« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

Clinton Camp Praises Fox

March 31, 2008 8:32 PM

On Fox and Friends today, (Watch HERE) Clinton surrogate and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell had some high praise for Fox News Channel.

"I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present, Fox has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks," Rendell said. "You hate both of our candidates -- no, I’m only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right."

This pro-Fox rapture comes after several steps the Clinton camp has made to work with conservative media, including:

Breaking bread with Richard Mellon Scaife;

Sending out an anti-Obama piece from the American Spectator;

Sending out a defense of Bill Clinton from the National Review;

Cozying up to Rupert Murdoch;  and

Establishing an emissary to reach out to Matt Drudge.

It also comes after a Clinton jihad against MSNBC a few weeks ago, as you may recall.

Though you may also recall the Democratic boycott of a Fox News Channel debate last year.

What do you make of all this?

h/t Andrew/Patrick/Josh

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (154) | TrackBack (0)

Debt Be Not Proud

March 31, 2008 6:04 PM

The $8.7 million in debts owed by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign as of her last Federal Election Commission filing deadline are staggering for their breadth and range.

The debts date back to last Fall, to states long ago decided -- an October 10 event in New Hampshire,for instance, for which the Boston Symphony Orchestra is listed as being owed $29,617.70.

Iowa Hy-Vee supermarkets are owed $14,956.24.

Seemingly every facet of human existence is represented in Clinton's unpaid bills. Atlanta's Catering with a Flair, Inc. -- owed $10,250.00. The Texas portapotties of A Clean Portoco -- owed $1,851.08.

Aetna Healthcare - owed $228,841.30. CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield - owed $62,744.52.

Schools and universities seem particularly hard-hit, as they were frequent locations for events, and often offer catering.

Southern New Hampshire Univ. Athletic Department - $9,542.80. San Diego State University - $10,000.00. Cuyahoga Community College $3,540.00. Dartmouth College - $2,489.00.

Clinton owes $3,161 to Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois.

That's her own alma mater!

Neighborhood House in St. Paul, Minn., is owed $580. “Neighborhood House is a multicultural, multilingual community center with programming for all ages and open doors for all people and is often a first stop for new immigrants and refugees."

The Politico reports that "word is getting around that Clinton’s campaign does not promptly pay those who labor to make her events look good, said an employee of the event production company Forty Two of Youngstown, Ohio. 'I feel insulted by the way that the campaign treated this company and treated us personally,' said the employee, who did not want to be named talking about a client. ...the employee said the campaign has stopped returning phone calls, e-mails and didn’t respond to a certified letter. 'We worked very hard to put together these events on a moment’s notice and do absolutely everything to a ‘t’ to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign,' said the employee. 'Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.'"

Ouch.

The Clinton campaign's Jay Carson emails that "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills. Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses."

Carson adds that "While the FEC refers to what you are asking about as 'debt' these are not true debts accruing by the campaign, but simply invoices that were unpaid at the end of the filing period. The committee had more cash on hand than 'debt' (or unpaid invoices) at the end of Feb. The FEC requires a campaign to disclose as 'debt' any unpaid bill it had in hand by the closing day of the reporting period, even if the bill was received on the last day of a reporting period.  For instance, if a $250,000 invoice was received on Feb 29, then paid on March 2, it would still be reported as a $250,000 'debt' on the year-end FEC report even though the bill was paid promptly and in the normal course of business, and even if by the year end filing date of Feb 29 (when the report is actually due), the invoice had been paid in full."

Carson adds that the Boston Symphony Orchestra bill was paid earlier this month.

No matter how you slice it, though, $8.7 million is an immense amount of debt.

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (145) | TrackBack (0)

Who's Scrubbing the Trinity United Church of Christ Website?

March 31, 2008 2:34 PM

The website for Sen. Barack Obama's church -- Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago -- not long ago described the "Black Value System" in the "About Us" section of its website.

And it used to provide a link to the Trumpet Magazine that once gave an award to Louis Farrakhan -- a magazine published by Rev. Jeremiah Wright's daughter.

No longer.

You can see the old webpage, including both the Black Value System and a link to Trumpet HERE

Interestingly, Trumpet used to have a web presence and now it doesn't seem to.

Here's the Google cache of the Trumpet Magazine heralding Louis Farrakhan ("When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” says the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,likening the Minister’s influence to the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen…Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.")

Through a web archive search I also found THIS ARTICLE from the September 2005 Trumpet, in which Rev. Wright wrote: "Conservative fanatics line up on the side of al-Qaeda or they line up behind George Bush. Both are terrorists! Both believe that war is the answer. Both believe in murdering innocent people…"

Who's scrubbing the web to sanitize this story?
- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (563) | TrackBack (0)

Legal Eagles

March 31, 2008 2:01 PM

Is it fair for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to call himself a former law professor?

The Clinton campaign has made a stink of this as of late, hoping to muddy the resume-inflation waters after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, was forced to recant her Hemingway-esque tale of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. Team Clinton sent out an email called "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements," and deputy communications director Phil Singer in a conference call told reporters, "Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as 'a constitutional law professor' out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not...you’ll get quite an emotional response."

The issue was first raised by the incomparable Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004 who wrote that "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter."

But last week, after the Clinton campaign attack, the University of Chicago Law School entered the fray, seemingly siding with Obama.

Wrote the media office of the school: "The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

In other words, Obama never held the title of professor but he "served as a professor." He was a lecturer, then a senior lecturer. "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors," says the law school.

That was enough for our friends at Factcheck.org though it was not enough for Lynn Sweet.

Here's something interesting, though.

If you go back and look at the old archived web pages of the University of Chicago Law School, it actually lists Obama under "Faculty and Senior Lecturers." (See it HERE.)

So perhaps senior lecturers were considered faculty….but for whatever reason there was some differentiation on the web page where they were listed. Obama's page can be seen HERE.

What do you think?

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary Denies Saying "Big Boys" Were Trying to Bully a Woman Out of the Race

March 31, 2008 10:06 AM

The New York Times' Patrick Healey, Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney reported on Saturday that, in response to calls for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to drop out of the race (from the likes of Obama-backing Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont), "In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the 'big boys' trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them."

In the Washington Post Sunday, Clinton denied the report to Perry Bacon, Jr.

Q. "There was a story today that said you felt the 'big boys' were trying to push you out, 'bullying' you. Did you use those phrases?"

Clinton: "No , I did not. ... I never said that. I'm always amazed when I read things I supposedly said that I never said. Look, I think that what is going on with people trying to shut this process down is very counterproductive. I think it is not in the best interests of the Democratic Party…

"It would be perilous for me to say, 'You know, Barack Obama won x,y and z. That's not enough electoral votes. He should drop out.' Why would anybody say that? We need to let this contest continue. I know there are some people who want to shut this process down, and I think they are wrong and I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started, and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests, and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we won't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for -- because I feel so strongly about this. For the life of me, what Barack was afraid of with Michigan I will never understand. There is no doubt in my mind he would have done just fine running a vigorous campaign."

UPDATE: Healey at the New York Times emailed me to say the newspaper stands by its story.

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (290) | TrackBack (0)

Likely to Be Omitted from McCain's Autobiography Tour

March 31, 2008 9:18 AM

Sen. John McCain's stop in Mississippi reminds me of when, back in February 2000, we sat down with him to let him know that despite his campaign claims to the contrary, genealogical and historical research done by Little Rock writer Suzi Parker indicated that his family owned slaves.

Read it HERE.

A recent report in the Baltimore Sun -- based on work done by William Addams Reitwiesner --  indicates that ancestors of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, owned slaves, too.

Interestingly, in his report on Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, Reitwiesner writes: "In her autobiography, Living History, Sen. Clinton describes her maternal grandmother as 'one of nine children from a family of French Canadian, Scottish and Native American ancestry'. No records have been found to support this claimed Native American ancestry."

(He also writes that none of his reports should be considered exhaustive or definitive, but rather first drafts.)

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary Claims She "Spoke Out Against" NAFTA Starting in 1992

March 31, 2008 7:59 AM

Campaigning in Indiana on Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, claimed to have been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA.

"I spoke out against it starting in 1992 -- the president made a different decision," Clinton said. "I think now with 14 years of experience under our belt, we can see that in some parts of our country there have been, perhaps, some economic advantages, but in other parts of our country, like where we are right here in northwest Indiana, it hasn't worked as it was promised, and therefore I think we need to renegotiate it."

Given that Clinton was the headline attraction at a pro-NAFTA meeting in November 1993 and was praising NAFTA in public throughout the 90s, the claim seemed interesting. When was she "speaking out" against it?

Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson says that Clinton argued against supporting NAFTA internally on the 1992 campaign before then-Gov. Bill Clinton decided to support it.

Would you consider that to be "speaking out against it"?

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (62) | TrackBack (0)

Obama's Grandmama

March 31, 2008 7:19 AM

The Honolulu Advertiser fleshes out the tale of Madelyn Dunham, 85, the maternal grandmother of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who in December 1970 was named one of the first two female vice presidents at Bank of Hawaii.

Dunham may be best known to voters as the woman Obama referenced in his race speech, when he said of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Some people saw that as Obama making a moral equivalence and callously throwing his grandmother under the bus. Which, of course, Obama denies, saying he was just talking honestly about race.

- jpt

March 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (56) | TrackBack (0)

Death of a Gay Soldier

March 30, 2008 8:35 PM

Major Alan Rogers was an intelligence officer who trained Iraqi soldiers. An IED in Baghdad killed him while he was out on patrol. On March 14, he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

The Washington Post reported at the time that Rogers' commanding officer wrote to his family: "As God would have it, he shielded two men who probably would have been killed if Alan had not been there."

According to the Washington Blade, Rogers was also treasurer of the D.C. chapter of the American Veterans for Equal Rights, which works to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

Because Rogers, it turns out, was gay.

Some, such as Andrew Sullivan, have been quite critical of the fact that Rogers' orientation has been omitted from media accounts of his death.

Writes Andrew: "to enforce the closet even after his death cannot be explained except by a view that somehow being gay is shameful or private. I can see why outing someone who is alive and closeted is unethical; inning someone who is dead and was out is a function of utterly misplaced sensitivity, rooted in well-intentioned but incontrovertible homophobia."

In the Washington Post today, ombudsman Deborah Howell took a look at why the Post kept Rogers' sexual orientation out of the story of his death, considering it was obviously an important part of his life.

Executive Editor Len Downie told Howell "that there was no proof that Rogers was gay and no clear indication that, if he was, he wanted the information made public. Downie said that what Rogers's friends said and the fact that Rogers was a former treasurer of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER) were not enough. Downie pointed out that many straight journalists belong to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association."

She concluded: "The Post was right to be cautious, but there was enough evidence -- particularly of Rogers's feelings about 'don't ask, don't tell' -- to warrant quoting his friends and adding that dimension to the story of his life. The story would have been richer for it."

What do you think?

Either way, R.I.P., Maj. Rogers.

-- jpt

March 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)

Obama, McPeak and Israel

March 30, 2008 6:59 PM

How is it that Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak (Ret.) gave an interview to Shalom TV -- "America's first national Jewish cable television network covering the panorama of Jewish life"?

It starts when the Clinton campaign sent around a story by The American Spectator.

(That gives you an idea of where the Clinton campaign is, right now, given the fact that the Spectator at one point was devoted to exploring the Clintons' transgressions, personal and political.  The magazine continues to be quite a source of criticism, as with a recent column by magazine founder and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., who recently wrote of Bill and Hillary Clinton: "They skirt the law. They defy ethical standards. Most brazenly, they lie when there is no reason to lie, and they deploy a whopper when a little white lie would be perfectly adequate and even understandable." Or see the January 1994 "Living With the Clintons: Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed", a story of some historical significance.)

So, the Clinton campaign sent out an American Spectator story by Robert Goldberg, vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, which assailed McPeak, a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as "anti-Israel and anti-Jewish."

Goldberg took issue, not with anything Obama had said, but with comments McPeak had made in a 2003 interview with the Oregonion in which McPeak says he would put the North Korean crisis as a higher priority than Iraq.

"I don't think we have anything like a strategy for the Middle East," McPeak says as one of the reasons why North Korea should be a higher priority. "And what we're doing in Iraq ought to be a piece of a larger undertaking. And it has all the aspects of a kind of a slapdash pickup fight, you know, where - I mean you always call audibles in war, but we're drawing the plays on the ground in the huddle here. We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."

The Oregonian reporter asks: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"

"New York City," replied McPeak. "Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

Says the reporter: "Actually I was thinking of the larger lack of a Middle East strategy. Does that emanate out of the State Department or out of the White House, combination of both, is it a personality struggle, what's - what's going on?"

McPeak: "I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible."

Reporter: "Do you think . . . there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak: "Absolutely."

Reporter: "Yeah. So this is - this is multilateral."

McPeak: "There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place. I think there is enough good will on the Israeli side - I've spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli air force as a junior officer, and so - but that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population - I think there's enough good will there - I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well. But there's enough good will, I would hope, on both sides that you can get the majority into some kind of a big tent, and make something better than what you've got now. If you do that, you'll still have radicals on both sides doing stupid things, but that is basically a problem in internal security. Hopefully. You can handle it with police. But if you don't do that, I don't see any way to put together a strategy for the Middle East. I mean it's just kind of a linchpin..."

Goldberg's other evidence was an article McPeak wrote about Israel's borders in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 1976.

The Republican Jewish Coalition called for Obama to fire McPeak.

"By choosing to have a military advisor and national campaign co-chairman like Gen. McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Sen. Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues," said RJC executive director Matt Brooks.

Brooks said McPeak had "resorted to old stereotypes and unfortunate language by blaming the lack of progress with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on the undue political influence of American Jewry ... Rather than putting the blame where it belongs -- on the Palestinian leadership and their continued reliance on terror, Gen. McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their perceived influence," said Brooks. "This is the same dangerous and disturbing canard being promoted by the likes of Jimmy Carter and authors Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, 'The Israel Lobby.'"

In a follow-up story in the Oregonian, Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama agrees with every position their advisers take" and Obama disagrees with what McPeak said about the power of pro-Israeli voters.

Hence, now we have Gen. McPeak going on Shalom TV. "I decided a long time ago that I was on Israel's side," declares Gen. McPeak. "I'm a long-term admirer of Israel and consider myself a friend of Israel."

McPeak says, "It would serve everyone's purposes for Israel to remove itself from occupied territories in conditions that represent a negotiated solution agreeable to both sides. What Israel's security requires is peace with its neighbors, and a failure to get to a negotiated solution on the occupied territories has prevented peace. There's enough blame on both sides, and even blame for the United States. I would like the United States to play a constructive role to bring about progress in the [peace] process."

Of the influence of Jews on policy in Israel, McPeak said, "American Jewry has some influence, just like [American] Irish have influence about Ireland policy, just like the National Rifle Association has something to say about our arms policy. I don't object to interest groups or lobbying groups exercising influence. I think our government takes account of the various kinds of competing interests that are represented in our country, and then acts in a way that is consistent with our own best interest."

Regarding the RJC, McPeak says, "You'll have to check with them [on] what they're trying to do here. Or with the Clinton campaign. This has the smell of politics, doesn't it?"

What do you think?

- jpt

March 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (49) | TrackBack (0)

Richard Mellon Scaife (Heart)s Hillary

March 30, 2008 11:33 AM

Richard Mellon Scaife, a major funder of the 90s-era Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- specifically, The American Spectator and its "Arkansas Project" -- today reconsiders his former nemesis in an op-ed in his newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

In a Sunday op-ed titled "Hillary, reassessed", Scaife writes, "More than most modern political figures, Sen. Clinton has been criticized regularly, often harshly, by the Trib. We disagreed with many of her policies and her actions in the past. We still disagree with some of her proposals. The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores. Reading that, a lesser politician -- one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions -- might well have canceled the interview right then and there."

(One could note that the Tribune-Review afforded Clinton an opportunity to publicly assail Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., on the Rev. Wright issue. Watch HERE.)

Continues Scaife: "Sen. Clinton came to the Trib, anyway, and, for 90 minutes, answered questions. Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her. Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both. Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on."

Scaife's disagreements with the Clintons were hardly policy-based. He funded major investigations of the former president's personal life, and attempted to give credibility to the wildest theories about the Clintons' nefariousness.

In 1998, Scaife in an interview with GEORGE Magazine seemed to imply that the death of Vince Foster was more than a suicide. "Once you solve that one mystery, you'll know everything that's going on or went on –- I think there's been a massive coverup about what Bill Clinton's administration has been doing, and what he was doing when he was governor of Arkansas."

"Listen, [Clinton] can order people done away with at his will. He's got the entire federal government behind him...God, there must be 60 people [associated with Bill Clinton] -– who have died mysteriously."

So, what's going on?

Mark Hosenball of Newsweek reported last November that last July, Scaife had lunch with former President Clinton.  Why?  A source close to Scaife told Newsweek that Scaife thinks Clinton's post-presidential work has been "very laudable," and that he is doing "very important work representing the country when the U.S. is widely resented in the world." Hosenball also pointed out that the Clintons have reached out to Rupert Murdoch and Matt Drudge.

Tim Noah of Slate points out that Scaife has been going through an ugly divorce after his ex-wife discovered that he was having an affair -- and his ex-wife is an Obama-backer!

What do you think is going on here?

- jpt

March 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (121) | TrackBack (0)

Key Part of JFK-Obama Myth Not True

March 30, 2008 9:37 AM

Key Part of JFK-Obama Myth Not True

Our friend Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker at the Washington Post, takes a look today at the claim by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, wrapping up his existence in the hagiography of Camelot.

The basic notion is this: the Kennedy family, led by then-Sen. John Kennedy, D-Mass., funded an airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States.

Among those 81 Kenyan students -- Barack Obama Sr., who then met and married a young woman named Ann Dunham, from Kansas.

And on August 4, 1961, Barack Obama, Jr., was born.

As Obama said to voters in Alabama last year: "What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, 'You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.'

"So the Kennedys decided, 'We're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is,'" Obama continued. "This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child."

What a great story, right?

Reporting on Caroline Kennedy's decision to endorse Obama, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter wrote that "One intriguing element of Obama's family history that resonated with Caroline was a long-buried story that was brought to her attention last summer. It drove home for her how history replays itself, how two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways, and how people have no idea that their good deeds may come back to them someday."

A key part of this for Caroline, Alter writes, is that "Two weeks after he was nominated for president in July 1960, then-Senator Kennedy received a visit at his vacation home in Hyannis Port, Mass., from a Kenyan educator, Tom Mboya, who told him that more than 200 African students had received scholarships to American universities through the African-American Students Foundation but did not have the $100,000 for air transport."

For whatever reason, the Eisenhower State Department would not pay for what "the African airlift."

So then-Sen. John F. Kennedy "quietly tapped his family's Kennedy Foundation, which agreed to raise the necessary funds privately," Alter writes. "The airlift money came through from the Kennedy Foundation, and the students arrived. Barack Obama Sr. went to the University of Hawaii, where he met and married a young white woman from Kansas. Their son, born the following year, arrived in the United States Senate in early 2005 and found that the antique desk he had been assigned on the Senate floor had once belonged to JFK, whose initials were carved inside. Obama learned only recently how his father's dream of studying in the United States had been fulfilled."

When Obama secured the endorsements of Caroline and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he referred to the airlift that brought his father over to the U.S., saying, "part of what made it possible for him to come here was an effort by the young senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy and by a grant -- and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country. And because he did, I stand before you today inspired by America's past, filled with hope for America's future and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter."

But here's the rub, writes Dobbs today. "It is a touching story -- but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified."

Because Obama's father was part of the September 1959 airlift -- which the Kennedys did not help fund.

The Kennedys helped fund the September 1960 airlift.

Writes Dobbs: "Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently 'started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.'"

So Mboya secured funding from the Kennedys after Obama Sr. was already studying in Hawaii.

Dobbs reports that "The former executive director of the African-American Students Foundation, Cora Weiss, said some of the money provided by the Kennedys was used to pay off old debts and subsidize student stipends. Even though Obama Sr. arrived the previous year, he and other members of the 1959 cohort benefited indirectly from Kennedy family support."

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, though, does it?

- jpt

March 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (167) | TrackBack (0)

'Washingtonienne' Rears Head in Spitzer Scandal

March 29, 2008 7:34 PM

Remember Washingtonienne, aka Jessica Cutler?

Kind of, right?

This was back in the Ana Marie Cox days of Wonkette.

Anyhoo... The New York Post caught up with Culter, who has appeared in the Eliot Spitzer scandal.

To wit: "Asked yesterday if she worked as an escort, the temptress said: 'I can't talk about that.'"

-- jpt

March 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Should the U.S. Boycott the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony?

March 29, 2008 6:56 PM

Interesting debate on NPR between a human rights activist and an official of the International Olympic Committee about whether U.S. government officials, and perhaps even athletes, should boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic games this August.

Listen to it HERE.

Human rights attorney David Kilgour, a former Canadian member of parliament, originally had supported a complete boycott because of China's abysmal record on human rights. But now he feels that the games are bringing greater scrutiny to that record -- in Tibet, Darfur, with the Falun Gong and more generally -- so he's instead calling for a boycott of the opening ceremony by government officials.

Now is the time to exert some pressure, he says.

Former U.S. rower and IOC member Anita DeFrantz — who missed the 1980 Moscow games after then-President Jimmy Carter pulled out the U.S. to protest the USSR invasion of Afghanistan — says such a boycott wouldn't work.

It got heated. The IOC "doesn't have a single scruple when it comes to totalitarian governments," Kilgour said.

What do you think?

- jpt

March 29, 2008 in Sports | Permalink | User Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)

Gingrich Responds to Obama's Race Speech

March 29, 2008 2:02 PM

He didn't quite get the headlines and media attention that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., did, but former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., delivered an address this week called, "Answering the Obama Challenge: What Is the Right Change to Help All Americans Pursue Happiness and Create Prosperity?"

Saying that Obama gave the nation an opportunity to "reengage in a dialogue about poverty, race and the future of those Americans who are currently unable to pursue happiness," Gingrich quoted and responded to a number of observations from Obama's speech last week.

"As Sen. Obama notes, 'the legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions or the police force or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations."

Said Gingrich: "Anyone who thinks that there was not this destructive impact is simply not in touch with the reality of American history for African-Americans. Other groups have reasons for anger. Native Americans have a claim probably at least as great if not greater than African-Americans. Japanese-Americans went through a period of internment in World War II. Jewish Americans have a history which includes the Holocaust but extends back before the Holocaust to pogroms in Russia; anti-Semitism in Poland; expulsion from Spain; and, in the last 50 years, an unrelenting and virtually hysterical effort by their Arab neighbors to exterminate them in a way which no other group has experienced."

After outlining some horrible conditions in this country today, Gingrich then said he would make a case for boldness. "April 26 will be the 25th anniversary of 'A Nation at Risk', a report on education in the United States. Here’s what that report said: 'If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have in effect been committing an act of unthinking unilateral educational disarmament.'
 
"And I would argue with every conservative: Education in the United States is a national security issue and the secretary of defense should give an education speech every year reminding us that we are not going to be the leading power in the world if we don’t have fundamental, deep rethinking of our education programs. ... The tragic truth is that the current system is not working because of two topics we don’t like to talk about -- bad culture and bad government."

He goes on from there. Read the whole speech HERE.

- jpt

March 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (76) | TrackBack (0)

Howard Dean 2004: The Medals Matter

March 28, 2008 9:32 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., launches a biography tour next week, which looks to tell the American people about his days as a POW in Vietnam, at least based on his new TV ad (watch HERE) introduced today in New Mexico.

In response, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean issued a statement, saying, “John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

The Republican Party has seized upon the term "blatant opportunist" to suggest that Dean is implying McCain is an opportunist for including his POW information in his TV ad.

RNC Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli said, “Howard Dean owes John McCain an immediate apology and both Sens. Clinton and Obama should unequivocally denounce this disgraceful attack."

That's all noise. What's more interesting are the Dean quotes from 2004 that may come back to haunt him this year.

"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

McCain, by the way, has been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in McCain, John | Permalink | User Comments (123) | TrackBack (0)

Nader to Clinton: Stay In the Race!

March 28, 2008 8:45 PM

Sometimes it's as if those dudes from The Onion are writing this election.

On Ralph Nader's blog:

"Senator Clinton:

"Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race.

"Believe me.

"I know something about this.

"Here’s my advice:

"Don’t listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore.

"That’s just political bigotry.

"Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice.

"This is America...

"Just tell them --

"It’s democracy.

"Get used to it.

"Yours truly,

"Ralph Nader"

No, seriously, this is real.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (275) | TrackBack (0)

Return of the Podcast

March 28, 2008 7:53 PM

After a three-month break because of intense campaign coverage, the ABC News Shuffle Podcast is back.

This week's episode -- we chat with the University of Chicago Divinity School mentor of the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and try to get some answers.

LISTEN HERE.

And let me know what you think.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Q: Did the 1992 Race Really Go Until June Like Bill Clinton Says? (A: Not Really)

March 28, 2008 5:38 PM

In his efforts to solicit patience from voters and Democratic officials alike, former president Bill Clinton constantly tells voters that the 1992 nomination race kept going until June.

"All these people that tell you, 'Aw we oughta shut this thing down now the Democrats are so divided – that’s a bunch of bull," he said today in  Kannapolis, North Carolina. "I didn't get enough votes to be nominated until June the 2nd, 1992."

That is literally true. Bill Clinton did not secure enough delegates through the primary and caucus process until the California primary, June 2, 1992.

But it is not politically true.

Bill Clinton had sewn up the nomination long before then. Months before then.

Moreover, the first real contest that year was on February 18, 1992. (No one competed in the Iowa caucuses since Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, was a candidate that year) The first real contest this year, the Iowa caucus, was January 3, 2008. So you'd also expect that race to last later in the calendar -- it started more than a month and a half later.

But regardless of that, here are some key dates for that 1992 race that indicate how misleading this argument is.

February 18, 1992 -- Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., wins New Hampshire primary. A scandal-plagued Gov. Bill Clinton comes in second.

February 20, 1992  -- San Diego Union-Tribune headline: "Tsongas got most votes, but Clinton says he won".

February 25, 1992 -- Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., wins the South Dakota primary.

March 3, 1992 -- Clinton wins Georgia. Tsongas wins Maryland. Harkin wins Minnesota and Idaho. Former California governor Jerry Brown wins Colorado. Still all very much up for grabs.

March 5, 1992 -- With no money, Kerrey ends his campaign. "We were ready to go full throttle," Kerrey says, "but unfortunately we ran out of gas."

March 7, 1992 -- Clinton wins South Carolina.

Harkin announces he will drop out.

March 10, 1992 -- Clinton cleans up on Super Tuesday, winning Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. Tsongas wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Kerrey: "I would say he's got a very clear path to the nomination. But it's not a path without mine fields. There are still things out there that he's got to worry about. He's got to win."

Jim Lehrer on PBS: "David, how close is Bill Clinton to being the Democratic nominee tonight?"

David Gergen: "He's on the verge."

March 17, 1992 -- Clinton wins Illinois.

At this point, it becomes clear Clinton will be the nominee. Tsongas drops out. Only Brown remains in the race.

March 20, 1992 -- The Dallas Morning News: "Former Sen. Paul Tsongas abruptly halted his presidential candidacy on Thursday, effectively ending the Democratic contest and turning the primary campaign into a mop-up operation for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. 'It was clear that we did not have the resources necessary to fight the media war in (the April 7) New York (primary),' Mr. Tsongas told a packed crowd of supporters in Boston."

The Boston Herald: "A no-holds-barred presidential race between Democrat Bill Clinton and President George Bush - in a clash of generations and vastly different values - was all but sealed yesterday as Paul E. Tsongas ended his quest for the Democratic nomination."

March 24, 1992 -- Brown wins Connecticut. Clinton holds a seven-to-one lead in delegates.

March 26, 1992 -- Harkin endorses Clinton, expressing concern that the fight between Clinton and Brown will cause divisions in the party that would hurt the nominee in November.

"I say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights to work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992," Harkin says.

Harkin is the first of Clinton's former opponents to endorse him, and the party begins to officially rally around the presumptive nominee.

April 1, 1992 -- Former President Jimmy Carter endorses Clinton, calling him "an honest, decent, competent, idealistic, practical man" who doesn't deserve to have his character questioned. "Pretty obviously, Gov. Clinton is going to get the nomination," Carter says.

April 4, 1992 -- Before the New York primary, Gov. Mario Cuomo says Clinton would be a "superb president."

April 8, 1992 -- Bryant Gumbel: "Good morning. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, call him flawed, call him slick, but call him a winner this morning. He swept the primaries in New York, Kansas and Wisconsin. Big strides toward the Democratic nomination that seem his for the taking today, Wednesday, April the 8th, 1992."

As a slap in Brown's face, Tsongas -- no longer in the race -- comes in second in New York.

April 12, 1992 -- House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, endorses Clinton. "Bill Clinton will be the kind of president the United States needs to recapture our economic strength and leadership in the post-Cold War world," Gephardt says.

House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash: "All the dominoes are falling in favor of Clinton. He is going to be the nominee."

At the California Democratic convention, Brown says Clinton is likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee, and says he will back Clinton if he is nominated.

Austin American-Statesman: "Brown strongly indicated that, having lost the New York primary Tuesday, he will campaign as a crusader for political change rather than as a serious contender for nomination. Ron Brown, national party chairman, said the comments were 'very positive' and hinted that the contest has entered a new phase. The two met privately earlier in the day."

April 14, 1992 -- Clinton wins the final round of Virginia's caucuses. "Uncommitted" comes in a strong second, Brown comes in a distant third.

April 19, 1992 - Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, endorses Clinton.

Earth Day, 1992 - Clinton challenges President George H.W. Bush to a face-to-face debate on the environment.

April 28, 1992 -- Clinton wins Pennsylvania primary, having earned 1,466 of the 2,145 delegates needed to win. Brown has 316 delegates.

And on and on...

This notion that the 1992 presidential race was not over until June is literally true. But it was truly over about five or six weeks after the New Hampshire primary.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (40) | TrackBack (0)

Did Obama Say Rev. Wright Acknowledged Offending People?

March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

On "The View" this morning, Barbara Walters asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., what he would have done had he learned about the incendiary remarks made by his since-retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, if Wright had not been on his way out the door?

"Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I think is the great character of this country - for all its flaws - then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church," Obama said.

This seemed to imply that Wright had acknowledged that he'd deeply offended people with inappropriate remarks. Right?

Wrong, says the Obama campaign.

"Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that the reverend understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country," says spox Bill Burton.

Okay, except Obama wasn't "clearly" saying that at all.

Here's a clear way to say that: 'Had the reverend not retired I would have confronted him about his remarks. If after that Wright still refused to acknowledge that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I think is the great character of this country -- for all its flaws -- then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.'

For an eloquent man, not his most eloquent moment.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (211) | TrackBack (0)

The Obama-Casey Ticket

March 28, 2008 3:40 PM

Lots of chatter today about Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., D-Penn., and his surprise endorsement today of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's of obvious significance for Pennsylvanians and political dorks (I plead guilty to being both) because Casey and his family represent the voter Obama is struggling the most to win -- white, Catholic, working class men.

Casey and his father, the late Gov. Bob Casey Sr., represent the sort of economically populist, socially moderate voter that one needs in order to win Pennsylvania. They are a segment, in fact, often referred to as "Casey Democrats." They vote for Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., who has worked to have a moderate to liberal position on guns and labor issues. Many are Catholic -- Irish, Italian, Poles. Many oppose abortion rights. Obama needs them if he has any hope of coming within 15 points of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

And it likely bears remembering that Casey Jr.'s father had been humiliated by Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992.

Gov. Casey had been a strong anti-abortion-rights activist -- a law that bore his name that imposed a 24-hour waiting period on those seeking an abortion, while requiring parental consent for minors seeking the procedure became Supreme Court precedent in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania vs. Casey.

He'd wanted to deliver an anti-abortion speech to the 1992 Democratic convention. Not only was he denied such an opportunity -- which the Clinton campaign worried would create visible party divisions if not outright convention floor chaos -- he was subjected to what he later would deem public humiliation. He was given bad seats from which he watched Kathy Taylor -- a Republican abortion rights supporter from Pennsylvania, one who'd worked to elect the candidate Casey had defeated in 1990 -- got a speaking slot instead.

Upon Casey's death in 2000, the New Republic reported that "DNC officials sent Taylor, with a camera crew in tow, to find Casey in 'Outer Mongolia,' as he put it, to further humiliate him."

His son, Casey Jr., for what it's worth, is one of the most normal-, nice-, and modest-seeming guys in the U.S. Senate. He doesn't seem rancorous at all.

"This campaign is a chance for America," Casey Jr. said today. "A chance to go down a different path. A path of change. A path of a new kind of politics. And finally a path of hope and heeling."

"A new kind of politics. . . Healing."

I'm trying to think how I would feel about a person who was part of a team responsible for my father's greatest public humiliation.

Today's endorsement has also prompted a whole lot of interesting speculation about an Obama-Casey ticket -- like on TNR's The Stump.

What do you think?

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)

Obama & Taxes

March 28, 2008 10:48 AM

On CNBC's "Closing Bell" yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate.

Watch HERE

How much would he raise them?

He didn't say.

More than 15%, less than 28%.

"I haven't given a firm number," he said. "Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent…. My guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent."

Obama said "when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's -- how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making."

When it was pointed out that 100 million Americans own stocks today, and they are hardly all Warren Buffets, Obama suggested "you could structure something in which people with certain incomes were exempted from this increase and it would stay at 15. The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans."

What other taxes would Obama raise?

* The Top Marginal Tax Rate

Obama said he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and return to a top marginal rate of 39 percent.

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo asked Obama why he would raise taxes at all during a period of economic trouble.

"Well, look, there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office," he said. "I'm not going to making these decisions based on ideology. I'm not a dogmatist. I know that some, you know, my opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wooly-eyed, you know, liberal or wild-eyed -- "

"You're not a liberal?" Bartiromo asked.

Obama didn't answer. "My attitude is that I believe in the market, I believe in entrepreneurship, I believe in opportunity, I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works," he said. "But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."

* Social Security Taxes.  “If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall," Obama wrote in the Quad City Times last September. (Obama has also discussed the possibility of a donut hole, so that the increase would only hit those "making over $200,000 to $250,000" who "can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax.")

* A "Dirty Energy" Tax. “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas," he told the San Antonio Express-News last month.

He also has discussed taxes on dividends, carried interests, closing corporate loopholes, and returning to the original inheritance tax rate.

And he endorsed New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s proposal to charge drivers a fee to commute through the busiest parts of Manhattan. 

What taxes would he cut?

* He said he wants to cut taxes for those making $75,000 a year or less, through an offset on the payroll tax worth as much as $1,000 for a family.

* "Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security," he told CNBC

* He wants an additional 10 percent mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize.

* He has proposed a "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Sen. Clinton also some has tax proposals which I'll look at in a later post.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)

Obama-Backing Senator Calls for Clinton to Drop Out

March 28, 2008 9:46 AM

Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a high-profile supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has called for Obama's opponent to drop out of the race.

In an interview on Vermont Public Radio, said "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that's a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate."

Listen to a clip from the interview HERE.

Leahy said he was fretting about the impact of the protracted Democratic race.

"I am very concerned," he said. "John McCain, who has been making one gaffe after another, is getting a free ride on it because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to fight with each other. I think that her criticism is hurting him more than anything John McCain has said. I think that's unfortunate."

Campaigning in Mishawaka, Indiana Friday, Clinton didn't specifically address Leahy's comments, reports ABC News' Eloise Harper.

But Clinton did say, "There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this primary, we ought to shut it down."

"No!" the crowd shouted.

"There was a poll the other day that said 22 percent of democrats want me to drop out and 22 percent  want Senator Obama to drop out and 62 percent said let people vote," Clinton said. "One thing you know about me when I tell you I will fight for you I will get up every day and that's exactly what I will do."

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

Clinton also suggested working for the American people is her calling.

"I believe going to work for you is what I am  called to do," she said.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (543) | TrackBack (0)

And Only Count the Votes of Left-Handed People! And Only Count People Who Lettered in a Sport in High School! And…

March 28, 2008 7:23 AM

Great story by ABC News' Teddy Davis, Sarah Amos, and Talal Al-Khatib reporting on former President Bill Clinton on a call yesterday with supporters of his wife's in Texas.

"Right now, among all the primary states, believe it or not, Hillary's only 16 votes behind in pledged delegates," said the former president, "and she's gonna wind up with the lead in the popular vote in the primary states. She's gonna wind up with the lead in the delegates [from primary states]."

There are 40 primary states and territories; 18 caucuses.

"It's the caucuses that have been killing us," Bill Clinton said. "We can still win this thing. We're gonna have a big victory in Pennsylvania. It's gonna change the psychology even further, but we need your help."

Other ways Sen. Hillary Clinton could be the nominee through creative math:

• Only count Arkansas and the states that border it (except for Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri);
• Only count the votes of people who have heard Chelsea speak in person;
• Ballots en espanol only;
• Nomination determined by who does better in NCAA pool.

Other ideas?

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (66) | TrackBack (0)

Albright: Iraq War the Greatest Disaster in American History

March 27, 2008 11:05 PM

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told a group of University of Florida students that the U.S. invasion of "Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy. Now, that's quite a statement, because it means I think it is worst than Vietnam. Not in the number of Americans who died, or Vietnamese versus Iraqis, but in terms of those unintended consequences. And the biggest unintended consequence in Iraq is Iran. I think one might say that actually Iran has actually won the war in Iraq."

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

Albright could not be immediately reached for comment on why she's supporting the Democratic presidential candidate who voted for "the greatest disaster in American foreign policy" over one who opposed it.

March 27, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (39) | TrackBack (0)

More Wright Stuff

March 27, 2008 7:54 PM

Some more controversial, even offensive, material emanating from Sen. Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in the South Side of Chicago, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This material attacks Israel, Italians, and the US government.

1) ISRAEL BUILT AN ETHNIC BOMB TO KILL ARABS

The June 10, 2007 church newsletter on the Pastor's Page includes some rather incendiary charges -- made by an Arab-American activists -- claiming that Israel worked with South Africa to develop an "ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."

2) SLURRING ITALIANS

New York Newsday reports that in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine, published by Rev. Wright's daughter, the pastor in a eulogy for Asa Hilliard wrote that Jesus's "enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans." He calls the crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome."

3) THE US GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS

In that same eulogy Wright says that the US "government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."

3) HAMAS OP-ED

Bizzyblog has published the July 22, 2007 church newsletter in which Wright reprints an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, which the US government named a terrorist organization in 1995. (UPDATE: The full Bizzyblog post on this can be read here.)

Marzook was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department In 2004, the Justice Department indicted Marzook for conspiring to violate U.S. laws that prohibit dealings in terrorist funds.

The op-ed was first published on the Los Angeles Times op-ed page.

Sen. Obama in an interview to air Friday on ABC's "The View" says he did not read the bulletins in his church. "I don't purchase all the DVD's and I didn't read all the church bulletins," Obama told the ladies of "The View". "People are mixes of good and bad. I saw mostly the good, there were some things that I disagreed with. But I didn’t see some of the things that were said that I would have taken offense to."

Obama also said he's spoken to Wright since the controversy erupted. "I talked to him after this episode; he had come back from a cruise. I think he’s saddened by what’s happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way, and people haven’t seen this broader aspect of him."

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (173) | TrackBack (0)

MoveOn.org v. the Clinton Fat Cats

March 27, 2008 4:43 PM

The MoveOn.org Political Action Team is writing to MoveOn members, asking them to join Team Pelosi in her fight against the Clinton Fat Cats. (There's a children's book in that sentence somewhere.)

Says the MoveOn.org letter: "This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination...It's the worst kind of insider politics—billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.

They're suggesting a petition for members "to tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute. ...They're the old guard, and this is how the Democratic Party used to function—the big donors called the shots. But the small donor revolution has changed that."

Really, this letter in so many ways seems clumsy. Why allude to how much money they give the Democratic party? Do they think Pelosi wouldn't know?

Moreover, every one of those donors could have picked up a phone and called Pelosi (and Harry Reid!) and likely had more of an impact without anyone finding out about it.  Now the netroots are all atwitter.

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (113) | TrackBack (0)