and national security, making it clear only she is prepared to be Commander in Chief.

I'm not certain that she accomplished that task. But what say you?

- jpt

February 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)

What a Coincidence!

February 27, 2008 7:26 AM

The Huntsville (Alabama) Times reports that those viewers hoping to watch a 60 Minutes report on whether former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman's prison term for federal bribery was part of an alleged GOP plot were treated instead to 12 minutes of black screen and silence.

"Did the local CBS affiliate intentionally pull the plug on the show because it put Siegelman in a favorable light and Republicans in a really, really bad one?" asks the newspaper.

"No, said WHNT general manager Stan Pylant. It was just awful timing for a piece of equipment to break down, he said."

The Alabama Democratic Party has asked the Federal Communications Commission to look into the matter, with the executive director saying "It has come to the attention of many Democrats in north Alabama and that the principal owners of WHNT are Bush Pioneers (people who have raised $100,000 or more for the President's election campaigns) and major Republican donors. Many suspect that the enormous pressure was put on CBS to not air the Siegelman story. If CBS received political pressure to stifle the First Amendment rights of the network or affiliate, the FCC and Congress should take appropriate oversight into the matter."

The NYT takes a look at this as well HERE.

What a weird world.

- jpt

February 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

When Candidates Attack

February 26, 2008 6:19 PM

Some video for y'all...

Last night's World News report HERE ...

...And this morning's Good Morning America report HERE...

- jpt

February 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

A Poi Choice of Words

February 26, 2008 5:23 PM

I missed this story when it first happened.

Apparently before the Hawaii caucus, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY -- assailed the Honolulu private school, the Punahou School, attended by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in an attempted to paint Obama as a rich elitist.

In an interview with The Honolulu Advertiser before the caucuses, Inouye said: "If you ask the people in Hawai'i what they know about Barack Obama, I think the honest answer is, 'Very little.' He went to school in Hawai'i but he went to Punahou, and that was not a school for the impoverished….to suggest that Punahou maybe set his life plan in place, I find it very interesting," said Inouye, who attended public school.

Obama responded in an interview with KITV: "Shame on Danny for trying to pull that stunt. I went to Punahou on a scholarship. I was raised by a single mom and my grandmother."

Inouye has apologized to Punahou President James Scott and he sent a copy of the letter along with a note to Obama.

''It was just a misstatement,'' said an Inouye spokesperson. ''It was never the intent to disparage Punahou in any way. It is without a doubt one of the finest schools in our nation.''

- jpt

February 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Obama's Selective Outrage on Third-Party Groups

February 26, 2008 2:42 PM

The Service and Employees International Union announced it will start running TV ads on behalf of its endorsed candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

In one of the ads running in Ohio, “Leadership,” various SEIU members say: "we need Obama cause we need someone who is not owned by the corporations," and "Barack Obama recognizes that we should all have the same health care as our members of Congress" and "Barack Obama is going to stand up to the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies to make health care affordable.

Speaking of pharmaceutical companies, the announcer in the ad "What We Need," almost sounds like he's selling a new drug -- Obama as the panacea for the nation's ailments.

"He stood up for kids when they needed healthcare," the ad says. "We need someone like Obama. Obama. Who will take on drug companies. Who will help us keep our homes. We need to change Washington. So, we need to change the people who run it. It’s that simple."

Our friend Marc Ambinder reports today that according to "independent expenditure notices filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Service Employees International Union plans to spend more than $700,000 over the next week to help Barack Obama in Texas and Ohio."

That doesn't include, Ambinder reports, the almost $200,000 to pay the salaries of members of SEIU local 1199 to volunteer on behalf of the lanky Illinoisan, $300,000 from the group's Committee on Political Education (COPE) on door-to-door canvassing, $400,000 on direct mail in Ohio, $200,000 from the union's federal political action fund on phone banking plus $50,000 on what's called "voter persuasion."

You will recall Mr. Obama in the past expressed outrage when the SEIU was helping former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, in Iowa (more on that HERE).

He doesn't seem so outraged anymore.

There's also Vote Hope 2008, a pro-Obama third-party group that also didn't really arouse his ire (you may recall we covered this HERE and HERE).

What say you about this contradiction?

-- jpt

UPDATE: Obama spox Bill Burton writes to say, "While Senator Clinton has benefited from more than $5 million in spending from outside groups and said nothing, Senator Obama has long said that he would prefer those who want to support his him do it directly through the campaign.”

February 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)

From the Fact Check Desk: Clinton’s Out-of-Context NAFTA Mailer

February 26, 2008 12:03 PM

Having previously taken a gander at the misleading mailer on NAFTA sent to Ohioans by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, we’ll now take a look at the misleading mailer on NAFTA sent to Ohioans by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

(You can read her mailer HERE.)

"Ohio needs to know the truth about Obama's position on Protecting American Workers and NAFTA,” the Clinton mailer reads. "It's all on the Record.”

But what she offers is certainly not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The quotes about Obama and NAFTA she uses are completely out of context.

The quotes are from Associated Press and the Herald & Review of Decatur, Ill., coverage of a debate about trade between Obama and his 2004 Senate opponent, Alan Keyes, who wanted to withdraw from trade deals. They attempt to portray Obama as a NAFTA supporter.

"Obama said the United States should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement,” the AP quotes says in the Clinton mailer – but Clinton has cut the AP quote off mid-sentence.

The full AP quote says: Democrat Obama said Keyes' ideas could lead to trade wars that would harm farmers, who are always looking for new markets willing to buy American crops. He said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the country must be more aggressive about protecting American interests. ‘We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,’ Obama said. ‘The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.’”

Changes the meaning a tad, yes?

Clinton also quotes selectively from the Herald & Review, taking only this part: "Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA."

The full context is The Herald & Review quote states: "The candidates' views differed slightly on the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Keyes said he is not fond of the WTO and believes the United States has given away nearly half its negotiating clout on trade issues by entering into multilateral arrangements such as the WTO and NAFTA. He said powerful competitors can hide behind the veil of group interest and get more favorable treatment than if they were negotiating with America one-on-one.

"While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said.

"Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy.

"'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade.'"

So it’s fairly clear that Clinton excerpts the stories unfairly, without the full context. That becomes even more clear when you read Obama's full quote from the 2004 event that these two stories are based on.

Asked if he supported rolling back NAFTA or GATT, Obama said, "I would support restructuring NAFTA and GATT to make sure that environmental protections, labor protections and so on are in place. And I also think that we've got to enforce some of these provisions more aggressively, the same way other countries are doing. I use the example of China. If China is devaluing its currency by 40 percent and we are not challenging them on that, then there's not much point of having China in the WTO, if they're not respecting our trademarks and our copyright laws. If we have countries that continue to present barriers to us - non-tariff barriers - to our products getting to market, then those are all issues that I think we've got to challenge these countries on. And that's the responsibility of the Administration. The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the Administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of on behalf of workers and communities. If we had a shift in orientation in terms of who are we negotiating for, then I think you'd see some different outcomes."

The Clinton mailer also states: "FALSE ATTACK ALERT: DON'T BE FOOLED BE BARACK OBAMA. Yet again Barack Obama has misrepresented the truth about Hillary's record to hide his own. The Politico called Obama's mail 'bogus.' American workers can't afford Barack Obama."

What Politico’s Ben Smith called “bogus” (HERE) is what we’ve also taken issue with, Obama giving the impression that Clinton called NAFTA a “boon” when it fact that was New York Newsday’s language paraphrasing what Clinton thought.

That is bogus of the Obama campaign to have done, but as Smith goes on to note, “It's actually pretty hard to figure out where Clinton was, personally, on Nafta in the 1990s.”

Factcheck.org finds this Clinton NAFTA mailer “somewhat misleading” (HERE) since it “gives less than the whole truth.”

I agree with their analysis - what do you think?

- jpt

February 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (55) | TrackBack (0)

Bill Clinton: "If You Elect Me" (I'm Speaking as Her)

February 25, 2008 3:37 PM

For a natural-born politician such as former President Bill Clinton, it may be tough to spend so much time talking about someone else.

For that reason, he has assumed an interesting way of speaking from the stump whilst campaigning for his wife.

He precedes a pitch by saying something along the lines of "This is what my wife says" and then he launches full-throttle into the pitch.

It can get confusing if you tune out for a second.

Today in Portsmouth, Ohio, he said, "So Hillary says, in 2005, the United States Congress adopted the Bush-Cheney energy bill, which gave $27 billion in subsidies to nuclear, oil, and gas and coal. The only thing that was justified was clean coal, because countries are going to be using that. We have to figure out how to take the carbon dioxide out of it. The rest of it is waste. If you elect me, I'll repeal those subsidies. And put them into a strategic energy fund that will create American jobs for America's future with clean energy."

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

If you coughed and missed the "Hillary says" in that sentence you might be surprised when he reaches the "if you elect me" part of the pitch more than 60 words later.

Because after all he's not running for anything.

Right?

- jpt

February 25, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (77) | TrackBack (0)

Live from Cincinnati

February 25, 2008 2:18 PM

Our GMA report on the state of the Clinton-Obama race can be viewed HERE.

-jpt

February 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

An Interesting Addition

February 25, 2008 12:44 PM

Coming off this morning's controversy, we were just told that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, this afternoon will now drop by and visit "Delta Days," a convention of alumnae and sorors of Delta Sigma Theta, a predominantly African-American sorority.

She will be accompanied by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Hmmmm.

- jpt

February 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

The Obama Africa Photo

February 25, 2008 11:39 AM

This morning a photograph of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., dressed as a Somali Elder during a 2006 trip to Africa was posted on the Drudge Report.

Drudge claimed "stressed Clinton staffers" were circulating the photograph over the weekend, one of them writing, "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?"

The Clinton campaign has yet to issue an official denial that its staffers had sent the email or circulated the photograph and the Obama campaign -- believing the Clinton team is trying to feed into the internet rumor that Obama is some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate -- expressed outrage.

Said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe in a statement, "On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election.  This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world."

The photo of Obama in native garb during a visit to Wajir had largely been posted in two places prior to today -- on African websites such as this one, and on conservative websites where posters ludicrously claim Obama, a Christian American, is some sort of covertly Muslim operative.

Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams, who is African-American, responded forcefully, saying: "Enough. If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry," Williams went on. "We will not be distracted."

The Obama campaign publicized his August 2006 trip to Africa and even permitted a documentary film crew to come along for 2007's "Senator Obama Goes to Africa."

-- jpt

February 25, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (617) | TrackBack (0)

Lobbying On The Straight Talk Express?

February 25, 2008 7:09 AM

Obscured by the speculation about Sen. John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman -- which both parties say is purely platonic -- are serious questions about the disconnect between McCain's reformist rhetoric and the lobbyists who populate his planet.

Campaign manager Rick Davis and chief political adviser Charlie Black Jr are both big lobbyists.

Then there's THIS choice detail in the Washington Post, that "Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

Excuse me?

- jpt

UPDATE: McCain spox Jill Hazelbaker emails me to point out that Davis is a former lobbyist. "Rick hasn't been a lobbyist for over two years and he's on leave of absence from his firm," she writes. So noted.

February 25, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Bill Clinton: Liability?

February 24, 2008 11:04 PM

With his wife under fire for NAFTA, and her husband's comments about Obama, is he more liability than asset?

Obama wants to make it so.

Watch our World News report HERE.

- jpt

February 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (40) | TrackBack (0)

Oy-bama

February 24, 2008 10:26 PM

This morning in Columbus, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., met with some local Jewish leaders where he discussed Israel, his church, the Middle East, and rumors being spread about him.

Interestingly, just yesterday, Newsweek took a look at how "Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama's relations with Israel...In an e-mail sent Feb. 4 -- a day before Super Tuesday -- Clinton finance official Annie Totah passed along a critical essay by Ed Lasky, a conservative blogger, whose own anti-Obama e-mails have circulated in the U.S. Jewish community. Totah wrote: 'Please read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barak (sic) Obama. Please vote wisely in the Primaries.'"

In Ohio today, one of the matters discussed was the former pastor at Obama's church, Trinity Church in Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. 

The outspoken Wright has criticized Israel, and Wright's daughter runs a publication, Trumpet Newsmagazine, that gave an award to Nation of Islam leader, and anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan. (You can watch the video tribute to him HERE.) At the time of the award, Obama issued a statement saying he decries "racism and anti-Semitism in every form, and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan, based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

In Ohio this morning, Obama told the Jewish community leaders that "Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago, and as a consequence, he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent -- before I go any further -- consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year, an award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements... And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community, and I said so. But I have never heard an anti-Semitic comment made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on the part of the pastor."

Obama likened Wright to "an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans -- that's maybe a possibility that’s just, I am not suggesting that’s definitive."

Obama then said, "the point I make is this: that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities, and one of my goals, constantly in my public career, has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African-American and Jewish communities, that has been frayed in recent years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an effective bridge, and that’s the reason I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago. And I think that anybody who has friends among the Jewish community in Chicago should check out those credentials."

As if on cue, Farrakhan today, speaking to a crowd of 20,000 at a Saviours' Day celebration in Chicago, declared that Obama represents "the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.

"This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow," the 74-year-old Farrakhan said. "If you look at Barack Obama's audiences, and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan went on to compare Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who was also bi-racial. "A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

That kind of endorsement could cause Mr. Obama schpilkes.

- jpt

February 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (40) | TrackBack (0)

Q&A with BHO

February 24, 2008 5:42 PM

This afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, held a press availability in which I got to ask him a question. I wrote a fuller story about his response (which you can read HERE), but here's the transcript of that exchange.

Tapper: There is clearly an attempt by conservatives and Republicans to paint you as unpatriotic.  And this is the case they make: They say you didn’t put your hand over your heart...

Obama: Once!

Tapper: I am just telling you what they say and I have a question afterwards. That you didn’t put your hand over your heart during the national anthem, that you no longer wear an American flag on your lapel pin, that you met with some former members of the Weather Underground and now they are questioning your wife’s comments when she said she hasn't been proud of the U.S. until just recently.  How are you going to fight this image that is clearly out there on the blogosphere and in the conservative world that if  you become the Democratic nominee they are going to use to try to defeat you?

Obama:  Well look, there’s always some nonsense going on in general elections, if it wasn’t this it would be something else. I mean as you will recall, first it was my name, right? That was a problem. 

And then there was the Muslim email thing and that stuff hasn’t worked out  so well. And now it’s the patriotism thing.

And the way I will respond to it is with the truth. That I owe everything I am to this country. You will recall the reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love for this county and that, you know, the notion that I am disqualified because at one event I was signing the national anthem but failed to put my hand over my heart while I was singing, if that were the case that would disqualify  about three fourths of  people who have ever gone to a football game or a baseball game.

And my wife’s comment: I think she already clarified this, she was very clear about it. She simply misspoke. Because what she was referring to is this was the first time she’d been proud of politics in America. And that’s true for a lot of folks who had been cynical and disenchanted. She spoke about how she’d been cynical American politics, for a very long time but she’s proud of how people are participating and involved in ways they haven’t for a very long time.

As far as the American flag pin, I mean when we start getting into those definitions of patriotism that’s a debate I’m happy to have, because I will come right after them. This is a party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor that they needed, or sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans benefits that these troops need when they come home, or undermining our constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary.

That is a debate that I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism is.

- jpt

February 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)

Is It Sexist to Say Clinton "Scolded" Obama?

February 24, 2008 11:58 AM

A blog poster below has accused me of using sexist language when I said Sen. Hillary Clinton's "scolded" Sen. Barack Obama yesterday when she said "shame on you!" to him.

I disagree; what is "shame on you!" other than a scolding?

I've used the word "scold" before -- as HERE when I described President Bush as "scolding" Congress.

It's not a word I use a lot, though.

And the charge raises an issue I haven't seen much addressed in the media -- how careful reporters try to be about using certain words to describe certain candidates.

The historic candidacies before us bring questions of diction.

Is it sexist to describe a woman candidate as "shrill"? Is it racist to say a black candidate is "angry"? Is it age-ist to say a 71-year-old candidate seems "befuddled"?

These debates are going on inside newsrooms.

Some might dismiss such concerns as political correctness, but the candidates certainly think about the words they use to address one another, and we in the media do the same.

What do you think? Was "scolding" inappropriate?

-- jpt

February 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (68) | TrackBack (0)

Nader Declares

February 24, 2008 11:39 AM

Says Obama, Clinton, McCain all part of the problem.

More HERE.

- jpt

February 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

'Shame On You' -- Plagiarized?

February 24, 2008 9:06 AM

Another incident of plagiarism?

Hillary Clinton scolded Barack Obama via the media in Ohio yesterday: "Shame on you!" she said. (Watch HERE)

But last month Bill Clinton said the same thing to the media about Barack Obama!

"Shame on you!" he said. (Watch HERE)

But wait . . .

John Edwards had a whole "Shame on You, Ann Coulter" campaign last year!

And Michael Moore told President Bush "shame on you" at the 2003 Academy Awards!

Not to mention Mr. Bush's famous maxim "fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again."

Will these thefts never stop?*

- jpt

* Yes, I'm kidding. Scolding has been going on since the Garden of Eden.

February 24, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | User Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)

Live from Ohio

February 23, 2008 11:40 PM

Clinton scolds Obama in Cinci...Obama fires back in Akron....

Watch HERE.

- jpt

February 23, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Shuster Returns

February 23, 2008 7:21 PM

With Pimp-gate in his rear-view mirror, David Shuster has returned to MSNBC and he's given an exclusive interview to our friend Gail Shister over at TVNewser.

He puts his suspension in context of the other complaints Democrats have launched against MSNBC-ers such as Don Imus and Chris Matthews.

"I'm aware of the long list of complaints the Clinton campaign had about people from MSNBC," he says. "Tensions were clearly building. I was at the wrong place at the right time, or the right place at the wrong time. I don't know which."